That said, many of us find it too easy to turn the proverbial blind eye, but interestingly enough, when I was with Compassion Int’l, I was amazed how many reasonably well-to-do Republicans were the movers and shakers and sponsors there. Democrat singers like Rich Mullins would come in and make anti-Republican jokes and everyone would just stare at him as the awkward silence indicated his jokes weren’t working. He just assumed that people laboring to help the poor must be Democrats, but he was totally wrong.

I’m appealing mainly to the general sense of entitlement among Americans and those in other stupid-wealthy nations. May or may not be the case among (all of) the Church, but I’d say it’s pretty basic to human nature, especially those humans who’ve grown accustomed to getting and having and keeping for themselves whatever they want (and denying such things to those they deem “unworthy” for whatever reason…)

“Thou shalt not steal” means that people have the right to private property and individuals or the gov’t don’t have the right to steal it to give it to themselves or others.

Hmmm…the whole conversation over “private property” is an intersting one, especially given that, within the context of that law and those who received it, it could be said that the people were living fairly socialist lives, except in regards to whatever they carried in their own tents. Which isn’t what’s up for discussion here at all…

I think it’s significant that Paul (the Apostle, not your husband) said
“For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “If a man will not work, he shall not eat.” 2 Thessalonians 3:10

But who was Paul speaking to? Those within the Church who are already called to a higher standard of moral and ethical living set by the God of their faith? I don’t think it’s too much to ask that people work for their keep, of course…but I do think there’s a significant difference in how the Church ought to treat those within the Body who are also accountable to the Christ’s standard, and how we treat unbelievers who, whether by their own laziness or circumstances unknown to us, don’t have their basic needs met.

Sin means lazy people will try to ride the backs of the diligent.

True that! But at what point do we stop being the judge and start simply obeying (or being what we are), leaving to God what is His to know? And, by the way, obedience ought to mean more than just handing a homeless guy $10…it, to me, looks more like giving the guy a ride to McDonalds and buying him a meal, or offering him some work, or taking him to the local Rescue Mission. It doesn’t mean being an unwise steward…but neither does it mean turning a blind eye to what we’ve called but can’t be certain is “laziness.”

In the end, I’d rather be guilty of giving too much to the lazy poor than judging wrongly and ending up one of those who denied Christ in denying the least of these…

We believe (consciously or not) that whether acquired by hard work, education, or birth right, we deserve what we have. And conversely, those who own less have earned and deserve less.

I don’t think that follows. For example, a tragedy can destroy what someone has acquired rightfully. The main concern is “Thou shalt not steal” means that people have the right to private property and individuals or the gov’t don’t have the right to steal it to give it to themselves or others. I think it’s significant that Paul (the Apostle, not your husband) said
“For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “If a man will not work, he shall not eat.” 2 Thessalonians 3:10

That’s not too socialistic, although I suppose it means the person isn’t contributing according to their ability. Sin means lazy people will try to ride the backs of the diligent.

I came to your blog via a comment left on mine. Thanks for stopping by Bread Crumbs! Now, regarding this post, I really enjoyed your thoughts about giving, socialism, etc. You made me think.

I agree that as Christians we are mere stewards of God’s resources here on earth and should not be obsessed with wealth accumulation. We should also be willing to share what we have if we are blessed materially. I suppose my disagreement, for lack of a better word, with the socialist perspective is that having the government take our resources to fund large governmental programs is not the most efficient use of such resources, nor is it the most wise. Taking care of the poor and less fortunate is best left up to the churches and smaller institutions that can make decisions about aid on a case by case basis, discerning need vs. want and discerning a person’s true ability to provide for themselves. Wouldn’t it be cool to see so much giving going to our local churches & non-profits rather than the government?

Those are my thoughts. Keep up the good work here.

Janna

I think indeed, it’s a core disagreement (if indeed it is one …I’m still not sure we’re not just looking at the same elephant from different sides and using different words to say the same thing) of the nature of choice.

Can we call it a choice if we haven’t deliberately made it?

I would make Christ’s statement:
“Because I love you, you will love me by loving others.” Perhaps, then, He is leaving it up to us…though, if you think about it, there’s really not much of a “choice” to be made.

And I do think the word you used for our loving: “impulsive” (or “compulsive”) is better exchanged for “instinctive.” Perhaps it is a choice (if we’re gonna be semantics-crazy)…but not one we necessarily deliberately make. When our love is for Christ and His people, our priorities shift, and this becomes what we do and how we’re defined. I am a singer, so I sing. It’s not a deliberate choice I make…I do it, because it’s what I do. I’m a Christian, so I live as Christ.

I’m running in circles here…

And I think that is where we find our disagreement I think. I assert that everything we do (beyond the physical response to stimuli, such as sneezing – although there was that Buddhist monk who literally burned himself to death and remained calmly sitting the whole time) is indeed a choice, and while the choice may be subconscious (such as following the impulse to sing) it is a choice of the will all the same.

I didn’t articulate my critique all that well (despite my attempt to edit it thoroughly). I believe it would be more concisely put this way:

We want and have made [giving] a matter of choice because “choosing” to give feeds our pride.. This statement only makes sense if your foundation is that as believers we only give impulsively (compulsively?). But if that is the case, then salvation actually removes our will (because we literally have no choice except to give)?

But then what about all the good stuff of love itself being an act of will? A choice one makes. Now granted chasing this tail leads is an effort of futility.

Could Christ’s commands be simply edited to say “If you love me you will [choose] to..?” without loosing any meaning?

Let’s assume Paul like grilled cheese sandwiches, no, not like, thrives off of. Nothing makes him happier than a grilled cheese sandwich. Early in your relationship you think “hmm, Paul loves grilled cheese, I’m going to make him grilled cheese to demonstrate how important he is to me” (this is even more poignant if you can make yourself grossed out by cheese). As your relationship progresses you make him more and more grilled cheese sandwiches, and with each one, the decision to do so is less and less conscious and increasingly instinctual (“Paul! You made the bed! You’re getting grilled cheese today!” becomes: “Well of course I made you a grilled cheese sandwhich, I love you!”).

While “instinct” has “taken over” you are still making a choice, one that quickly becomes evident when Paul stops making the bed, and thus you stop making him grilled cheese sandwiches. You are angry no longer feeling such love for him and suddenly it is a conscious act of the will to again make him a grilled cheese sandwich (“this is good for him, and I love him, so even though I’m angry I’m going to make this for him”).

A choice is still is a choice, regardless of your awareness of the choosing.

This is paramount to the discussion. It’s not the force, it’s the management…like Jason noted earlier.

If not the government then who? Jesus commands us as believers.

I think the fact that our culture (the Church) as flipped this is the real problem: “If not the Church then who? The government. Oh yes, that’s good.” It comes back, inevitably, to the Church either having too much to handle or failing miserably from the start. Usually a combination of both. Yak!

For some reason He chose you and I to be the Body of Christ. We are the implementing arms of His ideas and desires.

Agreed! And I think that, for those of us lucky enough to live in a democracy where our voice and values can effect legislation and how our country operates, part of the implementation can be accomplished through supporting certain government efforts. (Case in point: I don’t know of many who lack appreciation for Bush’s faith-based initiatives program, except that they’re so poorly funded…)

Seems like that there is a difference between commanding someone to do something and forcing them to do something.

I couldn’t have said it better myself.

And I think in the end, again, it’s a matter of pride. Self vs. others. Which is the priority of the Christian? Obviously, others.

All that said…here’s my immediate thought:
My original post had nothing to do with satisfaction. Because I agree that God takes pleasure in our pleasure, and that our greatest satisfaction and pleasure is in basking in His pleasure over us. (How’s that for running in circles?)

Nor do I assume that all giving is motivated by pride, especially not for the Christian. Rather, my whole point is that, for true Believers, giving is motivated by instinct, by nature. That we derive great satisfaction from giving – and thus want to continue giving – doesn’t change the initial motivation. Once we give, we see its value both for us and others, and naturally (wink wink) want give more and thus are more satisfied.

[What is so intriguing to me is that the more we give of ourselves the fuller we actually become. It seems ironic...shouldn't we be becoming more empty as we give, rather than full?]

I would argue that: ‘…when we give…’ …is not actually incompatable with:…

I don’t think my two statements are incompatible if you follow my thinking. Let’s look at it like sneezing. I can’t force myself to sneeze. It’s an involuntary action my body engages in instinctively. But that doesn’t diminish the satisfaction of the sneeze. And while I guess it’s reasonable to say I could have chosen not to sneeze, that choice would have been contrary to my natural instinct.

In the same way, while you *could* say I’ve chosen to give (or withhold) myself and resources for the sake of the poor, my motivation still isn’t my will unless I’m choosing the negative…to give is instinct, or nature. It’s Christ growing in me that produces the giving. It doesn’t change the satisfaction derived from giving. Nor did I actually “earn” the pleasure by doing something special or particularly deliberate. It just means I’ve done something great and my Father is pleased with me.

Take for example the child who creates a picture for her parent. If said parent displays affection for the child and pride in the accomplishment you can be sure a second picture will arrive.

I prefer the example of the pooping child: Just as we applaud our kids for pooping (and thus encourage them to do it more and not fear the poo!), it’s not as if they’re doing something particularly special or unique. In fact, they’re simply being healthy humans. The benefit is a result of a healthy nature.

OR! We could (again) appeal to CS Lewis and his theory of the sixpence: A father gives his child sixpence to buy him a birthday gift. When the child comes back with the gift, has the father earned a return on the money? And is the child particularly special for doing with that sixpence what he was meant to do? No, but the father is infinitely more pleased in his child for having given him the gift all the same.

I think it quite likely that part of the transforming work that Christ performs in his body is the rearrangement of priorities such that his people will find more satisfaction in helping and sharing than in hording.

I think you’re right that all of this is a process of transformation and rearrangement of priorities. Because no matter what I’d like to say, it is still hard for me to give up myself. I think that’s the tension we’ll always experience between wanting to follow our new (true) nature while confined to the body of old (Romans 7).

Following your logic to the end, one could also argue that the only service that is worthwhile is that which makes you grimace…I don’t believe Christ has called the church to be masochists.

I don’t think that’s the logical end at all. I follow it to mean that while giving inevitably produces immense satisfaction such that we’ll never know otherwise, the giving is still not something we necessarily “choose” to do. Giving is a product of nature rather than willful “choice.”