We attend a congregation which stresses "giving". It seems to work. The church keeps current, serves the community, invites and includes a wide representation of people, and grows their children and youth well. I wonder about giving, sometimes. . .
Does a person "give" because of commitment? Is that a place to begin? When I was young I was exposed to the value of giving ten percent of my income. I have continued to do so all my life, and although I have been nearly broke several times, I always had a quarter in my pocket. For me, starting with commitment makes sense.
I have friends, however, who start with the need for one or more tax deductions. If they have a good year in the market, or have sold property at a substantial profit, they look for a cause to give to. A worthy cause. Church, United Way, a food bank, American Cancer Society. . . there is no shortage of worthy causes to which to give.
I wonder, however, what kinds of people will stop giving we we revise our tax code, simplifying it, giving no deduction for charitable giving. Will medical research be crippled? Will churches close? Will Boys and Girls Clubs, Scouts, and other vital community programs become footnotes in history textbooks?
Where does it work best to start? From within, from cultivating a generous self, from sensing value in worthy causes? Or, from a sense of monetary self-interest?
What do you think? Leave a comment and let us know.
Tuesday, April 9, 2013
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
An Eye For An Eye?
Many, many TV shows and commercial films are emphasizing revenge. They portray revenge, or vengeance, as a worthy response to being wronged. I wonder. How will that work for a person of faith in God?
First, does getting revenge make anything better? Usually not. Closure doesn't come that easily. Sure, it might put an evildoer away, or under six feet of dirt, but in the process does it turn the revenge-seeker into a monster like the wrongdoer? What we don't understand about the "eye for an eye" passage is that for primitive, near savage tribes people this was a limitation, not a permission. They would take a life, or the lives of a village, for an eye. Under the Old Covenent God was saying, "ONLY an eye for the loss of an eye. No more!"
(That makes the documented Civilian death from violence in the ten year Iraq war of 111,842 - 122,325 look pretty evil when compared the the few thousand that perished in the Twin Towers attack. Especially when you realize that Iraq had nothing to do with the Twin Towers attack.)
People of the Jewish faith have a limitation on the amount of revenge God permits. Christians have a more severe limit. "Love your enemies, do good to those who persecute you," said Jesus of Nazareth.
Whew! That doesn't resonate with contemporary entertainment at all! It doesn't resonate with the right-wing church and evangelist movement either.
So, was Jesus just a crackpot, or are contemporary spokespeople for him getting it all wrong?
Leave a comment and let us know.
First, does getting revenge make anything better? Usually not. Closure doesn't come that easily. Sure, it might put an evildoer away, or under six feet of dirt, but in the process does it turn the revenge-seeker into a monster like the wrongdoer? What we don't understand about the "eye for an eye" passage is that for primitive, near savage tribes people this was a limitation, not a permission. They would take a life, or the lives of a village, for an eye. Under the Old Covenent God was saying, "ONLY an eye for the loss of an eye. No more!"
(That makes the documented Civilian death from violence in the ten year Iraq war of 111,842 - 122,325 look pretty evil when compared the the few thousand that perished in the Twin Towers attack. Especially when you realize that Iraq had nothing to do with the Twin Towers attack.)
People of the Jewish faith have a limitation on the amount of revenge God permits. Christians have a more severe limit. "Love your enemies, do good to those who persecute you," said Jesus of Nazareth.
Whew! That doesn't resonate with contemporary entertainment at all! It doesn't resonate with the right-wing church and evangelist movement either.
So, was Jesus just a crackpot, or are contemporary spokespeople for him getting it all wrong?
Leave a comment and let us know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)