Good Policy Can Make for A Bad Witness

Policy is Never Enough. Good public policy requires more than good theology; it needs technical expertise. FLW (40), for example, calls for the State to “provide universal healthcare” using “whatever powers and resources” it “has at its disposal” and that this be done not only as a matter of “public policy” but “at the public expense” and that this is “the absolute minimum that the Church should expect of countries with developed economies.” While certainly physical healings were a central element of Christ’s earthly ministry as well as the later work of the Church, it is a leap from this to the broad and ill-defined policies imperative of universal healthcare at public expense. Moreover, it is not clear what the authors mean (and maybe more importantly, DO NOT mean) by “healthcare.”

For example, does the State have a moral obligation to provide abortions? What about reconstructive surgery? Is cosmetic dentistry at public expense required? Even assuming some clarity of what is meant by healthcare, any such decision authorizes the State to consume—and so make unavailable—resources that benefit some at the expense of others. Finally and given the regulatory burden imposed on them, to suggest that our current healthcare system is broken because “insurance agencies … exact huge premiums while supplying meager benefits” is simplistic at best and uncharitable at worse.

Healthcare costs as well the availability of services are the result of numerous factors many of which are simply not under the control of insurance companies. The supply of healthcare professionals is dependent on the number of medical schools and healthcare training programs set by professional associations and/or state regulators. Health insurance rates, as well as coverage, are set by a combination of state and federal regulations. The ability of a healthcare professional to provide services is determined by state licensing laws as well as local, state, and federal regulations regarding the establishment of hospitals and free-standing clinics.

Add to all of this access to healthcare services is determined not only by the number and distribution of healthcare professionals but also by the ability of the individual to pay for services. Even assuming individuals have the money to pay for the care they may still lack access. Access might be denied because of a lack of availability. Basically, the supply of providers in their local area might be insufficient to meet demand. Alternatively—or possibly as a compounding factor—is the inability of individuals to get the time off work needed to visit a healthcare provider.

And of course, not everyone sees healthcare as worth the cost in time, money, or commitment to a therapeutic regime.

To reduce access to healthcare to a single (or even a select few) is to simply misunderstand the problem. Indeed, may even be to see a problem where, for some at least, it doesn’t even exist.

Breaking Orthodox Dependence on the State. Both FLW and Basis, or so it seems to me, have failed to take seriously the cost of the Church asking institutionally the State to enact policies that support the Gospel. By all means, as both documents affirm, let Orthodox Christian politicians seek to craft laws that are in harmony with the Gospel and pursue ends in keeping with the Church’s moral tradition. But this is, or at least should be, the personal vocation of the laity not something done in the institutional name of the Church. Both documents affirm a similar point when they point out the Church has lived and ministered under a variety of political regimes.

But where both documents take pains to defend the internal life of the Church from the State, neither I think takes seriously the American experience. I have in mind here the idea that while the Public Square should not be “naked,” the close alliance of the Church with the State will more often than not be to the advantage pf the latter at the expense of the former.

Though I focused here on a specific problem in FLW, the Basis likewise seems eager to enlist the aid of the State in furthering some aspect of the Church’s mission. Whether this is because, as in the case of the Basis, of a nostalgic sympathy of symphonia (co-operation of Church and State) or, as in the case of FLW, a sympathy for European progressive social policies, this is problematic for any number of reasons.

First, there is rarely one, singular morally acceptable policy. And even in the case even when we are discussing a matter about which the Church has spoken definitively for centuries as in the case of abortion. Even here though, there are in principle any number of legislative paths that Orthodox Christians might take to bring about the end of legal abortion. As for preventing abortion altogether, that would likely require a whole other set of actions on the part of the Church in cooperation with others committed to a pro-life/anti-abortion agenda.

Second, supporting one policy at the expense of other, equally morally acceptable policies, can put the Church’s witness at risk. Let explain.

When faced, however, with competing policies, policymakers must balance a number of factors in determining which road to take. But even morally good policies bring with them a variety of costs and unintended consequences about which we can—and really, should—disagree. When the Church hitches her wagon to one policy as normative above all the rest, her evangelical and pastoral missions are placed at risk when, as is inevitable, the policy they supported yesterday turns out to be undesirable today.