God & Machiavelli
I had an interesting theological, philosophical, sort of discussion with a friend of mine today. She and I were sitting at a local coffee shop, sipping on a couple of iced tea lattes, and vaguely listening to a guitarist / singer who was performing outside.
After a break, the guy launched into a whole set of contemporary Christian songs (fairly unremarkable ones at that), and what little audience was left outside at that point kind of dissipated, particularly after his announcement of a lifelong dream to open for Amy Grant (of course, groans at that could have been as much motivated by taste as ideology, but that's not the point. No offense to Amy Grant, if someone listens to her music, okay, but dreaming to be her opening band? That's a bit over the top.)
So I got thinking. If God is weighing the relative merits of how devoted different people are, which is more important, the effort or the results? (And, yes, I know God's not supposed to work that way, but people do, and it's still useful to have an answer). In other words, is God an "it's the thought that counts" kind of guy, or an "end justifies the means" kind of guy? There are obvious cases where neither applies, for example, when some misguided cult leader kills all of his followers, claiming it was the will of God — killing is usually wrong, so whether it was the means or the end is irrelevant.
In other cases, though, it's a little stickier. The example I thought of is this: on one hand, you have Christian A. Christian A asks every single person he meets if they know Jesus, he listens to nothing but Christian rock, and he generally makes everyone around him feel inadequate in their faith. In the course of his life, he brings 100 people to the church ("converts" them, so to speak), but he has also turned away 200 people who were annoyed or turned off by his hyper-Christian lifestyle, and no longer had any interest in being associated with the church.
On the other hand, you have Christian B. Christian B doesn't talk about God all that much, but is happy to share any time someone asks him about his beliefs. He doesn't force his faith on anyone, he's laid back and non-judgmental, and he pretty much doesn't interfere with what other people are doing. However, over the course of his life, because of his example, his being approachable and easy to relate to, and his not being too judgmental, 20 people are drawn to the church, and no one is scared away by him.
Obviously, Christian A would have some interesting things to say about Christian B's lack of commitment, discipleship, etc, and Christian A has indeed brought more people to God, but at a net loss of 100 people, whereas, Christian B has a net profit of 20 people.
Does God value both? Or is Christian A a liability? Or is Christian B lukewarm, regardless of the final result?
It's an interesting quandary, and I don't think I have an answer.
After a break, the guy launched into a whole set of contemporary Christian songs (fairly unremarkable ones at that), and what little audience was left outside at that point kind of dissipated, particularly after his announcement of a lifelong dream to open for Amy Grant (of course, groans at that could have been as much motivated by taste as ideology, but that's not the point. No offense to Amy Grant, if someone listens to her music, okay, but dreaming to be her opening band? That's a bit over the top.)
So I got thinking. If God is weighing the relative merits of how devoted different people are, which is more important, the effort or the results? (And, yes, I know God's not supposed to work that way, but people do, and it's still useful to have an answer). In other words, is God an "it's the thought that counts" kind of guy, or an "end justifies the means" kind of guy? There are obvious cases where neither applies, for example, when some misguided cult leader kills all of his followers, claiming it was the will of God — killing is usually wrong, so whether it was the means or the end is irrelevant.
In other cases, though, it's a little stickier. The example I thought of is this: on one hand, you have Christian A. Christian A asks every single person he meets if they know Jesus, he listens to nothing but Christian rock, and he generally makes everyone around him feel inadequate in their faith. In the course of his life, he brings 100 people to the church ("converts" them, so to speak), but he has also turned away 200 people who were annoyed or turned off by his hyper-Christian lifestyle, and no longer had any interest in being associated with the church.
On the other hand, you have Christian B. Christian B doesn't talk about God all that much, but is happy to share any time someone asks him about his beliefs. He doesn't force his faith on anyone, he's laid back and non-judgmental, and he pretty much doesn't interfere with what other people are doing. However, over the course of his life, because of his example, his being approachable and easy to relate to, and his not being too judgmental, 20 people are drawn to the church, and no one is scared away by him.
Obviously, Christian A would have some interesting things to say about Christian B's lack of commitment, discipleship, etc, and Christian A has indeed brought more people to God, but at a net loss of 100 people, whereas, Christian B has a net profit of 20 people.
Does God value both? Or is Christian A a liability? Or is Christian B lukewarm, regardless of the final result?
It's an interesting quandary, and I don't think I have an answer.