Even if we were to agree on the principles announced by Jesus, the application of these principles is really tough.
Some argue that we should give to those who ask even if by so doing we enable laziness. But Paul wrote,
(2Th 3:10-12 ESV) 10 For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat. 11 For we hear that some among you walk in idleness, not busy at work, but busybodies. 12 Now such persons we command and encourage in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work quietly and to earn their own living.
Clearly, the command to give to the one who begs is speaking of the truly poor. And in Jesus’s day, it wasn’t that hard to know who was and wasn’t poor. The poor had no land to farm. The poor had no trade at which to labor. The poor could not put food on the table without public or private charity.
Today, there are times when it’s an easy call. A church member loses his job and is searching for new work. A working wife becomes disabled and the family can no longer pay its debts. But what about a family that could make it if they followed a budget and had some measure of self-discipline, but they don’t? What if husband refuses to look for a job? Does the church support the family and not the husband?
Anyone who’s served as an elder or who has managed a church’s benevolence fund knows how devilish these questions become — and how much more difficult these challenges become as some church members insist on giving to anyone, even if it enables sinful laziness or irresponsibility, while other members oppose all forms of charity entirely. You are guaranteed to make someone unhappy.
As a result, many churches have no money set aside to help the poor, even their own members. They prefer to let the government and secular charities handle it rather than deal with all the difficulties. In fact, some churches don’t even see financial support for their own members as part of their mission. (And we claim to be people of the book, who know the Bible so very well.)
But, to me, we have no choice. Christians are supposed to generously help each other out. This is the true meaning of —
(Act 2:44 ESV) 44 And all who believed were together and had all things in common.
The early church wasn’t Marxist, but they did make certain that legitimate needs were met. According to Robert Wall, in the New Interpreters Bible Commentary, “all things in common” was a common phrase, borrowed from Greek philosophy, for a close friendship. They didn’t merely attend church together; they were such good friends that they shared everything.
Paul commands,
(Gal 6:9-10 ESV) 9 And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up. 10 So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith.
And this is for everyone, not just the wealthy —
(Eph 4:28 ESV) 28 Let the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor, doing honest work with his own hands, so that he may have something to share with anyone in need.
The goal, Paul says, is not self-sufficiency. That’s the American ideal. The Christian ideal is to work in order to have money to give away — very much a higher standard. But it’s a much easier goal to reach when believers share their goods with each other.
So here’s how I see things —
* Even for churches that don’t believe in charity through the church treasury, the burden of supporting poor Christians falls on the Christian community. It’s something that we should all share in some way, and giving money to the church for the elders to oversee is a pretty good system, so long as everyone who can contributes to the fund.
* To me, it’s unthinkable for a congregation to have no funds available for its members in need — even if the funds are raised on an ad hoc basis by passing the hat as needed. The church should never have to say “no” to a member who legitimately needs help.
* Lending money is often wise, both because it helps the member save face and because, if the member can later pay the money back, he should. Paying back the money provides resources for helping more people, and it’s healthy for those who borrow to pay it back — but it’s also healthy for those who lend to forgive the loan when the debt is unbearable for the borrower.
* I do not believe in enabling sinful behavior. On the other hand, I do believe in helping someone learn new habits and skills. It’s perfectly appropriate for a donor to condition gifts on the recipient receiving financial counseling, learning how to budget, or the like. And every church should have access to a Christian financial counselor trained to help a family out of financial trouble. Dave Ramsey has a training program for financial counselors. After all, a Christian should want not to be a burden on the Christian community and should want to be a contributor to the needs of others. Obviously, many people really can’t support themselves, and for such people, the Christian community should provide without resentment.
One of the leading causes of divorce is financial mismanagement by a husband, wife, or both. You do them no favors by subsidizing their mismanagement. Get them counseling — even if the church has to pay for it. But you might want to insist that the couple pay part of the cost just so they’ll have skin in the game — that is, an investment that causes them to value the advice they receive.
This is not punishment but love. This is one reason it’s helpful to have a committee (perhaps the elders or a committee they form) to decide such things, so that only a few need to know, but love requires that the money be given on whatever terms help the needy family the most. This is not about being cheap but helping the family learn how to handle money.
Of course, there are times that the problem is so obvious — a lay off, a short-term disability — that the money should just be given, no questions asked.
And those who handle these funds need to be the sort of people who (a) can talk straight and (b) come across as truly acting out of love. It’s a rare skill, but I’ve been blessed to know a few.
* Sometimes the most loving answer is “no.” Of course, it’s not always “no.” But just as is true of childrearing, enabling sinful behavior will inevitably lead to disastrous results.
* The Law of Moses declared that debts must be forgiven every Sabbath (seventh) year, which is similar to the American bankruptcy system except the American system is less generous. And every 50 years (the year of Jubilee), all property was supposed to be returned to its original owner, so that there would be no families without land so that they could work to support themselves. Under Torah, all debts were forgiven, whereas in bankruptcy, debts are only forgiven if they can’t be paid.
Bankruptcy can be abused, but when it’s used as a last resort, it can be true to the heart of God. And so I disagree with the old notion that taking bankruptcy is per se sinful. When it’s used to discharge debt that could really be paid, yes, it’s sinful. But when the debtor is in too deep and has not taken unfair advantage of lenders, it’s a humane solution that elders and Christian credit counselors may well recommend.
There are no easy solutions. It’s about generosity tempered with love. The goal is for each Christian and each Christian family to be able to support itself and to contribute to the needs of others. And this will often require retraining and even the occasional “no,” but never out of greed or a lack of money to provide those in need.
And as the leadership of the church demonstrates its wisdom in dealing with these difficult cases, the congregation — moved by the Spirit — will surely provide whatever funds are needed.
Thanks Jay for a serious and well thought out treatment of a subject that is too often ignored in our churches. I especially agree with churches paying for counseling when it is needed by those in the church family who cannot afford it. Many counselors will give churches a discounted rate in those situations. (As a practical matter it is important to know that counselors receive only a fraction, often about half, from insurance of their stated hourly rate. So it doesn’t hurt them to offer discounts to churches who are paying by check or cash. Plus, they don’t have to fill out any insurance paperwork.)
2 Thessalonians 3:10-12 is a valuable biblical principle but it needs to be taught properly. It applies only when we know for a fact that a man is able to work, that he has opportunity to work, and that he is refusing to work. If we do not know for a fact any one of those three things then 2 Thessalonians 3:10-12 does not apply. There is no room for assumptions in these matters. Appearances can be very deceiving. There is a young man, now almost 30, whom I have known well since he was a young child. He is a strapping young man and quite strong; yet he does not work even though he very much wants to work. Most people probably assume he is lazy. I know that he is schizophrenic and bipolar and that he struggles just to negotiate the complexities of daily living. He very much wants to have a job and lead a normal, self-sufficient life. But he would require almost constant supervision by a very patient person to be able to work. He has started many jobs but does well to make it even a few weeks if that. Because he can present well for limited periods of time most people do not realize the obstacles he faces in his life. The only government assistance he receives is $200 a month in food stamps and Medicaid. While that is something you can’t live off that and he gets by only because of the charity of a few people who know his situation. My point is that we should be very slow to invoke 2 Thessalonians 3:10-12.
The one specific I view differently is regarding loans. In my experience, it is better for a church or individual Christian to simply give what we are able to give in a situation of need without any expectation of repayment. The reason is that if the beneficiaries of our assistance become unable to repay a loan from us their embarassment will often cause them to simply disappear from the church or avoid us as individuals. Also, for the giver, it is hard not to feel resentment when a loan is not repaid. I think it is better to give without expectation of repayment even if that means the amount of the assistance is less. “Freely you have received, freely give.” The best repayment is for those who have been helped to pass on generosity and compassion to others as they are able.
Forgive me for going on and on but helping the poor is a matter close to my heart. While I could never be a Roman Catholic I greatly appreciate and admire Pope Francis for “leading” in his papacy with helping the poor rather than divisive social and sexual issues.
This is beyond the scope of your post today but I believe conservative Christians should rethink their frequent opposition to government programs to help the poor. In the first place, only those who are seriously and significantly helping the poor on a regular basis even have a right to criticize government assistance. That eliminates a large majority of such critics right off the bat. But even the rest should think seriously before opposing any attempts by our wider society to help the poor. Education on just how small the amount of government assistance really is would go a long way. I have a friend and neighbor in her early 60’s who is disabled. While she waited for her disability application to be approved, she lived off $200 a month in food stamps and $215 a month in government assistance. For the rest, to be able to keep her utilities on, she relied on the charity of friends. (She has no family.) But here’s the real kicker. After being granted disability she now receives less than $800 a month and, consequently, her food stamps were cut to about $15 a month! Anyone who thinks that government assistance puts folks on easy street is ignorant of the facts.
I often hear especially older conservative Christians tell of how they and their families suffered in need when they were young and there were no government programs to help. I’m sorry for the suffering they endured but how does that equate to the premise that no one should be helped today and the poor should just get by the best they can without any government assistance? How is that rational? Much more importantly, how is that mindset Christian?
Seahawks 26 Patriots 17
Laymond,
I was thinking more like Seattle 13 and New England 12.5 psi.
“To me, it’s unthinkable for a congregation to have no funds available for its members in need — even if the funds are raised on an ad hoc basis by passing the hat as needed. The church should never have to say “no” to a member who legitimately needs help.”
Mat 5:46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
I believe Jesus requires a little more than you are offering.
Good one Jay 🙂
Larry,
That is the kind of stories the mega churches are preaching. Love of God and love of each other, instead of God waiting for you to do something, anything, wrong in some way so He can send you to hell. Christians have been needing hearing of the love of God and the good it causes for a long time.
True, those that help others as best they can are the richest ones on earth.
Alabama John,
You have brought to my attention something I had not noticed in this story. I had not noticed that this whole story is totally surrounded by this physical wealth of this world, except the last sentence. Other than the last sentence many pagans I know of do as much for others as is displayed in the story. There are many social groups in our world who will bond together to care for each other and even reach out to the poor in the same manner as displayed in this story. These groups many times believe that these values in their lives will serve to their position in the future without their belief in God. But, when God is left out of the center of our life, the purpose of our life, then all of the good that anyone can perform is of no value, those are really the poor and destitute humans of this world. I believe that when that purpose in an individuals life is correctly directed to the God of the creation, then he will provide necessities either through servants here on earth or as he has provided for his followers throughout the scriptures. Necessities can be far less than we can imagine.
The real problem that we encounter is we never anticipate how drastically our lives can be modified by our commitment to be true to our Lord. We are so blessed in the very lowest times of our lives here that we cannot relate to the cost that was and is being paid by individuals being martyred even today.
Pretty excited for Malcolm Butler. University of West Alabama is about 45 minutes west of here. My wife thinks she bought her Ford Explorer from Malcolm’s dad. Remembers him having press clippings all over his office about his son’s football career.
Making to the NFL from UWA would be like making the NFL from Harding. I think they play each other. Not a big football school at all. Great to have a local kid do so well against incredible odds.
Larry,
Thanks for the story. Very nicely told.