As of this writing, the United States Government is in a state of shutdown as a result of having maxed out on allocated deficit spending. This has been a reoccurring event for a couple decades now, whereby each time the limit is reached the congressional branch determines what their next limit will be. Ethical dubiousness aside, the question may arise as to how such a process could become stalled given these components. Surprisingly, the answer is usually blackmail; the minority power within the government has often attempted to take advantage of the inevitable spending bill to push for additional legislation they’d likely be unable to get through otherwise. In the present case, the issue in question is supposedly “healthcare;” however, the term is here applied with some ambiguity, belying the bigger picture of what’s truly at stake. Most discussion has centered around the ramifications of what is included in the official interpretation of the concept, such as assisted mutilation and legalized child murder; but even beyond these significant points of contention, a more intrinsic concern remains overlooked in the question of jurisdiction, mainly whether it’s even rightly the government’s responsibility to provide healthcare in the first place.
Nominally, healthcare is a form of medical insurance, whereby an individual’s expenses in that area are partially covered by an additional party. Modern medical services have become arguably unreasonable in expense, with the average income practically incapable of handling anything beyond its most basic forms. This has led many to rely upon external sources to reduce personal costs; however, the industry seems to have adapted to compensate, and insurance often seems mandatory nowadays. Since the late 1960s, the federal government of the USA has provided its own form of health insurance funded by taxes. Attempts to establish such a system had been initiated earlier, most notably as part of the New Deal, but had been stalled due to stigma against social welfare; this was somewhat ironic, given the general nature of the New Deal being an extension of federal jurisdiction for supposed welfare purposes.
For much of the industrial era, welfare was considered the duty of the Church [I ought to cite a source for this claim, but my point technically relies more on the justification thereof than the fact itself]. This was in keeping with the mandates of Paul throughout his epistles, which themselves were based upon the example of Christ (Luke 7:22) and the prior teachings of the Law (Deuteronomy 14:29). As an ambassador of Christ to the world, the Church is meant to minister to those in unfortunate circumstances in testimony to God’s love. Specified recipients of care include widows and orphans (James 1:27), the poor (Galatians 2:10), and the infirm (Luke 14:13), but the most literal application of love your neighbor as yourself (Matthew 22:39) would have no limitations place upon whom charitable help is to be offered to. Nowhere in Scripture is the governing authority attributed such responsibility.
From a pragmatic standpoint, the government maintaining social welfare ought to be a cause for concern, as it generates an unhealthy form of dependency between it and the populace. But even with practical considerations aside, the Bible clearly sets forth a contrasting division, and that is more than enough reason to be critical of the current circumstances. God is the true source of all help by virtue of His divine sovereignty, and it is His expressed desire to glorify Himself through the Church. Yet in mankind’s desire to circumvent the Creator’s purpose, the Church has neglected her part, and the worldly powers have sought to appropriate it to themselves. Instead of debating the acceptable extent of this usurped jurisdiction, we would do well to reallocate it according to God’s design. May the Church be revitalized to its responsibility as the vessel of the Holy Spirit, and the may the government return to its place as God’s instrument of justice.
Be reliant upon God. TTT