Mike's Heresy of the Month, or Generosity

I don't think followers of Christ have any business being generous.

Now, before you reach for the comment button (or the delete button, for that matter), let me explain myself a little. By "generous" I mean the "haven't I done something nice, something beyond what was required" kind of action.

For Christmas Sue and I were given the Live Aid DVD box set. It's been both exhilarating to watch some of the performances - Sue tells me even with a nasty 80's mullet Bono is still hot - and profoundly disturbing watching some of the bonus material. Going through the accompanying booklet this notion really gripped me: Live Aid was an unprecedented event and would have to be considered a huge success.

"And yet there was a problem. I noted it not long afterwards in my book 'Bad Samaritans: First World Ethics and Third World Debt', in which I wrote: "Geldof, for all his skill as a populist, found no way of moving the issue on from one of charity to one of justice." 
(Paul Vallely - emphasis mine)

"No way of moving the issue on from one of charity to one of justice."

That phrase jumped off the page and slapped me in the face.

"No way of moving the issue on from one of charity to one of justice."

Meditating on that thought has taken me to a couple of different places. As I fast forward to the present and consider Bono's work it seems to me that he has successfully positioned this cause as justice, as opposed to charity. I'm not sure I can even define those terms, but like good art "I know it when I see it." I don't know how he did it, or what role, if any, the celebrity/currency idea plays in all this, but it's fascinating to consider.

"No way of moving the issue on from one of charity to one of justice."

And now here we are living in the post-tsunami world. I do believe the world is a different place than it was on Christmas day, and I even think some of that change is permanent. The global outpouring of generosity and compassion has been remarkable. Don't misunderstand me - I think this is a good thing.

Still, I have questions.

I have questions about the nature of generosity, and our motivations. What about the 100,000 people who have died in Iraq? Nobody, including me, seems to be in any hurry to do much for those families who have been shattered by death. What about those Palestinians whose homes have been bulldozed by Israeli forces? Nobody, including me, seems to be too concerned about where those displaced families will sleep tonight.

What was it about the tsunami that evoked such a response? Was it the sheer magnitude of the disaster? I don't know. I'm not sure how to position that alongside the 20,000 + children who will die in the next 24 hours of mostly preventable diseases? Why isn't that front page news... every day? Why aren't we suspending normal life and running around-the-clock telethons until we eradicate this scourge? Perhaps nameless, faceless people dying in places we've never heard of don't hold our attention like a good old fashioned natural disaster, adequately filmed from several different vantage points. (And damn, that tsunami story will make a good made-for-TV movie, won't it?! Notice I said "will", not "would". I'll bet they're in production right now...)

Let me leave that with you and get back to my original assertion - followers of Christ have no business being generous.

I'll try to put it a different way. Better yet, let me quote somebody else:

"Then the King will say to those on the right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you fed me. I was thirsty, and you gave me a drink. I was a stranger, and you invited me into your home. I was naked, and you gave me clothing. I was sick, and you cared for me. I was in prison, and you visited me.' Then these righteous ones will reply, 'Lord, when did we ever see you hungry and feed you? Or thirsty and give you something to drink? Or a stranger and show you hospitality? Or naked and give you clothing? When did we ever see you sick or in prison, and visit you?' And the King will tell them, 'I assure you, when you did it to one of the least of these my brothers and sisters,you were doing it to me!'"

What's a good Christ-follower to do with that? I'm not a big fan of taking scripture out of context to prove a point. But I'm not sure I see a lot of wiggle-room with this one.

Then, for good measure take a look at this:

"When a servant comes in from plowing or taking care of sheep, he doesn't just sit down and eat. He must first prepare his master's meal and serve him his supper before eating his own. And the servant is not even thanked, because he is merely doing what he is supposed to do. In the same way, when you obey me you should say, 'We are not worthy of praise. We are servants who have simply done our duty.' "

At the risk of being selectively literal, I don't think "generosity" or "charity" exist in the Kingdom. They just are, like a blue sky or green grass. It's a characteristic of the Kingdom.

So let me get this straight: When I do anything for the "overlooked or ignored" (as Eugene so wonderfully puts it) I'm doing it for - no, doing it to - Jesus. (Hmmm. It's hard to feel smug about that...) And it's just expected of me. We're just doing what we are supposed to...

Hard teaching? Tell me about it! At least I see I'm in good company:

The disciples were astounded. "Then who in the world can be saved?" they asked. Jesus looked at them intently and said, "Humanly speaking, it is impossible. But with God everything is possible."

Make it so, Lord. Please make it so.

Comments

[Glenn]

Wow!

[robert]

I can never explain why I believe I am my brother's keeper, but I believe I am. We are obligated to help one another. Turning away is not an option. Not so we can get to heaven but because it is the right thing to do. I don't believe religious faith is the only way to arrive at this conclusion and I think Justice is a more appropriate term than Charity. You can feel pity for a lost puppy. A fellow human being is not to be pitied. They are to be assisted (so that they can then assume their role of assisting another) .

[Stephen Said]

A framework that an Indian theologian shared with me that I have found very helpful is the four levels of responding to poverty and need. Each level is an increase in the intensity of response required by the responder:

1. Charity (Once off gift responding to some kind of disaster)
2. Welfare (Ongoing giving because there will always be a shortfall. We don't like this. It requires a long term committment.)
3. Development ("Give a person a fish, feed them for a day. Give them a fishing pole and a hook, teach them to fish and you feed them for life" kind of vibe.)
4. Political Engagement (When I feed the hungry, they call me a saint, when I ask why the hungry are poor in the first place, they call me a communist.)

The interesting thing that my Indian theologian teacher taught me as a Westerner (Australian) is that we like level one as we feel good, we don't like level 2, because, hey, they should just work as hard as I do and get to where I have gotten, lazy slackers, and when it comes to level 3 and level 4, you mean there are more than two ways to respond?

He then went on to teach me that when you look to the ministry of Jesus, you can actually see him practicing all 4 levels seemlessly. What a man! What a God!

[cara]

**What was it about the tsunami that evoked such a response?**

i happen to think that it was just because it was a natural, not a man-made disaster. there is no 'sides' like there is in the israeli-palestinian issue for instance. natural disasters do not discriminate.

i hate it that it takes disasters like the tsunami to make people pull their heads out of their, well you know. more people die of AIDS world-wide every day than have died in the tsunami. that is staggering and tragic.

generosity is a life-style choice. and yet, as believers, it should not be a choice or an option, but something that we just do. we are loved and we must show love.

[Stephen Said]

BTW - I just linked to your site too mate. I am mates of Signposts and Darren Rowse. Thought you might like to trade links? ;)

[Stephen Said]

BTW II - I too am a fan of the mighty Fox of Fire! I even have a t-shirt! ;)

[bobbie]

yes god make it so.

this helps me with the concept i'm noodling. what breaks along the way when people (i'm thinking in the kingdom context here) are 'generous' it somehow sets them up as better, and that brings in a host of ugly emotions.

i'm trying to figure out what makes some christians feel superior and eventually cynical to others cries for help. i know that there must be a way for this not to happen as we have been told by jesus to give - he wouldn't give us that instruction to harden our hearts, but to soften them - so, what breaks along the way?

what is the difference that happens when one person's heart gets softer, and one person's heart get harder. i see shades of racism, arrogance and eventually exhasperation (sp?) on some of the faces around me and it's so ugly. i think this heresy is one of the missing links - the hardness may come when they are doing it unto the least (ie - making themselves feel like 'most') instead of unto jesus - who we are obliged to serve.... hmmmmm

does that make any sense?

[Pete]

Great post Mike.

I love What Stephen had to share. My initial thought was that charity is a response to something that is seen, heard or felt. True giving, true action comes from within.

[Peter K]

In response to the question about what evoked such a response to the tsunami, I agree with Cara, but I think there's another side to it as well. Timing and media. On Boxing day, when the western world was still basking in its turkey hangover and feeling warm and fuzzy - a story like the tsunami caught our collective attention. I think the initial outpouring came from people being in the 'Christmas spirit' (Not a term I like). After that the media and peer pressure took over. Individuals, organizations and countries didn't want to be 'outed' as not doing as much as the next individual, organization or country. It almost became a fashion trend - "Hey gang, let's put on a show." I don't mean to be cynical about the response. I think it's phenomenal. But that's what it is: a phenomenon. I'd love to see it evolve into a lifestyle, into the status quo - that when there are people in need, we help out in significant measures.
The 28 million people currently suffering from AIDS in Africa, the 5-8 thousand of them dying everyday are old news.
Mike is right, as is Stephen - charity makes us feel good for a while. We need to see beyond that temporary fix to the greater rush of justice.

[Glenn]

OK so to expand on my somewhat abbreviated ealier comment Mike, I love what you have to say. I think this is something that is at the very heart of both the gospel and the Kingdom. I guess my only question is what, for those of us without "celebrity currency", we can do to move from generousity (or the charity) to justice?

Is it not better that we are at least generous with that which we have, is this not the upside down Kingdom, working hard for something then giving it away freely?

The other notion we must grapple with and come to some conclusion over is; what is justice? For if we want to replace generosity with justice we ought at least to know what we are talking about, not simply have some esoteric notion of justice. What does justice for a Tsunami victim look like? What does justice for one of the millions suffering from AIDS in Africa look like? Alongside this is the question; what entitles them/us to that justice? Is it our mere existence that allows us to think we are entitled to justice here on earth?

In short I agree that we need to move beyond mere generosity (though it is a good place to start) to something. If that something is justice then great, but we need to know what we mean before we can work toward it.

[Mike]

Great thoughts so far... please keep them coming.

The "natural disaster vs. an issue with 'sides' " thing has me intrigued. Your house was wiped out by a big wave? Here, take my money and build a new one. Your house was bombed by the Americans or bulldozed by the Iraelis, or (fill in the blank)? Well, tough luck. It's too bad (you chose to live there, your identity card says what it does, you supported a dictator, you were in the wrong place at the wrong time, you're a casualty of the fight against evil, etc.) Pick your favorite excuse of choice.

So we are actually responding to the issue, and not the victim; is that what we're saying? (That's not a rhetorical question, BTW...)

[stephanie]

The issue and not the victim? Now that is a great question. The cause or the humans affected by the cause? Sounds like keeping the intellect and the heart divided - and they are to stay connected.
Charity hurts now as I give but justice is a long haul road that may have a lot more hurt if I am going to be part of it. Justice will challenge my ethics, my faith, my whole belief system.
Sounds a bit like the "Mc" approach - drive through, instant, and not much life enhancing parts to it - charity I mean. Justice is the deeper more organic process.

[Dave]

The staggering response to the tsunami is indeed amazing and yet a puzzle. I recently saw the movie "Hotel Rwanda" which was a powerful depiction of the slaughter of 800,000 plus Tutsis, over 3 times the tsunami death toll. Many were children. Did they have memorial services for them in Ottawa? I think not. Why so little attention? As mentioned, the tsunami was a) impossible to predict and b) not the result of any human or institutional malfeasance. Talking about generosity, why the lack of global attention, media attention and sympathy on this genocide? No oil? "Just Africa?" Or quite probably to avoid embarrassment to the United Nations for its flagrant dereliction of duty in abandoning the defenceless Tutsis. It looks indeed like a failure in justice in Rwanda, Sudan etc.

[wilsonian]

Just a couple thoughts, am loving this discussion.

-practically speaking, if most of us got as far as charity (and never progressed further), most social justice issues would be taken care of.

-I believe most people give to the issue and not the victims affected by the issue so they can stay safely in the realm of charity. They don't want to carry a "long-term burden" for someone else. It allows them to stay at arms-length. Clean, sanitized, disengaged.

-Justice requires creativity. Justice requires stamina. Justice requires naivety.

[cara]

**So we are actually responding to the issue, and not the victim; is that what we're saying?**

of course that's what we're saying and doing. and it, the issue in this case (the tsunami),is a new and exciting issue, not something boring and old like AIDS or confusing, messy and never-ending like the crises in the middle east. that's how i think the majority of people think. i work with teenagers and i know that's how most of them feel (God, help this next generation) so it's not all issues, it's only certain issues. i think the same goes for victims.
the tsunami made for great tv, there is no denying that. it happened in an instance and the before and after shots seen thousands a time a day show us how lives were completely uprooted if not lost. soon it will go the way of infomercials about the poor african kid sitting in the dirt with flies buzzing around her head. click, click. ooh, american idol is on.

[Mike]

Wow - deep stuff. Thanks for the comments.

I'm starting to think there are no issues in Kingdom, only the "overlooked or ignored". Even as I write that the ramifications are starting to creep into my head. Any thoughts?

[Wes]

Good...as in very good! May the writing continue. You HAVE begun!!!

[wilsonian]

'I'm starting to think there are no issues in Kingdom, only the "overlooked or ignored".'

You're dead-on, of course.

Jesus said that when we fed someone, or gave someone a drink, we were looking after Him. Jesus never said when we give money to a faith community/church/organization to feed someone, we are looking after Him. I'm not saying that's a bad thing to do. But I think Jesus was creating a specific context - bringing the overlooked or ingnored close to us, into our lives.

If you give a donation so that a hungry man gets a meal, his stomach is full for a few hours. If you make a meal for a hungry man, and invite him to your table, and talk with him as you eat together... you are giving life.

[matt]

Unbelievable post and responses. Has given me so much to think about the last few days. I don't really believe the world is any different than it was before the tsunami. I suppose I would think it would be different if we heard about other global social issues being overrun with support. I suppose this is why I get cynical about the word "justice." Is it possible for there to be justice without relationship? It seems to me that the times that Jesus was just, he did so because he knew with whom he was dealing . He wanted to go to Zacheus's house; the woman at the well...he seemed interested in getting involved with people. Charity is clean, simple, and really requires no giving. If we really want to give, maybe we need to forget the cheque book and just offer ourselves. May it be said said of all of us some day: 'We are not worthy of praise. We are servants who have simply done our duty.' "

[Connie Knighton]

And when you perform "alms", don't let your right hand know what your left hand is doing.
You're on to something here Mike.
Connie

[Matt Jones]

Great post. I can here by way of Glenn. I don't think I have too much to add as the discussion has been really good.

Shalom,
Matt

[Lisa]

May I suggest the next question? How do we who are privileged now go ahead and live in solidarity with our fellow humans who are not as monetarily privileged as us, in a manner that is not condescending and fake but meaningful and realistic?

[anj]

Oh - and that is when the shit hits the fan Lisa. I agree that 'justice' has to be personal. sit at my table, I will sit at yours, let's partner through this tough spot. However, what does that really look like? Len and I have a good friend, who lives in the projects here where we live, and we were discussing this the other night. And, sorry for making it personal, but I'm not really good at discussing theory. What does justice look like for her and her family, via us? We share money each month, after some discussion with her, to help take the pressure off her to fully provide. We don't have the means to help her out of the projects. Does justice look like we move into them? See - I like the thought of justice, I think equality in divine dignity, irregardless of economic status is one a huge key to staying away from the 'more than' 'less than' mindset. I like what Matt has to say about forget the 'cheque book' and offer ourselves. IT seems to me more organic when the cheque writing comes out of relationship. As we muddle through - what this will look like, and how do we be meaningful and realistic? I'm not sure I am clear, but I have been thinking much about this lately. And it seems to be our, Len and mine's, giving is much more directed toward those we are in relationship with who have a need, and partnering with them in time, energy and money, than just writing a cheque. What Robert said in the first few comments really hits. - And perhaps that is the hardest part for me - I have to sit my heart right down in the injustice of this world, and live with that ache, as I partner with those who hurt the most because of it. That sucks, and I think that is what we are called to do.

[O]

From today's Bruderhof thought:
"If We Do Not Share...
Leonardo Boff
If we want to serve the true God, we must break out of the circle of self-absorption and pay heed to the bloodied faces of our fellow human beings. If we do not share life with the oppressed, we do not share life with God."

[Mike]

FYI - our friend Christy has picked up the conversation in this post