The Church Should Care for the Sick. So Should the Government.

Here's a truly bizarre statement that I’ve seen and heard too many times already and doubtless will too many times again: “The Church should care for the sick, NOT the Government!” First, this idea ignores the realities of what it takes to care for the sick in this day and age. It also presents a clearly false dichotomy about the roles of church and government that nobody I know actually believes; not when applied to other issues, at least.

I’ll start by making a minor concession and agreeing with the first premise in this statement. Yes, the church should and must care for the sick. Jesus makes clear in Matthew 25 that those who provide food to the hungry, drink to the thirsty, hospitality to the stranger, clothing to the naked, care to the sick, and companionship to the imprisoned are considered righteous in God’s eyes. The parable of the Good Samaritan too proclaims that it is good and right to care for others, perhaps especially when it is inconvenient and costs us our time, money, or even our own safety. So yes. The Church needs to care for the sick. But it isn’t. And it can’t. Not on its own, at least.

Now, I don’t want to sound like I’m criticizing The Church too harshly here. Numerous churches—from the one I grew up in for eighteen years to ones attended by friends of friends—have sent us care packages, cards, and yes, money. In many ways The Church has gone above and beyond in supporting me and my wife through my ongoing cancer treatments. We have been visited and hosted by people from church. I could not and would never expect or ask for more support than we’ve already received. From special offerings collected to generous individuals who continue to give to us, we have been helped immensely by the generosity of more churches than I can keep track of.

Yet the fact remains that none of this comes remotely close to covering the costs of my medical treatments. It never could, really. That’s why I have insurance. That’s why I NEED insurance. Insurance that, thanks to current government regulations, can’t be cut off for annual and lifetime limits that I would easily surpass. No church I’ve ever been part of has an extra million dollars per year in its budget for the medical bills of just one member or regular attendee. That’s how much my cancer treatment has averaged these last two-and-a-half years though. If caring for the sick were solely the responsibility of The Church, people like me with rare and expensive medical conditions would bankrupt churches and end up without access to life-saving treatments. The Church can and must tend to the sick, but it cannot pay for everyone’s medical care on its own.

Even if medical care we far cheaper or a lot more rich people donated copious amounts to The Church and The Church could somehow pay for everyone’s medical bills, that would still be no reason why our government should not also play some role in our healthcare system. The idea that it’s The Church’s job and therefore not the government’s would still be a false dichotomy. If The Church should do something—if something is noble and just—why should the government then necessarily avoid such things? The only possible answer to this question is that we must have separation of Church and State, yet that doesn’t really apply here. Certainly, no religion should unduly influence our government. But that doesn’t mean that a government’s duties to its citizens—such as providing for the right to life and therefore healthcare—should be abandoned just because members of a religion also believe in that duty and want to help in that area.

I don’t think anyone really believes this false dichotomy anyways though. Certainly I don’t know anyone who applies this principle consistently. It strikes me as very odd that many of the same people who say the government should get out of healthcare because The Church should care for the sick also want—for religious reasons—the government deciding who can marry whom based on something as trivial as the physical characteristics of their bodies. It is wildly inconsistent to vote for elected officials who promise to bring “Christian” principles to our government while saying the government shouldn’t do something the church is supposed to do.

I think when it comes down to it many Christians are simply embarrassed that our government is doing a better job than The Church at systematically providing food for the hungry and giving the sick a way to receive the healthcare they need. Really, we should be embarrassed by this. I know I am. I do next to nothing to contribute to these areas myself, and I wish I and The Church were better examples of Christ’s love. Sure, my current health makes that difficult, but that’s really just a tepid excuse. I didn’t exactly volunteer all that much before I got cancer, after all. We The Church can and must do better. But if Christian opposition to government involvement in caring for the sick does in fact stem from embarrassment, that’s about the most petty attitude I’ve ever encountered.

So how should the church care for the sick while recognizing the government’s role in healthcare? First, we must recognize there are in fact many ways of caring for the sick that the government cannot take care of. The Church can provide community that the government cannot. The Church can provide spiritual care that the government cannot. The Church can be a source of comfort and strength extending far beyond financial support—though it can and should work to improve its care in that area too. But The Church simply cannot provide comprehensive medical coverage for everyone. In light of that, we The Church should support and encourage our government to work towards healthcare policies that protect the sick and ensure they are cared for, even as we work together to care holistically for those facing illness.