Have you ever had to compromise during a disagreement with someone? If so, didn't you make sure your most important issue remained intact? Wasn't there something concerning which you refused to bend?
That's exactly the situation the Jerusalem church leaders faced when they found themselves disagreeing with Paul and Barnabas. The subject of debate was the acceptance of Gentiles into the Christian faith. The Jerusalem contingent believed non-Jews should embrace Judaism as well. Paul believed that circumcision and other Jewish customs should be optional, not mandatory. The final result was a compromise: the Jerusalem leaders gave their blessing to the Gentile mission, as long as Paul agreed to one stipulation.
Can you guess what this stipulation was, the one issue about which the Jerusalem church refused to bend? Paul tells us exactly what it was: "All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do" (Galatians 2:10).
This should be sufficient evidence to prove that charity, also referred to as benevolence and giving, was considered an essential activity of the first century Church. Supporting evidence would include Barnabas, who sold a piece of land and gave the proceeds to the young church in Jerusalem; Paul, who twenty years later collected an offering from churches in Asia Minor, Macedonia, and Greece for the same struggling Jerusalem congregation; and the first deacons, who were ordained by the young church to help serve the unfortunate.
Today, benevolence is practiced by virtually every church in every denomination. Granted, you can find some congregations that appear out-of-balance, focusing on building programs more than benevolence, worship services more than charity, numerical growth more than giving, congregations who have placed on the back-burner what first century Christians deemed essential. But even these churches give to the needy, albeit less than Jesus, Paul, and the Jerusalem leaders would recommend.
Where does giving to the poor rank in importance among the activities of your local church? What percentage of your church's annual budget is set aside for this purpose? Is your church's charity out-of-balance by first century standards? These are the difficult questions congregations must ask and answer and, if found wanting, correct.
We live in a wealthy nation, so prosperous that our "poor" are often "rich" compared to the poor of third world countries. Our government subsidizes the needy, providing food, housing, and spending money. Unfortunately, many of our less fortunate have no desire to change their lot and thus have become government-dependent. These unmotivated people have become addicted to receiving benefits and are now wards of the state. Ironically, they spend a lot of time and energy (i.e., they work hard) to obtain and maintain these benefits. If you doubt this is true, just ask anyone involved in benevolence ministries or government subsidy programs. They will tell you that many poor people are poor by choice.
I am afraid that some Christians and churches have used this to justify their lack of benevolence today. But I am also convinced that this excuse will not pass the test of the first century. Jesus ministered to people, regardless. When he fed the 5000, for instance, he did not exclude those who were not really hungry or those healthy and wealthy enough to go to town and buy their own supper. Likewise, when Barnabas gave his money to the Jerusalem church without stipulation, I am sure he knew that some unmotivated individuals would be helped by it. Paul, too, surely knew that a portion of his offering would be received by those who could have helped themselves. Regardless, they all gave to the poor, and so should we.
May I propose a compromise? Go ahead, churches, and build your elaborate buildings. Permission is granted for you to focus on vibrant Sunday worship. Proceed with your well-intentioned plans for church growth. My only stipulation is this: as you build, worship, and grow, you must spend an equal amount of your time, energy, and money helping the poor.
If you agree to this compromise, sign here on the dotted line, right beside the signatures of Paul, Barnabas, Peter, James, and John. Don't sign, however, unless your motive is right. Remember the words of Paul: "If I give all I possess to the poor but have not love, I am nothing." That's right, giving for the wrong reason leads to spiritual bankruptcy. Beware, lest in giving to the poor you become the poorest of all!
Can you guess what this stipulation was, the one issue about which the Jerusalem church refused to bend? Paul tells us exactly what it was: "All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do" (Galatians 2:10).
This should be sufficient evidence to prove that charity, also referred to as benevolence and giving, was considered an essential activity of the first century Church. Supporting evidence would include Barnabas, who sold a piece of land and gave the proceeds to the young church in Jerusalem; Paul, who twenty years later collected an offering from churches in Asia Minor, Macedonia, and Greece for the same struggling Jerusalem congregation; and the first deacons, who were ordained by the young church to help serve the unfortunate.
Today, benevolence is practiced by virtually every church in every denomination. Granted, you can find some congregations that appear out-of-balance, focusing on building programs more than benevolence, worship services more than charity, numerical growth more than giving, congregations who have placed on the back-burner what first century Christians deemed essential. But even these churches give to the needy, albeit less than Jesus, Paul, and the Jerusalem leaders would recommend.
Where does giving to the poor rank in importance among the activities of your local church? What percentage of your church's annual budget is set aside for this purpose? Is your church's charity out-of-balance by first century standards? These are the difficult questions congregations must ask and answer and, if found wanting, correct.
We live in a wealthy nation, so prosperous that our "poor" are often "rich" compared to the poor of third world countries. Our government subsidizes the needy, providing food, housing, and spending money. Unfortunately, many of our less fortunate have no desire to change their lot and thus have become government-dependent. These unmotivated people have become addicted to receiving benefits and are now wards of the state. Ironically, they spend a lot of time and energy (i.e., they work hard) to obtain and maintain these benefits. If you doubt this is true, just ask anyone involved in benevolence ministries or government subsidy programs. They will tell you that many poor people are poor by choice.
I am afraid that some Christians and churches have used this to justify their lack of benevolence today. But I am also convinced that this excuse will not pass the test of the first century. Jesus ministered to people, regardless. When he fed the 5000, for instance, he did not exclude those who were not really hungry or those healthy and wealthy enough to go to town and buy their own supper. Likewise, when Barnabas gave his money to the Jerusalem church without stipulation, I am sure he knew that some unmotivated individuals would be helped by it. Paul, too, surely knew that a portion of his offering would be received by those who could have helped themselves. Regardless, they all gave to the poor, and so should we.
May I propose a compromise? Go ahead, churches, and build your elaborate buildings. Permission is granted for you to focus on vibrant Sunday worship. Proceed with your well-intentioned plans for church growth. My only stipulation is this: as you build, worship, and grow, you must spend an equal amount of your time, energy, and money helping the poor.
If you agree to this compromise, sign here on the dotted line, right beside the signatures of Paul, Barnabas, Peter, James, and John. Don't sign, however, unless your motive is right. Remember the words of Paul: "If I give all I possess to the poor but have not love, I am nothing." That's right, giving for the wrong reason leads to spiritual bankruptcy. Beware, lest in giving to the poor you become the poorest of all!
NEXT WEEK
Part 15 - Fellowship
No comments:
Post a Comment