|
Virtue as Act: Throwing Money at Larry JamesPosted by Scott Haile under Gospels, Central Dallas Ministries, money | | |
When we talk about spiritual growth, a key point to learn is the distinction between motive and action. God, it seems, wants us not only to do what is right, but also to do it for the right reason. Looking to straighten out their motives, Christians might turn to Matthew 6:1-4, where Jesus teaches,
I’m not sure this passage tells us exactly what we want to hear, if we’re approaching it with normal ideas about Christian spirituality. Though we want Jesus to send us into our own hearts looking for good motives, Jesus appears more concerned with how alms are given than with why alms are given. In the case of the hypocrite, it appears that the two are the same: he wants to be seen giving alms, so he does it publicly. But for the disciple, Jesus never really gets at why she should give. He doesn’t seem to insist here that the giver have pure motives, or that she even care about the people she’s helping. In fact, the use of the word “wages” sort of sets up the whole thing as a trade-off. It seems that Jesus uses our hope for reward as motivation to do good. The question, as he presents it, is not whether we have pure motives, or whether we would give if no one were looking at all. All Jesus talks about is who will see us––God or humans. If we don’t pay attention, we can be tempted to out-spiritualize Jesus. When it comes to caring for the poor, Christians naturally want to make sure we have right motives and to put our hearts into the help we give others. Some good-natured folks who wish to avoid works righteousness might even say something like, “It’s really not about what we do; what God really wants is our hearts.” And I think this reflects something important for Christians. However, while God does want our hearts, for us to act as if our own spirituality should be our focus in things like helping the poor surely leads us away from what God really wants. As my friend Matt has written before on his blog (or maybe mine), when God tells us to feed the poor, God may hope to win our hearts over so that we give cheerfully (thus 2 Corinthians 8–9), but we should probably assume that what God really wants is something a lot simpler: for the poor to have food to eat, houses to live in, and jobs to work at. I think it is instructive that the prophets call the people of Israel to stop offering sacrifices because they aren’t taking care of the poor, not the other way around. I bring all this up because of a blog post I read this week by Larry James, who runs a major food pantry and community development center in Texas called Central Dallas Ministries. He suggests that a lot of people, when they say they want to “really make a difference,” rather than “just throw money at a problem,” actually mean they want to make a difference in their own life. In other words, their spirituality is turned inwards, so that they don’t feel they’re doing anything good if they can’t really put their heart into it and get involved. James, however, suggests that often, the best way to make a genuine difference in the life of someone who struggles with poverty is indeed to throw money — lots of it — at organizations that help people in need. Heart-warming experiences are great, but money puts a lot more food on people’s plates. Last week I bought lunch for a panhandler in Boston. We had a nice conversation, and I think it was absolutely worth my time and money to share that meal with a nice fellow who frankly seemed more lonely than poor. But I shouldn’t kid myself that I was somehow fighting poverty by the $6 is spent on him. I’m sure it was a nice change for him, and of course I get to feel sort of virtuous about the whole thing. But in the end, that kind of experience is no substitute for giving a substantial portion of my income to people like Larry James who know how to work within poor communities to improve people’s lives. Maybe at some point in my life I’ll make the time to really participate in an organization like that, but in the meantime it would be a tragedy if I used my failure to give time as an excuse not to give money either. So if you have the time, please read Larry James’ post, because I think it will help you grow. In fact, subscribe to his daily blog on your rss feeder: larryjamesurbandaily.blogspot.com. But once you’re done reading it, please give to his organization, and then keep giving regularly every month. I really doubt in this case that God is as concerned with what you learn from Larry James as God is with whether people have jobs, homes, and food. |
September 27th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
Thank you so much for your blog on Larry James’ Urban Daily, and your support of Central Dallas Ministries. We so greatly appreciate you and your support.
We have a campaign coming up soon called “Community Hunger Day,” in which we ask people to forego a meal and donate what they would have spent on food to our ministry.
We would love to have you join us. Learn more here:
http://www.centraldallasministries.org/hungerday/
Again, thanks for all that you do.
I would welcome the opportunity to meet you, if you’re ever in Dallas!
Jeremy Gregg
Director of Development
Central Dallas Ministries
http://www.centraldallasministries.org/hungerday/
September 28th, 2007 at 10:03 am
When I tithe, I do so in cash. In my view, stuffing a few hundreds into a blank envelope is infinitely better than writing a personal check.
But now I wonder if encouraging anonymity is a good thing. Christians are adept at interpreting away most of the Sermon on the Mount. So why not also discard Matthew 6:1-4? Instead of posting aggregate giving, churches should publish individual names and amounts given each week. Giving would surely increase.
A sordid proposal? Perhaps. But as you point out, the poor don’t care whether people were coerced into giving. They just want to eat.
September 28th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
An example of the tension you’re talking about is when charities post names of people who give substantial amounts of money. In the ancient world they did the same kind of thing: if a wealthy patron funded a project, civic authorities would post an inscription on a stone pillar in the town square telling his or her name and what she contributed.
It’s sordid in a sense, but if it gets people to give more money, then it would seem to be worthwhile.
You don’t have to explain away the Sermon on the Mount in order to challenge Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 6. In Acts, the apostles are fully aware that Barnabas and Ananias and Sapphira are the ones giving the money they give, and in fact Barnabas’ name has now been seen by centuries of Christians, about as far from anonymous as you can get.
Still, Jesus has a clear point: God’s not impressed by people who do good deeds just to win other people’s favor.
Since I’m not likely to ever have enough money to get myself a stone inscription, I don’t worry too much if the elders at church or the staff as some organization see my name on a check.
However, when the stakes get higher, then power comes into play, and that can turn evil very quickly if church leaders aren’t careful.
This can be obvious, like if a family threatens to withdraw their tithe unless a certain decision goes their way. Or it can be subtle (but just as sickening, to me), like when a wealthy family, say, talks about the need to do what’s “best for their children” by finding a church with a good educational program if their current church doesn’t hire a minister to start a program of their own.
Fact is, wealthy people are used to getting their way, and influence doesn’t have to be explicit to be real. In this case, anonymity seems like a great idea, although in a small church the leadership could probably guess who’s giving anyway.
October 4th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
“like when a wealthy family, say, talks about the need to do what’s “best for their children” by finding a church with a good educational program”
from what I have experienced, these are often the same people that are not willing to participate in the programs they demand.
October 9th, 2007 at 5:42 am
I have wondered about the value of anonymous vs. visible giving myself, particularly in the context of American materialism and the ongoing issue of poverty. I am generally frustrated with how Americans, including American Christians, use their money. The amount of money we spend just on Starbucks and fast food could probably wipe out hunger in America and several other countries quite easily. Every statistic I’ve seen says that Americans give only a tiny fraction of their income to charity, maybe 2-3 percent.
My wife and I certainly aren’t perfect, but we do aim to be generous and enjoy doing so. We tithe 10 percent of gross income (not net, as Rev. Lovejoy reminds us), sponsor 3 kids through WorldVision, sponsor a church plant in Las Vegas and a seminary grad who hopes to start a church plant in Austin, plus give to other causes and needs on an ad hoc basis. God has been generous with us, and we want to share what wealth we have with people who need it more. As a lead-by-example kind of guy, I want my life to motivate other people to want more from their own. But I certainly don’t want to run around bragging to everyone about all the money we give away (like I’m doing now!). So for now I compromise by posting blog entries on causes I believe in, hoping to make my handful of readers think a bit without getting into specifics about our own activity.
October 9th, 2007 at 11:23 pm
I think the real trick of giving generously is to spend on yourself according to what you need, not according to what you make.
One of my favorite books is called Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger, and its author points out that most people, when they get a raise in income, immediately raise their spending to use up what they’ve gained––even though they typically didn’t need the extra money (since in most cases they were getting along well enough before the raise). Pretty soon, though, they’re convinced they really need that extra income, so they don’t really increase their giving.
A good example of this is people moving into a bigger house as soon as they have the means to do so (it wasn’t my understanding that that’s what y’all’s move is about, so excuse me if I’m accidentally stepping on toes). Sometimes there’s a good reason for this––if a couple is in a one-bedroom and is having a child––but often they just do it because they can.
This doesn’t count people who are genuinely struggling to make ends meet. But chances are, just about anyone reading this blog from a home computer isn’t in that situation, unless they’ve just been careless with their spending.
In my book, it’s better to make due with the smaller house (or car, or computer, or vacation) and give, say, 80% of the added income to causes one thinks are important.
This is actually a good way to improve contentment too. Whoever is constantly waiting for a raise, thinking they’ll be happier with the stuff they’ll buy, will always be discontent, wanting more.
But the person who’s just planning to give away most of their increase is already focusing on being satisfied with what they have.
And then of course, the most important thing in all this is that when a person gives substantial amounts of money to organizations (like CDM) that know what to do with, it can help a lot of people who are in genuine need.
October 9th, 2007 at 11:58 pm
Excellent points, and thanks for the book recommendation. I would love to read it. I must admit I do enjoy getting raises. When it happens, many possible uses run through my mind, depending on where my focus is at the time: debt reduction, investments, giving, an HDTV, vacations, saving for future houses or babies. Planning to give away most of the extra money would be a huge shift. Maybe I’m not as generous as I think I am.
Jenny and I have an interesting situation ahead that relates to this issue. We are in the final stages of approval for a ministry called Apartment Life (www.caresteam.org). If accepted, we will move into a local apartment community and live at very low cost in exchange for serving as “social directors” and spiritual mentors for the residents. We also finally sold our house (we think), so in a month or two we should have a large amount of cash left over each month and many options on where to use it. On one hand, we could do a huge amount of good with it by giving it away. But we are also seriously considering trying to adopt a baby next year and letting Jenny stay home with him/her. So we could use the surplus to prepare for that day (large adoption fees, paying off my car, etc). Most likely we’ll find a balance between the two, but it’s not easy to know where to draw that line.
October 10th, 2007 at 12:14 am
It’s easy for me to be an idealist as long as I’m single and childless, huh? This raises an important point, that probably, our calls are different –– being single, I’m likely to have more income than I need, whereas you and Jenny are better suited (as a couple) to show hospitality and do things like Cares.
I hope that works out for you –– I’ll be excited to hear about your experiences if you end up doing that.