Therefore we do not lose heart, but though our outer person is decaying, yet our inner person is being renewed day by day. 2 Corinthians 4:16
Objection #11. The law makes provision for the poor, and obliges the respective towns in which they live to provide for them. Therefore some argue that there is no occasion for particular persons to exercise any charity this way. They say, the case is not the same with us now as it was in the primitive church. For then Christians were under a heathen government. And however the charity of Christians in those times be much to be commended, yet now, by reason of our different circumstances, there is no occasion for private charity. Because, in the state in which Christians now are, provision is made for the poor otherwise. — This objection is built upon these two suppositions, both which I suppose are false.
First, that the towns are obliged by law to relieve everyone who otherwise would be an object of charity. This I suppose to be false, unless it be supposed that none are proper objects of charity, but those that have no estate left to live upon, which is very unreasonable, and what I have already shown to be false, in answer to the fourth objection, in showing that it doth not answer the rules of Christian charity, to relieve only those who are reduced to extremity.
Nor do I suppose it was ever the design of the law, requiring the various towns to support their own poor, to cut off all occasion for Christian charity. Nor is it fit there should be such a law. It is fit that the law should make provision for those that have no estates of their own. It is not fit that persons who are reduced to that extremity should be left to so precarious a source of supply as a voluntary charity. They are in extreme necessity of relief, and therefore it is fit that there should be something sure for them to depend on. But a voluntary charity in this corrupt world is an uncertain thing. Therefore the wisdom of the legislature did not think fit to leave those who are so reduced upon such a precarious foundation for subsistence. But I suppose not that it was ever the design of the law to make such provision for all that are in want, as to leave no room for Christian charity.
Second, this objection is built upon another supposition which is equally false, that there are in fact none who are proper objects of charity, but those that are relieved by the town. Let the design of the law be what it will, yet if there are in fact persons who are so in want, as to stand in need of our charity, then that law doth not free us from obligation to relieve them by our charity. For as we have just now shown, in answer to the last objection, if it more properly belong to others to relieve them than us; yet if they do it not, we are not free. So that if it be true, that it belongs to the town to relieve all who are proper objects of charity; yet if the town in fact do it not, we are not excused.
If one of our neighbors suffers through the fault of a particular person, of a thief or robber, or of a town, it alters not the case. But if he suffer and be without relief, it is an act of Christian charity in us to relieve him. Now it is too obvious to be denied, that there are in fact persons so in want that it would be a charitable act in us to help them, notwithstanding all that is done by the town. A man must hide his mental eyes, to think otherwise.”
Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758) in Christian Charity or The Duty of Charity to the Poor, Explained and Enforced (1732) Section IV.
Today is the final post in a series on this treatise. In addressing a final mental objection to serving the poor, Edwards notes that our mind embraces the false argument that it’s the town’s job to care for them.
In his reply he challenges us not to shift the responsibility to the town, as that was never the design of the town. But rather, he calls us to embrace our charitable responsibility as the people of each and every town.
This exploration of Christian Charity or The Duty of Charity to the Poor, Explained and Enforced has taught me many things. I appreciated his biblical and helpful points at the beginning of the treatise. But his work with the objections was masterful and brilliant!
I learned afresh, and I hope you learned along with me, that objections can tempt our inner person (that God renews day by day) to reason away our responsibilities related to Christian charity. We must not allow it!
How did Edwards overcome the objections, and how can we? Notice, he always spelled them out (which represents the biblical process of renewing our minds), and then responded with biblical thinking and practical action. Let’s do this to grow in Christian generosity.
Onward to Mother Teresa tomorrow. Not sure altogether why, but I feel led to go that direction. With you.