It’s also not a critique of the one guy’s motives. He seemed nice enough, and I’m not bothered that he knocked on my door on a personal level.

My point instead, is that one guy at my door can easily get my support on one issue (if I already agree or he is well-reasoned enough), but that an organization is only going to receive my allegiance by being visible to me doing, over time and for the most part, work I support.

“You did NOT preempt the organization.”

“I will not fork over my money and allegiance just because you send some guy to knock on my door.”

Some people fork out money but not allegiance. “Mer” was a neighbor in North Dakota. At Christmas he simply sent $5 to every organization that sent him a letter asking for money. I said it was better to write one check to one organization that had interest for him and accountability. I wasn’t about to change him.

Some people fork out both. My father was persuaded by right wing fund raisers. He wanted to make a difference in the world. Those fund raisers could not stand up to accountability, but dad could no longer judge that.

Even if they have a beard! Your response is really about the organization not about individuals. You did differentiate between the guy, the one sent, and the organization, the sender. However, here is a guy who cares enough about the cause to come around, to risk not being fluent enough. He had the allegiance for the organization. And there was something about this event that sparked you to record it. You said you weren’t going to join “tonight.” You did preempt the organization.

“I’m just not going to sign up to support every one of the Club’s positions—.”

My gut reaction was that if you wait until you support every one of an organization’s positions you won’t ever have to fork over your money or allegiance. It can be a personal protection against getting involved. It is a kind of “safety fork.”

I remember Tom Dunbar (Rob’s dad) advocating for involvement. It is important for the wise and intelligent (not always the same people) to be a part of the groups who are actively involved in working for social improvement on different levels, local, national, global. It is important that there are “fluent” people to educate and persuade responsible action in the world.

Tom was more passionate in advocating being active for that sake of community than I am in advocating for the church. (He is a passionate guy.) I grew up in the personal piety model; people should act out of deep personal commitment. I was trained in planting seeds of religious faith to the exclusion of that person recruitment that Tom was practicing.

Of course, I like the church as an organization that participates on different levels. I don’t agree with all the “positions”. I choose to invest primarily in this organization to promote positive action in the world. At various times I have participated in other organizations with varying levels of commitment.

I advocate making a commitment of money and allegiance to some “helpful” organization, for the sake of the world. Don’t make the choice lightly, but don’t wait until the right organization knocks on the door. My hypothesis is; that organization does not exist. While any organization will gladly take your money, the good ones will be far happier to have your wisdom and intelligence and allegiance.

Disclaimer: While I made this argument from a rational humanist sort of perspective, I did intend the phrase “for the sake of the world” to include an embedded a theological framework for the advocacy. This hypothesis does, after all, come from …

Your pastor.