Today when I arrived for morning prayer I noticed a well-dressed young man, probably in his early 30's, that I had not seen before. He worked his way through prayer with us (as he was not familiar with the BCP), and exchanged the peace afterwards. As everyone finished exchanging the peace he introduced himself as a pastor and approached C saying that he was in a bit of a tough spot. He had a flat tire on his vehicle. A local man was replacing the tire, but the pastor had only half the necessary money to pay for the replacement, which would cost approximately $120. Could we help him?
C offered him whatever was in the poor plate at the back of the church. On this particular morning that amounted to about $10. I volunteered to go across the street to the bank and withdraw some money to make up the difference. I doubted that I had enough in the bank to cover the full difference, but I was willing to contribute whatever was there.
As it turned out I had enough money in the account to give him $60 to cover the other half of the cost of the new tire. When I handed over the money to Pastor D he asked if we were at the church every morning. We replied that we were, and he followed by saying that he would be back tomorrow to reimburse me.
At breakfast C admitted that he was a little scandalized by my giving the man $60. I admitted that I was too but that it hadn't fully hit me yet. I just gave away $60 to a stranger. Why? Or, as my wife would put it: Why!?! C, A, and I were all reasonably confident that I would never be reimbursed as the man had promised. This is a self-conscious skepticism on our part, born of being conned and lied to repeatedly. So, why did I give this man the money if I was skeptical of his honesty, and especially when the request was for so much?
An oft overlooked passage spoken by Jesus is "Give to everyone who begs of you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you." (Matt. 5:42) What do you do with an exhortation like that? Does Jesus really mean "everyone"? Does he not mean something a little more restricted, perhaps "give to all Christians" or all "decent folk", or to all those whom you have no reason to believe are lying?
Matthew 5:21-48 consists of a series of expositions in the format "You have heard it said... But I say..." So, before we put caveats on the exhortation to give to everyone who begs, consider that the exhortation comes on the heals of "You have heard it said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth'. But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer."(v38-39) Jesus tells us not to resist the evildoer and then in the same rhetorical unit exhorts us to give to everyone who begs. The implication seems plain: Do not offer evil in return for evil; to him who asks of you out of greed, respond to him from your charity.
The scandal of this passage is that Jesus implies that "being reasonable" about giving, to deny the gift when it is a poor investment or the recipient is not virtuous, is to return evil for evil. It is to return the beggar's sinfulness in asking with my lack of charity.
If I thought that I could get out of this scandal by suggesting that Jesus' exhortation was not a part of the "eye for an eye" reversal but perhaps the one following, I find no help. For the one following is "love your enemies". The exhortation to give is sandwiched between expectations of the agency of evildoers. We might abbreviate the passage:
Do not resist the evildoer. Give to everyone who begs of you. Love your enemies.
Jesus cannot be called naive in his exhortation to give freely. He explicitly locates his exhortation in the context of sinful world full of evil requests. And yet he says to us that giving freely of ourselves is the way to take up his yoke. We are not called to control this world, but to offer ourselves as living members of Christ, who is love, and who poured himself out for us.
There is a part of me that is still shocked that I gave away $60 dollars this morning with little or no consideration of the "reasonableness" of doing so. But I don't see that I had many options if my actions are to be accountable to Christ.
And tomorrow, if Pastor D returns with $60 to reimburse me, then I will have to confess my lack of trust that he would do so. My giving is still incomplete, because through skepticism I did not realize Godly love in the transaction.
As it turned out I had enough money in the account to give him $60 to cover the other half of the cost of the new tire. When I handed over the money to Pastor D he asked if we were at the church every morning. We replied that we were, and he followed by saying that he would be back tomorrow to reimburse me.
At breakfast C admitted that he was a little scandalized by my giving the man $60. I admitted that I was too but that it hadn't fully hit me yet. I just gave away $60 to a stranger. Why? Or, as my wife would put it: Why!?! C, A, and I were all reasonably confident that I would never be reimbursed as the man had promised. This is a self-conscious skepticism on our part, born of being conned and lied to repeatedly. So, why did I give this man the money if I was skeptical of his honesty, and especially when the request was for so much?
An oft overlooked passage spoken by Jesus is "Give to everyone who begs of you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you." (Matt. 5:42) What do you do with an exhortation like that? Does Jesus really mean "everyone"? Does he not mean something a little more restricted, perhaps "give to all Christians" or all "decent folk", or to all those whom you have no reason to believe are lying?
Matthew 5:21-48 consists of a series of expositions in the format "You have heard it said... But I say..." So, before we put caveats on the exhortation to give to everyone who begs, consider that the exhortation comes on the heals of "You have heard it said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth'. But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer."(v38-39) Jesus tells us not to resist the evildoer and then in the same rhetorical unit exhorts us to give to everyone who begs. The implication seems plain: Do not offer evil in return for evil; to him who asks of you out of greed, respond to him from your charity.
The scandal of this passage is that Jesus implies that "being reasonable" about giving, to deny the gift when it is a poor investment or the recipient is not virtuous, is to return evil for evil. It is to return the beggar's sinfulness in asking with my lack of charity.
If I thought that I could get out of this scandal by suggesting that Jesus' exhortation was not a part of the "eye for an eye" reversal but perhaps the one following, I find no help. For the one following is "love your enemies". The exhortation to give is sandwiched between expectations of the agency of evildoers. We might abbreviate the passage:
Do not resist the evildoer. Give to everyone who begs of you. Love your enemies.
Jesus cannot be called naive in his exhortation to give freely. He explicitly locates his exhortation in the context of sinful world full of evil requests. And yet he says to us that giving freely of ourselves is the way to take up his yoke. We are not called to control this world, but to offer ourselves as living members of Christ, who is love, and who poured himself out for us.
There is a part of me that is still shocked that I gave away $60 dollars this morning with little or no consideration of the "reasonableness" of doing so. But I don't see that I had many options if my actions are to be accountable to Christ.
And tomorrow, if Pastor D returns with $60 to reimburse me, then I will have to confess my lack of trust that he would do so. My giving is still incomplete, because through skepticism I did not realize Godly love in the transaction.
2 comments:
I think we can add my thoughts on greed that night at Food Lion with Crete to this incident. (Not that I dare call Crete greedy.)
I also think this starts to get us to the core of the logic of the Sermon on the Mount - to tie it together. If we are "not to worry" financially about tomorrow since we can be sure that if we "knock" and "beg" from others "our heavenly father knows how to give us good gifts", then how could we not "do unto others as we would have them do for us?"
I'm starting to think the Sermon is just one big beggers economy.
Post a Comment