While the Basis and FLW follow roughly similar paths in their respective discussions of theological anthropology and the relationship of the Church to the political order, they diverge quite dramatically when it comes to questions of economic liberty.
We’ll explore the specific teachings on economics in two, subsequent posts.
For now though, let me highlight one weakness in at least some, contemporary OST. Too often we assume what Tradition allows, it demands.
What Tradition Allows vs. Demands
Several years ago I reviewed a book on environmentalism for the Acton Institute. The book, Living in God’s Creation: Orthodox Perspectives on Ecology, was written by the Orthodox theologian Elizabeth Theokritoff.
While overall quite positive, I ended my review with a criticism of the author’s assertion that it is “not the task of theology to come up with … solutions” to environmental problems. As I said then, I find this less than satisfying “especially given that she thinks policies such as fair trade, population control, and reduced consumption and production in the West are appropriate Christian means of caring for the environment” (p. 30).
More specifically,
On the last page of the book, there is a trivial illustration of the author’s uncritical identification of the tradition of the Orthodox Church with her own preferred environmental policies. Rightly, as the author reminds us, “there is no path to the Kingdom except through a thousand ordinary, humdrum decisions.” But is it also true to say, as she suggests, that “recycling a sheet of paper . . . is a practical assent to [God’s] plan of salvation. . . . [and] signals our willingness to be co-workers with the Almighty in bringing his creation to the fulfillment for which it was made” (p. 265)? Maybe, but not necessarily.
Then, as now, I disagree with the “author’s progressive politics and policies” but was appreciative that
Theokritoff offers her suggestions in a spirit of humility. As she writes, “there will sometimes be genuine differences among Christians about the practicalities of remedying various ills” (p. 30). True enough, but I do wish that the author had left her own politics completely out of the book or, having included them, she engaged those who disagree with her.
As we will see shortly, in both FLW and Basis, there is a tendency to equate desired outcomes with what the Tradition demands. Given the highly contextual nature of public policy, I think the most we can say is that the Tradition (at most) merely allows for the pursuit of a specific policy. When we confuse the Tradition with our policy preferences, we undermine what both documents rightly point out should be the hallmark of Orthodox social witness: that is, its self-emptying character.
That said, let’s look briefly at the economic teaching found in the Basis and FLW.