Friday, July 30, 2010

Foolish Generosity (more from my work on Paul's Spirituality)


Paul believed the church was home, where no one operated with a sense of entitlement and everyone knew they were needed. Paul believed his converts were family, where every member worked for the good of everyone and no one could afford to be selfish. That’s why he chose to “work with his own hands.” Although he was entitled to receive pay for preaching the gospel, he set aside the privilege so he wouldn’t be a burden to the Thessalonians (2 Thess. 3:8-9). Even while Paul was in Thessalonica, he accepted financial support from the Philippians (Phil. 4: 15-16; evidently, Paul didn’t find enough work in Thessalonica to support himself, even though he worked “night and day,” 2 Thess. 3:8). So, the Philippians—Christians of some means—sent money while he was laboring in Thessalonica. Evidently, the Thessalonian believers were poor and relied upon each other for economic support. In fact, Paul described the Macedonians (the province that included Philippi and Thessalonica) as churches that had endured a “severe ordeal of affliction” and gave to the relief offering in spite of their “extreme poverty” (2 Cor. 8:2). Obviously the Philippians were not the impoverished ones; when the Thessalonians were persecuted by their neighbors, it must have included economic reprisals (1 Thess. 2:14; 3:3-7). Ostracized by their community, the Thessalonians looked to each other for food, work, help, and support—they were family. To refuse to work would mean that others would have to work harder to supply bread for the family. Therefore, by refusing to exercise his rights, Paul modeled what church family is supposed to look like: a group of selfless people who put everyone’s interest above their own, just like Christ. It’s no wonder hospitality thrived in an environment like that; and it’s no wonder early Christians were so vulnerable in their generosity. They worked hard and gave much. It would be easy to take advantage of a group like that.

I wish the church today had the same reputation: a group so generous it would be easy to take advantage of us. But, I don’t see that happening for several reasons. We don’t rely upon each other like the church in Paul’s day. That’s because we’re convinced what happened in the early church should never be repeated (Acts 4:32-37). The Acts experiment only created needy people; selling possessions to help others didn’t last long. Isn’t that why Paul had to collect a relief offering in the first place? Second, we believe in self-sufficiency. We’ve been taught the only person you can count on is yourself. To rely upon others for personal resources is failure. Being needy is foolish. But Paul saw the church as a family of needy people, which is why he believed it would take every single one of us to make it through life together—something I learned in the middle of an ice storm. We’ve also lost the first gift of the church: hospitality. The earliest church was “forced” to discover the power of hospitality because they met for worship in homes. “Welcome to church” was the same as “welcome to our family.” But in our day hospitality is something you pay for; those who own hotels are said to be in the “hospitality business” (I owe this insight to Jan Peterson). We’ve limited hospitality to welcoming visitors to our worship services with a smile and a handshake—anything more you have to pay for. Finally, our sense of entitlement steals away any chance for us to be foolishly generous. We are entitled to the money we earn. So, only those who are entitled to our help receive it. How soon we forget that most jobs require able-bodied persons, there are no guarantees to good health, and no one owns their daily bread—all are gifts from a very generous God—something we call “grace.” Indeed, if the power to work is a gift from God, how much more the fruit of our labor?

9 comments:

Rich S said...

Good thoughts. Thanks for sharing.

Darryl Schafer said...

Very nice.

A friend of mine recently commented that the poor are God's gift to the wealthy, but we typically act as if the opposite were true.

jesnicole said...

Dr. Reeves, thank you so very much for sharing all of this.

I guess I was a naive little girl with big dreams about ten years ago, because how I envisioned the church and how she really has been...which directly affects my family...are two different things. Still, I'll never stop serving her for Him. However, I do have to admit that I worry incessantly about what my sweet little boy is seeing in the midst of everything. THAT....breaks my heart.

*Note I do not claim to be spotless, myself. The conclusion I've come to is I'll never stop serving her, loving her. Because He never stopped loving me. That is where I am today.*

T. K. Shultz said...

Yes, we do indeed need to view each other as family like they did but… our economic system and culture are a bit more than a hop and a skip away. They were motivated by survival as well as Christ. How much of their generosity was due to a social perseverance ethic rather than a true selflessness? Do we have other examples of this kind of community coherence in more impoverished parts of the world? While I don’t have any off the top of my head I think there might be. So, how can we overcome our cultural preconditioning to seek this family ideal? Are these differences bound to be cultural, or is there a way to overcome them despite our affluent lifestyle? Must we become poor financially to finally realize our need of one another? Perhaps, if we understand our poverty in spirit than we will realize once again our need for one another as a family does.
I guess part of my question is how much of this coherence as a family was based on their common seclusion from the world because of their acceptance of the gospel? This common seclusion forced them to accept others and rely upon them. This is a very powerful motivator and draws people together. In a land that distracts itself from needs and emphasizes triviality are we bound to await our affluent decline before we once again regain this biblical sight of family? So, where do we start? Sometimes it seems like an uphill battle.
Trevor

T. K. Shultz said...

meant *exclusion* not seclusion

Rodney Reeves said...

Trevor,

I see nothing wrong with a group of people finding community based on their common need. In fact, that is the essence of the gospel. So, even in places where oppression results in mutual dependence (then and now), the gospel is evident.

I think we all struggle with this idea because it is counter-intuitive to the myth of self-sufficiency (which breads entitlement)--something I explore in this chapter.

Darryl,

Good sentiment; but I think the poor are God's gift to the wealthy only when the poor give and the wealthy receive.

Jessica,

Me, too.

Willie Bell said...

Nice post. I find your thoughts about our society's upheld virtue of self-sufficiency particularly interesting and provoking.

I like what Moltmann said once, "the opposite of poverty is not property. The opposite of poverty and property is community."

Darryl Schafer said...

Dr. Reeves,

Subtle -- I'd have to agree.

T. K. Shultz said...

My problem wasn't necessarily with them in their world. It was more of a concern for us. It seemed that persecution and this common exclusion accelerated community at a rate we can't comprehend. How can we have this close tight knit family now when the kind of persecution they experienced seems distance. Perhaps this just gets into to another issue; that Christianity seems to flourish much more when persecuted.