Over
the next two essays, I will claim that the church’s response to poverty will
have two aspects. The first of these aspects
will be my second proposal regarding a Christian response to poverty:
A Christian response to poverty must include meeting
immediate needs via almsgiving.
What is almsgiving? Luke Timothy Johnson explains that scripture shows that almsgiving is the primary method people used to respond to God when he commanded sharing with people in need. Almsgiving is therefore a self-sacrificial response to God’s command to love our neighbour.[1] Ownership is implicit in almsgiving because without ownership, there would be nothing to give. Almsgiving is therefore a way of life. To obey the command of almsgiving, it is not necessary to have a lot; it is simply necessary to have enough to share.[2]
Why is almsgiving necessary? Calvin taught that the purpose of wealth is to support life. It is sin when wealth does not fulfill its purpose. We know when wealth is properly fulfilling its role when we see wealth serving other people. Christian teaching therefore indicates that the required use of wealth is to address poverty. The wealthy received their wealth from God for the express purpose of serving those who are poor.[3]
There is a shocking difference between Calvin’s teaching and our current system. Private property, for example, is only permissible if it serves the wider community. Property belongs to God. If it is God’s, it is not ours so we must use it by God’s standards. If I am a Christian, I am obliged to give from my wealth when I encounter someone in need. Calvin took this exhortation seriously. He claimed that when a wealthy person does not give to a person in need, the wealthy person is committing a sin similar to theft.[4]
Centuries later, Teresa of Calcutta saw almsgiving as a means to solve unsolvable problems. As an example, she saw the obvious need that people who are starving have.[5] Teresa’s solution was not to try to end starvation. Instead, she fed people that were starving. [6] Almost 15 years after Teresa’s death people are still starving - some estimates suggest six people died while I crafted this sentence – but this horrible truth does not diminish the lives she saved.
Almsgiving extends beyond personally
giving and must involve the community. The
early church developed a “theology of philanthropy,” based on its Christology
(who it thought Jesus is), ecclesiology (what it thought the church is), and
eschatology (what it thought about the end times). The early church believed that it is the body
of Christ on earth. As Christ’s body, it
was the church’s responsibility to reconstruct society according to Jesus’ teaching. Early prayers and liturgies indicate that the
church saw itself as “a holy nation.” As
a holy nation, it was responsible to its citizens and developed social
services. Such services included
personal almsgiving, but almsgiving was expanded to include creating service
institutions.[7]
Having a theology of philanthropy is
important because it will allow us to have a structure for almsgiving. It is possible to find this structure in the
church. Calvin assigned deacons with the
responsibility to provide oversight for the church’s monetary ministry. This ministry should be a part of the
church’s spiritual teaching without dominating it.[8] This means that almsgiving – structured or
otherwise – is not proof of compassionate faith on its own. However, the absence of almsgiving indicates
that a person or church does not love God.
This is why inequality cannot exist in the church. Equality provides the opportunity of comfortable
survival within all aspects of a person’s life.[9]
With this understanding of what
almsgiving is and why it is necessary, I would like to suggest two questions raised
by Christian almsgiving. The first
question is how much should a Christian give?
In the early church, almsgiving was more than simply giving a couple
twonies to someone on a street corner. Perhaps
we shouldn’t be asking how much we should give, but instead we should be asking
how much we are allowed to keep. If almsgiving
exists in its pure form, we are allowed to keep what is necessary for
survival. Early pastors and theologians
did not develop strict rules regarding what was necessary for survival. Instead of such rules, Christians should look
for a trusted mentor to advise when deciding how much to give and how much to
keep.[10]
Mother Teresa had a similar attitude
as the early church toward almsgiving.
When people donated to her organisation, Teresa did not want a person to
give what was extra. She wanted donations
to reflect that people sacrificed a luxury.
Sacrifice did not need to be financial, but could instead be time or
physical efforts.[11] Teresa tells a story to demonstrate what
sacrifice looks like. A woman approached
Teresa and said that she wanted to help, but that she enjoyed buying fine
clothes. Teresa told her to reduce her
clothing budget from 800 to 700 rupees for the next month, then from 700 to 600,
and so on until her budget was 100 rupees a month. She could then donate the
left over money to Teresa’s Missionaries of Charity.[12]
The second question that almsgiving
raises is who should give? Put simply,
almsgiving is a viable means of responding to poverty for anyone who has the
resources to do so. Almsgiving is partly
the responsibility of the wealthy. Again,
we turn to the early church to see where we began. Clement taught that we should not be attached
to money, but we should instead see having wealth as an opportunity to do good. Sharing was both a religious and civic
responsibility. Wealthy Christians
should forgo selfishness and share with the poor.[13]
Answering who should give does not end with the wealthy, however; the responsibility can extend to those considered poor. Denise Kimber Buell discusses how the poor were able to support one another through a structured almsgiving in the early church. Most Christians at this time lived on the edge of society, so the church frequently did not have many resources. Still, almsgiving existed and was discussed. Why? It is possible that people near the subsistence level would have had periods of relative prosperity and periods of greater need. During times of relative prosperity, the early Christian could share with someone whose need was great. During times of greater need, the early Christian could accept help from someone more prosperous.[14]
The giving system used by the early church prevents us from saying that everyone should give all the time. It is not fair to force a person to give something up if they have nothing to give. Only when a person’s situation changes and he or she has something to share – time, money, skills – can this person be expected to give. This allows people who give sometimes to receive at other times. The early church’s system also means that there is not equal responsibility. We are unable to claim “class warfare.” It is not fair to expect that everyone should give the same amount of his or her resources as everyone else. People with more should be expected to give more, both in absolute value and percentage. Someone who has more should expect his or her responsibility to rise.
[1] Luke T. Johnson, Sharing Possessions, 138.
[2] Luke T. Johnson, Sharing Possessions, 18-20.
[3] André Biéler, Calvin’s Economic and Social Thought, 282-285.
[4] André Biéler, Calvin’s Economic and Social Thought, 312-315.
[5] As I wrote this sentence, I can’t
help but notice my admiration for Teresa, but also notice that I used the
phrase “obvious need.” She did what was
obvious. I am positive that I walk by
obvious needs all the time without doing anything. Teresa didn’t keep walking and that is why
she is a hero.
[6] Mother Teresa, My Life for the Poor, 60.
[7] Demetrios J. Constantelos, “The
Hellenic Background and Nature of Patristic Philanthropy in the Early Byzantine
Era,” in Wealth and Poverty in the Early Church and Society, ed. Susan
R. Holman, 203.
[8] André Biéler, Calvin’s Economic and Social Thought, 322-327.
[9] André Biéler, Calvin’s Economic and Social Thought, 305-308.
[10] Justo L. Gonzalez, Faith and Wealth: A History of Early
Christian Ideas of the Origin, Significance , and Use of Money, 227.
[11] Mother Teresa, My Life for the Poor, 35.
[12] Mother Teresa, My Life for the Poor, 81-82.
[13] Annewies van den Hoek, “Widening the
Eye of the Need: Wealth and Poverty in the Works of Clement of Alexandria,” in Wealth
and Poverty in the Early Church and Society, ed. Susan R. Holman, 75.
[14] Denise Kimber Buell, “‘Be not one who
stretches our hands to receive but shuts them when it comes to giving’:
Envisioning Christian Charity When Both Donors and Recipients Are Poor,” in Wealth
and Poverty in the Early Church and Society, ed. Susan R. Holman, 47.
No comments:
Post a Comment