A large, downtown church had an unusual problem. Some years earlier, the church had been given a nearby parking garage that also housed a restaurant. At the time of the gift, the parking business in the garage was profitable, and the rent it paid helped the church. In the time since, however, many of the city’s main employers had closed, and the whole community had gone into an economic slump. The garage had become a financial drain on the church.
The restaurant in the building was still paying rent, but its business was dropping off. So they came to the church trustees requesting that they agree to the restaurant getting a liquor license, in hope that liquor sales would boost the lunchtime trade and allow the restaurant to continue as a viable renter.
Some of the trustees viewed this request favorably. Other trustees, however, pointed out that their denomination had historically supported temperance. They felt that it was wrong for the church to own a building in which alcohol was served. Both sides stuck to their positions, and the issue was resolved only when the bishop stepped in and ruled that the church could not in any way support liquor sales.
So in the end, the trustees did the right thing, but for some of them, it was only because they had no other choice.
Now, here’s the question: When you do the right thing, but for the wrong reason, does it still count for righteousness?
Here’s another example. Colin Morris, who was a missionary in Zambia, points out that from the viewpoint of people who are hungry, anybody who gives them food, regardl
