It is hard to argue with it. I guess that is why it is a proverb, and a Chinese one at that. However, this proverb was no help the other night as I stood before the woman trying to discern the right thing to do. Here are my issues with using this proverb and the people who use it in situations like this.
- It‘s too easy to throw it out there in a theoretical discussion about giving, primarily as an argument against giving. It seems like an attempt to justify the not giving while placing the non-giver on some higher moral plane. I didn’t see lots of people offering to teach this woman. Was I willing?
- We are talking apples and oranges. This woman needed money to get to the bus station the next morning. Mentoring won’t help her get there by tomorrow. Mentoring will not get the utility bill paid before the cutoff date or relieve the immediate pangs of the hungry. Teaching is a long-term strategy. There is a difference between relief and development. You can enroll a starving child in a school, but he may not make it to the first class.
- This proverb sets up a false dichotomy. It should not be give OR teach. How about both/and.
- Since we are talking apples and oranges, then it is not appropriate to compare them. Teaching is not more moral or compassionate than giving, or visa-versa. Which one is more compassionate would depend on the situation.
- You are not allowed to invoke this proverb unless you are giving and teaching. If you are not doing either, you are on the lowest moral plane and probably should keep quiet or at least be humble in discussions like this.
Bottom line: how could I best help this woman? Should I give her the money? Should I not give her the money and offer to mentor her so that in future situations like this she could afford to pay for her own taxi? Should I do both? Should I do neither? I know the proverb. It sounds great, but it got me no closer to a decision the other night.
3 comments:
You've spent a lot of time wrestling this over in your head. (Very valid points to consider, by the way.) I wonder, though, at the moment the woman confronted you, what was your heart leading you to do?
Becky
I'm changing - which is good.
I THINK we give first, without flinching...then teach later.
It's selfish on one hand because when I give like this, I get the benefit of being changed by God, allowing the grip of materialism to be momentarily broken.
We're trying to learn this as a church - give first, teach later. But do both. personally, corporately.
Nothing's perfect, but I'm learning to live with the holes...is that God's grace?
Becky:
I have a post about what was going on at the heart level. I am just getting out all the head stuff first. Why? Not sure, probably because of all the rationalizations I do in my head and hear from others. But, you are right, it is a matter of the heart.
Hey Grant:
I think the holes go with the territory. We can never really know all about a situation or the consequences of our action or inaction. We must labor in face of this uncertainty.
I wonder if Jesus ever worried about being taken advantage of by or enabling the poor. I am sure that the goats hung out with the sheep even back then.
Post a Comment