This is going to generate some angry comments by people who misunderstand my point. Nevertheless….
Tom Ascol at Founders posted a request from a brother in the Philippines who lost his entire modest library during a recent rain storm. This brother is a theology professor in the Philippines that is familiar with Founders and that is why he turned to Tom Ascol for help. Tom is asking others to consider donating money to help replenish the library.
I am not saying that Christians shouldn’t help this brother in need out, assuming this is a legitimate request. I get that his theology books are in many ways the “tools of his trade” and are how he makes a living. Losing these books is somewhat analogous to a carpenter losing his hammer and saw or an auto mechanic losing his tool chest. That is not my point. This is my question comes in…
When I made a brief reference to his situation on twitter, I immediately received responses from folks interested in helping. On further investigation, I discovered that one of the best ways that we can help our brother is by supplying him with an e-book reader loaded with excellent e-books. We are also looking at shipping options to send him hard copy books.
I am asking us to think about how we prioritize our giving in the church. This sort of need, a theology professor who lost all of his theology books, resonates with many of us. I have a bunch of theology books and would be quite upset if they were destroyed and would be overjoyed if someone paid to replace them. When the call for help goes out, people snapped to and responded. I remember once when a fairly well known author and apologist had some tech stuff stolen, it was replaced right away by a generous, anonymous donor. When something bad happens that seems close to home or perhaps something that hits an area of our interest, we seem a pretty willing and generous in our giving.
On the other hand, there is such an incredible need around the world for things far more mundane than theology books. Things like rice. Clean water. Soap. Clothes. Bibles. It is very difficult to raise funds for simple charity but when a theologian loses his books, the Body of Christ jumps to fill the need. Why does a man losing his theology books to a flood resonate with us and a child starving to death or dying from contaminated water does not? Is it just that we get so many requests that they blur together? Is the need so great that it seems overwhelming but this one man with a very specific need seems like something we can “fix”? Or is it, and I hesitate to even ask this question, that we put a greater value on theological education than on basic nutrition? That is a harsh question and I don’t wish to impugn motives but I know and can prove from my bookshelf that I have many unnecessary books that I have purchased over the years using money that could have bought Bibles or food.
I wonder. If Tom has twittered about a family in the Philippines that needed rice or a village in Africa that needs clean water, would the response have been as immediate?
4 comments:
No, replacement books are not the greatest need in the church. But then, Tom Ascol didn't suggest they are.
I think there are two things to consider here. First, when something is presented as an immediate, short-term need, it gets attention. There are many people in my area who struggle to meet daily/monthly needs. And there are organizations and people in the area that seek to meet those needs. Even so, it's a constant struggle to raise the funds needed. But every time a family's house burns down (there have been several this winter), there is an outpouring of support from the community. When people are presented with an immediate need, especially if it's someone they feel a connection with, they go above and beyond to help. Can they afford to do this all the time? Probably not. I think it is likely the same thing with this request. The people who are willing to help out are probably people who support various mission efforts on a regular basis, yet are also willing to go above and beyond when presented with a specific one-time need.
As poorly as I may have expressed my thoughts on the first point, I think I'll have a harder time articulating the second.... I think it mostly comes down to grace. Before you took your trip to Haiti, if someone had told you that the money you sent for relief had been used to build a church building while many people still don't have a home, clean water, etc., you probably would have had some pointed words to say. But when you went there and saw the work that is being done by the pastor, you decided that a church building that can hold 600 people was okay, that you would trust the pastor to do the work and maybe sometime in the future you could talk to him about the "finer points of theology" that you often blog about. You certainly didn't tell people not to send money to this organization because they don't use it the way they should. Maybe, just maybe, you would have the same response if you visited this professor in the Philippines and saw what he does there.
I also suspect that if Tom had twittered about a specific family in the Philippines who just lost its food source or a specific village in Africa that just lost its well, people would respond the same way.
Debbie,
A house burns down and people respond. You know full well though that the weekly needs of a food pantry are hard to get many people interested.
Yes, Arthur, and I said so. ;) ("And there are organizations and people in the area that seek to meet those needs. Even so, it's a constant struggle to raise the funds needed.") Yet when we did the food drive, presenting people with a direct, immediate request, they gave beyond my dreams.
And that was my point - that people will usually come through for an immediate, direct (short-term) request. It doesn't seem to depend on what they give on a regular basis, either. They just respond to the need.
A lot of times the decision to give comes down to that personal connection. If people feel like they know Tom, and trust his judgement, then they're going to jump in. I saw the same sort of thing many times as a deacon in my Christian Reformed Church. A Sunday PM offering for CRWRC might generate about $130, but when one of our missionary families comes home and talks to our congregation and shows them how they're meeting needs on the ground, it's not uncommon to see individual checks for $1,000. Is the CRWRC not doing good work? Sure they are, but there's not that sense of immediate connection. I always wanted to send some sort of assistance to Haiti, but giving to the Red Cross just seemed so vague. When you went there, and when you endorsed the charity that you worked with, well then I had a cause I could get behind. You made that connection possible. If you had said that a very pressing need was reference material for the pastor, I would have taken your word for it and given for that cause as well. Relationships matter, real or virtual.
Post a Comment