3.3 Greater Good Test Case (Health Care)

 We finish chapter 3 in the series, "What Would Jesus Vote?" Here is the series so far:

1. Would Jesus Even Vote?
2.1 (He would vote) As a Kingdom Citizen
2.2 We're citizens in two kingdoms
3.1 (He would vote) for love of neighbor and enemy
3.2 (He would vote) for the greater good

_____________________________________________

Test Case: American Health Care
8. This discussion is all fine and good in the abstract. But where the rubber begins to hit the road is with specific issues. This is where our tribal sensibilities and gut assumptions begin to overwhelm our reason. It is also where our lack of expertise can begin to bite us. Things that seem obvious to us on a superficial level may become more complicated when we dig into the details.

Nevertheless, we need to explore the issues if we are going to make any progress toward a more Christlike approach to our political engagement. The question of health care seems like a good test case for the concept of the greatest good for the greatest number. So we gulp and step into deeper waters.

Let us start with the most general question. Would Jesus want as many as possible to have access to good health care whether they are believers or not? The answer seems pretty obvious to me. After all, healing and exorcisms stood at the very heart of his earthly mission. As far as we know, there wasn't a person he didn't heal if they sought him for healing.

To repeat some things we've already pointed out. God sends the much-needed rain on the righteous and unrighteous (Matt. 5:43-48). He sends the much-needed sun on both the righteous and the unrighteous. What would Jesus vote? At least at first glance, it sure seems like Jesus would vote for as many people as possible to have health care.

So what might prevent a Christian from supporting universal health care? Someone might try to show that it isn't economically feasible. Perhaps someone could argue that providing universal health care in some way lowers the overall average health care. Someone might argue that it is unconstitutional in some way, or a Christian might argue it is somehow unbiblical or unethical. 

Let's look at these counterarguments. Since the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is the current American option on the table, let's use it as our point of discussion. We can add that the United States is the only major Western country that does not provide universal health care in some configuration. Canada uses private providers funded by taxpayers to provide it. The United Kingdom has a government-run system funded by taxpayers. Germany and France have a mixture of providers funded by taxpayers, and the government oversees the system.

9. This is as good as any place to have an aside about the socialist boogie man. There is a fair amount of illogical rhetoric that says, "If you believe the government should run anything, you're a socialist." This is irrational on the merits. There is a spectrum of options from a government that runs practically everything to one that runs very little. Here is a spectrum:

• Truly Socialist: North Korea and Cuba would be examples of true socialism. North Korea currently allows no private enterprise and the government runs everything. It is a horrible place to live.
• Social Democracies: Sweden and Denmark have very high taxes to provide extensive governmental services, and their markets are heavily regulated. Nevertheless, they also allow significant economic freedom and have a vibrant private sector. They consistently score among the happiest nations in the world.
• Social market economies: Germany and France have less government regulation than Sweden but still have significant government-run services. The private sector still runs freely despite being a strong welfare state. They consistently score higher than the US on the World Happiness Report.
• Capitalist welfare states: Canada and the United Kingdom are capitalist countries that still provide significant social services based on taxes.
• Free Market Capitalism with some Welfare: The United States and Australia would have fewer taxes yet and fewer government services. Still, we have Social Security and Medicare. We have public education and a postal service, not to mention an army and police that are government-run.
• Libertarian Leaning States: Singapore and pre-2020 Hong Kong are/were examples of states with few government services and very limited government intervention in private enterprise. Nevertheless, Singapore does have some government services relating to housing and healthcare, and Hong Kong was returned to China's control in 2020. 
• Anarcho-Capitalist countries: There ain't any. Without any government, you would just have human chaos.

You can see that the US is nowhere near socialist, and no current candidates come anywhere close to socialist. Logically, you can't simply dismiss proposals by saying, "That's socialist." I call that "labelism," and it's a nothing burger. You need to have an argument as to why a specific proposal is good or bad.  The US currently has a number of government-run services that we will talk about throughout our journey. 

Let me also say, "prove it" to those who think privatization is always better for the greater good. I would say it is often good, but we should consider each case individually. For example, having a centralized national defense surely works far better than if you had a host of competing mercenary and private military groups running around. Talk about a civil war waiting to happen! And don't like a particular conflict? Just quit.

Capitalism aims to maximize profit. Its intrinsic goal is to provide as little as it can get away with at minimum cost. When Bolivia privatized its water supply, it led to a disaster that ended with the government renationalizing it. A private company, without government regulation, will cut as many corners as it can to maximize profit. These dynamics suggest that when essential services are in view, the government may be better suited as the provider -- or else it had better regulate thoroughly.

Let's put a pin in that conversation and come back to it as we move through various topics. We'll take a case-by-case approach with the repeated dictum, "Prove it."

11. First with regard to cost. Because emergency care is regularly provided to individuals who cannot pay, both a thoroughly adopted ACA system or a single-payer system like Canada/Britain would lower or significantly lower the overall cost of health care in America. Healthcare costs in the US are significantly higher than those of Canada, Britain, Australia, Germany, France, etc. Meanwhile, our life expectancy is lower. On the merits, we have no bragging rights here. On the numbers, we are not providing a greater good to a greater number in the area of healthcare.

12. A second concern is health care quality and wait times. Because of those who aren't covered and because of the higher cost of health care, the US does not provide better health care for its population on average. It would rank lower on average among the countries we have been considering. Places like the UK emphasize primary care, so there can be wait times for elective care, but there is no extensive wait for essential care. 

In England, one can walk into an emergency room and get immediate service. When I was a student in England, I was a little shocked that we immediately went to the hospital when a Rugby player sprained his ankle. My family avoided the hospital like the plague because of the high cost of emergency room services. 

My father had some sort of heart event a few weeks before he finally died. They didn't go to the hospital even though Medicare would have paid. In my opinion, years of avoiding the emergency room were in play. My mother actually hung up on 911 when he died, thinking a twitch of his toe might mean he was still alive. I have another family member who eventually had a heart attack after failing to get proper medical care for diabetes. Again, in my opinion, none of the above would have happened in Canada or Great Britain where the mindset is just different.

Australia supplements its essential public care with private insurance options. In this way, it maintains a baseline of public health while providing options for those who can afford more for elective services. At least on the surface, a system like Australia seems to provide the best of both worlds. It seems to provide a greater good for a greater number than the American system, which largely caters to the privileged -- a differentiation that finds no basis in the Gospels. The Gospels give us every reason to think that Jesus would reject such a class differentiation.

The ACA of course was based on a Republican-designed system utilized in Massachusetts and involves a market-based approach based on competition between private insurance companies. In other words, it is a capitalism-based system. One has to wonder if it would have enjoyed widespread Republican support if it had been proposed by a Republican administration! Of course, then, it might face widespread Democratic opposition. One has to wonder the extent to which opposition to the ACA has been about partisanship rather than substance.

13. What, if any, opposition to it can be made on biblical or Christian principles? Wayne Grudem in his Politics According to the Bible has made several arguments against the ACA and similar health care proposals. [4] Probably the most serious concern he had was its provisions for contraceptive care and abortion. However, the Supreme Court decisions Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (2014) and Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania (2020) have mitigated those concerns. Similarly, the repeal of Roe v. Wade has changed that dynamic as well. It is really a side issue rather than an objection to universal health care per se.

Grudem is also concerned that it dulls personal responsibility. Rather than having to steward one's resources and count the cost for one's choices, one can take health care for granted. Healthcare becomes devalued because it is in such easy supply. Instead of reserving the emergency room for real crises, one now goes for a sprained ankle.

I feel this one a little bit. But I feel this one as someone who has health insurance. Is it better for everyone to have access to healthcare, or is it better for those of us with healthcare to grow from having to make careful choices about using what we have? It seems like an argument for the privileged rather than one that is concerned for the greater good of all. 

Again, knowing what I know of the Gospels, Jesus seemed more concerned that the crippled beggar (without health care) be healed than that the Pharisee grow in personal responsibility by making disciplined choices (can't even think of a story like this). In the end, I believe Wayne Grudem and others are unable to see beyond their Western glasses to read the Bible on Jesus' terms.

I will set aside for a later chapter the argument of Grudem and others that Romans 13 does not allow the government to provide services to its people like healthcare. In my opinion, this takes Paul's comments way beyond anything he was saying. Paul is not giving a comprehensive view of the state in Romans 13. 

And, even then, he calls the state a servant for the Romans' good. If the Roman government had decided to use the tax money it collected to provide healthcare for its citizens, I have to think that Paul would have approved. More on this question in chapter 6.

14. That leaves us with one last objection, and that is the individual mandate. The way the ACA was meant to work financially was that everyone was required to have health insurance or else to pay a fine. After all, the way insurance works is that there are enough healthy people paying for insurance to offset those who need health services. By requiring young people who are not as likely to need health services to pay toward it, the system became financially viable.

Suffice it to say, the Republican-controlled Congress in 2017 kiboshed the individual mandate. Interestingly, premiums for the ACA have still remained relatively stable. Only about 8% of Americans are not covered with some sort of health insurance at the moment, down from 16% before the ACA. All in all, the ACA would seem to be somewhat of a success, although it arguably would have even greater success if it had bipartisan support.

It does raise a bigger question of whether it is biblical for me to have to pay for someone else. Some would view the individual mandate as tantamount to stealing. You are taking my money to pay for someone else.

But this is a pretty Western cultural way of thinking -- hyperindividualistic. It's not biblical thinking. After all, what are taxes but a way of collecting money to provide services to everyone as needed? And the Bible unanimously says to pay taxes. And the collection could be for you. You don't know when you'll need medical help.

In the end, this all strikes me as a self-centered way of thinking, not a biblical one. The spirit of Scripture is rather, "Whoever has the life of the world and sees a brother in need and withholds his compassion from him, how can the love of God abide in him?" (1 John 3:17). Isn't this also part of the message of the Parable of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10? In other words, it seems more like the selfish mindset of the world to resist giving to those in need. Shouldn't a person with a biblical, Christlike heart gladly give -- even sacrifice -- for the good of others? It's God's money in the end anyway, not mine. [5]

We will return to some of these questions more extensively in the chapters that follow. I will make the case that the American capitalistic system makes money something different from something concrete like a hammer. If you come into my garage and take my hammer, that's stealing. But the system of money in a country like America is a little different. The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) isn't even tied to something concrete like a gold standard. Its value is much more abstract. More to come.

15. In the end, it seems fairly clear to me that -- on this one issue -- Jesus would vote for as many people to have healthcare as is practically possible. If you think of it, giving away free healthcare was a major theme of Jesus' earthly ministry. He did not cater to the wealthy and privileged who could pay for his services. He targeted "the uncovered," so to speak.

In the end, objections to something like the ACA seem to me almost entirely based on tribalism. In some cases, it is based on what I would see as extreme ideology. But in general, one side suggests a solution so the other side opposes it. It could have been flipped, and it might be the opposite. Mitt Romney could have become president and proposed something like the ACA, and maybe Democrats would have staunchly opposed it.

What would Jesus vote? On this one issue, I think he would vote for as many people to have healthcare as possible.

[4] Wayne Grudem, Politics According to the Bible (Zondervan, 2010).

[5] Ron Blue, God Owns It All: Finding Contentment and Confidence in Your Finances (Lifeway, 2016).

3.2 (Jesus would vote) For the Greater Good

 Chapter 3 continues in the series, "What Would Jesus Vote?" Here is the series so far:

1. Would Jesus Even Vote?
2.1 (He would vote) As a Kingdom Citizen
2.2 We're citizens in two kingdoms
3.1 (He would vote) for love of neighbor and enemy

_____________________________________________

4. Rather, Paul says in Galatians 6:10, "Therefore, as we have occasion then, let us do good towards all -- and especially toward those in the household of faith." Paul believed that Christians were oriented to do good to all people. He may have put the household of faith first on the list, but all people were on the list, including all the non-believers of the world.

We sometimes encounter any number of excuses to avoid doing good to others on anything like a systematic or macro-scale. For example, some would say that the state shouldn't be involved in helping others -- that it's the job of the church to help others and the government just messes things up. As I write this book, Hurricane Helena has devastated eastern Tennessee and Western North Carolina (September 2024). It has been amazing to see some in my denomination spring to action to help, using our church network as hubs to distribute water and other needed supplies. This effort seems absolutely biblical and wonderful in God's eyes. 

However, I might also add that the church would not have been enough for this moment. For all the good the church can do, it is no match for FEMA, the National Guard, the power companies (which are usually monopolies in certain areas), and other aid agencies created for disasters like these. In this case, they have also sprung into action and are doing their part. Aid was approved even before the disaster struck and, from what I can tell, all is playing out as best it can.  

By contrast, others would say that the church shouldn't get distracted with helping others because that's a social gospel, which they think is wrong. Or someone might say it's a distraction from trying to save souls, which is the church's number one business. I once heard an evangelism professor say that since the church has limited resources and the salvation of the world is such an important, urgent task, it simply doesn't have the time or extra resources to give toward anything but saving souls.

We will address all these distractions from doing good in the world soon enough. Suffice it to say, Jesus spent a good deal of time helping people as his first order of business. And it is a myth that the Bible only sees the government as an instrument of justice that isn't supposed to help people. Romans 13:4 says that the state is God's servant for your good. Once again, there is a whole lot of good to be done in the world. More to come.

Utilitarianism and Capitalism
5. Now, we get to the question at hand. What would it look like to apply the love principle to a country or a government? (There is another crucial question that we'll get to in the next chapter, namely, "To what extent should Christians try to make the laws of the land mirror Christian values?" But we'll hold off on that one for now.)

Assuming that the goal was to create a country that maximally played out the love of neighbor in its overall structure, what would that look like? It seems to me that there would be at least three dimensions in play:

1. It would try to set up a structure that brought the greatest good for the greatest number.
2. It would empower and protect the individual so that s/he was not overrun or oppressed by the majority.
3. It would restrain those actors who threaten or endanger the above.

The next few chapters will play out these goals for a thriving (a.k.a. loving) society. In the rest of this chapter, we will talk about the greater good. 

6. In the 1700s, a shift was taking place in British society. It was changing from a society that was largely directed and controlled by a king to one in which its people had more and more say in its direction. It was in this crucible that the United States was formed. As Lincoln put it in his Gettsburg Address, "a government of the people, by the people, for the people."

A man named Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) tried to come up with a way to orient England so that everyone counted, not just royalty and the aristocracy. The idea he came up with was what he called the "greatest happiness principle." The structure and decisions of society should be oriented in such a way that it results in the greatest happiness for the greatest number. It was a rough idea, perfected by thinkers like John Stuart Mill (1806-73) after him. 

This philosophy is called "utilitarianism." In theory, it is the bedrock of political decision-making. It is the language of the game of politics. Politicians always talk about bringing about good. Of course, it often is not the greater good they are really working toward. Rather, they may be out for the "good" of themselves or the good of special interest groups that are funding them or the good of their party or the good of some small segment of society. But politics typically plays the game of acting like it is advocating for the greater good. 

To some, it may seem strange to invoke these secular thinkers. But it seems to me that the concept of pursuing "the greatest good for the greatest number" is a pretty good starting point for thinking about what it might look like to shape a society that embodies the love of neighbor. Why? Because it aims to create a society where as many people are thriving as possible (without hurting the rest).

Of course, what is good? Questions like this are why politics is so complicated and why genuine Christians often disagree on who and what to support. At the same time, these complications also can open a door for us to make excuses and hide our true motives -- sometimes even from ourselves.

As we move forward, I'm going to very broadly say that to bring about good is to benefit someone. So the greatest good for the greatest number is to bring about the greatest benefit to the greatest number without hurting the rest. That last condition, "without hurting the rest," will be very important in subsequent chapters. 

Again, part of our problem in society is unintended consequences. Sometimes we try to bring about a good but in the process create more problems than we expected. You might fix one problem and cause two more. Or you might plug a leak that later causes a major catastrophe. 

In the next chapter, we will also talk about protections for individuals. One key to American society and other representational democracies is the concept of a "bill of rights" that protects individuals from actions that are positive to a lot of people but to the detriment of others. It might be really "good" for one group for another to disappear. But that isn't allowed.

7. At about the same time that utilitarianism was bubbling up from the British Enlightenment, capitalism was also being born, first set out by Adam Smith in this same period (1723-90). Issues of money are some of the most hotly contested in politics, and few of us are experts in economics. Here is another area where Christians can sincerely disagree -- as well as an area where it is easy to rationalize bad motives and hide them even from ourselves.

Our economic philosophies are so deeply fried into our psyches that it is incredibly difficult to have a sane, objective conversation about them. America's struggle with communism and the Soviet Union for almost a century has made it difficult for us to think rationally about such things, it would seem. A common tactic to dismiss a candidate is to put the label "socialist" on them. No need for further conversation or thinking at that point apparently.

I personally believe that a carefully monitored capitalism is the most likely path to a society where the greatest number of people are most likely to thrive without hurting the rest. Can capitalism hurt people? I believe history shows it can. It's like having a lion as a pet. It can be magnificent, but be careful that it doesn't eat you.

We'll have several opportunities to return to a Christian evaluation of capitalism in the pages that follow. For the moment, let's remember what the founding concept of capitalism was. The original goal of capitalism was to bring about the greatest thriving for the greatest number. The concept was that if you and I are in a back-and-forth over the price of something, we will eventually arrive at a cost that is mutually advantageous. 

You will try to get as much money as you can from me, while I will try to pay as little money as I have to. We will eventually meet in the middle, at a mutually advantageous price. We both win. [2]

Adam Smith's primary goal was to create a thriving society. It was not necessarily to create a wealthy class that would just replace the current aristocracy. In John Stuart Mills' synthesis of capitalism with utilitarianism, capitalism best tries to maximize happiness by setting up a system where, in our back-and-forth with each other, we arrive at the best outcome for the most people... without hurting the rest.

Notice that the operating premise of capitalism is human self-interest. One might even say selfishness. Everyone will try to get as much as they can for themselves. Far from being a sacred system, it is a system that is built on a recognition of human fallenness. That is why I believe it is likely the best core economic system. It has a proper understanding of human nature.

Interestingly, communism might actually work if everyone were a true Christian. Communism assumes that we will all share everything in our reach with everyone else. Acts 2:44-45 looks pretty communal -- they shared their possessions in common and each person redistributed his or her excess to others in need. The problem is that it doesn't work given human fallenness. I believe the twentieth century is rife with illustrations of its failures.

But capitalism also does not accomplish what it aims for without careful monitoring and guidance at times. Here again, we get into areas where even economic experts disagree. Good intentions can bring about unintended consequences that are bad.

For the moment, let us simply say that the goal of capitalism was never to create immense wealth for a few on the backs of the many. That is exactly the opposite of its goals. The initial goals of capitalism fall right in line with the goal of creating a society that loves its neighbor on the level of society.

It seems to me we have forgotten this goal. Milton Freedman famously wrote that the ultimate responsibility of the CEO of a business and its board is to increase its shareholder value and maximize profits. [3] I suppose that statement is in line with the way capitalism works. But the ultimate goal of capitalism must always be to maximize human thriving. Only then does it cohere with fundamental American values and, incidentally, have a chance to play out the love of neighbor on a societal level.

[2] Adam Smith described this natural meeting in the middle as something that would happen "as if by an unseen hand" in The Wealth of Nations.

[3] Milton Freedman, "The Social Responsibility of a Business Is to Increase Its Profits," New York Times, September 13, 1970. As a side note, one could argue that the economic philosophy of Freedman and others played a direct role in the ultimate fall of Russia into oligarchic corruption. Operating on a philosophy of almost no regulation or government intervention in the transition from communism, it is no surprise that Russia has largely become a state run by the incredibly rich with an almost entirely disempowered people. 

3.1 (Jesus would vote) for love of neighbor and enemy

This is a series titled, "What Would Jesus Vote?" in the lead-up to the election. Here is the series so far:

1. Would Jesus Even Vote?
2.1 (He would vote) As a Kingdom Citizen
2.2 We're citizens in two kingdoms

This post is on chapter 3. Jesus would vote for the greater good.

_____________________________________________

Chapter 3: (Jesus would vote) For the Greater Good
1. When Jesus was asked what the greatest commandment was, he gave a two-pronged answer often summarized as "Love God, love neighbor." Here is the full quote:

Textbox: "Teacher, what is the greatest commandment in the Law? 

And Jesus said to him, "You will love the Lord, your God, with your whole heart and your whole life and your whole mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And a second is like it. You will love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments, the whole Law and the Prophets are hung." 

Paul is even more explicit in Romans 13:8: "The one who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the Law." In other words, if you love God and love your neighbor, you will have done everything that God requires of you. The love command is not another command. It is the command. If you have loved God and loved your neighbor, you have done all that God expects of you.

Just so that there is no doubt, Jesus says the same thing another way with the Golden Rule in Matthew 7:12: "Everything that you would have people do to you, so also do to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets." This is another way of saying to love your neighbor as yourself, and Jesus says that it captures all of Scripture. [1]

2. Now, I have heard some truly insidious interpretations of the love command. They are actually quite devilish, a good example of trying to evade the commands of God by ingenuity. This interpretation says that Jesus was not saying to love everyone. He was saying to love everyone in Israel. This clever (and possibly demonic) teaching tries to escape God's command to love everyone and redirects the command only to those in the church. 

Let that sink in. This re-interpretation basically says, "You only have to love other Christians. You don't have to love anyone else." And of course, you can decide who the true Christians are. It takes the clear message of Scripture -- in fact, the central ethic of the Bible -- and twists it so that we can hate whoever we want if they are not Christians. This is potentially a doctrine of demons.

What about loving your enemies? Jesus says in Matthew 5:43-44, "You have heard it said, 'You will love your neighbor and you will hate your enemies.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." Here again, the insidious love-dodging interpretation says, "Jesus is only referring to your enemies within Israel. He isn't referring to people outside of Israel."

You get incredible points for cleverness, but this is again a doctrine of devils because it directly undermines Jesus' central teaching. After all, what examples does Jesus give to support what he is saying? Jesus says that God sends rain and sun on both the righteous and the wicked (5:45). That is, God gives good gifts to everyone on the planet. Jesus doesn't say, "Be like God who gives sun and rain only to Israel." He says, "Be complete [in your loving] just as God is complete [in his loving]" (5:48). In other words, you must love everyone.

What about the Parable of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10? Doesn't Jesus explicitly pick someone outside of Israel as his example of who our neighbor is? The response of this group of interpreters is that Samaritans were still within Israel. They are the kinds of enemies that we must love, enemies within the church (and true America). In this line of thinking, the church is usually thought to have completely replaced Israel.

I'm quite sure that the Jews of Judea didn't see it that way. They saw the Samaritans as vile outsiders. Jesus was deliberate in his choice of a Samaritan. His point was to pick someone that a Jew would not want to show love to, an outsider.

What about the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats in Matthew 25? Doesn't God sort out who gets to enter the kingdom and who doesn't based on whether they have helped anyone in need? Once again, a devilish ingenuity comes into play. The parable is no longer about helping those in need. It is about the way people have treated Christian missionaries. So God is not angry at the way people have treated others in general but the way people have treated Christians. Ingenious! Devilish!

This insidious line of interpretation gets even worse. It not only sees the church as a complete replacement for Israel, but it sometimes equates "Christian" America today with Israel. It thus blurs into the blasphemous America worship that we strongly warned against in the previous chapter. Now it is potentially a tool for Christian fascism.

See what this interpretation has done with the Bible. It has made it possible to hate everyone but "true" Americans and "true" Christians. In theory, it could open the door for the mass slaughter of those who aren't pure like the real church. It could open the door for a Holocaust of whomever you don't want to consider to be truly under the umbrella of God's people. In short, it is an incredibly scary, hard-hearted line of interpretation.

3. But Jesus did not filter his audience by whether they agreed with him or not. Yes, he did focus on Israel and Israelites in his earthly mission (Matt. 10:5-6). But this was never the end game. The long term goal was to see the whole world reconciled to God. The Great Commission was always the end game -- to make disciples of all the nations. This mission was not a "convert or die" one but one bringing good news to everyone. 

This is the message of Ruth and Jonah. God is not just concerned with his people. He cares about Moabites and Ninevites too. Look at the family tree of Jesus in Matthew 1. There you'll find Tamar who was likely a Canaanite and Rahab who was from the city of Jericho. Jesus says that God's eye is on the sparrow (Matt. 10:29-31) -- not just the Christian sparrows. Although it was not part of his earthly mission, Jesus casts a demon out of the daughter of a Syro-Phoenician woman (Mark 7:24-30). His conversation with the Samaritan woman in John 4 falls into this same category.

Someone might say, "But all of these ended up joining the people of God." True, but Jesus' talk about going two miles when compelled to go one (Matt. 5:41) was possibly an allusion to a Roman solider -- another confirmation that the enemy Jesus is commanding to love in Matthew 5 included non-Israelites. The transformed mind that Paul urges of the Romans (12:2) did not distinguish between those who do evil to you within the church and those who do evil to you outside the church (12:17). Rather, he says to try to live at peace with everyone.

He slides from these comments in Romans 12 into a conversation about the Roman state at the beginning of Romans 13, a clear sign that he has always had worldly enemies in view. This whole train of thought leads up to the love command in 13:10. If Paul means for us to restrict the love command only to others in the church, he has been very unclear about it, for he has been talking about the secular state.

No, the core Christian ethic is that we must choose to love everyone. This is its radical message. This fact makes any attempt to undermine this message all the more devilish, for it undercuts God's central command to us. It opens the door for us to unravel the very heart of Scripture. It must therefore be rejected in the strongest of terms. 

4. Rather, Paul says in Galatians 6:10, "Therefore, as we have occasion then, let us do good towards all -- and especially toward those in the household of faith" ...

[1] The phrase, "The Law and the Prophets" is a shorthand way of referring to all of the Old Testament. Jews conceptualized the Old Testament in three parts: the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. "The Law and the Prophets" thus referred to the two main divisions of the Jewish Scriptures. 

2.2 Voting as a Kingdom Citizens (from a different kingdom)

Previous posts include:

1. Would Jesus Even Vote?
2.1 (He would vote) As a Kingdom Citizen

Jesus would vote as a kingdom citizen continued

Christ vs. Culture
5. America is a wonderful place for me. When you enjoy living in your country so much, you don't think much about whether your allegiance could ever be a question. However, the situation at the time of the New Testament was much different. The vast majority of those in the New Testament had nothing to do with the Roman government. They were just stuck under Roman rule whether they liked it or not.

Now, some early Christians were part of the Roman system. Sergius Paulus was a Roman proconsul who came to faith in Acts 13:12. Quite possibly, Theophilus was also a Roman governor of some kind, the person for whom Luke-Acts was written. We know that Paul and Silas were Roman citizens (Acts 16:37) -- that placed them in an upper elite within the overall empire. But these individuals are the exceptions in the New Testament.

The early church went to great lengths to try to show the Roman Empire that they were an asset to it. Take 1 Timothy 2:2. Paul urges Timothy and the Ephesians to pray to God for the emperor and all those in authority. He instructs them to live peaceful and quiet lives. Who wouldn't want people all over their empire like that?

I seriously wonder if Paul wrote Romans 13:1-7 in anticipation that some Roman official might some day read his letter. After all, Christian Jews had already been kicked out of Rome once before in AD49 because of controversies in the synagogues. [6] How brilliantly inspired to make it clear that Christians were an asset to the empire and not a threat! Paul tells the Romans to submit to the Roman authorities. He tells them to pay their taxes. He calls the Roman state "God's servant for your good" (13:4). They should have no reason to fear if they are law-abiding members of society.

It is of course ironic because the emperor at the time was Nero, who would eventually put Paul (and Peter) to death. We probably should take Romans 13 as the ideal situation, not the state as it often plays out. Paul knew full well that the Roman government was not always just. After all, Pontius Pilate put Jesus to death. These are some of the reasons I think Paul is being somewhat aspirational here and also positioning the Roman church advantageously in relation to the Roman state. 

1 Peter 2 is also addressing a church that is undergoing significant persecution. Peter tells the churches of Asia Minor not to make waves but to live squeaky clean lives so that they don't cause any trouble (2:12). He tells slaves to submit to unjust masters and wives to obey unbelieving husbands. The goal is not to give any pretense for persecution and to silence the foolish who say Christians are bad people. Like 1 Timothy, 1 Peter urges Christians to submit to the emperor, governors, and "every human authority" (2:13). [7] 

In 1 Peter we find a theme that we will also find in Hebrews. Christians are to consider themselves "foreigners and exiles" here on the earth (e.g., 1 Pet. 2:11). Even though Paul was a Roman citizen, there would always be a sense in which he didn't fully belong. Hebrews puts it this way: "We do not have any lasting city here, but we are seeking the one that is coming" (13:14). Whether it be Rome or Jerusalem, we belong elsewhere.

Hebrews 11 has already anticipated this statement earlier. Abraham did not have a country, but he was looking for a city whose builder and maker is God (11:10). He was seeking a heavenly homeland instead (11:16). We can line this language up with the expectation that the kingdom of God will come when Christ returns. As we mentioned in chapter 1, Paul says that our citizenship is in heaven (Phil. 3:20).

6. Those of us who live in a place like the United States live under a government that, on the whole, is far more friendly to Christianity than the Roman Empire was at the time of the New Testament. Still, there is a principle here. We should always keep in mind our priorities. We are citizens of heaven first. We should sit more loosely toward our earthly citizenship. That is not to devalue it. It is just to make sure we always have our priorities straight.

A good friend of mine, the late Keith Drury, once told me that his father would always say around election time, "I wonder who they'll pick as their president." It wasn't that he didn't vote. He did. But he installed in his children a reminder that, as Jesus put it, our kingdom is ultimately not of this world (John 18:36) -- at least not yet.

This is the perspective we find throughout the New Testament. We mentioned in chapter 1 that the New Testament takes a "Christ against culture" perspective in Richard Niebuhr's typology. In this view, the church is seen as something distinct and separate from the world. The New Testament saw the church as somewhat disengaged from the world.

Paul shows this dynamic well in 1 Corinthians 5:12-13 when he was dealing with the man who was sleeping with his stepmother. "What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church," he says. That's God's business. "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's." By contrast, the church should be very concerned about corrupting forces within the church.

We live in a different culture than Paul. I argued in the first chapter that we can have a much bigger effect on our culture than Paul was likely to have in his. If we can influence our world positively, why wouldn't we? But the principle remains. We are ultimately "other." We are ultimately strangers, immigrants if you would, in our lands.

Citizens in Two Kingdoms
7. A former colleague of mine told me recently that he and someone else in our church (who had been in the military) for a time had a battle over the American flag in the sanctuary. My colleague would sneak the American flag down from the pulpit and put it down on the level of the congregation. Then the other individual, as soon as he saw it, would put it back up on the platform. I couldn't help but laugh when I pictured this "game" that I think went on for quite some time. I think my colleague finally hid the flag from him.

I grew up with an American flag on the church platform. I never thought anything about it. There was a Christian flag up there with it. Although I now would not prefer it, I don't personally think it's worth blowing up a church. But I hope you're beginning to see why it doesn't seem quite right. No human state should stand on the same level as God's kingdom. Should Canadian churches have a Canadian flag on the platform? Should Orthodox churches in Russia have a Russian flag? Certainly, Nazi churches had a Nazi flag in the German churches.

There's a name for this dynamic. It's called "civil religion." It's what we've been talking about in this chapter. It's when the trappings of our patriotism begin to take on a religious dimension. [8]

I'm not trying to be heavy-handed or to give off a judgmental, condescending feeling. There's nothing wrong with patriotism. What I do want to do is plant a seed in your mind. Whenever you see matters of patriotism begin to give off a somewhat religious vibe, remind yourself, "My true citizenship is in heaven. I'm just passing through my current land as a stranger."

[6] As mentioned by the Roman historian Suetonius in his work The Twelve Caesars, in particular in Claudius 25.4.

[7] This instruction of course has exceptions. In Acts 4:19, Peter indicates to the Sanhedrin that when obedience to earthly authorities comes into conflict with God's commands, God's commands win.

[8] The term was used to describe these dynamics by Robert N. Bellah in his 1967 essay, "Civil Religion in America."