Presbyterians are known for being out there in the world through the good deeds of our service projects and disaster relief ministries. We are known for trying to address the ills of the world by informing our members through our teachings and our public prayers. We are also known for speaking truth to those in political power. We have heard these approaches described simply as Service, Education and Advocacy.

Unfortunately, we often may hear people say that one approach, to alleviate injustice, is more important than the other. Some may say that it is more important to carry out the good deed of direct service, as opposed to any words we may say in a Sunday morning sermon or letter to a Member of Congress. The truth is that any approach that addresses injustice is no less important than another approach. All avenues must be covered.

Over the years I have used what I call a ‘Modern Day Parable,’ which contains elements of all three approaches, to show that there is a place for all three and that no single one is more important than the other. Since I have been telling this off and on over the last 20 years, some readers may have heard or read it.

But in light of recent talks about Faith Based Initiatives and the political drive to get the religious community to focus more on direct service alone, I thought it would be worth spending time on this topic. I believe it illustrates this idea nicely – there is a place for several types of ministries in God’s world.

The Parable of the Recent Convert
This parable begins in a country where we send our mission dollars and overseas evangelism programs. A pastor and a recent convert were walking along a riverbank in a country where we send mission dollars. As they walked, the recent convert was learning more about his new found faith from the pastor and the pastor enjoyed this teaching opportunity.

As they continued to walk, they happened to look down into the water. They saw someone floating and in obvious need of help. The recent convert and the pastor went into the water, pulled the person out, offered emergency assistance and sent the person on his way.

The pastor, not wanting to miss a teaching moment, turned to the recent convert and asked, "Isn’t it great that our faith allowed us to be here during this time of need for that person?" The recent convert, happy with this demonstration of faith’s commitment, simply said “Yes.”

On the next day, the recent convert and the pastor were walking along the same riverbank while continuing conversations about the newfound faith of the convert, when they saw two more people in obvious distress in the river. Again they went in to pull these people out, but found they needed to take them to the hospital for the more serious injuries they had sustained. (This hospital could have been built with mission money from the churches in the United States, given in support of such direct service projects like hospitals and medical care.)

Upon leaving the injured persons at the hospital, the pastor, again not wanting to miss a teaching occasion, asked the recent convert, "Isn’t it great that our faith allowed us to be here during this time of need?" The recent convert again said, ‘Yes.’

And yet again, on the third day, the pastor and the recent convert were walking and talking about faith issues along the same riverbank. This time, there were even more people in the river. Again assistance was given. The pastor, never missing an opportunity to teach about faith and religion, posed the same question to the recent convert, "Isn’t it great that our faith allowed us to be here during this tragic time of need?" This time the recent convert turned to the pastor and asked a question of his own. "Yes," he said. "But why don’t we go to the top of the river, find out what is causing these people to come to harm and stop it?”

Once the recent convert asked his own question, the situation became a little more complicated. The situation perhaps even became political. It was now a real challenge for the pastor.

There are some who would have the pastor, the recent convert and the church, remain only walking along the riverbank while talking about faith and religion.

There would be those who would say it is more important to be there to help those who are hurting and floating down the river.

And then there would be some who would go immediately to the top of the river to do what is necessary to stop the violence through diplomacy, advocacy and as a possible last resort – intervention.

What was happening at the top of the river was probably an injustice. Do we approach it with service, education or advocacy?

There are some in our church system who would say that we should put more emphasis on those who are hurting in the river. Give them first aid, but do not get involved with the turmoil at the top of the river no matter how many more bodies we may find during future days of walking along the riverbank.

And then there are those who want to get right to the top of the river and stop whatever it is that is causing the bloodshed, pain and disruption. This may involve political or even military action. For those who feel called by God to go to the top of the river through political action, there will always be a lot of tension and calls to go back to the riverbank ministries where they are told they belong.

I like to point to the prophet Amos who has said that we are to –“Hate evil Love good and establish justice in the gate” (Amos 5:15). To establish justice in the gate may not be easy. Even the head priest of the Bethel temple, Amaziah, reported to the King of Israel, Jeroboam, “Amos has conspired against you in the very center of the House of Israel; the land is not able to bear all his words” (Amos 7: 10). When justice advocates go to the top of the river, they often hear from others among them that the land is not able to bear their words.

There is probably war and greed happening at the top of that river. How do we stop it? Should we interfere? Should we wage war to stop it? Should we wage war alone or wait for the influence of the United Nations; unilateral action or multilateral? With these questions, this parable suddenly becomes real. Should our letters to the President and our members of Congress suggest a unilateral approach or encourage that we seek the partnership of other nations?

We have approached the gates of injustice in the Middle East. These gates are in Jerusalem, Palestine and Iraq. Do we get involved? Do we go to war? We are not what is known as a peace church; i.e., speaking out against war regardless of the circumstances or situation. We are not one of the churches that calls for peace absolutely; in the manner in which the Mennonites, Brethren or the Quakers would. We are one of the churches that may under certain circumstances say that intervention, even military intervention, may be the lesser of two evils.

In September of 2001, we were all in shock trying to undertstand the events of September 11th. As the Washington Office reminded our readers of the General Assembly policy statements calling for peace, and of scriptures like Romans 12, which says: “If at all possible return no one evil for evil,” we received some angry phone calls from Presbyterians from around the country.
In September 2002, as the nation began preparation for a possible war, the Washington Office received numerous calls from readers who wanted to know who to write to, in order to advocate for a peaceful resolution with regard to Iraq. What a difference a year made!

We can reflect upon these words from The Confession of 1967, “God’s reconciliation in Jesus Christ is the ground of the peace, justice and freedom among nations which all powers of government are called to serve and defend. The church, in its open life, is called to practice the forgiveness of enemies and to commend to the nations as practical politics the search for cooperation and peace. The search requires that the nations pursue fresh and responsible relations across every line of conflict even at the risk of national security, to reduce areas of strife and to broaden international understanding. Reconciliation among nations becomes peculiarly urgent as countries develop nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, diverting their manpower and resources from constructive uses and risking the annihilation of mankind.”

Charity vs. Justice
A discussion of charity vs. justice is another way to discuss the above parable. Is it enough to just give food to the hungry or should we also address the root causes of hunger? The bodies floating down the river can be likened to the many people who find themselves in need of a homeless shelter, food pantry supplies or the use of a hospital emergency room as their primary care facility. If we are volunteers or providers in such settings, we may begin to see those who flow through the doors for service as being very much like the bodies floating down the river. We may have similar conversations, with our pastor and others in our church, as those that took place between the pastor and the recent convert.

In these conversations we should conclude that yes—some of us should rightfully stay and provide the immediate services needed. We should, so to speak, stay along the riverbank to assist in this emergency. Others of us may want to step out of the doors of the service facility and get at the root causes of need. We will find the need to perhaps advocate for a social service safety net; equal access to housing, employment; and universal health insurance for all.
Ecclesiastes 3 tells us that there is a time for everything. In verse 16 we read, “Moreover I saw under the sun that in the place of justice, wickedness was there, and in the place of righteousness, wickedness was there as well.” For the bodies in the river; the poor on our church doorsteps; the homeless in the street; the African AIDS crises; children who are the victims of war— wickedness has certainly taken the place of justice and righteousness as nations do little to address these solvable dilemmas. “He has made everything suitable for its time…(Ecclesiastes 3: 11).” There is a time, place and purpose for service/charity, education and advocacy/justice.

Additional biblical reflections:
Service -The Good Samaritan—Luke 10: 29-37, a biblical parable of service to a neighbor in need. Jesus said, “Go and do likewise.”(Luke 10: 37)
Education - Jesus Sermon on the Mountain—Matthew 5-7, “…for he taught them as one who had authority.” (Matthew 7: 29).
Advocacy - The Last Judgment—Matthew 25: “Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left. Then the King will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me’, …truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren you did it to me.’ Then he will say to those at his left hand, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, …”