In my Sunday church class we had a presentation on Christian giving. This discussion, from a book and a matching DVD, was based on biblical literality. The nature of the subject and the statements made got me wondering about how we are 'supposed' to give.
The tape said Christians should pay a tithe, but also talked about good works, including charitable works. It used text from Luke 16 especially, and Revelation 20 and a bit from Matthew. These texts were used to substantiate claims of a heavenly reward for giving- crowns, ruling over cities, credit in heaven. Images of multiple safe doors opening into light were used to express the heavenly credit obtained for charity on earth. The tape also explicitly said there were other legitimate uses for money, such as supporting one's family.
The discussion was lively. Several people talked about the personal nature of giving and helping, and also of the role of donation of time and money to organizations to achieve goals beyond the scope of one person. Others spoke about blood and organ donation. There was some objection to the appearance of heavenly 'bonus points' for certain levels of giving, a sort of heavenly 'President's Club'. This concern was felt to be a misinterpretation by others this morning.
My questions arise, as they so often do, of using the Bible literally. To my understanding, the imagery of heavenly reward is a spiritual, not a physical, thing. I don't imagine mansions or crowns. These to me are merely the best effort of Man to describe a Spiritual world/experience beyond mortal words or understanding. Those who accept the Bible literally of course see these things as real- homes, crowns, dominion, elect status, etc. Let us assume and concede biblical literality. Which part applies?
The Old Testament equates righteousness with prosperity in many places (cf Job and others) while also noting that evildoers die with the marrow fat in their bones (Psalms). Wealth and possessions were not intrinsically evil or shameful. Abraham and others are quite comfortable as nomadic herdsmen go.
In the Old Testament the rules of harvesting are explicit and deeply touching to me, from Deuteronomy 24:14-When you reap the harvest in your field and forget a swathe, do not go back to pick it up. It shall be left for the alien, the orphan, the widow....remember that you were slaves in Egypt; that is why I command you to do this. There are other sentences about harvesting olives and grapes, and not muzzling an ox when treading grain, all inciting mercy rather than greed.
Tithing is described in Leviticus 14 and elsewhere . It is a means of supporting the priests and Levites, who had no patrimony of land but tended to the temple and the Ark. The tithe was to be eaten, unequivocally. It strikes me as a means of providing community support and a 'reserve' of food, a religiously enforced form of savings.
Now things get even more complicated. Jesus does indeed say 'In my Father's house are many mansions. If it were not so would I tell you?' He also says to 'store up treasures in heaven'. Revelation refers to a scroll in which are inscribed all the deeds of Man. By putting these texts together exegetically it is possible to construct a scenario in which Christians are expected to tithe and also give other gifts, with the reward being an inscription in the 'good boy book' and a mansion, crown or other reward. But hold it- Paul says we are justified by faith alone. How can both be true? Do we get 'extra credit' for good works?
But Jesus also says a few other things. Unequivocally, absolutely, positively, Jesus says that any man who would come after him must take up his cross and follow him. He exhorts the wealthy man who follows the commandments to sell all his possessions and give the money to the poor. His commission to the seventy tells them to take nothing except a cloak, sandals and a bag. He describes himself- foxes have their holes and birds their nests, but the son of man has nowhere to lay his head.
Further, we have the testimony in Acts and the Pauline letters of a communal way of life in which goods were sold for the benefit of all. Paul is an itinerant just as Jesus appears to have been. Personal possessions become a mark of greed and selfishness, in marked contrast to Old Testament values. In addition to the practical problem of conflicting teachings there is the emotional problem that wealth, to the Christian, is a mark of impiety.
So, allowing for biblical literality, which of these dicta are we to follow? The most consistent message I receive from the Gospels is to place no value on possessions but rather to sell them and give away the money. The reward is spiritual, much along the lines of 'Render to Caesar that which is Caesar's and to God that which is God's'. In light of such a saying, considered one of the very most authentic preservations of Jesus' teaching manner, we should not confuse earthly imagery for heavenly reality. And there is nothing about the legitimate use of money to support one's family; far from it. Jesus asks followers to leave their dead, to not notify their families when they leave, and even fails to acknowledge his own mother and brothers.
Jesus' eschatological teaching and belief made life complicated for his followers when the world did not end immediately, as Jesus clearly expected (he speaks plainly that the present generation will see it all, later interpreted to mean seeing his resurrection, but not used in that context). If the world is ending right now, there is no purpose in having lots of things. It really is better to use them to help the poor. As life continued Christians were faced with the problem of taking care of daily life in the face of teaching to abandon everything.
One construction out of all this is the one presented today- tithing, other giving, and an accrual of good deeds in a heavenly scroll. Another construction is that of Franciscan monks- total poverty. No possessions of any kind, living as a 'barefoot hairy' to use the terms of the Japanese in the novel 'Shogun'.
My personal resolution is messy, as might be expected. Those who are members of a church have a plain obligation to support it, like any other communal organization. This is separate and completely different from the call to help others and to do good works. These don't add up to heaven points but are rather the outpouring of the presence of the spiritual in a person. Is there a 'number'? No. Giving should be voluntary and with grace, not a target that establishes goodness numerically.
There is quite a diversity of opinion on Christian giving. I don't purport to have THE answer, but I do want to point out that biblical literality leads to irreducible contradictions in instructions to the faithful. And ultimately, I feel the measure of our giving is what we do for others, both in our church and in the world. Those gifts are measured in many ways other than money.
Ted
The tape said Christians should pay a tithe, but also talked about good works, including charitable works. It used text from Luke 16 especially, and Revelation 20 and a bit from Matthew. These texts were used to substantiate claims of a heavenly reward for giving- crowns, ruling over cities, credit in heaven. Images of multiple safe doors opening into light were used to express the heavenly credit obtained for charity on earth. The tape also explicitly said there were other legitimate uses for money, such as supporting one's family.
The discussion was lively. Several people talked about the personal nature of giving and helping, and also of the role of donation of time and money to organizations to achieve goals beyond the scope of one person. Others spoke about blood and organ donation. There was some objection to the appearance of heavenly 'bonus points' for certain levels of giving, a sort of heavenly 'President's Club'. This concern was felt to be a misinterpretation by others this morning.
My questions arise, as they so often do, of using the Bible literally. To my understanding, the imagery of heavenly reward is a spiritual, not a physical, thing. I don't imagine mansions or crowns. These to me are merely the best effort of Man to describe a Spiritual world/experience beyond mortal words or understanding. Those who accept the Bible literally of course see these things as real- homes, crowns, dominion, elect status, etc. Let us assume and concede biblical literality. Which part applies?
The Old Testament equates righteousness with prosperity in many places (cf Job and others) while also noting that evildoers die with the marrow fat in their bones (Psalms). Wealth and possessions were not intrinsically evil or shameful. Abraham and others are quite comfortable as nomadic herdsmen go.
In the Old Testament the rules of harvesting are explicit and deeply touching to me, from Deuteronomy 24:14-When you reap the harvest in your field and forget a swathe, do not go back to pick it up. It shall be left for the alien, the orphan, the widow....remember that you were slaves in Egypt; that is why I command you to do this. There are other sentences about harvesting olives and grapes, and not muzzling an ox when treading grain, all inciting mercy rather than greed.
Tithing is described in Leviticus 14 and elsewhere . It is a means of supporting the priests and Levites, who had no patrimony of land but tended to the temple and the Ark. The tithe was to be eaten, unequivocally. It strikes me as a means of providing community support and a 'reserve' of food, a religiously enforced form of savings.
Now things get even more complicated. Jesus does indeed say 'In my Father's house are many mansions. If it were not so would I tell you?' He also says to 'store up treasures in heaven'. Revelation refers to a scroll in which are inscribed all the deeds of Man. By putting these texts together exegetically it is possible to construct a scenario in which Christians are expected to tithe and also give other gifts, with the reward being an inscription in the 'good boy book' and a mansion, crown or other reward. But hold it- Paul says we are justified by faith alone. How can both be true? Do we get 'extra credit' for good works?
But Jesus also says a few other things. Unequivocally, absolutely, positively, Jesus says that any man who would come after him must take up his cross and follow him. He exhorts the wealthy man who follows the commandments to sell all his possessions and give the money to the poor. His commission to the seventy tells them to take nothing except a cloak, sandals and a bag. He describes himself- foxes have their holes and birds their nests, but the son of man has nowhere to lay his head.
Further, we have the testimony in Acts and the Pauline letters of a communal way of life in which goods were sold for the benefit of all. Paul is an itinerant just as Jesus appears to have been. Personal possessions become a mark of greed and selfishness, in marked contrast to Old Testament values. In addition to the practical problem of conflicting teachings there is the emotional problem that wealth, to the Christian, is a mark of impiety.
So, allowing for biblical literality, which of these dicta are we to follow? The most consistent message I receive from the Gospels is to place no value on possessions but rather to sell them and give away the money. The reward is spiritual, much along the lines of 'Render to Caesar that which is Caesar's and to God that which is God's'. In light of such a saying, considered one of the very most authentic preservations of Jesus' teaching manner, we should not confuse earthly imagery for heavenly reality. And there is nothing about the legitimate use of money to support one's family; far from it. Jesus asks followers to leave their dead, to not notify their families when they leave, and even fails to acknowledge his own mother and brothers.
Jesus' eschatological teaching and belief made life complicated for his followers when the world did not end immediately, as Jesus clearly expected (he speaks plainly that the present generation will see it all, later interpreted to mean seeing his resurrection, but not used in that context). If the world is ending right now, there is no purpose in having lots of things. It really is better to use them to help the poor. As life continued Christians were faced with the problem of taking care of daily life in the face of teaching to abandon everything.
One construction out of all this is the one presented today- tithing, other giving, and an accrual of good deeds in a heavenly scroll. Another construction is that of Franciscan monks- total poverty. No possessions of any kind, living as a 'barefoot hairy' to use the terms of the Japanese in the novel 'Shogun'.
My personal resolution is messy, as might be expected. Those who are members of a church have a plain obligation to support it, like any other communal organization. This is separate and completely different from the call to help others and to do good works. These don't add up to heaven points but are rather the outpouring of the presence of the spiritual in a person. Is there a 'number'? No. Giving should be voluntary and with grace, not a target that establishes goodness numerically.
There is quite a diversity of opinion on Christian giving. I don't purport to have THE answer, but I do want to point out that biblical literality leads to irreducible contradictions in instructions to the faithful. And ultimately, I feel the measure of our giving is what we do for others, both in our church and in the world. Those gifts are measured in many ways other than money.
Ted
Comments
Post a Comment