Timing is Everything (The Discussion of Philosophical Motives)

On Charity with a (fairly) Uncontroversial Point for Christians 

Christ commands us to love our enemies. This includes those who disagree with us, though as Christ’s life shows, this does not prevent calling out bad ideas. Jesus Christ could speak a “woe to you” without cutting off grace and mercy. The command to love enemies implies at least two things. First, we cannot love people we do not understand. Failure to take the time to see what people with bad ideas really believe, as opposed to easier-to-refute versions, is a failure of charity. Lenin was a monstrous tyrant*, but he also was a subtle thinker. If one opposes Leninism, as one should, let us find out what Lenin said, understand it as carefully as possible, and then argue and work against the ideas.

Second, I am (generally) a small government conservative, (often) fond of federalism. Some who disagree will not accept conservative support regarding practical solutions toward the poor. Since I agree with most of the two and one-half billion people in the world who are Christians (mostly non-white, mostly female) on certain ethical issues, some will not accept our help in medical services, education, or humanitarian aid.

Those likely to agree with me in those ways see the problem of letting people starve, fail to get hospital care, or learn to read based on less immediate but important disagreements. Often I have seen progress in environmental issues slowed by a failure of a presenter to confuse why one should be for a good and helping.

On Selective Timing

I was once on a plane going to an educational program in a nation just recovering from Communist tyranny. On the plane with me were numerous young adults from a religious group with whom I have serious theological disagreements. These disagreements are of eternal importance. This group was focused, however, on helping very poor children, some of whom lived in sewers, live decent lives, get an education, and be kept safe.

I wished them well.

Is it true that there is a danger, even a great danger, that bad theology will be believed due to the good works done by these kind people? There is. That should motivate people with my theology to do greater works than these with repentance. If the true church is known by the works the Holy Spirit inspires, then the immediate needs of these people in God’s image mattered. After all, if a person is allowed to die, there is no chance for philosophical or theological growth. Sadly, I have known people who will not support fine ministries like Star of Hope for ideological or religious reasons. This happens on the left and the right. If nobody better (from my philosophical and theological perspective) is as effective in my local community, then being an ally on discrete projects is warranted. 

When race issues come up, many people bring up the motives, theology, or philosophy of people engaged in making change. This is a fine thing to do overall or in an academic context as failure to notice differences can lead to later actions where an ally can no longer be an ally. For example, if someone generally rejects the free market, I am unlikely to accept all the solutions they will propose. On the other hand, systematic racism is real and a present source of evil.  The bulk of the traditional Christian African-American community reports serious problems in my political community and in the nation. If this suffering and concern includes persons of color people in my Church, then my first thought should be to work for immediate change.

What can we do? How have we failed our sisters and brothers? What can be done tangibly, immediately to address those concerns?

Also essential is to be still, read, listen, and learn. After all, classical Christian eduction is dialectical! What if my politics are wrong? What if I have misunderstood important issues on the culture? When there is time, then we should consider those questions and only then pose alternatives whose focus is not to stop thinking and acting about racism, but providing alternative solutions. Meanwhile, we should ally whenever we can and in times of intense pain work everywhere we possibly can, ally whenever we can, to bring change.

For example, banning certain police tactics, dealing with an inability to fire bad officers, and support for communities that for decades suffered government imposed evil policies are issues that can unite most Americans. These can be fixed making as many allies as possible.

Most importantly, if one is not working, proposing solutions, or acting, then raising philosophical objections to particular actions is like the Leninist who preferred people starve than get charity from a nun like Saint Elizabeth. 

Make a plan, do work, support people who are doing work with the ideas that you find palatable, or be still during a crisis. Where to draw the line, when to start discussions and disagree mightily is a hard question. Generally, this should occur when policy is being made at a corporate or government level. At all times, common goals, the good where there is agreement, should be kept in mind. When one must oppose a group absolutely, say the Soviet Union, one must make plain that the problem is not a spread in literacy (“If only there was more illiteracy. . .”), but the horrors of the regime and the gross failure of the system to do what it claimed to be able to do.

Meanwhile, a Christian should be kind, make allies where possible, and work (as one can) toward the common goal of the beloved community.

*On Lenin, I am learning from the new biography “Lenin: A Biography” by Robert Service. If Churchill, righteously anti-Communist, could ally with Stalin, a brutal tyrant, to defeat the more immediate problem Hitler, then a conservative has good reason to suspect she or he can ally with almost anyone to defeat a discrete and great evil!