A Generous Response meets a CBMA appeal (p. 30); a sister starves to death in Jamaica (News from Argyle Mountain, Jamaica) These two occurrences highlight a persistent feature of our community: We respond well to specific instances of urgent need but our general level of giving is low.
The Jamaican experience
Both characteristics are dramatically seen m the life of Sis Estrina Campbell In 1988, hurricane Gilbert devastated Jamaica One sister died, several were injured, ecclesial halls were wrecked and disastrous losses occurred to the homes and belongings of the brethren As Bro Alan and Sis Mary Eyre took refuge with us, our phone rang off the hook with concerned inquiries and offers of help.
Within two months we could report “By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another The outpouring of donations for hurricane Gilbert relief has been such that more than enough money is now available to handle the immediate needs of our brethren and to assist in repairing the damage done by this tremendous storm” At the time, Moses’ experience came vividly to mind “The people bring much more than enough so the people were restrained from bringing For the stuff they had was sufficient for all the work to make it, and too much” (Ex 36 5-7) To the delight of Sis Estrina, the hall at Argyle Mountain was rebuilt as part of our generous response Yet eight years later, one of our family starves m the very area we so generously helped How can this be?
Yes, there is a societal factor With destitution being the norm in this economically depressed area of Jamaica, it is not considered a tragedy but inevitable that the aged poor should experience starvation The ecclesia is not often visited because of its very remote area and the local brethren did not diagnose the condition.
There is also a shameful ecclesial factor As a community, we are not following apostolic precedent in matters of welfare Years ago Sis Estrina should have come under the provisions of I Timothy 5 – ecclesial care for widows who are widows indeed She clearly qualified on all counts If we had the apostolic program in place with proper funding, Sis Estrina would not have starved, she would have received adequate for her needs as part of a proactive program Now we only react to a problem if we diagnose it in time.
Reasons (excuses?)
We have our reasons (excuses?) for under-funding welfare m mission areas If we bring brethren in develop-mg countries up to the economic standard of developed areas, they will stand out from their neighbors to their hurt and our generosity will cultivate covetousness in the converted We must be careful how much we give!
Furthermore, if we are too generous, we’ll have people converting just for welfare support We’ll never know who’s sincere and who isn’t!
If some brethren are helped by individual brethren overseas, inequities will occur in the local ecclesia, the bold ones will receive more than the reticent, lying and jealousy may even be fostered So we funnel our giving through the mission welfare funds This approach solves one problem while creating another —it institutionalizes the process, losing the personal touch that appeals to our heartstrings and opens our wallets.
Every one of these reasons has some validity Yet somehow, we must do our duty without doing more harm than good We must face an embarrassing fact other groups are doing it in Jamaica, and elsewhere, better than we are Which proves the problem is solvable.
Anti-money bias
An additional consideration is this For good reason, as a community we don’t like the way people turn religion into a profitable business We see it all around us, but that’s not new Paul exposed the thinking of some in his day “supposing that gain is godliness” (I Tim 6 5) In fact, our practice of a “lay ministry” exists because Bro John Thomas and others saw truth being compromised for money’s sake as preachers measured their success by the fullness of their purse.
This antipathy to mixing money with religion can, however, have a serious downside It can mean we shortchange the work of the Lord in several ways, including necessary welfare expenditures for our needy members By one estimate, we devote 01% (1/100th of 1 percent) of our combined incomes to mission welfare work Since we have relatively little m domestic welfare needs, that can only be considered as alarmingly low Our anti-money bias seems to have swung to an extreme so that aspects of basic discipleship are seriously underfunded.
A misunderstood promise?
There could well be another factor in our thinking Christ promised that if we seek first the kingdom of God, the necessities of life will be provided by God (Matt 6 33) Could it be we think God will supply each individual believer his food and raiment on an individual basis without help from others?
New Testament examples make it clear that’s not the way this promise is fulfilled The brethren at Jerusalem pooled their resources, selling off their holdings and having “all things common” Then “distribution was made unto every man according as he had need” (Acts 4 32,34) Everybody had enough individually because God had supplied enough in total.
As needed, widows were cared for on a communal basis with a daily ministration m Jerusalem (Acts 6 1) No one thought she was not righteous because she lacked food and raiment Brethren saw it as part of their duty m the family of God to share with the needy When ecclesias arose throughout Asia, Macedonia, etc, rules were given to govern the order of widows (in I Timothy 5) There was no thought at all God would directly supply each widow on an individual basis What He did do was supply enough in total so that, if it were distributed according to His precepts, everybody had sufficient
God provides through the believers
Consider Paul’s reasoning regarding the Jerusalem poor fund The brethren in Jerusalem and Judea were suffering because of famine and war They were in serious “want” but there was no thought this was a reflection on the quality of their discipleship.
Appealing for generosity, the apostle writes “I mean not that other men be eased, and ye burdened but by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want that there may be equality as it is written, ‘He that had gathered much had nothing over, and he that had gathered little had no lack'” (II Cor 8 13-15) In the mercy of God, everybody was not m want at the same time The total was enough for everyone’s needs so long as they lovingly shared with one another.
When Paul arrived in Jerusalem, the brethren “glorified the Lord” for what had been done among the Gentiles, including the opening of their hearts to share with their Jewish brethren (II Cor 8 16, Acts 211920) The Lord had kept promise, He had supplied their needs But how had the Lord worked? He had worked through the hands of others m His family.
Israel’s experience
As we would expect, Paul’s allusion to the manna is significant In the wilderness, a total amount of manna was supplied Each family was not given its own special little provision directly from heaven Then the total was to be divided up accord-mg to the divine direction an omer for each person When that instruction was followed, each person’s need was satisfied The principle is clear – God provides a total which is to be divided according to His instructions.
When Israel was about to settle in the land they were told “For the LORD your God is a God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward he doth execute the judgment of the fatherless and widow, and loveth the stranger, in giving him food and raiment Love ye therefore the stranger ” (Deut 10 17-18) How did God give food and raiment to the stranger, the fatherless and widow? By commanding Israel to provide for them from the tithe of the land “At the end of three years thou shalt bring forth all the tithe of thine increase the same year, and shalt lay it up within thy gates and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, which are within thy gates, shall come, and shall eat and be satisfied, that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine hand which thou doest” (Deut 14 28-29) The procedure is exactly the same God gave the right total amount that would be enough for all if His instructions for distribution were followed.
Enough for all
We must now ask — Has God given enough at this time so all His family could be satisfied? Without doubt! Think of what we have If we sold our reserves and distributed to the needy among us, nobody would ever starve.
Where’s the problem? With God? Not at all! With us? In one way, no, because we’ll give in a crisis In another way, yes, because we don’t provide enough on-going funding to do the job.
The solution
Is there a solution? There must be, other groups have found it, so we can too Part of the answer is simply in more generous giving on a regular basis— to our ecclesias, so they can answer requests for help, and to organizations such as the CBMA, so they will have adequate reserves to set up the necessary programs
And in providing endowments We may not be aware that a number of organizations m other areas of the brotherhood are significantly helped by interest from endowments These are provided from windfall situations which brethren sometimes experience (e g a sale of property or a busmess), or from bequests m wills
However we do it, we need — we must— solve the problem We must be a people who are known to be Christ’s in that we show practical love one to another Remember the exhortation “He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly, and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully” (II Cor 9 6).
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One