Being Charitable

[arapahoepark]

I am wondering if there are any good works on how to be charitable, personally and corporately as a church. For instance, is it a good or bad thing to ignore the panhandlers? Any ideas or advice on the subject as a whole?

 

[Ed Walsh]

I am wondering if there are any good works on how to be charitable, personally and corporately as a church. For instance, is it a good or bad thing to ignore the panhandlers? Any ideas or advice on the subject as a whole?

Here are some Questions and Answers that you may find helpful:

From Fisher’s Catechism under the 8th Commandment

Q. 14. What ends should we propose to ourselves, in endeavouring to further, or increase, our own outward estate?
A. That we may honour the Lord, with our substance, Proverbs 3:9; live comfortably ourselves, Eccl. 5:19; and be useful to others, Eph. 4:28.

Q. 15. By what means should we procure and further the wealth and outward estate of OTHERS?
A. By exercising justice and righteousness towards all, Psalm 15:2; and by relieving the wants and necessities of those who stand in need of our charity, 1 John 3:17.

Q. 23. Is relieving the necessities of the poor a duty required in this commandment?
A. Yes; because it is a furthering the outward estate of our neighbour who is in want.

Q. 24. Why should we relieve the necessities of the poor?
A. Because, “He that hath pity upon the poor, lendeth to the Lord; and that which he hath given, will he pay him again,” Proverbs 19:17.

Q. 25. Who are the proper objects of Charity?
A. All who are in real poverty and want, and are not able to work; especially those “who are of the household of faith,” Gal. 6:10.

Q. 26. How should our acts of charity be managed?
A. They should be conducted with prudence, namely, as our own circumstances will permit, and the necessity of the object requires, 1 John 3:17.

Q. 27. When should we perform acts of charity?
A. Presently, if the necessities of those whom we are bound to relieve, call for present assistance, Proverbs 3:28.

Q. 28. What should we shun or avoid, in our acts of charity?
A. All ostentation, or a desire to be seen of men, and commended by them, Matt. 6:2-5.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

"Riches Increased by Giving" by Thomas Gouge. Its extraordinary.

There are others. Let me check...

 

[Ed Walsh]

Here's a 36 page PDF by Jonathan Edwards on Charity to the Poor:

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

James Ussher, "Of Almsgiving and the Extent Thereof", A Body of Divinity.
Jonathan Edwards, "Charity and Its Fruits" (Which may be the best book on the subject of love and charity outside of the Bible.)
Lewis Bayly, "The Practice of Piety" Chapter 20, on Giving Alms.

Many writers deal with this as a result of dealing with the Moral Law - so works on the commandments will also explain this.
Also, this falls under many writers who subset it under "doing good works."

 

[Edward]

For something more modern, Merciful by Randy Nabors.

My views:
As for panhandlers, it is almost always better to ignore them unless they are targeting the weaker members of the church. Then a more direct intervention may be required. And any church that just hands out money to anyone who asks, any time they ask, is practicing bad stewardship. Best practices would be formal, intentional charity in coordination with other local churches (even if we don't like what they teach).

 

[Ed Walsh]

James Ussher, "Of Almsgiving and the Extent Thereof", A Body of Divinity.

I have A Body of Divinity and his 17 volumes of Works, but I couldn't find it. What am I missing?

Ed

 

[Pergamum]

I live among some of the poorest people in the world. I've met people who've never handled money at all. Below are some tips that I wrote out a few years ago:


Many mission fields are very poor. Many missionaries come from very rich nations. Even if many missionaries live below an "average" economic baseline when compared to their own countrymen, we must realize that the average "poor" missionary from America is still often a "rich" man overseas.

This economic disparity creates a ripe breeding ground for dependency.

What is dependency?

Dependency is the loss of local initiative and ownership that can unintentionally result from our giving. People are given a hand-out instead of a hand-up. Or they are given help only based on certain conditions which serve to dis-empower them. The recipient becomes "stuck" - and is left feeling helpless - in a state of having his identity defined as being merely a pitiable recipient of the charity of others, rather than a person of dignity who is providing for his own family and determining his own future. Motivation and initiative is thus squelched. Resentment may even arise in the hearts of some recipients because such giving is an insult to their dignity and self-worth.

It is not merely the fact that we give that is important. HOW we give is also important. We are not loving others if, by our giving, we are demeaning their self worth.

We do not want our generosity to produce unintended negative consequences, such as enabling idleness, stealing local ownership or communicating a message that defines others only through their poverty and need.

Imagine yourself as a father and breadwinner unable to feed your own family. Imagine the shame of having others provide where you have failed. Imagine having to endure such charity regularly. Imagine being the object of someone else's prayer letter or blog back home; your existence and identity being defined by your want and your privation rather than by your achievements and successes. Imagine the cumulative toll and the hopelessness and despair that such a situation could provoke.


Stinginess is not to be our default:

Let it be noted that, in our attempts to avoid dependency, we are not to take a default position of stinginess, but that generosity and self-sacrifice ought to be clearly evident as we engage in ministry.

Two books that I highly recommend are (1) When Helping Hurts by Brian Fikkert and Steve Corbett and also (2) To Give or Not to Give: Rethinking Dependency, Restoring Generosity & Redefining Sustainability by John Rowell

-
-
Here are some further suggestions drawn from the two books above for avoiding dependency, even while exercising generosity:

• Christians are giving people. And there are appropriate pathways to channel this generosity. In our efforts to reduce the risk of dependency, we ought never to limit generosity. Given the great needs in the world, better channels of giving, rather than reduced giving, is the better pursuit.

• We will distinguish between relief and development. Those who are experiencing disaster may need an immediate outpouring of monetary and material aid. This can come from the outside and come with little local initiative or ownership. However, for long-term development, sustainable strategies that increase local initiative and ownership ought to be encouraged (giving a hand-up rather than a hand-out).

In general, we are to avoid doing anything for the people which they can do for themselves and any monetary or material aid merely ought to be used as a catalyst to encourage or sustain existing locally-initiated efforts or as a bridge enabling local communities to work towards the eventual goal of self-support.

• Money ought never to be used as a tool to dominate. We ought to avoid any giving that reduces local leadership, initiative or ownership. We should not give to enforce our wills on others, but to make possible what is agreed upon by both the mission and its indigenous partners.

• Works of compassion are not to be treated merely as a means to an end. We help because we love. Humanitarian work is not to be used as a bait-and-switch technique to lure people to Jesus through material gain, but naturally springs forth from Christian compassion.

• Those who will not work should not eat (II Thessalonians 2:10). We ought to ensure that our generosity does enable locals to depend on us or feign greater levels of poverty or self-pity in order to increase their dole. If someone is, in fact, working but their work is inefficient, it is permissible to give a hand to the industrious, remove barriers from the inefficiencies of work, or to help remove hindrances or even oppressive power structures which contribute to inequities and deprive the poor of the fruit of their labors.

 

[arapahoepark]

I live among some of the poorest people in the world. I've met people who've never handled money at all. Below are some tips that I wrote out a few years ago:


Many mission fields are very poor. Many missionaries come from very rich nations. Even if many missionaries live below an "average" economic baseline when compared to their own countrymen, we must realize that the average "poor" missionary from America is still often a "rich" man overseas.

This economic disparity creates a ripe breeding ground for dependency.

What is dependency?

Dependency is the loss of local initiative and ownership that can unintentionally result from our giving. People are given a hand-out instead of a hand-up. Or they are given help only based on certain conditions which serve to dis-empower them. The recipient becomes "stuck" - and is left feeling helpless - in a state of having his identity defined as being merely a pitiable recipient of the charity of others, rather than a person of dignity who is providing for his own family and determining his own future. Motivation and initiative is thus squelched. Resentment may even arise in the hearts of some recipients because such giving is an insult to their dignity and self-worth.

It is not merely the fact that we give that is important. HOW we give is also important. We are not loving others if, by our giving, we are demeaning their self worth.

We do not want our generosity to produce unintended negative consequences, such as enabling idleness, stealing local ownership or communicating a message that defines others only through their poverty and need.

Imagine yourself as a father and breadwinner unable to feed your own family. Imagine the shame of having others provide where you have failed. Imagine having to endure such charity regularly. Imagine being the object of someone else's prayer letter or blog back home; your existence and identity being defined by your want and your privation rather than by your achievements and successes. Imagine the cumulative toll and the hopelessness and despair that such a situation could provoke.


Stinginess is not to be our default:

Let it be noted that, in our attempts to avoid dependency, we are not to take a default position of stinginess, but that generosity and self-sacrifice ought to be clearly evident as we engage in ministry.

Two books that I highly recommend are (1) When Helping Hurts by Brian Fikkert and Steve Corbett and also (2) To Give or Not to Give: Rethinking Dependency, Restoring Generosity & Redefining Sustainability by John Rowell

-
-
Here are some further suggestions drawn from the two books above for avoiding dependency, even while exercising generosity:

• Christians are giving people. And there are appropriate pathways to channel this generosity. In our efforts to reduce the risk of dependency, we ought never to limit generosity. Given the great needs in the world, better channels of giving, rather than reduced giving, is the better pursuit.

• We will distinguish between relief and development. Those who are experiencing disaster may need an immediate outpouring of monetary and material aid. This can come from the outside and come with little local initiative or ownership. However, for long-term development, sustainable strategies that increase local initiative and ownership ought to be encouraged (giving a hand-up rather than a hand-out).

In general, we are to avoid doing anything for the people which they can do for themselves and any monetary or material aid merely ought to be used as a catalyst to encourage or sustain existing locally-initiated efforts or as a bridge enabling local communities to work towards the eventual goal of self-support.

• Money ought never to be used as a tool to dominate. We ought to avoid any giving that reduces local leadership, initiative or ownership. We should not give to enforce our wills on others, but to make possible what is agreed upon by both the mission and its indigenous partners.

• Works of compassion are not to be treated merely as a means to an end. We help because we love. Humanitarian work is not to be used as a bait-and-switch technique to lure people to Jesus through material gain, but naturally springs forth from Christian compassion.

• Those who will not work should not eat (II Thessalonians 2:10). We ought to ensure that our generosity does enable locals to depend on us or feign greater levels of poverty or self-pity in order to increase their dole. If someone is, in fact, working but their work is inefficient, it is permissible to give a hand to the industrious, remove barriers from the inefficiencies of work, or to help remove hindrances or even oppressive power structures which contribute to inequities and deprive the poor of the fruit of their labors.

Any good charities or missions that utilize such tools to help other than than hand outs? It is fascinating.

 

[arapahoepark]

Here's another question what about our enemies?

 

[Pergamum]

Any good charities or missions that utilize such tools to help other than than hand outs? It is fascinating.

Most all missionary orgs that I know of have written down some sort of guidance or advice on how they will treat the poor.

I believe some stress the dependence issue too much sometimes to the exclusion of the charity part such that many missionaries become slow to give rather than quick to give.

I have been criticized for being too generous (of all things), but my conscience can give a clear answer that I have never once turned away a hungry woman or child (men are a different matter if they are healthy, they should be working and providing for their families, but I also help them when they are sick). My default is to give if there is a chance that they are truly hungry (usually in food, mostly not in money).

 

[Pergamum]

Here's another question what about our enemies?

As missionaries, we have had several tribal men who have fallen ill and unable to take care or feed themselves right after threatening me (several times with a machete). Jesus says to love your enemies as well, and so we feed and medicate these as well without distinction, even caring for them in our homes while they are weak. It generally softens people towards you. Though I am also no pacifist and usually tell them I will break their teeth if they try anything towards my family.

After one period of trial, I once began to scheme in my mind that I would deny a peculiarly evil man any medicine as a threat so that he would change his responses to me. But after talking to my wife, we decided that we must treat the truly sick and cannot deny anyone care in an emergency or anytime the sickness might be life threatening (such as malaria which, though common, does lead to many deaths here).

The tale of Dirk Willems became as example to us, being pursued by Catholic persecutors, he nevertheless felt obliged to go back and rescue one of them from drowning when the pursuer fell through the ice. http://www.christian-history.org/dirk-willems.html

This evil man later reported a dream that he was "swimming in a lake of fire..because I tried to hurt a servant of God" and reported to me that every time he made a plan to hurt me that he would grow sick and every time he left off a plan to hurt us he returned well again. So he met me on the trail (a tense encounter) and he promised me never to threaten me again. And he never has.


As a nation, America has had a commendable history of treating their enemy prisoners of war well. I recall tales of German soldiers at the end of WWII who were surprised that they ate so much better as prisoners of the Americans than they did as soldiers of the Reich. Being charitable to your enemy does not mean giving him bullets, but it does mean extending basic kindnesses to him.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

I have A Body of Divinity and his 17 volumes of Works, but I couldn't find it. What am I missing? Ed

I have it in eVersion. It is on page 471 right after he talks about Vows and right before he talks about "OF THE MEANS OF VOCATION, THE CHURCH AND MINISTERS OF THE GOSPEL"