I wish I had written down all the odd or funny things I have heard described by the adjective 'biblical'. I'm sure that I would have a long list by now. I was reminded of this the other day when I saw an add for "a Biblical way to deal with the health care crisis" in a magazine. It was paid for by a pseudo-insurance company. These types of organizations distribute the health care cost risk over those enrolled like a insurance company but are not regulated and do not keep money on reserve to pay claims. Instead, the monthly fee of the enrollees is paid out to those who have health needs. I went to this particular organization's web site to see why this was a biblical approach to health care. The best that I found was a single verse (Galatians 6:2) used out of context to say that Christians should help take care of each other's needs. When I dug a little deeper I even found policies that seemed to directly contradict their supporting verse.
Saying that something is biblical is a very strong claim to conservative evangelicals. The train of logic goes something like this: God is perfect, the Bible is God's Word, the Bible should then be used as the ultimate judge of truth. This means there is no stronger appeal than to the Bible. Since truth is exclusive that also means any other position is incorrect if you can show that yours is biblical. Of course, the Bible is not as clear as "Do not murder" in most places. You have a lot of narratives and poetry. Interpretation can be tricky on those types of passages. Even with law or doctrine it is hard to go from general principles to specific applications.
This does not prevent people from claiming that something is biblical without much evidence. It's not rare to see this type of claim based on a wooden, literal interpretation or a narrative detail. Verses pulled out of context are also common. Sometimes an idea that just seems reasonable is called biblical. We had a case like that recently in our church. A decision was made to change the process for nominating potential deacons. Someone said the process should be made more biblical. Of course, the Bible never gives a framework for nominating deacons. Rather, it gives a list of qualifications. I think what he really should have said was that he intends to make the process more democratic but that would not sound very spiritual.
Comments
I am also continually amazed by quotes that even well-meaning believers think are found in the Bible, but are not, such as "God helps those who help themselves" or "Cleanliness is next to godliness."
Posted by: Jess on Monday, January 16, 2006
I just came across an ad for a Christian romance that describes it is biblical.
Posted by: CJ Costello on Thursday, January 26, 2006
Hello.
I don't know you and you don't know me, but I noticed this blog talking about the ministry where I work and wanted to clarify a few things.
First, while we think that what we do is important and an improvement upon many aspects of the current system we do not think that our way is the only way, but one among many Biblical options that are available to Christians in the current arena of choices with regards to health care.
Second, we are very careful in our materials and our conversations with people to say that we are not insurance. We are not insurance nor are we trying to be. The sharing that goes on between our 11,000+ member families (over $2 Million each month) is directly from house to house. The $225 gift each family sends goes directly to another Christian family in need. There is something special (personally having been on the receiving end of this I would say priceless) in this that an insurance company cannot match.
Third, our members are not paying for abortions (which all insurance companies do), RU-486, STD's and the like--allowing us to keep our monthly cost lower. The added family/community feel of what we do keeps all of us trying to keep costs down rather than trying to "get our money's worth" out of an ever rising insurance premium.
Fourthly, while we agree that the immediate context of Galatians 6:2 is not dealing with financial burdens it is not a stretch to apply the principle to burdens other than those of recurring sin. In the same passage Paul gives a principle for how to compensate the preacher (share with him who teaches every good thing) that I think goes into financial benefit as well. Philippians 2:4 also is one we use in our materials: look out not only for your own needs but also the needs of others.
We are not trying to throw stones at other Christians but we are trying to help Christians who are feeling the rising cost of health care and most of our members are below median income (over 75%) and have long since been priced out of insurance. We allow them to have a way to meet one another's needs in a biblical way but we do not have a corner on Biblical truth.
I hope I've cleared up any misunderstandings here. We love Jesus Christ and His Church and desire to be of service to Him and His Bride by helping Christians to help one another. And helping one another is definitely Biblical. Many ways to do it, though, and we are merely one of them.
James Lansberry
Vice President, Samaritan Ministries International
Posted by: James Lansberry on Wednesday, February 15, 2006
PS--
I didn't notice this the first time, but you write, "When I dug a little deeper I even found policies that seemed to directly contradict their supporting verse."
Could you shed some light for me on what seems to contradict our supporting verse? I can guess at what you might mean and address that, but I'd prefer to know what your criticism is before I respond to it.
James Lansberry
Vice President, Samaritan Ministries International
Posted by: James Lansberry on Wednesday, February 15, 2006
James,
Thank you for your comments. It's been over a month since I wrote this so I had to go back and reread what I wrote. I also took another look at your website. While not relevant to the discussion, I must say that your organization has a very nice statement of faith. It provides a concise definition of the Christian faith that can be used toward cooperation among Christians. Now to get back to the topic - I'll respond point by point.
1. I agree that there is much that is wrong with our health care system. You say there are many biblical health care options. We may have very different definitions of 'biblical' then. I feel uncomfortable calling your alternative to health insurance biblical just as I would not want to call the health insurance provided by one of the major providers biblical. To me, biblical has the connotation of being the right way to do something. I could be wrong, but I doubt that many people feel that the large health insurance companies are biblical. Wouldn't that leave your organization and the ones like it as providing the only biblical choice? (or I may be ignorant of other alternatives)
2. You have a very difficult task of teaching people how your service is different from insurance. I think we can agree on that. Most of the current generations have grown up with what we would call traditional health insurance. It's probably very difficult for some to understand the lack of guarantee with your service (and that is not to say that you have ever not met a need with your network). I think you can also understand the concerns over the lack of regulation given what has happened with organizations similar to yours (similar in type). Again, I do not mean this as an indictment. Risk and its management is a difficult concept for the average American to fully comprehend. Just look at how many people buy the extended warranties at Best Buy and its ilk. I do not take issue with offering an alternative, but I would want to see more stress placed on the risks involved for participants. (I also don't remember the 'big disclosure' being up on your website the last time I checked.)
3. There is no way for traditional insurance to copy the family atmosphere and support network that you provide. You'll find no disagreement here.
4. My difficulty is not with the idea that the Bible teaches us to help others. (It would be a sad fact if it were!) It is rather this: the evaluation of an interpretative approach to a Bible passage requires more than looking at the truth of the final result. It is possible to take a verse, pull it out of its context, and develop a principle where the principle is correct from the view of the entire revelation of God, yet incorrect for that passage. I think this leads to a dependence on proof-texting rather than really struggling with what God has to teach us. Quoting from your website, you say 'Our goal is to apply Galatians 6:2 — “Bear one another’s burdens, and thus fulfill the law of Christ” — to the ever-rising medical costs'. This goes further than I am comfortable with - but I'm just one guy and understand that you may disagree with my analysis. I am surprised you have not used the biblical references to your organization's name more.
Finally, regarding your PS, I am referring to the parts of your guidelines that seem to imply support will be dropped if the illness is caused by sin (sex outside of marriage, drugs, farm machinery...oops, strike that last one). Now, it may be that you are more merciful than your stated guidelines so I may be wrong about this. It seems like one clear implication of Galatians 6:2 is that we should help our brother or sister who has fallen into sin. I'm not sure cutting off their medical support fits well with that. It could be that practically you would only stop the support if there were a pattern or on the advice of the person's pastor. I couldn't determine that from the guidelines.
Well, that was almost finally - I would encourage your organization to publicize the financial health of your organization.
Posted by: CJ Costello on Thursday, February 16, 2006
CJ:
Thanks for the intereaction. I'll try to be brief here. We'll have to agree to disagree about the application of Galatians 6:2 to what we do. I too am fearful of "proof texting" and how I have seen it used, but likewise I heard a really wonderful sermon preached by Dr. Jay Adams (once my pastor before retirement) from this passage that used the passage much more broadly than specific sins. I see exactly where you're going with it and certainly don't fault you for your disagreement--at least one of us is wrong on the matter and I remain teachable on it.
Regarding our financial health we have recently finished an external audit for tax year 2004 and the announcement of that has not yet reached our FAQ--we're in the process of revising them. We will soon begin an external audit of 2005. Audited financial statements will be available to anyone who requests them.
Your surmisal as to how we would handle some of these things in practicalities is correct. If there is a burden that remains and the local church is assuring of us repentance then we look at the issues differently. I cannot actually think of an example where we've had to invoke that guideline in 10 years.
Regarding risks--I agree with you that it is difficult for people to make this kind of paradigm switch. Speaking only for myself, I find it easier to put my trust in God to provide through His people than I do to trust a "guarantee" given to me by an insurance company. Since I also know that this guarantee is only allowed because it is backed up by the federal goverment (at taxpayer expense) it means even less to me. Likewise, the "regulated" insurance companies are very profitable and their executives are paid millions of dollars each year--we are overseen by a board of our own members and are paid much less.
Lastly, wrt the word Biblical--we apparently have a difference of opinion here. I think that an option in any field that is not only consistent with God's commands but in obedience to them (helping one another, etc.) can be termed Biblical even if it is not the *only* way to do things obediently. I am sure we'll have to agree to disagree on that as well, but that is fine with me.
Christians helping Christians is Biblical. And that's what we do.
Thanks again for the very charitable interaction.
James Lansberry
Posted by: James Lansberry on Friday, February 17, 2006
James,
I have thought more about what it means to be 'biblical' - especially as it relates to your organization. I think in the end it does not matter so much how I define it but rather how your general audience understands its meaning.
Christians helping other Christians is biblical. Christians hoarding money and not helping other Christians who are in need is unbiblical. We can agree to those general principles. The challenge is to take those general principles and implement them. For example, how should an individual with limited resources allocate them among all the various needy people? A more relevant example to this discussion is developing a ministry/organization that seeks to instantiate this principle with respect to financing health care. I can think of five or six ways off the top of my head to do this. Some of them may be better ways to apply the general principle than others.
Should we call the implementations biblical themselves or do we restrict that description to the principle? I don't know the answer to that question.
Your implementation is one of distributing the financial risk among the members rather than assuming it like an insurance company. A member helps other members with the understanding that they will be helped when in need. It is more of a covenant relationship than a free gift. Please do not read this as being critical of your organization. There is certainly nothing wrong with covenant relationships and I assume people may donate money to your ministry.
One last point: I find your comparison between medical sharing plans and insurance companies interesting. The medical sharing plan is depending on God through Christians while insurance is depending on man (insurance companies, government, profit!...). I believe it is possible for God to use either option. It is important for us to realize in either case that we should be/are depending on God. He is just using different means. For "man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God."
Does your organization employ statisticians/ actuaries? The problem of setting risk tolerances and properly distributing it is very interesting.
Thanks for an interesting discussion.
Posted by: CJ Costello on Friday, February 17, 2006