A Church of Salvation versus a Church of Compassion

[Anonymous]

I recently read the following post on By Common Consent: https://bycommonconsent.com/2016/08/02/wait-the-church-has-money/

I found it interesting given the continuing discussions here and other places regarding the LDS Church’s financial goals. But what struck me was the following from the comments section:

Quote:

“2) Organization must have not only a benevolent effect but must be set up so that the primary purpose is benevolent toward the poor and needy.”

If you’re defining “poor and needy” in monetary terms, as I assume you are, given the context of this thread, then I, and I’m sure many others, would instantly and permanently reject this as an element in “a theology of institutional money.” That might be appropriate for the Red Cross or a thrift store, but not for the Church.

Yes, the Church ought to have the material needs of the poor and needy in mind and address them to a reasonable extent. But “primary purpose”? No. *Anybody* can address that need, and nearly *everybody* ought to be doing so. Who else but the Church, however, can even begin to address the real purposes of the Church — salvation for the living and the dead? Nobody else. And that’s the Church’s primary raison d’etre. It isn’t now and never was and shouldn’t ever be primarily a food bank, or a health clinic, or an employment office or a clothing depot or a readin’ and writin’ school, although it joins other charitable institutions in helping to meet some of those needs. If you’re a believer in the mission of the Restoration, then the Church is the only organization that can address its core mission. It takes money to do that. You may not like how it raises or spends its money to do that, but that’s an entirely different question from reforming the organization to cast its primary purpose as caring for the poor and needy … unless you meant “poor in spirit” and “in need of the gospel and its fruits,” in which case I withdraw my objection.

Here is a contrasting comment:

Quote:

I give to the church for the purpose of building up of Zion — Zion meaning, in part, having no poor among us. That suggests to me that addressing poverty is core to the mission of the church.

I came to the realization that as an institution the LDS Church is a bit “schizophrenic.” I think there is some inherent tension between our “Church of Salvation” (as illustrated in the first quote) and our “Church of Compassion” (as illustrated in the second).

I can see how the business model and the business background of many of our general authorities contributes significantly to the culture associated with the “Church of Salvation.” The LDS Church “saves souls” in lieu of “making profits.” However, whether it be profits or souls, you can still use business principles to achieve goals. The LDS Church provides certain “inputs” (buildings, temples, etc) to create outputs (members who have been to the temple and are active in their wards). Those outputs are also fairly easy to measure (hence the significant data collection efforts of the Church.)

The activities of a Church of Compassion will look a little different. You probably wouldn’t need temples but you would need methods for delivering services and even experts to provide some of those services. (It’s probably easier to staff a temple with volunteers than an organization like LDS Social Services). In addition, compassion could be more challenging to measure. You can measure how many people served but not really how long term the impact of that service is. (You’ve taught the man to fish but does he continue to fish.) Those kinds of services don’t fit with the business model as neatly perhaps.

So a Church of Salvation will not focus on compassionate service. (You can feed the poor in this life but that does not guarantee their salvation in the next.) A Church of Compassion would not worry so much about salvation due to its focus (which would be more on the here and now). Missionary work would be more of an afterthought under the “compassion” model. These activities are not mutually exclusive but I think depending on who you interact with, there is a definite emphasis.

I think we have bishops who are members of the Church of Salvation and bishops who are members of the Church of Compassion. I think some of our general authorities are more “salvation” oriented (e.g. Elders Oaks and Bednar) while others may be more “compassion” oriented (e.g. President Uchtdorf, the late Elder Wirthlin). The big challenge is that Christ was both. He was the “way, the truth and the life” but also taught the principles of “loving enemies” and “love one another.” He got the balance right. I think institutionally the Church is still working on it. I think personally we all are,too.

[Anonymous]

Nice comments Gerald.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for sharing, Gerald, and thanks for the comments.

I think the church as an institution is both a church of salvation and a church of compassion – or it least it tries hard to be. The church does a great deal of humanitarian work, much of which goes unnoticed and unheralded (perhaps as it should be). While I often wish it would do more on the local level for individuals and while I see much more value in drilling a well in India or teaching an African how to farm than in building multi-million dollar temples, from the standpoint of salvation the majority of the membership does see temples as important. Likewise, I would love it if missions focused more on service and doing things like drilling wells and assisting in building adequate housing for the world’s poorest and I believe if we did so the baptisms would still come (and perhaps individuals would actually be more converted to Christ). Nevertheless, I understand the mindset of missionaries bringing salvation through baptism and “spreading the gospel.” In fact, instead of building more temples I would favor funding temple trips for those for whom it would otherwise take life savings to attend – and I think it’d be cheaper.

That said, I’m a member of the church of compassion and hope that there is balance in the force.

[Anonymous]

I personally view the church as primarily a church of salvation.

I believe that even when we as typical LDS church members do the right thing we are doing so with the motivation of salvation.

I believe that we serve that our service might soften the hard hearts to the message of the gospel and possibly be the means of their salvation.

I believe that we serve because we believe that our service has been commanded and that by doing so we are going through the process of “perfecting the saints”.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

I personally view the church as primarily a church of salvation.

I believe that even when we as typical LDS church members do the right thing we are doing so with the motivation of salvation.

I believe that we serve that our service might soften the hard hearts to the message of the gospel and possibly be the means of their salvation.

I believe that we serve because we believe that our service has been commanded and that by doing so we are going through the process of “perfecting the saints”.

I agree with you, Roy. I recognize that I may be creating a false dichotomy. I also don’t want to dismiss the extensive humanitarian efforts of the Church. As before, I think it’s a question of emphasis. If your emphasis is on salvation that MAY create a different culture, different perspectives and different objectives. (Just the same for compassion).

Ultimately, the original post was an attempt to sort some things out in my own mind. This board has been a convenient place to do that.

[Author]

Posts