Charity and Health Care

When I was going to Sunday school I learned all of my memory verses from the King James Version of the Bible. This really helped when I got to high school and started reading Shakespeare, but that is another subject. The point is that when I learned about the greatest things in the world, I knew them as faith, hope and charity. But in high school
I was also thoroughly trained on the reasons that charity could be translated love, and "should" be for the modern era. When I went to graduate school I studied linguistics and there I learned about changes in language and how and why words like charity evolve into words like love and what is gained and what is left behind. Since charity was an important part of the development of health care in America, I am going to talk about the change from charity to love and what has been lost that has affected the spirit of health care in America. The Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology says that the word charity comes from Latin words that mean Christian love. The word itself has to do with the kind of interaction that comes from the principle that if we really love God then we will love our neighbors as ourselves. But I would like to take the definition of Cristian love a step farther. To love ones neighbor as ones self is far older than Christianity, but Christianity takes it to the level of looking at every person as a child of God or a neighbor,
and behaving toward others as though God is looking out for them even if that person is not socially, racially, religiously, or sexually like ourselves.Christian love includes a humility that looks at each other person and fears God's wrath if I treat that person in a way that does not please God. Of course the discipline to treat others with dignity becomes the security that God is pleased with us, and the fear factor wanes, but there is an underlying obligation before God to see all people as worthy, and a forbidding to do good for self promoting reasons. Unfortunately, though, charity became so linked with giving money to the poor, that the word lost its meaning. Handing over money is a far cry from looking at ones neighbor with an obligation to God to serve his or her needs. Thus, to try to replace the spirit of charity, modern translators thought the word "love" would give us back the concept that charity included thoughtful observation and action and wasn't fulfilled by tossing money to the obviously needy. I remember what Peter and John said to the alms beggar at the Temple Gate "Silver and Gold have I none, but what I have I will give thee" and then they healed the man and the charity was far greater than giving money. It was in this spirit that many of the great health care institutions were developed. Those hospitals and care homes are not named Good Samaritan, Bethesda, Sisters of Charity, St. Luke, etc. etc. because someone thought it was a good market plan. They were named those things because they were offering love in the name of Christianity. Other religions do the same for the love of God, but at this time I am talking about charity which comes from Christian love. But over the years, using the word love has undermined the origin of the spirit of the love. Good can be done in the name of humanity, or because of natural law, or because that is what is "fair" according to tradition and or law and or popular opinion at the time. And this good is also considered love, but it has lost its base and purpose. Christian love always requires a foundation of principle that both offers good and disciplines the individual to participate in the love through mutual respect and learning. The discipline is gone without the Christianity. The love has become indulgent instead of instructive; stretched from unfulfillable promises instead of firm about what is and isn't possible. And the other real loss is the money. People did give out of love, and charity reflected that Christian principle that if you wish the best to your brother but send him away with no food you have not loved, so money was given. As we look at trying to make the government provide what only free will charity and Christian Spirit have been able to provide in the past, we have to face that it may not be possible. The government is not equipped to discipline people into those working relationships called love and mutual respect that are the backbone of charitable service institutions. The government is so impotent it can't even tell individuals who want abortions that they have to go to non-Catholic hospitals so that the hospital won't close and end health care services for multiple other purposes. It tries to tell the Catholic hospitals they have to offer abortions and then many types of health care services are lost for everyone because if Christian servants have to abandon their principles they cannot accomplish the great things that the spirit of their principles carried them to. Watch Chariots of Fire for a good character study of this principle. Since the government can not even figure out which decision works for the greater good in the simplistic case I just described, how do we ever expect its baseless decision making to really provide a structure that will successfully offer the love of physical health to the vast diversity of Americans that need it. It won't. The government cannot love the people. It can only hand out other people's money. And anyone who has given money for a cause they care about knows that they will not be satisfied to give this money to the government to decide how to distribute it. Having the government be the monetary provider of health care is like bringing back the obsolete definition of charity that meant giving money to the poor. All that will happen is the registering of dollars used in appointed places and the gathering of statistics to "prove" care was given.The people will not be healed because no one will be observing the needs and taking useful action.