This is an Atlantic article from nearly eight years ago in which columnist Matthew Miller got Rep. Jim McDermott, long the Democratic standard-bearer for socialized medicine, and Rep. Jim McCrery, one of his conservative Republican counterparts on the House Ways and Means Committee, together to talk about how to fix the health care system; much to everyone’s surprise, they ended by thrashing out a rough approach to doing exactly that. Unfortunately, while there was real hope in the room that conditions were right to address this problem, circumstances (chiefly, I expect, the disputed end to the 2000 election, followed by 9/11) intervened to scuttle that hope. Still, it’s an excellent discussion, and I think points the way forward out of our current, increasingly unworkable situation.
Author Archives: Rob Harrison
Happy Canada Day!
Having lived five mostly good years in Canada, I couldn’t very well put up a post critical of one aspect of the country on the eve of Canada Day and then ignore the holiday; like any place, it isn’t perfect, but Canada’s a great country, and I loved my time there. (The fact that it included our first four years of marriage probably didn’t hurt. 🙂 ) So, to all my friends under the Maple Leaf: happy Canada Day!
Trust me, you don’t want Canadian health care
In the US, more and more people, upset by the rising cost of health care, want to turn the whole shooting match over to the government. “We want to be like Canada,” they say.I have to tell you, I lived in Canada for five years; I had surgery in Canada; I saw lots of specialists and the inside of five or six hospitals in Canada; my oldest daughter was born in Canada. America, you don’t want to be like Canada.That is not, incidentally, a slam on the people who make the Canadian health-care system go. For one thing, we were net beneficiaries, as a poor American student family living in Canada; we got a lot for not much, and I appreciated our host’s generosity. For another, we had some truly brilliant doctors, and some wonderful nurses, and the staff at BC Children’s Hospital were beyond superb; they cared deeply about their tiny patients and were past masters at making bricks without straw. The thing is, they had to be.The equipment was junk—they finally gave up on the blood-oxygen monitor on my little baby and took it off when it reported a heart rate of 24 and a blood-oxygen level of 0 (or the other way around—it’s been a few years now); while we were there, the provincial government tried to donate some of its used medical equipment, and no one would take it. The Sun quoted one veterinarian as saying the ultrasound they wanted to give him wasn’t good enough to use on his horses. Meanwhile, the doctors kept taking “reduced activity days,” or RADs (which is to say, they took scheduled one-day strikes without calling them strikes), to protest their contract. I was actually up at St. Paul’s in Vancouver for a scan one of those days; the techs were there, obviously, but no doctors. A hospital with no doctors is a very strange place.I could also tell you about the time we took our daughter to the ER (different hospital) at midnight; there were only a few patients there at the time, but it still took them three hours just to get us into a room, and another hour to see us. It was 5am before we walked out the front door. At that, we were the lucky ones—there were a couple folks still waiting to be seen who’d been waiting when we got there. Or I could tell you about friends who had other friends, or family members, die while on waiting lists for vital surgeries. Or I could tell you about doctors and nurses who got tired of it all and left for better jobs in the US. The list goes on.In case you think I only think this way because I’m an American, I’ll certainly grant you that many Canadians still loyally defend their health-care system; as I say, they have some wonderful people to defend. The fact of the matter is, though, there are many Canadians who don’t, anymore—including, among others, the (liberal) Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, Beverly McLachlin. The normal routine in Canada is, if you need a major procedure done, you get put on a waiting list. If you can afford to go south of the border and get it done in the US—or if you can get the government to pay for you to do so—you do that. If you can’t, you wait. When this system was challenged in court—a resident of Québec teamed up with his doctor to sue the province over its law forbidding private medical insurance—the Canadian Supremes threw out the law, and came very close to declaring the entire national system unconstitutional. They didn’t quite agree to do that, but they did indict the system in scathing terms; as the Wall Street Journal summed up the matter, their opinion essentially said that “Canada’s vaunted public health-care system produces intolerable inequality.”Which it did. And does, as do similar government-run systems in Britain and elsewhere. In one Ontario town, for instance, people buy lottery tickets to win appointments with the local doctor. The system doesn’t work. That’s why more Canadians are opting to sue; it’s why in Britain, seriously ill patients end up waiting in ambulances, not even admitted to the emergency room; and it’s why “the father of Quebec medicare,” Claude Castonguay, the man who started the ball rolling that produced Canada’s government-run system, now says it’s time to break it down and let the private sector take some of the load.And why not? After all, that approach is working in Sweden.
Another false messiah
I don’t usually link to the same blog back-to-back, but there’s another post of Doug Hagler’s I want to point you to, one he titled “Idolatry American style: Barak Obama”; obviously we have very different views of the Republican Party (though even most Republican voters aren’t very happy with the Republican Party at the moment), but as I’ve written before, I think the idolatrous tendencies in American politics are a real problem, and I agree with Doug (and others) that they’re particularly pronounced around Sen. Obama. (I don’t think they’re the senator’s fault—rest assured, I’m not accusing him of having any sort of delusions in that regard—but I do think he’s yielded to the temptation to take advantage of them, and I really wish he hadn’t.)
Somehow or other, we need a countercampaign to bring the people of this country around to a critically important truth: Politics will not save us. We keep getting sucked in to the idea that if we can just win this vote or elect this candidate, that will take care of our problems, and it just isn’t going to happen; Doug’s dead on when he writes, “Nothing messianic is coming from either party any time soon.” Nor any time later, either. Politics will not save us, government will not save us, no institution is going to save us; only God can save us, and he builds his people from the bottom up, one life at a time. If we want to work to address our problems in a way that will actually make a difference, it certainly helps to have a government (and other institutions likewise) that facilitates our efforts rather than making matters worse, but in the end, all we can do is follow God’s example. One life at a time, one family at a time, one small group of people at a time. From the bottom up. Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something.
Calling all feminists for Zimbabwe
Doug Hagler has an important post up on the group Women of Zimbabwe Arise! (WOZA); like most Zimbabwean groups that care about anything other than keeping Robert Mugabe in power, they’ve been taking a pounding from the government and its affiliated thugs. In a pattern drearily familiar from corrupt and brutal tyrannies throughout history, the abuse of women to keep the opposition down is a real problem under Mugabe’s misrule, which makes it particularly important, I think, to support WOZA’s peaceful witness.
What’s a Sermon For?
(Isaiah 55:6-11; Ephesians 4:11-16, 2 Timothy 3:16-17)
I wonder sometimes, as I stand up here, what it is that you think I think I’m trying to accomplish. Do you think I expect you to remember every point of every sermon? Do you imagine I’d like to test you on how much you remember? That would appeal to some pastors, I’m sure. I know one of my favorite professors in seminary, the brilliant New Testament scholar Gordon Fee, started out as a pastor; he told us he became a professor because “I got ‘em three days a week instead of one and I could give ‘em tests!” But then, that’s clearly where God wanted him, which no doubt had something to do with it. But can you see me giving tests?
Honestly, I don’t have any illusions as to how much you, or I, or anyone else, can consciously remember. Cleophus LaRue, who teaches preaching at Princeton, tells the story of going to preach one time in a church which sat right across the street from the state penitentiary. During his sermon, there was a prison break, and the alarms went off and the lights went on—the congregation, it appears, was used to this, but he wasn’t, and it quite unsettled him. As a result, he forgot to keep any record of what sermon he had preached. As it happened, he was back there a year or so later, and he began his message by noting that he might be repeating himself, because with all the commotion, he didn’t remember what he had preached about on his last visit. When he said that, someone in the congregation piped up, “That’s okay, preacher, neither do we!”
Now, some of my colleagues might be a little scandalized to hear me admit that; it’s the sort of story preachers tell other preachers, but not something I’ve often heard in church. Truth is, though, that while we might be so foolish as to consider this some sort of guild secret, I don’t think it’s anything of the sort. I’ve heard that a number of years ago, a man wrote the following letter to the British Weekly: “Dear Sir: It seems ministers feel their sermons are very important and spend a great deal of time preparing them. I have been attending church quite regularly for thirty years and I have probably heard 3,000 of them. To my consternation, I discovered I cannot remember a single sermon. I wonder if a minister’s time might be more profitably spent elsewhere?”
Now, this letter caused quite a storm, with more letters flurrying back and forth, until finally another one appeared which silenced the debate. That letter read, “Dear Sir: I have been married for thirty years. During that time I have eaten 32,850 meals—mostly my wife’s cooking. Suddenly I discovered I cannot remember the menu of a single meal. And yet, I received nourishment from every one of them. I have the distinct impression that without them, I would have starved to death long ago.”
That, surely, is the point of preaching. It’s not that you memorize what I say, or that you take notes and keep files. The primary purpose of preaching is to nourish your spirit, in the same way that food nourishes your body. I stand here to proclaim the word of God, to the best of my ability, in the confidence that when God’s word is spoken, it carries with it his purpose and the power of his Spirit. I may not always know what he intends to do—in fact, I can never fully know, because each sermon is going to affect everybody somewhat differently—but that’s really not what matters in the long run. What matters is that God accomplishes his purposes, and we may be sure that he will.
Of course, this requires a lively faith both in the value of the word of God and in the value of preaching, because it means preaching the word of God. Not every preacher has such faith any more, and so many don’t do that; some preach, but draw from things besides God’s word, while others stick to the Scriptures but have thrown out preaching. It seems to me, though, that the first approach substitutes human wisdom for God’s wisdom—and since human wisdom gave us the wars and tyrannies which marred the previous century, that doesn’t impress me much; while the second approach seeks to honor Scripture while ignoring its counsel. Paul tells Timothy, “Devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to teaching” (that’s in 1 Timothy 4:13), and again, “Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke, and encourage, with great patience and careful instruction.” Why? Because “all Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness.”
In other words, the Spirit of God breathed into—in-spirited, you might say, inspired—the authors of Scripture, and he continues to speak through the words of Scripture to us, and to all the people of God, wherever we may be and whatever issues and circumstances we might face; and as such, by the power of the Spirit in its authors as they wrote, in our eyes as we read and in our ears as we listen, these words do us good. They show us what is true, and correct us when our beliefs about God and this world are false; they also correct our behavior, convicting us of the sins in our lives, and show us how God calls us to live. The Spirit speaking through the text does the work; my job is simply to help you open your ears to his voice, to help you better understand the word of God so that you may hear more clearly “what the Spirit is saying to the church.”
There are three parts to that. First, faithful and diligent interpretation. My job is to take whatever texts we’re using and draw the meaning out so that we can see it clearly. That may mean focusing on a single passage and digging deeply into it; sometimes, like this morning, it means fitting several texts together. Both approaches are necessary, because we need to understand Scripture deeply, and we need to understand it as a whole, as a web of interlocking texts. Either way, however, my call is only to teach what Scripture teaches me, to follow where it leads and nowhere else, because only Scripture is inspired by God, and only it is sure to be useful; for anything else, there are no guarantees.
The second part is application, because if truth stays in your head instead of going to your hands and feet, there isn’t much value to that. You’ll notice that 2 Timothy says that Scripture is useful for these things “so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.” Similarly, Ephesians tells us that God gave the church apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers “to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ.” God doesn’t tell us things just so we’ll know them, he tells us so that they’ll change how we live. To learn truth and never put it into practice is like eating and eating and never exercising—all it does is make you fat. God doesn’t call us to spiritual obesity, he calls us to be spiritual athletes, as teaching feeds action; the truths we learn are to be truths we live.
The third part is time and persistence. Do I expect you to memorize everything I say? No, and no pastor with any sense would, though I do hope that at least one thing of importance sticks with you as you leave here each Sunday; but over time, as I am faithful in preaching and you are faithful in listening, by the grace of God, the steady exposure to his word will cause us to grow. As we speak his truth together in love, we will, slowly but surely, grow to maturity in Christ, who is our head. The more we spend time with the truth of God’s word, the more we spend time looking through his word at who he is and what he’s like, the more we will look like him.
No, the sky isn’t falling—yet
I had a wonderful day today. We drove up to Lake Michigan to see one of our best friends from college (she was in our wedding party) and her family at their vacation cottage on the beach; she and her husband were there, and their three kids (generally the same ages as ours), and her dad, whom I also enjoy a great deal. I haven’t seen her since her oldest was a newborn, and I haven’t seen her husband (or her father, for that matter) since their wedding, so it was definitely too long. We had a great time talking church and family and work and other things, while the kids enjoyed themselves immensely playing together (mostly, though not only, down on the beach). I managed to burn myself in a few places due to misapplication of sunscreen—next time, I’ll go back to using the lotion instead of the spray—but no big deal.And then I got home to read the news from the PC(USA)’s General Assembly (GA): they voted to approve overtures to remove the 1978 Authoritative Interpretation, remove the chastity and fidelity clause from the Book of Order, and approve a new Authoritative Interpretation (AI) to allow officers to declare scruples with respect to ordination standards (which is to say, to declare that they’re going to ignore them). And then I spent some time reading the reactions from a number of my fellow conservatives in the church: Presbyterians for Renewal essentially conceding defeat, the Rev. Jim Berkley calling it “a sad, sorry episode,” the Rev. Dr. Alan Trafford declaring that “a line has been crossed” and that his congregation will no longer use the denominational seal, and perhaps most painfully, the Rev. Toby Brown shuttering his blog in grief. Clearly, there’s the feeling on the part of many that the disaster has come; the sky has fallen in.At the risk of making it sound like I think these folks are Chicken Littles—I don’t, especially as I think Jim’s exactly right that these actions “will precipitate much rancor and division within churches and presbyteries”—I don’t think the sky is in fact falling. Not yet, at least. Yes, this was a liberal GA, as most GAs are, and yes, it did what liberal GAs do, as do most GAs; but the actual effect of their decisions should be slight. Though these three decisions felt like “three hammer blows to the head,” I don’t believe they’ll turn out that way. To take them in order:Voting to remove the 1978 Authoritative Interpretation that declared homosexual acts incompatible with the will of God was a real and significant blow. However, it was one that was inevitably going to happen, whenever the liberal wing of the denomination decided they actually wanted to do it; and as long as G-6.0106b, which mandates “fidelity in marriage or chastity in singleness” for all officers of the church, is still in force, then this is still the meaning of our denominational constitution, whether there’s an AI to say so or not. Which leads to Voting to remove the “chastity and fidelity clause,” which would be a major change, if that clause were actually removed—but it won’t be. That’s an amendment to the Book of Order, which requires the support of over half the presbyteries, which isn’t going to happen. This one, for all the noise it’s stirring up, is merely sound and fury signifying nothing.Voting to declare that the constitution permits officers to ignore behavioral standards is potentially the significant change, since this doesn’t have to be approved by the presbyteries. However, I don’t believe this one will stand either, though it will take longer to see for sure. The roots of this one go back a ways. The last GA, in 2006, voted to approve an AI that said this; when candidates for ordination actually stood up and announced their intention to ignore behavioral standards, however, and governing bodies decided to ordain them anyway, that action was challenged in the denominational courts (Permanent Judicial Commissions, or PJCs), and the denomination’s highest court, the GA PJC, said, “You can’t do that.” On my read, their conclusion is that “‘shall’ actually means ‘shall,’ that if the church’s constitution says you can’t do something, then you actually aren’t allowed to do it,” and that “stealth amendments” that attempt to rewrite the constitution without needing the approval of the presbyteries (by simply declaring that the constitution doesn’t mean what it plainly says) are not allowed. As I wrote in a letter I sent to Presbyweb a few months ago, “GAPJC has laid down the law that the only way to amend the Constitution is by actually amending it, and that it is not possible to interpret it to say what it does not in fact mean. Stealth amendments such as this ‘Authoritative Interpretation, are in and of themselves unconstitutional.”I wrote on that occasion, and I still believe now, that we can and should expect GAPJC to say so, clearly, when they are given the opportunity to do so. If that happens, then the end result of these high-profile, high-angst votes will have been nothing of practical consequence. Should I prove wrong, then the disaster will indeed have come upon us, and it will be time for those of us who accept the authority of Scripture to pack our bags for final departure. I don’t expect that to happen, but one never can tell for certain with committees.At this point, however, I’m more concerned about the GA’s decision to rubber-stamp the Stated Clerk Nominating Committee and elect Dmitri Medvedev—excuse me, the Rev. Gradye Parsons—the new GA Stated Clerk. Apparently, they decided that the Rev. Clifton Kirkpatrick’s terms in office were so good that they should continue his administration by proxy. I cannot agree. I’m firmly convinced that one of this denomination’s greatest problems is that the playing field is deliberately tilted, the process skewed in favor of those whose positions are favored by denominational staff, such that violations of constitutional process which produce results the denominational hierarchy likes (such as those which result in practicing homosexuals in ministry positions) are winked at, while those which don’t (such as attempts by churches to leave the denomination with their property) are pursued to the fullest extent of the law. Those who hold liberal positions are given every hearing, while those who oppose those positions are squelched, silenced or overpowered by every means the hierarchy can use to do so. There is no attempt to make the process work equally for everybody, or to allow everyone’s voice to be heard equally. The root of this problem, I’m firmly convinced, has been the practice of favoritism (which is a sin) by our denomination’s highest administrative official, the GA Stated Clerk, the Rev. Clifton Kirkpatrick; I was hoping GA would have the integrity to elect someone who would have the integrity to change this. From what I can see, they didn’t. The defections will continue.
Thought experiment
I had a session of our inquirers’ class this evening—that’s the class I do for those who want to join the church and those who’re trying to figure out if they do—which left me, as I was driving back home, in a contemplative mood, just mulling over things with the church and praying a little; and as I was doing this, I’m not sure if it was merely my own thought or if perhaps it was God speaking, but I had this thought: Suppose God gave you a choice between two promises. Either you could ask that John McCain be elected president, and that would be granted (though Gov. Palin didn’t figure in here); or you could ask for a breakthrough for this church in attracting young people and young families who aren’t currently attending a church, such that we’d start drawing large numbers of younger folks, and that would be granted. The other might or might not happen, but whichever you chose, you could be sure would happen. Which would you choose?—OK, so it sounds artificial; I don’t dispute it. (That’s probably the biggest argument for it just being my own random thought, and even then, I don’t know where it came from.) Artificial or otherwise, though, the question came to mind; and while it will probably surprise some of you who’ve read my various political posts, I had no doubt of my answer: I’d choose for the church.Part of that, I’m sure, is a matter of direct personal welfare: whether or not this congregation grows will have a more direct and immediate effect on my well-being (financial and otherwise) than who gets elected president. That’s a consideration. It isn’t, however, the main one. The main one is the limitations of my own knowledge. If, through whatever combination of programs, circumstances, and whatever else, a lot of people of my generation and younger in this community started attending the congregation I serve, I have a high degree of certainty that this would be a good thing for our congregation (and, yes, for me and my family as well); and as to whether it would be a good thing for those folks, and for our community, I believe it would be, and I would be able to do everything in my power to make sure that it was. I can look at that possibility as a clear good.By contrast, while I truly believe that Sen. McCain would make a good president, and while I’m equally convinced that Sen. Obama would make a very bad one, I have far less ability to be certain of that. I don’t know Sen. Obama at all, and my only personal knowledge of Sen. McCain is secondhand; there are a vast number of unknown variables (on multiple levels) which will play into the success or failure of our next president; and Sen. Obama has a short enough track record that it’s more difficult than usual to predict how he would govern, making it unusually possible that he could surprise all of us. Then too, even if I’m absolutely right about what to expect from both of them (which is unlikely, no question), it’s possible that for the long-term good of our country, we’d be better off with a worse president for the next four years. I’m not sure exactly how that would work, but I can’t say that it couldn’t be—the ironies of history won’t let me.All of which is to say that while I know which candidate will get my vote this November, I’m content to leave the overall outcome of the election to God’s providence; indeed, I wouldn’t be presumptuous enough to think I could do better. I’m just not confident enough that I truly know for certain what’s best (nor should I be, nor should any of us be). On matters closer to home, within my purview and my circle of influence, I can be a lot more certain; and there, my responsibility is more direct, as well. (Which is why, if God actually did make me such a promise for my church, I would be thrilled.)
Song of the Week
Inside of You
You say the river’s too far to go,
And the star’s too high to reach;
In the shade it’s much too cold,
And in the sun there’s too much heat.Ooh, would you say to me
The sky’s too blue, the sea too green;
In the night there’s too much dark,
And too much crying in your sleep?Chorus:
Inside of you, how deep does the ocean go?
Inside of you, how loud does the lion roar?
Inside of you, do your feet know how to dance?
Inside of you, does heaven ever really have a chance?You’re telling me the chair’s too soft;
You’re telling me the bed’s too hard.
You would like to cool your fever,
But the water’s just too far.So you sit staring at the door
Like something’s gonna walk on in;
Tell me what are you waiting for?
Sitting still’s your greatest sin.Chorus
Words and music: Susan J. Paul
© 1989 Pupfish Music
From the album Talk About Life, by Kim Hill
God language in a fog
One of the latest flaps sparked by the PC(USA)’s General Assembly this year (and why are there always so many? The one good side to cutting the number of assemblies in half is that it cuts down the number of fights they can start) comes out of the Committee on Interfaith and Ecumenical Relationships. The committee was considering a resolution which included the statement, “Jews, Christians, and Muslims worship a common God, although each understands that God differently”; when that raised objections, they rewrote it this way: “Though we hold differing understandings of how God has been revealed to humankind, the PC(USA) affirms our belief in one God, the God of Abraham, whom Jews and Muslims also worship.” As Viola Larson notes, that rewrite doesn’t actually change anything—it’s just the same thing in different words.Here’s my question. Some say that Jews, Christians, and Muslims “all worship the same God,” while others object, some vehemently—but what does that mean? What actually is the content and significance of that phrase, and what is it intended to communicate? I don’t think we really have a common understanding of it; our attempts to discuss Christianity, Judaism and Islam are muddled and blurred by the imprecision of our language. I suggest a moratorium on this phrase and all equivalents as counterproductive; whatever we want to say about the relative beliefs of these three religions, we should look for better, clearer, more precise ways to say it. We have enough issues with these sorts of conversations as it is—we don’t need a lack of clarity making things worse.
