Folks, theologically speaking, the discussion about universal healthcare is not within the locus of charity/mercy but on justice. The question is not "should the state legislate charity," but rather, "can the state be just when it prioritizes $ over the lives of the vulnerable?"
This is an important theological distinction. When we frame basic necessities of human survival in the category of charity/mercy, we make it supererogatory (i.e. bonus points). If we frame it in the category of justice, we make it a necessity, a sine qua non.
Theologically, we believe that justice requires the imago dei to have to health needs met sustainably. We believe that God works sovereignly through providential means, including through the state and taxation. We believe that justice for the vulnerable is a necessary
outworking of a real and living faith in Christ.
Therefore, we cannot simply throw up our hands and say "well, pragmatically, that doesn't work" and then opt for a system and sets of beliefs and values that place the dignity of the imago dei subservient to its usefulness (e.g,
Therefore, we cannot simply throw up our hands and say "well, pragmatically, that doesn't work" and then opt for a system and sets of beliefs and values that place the dignity of the imago dei subservient to its usefulness (e.g,
"get a job!"), sees God as either a deist or a fatalist in terms of providing daily bread for the poor and vulnerable, and sees sanctification as entirely divorced from doing justly with our whole lives.
Our job as Christians is to have our theological convictions come first
Our job as Christians is to have our theological convictions come first
and then be salt and light to move and reshape our politics to best align to these theological convictions. We cannot simply live in bisected lives where our "faith" lives in one sphere and our "politics" live in another in completely separated realms.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
