Millions of our fellow citizens are suffering right now because they don’t have health insurance. If they’re fortunate enough to be healthy right now, they worry about what would happen to them if they all of a sudden became sick, or were injured, and had to pay the exorbitant prices charged by doctors and hospitals to the uninsured.

Those who are fortunate enough to have insurance are also worried – because our system rewards cost-cutting measures for insurance companies like finding any imaginable excuse to not cover people when they get sick. It’s our nation’s dirty little secret that many of those who went bankrupt due to medical costs had insurance when they got sick – and their insurance company did whatever they could to get out of paying for treatment. Those who have insurance are worried because they could lose their jobs and have no insurance at all.

Given the millions of people suffering in this country from our nation’s completely broken health-care system – a system that rewards greed and venality instead of good care and compassion – why are we Christians not using the tools we have at our disposal to change the system?

In other words – why aren’t we praying for health care reform?

As Christians, we hold as one of our beliefs the idea that prayer does something. Whether or not we theologically believe in a God who changes God’s mind due to the prayers of the people, we can’t escape that Scripture calls us to bring our petitions and concerns before God – including (in 1 Timothy 2:2) for those in positions of authority. We are supposed to bring the concerns of our nation – not just our own private fears and thoughts – before God.

And it’s quite clear, given the tenor of the debate in Washington over the issue, that some hearts need to be changed. We need God to quicken some of the hearts of our Representatives and Senators so that they care more about the people they’ve been elected to serve than they do about the profits of the health insurance industry. We need God to call those who do favor strong reform to speak out with a prophetic voice in calling their fellow members to the cause. We need God to energize the hearts of more of the people to call, and write, and advocate for real, serious health care reform. In short – like every other great struggle for progress in our nation’s history – we need God’s help to make it happen.

Perhaps, in addition to calling and writing letters to our representatives in Congress, in addition to writing letters to the editor of our local papers, in addition to talking to our neighbors about the necessity for health care reform, we should be organizing to petition God for health care reform. We should be asking for the microphone when it’s passed around during the “Prayers of the People” and calling our brothers and sisters to beseech God to change hearts as necessary. We should be making health care reform part of our own prayers, part of the prayers of our small groups, part of the prayers of our Sunday schools.

Prayer is no substitute for action, but we as Christians believe that prayer and action are a much more potent force when brought together.

Won’t you join me in praying for health care reform?

In this season of debate about US health care reform, Broadstreet Ministry in Center City Philadelphia recently hosted a health care town hall with Congressman Joe Sestak.  Rev. Bill Golderer, convening minister, began the event by directing the attention of community members and media gathered to the bright origami swallows hanging in the rafters of the sanctuary.  Each piece of paper contained a prayer or lament from someone in the community. We were asked to hold the weight of the prayers hanging above us in our awareness during the dialogue.

This invitation is an important one for communities of faith to hold forth as the health care debate resumes following the August recess.  Now is the time we must ask: whose voices are given priority in our dialogue?  What are the prayers of the community that have seemed to be ignored or unheard?  There are nine million uninsured children in the United States who are not filling our headlines with their shouts at town halls, though their lack of access to quality health care deserves such indignance.

Further, now is the time for communities of faith to critically confront the structures that lead to significant disparities in access to quality health care based upon a child’s racial-ethnic identity.  As Children’s Defense founder Marian Wright Edelman has spelled out, “minority children are uninsured and underinsured at far greater rates than White children. One in 13 White children is uninsured, compared to one in five Latino children, one in five American Indian children, one in eight Black children, and one in nine Asian/Pacific Islander children.” (find column attached below)

Now is the time for communities of faith to pass the mic to those too often ignored or unheard by our legislators.

In your community, who is holding the microphone, and who is going unheard?

Laura Markle Downton
Princeton Theological Seminary

http://www.childrensdefense.org/child-research-data-publications/data/marian-wright-edelman-child-watch-column/unfair-childrens-health-disparities.html

a>

Similar to the obligation our country has to insure healthcare for its people, we the people have a moral obligation to care for the health of ourselves and our neighbors.  What responsibilities does this commitment hold us accountable for? We can look at this answer through many different lenses: social, religious, economical. But as I read environmental news every day I see more and more how related our environmental stewardship and healthcare are.  Lisa Jackson, who President Obama elected to head the EPA, recently reports about environmental justice and EPA’s pledge to renew it for minorities. It is fact that minorities and low-income people are victims of more pollution and riskier environmental degradation. Extensive exposures to pollutants cause these groups to fall ill with diseases like asthma and cancer and are a real threat to their health.  Every day there are reports about exposures to lead in neighborhoods where owners are too poor to replace paint, old pipes and other sources of the contaminant. Liver disease is linked to pollutants such as pesticides and heavy metals in our water and air. We are all held accountable for these pollutants; they are not exclusively generated within the boundaries of these neighborhoods but are carried universally from each emitter. What are we subjecting ourselves to?

Additionally, businesses that could provide jobs are leaving these areas of town.  Companies like coal plants and similar polluting manufacturers are coming into these neighborhoods where land is not as valuable. This challenges minorities’ quality of life and jeopardizes their healthcare. Chris Foreman, who is professor at University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy, expressed threats to minorities’ neighborhoods that include filth, odors, dust, noise, congestion, and the absence of recreational and park facilities.

These neighborhoods are truly “the least of these.” This is our obligation as Matthew 25 believers. Jackson encourages, “we have to go to every community and show them that the issues of environmental protection are their issues and that our world is their world. That’s how we bring every voice to this discussion. That’s how we bring real change.” Environmental stewardship is where health care, true care for the health of our neighbors, begins.

So, where does your faith inform you on this issue?

So, my challenge to you this week is: 

1) what is the “issue”? does it matter that the US doesn’t have a healthcare system? who is most affected by the current healthcare industry in the US?  how do we compare to other systems, financially, but most importantly MORALLY?

2) what’s your Scripture? what are the Scriptures that you feel most powerfully sustain not so much your “argument”, but your “convictions” regarding this issue?

3) what’s another source? who is the theologian, philosopher, political scientist that deeply affects your view on this issue? 

and lastly…

4) should the church care? should people of faith care? why?

1) Just where does God call us to support the Government in the role of care giver?

2) Just what is your faith in? Faith has an object or it is useless. I contend that your “faith” is in a system and not the person of Jesus Christ. (find the whole conversation here.

Below, is my response:

Bill–

You bring up a great point, and one that I’ve struggled with–as Christians, as people of faith, what role should the Government play in the United States?

We have Christian libertarians and anarchists, who simply believe that Government cannot be reconciled with the Kingdom of God, therefore, there should be no Government Christians recognize or Government’s role should be very limited.

We have Christian socialists and marxists who believe that Government is a “social contract” with the people and thus, people of faith should apply kingdom principles as it comes to helping people that are impoverished, homeless, sick, imprisoned, oppressed, etc, etc.

I would say there are many more “models” of Christians living under different types of government, but would offer one more which I think is particularly relevant to the US. This is what I would call “enlightenment” Christians, where the public sphere and faith are separated (coming out of the “Age of Reason/Enlightenment). So Government plays a role, but it is distinct from and perhaps at times at odds with, the Christian faith, but it is our reason, nonetheless that must navigate a fallen world in hopes of governing as best we can.

I take all these models seriously because I think to follow Jesus Christ isn’t something that remains private or personal, but actually has worldwide implications. Christ’s proclamation of a Kingdom where the “last shall be first and the first last,” where what we do for “the least of these, you did unto me,” is a completely different form of ordering, of government than humanity has ever been able to fashion.

So, the person who thinks we can bring a utopia here on earth by the strength and power of our own making isn’t taking seriously the power dynamics at play when people relate to one another.

But I also cannot read the Exodus story, where spiritual emancipation from Egypt is also a socioeconomic and political one, or the Pentateuch, Isaiah, Hosea, Amos, the Gospels, Acts, James (and the list goes on) and not believe that the Christian faith has economic, political, social, and spiritual consequences.

Reading these stories, I see the work of a God who is intimately involved in our story, and is angered by the way we oppress the Triad of the poor (in Scripture this “triad” is composed of the widow, the orphan, and the foreigner as seen in Deut. 26:12).

So where does that leave people of faith?

I don’t think the Government can become the kind of caretaker that God calls Christians to be. I don’t think that Government can ever, by its own designs, become the Kingdom of God. But we do have a responsibility, in the here and now, to care for people. And we must decide, is Government one way, of many, to meet the present needs?

I would love the day when the media reports: “Government’s Medicare program has become obsolete because every church, all people of faith, are caring for the needs of the elderly, the sick, disabled, and those who cannot afford medicine.”

So I encourage you to continue the work, by the power of the Spirit, to help those whom God calls us to help. And I hope we can call on communities of faith to fulfill this need, and as we do that, I would also call on the Government, who claims to represent our interests, to make healthcare more accessible, even for the people in society that we often ignore.

It isn’t a faith in a system at all, as that wouldn’t be faith. It is actually a faithful response to the love of God witnessed in Jesus Christ. In that sense, it is a joyful faith in the impossible. God, Thy Kingdom Come.

*(note: some helpful theologians in this area might be H. Richard Niebuhr, Karl Barth, Ada-Maria Isasi-Diaz, Gregory Boyd, and yes, Gustavo Gutierrez, and Oscar Romero. It is not what they are labeled as much as it is what they are actually saying, and how they back it up with Scripture).

I am also a strong believer in the small things making a big difference. Though this is optimistic today, and I am oftentimes discouraged realizing what is important to me is not important to others, but, I would like to offer some options to turn our environmental degradation process around.  At this time, we cannot all switch to more fuel-efficient vehicles or install solar panels on our roofs. However, there are things we adopt daily, simplifying the big picture into something more tangible, that I believe can offer answers.

Eat less meat. Livestock production produces 18% of global greenhouse gases today. Animals feed on large quantities of grain, which is energy-intensive to produce. Also, they emit methane, a particularly pungent greenhouse gas that stays in the atmosphere beyond that of CO2. What’s more, livestock facilities cover 30% of the world’s non-ice landscape and damanges our soil and water resources. We consume roughly 75 grams of protein a day from animals, including dairy, and 110 grams total; the government recommends only 50 grams a day. Vegetarianisn is not a change that is widely accepted in America; I am not one. But it is a pivotal part of a transforming our nation into a healthy, sustainable economyand environment  for humans and the planet. If everyone would just cut back.

If you can, drive less. It saves you money and helps fight climate change. Climate change being another buzz word, I will say that driving less will simply emit less pollutants in general. If I could have it my way I would design all cities around being able to ride your bike conveniently, and without fear of getting hit by the bigger better SUV’s of America. Living in Fort Collins, CO for part of 2008, I loved not only the convenience and joy of riding my bike everwhere but also the money I saved on gas. Unfortunately, biking is neither ideal or safe in a lot of cities. However, find ways to drive less: shop online, bundle your errands, telecommute once a week. Also, smart drive: do not idle, carry extra weight, or speed.

As in the grocery bag debate (using cloth bags or recycling used ones), will “green choices” amount to much. Either its benefits do not really outweigh its costs, because few people will adopt it, or broad adoption will consequentially be trivial in the grand scheme of things. Stewardship is not necessarily sacrifice; sacrifice means the giving up of something prized or desirable for the sake of something considered as having a higher or more pressing claim.  So, I suppose it depends on where your values lie; what is more pressing to you?  If it is in the Earth, giving up meat won’t be too big of a sacrifice. Stewardship is mostly responsibility, generosity, humility, prudence, and kindness in our daily decisions.

As Christians dedicated to finding common ground solutions to reduce the number of abortions in America, we welcome President Obama’s nomination of Governor Kathleen Sebelius as Secretary of Health and Human Services.

Under Governor Sebelius’ leadership, abortions have decreased in Kansas by 10 percent, adoption funding and incentives have increased, healthcare access for women and families has expanded, prenatal care has become more widely available, and legislation protecting the unborn from crime has become law. Such a record demonstrates a commitment to results rather than rhetoric on life issues.

She is a Democratic Governor who has been elected by wide margins in a state where registered Republicans outnumber Democrats two to one. Her nomination has already won not only the support of Democrats, but also praise from Republican pro-life senators such as Sam Brownback and Pat Roberts and governors such as Sonny Perdue of Georgia. Her record and her relationships with leaders in both parties are proof that pro-choice and pro-life leaders can work together to advance a pro-family agenda.

The governor, who is by all accounts a person of deep faith, deserves a fair hearing in Congress and in the public square. Efforts to discredit her will no doubt arise, but we hope that such tactics will not succeed in taking focus off of her record of reducing abortions and supporting women and families in Kansas – and the task that lies ahead of us all: working together to improve health care and reduce the number of abortions in America.

The list of signatures is listed after the jump.

Joel Hunter, Senior Pastor, Northland, A Church Distributed, Northland, FL

David Gushee, President, Evangelicals for Human Rights and Distinguished University Professor of Christian Ethics, Mercer University, Atlanta, GA

Samuel Rodriguez, President, National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, Sacramento, CA

Brian McLaren, Author and Founding Pastor of Cedar Ridge Community Church, Spencerville, MD

Glen Stassen, Professor of Christian Ethics, Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, CA

Melissa Rogers, Director, Center for Religion and Public Affairs, Wake Forest University Divinity School, Falls Church, VA/ Winston-Salem, NC

Randall Balmer, Professor of American Religious History, Barnard College, Columbia University, New York, NY

Tony Jones, Author, Speaker and Theologian, Edina, MN

Jennifer Butler, Executive Director, Faith in Public Life, Washington, DC

Derrick Harkins, Board Member, World Relief and Senior Pastor, Nineteenth Street Baptist Church, Washington, DC

Paul De Vries, Board Member, National Association of Evangelicals, President, NY Divinity School, New York, NY

Peter Hetzel, Assistant Professor of Theology, New York Theological Seminary, New York, NY

Tyler Wigg Stevenson, Director, Two Futures Project, Nashville, TN

Let’s address this head on. Gov. Sebelius, as a Catholic, has repeatedly stated her pro-life convictions. What she opposes, as do many who hold pro-life values, is the criminalization of abortion for the patient or doctor. Instead, she has advocated for the common ground, real-results approach of reducing the number of abortions through reducing unwanted pregnancies and promoting adoptions.

Here is Gov. Sebelius’s record during her tenure as governor:

• Abortion has dropped 8.5% from 2002 to 2007 in Kansas (see reports here)
• Teen pregnancy has dropped 7% from 2002 to 2006 (see reports here)
• Funding for adoption support increased by $2.1 million
• She signed law doubling the adoption tax credit
• She signed law aiding in the adoption process

In addition, Gov Sebelius signed into law Alexa’s Law, legally protecting the unborn child in the case of a crime against the mother — a law which goes well beyond even the similar Mosaic law found in Exodus 21:22. And this Dr. George Tiller you keep hearing about? It so happens that Gov.-Sebelius-appointed state attorney general is prosecuting him for violating late-term abortion state laws.

The personal smears need to stop. For those who relish the culture wars (and for those entrenched political interests whose very fuel is the culture wars), the “criminalize abortion” ideology will always matter more than any actual progress on reducing the number of abortions in this country. For the rest of us who desire a constructive political debate where substantive policy goals (such as health care!) and practical solutions drive the conversation, I suggest ignoring the Right’s character assassination attempt on Gov. Sebelius.

ALSO: Fellow Kansan and Catholic Sen. Brownback is supporting the nomination. If even Sen. Brownback, whose office allowed his name to be used in the recent fundraising letter that hit a new low by attacking the faith of his own Congressional colleagues, is supporting her, I think that is a good indication of how misguided (and pointless) of a battle this is for the Right.

ALSO: Did anyone else notice the overtly shoddy reporting done by the The Hill in the article i linked to up top? Not only does it just take the Religious Right’s opposition dump largely at its word while giving very little voice to the larger, more reasonable pro-life community not represented by the voices of the likes of Tony Perkins, but it even seems to state — or at least strongly imply — that Catholics United is a “pro-abortion rights” group. That is simply not true and is very poor reporting.

Here are a number of points that should encourage religious progressives –

1) Sebelius is opposed to the death penalty (not really an HHS topic, though it shows where she is coming from)

2) Sebelius, as a former insurance commissioner, blocked the monopolazation of Kansas health care providers, preventing the state from going down the path of a singular private health care provider. This was a huge issue in Kansas for years, and by sticking to her guns Sebelius was able to save thousands from a potential loss in coverage.

3) Sebelius is pro-life. She is against the criminalization of women or doctors. She supports measures to care-for and respect women going through these decisions. She has long said that there are ways, beyond the “pro-life”/”pro-choice” debates to address the issue on the ground level that makes a real difference in women’s lives. During her tenure as Gov., the best I can tell, abortions dropped 17% in Kansas. She did this through four main means:

• Expanding prenatal health care
• Providing financial incentives for adoptions
• Supporting pregnancy-support centers throughout the state
• Protecting health care coverage, as a priority, through budget shortfalls

As it seems that universal heath-care coverage is going to be a cornerstone of the Obama Agenda this year, Sebelius is going to have a large role to play. She has demonstrated the ability to win in one of the reddest of states by moralizing health care coverage, by seeking common ground over contentious debates, and by seeking pragmatic solutions to meet Kansas’ health care needs. As the administration seeks to garnish support for their health care plan, which a lot of people think will be an uphill battle, I think she is by far the best candidate for building the needed bi-partisan coalition. She has done it on the state level. Now, she will be tasked with doing it for all of us. Unquestionably, Sebelius is the right face for the administration’s health care plans.

Obama administration may rescind ‘conscience rule’ 

Officials say the move seeks to clarify rules for health care workers
By Noam N. Levey | Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON — Taking another step into the abortion debate, the Obama administration Friday will move to rescind a controversial rule that allows health-care workers to deny abortion counseling or other family-planning services if doing so would violate their moral beliefs, according to administration officials.

The rollback of the “conscience rule” comes just two months after the Bush administration announced it last year in one of its final policy initiatives.

Some will be upset over Obama’s position here.  But, in my opinion, it is completely correct for a couple reasons.

1. Doctors are not forced to provide procedures they disagree with, yet only make it known to their patients that the procedure is an option.  In areas unique from abortion you would be quite thankful that your doctor is obligated to provide you with all your options.  For example, this allows you to know that refusing treatment is an option for terminal illness.  For 30 years, doctors have been protected from performing procedures against their will.  President Obama is supportive of that protection.  But performing a procedure and giving advice of options are quite different things.

2. The suggestion that this is government overstepping on personal morality is completely false.  Think of the number of positions lawyers find themselves in that seemingly go against their “conscience.”  If an attorney could simply follow his or her “conscience” it is doubtful attorney-client privilege would exist.  How would a “conscience rule” apply to other legally “privileged” areas like the confessional booth or psychologist’s office?

3. The “conscience rule,” in the Bush mode, is not simply about contraceptives.  Yes, that was the main target.  But, the rule had broad-standing legal obligations for many medical areas.  It is simple-minded to view the order through the contraceptives frame, and that is likely why the courts would have struck it down anyway.  The AMA and Methodist Church have both criticized the broadness of the Bush rule.  Abortion has long been covered by a ‘conscience rule,’ but the Bush Admin – in targeting contraceptives – actually created a rule way beyond that purview.

4. The rule was ethically irresponsible because it suggests that the moral burden for personal health decision-making lies with the doctor.  Decision-making is not what makes the medical profession a moral task – care giving is.  When doctors assume the ethical choices of their patients they are no longer care-givers.  It is no kind of care to deny one’s ability to control your own life.  The ability to make your own choices, in fact, is the very sort of love God granted us within the Christian tradition.

5. Leaving your medical care to the luck-of-the-draw in terms of your doctor’s religious beliefs is ridiculous – especially if the doctor does not have to make her beliefs known when denying the fullness of available care.  The “conscience rule” sounds good to those prideful enough to think everyone shares their morality.  But, what if your doctor is from a tradition which denies all medical care?  Should he or she be able to deny all medical treatment?  Is that even a doctor?

The “conscience rule” sounds good on a simple level.  I was even initially attracted to it.  From a basic standpoint, we do not want people to be forced to act against their consciences.  But, upon further reflection, this rule is morally ill-conceived.  Sure, we have allowed a ‘conscientious objectors’ caveat for military service.  But once you’ve joined the military, you’re expected to be a soldier.  Same goes for doctors, lawyers, pastors, police officers, etc.  It would be quite dangerous if in the day-to-day practice of being soldiers, lawyers, or police officers, individuals were navigating issues like pacifism, client-privilege, or the death penalty.  We don’t want our soldiers to quit fighting under the guise of pacifism.  We don’t want our attorneys to give up their clients in a choice for full disclosure, or our police not to arrest a suspected murderer because he or she may be executed.  In all of these careers, like the medical profession, morality ought to be seen in the calling to the task at hand.  Setting aside the fact the the doctor does not even have to “provide,” yet simply make known the option of a treatment, the act of conscience for a Doctor is in providing the best and fullest care available – not in the momentary choosing for the patient the sort of health-care the doctor is most comfortable with.

I congratulate the Obama Administration for turning their back on this morally prideful, divisive, illegal, and ill-conceived attempt at governance by the Bush Administration.  Bush snuck this in at the midnight hour.  The Obama HHS office is calling for reflective consideration in the light of day.