the church of america

In a recent Townhall article, Michael Medved writes about the possibility (or impossibility) of an atheist president. (hat tip: Daylight Atheism)

Medved says:

Just as the Queen plays a formal role as head of the Church of England, the President functions as head of the “Church of America” – that informal, tolerant but profoundly important civic religion that dominates all our national holidays and historic milestones.

Medved is not merely wrong, he is very confused about his faith.

I've written previously about my concerns with civic religion. It seems to me that nothing can be more destructive of genuine religion than to let it be co-opted by those in power.

For instance, try to imagine an atheist president issuing the annual Thanksgiving proclamation. To whom would he extend thanks in the name of his grateful nation –-the Indians in Massachusetts?

Then there’s the significant matter of the Pledge of Allegiance. Would President Atheist pronounce the controversial words “under God”? If he did, he’d stand accused (rightly) of rank hypocrisy. And if he didn’t, he’d pointedly excuse himself from a daily ritual that overwhelming majorities of his fellow citizens consider meaningful.

Yes, these are the solemn duties of the head of the Church of America, according to Michael Medved. Because if the President doesn't know who to thank on Thanksgiving, or wants to revert to the original version of the Pledge of Allegiance (the words "under God" were not added until the 1950s), then the Church of America will collapse.

A non-Christian (like Joe Lieberman) could easily preside over state occasions because even though his faith differs significantly from that of the Christian majority, his obvious attachment to faith in God and Old Testament principles shows sympathy, not hostility, to the generalized value of faith.

This just underscores my objections to civic religion. There is nothing about Thanksgiving or the Pledge of Allegiance which is in any sense Christian. Patriotism is not a Christian value. Kingdoms rise and fall, and all that.

Thankfulness is good, but it is not exclusively Christian, or even religious. If an atheist president urged Americans just to be thankful, I don't see how anybody could object. After all, if Americans didn't know who to thank without explicit orders from their leaders, we'd have to call it the Cult of America.

Personally, I don't care what the President says on the fourth Thursday of November, or how he or she recites the Pledge of Allegiance. That's not the foundation of my faith -- or, for that matter, any part of my faith. Civic religion often amounts to no more than lip service -- inserting the word "God" into an otherwise secular observance or ritual. Civic religion is an insincere and shallow attempt by the state to force God into a box.

Medved considers the recent candidacies of Joe Lieberman, a Jew, and Mitt Romney, a Mormon, but then adds:

There’s a difference between an atheist, however, and a Mormon or a Jew – despite the fact that the same U.S. population (about five million) claims membership in each of the three groups. For Mitt and Joe, their religious affiliation reflected their heritage and demonstrated their preference for a faith tradition differing from larger Christian denominations. But embrace of Jewish or Mormon practices doesn’t show contempt for the Protestant or Catholic faith of the majority, but affirmation of atheism does.

Medved overstates the case here, I think. Granted, Sam Harris would have trouble connecting with voters in Pascagoula, Mississippi. But not all atheists are contemptuous of people of faith.

And let's face it -- though many recent Presidents (and Congressional leaders) have been very vocal about their Christianity, most of them have not lived up to the standards they proclaimed were they were elected. From Bill Clinton's affair with an intern, to George W. Bush's deceptions leading to the invasion of Iraq, our leaders haven't demonstrated Christian values while in office.

I don't think an atheist could do much worse. Chances are, the average atheist would be better: Maybe that's what Medved is really worried about.

Modern secularism rejects the notion that human beings feel a deep-seated, unquenchable craving for making connections with Godliness, in its various definitions and manifestations. For Osama bin Laden and other jihadist preachers, Islam understands that yearning but “infidel” America does not. Our enemies insist that God plays the central role in the current war and that they affirm and defend him, while we reject and ignore him. The proper response to such assertions involves the citation of our religious traditions and commitments, and the credible argument that embrace of modernity, tolerance and democracy need not lead to godless materialism.

I think Medved does state some truth here: Osama bin Laden wants his followers to believe that Western society is godless and decadent. Medved misses the mark, though, in his claim that the proper response is "the citation of our religious traditions and commitments," especially when the only examples he can list involve secular traditions that have had the word "God" grafted in.

By replacing God with "God," civic religion maintains the appearance of godliness while emptying the words of meaning. The United States may be the most overtly religious nation in the Western world in the way we speak, but our actions tell a different story. The ever widening gap between rich and poor, the increasing number of families who can't afford needed medical care, the violence of our inner cities, the ongoing decimation of nature, all testify that this is not a nation under God. It is a nation of short-sighted, self-centered individuals who think invoking the name of "God" is enough. Osama bin Laden is not the only one who is not fooled.

foreign aid: does it hurt more than it helps?

Massive amounts of aid in the form of free food have been going to Ethiopia since famine was first reported in the Western press, and we were in Lalibela the day one of the monthly shipments arrived. People from all over the countryside came into town on their donkeys -- well, not into town, but near it. The poorer you are, the more food you get, and no one wanted to show off his possessions, so everyone parked his donkeys about three kilometers from town and walked the rest of the way. There were hundreds of donkeys around, waiting on the edge of town, and hundreds of people in the center of town, waiting for the food trucks to arrive. With their arrival, fifty-kilogram sacks of wheat stenciled with the name of the contributing country -- some from the United States, some from Germany on this occasion -- were distributed.

While this was going on, glorious, lush fields all around Lalibela lay fallow because nobody farmed them anymore. An entire generation of Ethiopians has grown up without learning how to farm. Instead, to put food on the table, they go to town every month, park the donkey, and collect grain. Some recipients, the day we were in Lalibela, carried their ration of wheat directly over to the town market and started selling it. And so, in addition to that generation that has never learned how to farm, there is a generation of farmers who have simply stopped farming because they can no longer sell the fruits of their labor -- there is no way to compete with free grain.

Jim Rogers, Adventure Capitalist

At the turn of the millennium, retired investor Jim Rogers took a trip around the world with his fiancee. What he saw, particularly in Africa, was distressing:

Throughout the continent there are huge markets where on can find bundle upon bundle of T-shirts spread out for sale, donated by places such as the YMCA of Cleveland and the First Baptist Church of Charlotte. These and clothing of all kinds are given as donations in the United States destined for the poor of Africa, but by the time they reach the continent, they are sold as a commercial product. Not only do they enrich the entrepreneurs involved in the traffic, they also put local tailors out of business. The tailors cannot compete, nor can the people who weave cloth, spin yarn, or grow cotton, the people whose costs the tailor incurs. In Africa you used to see tailors everywhere. You would see them by the side of the road with their sewing machines. Now you see them only rarely. How can any of them compete with a product that the entrepreneur gets virtually free?

Has well-intentioned foreign aid hurt the people it was meant to help? Is Africa worse off today than it was before the West began sending massive amounts of goods in their direction?

But it gets worse. Non-government organizations (NGOs) have raised billions of dollars to send representatives to Africa to make their expertise freely available to the locals. But this form of "aid" may be the worst:

The Bangladesh International Network (BIAN), while we were there, filed suit against UNICEF, WHO, the World Bank, the Islamic Development Bank, NGO Forum, and other groups that were responsible for funding the sinking of wells contaminated by arsenic and other poisons. ... As a local newspaper reported, "The short and long term effect of arsenic poisoning is lethal. Research has proved beyond doubt that the source of arsenic poisoning is the shallow tube wells from which ninety-seven percent of the rural population receives its drinking water. People are drinking poisonous water every day from shallow tube wells while policymakers and their implementing agencies continue to sink these. While World Bank's own figures claim 20 million people are currently at risk and 75 million are potentially at risk of arsenic poisoning from tube wells, donors continue funding to sink tube wells."

Rather than stop digging wells, international agencies were conducting the Third International Symposium on Reducing the Impact of Toxic Chemicals on Bengal Basin's Economies -- the third -- in the midst of what may be the largest mass poisoning in history.

If all this is true, is there anything we can do to fix the problem? Rogers has the outline of a solution:

Forgive all the debt. Right now. African countries, combined, owe some $350 billion plus in foreign debt, according to the International Monetary Fund. While no one really expects these countries to pay back that debt, they are still required to finance it, making annual payments on the loans. If we assume the interest on the loans to be 8 percent, it means that African countries must collectively pay $26 billion a year in interest. That does not include principal payments. If we assume principal payments to be another 2 to 3 percent, annual payments to finance the debt total over $30 billion. Once the debt is forgiven, Africa's leaders will have an additional $30 billion annually that can be put to productive use, plus no debt hanging over them. Call the $350 billion reparation for supposed past sins, if it makes you feel better.

This much has been suggested before, by charitable organizations and even some western governments.

However, part of the deal would be no more foreign aid.

The effects would undoubtedly be profound. Africa would be left to survive on its own. The people of Africa, no longer relying on handouts, would learn to fend for themselves. The Ethiopian teenagers I met who had never learned how to farm would have to take up the plow. The madmen fighting on the Horn of Africa would stop receiving arms from around the world. Nigerian leaders would no longer be able to walk into banks and walk out with sacks of U.S. dollars. Those who run Mozambique would no longer be able to solicit flood relief money with which to line their coffers. The IMF and World Bank would go bankrupt, and local NGOs would be forced out of business.

Would it work? I don't know how this last part could possibly be enforced. But enabling Africans to solve their own problems is the only way to solve them.

More than eight hundred years ago, Moses Maimonides wrote that the best type of charity was to help people become more self-sufficient. When will today's advanced societies learn this lesson?

church and statism

Update: When I first posted this, my concluding paragraph did not get pasted into the edit window. I've corrected the omission.

A few weeks ago, John the Methodist linked to an essay titled The Liberal Temptation. John argued that the phenomenon discussed in that essay -- using state power to advance the church's agenda -- is a temptation of conservatives as well as liberals. He more accurately labeled it a statist temptation.

In the comments, Dan Trabue gave a lengthy defense of the idea that Christians should expect the state to help care for the poor -- and quoted several Bible verses to back his points.

I can understand both of their points of view, and to some extent I agree with both. There's no better indicator than that: John and Dan were actually discussing two different issues. I'll try to touch on both of them here.

First, the role of the state. The United States Constitution outlines the role of the national government and specifies its duties, one of which is "to promote the general welfare." Article I, Section 8 authorizes Congress to collect taxes for this purpose (among others).

So it would seem there should be no controversy there: If giving aid to people living in poverty promotes the general welfare (and I think it does), then the federal government has not just the right, but the duty to collect taxes for welfare programs.

Furthermore, through tax revenues the government has access to more resources than any individual or group could ever hope to collect. While most private charities do the best they can with the resources they have, the need is just too great. If we were to rely solely on voluntary charitable giving, a lot more people would fall into poverty.

The second issue here is the mandate Jesus gave to Christians to take care of those in need. Our salvation depends on it, according to Matthew 25:31-46.

But, as John points out in his post:

Compulsion is the enemy of evangelism, for there is no true conversion or sanctification unless is is uncoerced. Forced virtue, Left or Right, is no virtue at all.

If Congress votes to use our taxes -- everyone's taxes -- to fund a program to help the poor, we haven't fulfilled Jesus' mandate. Christian giving isn't simply a matter of helping those in need: It's also a matter of giving up our own desires and truly loving our neighbors as we love ourselves. If we give nothing more than what is automatically withdrawn from our paychecks, we are not really giving of ourselves.

Legislation of morality never works: The Volstead Act of 1919, which outlawed the sale of alcohol in the United States, did not eliminate the drinking of alcohol -- it merely created a new class of criminals.

Neither the right nor the left seem to be immune to the statist temptation: Just as we can't make people righteous by passing laws against abortion or homosexuality, we can't make people righteous by donating their money for them through tax laws. Laws may change a person's outward behavior -- or at least a person's public behavior --- but they cannot change people's hearts.

So I am left with two seemingly contradictory beliefs: Without the resources that only the state can muster, we can't hope to take care of all the people in need... but giving by proxy through taxes is not true charity.

But these are not mutually exclusive. It's not impossible to give to private charities and pay our taxes. It's no sin to expect our government to be responsive to the needs of its citizens. It's also no sin to give of ourselves to take care of our brothers and sisters.

still no living wage

The new Iraq spending bill, passed by Congress last month and signed by President Bush, contains a rider that will raise the minimum wage from $5.15 per hour to $7.25.

It may sound like a big raise, but it will be phased in slowly over three years, and even after the second increase minimum-wage workers will be earning less (adjusted for inflation) than they were in 1997. The third phase doesn't even occur until after the next election, which means that Congress members will be able to boast for two election cycles about how they have helped the working poor, even as they keep the minimum wage below the poverty line.

I, for one, am not impressed. The purpose of a minimum wage should be to lift people out of poverty, not to keep them in it.

I've heard all the arguments about how some work is more valuable than other work, and I think there is some merit in that. But that misses the point. The minimum wage is not a nationwide mandatory one-size-fits-all income for all people. Let the corporate CEOs, the baseball players, and the movie stars make their millions, but give the janitors, the dishwashers, the farm hands, and the administrative assitants enough to take care of a family.

Now it may be true that some of these people don't need to make enough to raise a family. Maybe that administrative assitant is married to that janitor, and with their combined incomes, they can already make ends meet. But there was a time in American history when a family did not need two incomes just to stay out of poverty. There was a time, not too long ago, when even families of modest means could make a choice of whether to have one parent stay home and raise the children while the other parent brought home enough money to cover expenses. For an increasing number of families, that choice is no longer available.

I'm quite aware that some families make comfortably more than a poverty wage, and still choose to have both parents work. That's fine. I'm all for letting people have that choice. I just think that the same choice should be available to those at the bottom of the employment ladder.

Furthermore, a living wage would benefit the growing number of families who, for whatever reason, have only one adult in the household. If a single parent could stave off poverty with a single job, they will have more time to devote to their children.

Ultimately, that's what minimum wage laws are all about: Enabling parents to spend more time with their families. In a nation as prosperous as the United States, a nation whose leaders consistently give bold lip service to "family values," we could afford to keep working families out of poverty if we wanted to.

Do we want to?

on war and peace in iraq

Last weekend, to commemorate the fourth anniversary of the Iraq war, peace groups held vigils in many cities throughout the United States. In Kansas City the vigil was cosponsored by the American Friends Service Committee and the KC Iraq Task Force.

There were several gifted speakers, but the one who made the biggest impression on me was Tomas Young, who fought in this war before being paralyzed from the chest down due to injuries sustained in combat. He was rolled onto the stage in his wheelchair and started to speak. After only a few sentences he looked down at what appeared to be notes, then said something that was completely unrelated to what he had been saying. He looked down at the notes again, then looked up and apologized. Because of the side effects of his pain medication, he said, he couldn't continue. He rolled off the stage.

This is what war does to young, idealistic people who are willing to sacrifice themselves for a cause. Before we ask them to make these sacrifices, we'd better be sure the cause is worth the cost. George W. Bush's failure to count the cost has destroyed far more lives than the 9/11 attacks did.

I've been attending peace vigils since before the war began, but at this one there seemed to be a general sense of hopefulness that I haven't perceived in previous years. Perhaps one factor is that I've moved from Wichita to Kansas City, where people seem to be a little more positive about life in general, but the biggest factor has to be the 2006 Congressional elections and the troop withdrawal bill now going through Congress.

Nonetheless, I can't bring myself to feel any more hopeful about the prospects for peace than I did four years ago. In fact, I'm probably less hopeful, for two reasons.

First, I really believed, prior to the war, that something might possibly be done to prevent the invasion. If our leaders -- and other world leaders -- could see the level of opposition, they might be persuaded to change their strategy. The very fact of this war has left me jaded about the prospects of ever turning leaders' opinion through protest.

Second, I don't see a possibility for a successful Iraqi nation. Many factors are contributing to the ongoing difficulties there, and numerous pundits have given a far more thorough analysis than I ever could, but the underlying reality is that the Iraqi people are not prepared to run their own government -- especially while facing insurgents intent on ripping the nation to shreds.

The United States could certainly cut its own losses by withdrawing its troops, just as most of its coalition partners already have. But at what cost to Iraq? Already more than 60,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed as a result of this war (and that's the most conservative estimate -- some have suggested that the true number is more than ten times that). If the U.S. were to pull out, do we have any reason to think the insurgents would lay their weapons down? Or would a U.S. withdrawal simply abandon Iraq to chaos?

I don't have any answers, just questions.

why christians should support torture

In a recent article Mark Tooley, head of the United Methodist committee at the Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD), questions Christian support for the National Religious Campaign Against Torture (NRCAT).

Tooley's main beef seems to be that the NRCAT is not focusing on torture in other countries, but is pushing the United States government to promise not to use torture. But what does Tooley expect of a national campaign? Any U.S. organization is going to have a better chance persuading its own government than persuading despotic thugs half a world away.

And if we want to have any moral authority to speak out against torturers elsewhere, we need to make it clear that we don't condone the use of it by our own nation. After the revelations from Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and secret CIA prisons around the world, the United States has lost that moral authority. Earlier this year Congress overwhelmingly approved the McCain Amendment, banning the use of torture. George W. Bush had threatened to veto the bill, but he backed down after it was approved by a wide enough margin to override the veto. Instead, Bush issued a signing statement explaining that the ban does not apply in all cases.

Because of Bush's moral ambiguity about torture, American Christians need to speak up, to make it clear that we do not blindly support all our government's policies. That's why the NRCAT was formed.

So why does Mark Tooley have a problem with the NRCAT? The answer, it seems to me, is in the nature of Tooley's organization, the IRD. The IRD claims to be a church renewal group. However, in this and other public statements, the IRD appears to be actively attempting to squelch the voice of the church whenever it speaks out against U.S. policy. The IRD wants a lap dog church that lacks a prophetic voice.

For the church to adopt Tooley's agenda, it would have to abandon Christ's agenda.

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives
and recovery of sight to the blind,
to let the oppressed go free,
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.

With those words, Jesus inaugurated a challenge, not just to the rulers of his day, but to all those who would try to maintain power by keeping others down. The kingdom of God does not work that way. The kingdom of God turns all our expectations upside down. To be great, one must become a servant, a child.

As Mary sang while Jesus was still in the womb:

He has brought down the powerful from their thrones,
and lifted up the lowly;
he has filled the hungry with good things,
and sent the rich away empty.

Jesus didn't come to earth to teach his followers to be jingoistic supporters of their government's morally dubious policies. The Mark Tooleys of the world can complain all they want, but the church must remain true to its prophetic mission. And that means never to align itself with any earthly kingdom, but to stand with the Prince of Peace in calling political leaders to account.

congressional stuff

Senator Sam Brownback has succeeded in adding a provision to the Senate's immigration bill, to bring more nurses to the U.S. This will have a negative effect on health care in the poorer countries that have educated and trained these nurses. The New York Times has the story (registration required).

It's a case of seeking the easy solution to a complex problem. The United States has a shortage of nurses, the Senate is discussing immigration policy, so Senator Brownback finds a quick fix. The problem is, this does not eliminate the shortage. It just moves it out of our sight -- and places it squarely in the worst possible location. The places that are most desperately in need of health care workers will now suffer even more. A better solution, it seems to me, would be to train more nurses. Provide funding to schools that want to expand their nursing programs, or to create new ones. As the population ages, this is one profession that will only increase in demand in the coming years. We shouldn't have to steal from other countries to make up for our shortsightedness.

* * *

Meanwhile, President Bush is urging Congress to pass a Constitutional Amendment to ban same-sex marriages. See the story at CNN.com To amend the Constitution requires support from 2/3 of the members of both houses of Congress. This amendment appears headed for defeat: The Senate does not even have a simple majority in favor.

Bush's attempt to pander to his base will likely end up hurting him. This maneuver shows his lack of leadership ability and his misunderstanding of the role of the federal government. Even some who oppose same-sex marriage are nervous about rewriting the Constitution over it. Those who know their history will recall that the last time the Constitution was amended to outlaw a specific behavior of citizens -- the 18th Amendment, banning the manufacture, sale, or transportation of alcohol -- was a dismal failure. Alcohol consumption rates may have dropped, but some people still found ways to get it, and those who broke the law to supply it became much more sophisticated in their efforts to evade prosecution. One unintended side effect of prohibition was the rise of organized crime. It would have been better to let Uncle Fred have his beer after dinner than to provide Al Capone with an additional source of income.

A same-sex marriage prohibition probably wouldn't have quite so dire consequences, but haven't we learned the lesson that the federal government isn't up to the task of overseeing our morality?

Personally, I think the government should get out of the marriage business altogether. When states are given the right to say who should be married and who should not, they can easily abuse their power. The wave of no-fault divorce laws that have swept the United States since the 1970s have probably done more to destroy the American family than any other factor. After the states introduced this innovation, churches have learned to accept it. How can they do otherwise, when half of all marriages now end in divorce?

Same-sex marriage wouldn't have nearly the impact that no-fault divorce has had; the number of people affected would be much smaller. And taking it out of the states' hands wouldn't end the controversy; many churches are wrestling with this issue as well. But they should have the freedom to wrestle and to come to their conclusions, without being forced to follow the dictates of the state. That's why this country's founders proposed to separate church and state in the first place.

* * *

Hat tips to Seth at Samaritanity for the first article, and to Eddie(F) at Edge of Faith for the second.

cover the uninsured

May 1-7 is Cover the Uninsured Week.

The past 100 years have given us medical advances that have doubled the average human life span. Unfortunately, medical advances are not free. Indeed, health care costs have increased, over the past several years, faster than any other segment of the economy. In order to control costs, every industrial nation except the United States has built a system to ensure universal healthcare coverage. Some, like Canada, have single-payer systems, in which the government acts as the sole insurance provider. Others, like Germany, have multi-payer systems, in which the government and private payers both provide insurance, and everyone is guaranteed some form of coverage.

In the United States, private insurance companies write healthcare coverage plans for employers, who choose a plan for their employees. The employees then have the option of buying the plan or not. Some employers choose not to offer health insurance to their employees. Many people cannot afford to buy the health insurance their employers provide. As a result, more than 42 million people in the U.S. have no health insurace at all. That's about one out of every seven U.S. citizens.

In theory, the competition among insurers drives the cost down. In reality, Americans pay about twice as much per person as the rest of the industrial world. In part, the higher costs are a result of the high number of uninsured. If medical providers are forced to write off one out of every seven charges, they need to recoup the money from somewhere.

Physicians aren't the only ones who stand to gain by making health insurance universal. Employers would benefit as they would shoulder a smaller burden of rising health care costs. And, of course, the 42 million people who currently do not have insurance would benefit.

So what is the answer? Although some, even in the medical community, are advocating for a single payer system, it is simply not going to happen in the current political climate. A multi-payer system would be easier to implement -- in fact, our current system is essentially a screwed up multi-payer system. The problem is, we need to find a way to provide health insurance for the 14% of our population who now lack it.

But who has the money and the will to get there? Private insurance companies are not going to add beneficiaries as charity cases.

The federal government has run up too much debt in the last five years to take on any additional financial responsibilities. State governments are being squeezed already as the federal government cuts its subsidies to the states.

Employers are not going to lead the way in reform. The ones who currently don't provide insurance don't have the resources to do so. Any additional expense might drive them out of business.

The uninsured themselves aren't going to solve the problem. If they could afford health insurance, they'd have it.

So is there an answer at all?

Ultimately, I don't think we can get there from here in our lifetime. The United States health care system is the largest industry on the planet, and it's not going to change overnight. Indeed, if the 1996 HIPAA law is any indication, it will take more than a decade to bring about even modest reforms to the system.

But what sort of reforms could we put into place before this generation is beyond the need of health care? Here are a few ideas:

• Several states have already established health insurance pools that allow high-risk patients to buy medical insurance when they are unable to afford it elsewhere, or have previously been turned down by a private insurer. This concept could be extended to offer affordable group insurance for the self-employed and for small business owners who cannot afford to buy insurance for a handful of people.


• Some churches offer health insurance plans for their members. This idea, too, could be extended. Maybe some churches could provide health insurance as a ministry. Civic groups, possibly, could establish health insurance pools. Genuine competition in health insurance plans should benefit everyone.


• Although most Americans are wary of "government health care," Congress's health insurance plan is one of the best and most affordable in the country. One intriguing idea, proposed by John Kerry in his 2004 presidential bid, is to open up this insurance plan to allow others to buy into it.


• The COBRA law of 1986 allows an individual to keep the same insurance from a previous employer until the insurance plan kicks in at the new employer. The individual must pay the entire cost of the plan. Most people in job transitions need help paying for this temporary coverage. It's just a matter of finding a source for the money.

At best, these are all stopgap measures. None of them will get us to universal coverage. But as thoroughly inefficient as our health care system is today, and as cold as the political will is, we can't hope for much.

In fact, there's only one reason that we don't have universal coverage already: apathy. Americans have let ourselves accept a second rate health care system even while our medical facilities are the best in the world. In no other industrial nation would such a state of affairs be tolerated. Other health care systems have their problems, but nowhere else can 42 million people fall through the cracks at the same time.

So that's what Cover the Uninsured Week is about. It's time to acknowledge that the United States is shooting itself in the foot with its current health care system. It's time to acknowledge that we could do much better, and save money at the same time. It's time to raise the awareness that we don't have to settle for second rate health care. It's time to let our elected officials know that we want -- and deserve -- something better.

It's time for the United States to make health care for all its citizens a priority.

pedro

As the U.S. Congress debates what to do about illegal immigration, Methobloggers Andy Bryan and John the Methodist have been having their own discussion on the pros and cons of immigration.

I don't have the answers; I don't know what policy would best serve both the U.S. interests and the people who would come here looking for a better life. But I offer this story of someone who was once an illegal alien, for whatever it is worth.

Pedro grew up in Quetzaltenango, Guatemala. Like most Guatemalan families, his was poor. But Pedro had a dream, and was willing to sacrifice for it. He wanted to own a bus that he could use to drive tourists around Guatemala.

He was a hard worker, but could not find work that would pay him enough to finance his dream. So, he left his wife and young children in Guatemala, and headed north. He served for a while as a mercenary for the Mexican army. After his term was up he chose not to re-enlist, so he crossed the border into the United States, where he worked odd jobs and saved up as much as he possibly could. When he had enough money, he returned to his family in Guatemala, and bought his bus.

I met Pedro in the winter of 2000 when I went to Guatemala with United Methodist Volunteers in Mission. Pedro took us in his bus from the airport in Guatemala City to the mountain village of San Juan Cotzal, spent the week working with us, and drove us back to the airport.

On paper, Pedro would probably not have looked promising as an immigrant to the U.S. He was not highly educated, and he had no desire to become a U.S. citizen. He is not the type of person who could have easily gotten a green card.

Pedro came to the United States for a time because he saw an opportunity here, an opportunity that was not available to him in his home country.

Whatever policy Congress adopts regarding immigration, it ought to have provisions to help people like Pedro, who are simply trying to make a better life for their families. If there is work to be done, and people willing to do the work, we ought to open our borders enough to let them in.

And that's all I have to say about that.

left and right hands

Recently at Wesley Blog, Shane Raynor posted about a speech given by Mel White. White is the founder of Soulforce, a gay-rights organization.

As so often happens with topics like this, the comments have deteriorated into a religious right vs. religious left flamefest.

My own comment was:

I agree with Josh that these political labels don't do us any good. When we label ourselves or others as "religious right" or "religious left" we are putting our political affiliation above our faith. I'm no better than anyone else about it; I find myself falling into that trap more often than I'd like.

I don't know what it is going to take, but I'd like to see the body of Christ come together. We've gone far beyond the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing; the left hand and the right hand have taken up arms against each other. Surely this isn't what Jesus intended for us.

There was a time, back in my teenage years and early twenties, when I called myself a conservative Christian. Then I went through a phase in my late twenties and early thirties when I called myself a liberal Christian. Now I don't know exactly how to label myself. The theological worldview quiz classifies me as emergent/postmodern. I don't really like that label. Still, a dislike of labels is one of the characteristics of postmoderns, so maybe I do fit there.

Politically, I lean toward the Democratic party. But increasingly within the last several months I'm seeing the importance of remaining loyal to Christ first, and relegating political ideology to the back seat. Political parties won't save us. Politicians can make a difference in our lives, for good or ill, through the policies they promote. There are some things the state does very well, some things it could do well but doesn't, and some things it should stay away from. I don't want to get into a detailed discussion about what goes into each category. Suffice it to say that there is a necessity for government in an orderly society, and a necessity for personal freedom.

That said, I think that for Christians looking to build the kingdom of God, the state can seem to be an appealing ally. In a nation that at least ostensibly promotes freedom for all, it can be easy to fall into the heresy that our freedom comes from the state. Mel White, in his speech, suggested that the Constitution is more important than the Bible, because without the Constitution we don't have the freedom to read the Bible. On the other side of the aisle, politically involved pastors like Jerry Falwell (who happens to be Mel White's former boss) argue that same-sex marriages pose a serious threat to traditional marriages. In Falwell's view, the state must curtail freedoms to keep people from misusing them.

Jesus never saw freedom as something the state could give or take away. When religious leaders tried to trap him with a question about paying taxes to Caesar, he cleverly turned the question around. Borrowing a coin, he asked, "Whose image is on the coin?" Then he added, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's."

It's not an accident that Jesus used the word image. The implication is, the Roman coins may bear Caesar's image, but we are made in God's image. Give the mammon to Caesar, but give ourselves to God.

That, it seems to me, is a healthy starting point for healing this self-inflicted wound in the body of Christ. If we remember first that we belong to God, that we are made in God's image -- and just as importantly, that other people are made in God's image, even if they disagree with us, then maybe we can move past this left/right split and start an honest dialogue. Maybe nobody will change their mind about the issues, but perhaps we will change our minds about the people on the other side of the discussion.