Over Spring Break, I didn’t have the freedom or funds to make the typical collegiate getaway a reality, but I did have the opportunity to go home and visit with my family for the first weekend of the break. Like a lot of the families I know, the major part of our Sundays is structured around going to church, which for various reasons has not been a regularity since I have been in college, but something I enjoy if for nothing more than putting life into perspective.
During the sermon by Pastor Kevin W. Cosby of St. Stephen Church at the Southern Indiana worship center of its ministry, I got a little dose of that perspective. The sermon and to some extent a carryover from Sunday school got me thinking about the life of Jesus the things he did over the course of his life. From there, I personally stumbled over a not so new, well documented revelation — Jesus was a liberal.
Does that mean liberal in the extreme sense the world is used today? Probably not. But I think pushing against social norms was definitely Jesus’ goal, ensuring that everyone felt the love of God and was not victim of a society of judgment, inequality and a system controlled by those who do not have the interests of the people in mind. Remember, Jesus was the guy who went against the status quo by healing the sick, respecting and loving the outcasts, all while preaching the opportunity for all to fall under the grace of God.
Fast-forward to 2010 and the issues Jesus sought to change are still problems — and he has more followers of his teachings than ever. Yet, with the huge health care debate, the modern day disciples of Jesus have been some of the biggest detractors, and I just wonder where Jesus’ teachings are when this debate arises?
Sunday narrowly brought us a landmark change in policy, as substantive health care reform became a reality after generations of drawn out debate. To me, maybe in naivety, I don’t think it should be as much of a debate. Maybe it’s the “brand” of Christianity I was raised in where compassion, philanthropy and empathy often trump the logic that says the bill could be too costly or the system isn’t ready for a change.
Analysts possessing far more intelligence than I will ever have, with a vastly specific knowledge of how economics work, question the ability to finance health care. Some of these analysts belive the plan is achievable, and others feel the bill is as untenable as the wretched system we have. That’s not to say physicians and health care providers fail patients, but the system prevents many from receiving the care they need to live the fruitful lives they deserve.
I can understand the argument about the financial implications, but that is where faith should naturally kick in — the type of faith in Jesus that depends on for him to feed 5,000 people from five loaves of bread and two fish. Obviously government cannot operate with that type of philosophy as it currently stands, but if you were asked to give up five loaves of bread and two fish to help people who have a lot less, would you turn it down?
A passage I’ve seen used by different writers from 1 Corinthians 12:24-25 has been used to support the bill as something Christians should be in favor of: “But God composed the body, having given greater honor to that part which lacks it, that there should be no schism in the body, but that members should have the same care for one another.” I interpret that as the have’s need to look out for the have-nots, ensuring everyone maintains a level of unity as human beings.
The most important aspect of this issue to me is whether or not the prospective sins of a few would hold back doing something that will potentially help so many? The plan would allow people to have elective abortions, but even if it did, would Jesus oppose a plan that helps millions for a small pocket of people who choose to do wrong? If that were the case he wouldn’t have offered salvation to the world, because of the many individuals who will never follow him.
It is hard to live in a society where the prevailing religion is absent when we wage wars when our interests are served, but balk at opportunities to make positive change where it is really needed and even in our own backyard. But now reform is, and it’s time to show some of the compassion, love and grace we have been taught.
Wesley Robinson is a Spanish senior. E-mail opinions@kykernel.com.
Pingback: Top 10 MLB Alternate Hats | MLB Uniforms:Caps,Jerseys,5950,NewEra,Majestic
I wish more people had “faith” in the basic morality of taking care of people instead of promoting a war economy. Fox News has made sure to connect religion with a kind of patriotism that serves no purpose other than to support war and fossil fuels. That’s a sad fact of our society now. No taxes for people, but spend all you want on bombs. Morality indeed. I hope we can finally start moving in the opposite direction.
I agree with Mr. Robinson’s assertion that Christianity’s values defy logic.
After reading this article several times I find that this paragraph troubles me more than the rest of the article:
“I can understand the argument about the financial implications, but that is where faith should naturally kick in — the type of faith in Jesus that depends on for him to feed 5,000 people from five loaves of bread and two fish. Obviously government cannot operate with that type of philosophy as it currently stands, but if you were asked to give up five loaves of bread and two fish to help people who have a lot less, would you turn it down?”
After admitting that the bill is going to cost a ton, Robinson instructs us to have faith (LOL) and then promptly concedes that the government can’t run on faith. If it’s going to be excessively costly, and thinking happy thoughts about Jesus won’t solve the problem, why pass the bill in the first place?
As for the fish and bread question, my answer is no, I probably wouldn’t turn down someone who is hungry. I would, however, make any determination on a case by case basis. The government is not asking me to give to the poor though, more of my family’s income will be confiscated and redistributed. The result is that the poor feel entitled and people like me don’t give to charity because we resent the initial confiscation.
On an unrelated note: I imagine that it is tough to produce enough content to fill the Kernel everyday, but that should be no excuse for the type of drivel that passes for journalism in this publication. How any of the current staff expect to find a job in the field with their portfolios full of stream of consciousness “this is what I thought of in church” pieces is beyond me. Here’s an idea – do some investigative work. Interview someone. Ask them tough questions. Track down the dude who was lit on fire at the SAE house. There are lots of opportunities for compelling articles on campus topics.
What a great analogy, Wes! People must also keep in mind, not all bills start out ideally. Look at women’s suffrage, for example. With time there will be amendments, perhaps aimed at the more controversial aspects of the current bill such as the elective abortions, and until then many people will benefit from it for it’s intended purpose. As a person fortunate enough to be employed with an adequate healthcare package, I am hard-pressed to find anything to complain about.
Re: Lyman’s unrelated note. I understand your viewpoint, but have the following observations…
1: If you check the majors of many of the ‘Opinion’ authors, you will note that few are journalism majors. Most of them are not seeking to become professional newswriters. They fall more into the category of ‘community columnists’ who are expected to provide an outside perspective, whether it be drivel or not. Check the rest of the Kernel for articles by ‘serious’ journalists.
2: Having known one of the Kernel’s previous editors, and having edited a newsletter or two in my time, I can attest to how hard it is to get regular content. The staff already have to do their own coursework and write the ‘regular’ news articles. Writing pieces for the opinion page on top of that is impossible at times. In the past, it was not unusual to see cartoons and editorials from other universities’ papers, or even non-university sources, gracing the pages of the Kernel. Local student voices are far more preferable.
Sarah:
Mr. Robinson’s contributions to the Kernel are not limited to opinion pieces. He covered the SAE incident recently. I understand that many Kernel Staff members will not be working in journalism after graduation, but I don’t feel that it’s too much to ask that an article written be internally consistent.
As for your second point, they chose the job. I choose to criticize them.
Sarah G,
It is my understanding that Mr. Robinson is the editor of the Opinions page and is not simply an “outside voice.” Regardless of whether or not Mr. Robinson is in fact the editor, shouldn’t the editors (whoever they may be) ensure that silliness like this piece never go to print? Does the fact that this piece is an “opinion” excuse it from living up to a basic standard (such as internal consistency, as Lyman points out)?
Everyone has a right to an opinion, but surely not all opinions are created equal. I would much prefer to read pieces taken from the wire rather than something so intellectually offensive.
Pingback: Youtube…? | George Brown's Traffic Ultimatum Review &Mega Bonus
Jesus Christ was a liberal? He did not come to abolish the law, but rather to fulfill it.
Were it apt to give Him a political handle, He would probably be more rightly called a Neo-Conservative than a liberal: that is to say, a Conservative is one who preserves the status quo; a Neo-Conservative is one who, seeing no status quo worth preserving, initiates reform in order to bring about such a state of affairs as he could be Conservative about, often (but not always) reverting to some former way of doing things, or tradition in general.
So it could be said that Jesus was not against the Law, which is the root of the Jewish tradition against whose norms he on occasion acted, but rather that he was against the state of affairs which had arisen at that time, and wished to reform the abusive power structures in order to follow perfectly the same Law which they claimed to uphold. Hence would He be more aptly named a Neo-Conservative in modern political terms, than a liberal.
Not that such terms are very apt for Christ at all. After all, He was the divine Son of God; how else do you explain the passage, “Before Abraham was, I AM”? If you accept the Scriptures for the rest of His teaching, on what authority do you cut out this passage?
Or better yet, what authority remains in the Scriptures if they may be freely dismissed or accepted on the grounds of our own preheld notions of who Christ was/is? If you would use the Scriptures at all, they must first be considered as authoritative. Denying at whim the less easily stomached parts actually hurts the integrity of your arguments, even though it would seem to strengthen them by bringing them into conformity with contemporary intellectual currents. If you would argue aptly from Scripture, then, making Christ the God-Man fit into a category devised by and occupied by plain men – making Him subservient to any ideology of yours Who is the Eternal Word of God and Himself the IDEAL (NOT the “ideology”) towards which man should strive – is dangerous and deceptive, even if you do pick an apt label. To call him a “liberal”, however, is neither apt nor appropriate.
The other point of difficulty I had with this column was this notion that Christ would not object to a few people choosing to do wrong (i.e take advantage of the bill’s provision for elective abortions) in light of the great good the bill does otherwise.
The reasoning of this passage is significantly lacking:
1) The author uses the distinction between good and bad in two different ways. You are weighing a moral wrong (something intrinsically evil and of lasting consequence to the soul) against a physical good (the provision of healthcare). We cannot say that the bill as a whole is good simply because more good than evil results from it. In fact, if we are to stay with Christian morality, no amount of good may justify an evil action.
2) Add to this the fact that the bill’s provisions would provide for these abortions with public funding; ergo, the principal quarrel is not with the choice of those receiving abortions, but rather the fact that under compulsion by law, through taxes, those morally opposed to abortion would be forced to support it financially, thus becoming unwilling accomplices in an intrinsic moral evil if they simply obeyed the law.
3) The entire column presumes that Christ’s mission was fundamentally about social justice on this world. While social justice may be an important means whereby we participate in and come to know God’s love, we must never confuse it with the end of Christianity, which is the life everlasting, to know God fully. It is a search after Truth, not after Plenty; although we have reason to believe that Plenty will accompany Truth.
What doth it profit a man to feed the whole world, and lose his soul?
I stand corrected on Mr. Robinson.
Also: while choosing to criticize is definitely your prerogative, please remember that NO writers = no Kernel. No Kernel = one less place for budding journalists, some of whom you may consider more worthwhile, to one day try out their skills. Someone has to be willing to take the heat. Try to leave them alive afterward. :)