100 Sermon Illustrations on Charity

Some people are overdependent. Should Christians support them? Sometimes assistance can do more harm than good. However, it is better to err on the side of mercy.

Indications of harmful overdependence:

1. How long in need?

2. Does God give an impression of their situation?

3. How bold are they?

4. How persistent are they?

5. Do they blame others or offer other excuses?

When giving is not loving.

1. If giving reinforces weakness.

Woman used suicide attempts to get attention. The church stopped

visiting her in the hospital, and she stopped doing it.

2. If giving indulges childishness.

Generosity can prompt immature people to become demanding, ungrateful,

and disrespectful, just as the Corinthians treated Paul because he

supported himself.

3. If giving enables sin.

Al-Anon counsels against being an "enabler" who covers up for an

alcoholic. One church had a young man who was unemployed and lived

with church families. They confronted him with 2 Thess 3 and he moved

to another family, then another church. Finally he came back to the

original church and got a job.

4. If giving allows others to burn out or be neglected.

Women helped an invalid who used them, then the volunteers burned out

and helped no one.

How to wean.

1. Be sure we have proved our concern.

Help people financially, but each time increase their responsibility.

2. Verbally affirm our concern when we must say no.

3. Point out that giving them a boost has not helped, and discuss why that

may be the case. Explain that love demands we do what's best, even when

it hurts.

4. Instead of knocking out all the props at once, decrease them

progressively.

5. Focus on answers rather than rehearsing the problem.

As long as people are consumed with their needs, their dependency will

remain.

6. Do not treat ongoing needs as emergencies.

7. Pray with them and teach them to pray for themselves.

Richard was homeless, church put him up. He did not look for work so

they rebuked him. He moved out, dated and milked a girl in the church.

They rebuked him again. He moved away. Pastor ran into him, he said

he had no relationship with God. Recently Richard phoned from Ohio to

say he was "living for Jesus." He is attending a strong church,

working, and is married.

The overdependent frequently flee when handled stoutly, but that same

firmness, and not softness, is what helps them most.

Events to raise money for the poor are popular now. Christians have been doing it for centuries. One person can make a difference.

Pascal was a university professor who was thrown into prison in Madagascar after a Marxist coup. There he became a Christian. When he was released he started a small export company, but returned to prison to preach. On one visit he saw fifty corpses and was told there was an epidemic going on. Instead of an epidemic it turned out to be malnutrition. Pascal tried to get others to help and ended up cooking meals in his own kitchen for the prison. "Without benefit of a government agency or even a theme song, this little platoon makes all the difference for seven hundred prisoners in Madagascar."

________

Colson met Pascal in Nairobi, Kenya, at a Prison Fellowship International conference. The above is taken from "Kingdoms in Conflict."

One person can make a difference. Colson calls them, "little platoons."

Frieda Weststeyn, in the course of her volunteer work in a California prison, noticed the number of pregnant inmates in the visiting room. Curious, she asked how the women would care for their babies. The answer jolted her. Most of the children would go into foster homes, be put up for adoption, or farmed out to the inmates' families. The mothers would rarely, if ever, see their babies once they were born.

Frieda went home, talked with her husband, prayed, and decided to do something practical to help these imprisoned mothers. Soon she was caring for five babies in her own home. (The state, which had no such program of its own, did enter at that point - ironically - to restrict Frieda to care for only three children at a time.) She kept Ryan (2 mo), Amber (8 mo), and Petey (17 mo). Three days a week she takes them to see their mothers in prison.

"I stepped out in faith," Frieda says. "I had no money to jump into a full-fledged ministry, but I knew this was a need I could help with."

NBC news featured her in 1986 and the government gives her milk products. Many have sent donations.

________

The above is taken from "Kingdoms in Conflict."

Sermon on tithing.

1. History of tithing.

2. Current (neglected) practice.

3. Results of abusing.

4. Biblical background: What it was, where given, who received, purpose.

5. Abuse of tithe.

6. Proper attitude.

a. Fellowship meal in Jerusalem.

b. Give tithe joyfully, or not at all.

7. Validity of tithe today.

a. Relationship with God must come first.

b. Ultimate giving to God is not 10%, but 100%.

"We should obey God rather than men." (Acts 5:29)

Marilyn Louise Harrell loved this verse. She worked for the government agency Housing and Urban Development and ripped off $5 million. She said she gave most of it to poor people, but the government claimed she kept a lot in her own pocket. She was given the nickname "Robin HUD."

==============================

edited version from The New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/23/us/robin-hud-given-a-stiff-sentence.html

‘Robin HUD’ Given A Stiff Sentence

By Jason DeParle, June 23, 1990

“Robin HUD,” a former real estate agent who said she stole from the Government to give to the poor, was sentenced to serve almost four years in prison and pay $600,000 in restitution.

The agent, Marilyn Louise Harrell, drew national attention with one of the more flamboyant stories of abuse at the Department of Housing and Urban Development during the Reagan Administration. As part of a plea agreement, she pleaded guilty to stealing millions of dollars in Government property and lying on her tax forms.

Part of the unusual nature of Ms. Harrell’s case has been her public contrition, apparent as well today. “I have never said that what I did was right,” she said, weeping, in Federal District Court in Baltimore. “In fact, if a person steals five cents, then they should be done with whatever the court sees fit.”

In handing down the stiffer term, Judge Murray said many of Ms. Harrell’s actions had been taken for her own enrichment. “Some of the funds used were admittedly for good purposes,” he said. “But a substantial amount of the whole sum went to you or members or your family.” Attorney General Dick Thornburgh has called Ms. Harrell’s actions the largest individual theft of United States Government funds in history.

Ms. Harrell’s unusual story began in the fall of 1985, when she first began stealing Government money. Under a program begun by the Reagan Administration, private agents like her were hired to handle the closings when the housing department sold foreclosed properties. By letting private agents perform a function previously done by Government employees, the Administration pledged to improve efficiency.

Over the next three years, prosecutors say, Ms. Harrell stole the proceeds from the sale of 99 homes, simply failing to forward the money. Prosecutors said the total theft was $6.1 million. An investigation began in September 1988, when Ms. Harrell bounced $1.2 million in checks to the housing department.

Ms. Harrell said that $5.1 million of the theft went to the needy, but prosecutors said they could find evidence of only $1.1 million in charitable donations. Prosecutors said that the rest was squandered on failed businesses for herself, family and friends and that Ms. Harrell was now indigent.

Four witnesses testified today on Ms. Harrell’s behalf, backing her portrayal of herself as a friend of the deprived. “Marilyn saw that I’d have everything that I needed,” said Carol Ann Swift, a double amputee who lived with a woman supported by Ms. Harrell. “She gave me a home. She went and got me clothes, furnished transportation and paid all my doctor’s bills and medication bills.”

A minister from Prince George’s County, Maryland, outside Washington, where Ms. Harrell lives, said that Ms. Harrell gave $10,000 for a down payment on a rescue mission and treated needy families to groceries at the Giant supermarket. The minister, the Rev. Henry Studer, said Ms. Harrell would “sometimes take two and three familes at a time to Giant at $200 a pop.”

It all started in a Sausalito, California, restaurant in 1982 when Anne Herbert scrawled the words "practice random acts of kindness and senseless acts of beauty" on a place mat. From there it spread to bumper stickers, quietly at first, but with all the powerful momentum of something important -- calling us to lives of caring and compassion. Random Acts of Kindness, true stories of acts of kindness, was published in February 1993 and set off a chain reaction. Articles appeared in nearly every newspaper in the U.S., and hundreds of radio stations devoted airtime to the cause. Toward the end of 1993, a Bakersfield, California, professor gave a class assignment to do a random act of kindness -- unleashing yet another flood of stories. The concept continues to spread, and we hope it will carry on until the beauty of simple kindness touches -- and changes -- us all.

SOME IDEAS FOR RANDOM ACTS OF KINDNESS:

1. Donate to a charity ... one you would not usually support.

2. Plant a tree in your neighborhood.

3. Yes, it's a drag, but why not put your shopping trolley back in its

appointed place in the parking lot?

4. Place a coin in an expired parking meter.

5. As you go about your day, why not pick up the litter you find on the

pavement?

6. Give another driver your parking spot.

7. Send a letter to a teacher you once had letting her know about the

difference she made in your life.

8. Order a mail-order gift, anonymously, for a friend or someone at work

who needs to be cheered up.

9. Go to an AIDS hospice or hospital ward and see what you can do for

one person.

10. Slip a $10 note into the pocketbook of a needy friend (or stranger).

11. Next time you go over a toll bridge pay the toll for the car behind

you and don't forget to thank the toll taker.

12. Laugh out loud often and share your smile generously.

13. If you are the boss, bring your secretary a cup of coffee in the morning.

14. If you have a person with an infirmity living near you, offer to do

the grocery shopping for him or her.

How Should Your Church Help the Poor?

1. Define the Needy.

2. Identify the Needy.

As Paul put it, the standard of contentment is food and covering for

survival: to take more as a recipient of charity is to violate that

standard.

3. Establish Standards of Aid.

4. Paul's Instructions to Timothy.

Basic Survival and health-not some predetermined level of wealth relative

to the surrounding society- are the goal of the church's charitable help

to the poor.

5. Standards of Churches' Charity.

*1250 ds

Sermon in 1 Corinthian series. 16:1-24, Intimacy and Christian friendship.

1. Closeness of families at Thanksgiving.

2. The value of Christian friends.

3. Giving friends their due.

a. Material needs (charity).

b. Emotional needs (honor).

4. Intimacy with Christian friends.

a. Visiting friends.

b. Building intimacy. [7 steps]

5. Making up for distance.

6. Challenge: Be a friend.

a. Do you value Christian friends?

b. Are you a friend to others?

When William Tecumseh Sherman’s army marched through Georgia in 1864, about 25,000 blacks followed his infantry columns, until Sherman and his soldiers decided to rid themselves of the followers by hurrying across an unfordable stream and then taking up the pontoon bridge, leaving the ex-slaves stranded on the opposite bank. Many tried to swim across but died in the icy water.

Similarly today, many of the stranded poor will soon be abandoned by a country that has seen welfare failure and is lapsing into a skeptical and even cynical “compassion [fatigue?] syndrome” — unless we find a way to renew the American dream of compassion.

A century ago, when individuals applied for material assistance, charity volunteers tried first to "restore family ties that have been sundered" and "reabsorb in social life those who for some reason have snapped the threads that bound them to other members of the community." Instead of immediately offering help, charities asked, "Who is bound to help in this case?" In 1897, Mary Richmond of the Baltimore Charity Organizing Society summed up the wisdom of a century: "Relief given without reference to friends and neighbors is accompanied by moral loss. Poor neighborhoods are doomed to grow poorer whenever the natural ties of neighborliness are weakened by well-meant but unintelligent interference."

[filed under #3043]

(Spirituality) is still essential to poverty-fighting. In Washington, D.C., multimillion-dollar programs have failed, but, a mile from the U.S. Capitol, success stories are developing: spiritually-based programs such as Clean And Sober Streets, where ex-alcoholics and ex-addicts help those still in captivity; the Gospel Mission, which fights homelessness by offering true hope; and the Capitol Hill Crisis Pregnancy Center, where teenage moms and their born and unborn children are cared for. They are all saving lives.

In Dallas, Texas, a half-mile from the Dallas Housing Authority’s failed projects, a neighborhood group called Voice of Hope invites teenagers to learn about God through Bible studies and to work at remodeling deteriorated homes in their neighborhood. During the past decade, crime rates among the boys involved with Voice of Hope and pregnancy rates among the girls have been dramatically lower than those in the surrounding community.

Private charities can do a better job than government, but only if they practice the principles of effective compassion. GIVING, by itself, we need to remember, is morally neutral. We need to give RIGHTLY, so as not to impede the development of values that enable people to get out of poverty and stay out.

[filed under #3043 in file cabinet]

#3106

*

C.S. Lewis put it well when he said, "I'm afraid biblical charity is more than merely giving away that which we could afford to do without anyway."*

Continuation of article on Christianity and money...

REINVENTING CHRISTIANITY

It is difficult at certain historical moments to know whether we should laugh or cry at the spectacle. When we come to Laurence Moore, however, the choice is clear: we laugh. While Moore agrees with Lambert in placing the origins of the market revolution in the 1700s, he is closer to Wosh in dating its impact on American religion to the beginning of the 1800s. Only for Moore, it was not so much commercialization as the political fact of religious disestablishment in the new republic that forced American Christianity to begin selling itself as a commodity. The refusal of the national government to endorse a single denomination left all denominations free to flourish; and to flourish, they had to compete, with each other and with secular rivals, for numbers and money.

Moore finds the most obvious examples of the growth of religious commercialization in the way evangelicals, above all others, bid for public attention and loyalty through the commodification and mass marketing of religion in books and the increasing use by preachers of what had before been considered "immoral" forms of oral entertainment (principally the techniques of the theater).

But Moore notes that the spawn of nineteenth-century cult movements -- from Christian Science to Mormonism -- also converted themselves into a form of public entertainment by offering miraculous healings, exotic sexuality, and homeopathic health foods as a means of recruiting customers. And twentieth- century religious liberals proved no less eager to sell themselves as marketable commodities through radio and television advertising, and corporate management philosophies. By the time Moore arrives at the televangelists, we are prepared to acknowledge that Swaggart and Bakker are no new thing; the social gospelers, the YMCA, and Parson Weems had done it all before.

Even though Moore's book includes the most bizarre and execrable versions of the gospel-according-to-money, and even though his is the most frankly secularized voice of the three, Moore is the furthest from beating his breast about corruption and decline. Far from pronouncing jeremiads against selling God down the commercial river, Moore is impressed with the "skill" with which religious leaders rose to the challenge of commercial culture, pioneered innovative ways to commodify, package, and sell their message, and successfully reinvented Christianity to keep it a major player in the fluid and competitive "public sphere" of a political and social democracy. Whether what they reinvented is still recognizable as Christianity is a question Moore deliberately refuses to engage.

He also coyly refuses to address another troubling aspect of this process: how prominently and eagerly the laity, and not the clergy, led the way toward commercialization. The clash of fundamentalists and modernists over the last century has inclined most evangelicals to blame untrustworthy and worldly shepherds for the gradual apostasies of their flocks, but in this case, what Moore, Wosh, and Lambert reveal is that the sheep -- in the form of the merchant managers of the ABS, Whitefield's promotion team of William Seward and Benjamin Franklin, or the YMCA -- have usually been in front, leading reluctant and uncooperative shepherds down to the groves of Mammon.

A CURRENT OF RESISTANCE

At the same time as he presents these problems, Moore is reluctant to allow the critics of American religion to get too much out of them. Although his ironic compliment to religious marketing seems perfectly honed to add to the litany of complaint about the radio and television empires "the new Christians" have built out of the alienation and anxieties of their customers, the conclusion of his argument deliberately swipes back at the skeptics. After all, most of the condemnations of evangelical telemarketing spray across the pages of newspapers and magazines, which, as Moore reminds us, are just as much the vehicles of commercial marketing as televangelism. I have never heard any of the critics of "the new Christians" complaining that their book was marketed too aggressively, or found any of them so high-minded that they would object to making tidy, carefully counted profits from the commodification of their ideas by trade publishers. Ironically, what pacifies the secular critics in their own self-commodification is the uncritical assumption that what they do is only to be expected, whereas Christians are supposed to be something else, something on the other side of the boundary line between secular and holy.

And on that point, these books may prove them right. In all three, a subliminal current of resistance to commodification eventually emerges, whether in the form of Whitefield's "ambivalence" or the ABS's stubbornly evangelistic agents -- a resistance that exists as a permanent fixture in the evangelical mind. As my friend's experience with Shinto underscores, commodification is almost instinctual to many other religions; for Christianity (and even for "cultural" Christians), any part of the project automatically provokes suspicion and skepticism, and commodification has to be introduced gingerly, amidst a bodyguard of rationalizations. The real story of religious commodities may be not how greedily evangelical Christians have peddled them, but how reluctantly.

So perhaps the old wisdom still stands; that secular and sacred do inhabit two realms, and wisdom lies not in pretending that the one should efface the other, but in the constant careful negotiating and policing of the boundary. If there is something hopeful in these stories, then it may lie, not in the measure of our retailing successes, but in our worry about them.

=========================

"Selling God: American Religion in the Marketplace of Culture," by R. Laurence Moore (Oxford, 317 pp.; $25, hardcover).

"Spreading the Word: The Bible Business in Nineteenth-Century America," by Peter J. Wosh (Cornell, 261 pp.; $35, hardcover).

"'Pedlar in Divinity'": George Whitefield and the Transatlantic Revivals," by Frank Lambert (Princeton, 231 pp.; $24.95, hardcover).

***********************

Allen C. Guelzo is Grace F. Kea Professor of American History at Eastern College, Saint Davids, Pennsylvania, and author of "For the Union of Evangelical Christendom: The Irony of the Reformed Episcopalians, 1873-1930" (Penn State Press).

Copyright (c) 1995 Christianity Today, Inc./CHRISTIANITY TODAY Magazine

ctap2495mrw5T50275419

[see #3665]

It's just a small, white envelope stuck among the branches of our Christmas tree. No name, no identification, no inscription. It has peeked through the branches of our tree for the past 10 years or so.

It all began because my husband Mike hated Christmas -- oh, not the true meaning of Christmas, but the commercial aspects of it -- overspending ... the frantic running around at the last minute to get a tie for Uncle Harry and the dusting powder for Grandma-the gifts given in desperation because you couldn't think of anything else.

Knowing he felt this way, I decided one year to bypass the usual shirts, sweaters, ties and so forth. I reached for something special just for Mike. The inspiration came in an unusual way.

Our son Kevin, who was 12 that year, was wrestling at the junior level at the school he attended; and shortly before Christmas, there was a non-league match against a team sponsored by an inner-city church, mostly black. These youngsters, dressed in sneakers so ragged that shoestrings seemed to be the only thing holding them together, presented a sharp contrast to our boys in their spiffy blue and gold uniforms and sparkling new wrestling shoes.

As the match began, I was alarmed to see that the other team was wrestling without headgear, a kind of light helmet designed to protect a wrestler's ears. It was a luxury the ragtag team obviously could not afford.

Well, we ended up walloping them. We took every weight class. And as each of their boys got up from the mat, he swaggered around in his tatters with false bravado, a kind of street pride that couldn't acknowledge defeat. Mike, seated beside me, shook his head sadly, I wish just one of them could have won, he said. They have a lot of potential, but losing like this could take the heart right out of them.

Mike loved kids-all kids-and he knew them, having coached little league football, baseball and lacrosse. That's when the idea for his present came. That afternoon, I went to a local sporting goods store and bought an assortment of wrestling headgear and shoes and sent them anonymously to the inner-city church.

On Christmas Eve, I placed the envelope on the tree, the note inside telling Mike what I had done and that this was his gift from me. His smile was the brightest thing about Christmas that year and in succeeding years. For each Christmas, I followed the tradition -- one year sending a group of mentally handicapped youngsters to a hockey game, another year a check to a pair of elderly brothers whose home had burned to the ground the week before Christmas, and on and on.

The envelope became the highlight of our Christmas. It was always the last thing opened on Christmas morning and our children, ignoring their new toys, would stand with wide-eyed anticipation as their dad lifted the envelope from the tree to reveal its contents.

As the children grew, the toys gave way to more practical presents, but the envelope never lost its allure. The story doesn't end there. You see, we lost Mike last year due to dreaded cancer. When Christmas rolled around, I was still so wrapped in grief that I barely got the tree up. But Christmas Eve found me placing an envelope on the tree, and in the morning, it was joined by three more!

Each of our children, unbeknownst to the others, had placed an envelope on the tree for their dad. The tradition has grown and someday will expand even further with our grandchildren standing around the tree with wide-eyed anticipation watching as their fathers take down the envelope. Mike's spirit, like the Christmas spirit, will always be with us.

*

Recently I have been asking a question of strangers -- for example, seatmates on an airplane -- whenever I strike up a conversation: "When I say the words evangelical Christian, what comes to mind?" In reply I hear about scandal-plagued televangelists and strident pro-life activists, or opposition to gay rights, or proposals for censoring the Internet. Not once -- not once! -- have I heard a description redolent of grace.

As a journalist, though, I have had the privilege of seeing many wonderful examples of Christians who dispense grace. These are the people I wish would come to mind when I poll my airplane seatmates. Although this group does not often make the newspapers, its members serve faithfully, seasoning our culture with the preservative of the gospel. I tremble to imagine what the modern United States would look like without the "salt of the earth" in its midst.

I know the hospice movement well, for my wife works in one as a chaplain. I once interviewed Dame Cicely Saunders, founder of the modern hospice movement, at Saint Christopher's Hospice in London. A social worker and nurse, she was appalled at the way medical staff treated people who were about to die -- in essence, ignoring them, as tokens of failure. This attitude offended Saunders as a Christian, for she knew that care for the dying was traditionally one of the church's seven works of mercy.

Since no one would listen to a nurse, she returned to medical school in middle age and became a doctor before founding a place where people could come to die with dignity and without pain. Now there are 2,000 hospices in the United States alone, about half of which have a Christian base. Dame Cicely believed from the beginning that Christians offer the best combination of physical, emotional, and spiritual care for those facing death. Now she presents the hospice movement as a glowing alternative to Dr. Jack Kevorkian and his "right to die" movement.

I think of the thousands of chapters based on the Twelve Step program that meet in church basements, VFW halls, and living rooms all across the nation, any night of the week. The Christians who founded Alcoholics Anonymous faced the choice of whether to make it a restrictively Christian organization, or to found it on Christian principles and then set it free. They chose the latter option, and now millions of people in America look to that model -- based on dependence on a "Higher Power" and on a supportive community -- as a lifeline against addictions to alcohol, drugs, sex, and food.

I think of Millard Fuller, a millionaire entrepreneur from Alabama, who still speaks with a cotton-fields twang. Rich but miserable, his marriage on the rocks, he headed to Americus, Georgia, where he fell under the spell of Clarence Jordan, the radical Christian who paraphrased the Cotton Patch versions of the Gospels. Before long, Fuller had given away his personal fortune and founded an organization on the simple premise that every person on the planet deserves a decent place to live. Today Habitat for Humanity organizes hundreds of thousands of volunteers to build houses all over the world.

I once heard Fuller attacked by an elderly Jewish lady who was scandalized to learn that her money was going to support a Christian mission. "Ma'am, we don't try to evangelize," Fuller patiently explained. "You don't have to be a Christian to live in one of our houses, or to help us build one. But the reason I do what I do, and so many of our volunteers do what they do, is that we're being obedient to Jesus."

I think of Bill Magee, a plastic surgeon who was shocked to find that in developing countries many children go through life with untreated cleft palates. They cannot smile, and their lips curl open in a constant sneer, making them the object of ridicule. Magee and his wife organized a program called Operation Smile: planeloads of doctors and support personnel travel to places like Vietnam, the Philippines, Kenya, Russia, and the Middle East in order to repair facial deformities. So far, they have operated on more than 36,000 children, leaving behind the legacy of smiles.

I think of Bread for the World, an agency founded by Christians who believed they could best help the hungry not by competing with World Vision but by lobbying Congress on behalf of the world's poor. Or of Joseph's House, a home for aids patients in Washington, D.C. Or of Pat Robertson's Operation Blessing that runs inner-city programs in 35 large cities, or of Jerry Falwell's "Save a Baby Homes," where pregnant women can go to a loving home if they choose to carry their babies to term rather than abort. (Sadly, both these programs get far less attention than do their founders' political views.)

Rousseau said the church set up an irresolvable loyalty dilemma. How can Christians be good citizens of this world if they are primarily concerned about the next world? The people I have mentioned, and millions like them, disprove his argument. As C. S. Lewis has noted, people most conscious of another world have made the most effective Christians in this one. "Aim at heaven and you will get earth thrown in. Aim at earth and you get neither."

-----------------

Copyright(c) 1997 by Christianity Today, Inc/Christianity Today Magazine. February 3, 1997 Vol. 41, No. 2, Page 136 7T2wh7T2136726i

According to the Reformer John Calvin, pursuing the good of others is a way to love God.

________

Social justice is a fiercely debated concept among evangelicals today. Some believe it reflects “dangerous ideas” in secular culture or even “godless ideologies“ rather than biblical Christianity. The notion is understood variously, and debate abounds as to whether Scripture ranks it as a “gospel issue.“ Even the simpler term justice is subject to “competing visions.” Yet one thing is certain: Calls for justice in our society seem to only be increasing, and while some evangelicals have been struggling for justice for decades or even generations, today more and more are championing justice in some form.

Nevertheless, concerns remain for some. Is the gospel primarily about individual salvation, and do justice efforts detract from personal piety and evangelism? Just how important is justice to the Christian faith? John Calvin, a leading Protestant Reformer whose writings still influence theology and practice today, can help us think through such questions. For Calvin, justice is not a distraction from or tangential to the Christian faith but is integral to it.

While this might surprise some people today, John Calvin believed that we must act justly in order to live piously. Justice not only reveals personal piety but also is a means of living piously. What is more, justice is the meat and potatoes of what it means to love others. Many modern evangelicals don’t think along such lines. Perhaps a 16th-century French refugee who trained in law and served as a pastor can help us see more clearly the biblical portrait of the Christian life.

The Substance of the Christian Life

Many Christians rightly understand that the essence of godly living is captured in the maxim “love God, love others.” This is, after all, Jesus’ summary of the Law and Prophets (Matt. 22:36–40). Calvin agrees that such double love is what ultimately pleases God, and the Ten Commandments best summarize such a life. Though certain Old Testament laws (mainly ceremonial) have been fulfilled in Christ, the Christian life is detailed in the Ten Commandments and many of the Mosaic precepts that expound them. Commenting on the law in his magnum opus, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Calvin writes,

First, indeed, we should be entirely filled with the love of God. From this will flow directly the love of neighbor. This is what the Apostle shows when he writes that “the aim of the law is love from a pure conscience, and of faith unfeigned” [1 Tim. 1:5]. You see how conscience and sincere faith are put at the head. In other words, here is true piety, from which love [for neighbor] is derived.

Calvin equates heartfelt love for God with faith and piety . Law-keeping, therefore, is no coldhearted service toward God that springs from a mere sense of duty. Rather, obedience that pleases God flows from sincere love for him. And love for God is the source of love for others. To refer to this second love, Calvin frequently uses the term “charity” (caritas in Latin). Thus, while Calvin understands love as the substance of the law, he also believes the essence of the law is described with more specific terms like “piety” or “faith” and “charity.”

For Calvin, the Christian life is profoundly active. Loving God and neighbor doesn’t entail simply refraining from evil — such as idolatry, adultery, theft, and so on. Loving God and others has as much to do with actively pursuing and performing what is spiritually good as it does with abstaining from evil. When we read divine commands, Calvin informs us, we must consider both the matter it treats and its opposite to fully understand what pleases God. The prohibition against murder, for example, requires more than not harming others physically.

As Calvin states in his Institutes, “The commandments and prohibitions always contain more than is expressed in words.” We must look beyond the mere words of the biblical text in order to understand the whole meaning of a precept. As Calvin scholar John Hesselink explained, “if interpreted literally” the commands are “limited in scope”; but as Calvin universalizes the commands and interprets them positively, they assume “tremendous breadth and depth.” If we think the Ten Commandments teach us only what not to do, then we have not grasped their true meaning.

The Order of Loves

Just as Jesus prioritizes love for God when summarizing the Law and Prophets, so does Calvin when expositing “the Decalogue,” or the Ten Commandments. Knowing and glorifying God is the ultimate goal of life. The first four commandments which summarize duties of personal piety, take priority because God created and redeemed us so we may worship him. And as Calvin exclaims in a sermon on the Decalogue, “the worship of God” is treated before commandments 5 through 10, commands on how to love others, “because it is impossible for men to act as they should toward their neighbors unless they are led by the fear of God.”

Although the first table of the Decalogue (Exod. 20:1–11) takes priority, the second table (Exod. 20:12–17) is by no means optional for believers and is in fact a way of worshiping God. Calvin even asserts that God tests our obedience to him in giving us the second table. Observing the second table, then, is one way we prove our faith. In a sermon on the Ten Commandments, Calvin exclaims that while we must first yield to God the worship he deserves, we must “live in such justice and equity with our neighbors that we demonstrate thereby that we are true children of God.”

The reason obedience to the second table proves the existence of piety and faith is that, as Calvin states in the Institutes, “the intention of the heart” is not always visible, and hypocrites “continually [busy] themselves with ceremonies.” As Reformation historian Elsie Anne McKee explains, “The order of precedence” in Calvin’s understanding of worship is “inward faith, outward acts of worship (ceremonies), and then love [that is, obedience to the second table]. Unhappily, ceremonies are always susceptible of distortion and hypocrisy. Thus, in some instances, love toward neighbor may better evince faithful worship of God than liturgical or devotional practices.”

This does not mean that personal piety is supplanted. After all, we cannot rightly love our neighbors unless we first love God. The two tables are inseparable, though distinguishable. Yet Calvin makes a provocative point while preaching on the Ten Commandments: People who suppose they can observe only the first table without also observing the second do not actually keep the first table. Or, as he writes in the Institutes, “Our life shall best conform to God’s will and the prescription of the law when it is in every respect most fruitful for our brethren” (emphasis added).

Loving others is a way of living piously toward God. Calvin even suggests that the good works that prove our righteous standing before God refer specifically to deeds of charity toward others and not acts of piety toward God. Although charity is subordinate to piety, “the observance of justice and equity towards men is ... the means which we are to employ in testifying a pious fear of God, if we truly possess it.” Thus, while Calvin prioritizes piety, he sees charity as an indispensable means by which we express our love for God.

The Meaning of Neighborly Love

So what exactly does Calvin mean by charity, love for neighbor?

To modern ears, charity often connotes monetary donations. While Calvin certainly includes almsgiving as part of charity, he means far more than that. Translators rightly render Calvin’s use of caritas as “love,” yet Calvin’s notion of neighborly love is not merely sentimental, involving only warm feelings toward others. His understanding of the term has a wide-ranging meaning and cannot be reduced to either mere feeling or affectionless giving. As McKee states, “Caritas [for Calvin] is not only kindness or sharing, whether alms, hospitality, or vocational service; caritas is also justice — legal and personal.” For this reason, Calvin frequently refers to the second table, which summarizes love for neighbor, with justice and sometimes with terms like equity and kindness.

We see this in Calvin’s lectures on Ezekiel 18, a passage that emphasizes “justice and judgment.” According to Calvin, these are aspects of charity, or general duties of the second table. Calvin explains, “To do judgment and justice is nothing else than to abstain from all injury by cultivating good faith and equity with our neighbors: then to defend all good causes, and to take the innocent under our patronage when we see them unjustly injured and oppressed” (emphasis added). Obeying the second table, therefore, means actively seeking the good of others in addition to refraining from harming them. This is the essence of charity for Calvin.

More specifically, Calvin teaches — in his various treatments of the Decalogue — that neighborly love, or justice, consists in:

Rendering honor to authority figures, which includes respecting and obeying our parents and others in authority over us. Paying such honor, when it is due, preserves the order of society.

Promoting our neighbors’ physical and economic well-being. This includes seeking peace, helping others in physical and financial need, and openly opposing injustice.

Protecting our neighbors’ reputation, which includes affirming the truth about God and others, promoting and maintaining unity with others by our speech, and opposing slander and lies.

Preserving chastity. This includes not only upholding sexual propriety but also fighting for the rights of those who have been victimized by sexual misconduct.

Promoting our neighbors’ spiritual well-being, which includes praying for others (both Christians and non-Christians), warning others of their sin, and proclaiming God’s truth to others.

Calvin’s understanding of justice is profoundly social — that is, biblical justice ought to permeate society. And again, biblical justice includes far more than refraining from harming others. It requires intentional action toward just outcomes.

While it is impossible to retrieve all the ways Calvin believed Christians could or should exercise justice, it is clear that he understands justice — that love we extend to others — in broad terms. In his commentary on Hebrews 6:10, where he describes the good works or “labor of love” that God rewards, Calvin writes,

We are not to spare labor, if we desire to perform our duty towards our neighbors; for they are not only to be helped by money, but also by counsel, by labor, and in various other ways. Great sedulity, then, must be exercised, many troubles must be undergone, and sometimes many dangers must be encountered. Thus let him who would engage in the duties of love, prepare himself for a life of labor.

Loving others requires hard work and commitment, says Calvin, and it is quite extensive, taking on many forms. Charity, then, seems to be any assistance given to others in need, whether physically or spiritually, and any act that appeals to their rights.

The Reasons for Love and Justice

Calvin wants us to understand not just that love for God and love for neighbor are inextricably connected and that justice is integral to the double love. He also wants us to understand the reasons Christians are obligated to love and help others by seeking just outcomes.

First, God has united all humans together with a common bond, since all people are created in his image. In fact, we act “contrary to nature” if we “hate our [own] flesh,” Calvin preaches. The natural bond between all humans is the most basic reason we should seek each other’s well-being. Yet there is an even stronger reason why believers should exercise charity and justice: “they must remember that they are members of our Lord Jesus Christ and that there exists a more strict and sacred bond of nature which is common in all human beings.” For Calvin, therefore, there is an anthropological reason and a Christological reason, by nature of the Incarnation, why believers should exercise love toward others, both inside and outside the church.

Yet he also lists a theological reason. Commenting on Exodus 23:4 — which commands Israelites to attend to their enemy’s wandering or struggling livestock — Calvin states that believers should “imitate their heavenly Father” by bestowing kindness upon both the worthy and unworthy. We should extend kindness indiscriminately because God has done so toward us and because loving our neighbor is a means whereby we express our love for God. In pursuing love and justice, we not only honor our fellow humans and demonstrate our piety but also become more Christlike and Godlike.

In an age when many Christians separate justice from piety, assume it’s sufficient to merely refrain from harming others, or reduce worship to songs of praise, Calvin would have us think again. For him, worship, piety, neighborly love, and justice are inextricably connected. Calvin gave justice significant attention in his understanding of what it means to love God and others. What might it look like if we did too?

________

Kevin P. Emmert (PhD, London School of Theology) is an academic book editor and former Christianity Today theology editor.

You don't hear much anymore about Roberto DeVincenzo. He was once a tough but far from champion Argentine golfer. Some years back he surprised everybody by winning a tournament. As usual, they gave the winner his check on the eighteenth green. Roberto flashed a smile for the cameras and walked alone to the clubhouse. In back, where his car was parked, a sad-eyed young lady walked up to him. “It's a good day for you,” she said, “but I have a baby with an incurable disease. It's of the blood, and the doctors say she will die.” The golfer paused. In slow English, he said, “May I help your little girl?” The woman's face froze. He took out a pen, endorsed his winning check and pressed it into her hand. “Make some good days for the baby,” he said.

A week later, he was having lunch in a country club when a PGA official approached. “Some of the boys in the parking lot told me you met a young woman after you won the tournament.” DeVincenzo nodded. “Well,” said the official, “I have bad news for you. She's a phony. She has no sick baby. She's not even married. She fleeced you, my friend.” The golfer looked up. “You mean that there is no baby who is dying without hope?” he said. The PGA official said, “that's right.” DeVincenzo grinned and said, “That's the best news I've heard all week!”

*

[Original illustration at this number was added to HolwickID #19164]

Why do the Bill Gateses and Bonos of the world appear to be so happy? It’s not simply that they have a lot of money – it’s because they’re giving so much of it away, says a new study.

Researchers at the University of British Columbia have proved that spending cash on others is far more satisfying than spending it selfishly. When a group of students was given money and directed to give it away, they reported feeling happier than when they’d kept the cash. The researchers found the same pattern when they surveyed more than 600 U.S. citizens.

Self-reported happiness rates correlated with the amount of money people had given away, not the amount they had earned for spent on themselves. The data “confirmed our hypothesis more strongly than we dared to dream,” social psychologist Elizabeth Dunn tells SCIENCE.

She emphasizes that habitual charity is much better than a one-time donation, for both the giver and the receiver. If giving “becomes a way of living,” she says, “then it can make a lasting difference.”

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #5777]

"I advocate helping people, but I believe if you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day, but if you teach him how to fish, you feed him for life."

-- Zig Ziglar

It is said that a certain king was troubled about the carelessness

and thoughtlessness of his servants. To seek to arouse them he fell

upon the following plan: He took a large stone and placed it in the

middle of the road. Then he retired out of sight to watch. Soon a

gentleman on his fine horse came along but turned aside with a rather

critical feeling, wondering why the king did not have his roads better

cared for. Several passed with the same actions and feelings. Finally

a poor peasant with a heavy load came along. It was difficult to get

his load back on his back when once put off, but he said to himself,

"This rock may cause someone to fall and get hurt." So he put his

burden aside and rolled the huge stone off the road, feeling happy.

But after rolling the stone away he looked where it had been and saw a

little package neatly tied up. It was under the stone. He opened it

and found it contained many gold coins and a note from the king which

read, "The contents of this package is for the one who was

sufficiently interested to remove the stone."

Selfishness is a fearful sin, but unselfish deeds pay a rich

reward.

William Moses Tidwell, "Pointed Illustrations."

AN ASS once carried through the streets of a city a famous wooden

Image, to be placed in one of its Temples. As he passed along, the

crowd made lowly prostration before the Image. The Ass, thinking that

they bowed their heads in token of respect for himself, bristled up

with pride, gave himself airs, and refused to move another step. The

driver, seeing him thus stop, laid his whip lustily about his

shoulders and said, "O you perverse dull-head! it is not yet come to

this, that men pay worship to an Ass."

They are not wise who give to themselves the credit due to others.

Indeed, when the world gives praise to Christians, they should not

feel proud. Instead, they should return that praise to the real

source of their accomplishments and good deeds: God!

A number of years ago young Matthew LeSage, a third-grader, wanted to do something to help the hungry in his city. So he started a program, Hams for the Hungry. In its fourth year, Hams for the Hungry raised $40,000 to brighten the holiday season for people with limited resources.

Matthew's story reminds me of another young man, 13 years old at the time, who read about Dr. Albert Schweitzer's missionary work in Africa. He wanted to help. He had enough money to buy one bottle of aspirin. He wrote to the Air Force and asked if they could fly over Dr. Schweitzer's hospital and drop the bottle down to him. A radio station broadcast the story about this young fellow's concern for helping others. Others responded as well. Eventually, he was flown by the government to Schweitzer's hospital along with 4 1/2 tons of medical supplies worth $400,000 freely given by thousands of people. This, of course, would be the equivalent of millions of dollars today.

When Dr. Schweitzer heard the story, he said, “I never thought one child could do so much.”

________

King Duncan, “You Feed Them”; Source: Weekend Encounter, by Dick Innes, Copyright (c) ACTS International, 2004, http://www.actsweb.org/subscribe.php

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #9782]

My Source:

NORTH MARSHALL MESSENGER

Volume 4, #6, December 6, 1998

… … … … … … … …

Author: David Lemmons

==================================================

REMEMBER THE POOR (Galatians 2:10)

There are three main sections of chapter two of Galatians: (1) Paul’s Defense of his Apostleship–2:1-9; (2) Paul Openly Rebukes Peter–2:11-14; and (3) The Contrast of Two Systems: Freed from Law and Justified By Faith–2:15-21. In between the first two of these divisions verse 10 (which is really a part of Paul’s defense of his apostleship), is presented as an important challenge to all Christians. We are to REMEMBER THE POOR!

REMEMBER THE POOR! Paul wrote, in Galatians 2:9-10–”And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. 10 Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.” Paul was pointing out that the “PILLARS” at Jerusalem did not add one thing to the message which he and Barnabas were preaching. His argument was that his message came to him from Jesus Christ, and not from any other. But along with the emphasis given to the divine origin of Paul’s message, and as a part of it, was the charge to REMEMBER THE POOR.

REMEMBER THE POOR! The POOR in this context would have been the poor saints of Judea. It was not necessary for Paul to be instructed in the importance of such a charge for a number of reasons. First of all, as we will notice shortly, the Old Testament scriptures [with which Paul was intimately familiar] are filled with references to such a duty. Many provisions are made in the word of God for the care of the poor. But not only so, Paul knew about the monumental task of bringing Jew and Gentile together in Christ, considering the enmity which had long characterized their interactions. Paul knew that collecting funds from the Gentiles to assist the poor saints of Judea (Jews), would be most helpful in uniting the two as the gospel message demanded (Galatians 3:28). We will want to come back to this point as we conclude this article.

REMEMBER THE POOR! Let’s notice some of what the Lord has revealed to us about remembering the poor. It is stated that God regards the poor equally with the rich (Job 34:19). The fact is that both poor and rich are the product of His hands. Most people, if honest, will have to acknowledge that the rich are given more attention and respect than the poor. God’s word recognizes that such can even be a problem as we assemble for worship (James 2:1-8). These kinds of discrimination are not well pleasing to the Lord, nor are they Christ-like.

REMEMBER THE POOR! Why? Because God does not forget the poor (Psalms 9:18). Even if every single one of us forgets the poor and ignores this exhortation of Galatians 2:10, the poor will not be forgotten. Can we not see that one of the purposes of God’s word is His revelation of Himself to us. How thankful must we be to have such a written revelation which guides us to know what pleases and displeases our God! If we are to be pleasing to God, we must notice, pay attention to, the things that are characteristic of God. We are like God whenever we remember the poor.

REMEMBER THE POOR! Why? Because God maintains the right of the poor (Psalms 140:12). For you or me to go up against the poor by disrespecting them or in some way abusing them, is for us to go up against the One Who maintains their right. Shall we find ourselves fighting against God?

REMEMBER THE POOR! Why? Because God delivers the poor (Job 36:15; Psalms 35:10). Would we yield ourselves to be used by the Lord for the noble purpose of delivering the poor? Likely we all can look around us and find both those in relation to whom we find ourselves to be rich and poor in the world’s standard of measuring such. How important is it to be understanding and compassionate and teamed with God in helping to relieve those less fortunate then we? Really, how important is it to ME? When occasion arises that we can be used to help in delivering the poor, do we seize upon them, or let them pass? Further, do we search out such opportunities?

REMEMBER THE POOR! Why? Because God exalts the poor (1 Samuel 2:8; Psalms 107:41). In Hannah’s beautiful prayer to the Lord, she exalts Him with marvelous praise by drawing a strong contrast between the supposed mighty men and the Almighty God of heaven, who lifts the poor from the dunghill and exalts them as princes. Should we have concern for the poor? God does and it matters not what we have in this world’s goods, we owe it all to God (Js 1:17).

Now, let’s think back to one of the reasons Paul would have had no problem with the exhortation to remember the poor. He knew the expression of concern and caring would have an impact on the uniting of Jew and Gentile. Does it not make perfectly good since that we might use the same reasoning today? You see, the sins of men have separated them from God (Isaiah 59:1-2). They have a need of hearing the saving message of the gospel, and then obeying that message. How do we get their ears? How do we help them to listen to the message? One powerful way is to REMEMBER THE POOR! A powerful aid in our efforts to evangelize will be remembering the poor. In doing so, we align ourselves with a caring and loving God who has always REMEMBERED THE POOR!

The Rockefeller Brothers Fund conducted a study (in a recent year) in order to determine a profile of charitable givers in America. Over 1100 adults were interviewed. Researchers discovered that on the average, Americans give about 2.4 percent of their income to charity. Religious organizations get 72 percent of all the money contributed. Protestants said they contributed about 2.9 percent of household income while Catholics gave 1.6 percent. Individuals under 35 tended to be less generous than others. Contributions to charity from living individuals in 1984 amounted to $61.5 billion.

- Michael J. Hostetler, {Illustrating the Sermon} (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989) 68

(Scene - Sunday a.m. assembly; silent prayer)

MAX: God, I want to do great things.

GOD: You do?

MAX: You bet! I want to teach millions! I want to fill the Rose Bowl! I want all of the world to know your saving power! I dream of that day -

GOD: That's great, Max. In fact, I can use you today after church.

MAX: Super! How about some radio and TV work or ... or ... or an engagement to speak to Congress?

GOD: Well, that's not exactly what I had in mind. See that fellow sitting next to you?

MAX: Yes.

GOD: He needs a ride home.

MAX: (quietly) What?

GOD: He needs a ride home. And while you're at it one of the older ladies sitting near you is worried about getting a refrigerator moved. Why don't you drop by this afternoon and -

MAX: (pleading) But, God, what about the world?

GOD: (smiling) Think about it.

__________

Max Lucado

*