Yesterday, I spoke at the “Values, Vision and the via media—a path to action national conference 2005” in Washington, DC. Sponsored by the Episcopal Church in America and organized by people who really care about communities and quality of life issues in the nation, the 4-day conference convened on the grounds of the National Cathedral. The setting was amazing.
The conversation was even better.
I flew up early and back late on the same day, but the time was rich and my trip worth the effort.
One conversation that ensued as a result of a question from the crowd stuck with me.
A woman from Houston, Texas described the public health situation in her city.
“When I go into the Third Ward in Houston,” she said, “I see faith-based organizations providing high-quality, high-touch health care services for the poor. The other alternative is an 11-hour wait in our public hospital where they don’t receive the same dignified treatment.”
Her point was founded in some personal confusion.
She wanted to support the public health institution, but she saw the smaller, community-based organizations “doing a better job.”
“Maybe if all the church people contributed more of their wealth we wouldn’t need the government,” she concluded.
Here at CDM we operate a first-class, high-touch, user-friendly health center. We will provide care during 20,000 patient visits this year. I shared this with the group.
Parkland Health and Hospital System, our public health facility, will care for hundreds of thousands of patients. They will do so on a strained budget. Their facility will be overwhelmed by the numbers. The care will be some of the best in Dallas and the cost per unit of service will be the most efficient anywhere.
If there is a problem with our public health system, it is with the support it receives to do its work. I have a hunch it is the same in Houston.
While the woman’s intent was pure and her idea noble, the facts are clear.
The church will not give significantly more of its treasure next year to care for the poor than it did this year. And, even if it did, the church could not possibly manage to give enough to cover the needs of the nation just in the public health arena alone.
My audience seemed to understand.
People of faith need to support sound, moral, comprehensive, equitable public policy that will lead us to a health care system that meets the needs of all of our citizens, while improving return on the incredible national investment in health care we are already making.
I sense a growing movement among people of faith who are longing for a new day in this country. It gives me hope.
8 comments:
What is the point of asking that question? It is of no relevance to Larry's post.
Larry's post is about a much more important issue: it is about health and justice. It is about a matter of incredible relevance to our country. Unlike the issue you bring up, it is not about an obscure, distracting tangent in the "values" debate.
The same-sex marriage thing is a polarizing issue that is being used to distract the voting public from thinking about the issues that Larry brings up. People can get all fired up about it, and waste time and energy putting together propositions on it. But the truth is, all that time, energy and money could have been better spent doing God's work: helping the poor.
Note that Christ never said a SINGLE WORD about homosexuality. Not one. Not in the entire New Testament.
How many times does he mention the poor?
To your point, I think you're right: this is a contentious cultural battle. However, what is worth more time fighting: a "cultural" battle over an obscure issue that is unrelated to the vast majority of people in need, or the greater war for the poor?
I know the issue that is important to me.
chand, I notice you dont' have a blog. what are your thoughts on the matter>? or are you jsut a whiner (see your comments on larrys october 11).
you did this same thing in that psot, asking inflammatory questions and putting forth ridiculous ideas like a cocaine-for-crack program. its pretty obvious your just trying to criticize Larry's ideas because they make you uncomfortable.
Larry, you rock. keep it up brother.
- chris
btw, Jeremy I am not so sure about that note about Jesus. I'm no Bible scholar but that sounds hard to believe.
chand, you try to sound smart. got a passage about Jesus' thoughts on gay marriage?
Not that I want to talk abou it. I agree with Jeremy this is a distraction. but I just wodner why the christians get all bent out of shape about gays. its like the armbands: What would Jesus say?
- chris
So, your lack of comfort with yourself is adequate reason to oppose another person's ability to be with their lover at hospital visits, inherit their belongings over family, receive health coverage, etc.
Opposing gay marriage might make people with "heeby-jeebees" feel better, but it will make it impossible for gay couples to gain these basic rights.
I suggest you realign that moral compass towards a more global, and less selfish, perspective.
-chris
chand,
You are completely entitled to your opinion. Many, in fact, share your views. My question is more about your motives. Clearly, Larry's blog had nothing to do with same sex marriage no matter who was hosting the conference. So, why? What do you have against the hosts of the conference? While I completely disagree with many of your positions, because I encounter many who do agree with you I am trying to understand where you are coming from.
jt
chand,
I understand that you want honest answers. We all do. That is why I enjoy the discourse on this blog so much.
Calling Larry an "impersonator" and trying to corner him with no win questions, reminds me much of how the Pharisees treated Jesus in the Bible. The way I see it, he is closer to what Jesus is about than I'll ever get. Hearing your comments makes that even more evident.
As far as focusing on issues such as same sex marriage, our country is all about that. In fact, we do that in exclusion of helping feed, educate and provide health care for children. Here's honesty. We are all too selfish and short-sighted to give up our middle and upper class perks. I see us hiding behind the same sex debate on both sides rather than getting to work on providing opportunities that could transform people's lives.
jt
c hand, the issues associated with gay and lesbian unions don't affect the people with whom I am working day-by-day.
But, I am happy to tell you that I believe the rights of gay and lesbian Americans should be protected under the law. How states and the nation choose to do that is being worked out in the current national debate.
Personally, I regard the upcoming vote on Prop 2 to be unnecessary in Texas. This state will not recognize gay and lesbian unions as marriage. That leads me to believe that the vote is a political move that is intended to strike out at an entire group of people. I think that is not what constitutions should be about.
The entire question of homosexuality is complex. For many Christians the issue is not open for honest conversation. Jesus did not deal with the issue of homosexuality. However, my view of Jesus tells me that he would have been open to such a discussion and he would definitely be compassionate and open toward gay and lesbian persons.
One of our problems in the current debate is that too few people who stand against equal rights for gay and lesbians don't really know or have close relationships with these individuals or their families. When you bring the conversation down to an individual friend, the tone of the conversation changes.
A dear friend of mine has a son who is gay. My friendship with this great young man cannot be divorced from the debate or from my concerns about it. His sexual orientation is different from mine. Neither of us chose the sexual orientation that, in part, makes us who we are.
This young friend's civil rights are important to me because I love him, know him and I understand that my civil rights are connected to the same values that should guarantee his.
Your comments about my motives are interesting. For the past 35 years I have been reading and struggling with the Bible in the context of the church. My journey has led me to a view and an understanding of Jesus that centers my ministry on the pursuit of justice among and with the poor, while living with and extending compassion to others, just as I believe he did.
I am reminded of how Jesus often responded to his critics by asking a question.
So, claiming only to be his very inadequate follower, let me ask you. . .
How do you see the matter of the rights of gay and lesbian citizens of our nation?
How do you think their lives should be lived out in our nation?
By the way, you mentioned "sodomy" in an earlier post here. Take a look at the Hebrew Bible at Ezekiel 16:49 for a more complete definition of the term.
I'd say the fact that Jesus never mentioned it indicates that there were MANY more important issues to deal with - like poverty, which he mentions hundreds of time in the New Testament.
Regarding your claim that gays have the same civil rights you and I have: that is not the case. Gay couples are not considered family, and therefore cannot visit each other in some instances of hospitalization (i.e. "family only" visitation rights). They cannot share insurance policies. They have a difficult time inheriting property when their lover dies without a will, which is how the majority of Americans will die.
I fell in love with a wonderful woman, by the grace of God. We are expecting a child. If that child falls in love with a person that has the same chromosomal makeup that (s)he has, I would certainly hope that they would have the same rights that my wife and I enjoy.
Post a Comment