I’m not convinced that the difference is all that considerable.

These churches were participating in an established service that helps homeless people. To run, that established service required a certain amount of overhead. That overhead can be represented by some value, N, which can be measured in terms of time and money expended in administrative necessities.

Presumably, the cost of that overhead was covered in part by all 8 services. Assuming an equal share, that means that each church contributed N/8 to cover that administrative overhead.

By withdrawing, the remaining church now have to contribute N/5 to cover that same overhead. Which means that each remaining church has experienced an increased administrative expenditure of 3N/40.

Even if the three remaining churches work together to start their own program, they now have a new program which will also have administrative costs, which means they now have to invest N all over again. Now their paying N/3 to cover administrative costs, which for them represents an increase of 5N/24 in administrative expenditures.

This means that now instead of a single program with a total administrative overhead of N, there is now two programs with a total administrative overhead of 2N. So if M is the total amount invested in either scenario, the total amount spent actually helping the homeless is after administrative costs has gone from M-N to M-2N. Effectively, by splitting off, these churches have decreased the total amount of help actually being supplied to the homeless.

Or to put it another way, these churches have demonstrated that cutting ties with anyone who doesn’t hold their theological views on homosexuality is worth decreasing the actual help given to homeless people by some value N.

In my mind, that’s still pretty damning evidence that that their theological purity is more important to them than helping the homeless.

At the time that I posted the commentary I went to the website of a few of the churches and could find no indication that they were simply breaking off to do their own charity. One website still listed Martha’s Table (church websites tend not to be updated quickly).

Nor did I find any reference in news stories to continued service. So while I can’t say for certain, I saw no indication that they were going to continue ministry to the homeless.

Additionally, it appears that the location of the help was in one of the churches that stayed. It may be that the breakaways are not in a location that is helpful.

I was not asking you to do research for me; I cringed at my comment after posting because it sounded as though I were giving you an assignment. My point — which I should have made clearer — was that if I were the one reporting this story, I would have looked into the possibility that the three churches who left Martha’s Table may continue serving the homeless on their own, because in my opinion that would make a difference. That said, while I disagree with your opinion, I do at least understand and respect it.

If you’d like to pay me to be a reporter then I’ll happily do research for you. The authors at Box Turtle Bulletin run this blog as a labor of love, we are not paid to do so.

You are, of course, entitled to disagree with my opinions. I believe that anyone who chooses to stop helping the poor because they’d be around people who think that gay folk should not suffer discrimination is mean, spiteful, malicious, and nasty. You may think them principled.

If you wish, you can present evidence to support your argument. But I’ll not be doing your research for you.

I don’t mean to be rude, but isn’t that your job as the reporter?

You call the three churches mean, spiteful, malicious, and nasty, even though you admittedly do not know their intentions. If they plan to stop ministering to the homeless altogether, then I would agree that their behavior is appalling and disgusting, especially for people who claim to espouse the tenets of Christ.

However, if they left Martha’s Table over theological disagreements regarding homosexuality — and from what I’ve read, they left on amicable terms with the other five churches — and if there is a possibility that they might branch off and continue serving the homeless on their own, then wouldn’t that be something you as the reporter should be investigating? True, it wouldn’t change the fact their reasons for withdrawing are petty and political, but it would show that they are not as uncaring toward the homeless as you make them out to be.

There is a considerable difference between “deciding not to serve the homeless with certain churches due to theological disagreements” versus “deciding not to serve the homeless at all,” a difference you do not seem to recognize. I am willing to give these churches the benefit of the doubt, whereas you do not seem particularly interested one way or the other. Is that true?

TRiG.