Love and Money
I was working on some thoughts about our proper attitude toward money in light of God's kingdom, and thought I'd put them up here. I wish I could keep it in Word format, since it looks nicer, but I can't figure out how to upload files directly on here. (If anybody knows, let me know.) I'm sure I've missed some important points; this is not necessarily complete (I mainly stopped because I reached the nice round number of 10). The scripture references are the main thing; this is just a summary to point you there and help sort it out. So read with your Bible in your hand; otherwise you'll just be getting my watered-down grape juice version of what ought to be vintage wine.
1. “Love your neighbor as yourself.” In other words, treat their needs the same as you would treat your own needs. When you’re hungry, you get food for yourself; when you’re cold, you get yourself a sweater, and you’re right to do so. In the same way we should give to those who are hungry, cold, sick, etc.--naturally, without treating their needs as different from or less important than our own. In fact, when we give to others in this way, Jesus says, we are giving to Him. And by the way, if you want to know who is your “neighbor” (and therefore whom you might exclude from your giving), remember the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37). No matter how far away, how different from you, how much they might hate you even, we’re called to love everyone as ourselves. (Matthew 22:39, 25:34-36, 20:26-28; James 2:15-17, Luke 3:11, 6:30-31; Mark 10:43-45, 2 Corinthians 8:13, Galatians 6:2, Philippians 2:3-4; 1 John 4:20-21)
2. Our money is not our own; it came from God and belongs to God, and we are merely stewards. Jesus' parable of the shrewd manager (Luke 16:1-12) shows this most clearly. It’s right and good for us to use the resources God has given us to meet our basic needs, but beyond those basic needs (which are often less than we think), God desires us to use His money to give to others to meet their basic needs, and so reflect His character and give glory to His name. (Luke 16:1-12, Mt. 6:11, 1 Sam. 2:7, Ecclesiastes 5:18-19, Luke 12:48, John 13:34-35, Acts 17:25, 2 Cor. 8:13, 9:10-15)
3. God has placed great value on every person, including and perhaps especially the poor, oppressed and suffering. Jesus died for every AIDS orphan in Africa. He died for everyone in Kashmir whose homes were destroyed in the earthquake and are facing a terrible winter. He loves those suffering from malaria, those with no clean water, and all those whose sufferings never make the news headlines. He loves those who have never heard the gospel or known the sweet comfort the name of Jesus brings—He loved them enough to offer Himself up and die on a cross for them. We are all created in God’s image, and have redemption offered to us in Christ. Loving people and meeting their spiritual and physical needs is on God’s heart, and as we love God, it will be on our hearts as well. As we love God, it will be natural for us to place the same great value He has placed on every poor, desperate sinner in this world. (John 3:16, Genesis 1:26-27, 1 John 3:1, 2 Cor. 8:9)
4. Jesus is a priceless treasure, and whatever our worldly wealth or lack thereof, He is to be our desire. He is the focus, and our actions should point others to Him; loving and following and worshiping Him is more important than anything, even giving to the poor. Our giving is not a way to earn the riches of God’s grace, but a joyful and grateful response to God’s free gift. But to receive this gift, we must be willing to give up all things for the sake of Christ—and that may literally mean “all things” at times. (Phil. 3:7-9, Mt. 2:11, 6:24, 13:44-46, 16:24-26, 19:21; Mark 14:3-7, Luke 14:33, John 6:26-27, 35; 1 Cor. 13:3, Hebrews 12:26)
5. Giving freely in Jesus’ name makes us joyful. God doesn’t desire mere sacrifice, but a thankful heart overflowing with love to others. In fact, we will be happier when we give to others. We should not give out of compulsion or guilt, and should not feel guilty if we simply don’t have the resources. Rather, we should rejoice to give everything we can, recognizing that Jesus gave up everything in order to give us the riches of God’s grace. (Mt. 10:8, Mark 12:41-44, Acts 5:4, 20:35; 2 Cor. 8:1-12, 9:6-11; Proverbs 23:6-8)
6. Since Jesus is our ever-present treasure, we can learn to be content in all circumstances. There may be times in our lives (though most middle-class Americans have probably never truly experienced this) where our basic needs are not always met, and many more times when we’re unsure how exactly our basic needs will be met in the future. But because of God’s faithful character, we can “rejoice always,” and trust Him to provide us with what we need as we seek His kingdom first—maybe not what we want, but always what we need. (Phil. 4:11-13, Mt. 6:25-34, Luke 12:22-31, 6:38; 1 Timothy 6:6-8, Hebr. 13:5-6)
7. Christian community is essential to honoring God with our money. The Spirit-filled early church was known for its communal living, where “no one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had,” and “there were no needy persons among them.” Ideally, we would give our money to church leaders (“lay at the apostles’ feet”), and they would distribute it to the needy. In reality, church leaders often misuse or misallocate resources to themselves or to the material comfort of the church, rather than God’s purposes in the world. However, we should strive not just to live as individuals honoring God with our individual resources, but to build a community where we share all that we have with each other, and generously give everything we can to those outside the community who are in need. (Acts 4:32-35, Acts 2:44-45, Gal. 6:2)
8. Jesus loved feasts and fellowship, but our fellowship needs to reach out to those in need. Perhaps one of the most difficult aspects of trying to live in godly stewardship of the money God has given us and remembering God’s heart for the poor and suffering is knowing how to balance the godly desire to enjoy oneself in company with believers and others and the desire not to spend God’s resources carelessly. While Jesus clearly enjoyed having good meals and celebrations with His disciples and followers (sometimes His Dad even footed the bill!—Matt. 14:15-21, 15:32-38), He clearly did not encourage gluttony and wasteful extravagance. For instance, even after He showed us the Father’s unlimited bounty in feeding the 5,000, Jesus was frugal enough to make sure the leftovers were picked up so that “nothing be wasted” (John 6:12). Our celebrations should be free and unbounded, but because they are celebrations of Christ, they will nevertheless maintain an awareness of and love for those in need. Moreover and perhaps most importantly, Jesus wanted our feasts of fellowship to be open to, perhaps even directed toward, the poor. Our fellowship should not simply be a social club of well-off folks like ourselves; we should invite “the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind” to our feasts. (Luke 14:12-14)
9. Having money can hinder us from being close to God. It is by no means always true, but very often, having all the normal worldly pleasures of modern life will dull and numb us spiritually to the needs, both spiritual and physical, of those around us and around the world who are suffering. More importantly, we risk making our treasure on earth, rather than having our treasure in heaven, in God. Jesus warned clearly of the dangers of wealth to our spiritual wellbeing—so giving our wealth away can not only help others, but also prevent this wealth from negatively affecting our walk with God. It will also instill a greater trust in God as our provider, and thankfulness for the riches He has abundantly provided us in Christ. (Mt. 6:19-21, 24; 13:22, 19:21-24; Eccl. 5:10, Luke 6:24-25, 12:15, 33-34; 1 Tim. 6:9-11, Hebr. 13:5, James 5:1-5, Revelation 3:17-19)
10. Wealth, like this world, is ephemeral and cannot be trusted in. Though we may have bank accounts, retirement accounts, and food in the pantry, we should never think that our wealth has any real permanence. “Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked I will depart,” said Job—who, though rich, was an upright, generous and “blameless” man who feared God, and showed it by his reaction to the loss of his wealth. If our attitude is like Job’s, we will praise God when He gives and when He takes away. (Job 1:21, Psalm 39:5, 11; 49:16-20; Prov. 23:4-5, Eccl. 5:10-11, 15; 1 Tim. 6:7)
One final comment: The core of the matter, and all matters of life, is Love God with all your heart, might, mind and strength; and love your neighbor as yourself. Anything that flows from this love is pleasing to God, and whatever does not, no matter how "good" in appearance, is of no value.
May this love of Christ be the treasure we seek and the treasure we give.
1. “Love your neighbor as yourself.” In other words, treat their needs the same as you would treat your own needs. When you’re hungry, you get food for yourself; when you’re cold, you get yourself a sweater, and you’re right to do so. In the same way we should give to those who are hungry, cold, sick, etc.--naturally, without treating their needs as different from or less important than our own. In fact, when we give to others in this way, Jesus says, we are giving to Him. And by the way, if you want to know who is your “neighbor” (and therefore whom you might exclude from your giving), remember the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37). No matter how far away, how different from you, how much they might hate you even, we’re called to love everyone as ourselves. (Matthew 22:39, 25:34-36, 20:26-28; James 2:15-17, Luke 3:11, 6:30-31; Mark 10:43-45, 2 Corinthians 8:13, Galatians 6:2, Philippians 2:3-4; 1 John 4:20-21)
2. Our money is not our own; it came from God and belongs to God, and we are merely stewards. Jesus' parable of the shrewd manager (Luke 16:1-12) shows this most clearly. It’s right and good for us to use the resources God has given us to meet our basic needs, but beyond those basic needs (which are often less than we think), God desires us to use His money to give to others to meet their basic needs, and so reflect His character and give glory to His name. (Luke 16:1-12, Mt. 6:11, 1 Sam. 2:7, Ecclesiastes 5:18-19, Luke 12:48, John 13:34-35, Acts 17:25, 2 Cor. 8:13, 9:10-15)
3. God has placed great value on every person, including and perhaps especially the poor, oppressed and suffering. Jesus died for every AIDS orphan in Africa. He died for everyone in Kashmir whose homes were destroyed in the earthquake and are facing a terrible winter. He loves those suffering from malaria, those with no clean water, and all those whose sufferings never make the news headlines. He loves those who have never heard the gospel or known the sweet comfort the name of Jesus brings—He loved them enough to offer Himself up and die on a cross for them. We are all created in God’s image, and have redemption offered to us in Christ. Loving people and meeting their spiritual and physical needs is on God’s heart, and as we love God, it will be on our hearts as well. As we love God, it will be natural for us to place the same great value He has placed on every poor, desperate sinner in this world. (John 3:16, Genesis 1:26-27, 1 John 3:1, 2 Cor. 8:9)
4. Jesus is a priceless treasure, and whatever our worldly wealth or lack thereof, He is to be our desire. He is the focus, and our actions should point others to Him; loving and following and worshiping Him is more important than anything, even giving to the poor. Our giving is not a way to earn the riches of God’s grace, but a joyful and grateful response to God’s free gift. But to receive this gift, we must be willing to give up all things for the sake of Christ—and that may literally mean “all things” at times. (Phil. 3:7-9, Mt. 2:11, 6:24, 13:44-46, 16:24-26, 19:21; Mark 14:3-7, Luke 14:33, John 6:26-27, 35; 1 Cor. 13:3, Hebrews 12:26)
5. Giving freely in Jesus’ name makes us joyful. God doesn’t desire mere sacrifice, but a thankful heart overflowing with love to others. In fact, we will be happier when we give to others. We should not give out of compulsion or guilt, and should not feel guilty if we simply don’t have the resources. Rather, we should rejoice to give everything we can, recognizing that Jesus gave up everything in order to give us the riches of God’s grace. (Mt. 10:8, Mark 12:41-44, Acts 5:4, 20:35; 2 Cor. 8:1-12, 9:6-11; Proverbs 23:6-8)
6. Since Jesus is our ever-present treasure, we can learn to be content in all circumstances. There may be times in our lives (though most middle-class Americans have probably never truly experienced this) where our basic needs are not always met, and many more times when we’re unsure how exactly our basic needs will be met in the future. But because of God’s faithful character, we can “rejoice always,” and trust Him to provide us with what we need as we seek His kingdom first—maybe not what we want, but always what we need. (Phil. 4:11-13, Mt. 6:25-34, Luke 12:22-31, 6:38; 1 Timothy 6:6-8, Hebr. 13:5-6)
7. Christian community is essential to honoring God with our money. The Spirit-filled early church was known for its communal living, where “no one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had,” and “there were no needy persons among them.” Ideally, we would give our money to church leaders (“lay at the apostles’ feet”), and they would distribute it to the needy. In reality, church leaders often misuse or misallocate resources to themselves or to the material comfort of the church, rather than God’s purposes in the world. However, we should strive not just to live as individuals honoring God with our individual resources, but to build a community where we share all that we have with each other, and generously give everything we can to those outside the community who are in need. (Acts 4:32-35, Acts 2:44-45, Gal. 6:2)
8. Jesus loved feasts and fellowship, but our fellowship needs to reach out to those in need. Perhaps one of the most difficult aspects of trying to live in godly stewardship of the money God has given us and remembering God’s heart for the poor and suffering is knowing how to balance the godly desire to enjoy oneself in company with believers and others and the desire not to spend God’s resources carelessly. While Jesus clearly enjoyed having good meals and celebrations with His disciples and followers (sometimes His Dad even footed the bill!—Matt. 14:15-21, 15:32-38), He clearly did not encourage gluttony and wasteful extravagance. For instance, even after He showed us the Father’s unlimited bounty in feeding the 5,000, Jesus was frugal enough to make sure the leftovers were picked up so that “nothing be wasted” (John 6:12). Our celebrations should be free and unbounded, but because they are celebrations of Christ, they will nevertheless maintain an awareness of and love for those in need. Moreover and perhaps most importantly, Jesus wanted our feasts of fellowship to be open to, perhaps even directed toward, the poor. Our fellowship should not simply be a social club of well-off folks like ourselves; we should invite “the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind” to our feasts. (Luke 14:12-14)
9. Having money can hinder us from being close to God. It is by no means always true, but very often, having all the normal worldly pleasures of modern life will dull and numb us spiritually to the needs, both spiritual and physical, of those around us and around the world who are suffering. More importantly, we risk making our treasure on earth, rather than having our treasure in heaven, in God. Jesus warned clearly of the dangers of wealth to our spiritual wellbeing—so giving our wealth away can not only help others, but also prevent this wealth from negatively affecting our walk with God. It will also instill a greater trust in God as our provider, and thankfulness for the riches He has abundantly provided us in Christ. (Mt. 6:19-21, 24; 13:22, 19:21-24; Eccl. 5:10, Luke 6:24-25, 12:15, 33-34; 1 Tim. 6:9-11, Hebr. 13:5, James 5:1-5, Revelation 3:17-19)
10. Wealth, like this world, is ephemeral and cannot be trusted in. Though we may have bank accounts, retirement accounts, and food in the pantry, we should never think that our wealth has any real permanence. “Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked I will depart,” said Job—who, though rich, was an upright, generous and “blameless” man who feared God, and showed it by his reaction to the loss of his wealth. If our attitude is like Job’s, we will praise God when He gives and when He takes away. (Job 1:21, Psalm 39:5, 11; 49:16-20; Prov. 23:4-5, Eccl. 5:10-11, 15; 1 Tim. 6:7)
One final comment: The core of the matter, and all matters of life, is Love God with all your heart, might, mind and strength; and love your neighbor as yourself. Anything that flows from this love is pleasing to God, and whatever does not, no matter how "good" in appearance, is of no value.
If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing. (1 Corinthians 13:3)
May this love of Christ be the treasure we seek and the treasure we give.
posted by Seth | 10:24 AM
7 Comments:
Seth, there is much good material for reflection here, but I wanted to raise a couple of thoughts with regards to your reference to the parable of the Good Samaritan in your first point. The moral you want to draw from this is that everybody is everybody's neighbor and therefore we are called to love everyone as ourselves and attend to their needs as readily as our own. At least, I think that's your position, though you can correct me if you disagree with any of that.
I'm not sure that's the best way to read the story. One thing you notice when you read that parable is that the answer Jesus gives does not quite match the question. The question was: who is my neighbor? And when he finishes the story, Jesus asks, "Which of these was a neighbor *to the man*?" This seems to imply that the first two men who passed by were not just *bad* neighbors; rather, they weren't neighbors at all. One becomes neighbors with another through actual proximity and practical action.
In itself this is perfectly in keeping with your point. You might just modify it to say that we're *supposed* to be neighbors with everybody, or as many people as possible, in which case the point I raise would be purely a matter of terminology. But I think there may be more to it than that. The Good Samaritan is admirable, of course, in that he helps someone who, according to social custom, he isn't supposed to help. In that sense we might take it to mean that there should be no limits on who we will treat as a neighbor. But it's also worth noting that the Samaritan doesn't get called out of a foreign land to come and help this poor man; rather, he comes across the man lying right there on the road that he, the Samaritan was traveling for another purpose that is not specified. And, even though he helps the man, he entrusts him to someone else for care and proceeds on his mission after a short time. It seems to me reasonable to conclude from this that our duties to others are not absolutely unbounded. Various aspects of our lives will determine which people we are responsible for, and which we are not. Probably the list of our responsibilities will move us considerably beyond our zone of comfort, but that doesn't mean that it's completely without limit.
Of course we should not go around fearful of being overly generous, lest we favor someone who was not one of our intended charges. There is no reason to believe that generosity towards others will ever be a vice, and with an eye towards fulfilling our obligations, it's surely best to err on the side of doing more and not less. But I still think it's good to avoid the confusion of thinking that the lesson behind that parable is "Help everybody." For one thing, there are people who, in their efforts to help the recognized poor or helpless, neglect those towards whom they are much more obviously responsible (ie, their own families.) That's probably a relatively rare problem, but it does happen.
Much more serious, though, is the possibility that people will read the story, recognize implicitly that it cannot possibly be integrated with their actual lives *without* failing those towards whom they are properly responsible (since most adults, after all, do have responsibilities towards some other people which take up a reasonable amount of their time and money). People who read the story this way are likely to endorse the idea behind it in principle, but practically to ignore it because it just doesn't seem to work. I can do some things, but I cannot *actually* go around giving away all my coats, or I will be freezing cold in winter, get sick, be unable to work anymore, and thus become a burden to others when I could otherwise have been at least marginally productive. Or, consider that a person with a family to feed cannot give a beggar on the street half of their earnings (unless they are truly rich), or else their own children will be in need. And the fabric of society will surely be torn apart if people no longer feel that it is their special province to support their own families.
What is needed is a subtler understanding of the scope of each person's sphere of responsibility. I won't pretend to be able to spell out exactly what that should be, but I think the moral of the Good Samaritan is partly this: God will often put people in our path who we ARE expected to help, although we may have been trained by society or our own evil desires to think that they're not actually our problem. Look out for those people. You don't want to let God down.
Hey "Clara" (I know who you are) ;),
As I don't have anyone currently dependent on me, I neglected to specifically talk about family obligations. But, 1 Timothy 5:8 clearly states, "If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever." So by no means would I say that one ought to give to a poor starving person in India if it means your own kids will be starving. BUT, I would say that very often we use that as an excuse to not give to others when we really could. For instance, I shouldn't give my money away to the point where my kids are starving, but I believe it'd be sin to buy my kid a shiny $100 lego set, which he really really wants and is really bugging me about, when there are people for whom Christ died that don't have enough to eat. Or if my wife insists on having a $2000 diamond ring, I cannot in good conscience agree that such a thing would be right (though in that case I might possibly acquiesce despite my opposition in order to keep my marriage alive). We need, in other words, to distinguish between meeting our family's needs and meeting their every whim and comfort. Later in 1 Timothy Paul says, "But if we have food and clothing, we will be content with that" (6:8). It doesn't say, "food, clothing, and a DVD player." Most people in the US spend money on far more than their basic needs of food, clothing, shelter, etc.
The principle of giving to anyone you can that has need is reinforced by the parable of the Good Samaritan in my view, but that's not the only place it's supported. John the Baptist specifically says, "Those with two shirts should give to the one who has none, and those who have food should do the same." There is no bound on our generosity in this case--presumably the only bound would be the practicality of actually getting the food or the shirt to the person. In John the Baptist's time, someone in Palestine giving to another person in China would have been completely unrealistic--though some kind of organized international charity, such as we see in the church in 2 Corinthians 8-9, would have been possible. But NOW, with international trade, travel and communications so widely available, I can give to an organization that then gives straight to poor, suffering people in Africa and Asia and Central America. I don't really have the excuse of saying, "Well, I'd love to help them but they're so far away." It's easy to do now--and praise God for that!! So if you have the resources, and your family's not starving or without shelter or clothing, then you ought to help people in need, whether near or far.
I do agree that a main principle is that the good Samaritan was ready to help when needed--he wasn't looking for a half-dead beat-up man to help, but when he faced that situation, he had compassion on the man in a practical way. If I come across somebody who's suffering that I can help and I say, "Well, sorry, I need to give all my money away to people across the world," that's hypocrisy. But physically speaking, the needs tend to be greater in other areas of the world, although the US certainly has its own needs we can and should give to.
To sum up, I think it's nearly impossible to give away too much money, though I acknowledge it's a theoretical possibility. The strength of our own self-preservation, and (hopefully) the love we have for our family and close friends, will nearly always make sure we take care of ourselves and others sufficiently. I want to live simply, but I've never gone without food, or failed to pay for a doctor or medicine when I need it, even though I know there are those who don't even have those things. So I acknowledge your point, but I think it's almost always a pure theoretical one that nearly no one has to actually deal with--and it can often be a smokescreen to mask our own greed.
First of all, so you know I wasn't trying to be all mysterious with the "Clara"; it's just the pseudonym I use on this other blog I contribute to, so that's what comes up when I sign in to Blogger. But way to figure out who I am.
I don't think we're entirely in agreement about the way in which we are obliged to use our money. You agree that we should care for our own families before giving to others, but think that my point is almost entirely a technical one. I agree that very few people will be tempted to give so much to the poor that their own kids will starve. But I still think the point I raise is important.
Your philosophy seems to suggest that we are obligated to live as cheaply as we possibly can and put all the rest of our incomes into checks for international charities and whatnot. Your argument is that we must take it as a principle that other people's needs are as important as our own, and consequently we should respond to *every* need as if it were our own. Although I don't want to discourage giving, I'm not so sure that this is the right attitude to adopt in making practical decisions.
First of all, let's get an appreciation for what sorts of non-essential goods might be under consideration here. The question seems easy if you refer only to luxury items that you can't afford anyway, but in reality, particularly once you start thinking in terms of family life, the things that you're considering buying with your income (beyond the strictly-necessary-for-survival level) are things that might legitimately enhance your life and the lives of those around you in an important way. Consider the following possible expenditures: 1) Quality health care. Agreed that some level of health care probably qualifies as a "necessity", you might still want to see to it that your family has better care than they can get in a 24-hour clinic. 2) Arts and culture. A lot of money would be saved if we liquidated humanities departments all over the country, and plays and concerts don't seem strictly necessary for life. 3) Education generally. One could easily spend ALL extra income educating one's children these days. And while this might, after a certain point, seem extravagent, we all know that the sort of education your kids get will serious affect their options later in life. Isn't it a parent's job, not only to keep their kids alive, but also to prepare them to live in the world once they're adults? 4) Recreation. A family vacation now and then can add a lot to all of your lives. And everybody needs some enjoyable things to look forward to now and then. 5) Religion. Beautiful monuments to God, and opportunities for worship, cost money to maintain. Should people be discouraged from expressing their love for God in this way if the money could have been used to feed the poor in some developing country?
None of these are evil things. In fact, all are worthy things that any normal person would want their families to have access to. Obviously, if these things are justifiable expenditures, then many and even most people will be able to justify giving practically nothing to the poor. But if all poor people everywhere have an equal demand on us in the way that you suggest, then we will have to witness the death of many of the things that are finest in our civilization in order to meet a basic level of need across the world. After all, I wouldn't be worrying about putting on a play of *Hamlet* if my family were starving, and I wouldn't be building a public library if there weren't even a hospital in my town.
But surely this is wrong. Art and learning and worship are not bad things, and a society that feels itself prohibited from pursuing them has cheated itself out of its own humanity. Note, too, that even among very poor people, you will sometimes see people doing without even such essentials as food, medicine or adequate shelter in order to buy a child a coveted toy, send a gifted son to a good school or give a daughter a beautiful wedding. People know that these things are not just frivoloties; they are part of what makes life worthwhile. We are not necessarily sinning if we enjoy some of these things.
This is why I think that we simply have to have some sort of sense of particular callings to help particular people. Note that I don't at all discount the possibility that some people might be called to devote their lives entirely to ministries of various kinds, running soup kitchens or orphanages or what have you. And all of us should give to the poor generally, as much as we think we can afford and then a bit more. And we should give our time, too, as far as humanly possible. But we also have, quite properly, fixed loyalties of particular kinds, and particularly once a person starts a family of his own, it is right and natural that they should be a primary concern. Does this mean that his own children are more beloved of God than someone else's? Not at all, but they are the particular charge that God has given to him. (Incidentally, this points to the reason why the Catholic church prefers unmarried clergy -- this conflict of interest is removed, and they can more completely give themselves to everyone.)
What the story of the Good Samaritan reminds us is that sometimes, a new charge will be dropped unexpectedly in our lap. And when that happens, we need to learn to recognize it and respond in love. You may not need to mortgage your house to write a large anonymous check for the Red Cross, but when an office mate's daughter suddenly needs an expensive surgery that he can't pay for, perhaps you are suddenly called to make the magnanimous gesture. And, in fact, we should also be regularly examining our checkbooks to figure out if there are any expenses that could be reasonably cut to allow for a larger donation to (whatever charity you prefer; I usually give to CRS.) And for those of us American youngsters who have no dependents and are relatively free to do what we want, a larger gesture may well be called for, because we have about as few restraints as anybody in the world, so absolutely we should be out helping people.
But I guess what I object to in your post, even aside from thinking that we need a more subtle evaluation of what our money should be spent on than you seem to have, is the idea that we should always be thinking in a very general way about helping all of the world's poor. Helping people, including the poor, is great, but if you think about it in that global way you tend to start thinking like a socialist -- can't have poverty, must end it. That isn't right. For one thing, it's way harder than just raising lots of money. There are much deeper reasons for global poverty than just lack of resources (which is what peeves me about economists like Sachs, and people like Bono too; they seem to think that if we could just write a large enough check everything would be hunky-dory. The world is not that simple.) But also, elimination of poverty is not a goal that we've been asked to pursue. God allows poverty to continue, for whatever reason; Our Lord told us that the poor would always be with us. Why the world has so much suffering and poverty is a difficult philosophical question, but evidently these things exist for some good reason and we shouldn't be feeling like it's our job to end them, here or in Africa. What we *are* called to do is live good lives, loving other people and meeting the responsibilities that God has given us. That seems to involve forming strong ties to people around us that do not hold for people we haven't met in other countries. They're doing the same thing, of course, with people around them, so we all get the opportunity to practice love and fidelity to the best of our ability under different circumstances. And how we do on that score is, I think, the thing that's finally going to matter.
Rachel, ya habibit ukhti fil masih,
In a way I don’t want to get bogged down into the particulars of all this, because I think the principles of loving God and loving people are really what matter, and different people can have honest disagreements as to exactly how to apply those. But I think there are some important issues at the heart of your comments, so I’m going to address them.
First off, I want to reaffirm that it is right and honorable to take care of your family’s needs before you give away all your surplus income. There may be specific times when you feel compelled by Christ’s love to give beyond what your family can afford and trust God to provide for you (as the Macedonians in 2 Cor. 8, who “gave as much as they were able, and even beyond their ability”), but I don’t think that’s the lifestyle that God mandates for us day to day.
Secondly, I still think you’re separating too much the needs of “people around us” (our family and others) and those we don’t know or can’t see. I don’t think that the fact that somebody lives in a different part of the world as us, or is someone we’ve never met, excuses us from caring about them and desiring for their needs (both physical and spiritual) to be met—and, if possible, doing something practical to make that happen. You’re right that we’re not called to “eliminate poverty,” but we are called to love people, and if you say you love somebody, as James says, but don’t do anything to help them practically when you can, your statement of love is meaningless. If we separate too strongly those close to us and those far, we risk becoming a narcissistic “gated community” of rich people that enjoy the blessings God has lavished on us, passing those resources around like a hot potato, without ever thinking about those outside the circle who could make their day’s only meal from that potato. :) That’s what Jesus was warning us of in Luke 14:12-14, that we shouldn’t invite our friends to the banquet, but “the poor, the cripple, the lame, the blind” instead.
Thirdly, while I still believe that in general, beyond the basic needs of our family, we should give everything God blesses us with to those who are struggling (or to further the ministry of the gospel around the world—which is really one and the same goal), nonetheless there are some modifications to that general rule that sometimes have to be made, if one is to act in love. For instance, given a specific relationship, I may know that not coming to visit, giving a gift, calling on the phone, or doing other things that show love and commitment to the person but require spending money, will be interpreted as a lack of love. So it could be wrong of me not to do that thing, even though I might think, “if this person understood where I was, and knew that I loved them, but also knew that there were people who needed my help, then they wouldn’t be hurt at my not visiting/giving/etc.” But nonetheless, for love’s sake, I should do what I need to do for that relationship. So we should strive to give as much as we can, but we shouldn’t use giving to the poor and to ministry as an excuse to not show tangible love to people close to us. Maybe we can be creative in the ways we show that—for instance, making a gift (writing a song or a poem, making a painting or a photo album, e.g.) instead of buying an expensive one. And occasionally, as Jesus’ focus on Him being our priority above any obligations to family or friends makes clear, we might just have to do what we need to do for God and let them be upset (though we should in this case at least try to explain our actions). But even so, sometimes loving somebody just requires spending money on them, period.
Another important modifier to the general rule of giving all our surplus away is the godly desire to invest in our kids’ future so they can grow up to be loving and generous servants of God and people. Often this doesn’t take any money at all—mostly it’s a matter of teaching them the right principles and lessons, and living that way ourselves as an example. But sometimes—education is a good example—it might require some extra funds on our part. I don’t consider spending money on education to be inherently selfish (although it certainly can be at times, and I think one ought to think seriously about spending a fortune to go to Harvard when a good school like CU might suffice, or sending your kids to private school because they’re “too good” for the public schools). If you invest in your kids’ future, through education or health care for example, and teach them that they are being given this opportunity that many don’t have so they can bless others with it, then I think it can be very legitimate.
One word of caution about investing, though—we never know when God will choose to take us or our kids from this earth. The foolish rich man who stored up his treasure, thinking he could enjoy it in his old age, was mocked by God for thinking he had control over his life. So while I believe investing for the future is a godly principle in general, we should be careful not to use it as an excuse to not be “rich toward God,” always delaying to the future what we could give today. The good and legitimate idea of investing in your kids’ future can be and is abused by those who simply don’t care about anybody beyond their own family. Love is the key—love of your kids and everybody else.
Finally, to get to your specific comments of things we should be willing to spend money on:
1) Quality health care. While I stated above that spending money on health care for your kids can be a way of investing in their future so they can then give back to the world by serving God, still I object to the way you put the issue. Having worked at a low-income health clinic, I think the care my kids would get at such a place would be considerably better than what the average person in the world gets for their kids. Do my kids deserve it more than those kids? I don’t believe so. So why should I insist on paying lots of money for something even better? Now, if I have a job which gives me health insurance at little or no cost to myself, and that allows my kids to have great health care, then praise God for that blessing. But I don’t think it should be something we should insist on as an inherent necessity for our kids to have access to the best doctors in the world or the most advanced treatments. God is able to take care of their bodies, so we don’t need rich expensive doctors.
2) Arts and culture. You raise a legitimate question—when would it be justified to pay $10 (or more) to go to a symphony or play, when there are starving people for whom Christ died that you could help? Frankly, I think the answer to this question would mean much less participation in those kinds of artistic and cultural events (at least as an attendee—you could still play music or be an actor if you chose to), even though I recognize their inherent value. Yes, those things are valuable, but loving people is more so. Now, that doesn’t mean that there would never ever be a place for such things—I’d be happy to show my love for my kid by going to her high school orchestra concert, even if it cost $5. But nights out on the opera would be severely curtailed—they’re an unnecessary luxury, pleasurable for sure, but (almost always) not loving. (On a side note, I think art and culture are very valuable, and we could engage in these activities for very little money simply by getting together and playing music, singing together, making impromptu dramas, etc., that fulfill our desire for cultural and artistic expression while remembering the poor and the lost in the world. Poor people can enjoy art too, they just don’t go to the opera to do so.)
3) Education. I mostly already addressed this one, but I just wanted to point out that education is something everybody ought to have, so while it’s good I believe for us to invest in our kids’ education to a reasonable extent, we should remember that we also ought to be thinking about so many other children in the world who don’t have access to such education, and be thinking of ways to help them as well.
4) Recreation. Again, the same principles apply. Should I spend $100 to go skydiving, because I “need a break”? I don’t think so. I think God can give us opportunities to refresh ourselves in ways that require much less expenditure. Take a hike up in the mountains from your house. Climb a 14-er on a Saturday (which I admit does require some money for gas, but I’d argue that most times the spiritual, physical and social value outweighs the cost). Go play soccer with your kids in the local park. Go camping. Most of these activities can be done for very little or no money, as compared to flying to London for a vacation, touring Macchu Picchu in a helicopter, or even just driving out to Disneyland. So the function of recreation—spending time with family and friends, staying physically healthy, enjoying God’s creation—can be fulfilled without spending much money.
5) Religion & worship. The very goal of living simply and giving money away is to bring glory to God, to reveal His character to the world, and bring more people to the joy of worshiping Him. So worship is not a “luxury,” it’s a basic need, even more than food or clothing. That said, having a nice big church with stadium seating and air-conditioning is not something that brings glory to God—it merely reflects the self-centeredness of the church members. I think that those who can meet together to worship in homes or other non-church buildings should do so, and in general we ought to be simpler about how we deal with our buildings, our sound systems, etc. Is God more impressed with a nice stereo system using thousand-dollar instruments? Then why should we be? Some practical things are needed, of course, in order to fulfill God’s command to meet together in worship, and there’s nothing wrong with wanting things to be pretty or sound nice as a reflection of our love for God (look at the artisanship of the temple, for example). But in my view, much of what’s spent on churches in the US is wasteful and extravagant, designed mainly to provide comfort and entertainment to the members rather than express true love for God, and in the end is a distraction from the whole purpose of worshiping God.
In summary, I don’t want to say that the way I’ve chosen to deal with the particularities of these questions is the right way. The most important thing is the principle that we are to love God and love our neighbor as ourselves. And I think that if we really love our neighbor as ourselves, it will be our joy to give much more than we’d be normally inclined to, and give up a lot of the things we (and the church, and society at large) assume are “okay” for us to spend money on. We do have a unique responsibility to take care of our family’s needs, but we need to balance that by remembering that God doesn’t love us and our family any more (or less) than He loves anybody in the world. And ultimately, however we live or fail to live up to the standard of love God calls us to, in the past, present or future, we know that in Christ God has redeemed us and is redeeming us and transforming us to reflect the love that He embodies.
I think what would be interesting is to study the Biblical meaning of blessing, and how God employed it upon his people. I think of the woman who annointed Jesus' head with the expensive oil. She was chastised because the money could have been given to the poor, and she seemingly wasted it, and yet she was praised by Jesus.
What I'm most curious about is not which exegesis of yours is correct; it's not even what MY heart or mind's status is in this "love and money" regard. My greatest curiosity is God's heart. What is the father heart beat of God actually like? What does He mean when He says He wants to bless me? to bless others? for me to be a blessing? How did He already exemplify this and show us this in the scriptures.
I don't want to over spiritualize or philosophize the issue. In practical terms what DID the triune God do? I don't know, but I think we might find that He didn't express blessing and love EITHER in Rachel's expression OR Seth's, but that He did it BOTH in Rachel's way AND Seth's.
Which makes me think that it's not so much an issue of having a policy in place or even a principal that we keep to, but that we have a person who we're in constant communication with so as to HEAR when HE says GIVE or when HE says keep etc.
I suppose what I come away with is that 1. God loves all people 2. God blesses (it seems to me as I read the Bible) in order for us to be a blessing (ICor 1:14) 3. That blessing seems to take many forms 4. God seems to understand that we will have different convictions, but the important issue is whether we are abiding in Him and listening to His guidance about how to spend money.
It's all His anyway. Personally, I think a great way to teach this principle of giving to kids or people would be to get rid of personal pronouns. Instead we could say, "The Lord's car has a dent in it" or "The Lord gave X$ to a charity this month" etc. That would be great. People would think we were crazy, but it would be more accurate seeing as how "the earth is the Lord's and all that is in it."
I think you are both right. I don't think it is an either/or question, but a both/and.
What do each of you think about entitlement and non-profit organization's roles in proliferating it? What is dependency and how will it negatively effect the communities or people you supposedly want to help?
Well, this has turned into quite an interesting discussion! Thanks to everyone who has contibuted to answering my little objection. To answer the question in the last post, I do have many concerns about the ways in which aid agencies spend their money, because I do think often times it just ends up spurring the incompetence and wastefulness of corrupt governments. And a lot of times it's simply squandered in ignorance. When I was in Peace Corps I got quite discouraged about the possibility for improving the lives of people in far off countries. I don't mean to say by that that I didn't think *I* could do any good. Any good that I did in Peace Corps was assuredly tiny, but nonetheless, by my just being there and loving people personally, staying with them in their homes and devoting my time to organizing projects that they themselves asked for (mostly clubs and organizations to help amuse and educate young people), I do think that SOMETHING good came of it. I made an important difference in the lives of at least a few people, and they were important to me, and I don't ask for anything more than that.
But that kind of love and help can only be given to people around you. The effects of international aid agencies were much more variable. Some really did seem to be making a positive difference -- for example, the main NGO operating in my town of Andijan, Uzbekistan was this microcredit organization, and there were definitely some people who managed to expand their family's business into something that could put bread on the table through the help of that organization. That was awesome to see. On the other hand, I saw countless examples of money being wasted; for example, passing little drugstores on the street, I would sometimes get flagged down by the owners, who wanted my help translating the instruction sheets for medicines that they had received through various aid packages but that they didn't know how to use. It was utterly absurd -- the pages of information they gave me were, of course, extremely technical, and I didn't really understand them even in English, so what were the chances that I'd be able to translate them accurately into Uzbek? The best I could usually give them was a basic, "It's for your heart" or "Give it to people with bad asthma" and Heaven knows what they were actually prescribed for in the end! It's just a tragedy to see that kind of stuff -- what moron sent off a shipment of expensive medicines without thinking to include information about them in a language that was locally understood (Russian, for example, would have been completely adequate)? But this sort of thing was not a rarity.
Anyway, I could go on and on, but yes, I came home very dubious about how much good international aid organizations are ever going to do. I don't think we should give up, and I still do make donations to CRS and other such organizations, but I also think that we need to be realistic. People like Sachs, or Bono, who seem to think that helping the world is just a matter of raising bunches of money, always get a hollow laugh from me. But of course Seth has also lived and worked with people in poor countries with political problems, so I'd be interested to hear his thoughts on the subject as well.
I thought the other "anonymous" post was very right to point out that Seth's and my positions should not really be taken in an "either-or" sense. There is surely something right in what both of us are saying. And in that spirit, I don't want to quibble too much about exactly what is and isn't a justifiable expenditure, but I did want to make two small points. One is that it is hard to know when investing in what you might call human excellence will ultimately bring a tremendous amount of good. I know that Seth and I both agree that arts and culture can be both enjoyable and uplifting. Seth suggests that we should enjoy such things on a small level among the people we know. Absolutely -- you know I'm wildly in favor of, for example, people getting together with their friends to make music. But there's also something to be said for occasionally investing a lot of money in bringing real talent to full fruition. The greatest musical groups, or athletes, or actors, or what have you, will never be able to reach the height of their abilities without a substantial investment from someone else. But sometimes when that investment is made the payoff can be very far-reaching. In our society, loving arts and culture does not need to be a luxury of the rich. The opera might be a little pricey, but most people can afford a few CD's, or even can check them out from libraries; great city art museums aren't usually that expensive, and most of them are even free one day a week; great works of literature can be bought in paperback for a few dollars a copy. Even the very poor have a lot of great opportunities in our society. But most of those stem ultimately from both talent and someone else's having invested money in it at some point along the line. It's just something else to keep in mind.
The other point concerns worship. Seth suggested that God does not care whether our churches are luxurious or simple, and that we would do well to meet in homes or other modest places whenever possible. I sort of blinked when you mentioned air conditioning and stadium seating -- if you don't mind my saying so, I think this difference in thinking reflects the Catholic/Protestant divide, because it had not occurred to me that extra money should be spent on *those* sorts of things. Rather, I was thinking about making churches beautiful in order to glorify God and inspire Christians to reverence. To my mind, it is right and fitting that a Church should be the most beautiful building that we frequent, because after all, it is God's house. A lovely high altar, beautiful Stations of the Cross, stained glass windows depicting scenes from the Bible -- to me these things don't seem like a waste of money. Whether and under what circumstances they are worth the cost is a prudential question that cannot be easily or briefly answered. I only maintain that there are circumstances under which it is appropriate to spend money on God in this way.
This point was brought out for me in a particularly poignant way this last summer, when my boyfriend and I took a trip to Alabama to see the Shrine of the Blessed Sacrament. If you haven't heard of it, it's because it's relatively new, but I'm betting you'll hear about it again as the years pass. It was built by Mother Angelica, through funds donated by five wealthy Catholic families who choose to remain anonymous. It's crazy, because it's so far out in the middle of rural Alabama that I couldn't even get phone service there; you're driving through fields and past scores of Baptist churches, and suddenly you come to a place with long green lawn and white fences, and at the end is what looks like a little piece of Italy. A piazza, columns, with a white statue of the Child Jesus in the middle. The Shrine itself, on which quite obviously no expense was spared, has beautiful carved doors, oak pews, gorgeous stained glass windows, but most of all, almost knocking you over as you walk in, a wall of shining gold, on top of which a saucer-sized Host is displayed in an eight-foot monstrance, surrounded by statues of adoring angels. I always genuflect upon entering a church where the Blessed Sacrament is retained, but I've never done it faster or more instinctively than walking into that chapel; it really did feel for a moment as if I'd walked into a normal building and suddenly realized that I was in the heavenly court of Our Lord.
But could you have a more obvious example of opulence? Or anything less like the stable in Bethlehem? Mathew commented that "The social Catholics would go crazy seeing a place like this." But I answered, "They would be wrong, though." I simply had no doubt that I was in a holy place. The opulence was not for the glory of Mother Angelica or her order. They were glorifying God.
God by no means demands that we worship him with gold and jewels and expensive churches, but for those who can afford them, it can be a fitting way to show our love, and for the pilgrims who visit, I think it can be a powerful expereince to see Our Lord positioned in such a place of honor and reflect that even all this grandness is nothing to what He will have above when He reigns in His glory. I don't think we should build shrines like this around every corner, but in a spirituality-starved world like our own I think it is imporant to have a reminder for people that the Lord deserves the best that we have to offer. The cloistered nuns who sit watch over the Sacrament round the clock live (so it's said) in very simple quarters otherwise. It is only when the come into the Shrine that their eyes are met with this kind of magnificence. What better way to distinguish in one's mind the divide between the earthly and the heavenly?
And, I would close by pointing out that, although Our Lord lived a simple life, for very good reasons, he also did not shun the honors paid to him by those who could afford something finer. The story of the woman annointing him with ointment is one good example (as someone else already brought up), and think, too, of the Magi presenting their gifts. And when the rich offered Jesus their hospitality, he did not refuse it.
Anyway, thanks again to everyone who has contributed. I've enjoyed this discussion.
Post a Comment
<< Home