On Preaching To The Choir

I have very strong opinions on why the Church exists and what its role in society is. Other people, good principled people, have radically different opinions. Sometimes I think it's necessary to explain exactly why I disagree with their philosophies.

The most recent issue (and bear in mind it's only the most recent, not the most pressing or most important) deals with the Social Gospel. The Social Gospel was a movement who's early leaders included Josiah Strong and Walter Rauschenbusch (I have no idea if I spelled that correctly). The idea is if God's Kingdom is to come on Earth as it is in Heaven then we should promote the welfare of society by helping the poor, opposing war, etc...

I certainly agree we should help the poor. However, helping the poor is not the reason the Church exists; it is a natural result of the Church functioning as it should, but it's not why the Church exists. I'm often told I should help the poor, and sometimes condescendingly because for some reason certain individuals believe that, as a Libertarian, want to just let the poor die off and kill baby seals (o.k., no one has ever accused me of wanting to kill baby seals).

I do not want to let the poor die off. In fact I will happily pin my credentials for generosity against any of my Social Gospel-supporting friends. I'm a member of the ONE Campaign to end global poverty. I'm a member of the Save Darfur Coalition, and I orchestrated signing local Boy Scouts up to join the Coalition as well. I have refused to donate to any political campaigns because I think that money is better used going to organizations like the Save Darfur Coalition. I'm an Eagle Scout and have helped organize food drives for local homeless shelters and soup kitchens. I'm so extreme that I don't believe in dressing up for Church because I think God would be more honored by us using that money for missionaries to establish orphanages, wells, etc... Since I haven't managed to get the Church on board with that last one (even my Social Gospel friends, many of whom wear designer clothing and pay $4.00 for coffee at Starbucks) I generally wear used dress clothes; with the exception of a shirt, tie, and three pairs of pants that I got at a going out of business sale for something like 1/3rd to 1/4th of the list price. This last year I missed my city's "March for Jesus" to attend a 5k and raise money for a local deaf boy. I'm not going to mention the percentage of my income given to non-profits this year because I'm afraid I'd shame some people.

I'm not saying all this to brag, but to point out that many of my Social Gospel friends are big on talk but small on action. I believe talk is cheap (literally) and action is what is required. So by my philosophy, that the Church exists to evangelize, worship, disciple, fellowship, and minister I'm driven to much more action then most who believe the Church exists solely to help the poor (I realize the Social Gospel has other aspects, but let's handle these one at a time).

Now on to the issue of war. I don't like war, I don't like the war in Iraq, I would prefer we could avoid war. But sometimes moral principle does not allow us to do that. What? How can I say war might be moral?

Let me explain a few ethics rules:

1. The Utilitarian Rule: This rule states that, in order to be ethical, we should pursue the course of action that results in the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people.

2. The Moral Rights Rule: This rule states that we must not violate inalienable rights (the problem with this rule is not everybody agrees on what rights are inalienable).

3. The Justice Rule: This rule states that we must pursue the course of action that distributes benefits and harms equally among all the people affected by the decision.

4. The Practical Rule: This rule states that in making a decision we should be willing to communicate it to people outside those affected by it because the average person would think it is an acceptable decision.

Based on these rules there may be times where it would be more ethical to engage in a war then to avoid one. Opposing a dictator or fighting terrorists, as painful as it is, may produce more good for more people then letting that dictator or terrorist continue. Look at WWII, to produce the greatest good for the greatest number of people we had to oppose Hitler, he was not being just or moral; and certainly not practical. Was that a preferable option? Certainly not! But it was necessary.

Would Jesus support war? Well, He did have a Zealot among His disciples and He never condemned the Romans for their wars. I think the problem is we want God to be on our side, when really we should be on His side (you can thank Abraham Lincoln for that line). What's interesting is many of my Social Gospel friends are, like me, staunchly opposed to theocracies and yet they want our national policy to be based on their interpretation of Jesus teachings.

At any rate my Social Gospel friends prefer to preach to me about helping the poor when they are in fact preaching to the choir (sometimes hypocritically). Their message of no theocracy but national policy based on a theologically questionable interpretation of Christ's teachings is inconsistent. And lastly, if there's a problem do something about it, don't complain to me. Complain to your Senators and Representative, I must have a stack 5/6 inches high of letters they've written me about my numerous petitionings to their offices (most of which dealt with Darfur and poverty).

God bless!
Joey