What extreme are you saying that I am going to? I don't see any form of extremism in my post; and although I do agree with you that we should have a spirit of giving, I want to say that that is not enough, and it never will be. I think you unfairly call it the "legalism" of giving, perhaps using that term out of context. I agree that we can't earn out way into heaven; yes, only Jesus and his Spirit and the election through the wisdom of God can account for the immediate salvation. But, we're not talking about salvation at all. We are talking about pleasing God, and God is not just pleased with a "spirit" of giving, but it coupled by the actual giving. It is a holistic process, involving not just the mindset of the "cheerful giver" but also the actual giving.
And I vehemently disagree with your summation; it is definitely not about the spirit of giving, but its extension, which is the giving itself, that God is concerned with. The spirit of giving is a prerequisite, and the giving the requisite.
Do you think that your father would be pleased if you thought about giving with a cheerful heart, was willing to be generous, but never actually gave? No, that is a clear no. You must actually give from the outpouring of your heart. Jesus is not only concerned with the spirit, he is deadly serious about the action of giving. Notice, in Matthew 25:41-46, Jesus is clear about the actual practice of giving. "You did not give, you did not welcome, you did not feed." These are clearly actions that he is saying. Also, Jesus places the priority first on the act of giving over the actual spirit of giving in the parable about the two sons in Matthew 21:28; The first son, who refuses to go, definitely did not have the "spirit of giving" but, reluctantly, he went. The second son, who seemed to be filled with that spirit, did not do it. The former did the will of God, not the second. God was pleased with the first, and not the second. God is interested in your actions, not just your heart.
Pleasing God does not equal legalism. God is pleased by my spirit of giving, but that must be shown by the actual giving itself. Faith without deeds, faith without deeds is dead.
As for your example about the murderer, yes, I agree that you should not give the gun to the man. I am not saying to be completely irrational and like an automaton give when demanded; this is the depiction of Job's friends who had insisted that God always repays good with good and evil with evil. We know that this is not true; God is not devoid of personality, he is a being. We, made in his image, also possess a personality and also a rationality. So, I can agree that we should not give the person a gun because then we would be part of the murderer's evil plan, and also accomplices to sin. Then the question that can be asked is, "where do we draw the line?" Why is giving the gun to the murderer bad and why is giving money to someone who "might" use it for drugs & booze alright? I don't know for sure, to be honest, but we have to realize that people are people; they are also not automatons, that beggar is a person, even the murderer is a person. They too are dynamic people. This means that we cannot just sit back and say "no" to a person who asks for some spare change. That is, I daresay, un-Christian.
And I am not saying that we give up all our stuff for strangers, but, I am willing to say that going that far is not inconceivable. The rich man should have given up all his possessions for this stranger, Jesus, but did not. I hope to touch on this topic a little more later...
But even your example is rigged; Your example shows an unrealistic certainty about a situation. If I give the gun to that man, he will kill someone. Obviously, we cannot give him that gun then. But, how about, If I give money to that man, he might buy drugs... or... he might not... he might actually have starving kids... or... he might not... he might be lying... or... he might not be. I agree that this uncertainty principle is weak, but I do not believe in coincidences. I do believe that every beggar who asks from me asked from me because it was predestined that he would ask me; that God have preordained him to ask me. If I believe that, then, I cannot help but give, as to please God more.
But, let me switch the example. Suppose a murderer desperately begged you for clothes and food, as he was on the run from the police. Are you obligated to give to him. Yes, you are. Though he is your enemy, an enemy of the state, a Christian has no place to say no to giving food or clothes, and by extension, money; perhaps not sanctuary, but the very least is to give. Who knows? Maybe he will remember your kindness that you showed when he was hunted, and become a brother as well. Or, he might just rot in prison. We simply cannot make such a crude distinction because we are always uncertain of a person's future. In all cases, though, err on the side of giving than not giving. Then, maybe we can blame our foolishness when God demands to know why we helped a wanted man. :)
Also, where in James is the clear distinction between giving to your brothers and outside of it?
I agree that the letter was written to the church itself, as a means of edifying the church. But, giving to those outside the church is also edifying to the church; ironic? When we give to those outside the church, we are implicitly proposing the gospel to them, giving them the option to join the brotherhood, the Kingdom of God. In fact, in James, I find quite opposite to what you seem to be saying. In James, it says clearly that we are to not show partiality between people, between the ones inside and outside the church, we should treat them the same, or maybe I'm not understanding some part of it, in which case, enlighten me.
Well this is all I can muster at this hour. I will respond to Peter's post next :)
Jae Han
7 comments:
Jae,
Give as the spirit leads you. Don't give foolishly.
Don't toss pearls to swine. Not just your time, but your resources, to those who would be ungrateful.
Is every beggar that approaches you predestined to approach you? Possibly? I don't know. Does that mean you give to every beggar who approaches you? By no means! (haha wow I'm so pretentious).
Maybe every temptation is predestined... does that give me an excuse to succumb to it?
Even Jesus did not heal every sick man who came to Him, only those whose heart was in the right place.
I was in the NY subway once. A man was begging for money. I had leftover food (good food! and a lot from my dinner). I offered it to him, and he refused. Am I glad I didn't give him money? Yes.
Be innocent as a dove, but shrewd as a serpent.
And Jae, I don't mean to be harsh, but if everyone took your advice, the world would be much worse off. Jesus wants us to be compassionate, to give to those who TRULY need (not all beggars truly need). He did not envision us being foolish and squandering our resources for lack of thought.
James 2:15 "if a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of the daily food"
Most commentaries will note that James is specifically referencing "a fellow Christian, to whom we are specially bound to give help, independent of our general obligation to help all our fellow creatures." (Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary)
Yes we should give to strangers (in an intelligent way), but we should give much more liberally to our brothers and sisters in Christ.
Nowhere did I say that we should not give.
Faith without works is dead. But what is works without faith? "Without Love, all is worthless."
"Everything that does not come from faith is sin."
I agree with you more than you think, Jae, but I would be hesitant about preaching your ideals until you practice it yourself, lest you cause others to stumble. If you give, good for you. But if you don't give and you preach of giving, what then?
I don't think any of us are in any place to preach ideals about giving away money, when we haven't even started making money ourselves. Giving away money after you finally start supporting yourself is much harder than you think.
Don't just preach what is right, but also what is helpful.
interesting conversation, one that has made my evening enjoyable.
jae, I think you're missing my point.
I'm saying that you SHOULDN'T give your time, money, or anything else away arbitrarily. Jesus said NOT to throw your pearls to swine.
But yes, do tell me when you're going to be up in ny :) and please, let me know this time yah? :P
I agree. This is an interesting conversation. We had this conversation on the way back from White Castle and bowling I believe, and you grew weary from arguing. I think both of you and Matt's words are wise, though I can't help but agree with Matt's rationalizing a bit more. I admire your fervor and conviction that Christianity is radical and much more serious than anyone in the world takes it, but I'm not entirely sure that that means being radical for the sake of being radical. If I gave all my possessions away as a child until this day, I would not have the intelligence, resources, relationships, and muscles (figuratively and literally heh) I have today. Things were given to me as a child by my parents, to grow and learn and become a radical soldier for God. It is my duty and privilege to serve God by helping others, giving unto others, and wisely investing the resources and money that he has given me. Yes, often this argument is one of the devil, one that causes man to falter and hoard money for himself disguising this as "wisdom." But to say that I must give up all my possessions to a homeless man if he asks for it is indeed radical but probably not wise. If I have a conviction and a reason for giving him all of my things, then yes, I should do so. If I have ten dollars and a giving spirit, and I have the means to get back home and practice for Praise Team on time, then yes, I should give that money to the beggar. But I cannot give all the money I have at the time to every beggar who asks. Jesus Christ spent thirty years as a carpenter, possibly learning about others, learning carpentry, growing up with his family. He did not start his outwardly ministry until he was thirty - and if he had given away all of his earthly possession before then, perhaps he would not have been able to learn about others, cater to their needs, or have the spiritual tools needed to do his works of God.
I'm not sure if anyone is disagreeing here, but I agree with Matt. Give as the spirit leads, and do not give foolishly. Beware the devil and his arguments to derail your wisdom, do not let your selfishness take over. I agree with many of your comments, Jae, just be careful that you are not confusing radicalism with perversion. Perhaps radicalism is meant to awaken and strongly point towards the truth. Perversion may be blindly going beyond that truth. Even as I say this I am not completely sure.
*Response above; Because I really do not want o make another post.
I agree that we are to be rational in our giving, but perhaps not in the way you and Matt espouse. We should be rational in WHAT we give, but not IF we give. We MUST give, that is unequivocal; it is law; it is mandated; it is iron-bound. But despite all these things, I am saying quite simply that when someone asks for something, you are obligated to give it.
I still do not see how someone can argue against an unequivocal "law" set down by Jesus; He said, specifically, "Give to those who ask of you." What could this possibly mean except for what it could ONLY mean? There is no way out of this, it is bound.
I still deny the charge of radicalism. I don't think this is radicalism at all; all it means is that when you see a beggar on the streets, be prepared to give to him. It doesn't have to be money, but if you see someone in need, than we cannot turn a blind eye. Isn't this truth? Isn't this just blatantly obvious? What does it mean, to mimic John, "I must decrease, he must increase?" or Paul when he says, "Christ in me is to gain, to die is to live?" Couldn't this only mean that we are dying to our self so that we and others might be blessed? The body is a kernel, but when it dies, it has a bountiful crop.
Once again, I stress, we're not only talking about money.
And forget all the hypothetical situations; we're talking about reality. No one has, (and no one probably will) ask you for your entire kingdom. The fact is though, even when we eare asked for something small and insignificant, we still refuse it. I would be a liar if I did not do this. And in that fragmentary moment between "give or not give" I too often choose "not to giv." If you give all the time, than you must be a saint. But then again, what does it mean that "when we give our right hand does not know what our left hand is doing?" (or was it vice versa) Could it be That we are to give without even thinking. without contemplation of monetary worth. Doesn't this tie back into Jesus' saying, "Store up treasures in heaven" and also, "Where your treasure is, there your heart is also?"
I still don't agree.
And I still think "giving" as the spirit leads is too opaque a statement for me to be content with.
Yes, we do all things in love; but even when it is lacking, isn't it still good to give?
Jae,
Thanks for your response. I did not charge you with radicalism, I wrongly assumed that you claimed your views were a form of radicalism.
No one has, (and no one probably will) ask you for your entire kingdom.
I agree with you. Your thoughts are wise, as the Lord does not ask from us more than we can give. Perhaps my musings are less based on scripture and more on a train of thought I've come by in accumulating nebulous Christian material and reading in recent years.
It's still all somewhat vague to me, but Matt does make some important reminders, that squandering and thoughtless giving is of course not pleasing to God. And his charge that a beggar asking for money is a "temptation" is hard to swallow. After your argument, I dislike using hypotheticals, but if a rich man asks for money to cheat someone and make an even larger sum of money, wisdom and prayer are completely necessary if you are to give. I'm not sure how different the homeless beggar is, but I'm sure that person's immediate need is more apparent, and perhaps wisdom will teach us that showing compassion to that man is the most Christ-like thing to do. But perhaps there are more wise ways to do this than to give money, as you said.
I am not sure what the fundamental argument is about anymore. Jae, it seems as though your argue that a person in need is always a person in need and that if you are able to give, give. I agree with you there but money obscures things. A parent must give attention and care for his son, not money to spend on whatever he likes. A friend must give advice and listening ear for someone who struggles with gambling. And at MOST times, a man with a walletful of money should give money to a beggar in need of a meal or shelter. If a beggar asks for such money, I agree, God calls us to give, give, give. Yet I say "most" times because these strange hypothetical situations might come up. You're right, there is no way to assess whether a homeless man will bring harm with the money you give, so maybe the distinction here is not "you should not give blindly" but rather "you should not give money, or choose the type of gift blindly." Jesus does call us to give love at all times, and for us it takes on different forms. To the beggar, it is often money, but I would be careful to say that you must give money to every beggar that asks of you. But who knows, maybe you're right Jae - maybe that attitude, on average, has the best outcome.
Post a Comment