Compromise

Jim Read on the ambiguous embrace

I

can understand why Time Warner would partner with AOL. New markets. Bigger profits. These are the engines that drive business. But why would an organization such as The Salvation Army, driven by values not profits, get into “partnering”?

The obvious answer is that partnering makes it possible for the Army to do important things that it couldn’t do on its own. As William Booth wrote in 1890: “All that I want is to have the work done….If you have any better plan than mine for effecting this purpose, in God’s name bring it to the light and get it carried out quickly. If you have not, then lend me a hand with mine, as I would be only too glad to lend you a hand with yours if it had in it greater promise of successful action than mine.”

Booth set the pattern and gave the rationale, but was he naïve to think that the Army’s partners would simply accept his plans holus bolus? Partners may have their own their own objectives that they want factored in. Consequently, the necessity to collaborate raises the question about the willingness to compromise.

Professor Charles Glenn of Boston University calls the Army’s long and complex partnership with government an “ambiguous embrace.” On the one hand, he says, “the overarching theme of the Army’s growth has been its willingess and ability to partner with the secular public to achieve common social objectives.” On the other hand, “shifts in the character of the Army’s social programs over the past three decades can in part be attributed to external pressures associated with government contracting. ….Many within the Salvation Army have simply accepted the terms on which they receive government funding, and do not have sufficient distance to recognize the subtle and unconscious shifts which have occurred in the mission and character of their programs”

I will leave it to others to debate whether Professor Glenn’s analysis is factual. For me he raises the interesting question of whether and when compromise is ethical. Three kinds of situation come to mind.

First is the compromise of doing something good but less than the ideal. The Army has always had grand ambitious visions. “The World for God” was an early slogan that still stirs my heart. But others with the money, the talent and the reputation may not be willing to sign on for anything so big. Feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and visiting the sick is the extent of their cooperation. Is it wrong to partner with them? How could it be since the outcome is something everyone agrees is good?

Or, is the good truly the enemy of the best? When refusing a partner’s help means doing nothing at all, then it’s wrong. But suppose one accepts, and in doing so commits scarce resources to a good task? That means they aren’t available for other tasks. Once you’ve agreed to partner on a corps or social program, you can’t just pull the plug because someone else has offered to be a partner in something better.

The second sort of compromise could be described as doing something bad but “unavoidable.” An acquaintance of mine is the chief fund-raiser for a large hospital. He tells me that one of the foundations he approaches requires him to file a budget that sets the costs of administration and fundraising impossibly low. He knows he can’t keep his overhead as low as they demand. He knows that they know it too. But every year he goes ahead and files a false budget. He doesn’t feel good about lying, but reasons that it’s the only way to get the funding, and to forgo the funding would be worse for the patients.

Some notable Christian theologians have said this kind of compromise is a necessity built into the fabric of our now-fallen world. As Reinhold Niebuhr put it: “the law of love is an impossible possibilty…every achievement will remain in the realm of approximation. The ideal in its perfect form lies beyond the capacities of human nature…The ideal is qualified in any possible society by the necessities of social cohesion and corrupted by the sinfulness of men.” Our ethical responsibility on this view is to discern the lesser evil and rely on the assurance that God forgives us, and justifies us by our faith not our ethical purity. “Compromise does not mean that we have an excuse,” says Helmut Thielicke. “It means that we participate in the suprapersonal guilt of this aeon.”

Perhaps because of my holiness tradition that has taught that sinning is not necessary, this view is uncomfortable for me. (Which is not to say it’s false.)

A third kind of compromise involves cooperating with a partner who is doing something wrong, and is in some respect aided in that wrongdoing by our partnership. Governments here in Canada, for instance, are the promoters and operators (as well as the regulators) of gambling. They want “good causes” to partner with them in using the gambling profits. The Army wouldn’t have to run casinos itself, it would just have to lend its good name to the government that runs the casino. Another example: the same governments that would partner with the Army in delivering hospice care are simultaneously debating whether to legalize assisted suicide. Obviously our values diverge. Does that make partnership taboo?

Catholic ethics has dealt with this kind of situation by differentiating between “formal cooperation” (i.e. cooperation in which the partners jointly intend the evil act itself) and “material cooperation” (i.e. in which one’s own intentions remain good). Formal cooperation is always unethical, they argue; but so long as the cause is important enough, material cooperation is sometimes permissible. The reason, on this view, is that each partner has its own moral accountability, and (Thielicke notwithstanding) is not automatically tainted by the partner’s shortfall.

This brief account doesn’t say everything that could be said about the ethics of compromises. That wasn’t the point. The point was that values-driven organizations like The Salvation Army need to scrutinize their partnerships from the standpoint of values, not just outcomes. Those who have to make the decision about whether partnership comes at an ethically acceptable price need wisdom.

The last word goes to Charles Glenn: “There is much to admire about the work of the Salvation Army, but equally admirable is their seriousness with which it is grappling with how to maintain its distinctive character and mission in the ‘ambiguous embrace’ of government and of the contributing public.”

Writer: Dr. James E. Read is the Executive Director of The Salvation Army Ethics Centre in Winnipeg, Canada. He just returned from speaking engagements in Norway and Germany and is thrilled that his newest granddaughter, Amaya, waited until he got home to make her debut. Jim is a lifelong Salvationist whose vision and passion birthed the Ethics Centre 13 years ago. The Centre is a ministry of the Canada and Bermuda Territory but provides educational and consultative resources to the Army worldwide. This article first appeared in The Standard in March, 2000.

4 Comments to Compromise

1. It is good to bring these things to our attention. I think we sometimes forget that faith, witness, and the gospel come with many strings. How far will we let those strings pull us? How firmly will we stand before they break? Basically, when do we compromise? I have struggled painfully with this question since my commitment to the Lord and my struggle continues. I will say this: when compromise pokes its head up, inconsistencey and hypocrisy are not far behind. The cross, the cross, the precious cross… here, there can be no compromise, no wavering, no side-road.
Matt Kean on May 21st, 2007

2. Yes, compromise is not usually an attractive thing and we have all been frustrated in various issues where ‘we can’t do something because…’.
   I would love to see policies made without a backward glance at donors’ opinions, partners’ sensitivites, other Church leaders’ opinions and even political correct sensibilities.
   I used to get very vexed when I worked in Army social services that in a building owned by The Salvation Army Housing Association you could not have a room designated as a chapel because it didn’t ‘attract funding’. My view was always unheard, namely that SAHA should be paid by The Salvation Army so it could have its chapel!!
   However…
Antony Mugford on May 22nd, 2007

3. This is a complex issue and without a doubt has no simple answer.

   I do think though that the “strings attached” to funding should be weighted and carefully considered - I hope that presently happens.

   Also I think the source of the funding should be considered carefully. If the source of the funding is too far out of line with our particular mission, then I believe it is incongruous for us to be accepting funding from that source - I am particularly thinking of breweries, tobacco companies, and gambling organizations.

   A neighbour of mine is the head of the Canadian Cancer Society and I asked him once if they would ever accept donations from a tobacco company - his reply was, “Never - their aims are too incongruous with ours.” Now how much more should we, a Christian church with a special mission be concerned about the known sources of our donations. We should be comparing the amount of “good” we can do with such donations to the amount of “bad” impact those donors have on society. For example, it would seem to me that the damage that alcohol abuse does in our society, far outweighs the good that we can put donations to from Molson’s Brewery here in Canada. Molson’s used to have a public statement on the internet, saying that the purpose of their donations to charitable organizations, was to enhance their image in communities across our country. We, in accepting their donations, are helping them to enhance their image. It would seem that the negative impact of accepting such questionable donations (thereby assisting them in the marketing of alcohol), far outweighs any good effect that we might put that money too.

   When we accept donations - whether they be with restricting strings or from dubious known sources - some would argue that it reflects a lack of faith in God to provide from suitable sources.

   When one considers the tainted money story of William Booth, it is hard to imagine that he could have foreseen his Army accepting substantial donations from Breweries, from Tobacco companies, and from gambiling organizations (which our public funding statement in the appendix says we can do).

   I am not against accepting outside funding, but I do think we have to consider carefully the known sources from which it comes, and also weigh carefully any strings attached. Thank you Jim for raising this ethical issue and causing us once again to think about this. I hope we do more than just think about it quite frankly.
Lorna Rogers Simard on May 22nd, 2007

4. this is a really interesting topic. there’s many arguments that can be made.

   on one side, i’ve heard it said ‘take the money from anywhere, wash it in the tears of the orphan and the prostitute and use it to the glory of God’

   i understand, also, that since we are a registered charity, we are under some legal obligation to maximise profit for public use. i could be wrong about that.

   with the alcohol and gambling money, it seems quite cool that we can take their profits and plow it into rehab and getting people saved.

   maybe the question is not ‘where is the money coming from?’ but rather ‘what are we doing with it?’ is it being used with the sole purpose of saving souls? this extends to purchases such as officer quarters, cars, travel, employee salaries, even having subsidised food outlets for employees at headquarters. make a sandwich at home! this is the sort of compromise that bothers me more. that is worldliness.
john on May 28th, 2007

Leave a comment