Having been brought up within a fairly strict Christian denomination, I learned the firmly held doctrines of that particular faith. I also learned a little about some of the other (more popular) doctrines held by other major Christian denominations; doctrines they held that we did not subscribe to - and “why they are wrong.” I learned that basically the other denominations were well-meaning but misguided. This served to do several things for me: - It helped give me an identity early in my life.
- It shaped my views on religion and why we were right while everyone else was wrong.
- It defined the view I had of God and de facto also defined the parameters of God. God was defined by emphatic statements about what He likes/doesn’t like, accepts or rejects, and how He operates in our lives vs. leaves it up to us to work out on our own, etc.; all this came from a particular view and interpretation of scripture coupled with other “inspired” writings.
- It all but insured that I’d be unlikely to show much interest in learning more about other Christian denominations because of a learned prejudice.
When I parted ways with the faith of my youth, I had to do something with all those factors and beliefs which I’ve just noted in the paragraph above. While there might have been a few viewpoints on which I might differ, and still remain comfortably within that faith, there were other points of doctrine which really could not be rejected without rejecting the whole package – and this is where I found myself. So I left and for about the next 25-30 years I cut myself off from almost all church-based religious contact. During that time I more or less drifted with where life took me.
After many years and many phases, in my life journey, I arrived at the point where I was once again interested in joining a community of Christians (a church of some sort). In order to get to this point I had to first do a lot of work and go through some struggles on my own. Early in that journey, when I questioned even the very existence of God, I thought in terms of, “Did God create us or did we create God?” At that point I was confronted with the undeniable spiritual side of man and this became my focus of study. As I studied, I found myself beginning to conceive of a God that was rather different and far greater than the god I’d learned of during my youth. Further, I began to see that I didn’t have a problem with God but rather I had a problem with a denominational god (or at least my youthful perception of God).
As I began seeking Christian fellowship, I visited several other groups and began to discover something interesting. My youthful experience could have been replicated (almost exactly) in any one of those other denominations! However, with different doctrines and teachings, “the god” that would be portrayed would therefore be different with respect to how he would act, what he wants from us, what he likes and approves of and many other defining characteristics of that faith. To put it another way, “the god” defined and presented by each denomination would be different from “the god” I was taught about in my youth. All denominations claimed to worship the same God and yet, upon comparison, presented radically different (nearly unrecognizable) pictures of Him.
This observation served to help answer one of my earlier questions, “Did we create God?” My answer is now “yes and no,” and believe it or not, this is far more satisfying for me. When we attempt to define God solely through the use of restrictive limitations AND use our faulty and limited understanding of Him as a means to deny others the freedom to be and act according to their view of Him, we have created a god. The God I am coming to know is much greater than all the denominational gods I’ve thus far been exposed to and He is far, far greater than my capacity to understand – though I sometimes may get brief glimpses of thought and fleeting insights. It occurs to me that one simply can’t take that which is Omnipotent, All Powerful, All Knowing and Almighty and put it in a box or a neat little package. Our own understanding might fit into that package but not the Subject of that understanding.
Also, in checking out various groups, I’ve observed that most of them were just as sincere and well-meaning as the group I’d left many years ago. Most of them had firmly held doctrines – some of which differed considerably from the firmly held views I’d been taught. In most cases some of those defining doctrines are beyond question and therefore form part of that groups identity. I also discovered that they were as familiar with the doctrines of my youthful church as my church had been familiar with theirs and in each case there were/are creditable biblical scholars on both sides of the question. Other Christian churches also claim the scriptures as the source for their beliefs – the difference is in how they are read and interpreted.
This brings me to the question of doctrine in general and whether or not I view it as a good thing or a hindrance. On the whole I think it is both good and necessary. Common views, values and beliefs serve to bring people together and create community. However, it is not possible for any group of people to find full agreement on all matters (significant or otherwise) and thus cracks and fragmentation begins to occur. (This, by the way, is true not only of Christian churches but also applies to all large organized interests and groups).
Almost right from its founding, the Christian church has entertained debate and disagreement on all sorts of topics – I believe this was healthy and enabled the church to grow. Some of the major debates were over rules and church law with different groups holding different views on a variety of topics. We also read how the apostles and church leaders ministered to the various groups through their letters and counsel. Groups were frequently directed back to Christ and reminded that salvation would be by grace through their faith in Him. Customs, traditions, laws etc were acknowledged but relegated to a far less important role and care was taken to prevent those things from becoming an impediment to the primary purpose which was to reveal Christ to humanity.
To me it appears we may not have learned the lesson of history and therefore we find many churches, still overly focused in matters of law and doctrine - while thinking they are simply proclaiming the Love of God. Too many approach the subject of worship in a manner that would be better suited toward selling shoes. Shoes are sold in boxes and the buyer tries to find the box which contains shoes that will fit. Boxes marked with the wrong size will not even be picked up (let alone looked into). The Christian faith, on the other hand, does not fit into any box very well and while a package containing the aspects and views of one particular Christian church may work well for some, others may find none of the packages fit.
I’ve resolved this dilemma for myself by deciding I am a non-denominational Christian and I can enjoy worship and fellowship in churches of various faiths. I agree with many – but not all – of the things those different churches value and hold true. In the meantime I’ll continue to work and study this path I find myself on. I’ll continue to make mistakes (some may even be within the text of what I’ve just written) and down the road I may see things quite differently. Before becoming too critical of these thoughts, let me assure you that I recognize I could be wrong and it wouldn’t be the first time…after all, I’m human and fallible - He isn’t.
When I first began writing down ideas on this particular topic, our friends in the USA were in the midst of a very partisan battle over (so called) “Obamacare.” During the debate, like millions of other people, I also engaged in numerous discussions on this and other similar topics. Some of the more left-wing proponents of Obama’s plan like to point to Canada and even Cuba as a basis for changing the current US system to a more socialist system. Now, the Supreme Court of the United States has handed down its ruling on the constitutionality of the legislation.
Before going any further, I just want to make it clear that I cannot speak for circumstances in Cuba (nor would I want to!) but I can offer some comments on the Canadian situation – though I am by no means an “expert.”
In one exchange of emails regarding the Canadian System of health care vs the system in the USA, I received the following comments:
“...they just released some stats down here last week and thought you might like to hear a few.... There were over 700,000 personal bankruptcy caused by medical expenses here in the US last year.... what is really surprising though is 75% of those claims had medical insurance. This was compared to less than a half of a percent of those in Canada who said they filed for Bankruptcy due to medical expenses.”
Well, I can’t vouch for the accuracy of those numbers as I’m not familiar with the report noted or the source for those figures; but regardless of how close the numbers may be they do not tell the whole tale. One would need to know (for instance) how many of those bankruptcies were exclusively the result of medical expenses vs. how many might simply have been the final debt incurred after years of poor spending choices and other mounting personal debts?
The figure noted for personal bankruptcies in the USA (caused by medical expenses) is reported at 700,000 with the vast majority claiming to have medical insurance. These same statistics were quoted to me several weeks later in discussion with another person. I happen to agree that this is a lot of people and if you happen to be one of the 700,000 it would be quite unacceptable. The thing is, I don’t think it has to be an either/or situation when it comes to the health care debate – I don’t think it has to be either a “USA style” system or a “Canadian style” system.
Statistics are deceiving and can be used by either side in any debate. For instance 700,000 is less than .002% of the US population. Further, I’d hate to hold up a system such as we have here in Canada if it could not stand up to the scrutiny of much closer examination and if it cannot meet most of the health care needs of those it is meant to serve. Something that is supposed to be free has very little value if it cannot be accessed or if access is so poor that one would rather pay for superior service.
Here in Ontario there are over 1,000,000 people who do not have a family doctor AND HAVE NO HOPE OF GETTING ONE. The population of Ontario Canada (2008) was 12,891,787 and even using figures that are four years old, this means that over 7% of Ontario’s citizens do not have (and cannot get) a family doctor. The doctor shortage is so severe (and growing) that people have given up even looking for a doctor.
Free hospitalization is of little value if it means you must spend days (sometimes weeks) on a stretcher in the emergency department because there are no beds. If you are in pain and awaiting a “free operation,” do you really want to wait a couple years for the procedure when the same procedure can be had in a couple weeks in the USA? The currency many Canadians are forced to pay in is not dollars and cents but time – and some of the sickest don’t have too much of that.
The health care system is becoming less and less about what’s in the best interest of the sick and suffering, in my opinion. Health care should really be about the patient and those trained professionals (from the various health care disciplines) best able to provide the services and care that are needed by that individual. The primary relationship is supposed to be doctor-patient, nurse-patient, therapist-client etc. with some necessary regulation to govern appropriate behaviour, expectations and professionalism in order to insure the individual gets the best treatment and care they seek. However, it is that primary relationship that is under attack (so to speak) and is vulnerable to all sorts of “middle men” because getting into the middle of that relationship can become the source of both power and profit. Worming their way into the space between health care provider and client we find insurance companies and their incestuous symbionts, the litigation lawyers. Since politicians have the power to legislate, we can usually find them in the middle as well making it cozy for themselves (and all others who have crawled into that space with them).
Now to be clear, I’m not arguing against insurance or legal representation, simply the degree and type of their involvement. Lawyers and insurance companies tend to feed each other (each creating a greater need for the other – at tremendous expense). Insurance also isolates the consumer from the expense and therefore limits the market’s ability to control costs. This being the case, other mechanisms need to be developed to help the market become competitive and hold costs to reasonable levels. Various kinds of insurance to practice could be brought way down if some form of control were brought to bear on the litigation process. If various “class action” lawsuits and other nuisance suits could not be brought forward until after legal ground to do so had been established, this would help bring down overall costs. (The legal ground would need to be something like a finding against the health care provider by either their professional governing body or through criminal proceedings.)
Instead, health care has become the currency, of those holding political office, to buy voters. For instance, why is it even necessary for former Prime Minister, Paul Martin (when he was in office and running for reelection) to say he would pass a law banning private delivery of essential health care services? Ask yourself why someone is willing to pay big bucks out of their own pocket for these services if they are already available at no cost through our (Canadian) government scheme. Why does a government have to make it an illegal activity for someone to move out of a two year line up in order to purchase the service in a much timelier manner? Health care has become Canada’s sacred cow and those on the Left (especially) are riding it as far as it will take them – consumer be dammed.
