slant33-blog

Kurt Rietema

One of the main reasons we might brazenly challenge a command given in such a straightforward, matter-of-fact, what’s-there-to-question kind of way by Jesus is our preoccupation with how that money is going to be stewarded in the hands of another.

I think affluent Christians like myself need drop the illusion that we’re any better stewards of God’s money than the economically poor are. We might be too theologically astute to go about saying that God has blessed us financially because of our faithfulness, but underlying our pretenses of stewardship is an implicit belief that if God entrusted it to us, then he wants it in our hands and we’d better not let it go too quickly. Maybe it’s because deep down, we don’t believe that greed is as abusive, self-destructive, or dehumanizing as drugs or alcohol in the dirtied hands of a homeless man.

A good friend of mine in Mexico has given me some perspective on this. He lived on the streets for a number of years as an adolescent. He ran away from sexual abuse at the hands of relatives and from the complete emotional abandonment of his father. He vividly recalls a time when he was waiting around a taco stand for something to eat. A couple of men ordered tacos and laid a Bible they were carrying around on the counter. My friend asked if they would give him a taco, and they denied him. He was hungry, and they gave him nothing to eat. At times, he used money he received from begging to buy glue in order to get high and escape the physical and existential suffering that was his daily reality. Today, he’s a pastor whose heart is still wounded by those experiences and now works to heal the wounds of others in those same situations.

Obviously, we’d all agree that it would be far better to give a kid like this the time, attention, and loving environment he needs. But in recognizing our own limitations, isn’t it worth risking our reputations as good stewards, even if there’s a possibility the kid is going to take that dollar for a taco to momentarily escape his pain by sniffing glue instead?

I just can’t see Jesus congratulating me on all the people I’ve passed by with a Matthew 25 rendition that says, “You saw me hungry, but you didn’t fall for it. You saw me holding a ‘homeless vet, anything helps’ sign, but you saw right through it. Blessed are you who do not fall for the schemes of the deceivers. Blessed are you who recognize that help for a down payment on a cheeseburger goes straight into the liquor store’s cash register.”

The very passage where Jesus’ teaching to “Give to everyone who asks you” in Luke 6:30 seems to suggest that God himself could be a little more discerning in the way he dishes out his grace as well. He gives to the deserving and undeserving alike. He is, as N.T. Wright says, generous to a fault (in the eyes of the stingy). To be fair, this passage doesn’t specifically mention money and therefore shouldn’t be taken as Jesus’ final words on stewarding money. Nor should giving to everyone who asks be understood as Jesus’ strategy for eradicating poverty. But it is significant that this commandment is couched in the middle of a passage on loving one’s enemies. This teaching is about disarming the power of hate in the disciple and turning upside down the logic of retributive violence.

As much as I believe that good results can come about in one’s enemies in following Jesus’ teaching (e.g., that one’s enemies may repent in recognition of their own depravity in the face of the absurd grace shown to them), I don’t think this is specifically the point of Jesus’ teaching. The results and transformation that Jesus hopes for are not primarily in one’s enemy but in the hearer himself. This command is first and foremost about forming his followers in an attitude of the heart that reflects the reckless generosity and grace of the Father, regardless of the response of the receiver of that grace.

Ultimately, I believe this informs our response to the statement. I can give several reasons why we shouldn’t always give to those who ask us for money, but we can all recite those as effortlessly as reasons we shouldn’t love our enemies. Those reasons need to be in consideration, but our first impulse toward those who ask us for money should always be, “Yes!” because this reflects the generous heart of the Father. This attitude disarms the power of greed, the power of suspicion, and the belief that we are entitled to the wealth that has been entrusted to us.

Kurt Rietema, his wife Emily, their baby Luke, and miniature schnauzer Freddy, are serving as agents of transformation and renewal in the Argentine neighborhood of Kansas City, Kansas. In this lower income, ethnically diverse neighborhood, they participate in Christian community development efforts and desire to see a new faith community emerge as they seek God’s shalom for Argentine. Kurt also works with Youthfront, where he continues to direct the Christian community development initiatives that he and Emily initiated in the village of Croc, Mexico as well as co-directing a missional formation school for college students in Argentine.

Kara Powell

This is a very provocative and challenging statement for me and for lots of others I know. On the one hand, we want to be generous and cheerful givers and obey Jesus’ commands to aid those in need. On the other hand, some of the leaders I respect who work day in and day out with the homeless recommend never giving money to someone who is homeless who asks you. They endorse giving them granola bars or fast food gift certificates instead.

Recently I hosted a webinar with a group of sharp Youth for Christ urban leaders. Dr. Michael Mata, from World Vision, was on the call, and he mentioned the dangers of “pimping the poor.” That phrase, which is admittedly provocative, arose in our conversation when we were talking about ways to expose donors from non-urban environments to the real struggles and challenges of life in marginalized communities.

Even if giving money to those who ask is formative for us, if it is at least sometimes harmful to those who seeking it, then we are being well intentioned but are actually “pimping the poor.” We are using them for our advantage. We are not looking out for their best interests but for our own. So I disagree with the statement.

But I must be honest: the academician in me is pretty cautious about statements that include unqualified terms like always and never.

Because of my theology of justice, I’d like to rephrase the sentence to read: We should always (yes, I did include always here) act to see justice done for those who ask for money because it is good for our spiritual formation. I can wholeheartedly agree with that statement, even though it did include that dreaded word always.

I would love for believers who cross the paths of homeless people not to default to giving change out of their pockets. Instead, I would love to see us take the time to ask the questions, listen to stories, and see if we can connect them with systemic resources that can help them connect with churches, gain employment skills, access housing, and perhaps even find a job.

That’s not only good for our spiritual formation; it’s good for those individuals’ formation—not just spiritually but on multiple levels. Come to think of it, it’s good for our formation on multiple levels also.

Chap Clark & Kara E. Powell, Deep Justice in a Broken World (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007), 58. Ibid, 93.

Kara Powell, Ph.D., is the executive director of the Fuller Youth Institute (FYI) and a faculty member at Fuller Theological Seminary (see www.fulleryouthinstitute.org). As a 20-year youth ministry veteran, she speaks regularly at youth ministry conferences and is the author or co-author of a number of books, including Deep Justice Journeys, Essential leadership, Deep Justice in a Broken World, Deep Ministry in a Shallow World, and the Good Sex Youth Ministry Curriculum. She volunteers every week as a small group leader for junior girls at Lake Avenue Church in Pasadena.

Mike King

The word always in this statement stirs up an immediate response of no. However, this statement should cause us to wrestle with much deeper issues related to giving, generosity, and responsibility to love our neighbors as ourselves (Matthew 22:34-40).

As I contemplate this, it is clear to me that there is no easy response to the core issue of this statement. On the other hand, perhaps it should be easy. Maybe the best response, the Christian response, is yes. After all, didn’t Jesus instruct his disciples, “Give to everyone who begs from you…”? And when Jesus said this, he was talking about how to behave around those who may even be defined as our enemies. Perhaps always responding with some act of generosity to those who ask for money may be necessary when the request is made to us because they know we are Christians. But I’m not sure I agree with my last sentence.

The reason this is so complex is that every situation requires discernment. Several passages and parables of Jesus indicate that God evaluates the condition of the giver’s heart. In God’s economy, small gifts are valued, which Jesus makes clear through his story of the offering of the widow in Mark 12:41-44. Paul indicates that generous gifts become hollow acts when given devoid of love (1 Corinthians 13:3). Paul declares, “Each of you must give as you have made up your mind, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver” (2 Corinthians 9:7). I believe that the Scripture is clear in both the Old and New Testaments that we are to place a higher priority on being generous to the poor. One of the biggest challenges in my Christian life over the last several years is to create life opportunities for me to be in proximity to and relationships with the poor.

While I continue to reflect on this statement, it occurs to me that I have rarely been asked face to face for money outside of organizational requests. I think I need to be more proactive in giving to those with needs around me because I think it is difficult for them to actually ask for help.

This post is turning out to be a clarifying formational contemplation for me. I can’t imagine a situation involving a person or family in need within my social connections who would get a no answer from me, or my wife, in response to a personal request for financial help. I don’t always respond to organizational or ministry requests for money. I don’t always respond to request from homeless people for money, although, over the last several years I have become much more prone to give money to homeless people on the street. I really think discernment is important. We should listen for the Holy Spirit’s promptings. When we aren’t sure how to respond or if we should respond, I think we should err on the side of generosity.

This is an important issue. We should process this for ourselves. We should dialogue with our loved ones. We should engage the young people in our ministries in this conversation. Since I actually wrote this post over a period of three days, my concluding statement is different from my first sentence. For the sake of our own formation, we should almost always give to those who ask us for money.

Comments

Jay commented on 28-Feb-2011 01:52 PM

I think it's easiest to give someone money. It's a transaction that takes a few seconds, but I can't recall one time in scripture where Jesus pulled up to a homeless man, gave him a 5-spot, and walked off. I think that God calls us to give more than so money. Real ministry occurs when where willing to get dirty with those who ask us to help them. It's going the extra mile.

Sue commented on 28-Feb-2011 03:36 PM

I am the youth director for a church located in the heart of downtown Portland, OR. Our church operates a community center for homeless people where, among other services, they can get a private shower, have coffee and conversation, and get tutoring for a GED certificate.

The director of this ministry has written a pamphlet about "dangerous compassion" in which he shares the lessons that they have learned, many times the hard way, over the years.

One of the lessons is that it is unwise to give cash to a homeless person. In the context of downtown Portland, OR, there is no shortage of places to get a meal. In our experience and in our context, it is almost certain that this money will be spent on drugs or alcohol.

In AA this kind of behavior is called "enabling." Enabling is giving someone the means to persist in self-destructive behavior by making it possible for them to avoid the consequences of their actions. Is enabling self destruction really obeying Jesus' commandment to love one's neighbor?

Almost every single person who is chronically homeless in downtown Portland, OR, is also chronically mentally ill. If free mental health services were as available as free meals in our city, we just might see our homeless population plummet, as mental health care could stabilize these folks so that they could pursue the dignity and pride of meaningful work.

But somehow we don't follow Jesus' command to "heal the sick" (Matt. 10:8) with the same urgency as we do to "feed the hungry" or "give to those who ask." And we stigmatize the mentally ill as much as lepers were stigmatized in Jesus' day. Why is that?

In Jesus' day there were no emergency food banks or soup kitchens. People had to beg for alms just to survive.

Jesus once gave an illustration about how no father would give a child a stone instead of bread, or a snake instead of a fish (Matt 7:9). As followers of Jesus, we must also take care that our acts of compassion are not "snakes in fishes clothing" so to speak.

However, Jesus did talk about being "shrewd as snakes" while yet being gentle as doves (Matt 10:16).

If we avoid the trap of taking individual verses out of context, and go to the trouble of keeping "the whole counsel of scripture" in mind when making decisions, perhaps following Jesus won't be so "simple", but we will truly end up being the Good News in our world, instead of contributing to the persistence of systemic problems.

Paul commented on 28-Feb-2011 08:48 PM

I always dismiss statements that use the word "always."

Seriously though, what does a question, or felt need have to do with our own formation? This statement hints at an obligation we feel without giving us an option to listen to God. It's assumed that God always says yes to this situation. Ignoring God for the sake of situational obligation is not formation.

In counseling, this is a called a double bind. You lose either way. Further, it limits formation to obedience. It's a new law.

If you could say, "When someone has a need (money or otherwise), we must seek God if we care about our own formation." I could accept that.

Respond to this statement: For the sake of our own formation, we should always give to those who ask us for money.

Kurt Rietema

Kara Powell

Mike King

Comments

Post a Comment

Slant Topics

Slant Archive

Featured Slants

Latest Posts