Good Intentions aren't Enough (Good Actions are)

A Case Study: Israel's alliance with Evangelical Christianity raises the timeless question of whether we should we judge friends by their motives' purity or their actions' constancy.

Foreword from Daniel Clarke-Serret (editor):

Ostensibly the article of Nachum Kaplan concerns the relationship between Jews and the Evangelical Christian Community. However in this foreword I would just like to emphasize a particular aspect which transcends the case in point to embody the entire problem with modern politics.

Speaking from a British perspective, almost all comment on domestic and foreign policy concerns intention: our intention to reduce carbon emissions, our intention to reduce civilian deaths in conflict, our intention to create a more equal society. So long as the politician’s intention is good, almost all consequences are forgiven.

Unfortunately, all actions have consequences and good intentions are no guarantee of a good outcome. So for example the decision of the Starmer administration to remove charitable status from private schools have not had the intended effect of reducing privilege; instead they have led to the closing of excellent educational institutions. One of these, the famed St Joseph’s Convent School in Reading, Berkshire, has just shut down –it seems that my daughter will need to do ballet elsewhere next year….

The same goes for Net Zero, the pet project of our new Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband. Now no-one would deny the reality of climate change; just look around you at yet another sunny, scorching day. Yet destroying national growth while China powers on regardless, seems a self-inflicted wound devoid of sense. All that is achieved is destroying our national economy while doing very little for the climate.

One could go on and on, and of course the obsession with mouthing the right words about Gaza is the tip of the iceberg. No matter that genocide blood libel have never improved the life of one Palestinian; it’s the intention that counts!

In his wonderful piece, Nachum reminds us that intentions are at best a second order issue. What matters is results, constancy and friendship, no matter the ideological catalyst for action. Evangelical Christians have their own reasons for loving Israel, yet the fact of their love is undeniable and their support for a secure, democratic state in the Middle East utterly positive in consequence. For Nachum and I, “good intentions” are a harmful wedge; they lead to appointments like Ed Miliband, destructive lightweights who “want to be on the right side of history”.

But I’d go further: Difference of intention is at the heart of liberal democracy. Pluralism demands that we rub along in good societal harmony (a consequence). even when we disagree on the plane of ideas. That’s what we call democratic tolerance.

Finally, on the evangelical case in point, we should note that neither religious grouping is a monolith. Even within their own communities, there is a great difference of ideological motivation among Jews and among evangelical Christians themselves. So judgement must remain at the level of actions; and here both groups have a keen sense of right and wrong.

My message to Ed Miliband is this: Stop trying to be good. Follow the lead of many evangelicals and do good. - Daniel CS

If you are a paid subscriber of Guerre and Shalom, read Nachum’s article below.

If you are a paid subscriber of Moral Clarity, read Nachum’s article here.

If you are a paid subscriber of neither, you are forgiven! Press this button:

---

---

“The Measure of Friends” by Nachum Kaplan

Israel’s alliance with Evangelical Christianity raises the timeless question of whether we should we judge friends by their motives’ purity or their actions’ constancy.

Every alliance eventually confronts the same uncomfortable question: what if your most dependable friend arrives for reasons you do not entirely share?

We prefer to imagine that friendship is born of perfect agreement—that allies should think as we think, believe as we believe and arrive at their convictions by identical intellectual routes. Life is rarely so accommodating. Nations, like people, usually discover that their most valuable relationships are built not upon unanimity but upon overlapping convictions.

Nowhere is this tension more visible than in the relationship between Israel and millions of Evangelical Christians.

For decades, Evangelicals have been among Israel’s most steadfast supporters. They have lobbied governments, elected politicians who champion Israel’s security, donated billions of dollars to hospitals, welfare organizations and emergency services, funded projects that assist vulnerable Israelis, filled hotels as pilgrims, stood publicly against antisemitism and defended Israel’s legitimacy when doing so became increasingly unfashionable.

I also like that they know that good and evil and right and wrong exist.

Yet their friendship is often accompanied by an asterisk. “Yes,” comes the response, “but they support Israel for the wrong reasons.”