Mother Teresa: Sacrifice

For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will find it. Matthew 16:25

“Sacrifice is at the heart of Christian faith. The people of God in Old Testament times offered animals for their sins — lambs, goats, bulls, and pigeons. Jesus offered Himself as a perfect, final sacrifice so taht the animal sacrifices would not have to be repeated.

Sacrifice, surrender, and suffering are not popular topics nowadays. Our culture makes us believe that we can have it all, that we should demand our rights, that with the right technology all pain an problems can be overcome. This is not attitude toward sacrifice.

I know that it is impossible to relieve the world’s suffering unless God’s people are willing to surrender to God, to make sacrifices, and to suffer along with the poor… What is an acceptable sacrifice? One that is good for the people of God. One that is made on behalf of the world.”

Mother Teresa (1910-1997) in In the Heart of the World, ed. by Becky Benenate (New York: Fine Communications, 1997) 47-48.

In shifting to Mother Teresa for the next few days, I am struck by the paradox of sacrifice. We actually don’t lose when we do it. We gain. We only lose when we fail to do it.

Think about it. Sacrifice opens the pathway to life and shows us our purpose on this earth. It’s not to have 2.5 kids, a house with a fence, and a dog (though we love our dog, Grace).

The world says that purpose and joy is found in getting things, having experiences, and amassing power or wealth. Those things are all very appealing, don’t get me wrong.

But because Christ accomplished our once for all sacrifice on the cross, we have everything we need in Him. So, our sacrifices are not losses but doorways for gain.

They open the way for us to participate in bringing love and justice to the world. Today is Giving Tuesday. What would it look like to make a sacrificial gift today. Join me in supporting GTP by clicking here.

Looking ahead, as we prepare for Advent, also remember this. When we lose our lives for Christ’s sake, when we sacrifice, we actually take hold of what the Christ of Christmas desires for us.

And we serve as radically generous conduits of blessing like Mother Teresa.

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.

Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow. Isaiah 1:17

“Objection #10. Some may object and say, Others do not their duty. If others did their duty, the poor would be sufficiently supplied. If others did as much as we in proportion to their ability and obligation, the poor would have enough to help them out of their straits. Or some may say, it belongs to others more than it does to us. They have relations that ought to help them. Or there are others to whom it more properly belongs than to us.

Answer. We ought to relieve those who are in want though brought to it through others’ fault. If our neighbor be poor, though others be to blame that it is so, yet that excuses us not from helping him. If it belong to others more than to us, yet if those others will neglect their duty, and our neighbor therefore remains in want, we may be obliged to relieve him. If a man be brought into straits through the injustice of others, suppose by thieves or robbers, as the poor Jew whom the Samaritan relieved; yet we may be obliged to relieve him, though it be not through our fault that he is in want, but through that of other men. And whether that fault be a commission or a neglect alters not the case.

As to the poor Jew that fell among thieves between Jerusalem and Jericho, it more properly belonged to those thieves who brought him into that distress to relieve him, than to any other person. Yet seeing they would not do it, others were not excused. And the Samaritan did no more than his duty, relieving him as he did, though it properly belonged to others. — Thus if a man have children or other relations, to whom it most properly belongs to relieve him, yet if they will not do it, the obligation to relieve him falls upon others. So for the same reason we should do the more for the relief of the poor, because others neglect to do their proportion, or what belongs to them. And that because by the neglect of others to do their proportion they need the more, their necessity is the greater.

Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758) in Christian Charity or The Duty of Charity to the Poor, Explained and Enforced (1732) Section IV.

Today’s objection brings out the classic finger pointing practice that leaves everyone not doing their part. We reason that we have done enough and that others need to step up, so we cease our charity. And they never started.

So, when we do this we (the stoppers) lose, the non-starters lose, and the needy lose. Do you hear that? Everyone loses. And we lose because God blesses us all to be a blessing not just once but perpetually.

When we act, then He blesses, but then we often rationalize our ceasing by saying others must step up. The reality is that others should step up. But the Mother Teresa’s of this world teach us something.

They teach us that if and when we take a perpetual posture of blessing, the unthinkable can happen in terms of fruits, when we, in the words of Isaiah, “learn to do right.”

This inspires me to pivot from Jonathan Edwards to Mother Teresa after I finish Christian Charity or The Duty of Charity to the Poor, Explained and Enforced tomorrow.

So, as this Thanksgiving weekend draws to a close, and as I prepare to return to work after a weekend of rest and giving thanks, I ask God to help me to “learn to do right” perpetually rather than expect “others” to act.

I hope this insight moves you too. Not that you are not doing right. I am sure you are. I am trying as well. But the key is not to stop regardless of the situation or the internal mental objections we have explored.

There is need all around us due to everything from brokenness and stupidity. In response, we must not retire, regress, retreat, or reason our inactivity.

Let’s move forward multiply good and faithful stewards and boldly trusting God to supply. When we bless others and then graciously teach them how to live, we multiply ourselves in the process.

This place of boldly trusting is where I find myself. I learned GTP is positioned to get a $1.25 million grant (that is not a typo) in 2024 but we have to hit funding markers by 31 December 2023.

And they are large. Praying for about $250,000. But God is bigger. Let me know if you want to know more information about this and want to make an asset transfer or other complex gift to help.

Or just talk to the LORD and give as He leads here.

Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did. 1 John 2:6

“Objection #9. He has brought himself to want by his own fault. — In reply, it must be considered what you mean by his fault.

First, if you mean a want of a natural faculty to manage affairs to advantage, that is to be considered as his calamity. Such a faculty is a gift that God bestows on some, and not on others. And it is not owing to themselves. You ought to be thankful that God hath given you such a gift, which he hath denied to the person in question. And it will be a very suitable way for you to show your thankfulness, to help those to whom that gift is denied, and let them share the benefit of it with you. This is as reasonable as that he to whom Providence has imparted sight should be willing to help him to whom sight is denied, and that he should have the benefit of the sight of others, who has none of his own. Or, as that he to whom God hath given wisdom, should be willing that the ignorant should have the benefit of his knowledge.

Second, if they have been reduced to want by some oversight and are to be blamed that they did not consider for themselves better, yet that doth not free us from all obligation to charity towards them. If we should forever refuse to help men because of that, it would be for us to make their inconsiderateness and imprudent act, an unpardonable crime, quite contrary to the rules of the gospel, which insist so much upon forgiveness. — We should not be disposed so highly to resent such an oversight in any for whom we have a dear affection, as our children, or our friends. We should not refuse to help them in that necessity and distress, which they brought upon themselves by their own inconsiderateness. But we ought to have a dear affection and concern for the welfare of all our fellow Christians, whom we should, love as brethren, and as Christ hath loved us.

Third, if they are come to want by a vicious idleness and prodigality, yet we are not thereby excused from all obligation to relieve them, unless they continue in those vices. If they continue not in those vices, the rules of the gospel direct us to forgive them. And if their fault be forgiven, then it will not remain to be a bar in the way of our charitably relieving them. If we do otherwise, we shall act in a manner very contrary to the rule of loving one another as Christ hath loved us. Now Christ hath loved us, pitied us, and greatly laid out himself to relieve us from that want and misery which we brought on ourselves by our own folly and wickedness. We foolishly and perversely threw away those riches with which we were provided, upon which we might have lived and been happy to all eternity.

Fourth, if they continue in the same courses still, yet that doth not excuse us from charity to their families that are innocent. If we cannot relieve those of their families without their having something of it, yet that ought not to be a bar in the way of our charity. And that because it is supposed that those of their families are proper objects of charity. And those that are so, we are bound to relieve. The command is positive and absolute. If we look upon that which the heads of the families have of what we give, to be entirely lost; yet we had better lose something of our estate, than suffer those who are really proper objects of charity to remain without relief.”

Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758) in Christian Charity or The Duty of Charity to the Poor, Explained and Enforced (1732) Section IV.

I’ve returned to this treatise on Christian charity to wrap up the biblical responses to objections. It’s been a deep and yet simple and profound exercise.

Today, we learn that we reason that we need not help others because their own decisions got them into the plight in which they find themselves.

Repeatedly, Edwards reminds us of the “rules of the gospel” which has really proved to shake and awaken me to the basic tenets of the faith, such as grace and forgiveness.

As we think about our generosity, we should help those who have even “come to want by a vicious idleness and prodigality” because before Christ, that was us.

So, let me challenge you as we approach Christmas to do two things: one, help people you know who don’t deserve it. And two, give ministries that develop faithful stewards.

Do this and you will both show mercy and multiply yourself.

I am not saying this because I am in need, for I have learned to be content whatever the circumstances. I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want. I can do all this through him who gives me strength. Philippians 4:11-13

“I don’t have everything I want…..and that’s a good thing! In order to be grateful for what we do have, there must be things we don’t have. The lack of something is the prerequisite of gratitude. If we have anything and everything we want, it’s impossible to feel genuine gratitude. This is why people with seemingly unlimited resources often seem so discontent.

Today, as I reflect on the things I’m thankful for, I’ll be grateful that I don’t (and can’t) have everything I want. Do I still want some of these things? Absolutely! Will I be excited if I ever get them? 100%! But until I do, or if I don’t, it won’t make me any less grateful for all the wonderful blessings in my life. I cherish each and every one of them.

As you stuff yourself with yummy food, watch sports, play in the backyard, or dive into whatever traditions your family engages in, take a moment to reflect on the beauty of not having all that you want. It’s the prerequisite of gratitude.”

Travis Shelton in “The Prerequisite of Gratitude” the Daily Meaning blogpost for 23 November 2023. I recommend you subscribe here. I read his post daily and commend his work to you!

Have you ever mentored or discipled someone and then found the relationship to become mutually beneficial and so surprisingly encouraging. That’s been my journey over the last decade with Travis Shelton.

Today’s repost of his Daily Meaning post from yesterday is perfect for Black Friday. Is it okay to shop the sales to get good deals on gifts for loved ones? Absolutely (for the rest of the world, it’s what we do in USA today).

Jenni and I love our tradition of waking up early, getting free coffee and donuts at our local Home Depot and purchasing 24 poinsettias for $2 each and giving them away in the days leading to Christmas.

Perhaps you have gift giving traditions linked to Black Friday and the Christmas season? Pursue those. But do so with this word of wisdom from Travis today which echoes the Apostle Paul.

Be content with not having everything you want. Focus not on what you don’t have but give thanks for the things you do have—life in Jesus Christ, special people around you, abundant gifts from the Lord—and enjoy them.

As Travis keenly notes, the prerequisite or what positions us to be grateful is NOT having all the things we want, which really is a good thing, and I would add, while also realizing that in Christ we have everything we need.

Imagined how ruined we would all be if we had everything we wanted. Our desires would overcome and control us. Instead, let’s give thanks for Jesus and all His blessings and enjoy and share them richly.

Thanks for reminding us of the Prerequisite of Gratitude, Travis. Happy Black Friday everyone.

Whoever is kind to the poor lends to the Lord, and He will reward them for what they have done. Proverbs 19:17

“Objection #8. Some may say they are not obliged to give to the poor till they ask. If any man is in necessity, let him come and make known his straits to me, and then it will be time enough for me to give him. Or if he need a public contribution, let him come and ask. I do not know that the congregation or church is obliged to relieve till they ask relief. — I answer,

First, it surely is the most charitable to relieve the needy in that way wherein we shall do them the greatest kindness. Now it is certain that we shall do them a greater kindness by inquiring into their circumstances, and relieving them, without putting them upon begging. There is none of us but who, if it were their case, would look upon it more kind in our neighbors, to inquire into our circumstances, and help us of their own accord. To put our neighbors upon begging in order to relief, is painful. It is more charitable, more brotherly, more becoming Christians and the disciples of Jesus, to do it without. I think this is self-evident, and needs no proof.

Second, this is not agreeable to the character of the liberal man given in Scripture; viz. that devises liberal things. Isaiah 32:8. It is not to devise liberal things, if we neglect all liberality till the poor come a begging to us. But to inquire who stand in need of our charity, and to contrive to relieve them in the way that shall do them the greatest kindness; that is to devise liberal things.

Third, we should not commend a man for doing so to his own brother. If a man had an own brother or sister in great straits, and he were well able to supply them, under the pretense that if he or she want anything, let them come and ask and I will give them, we should hardly think such an one behaved like a brother. Christians are commanded to love as brethren, to look upon one another as brethren in Christ, and to treat one another as such.

Fourth, we should commend others for taking a method contrary to that which is proposed by the objector. If we should hear or read of a people who were so charitable, who took such care of the poor, and were so concerned that none among them should suffer, who were proper objects of charity; that they were wont diligently to inquire into the circumstances of their neighbors, to find out who were needy, and liberally supplied them of their own accord; I say, if we should hear or read of such a people, would it not appear well to us? Should not we have the better thought of that people, on that account?”

Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758) in Christian Charity or The Duty of Charity to the Poor, Explained and Enforced (1732) Section IV.

Happy Thanksgiving.

For readers in America, I pray you enjoy time to reflect on God’s blessings today and consider how you may bless others. For those around the world, join us in this even if you don’t have a holiday today.

And I must comment on behalf of “the person in need” from the reading above. Please read on.

Jenni and I aim to serve as conduits of blessing. God supplies what we need to enjoy and share richly. And sometimes, we experience hardship and get to be the recipients.

After our recent service in the Philippines, which for me was my tenth country in ten weeks, we both developed a cough. It seemed to be linked to going from dry Colorado to humid Philippines and back.

Anyway, my cough developed into bronchitis. I am recovering thanks to God’s grace and a visit to the doctor. Jenni’s cough however went to walking pneumonia and she’s still struggling. Pray for her.

Why share this?

With Sammy, Emily, and Eve off to Iowa and Sophie and Peter in New York this week, it would be a quiet week for us giving us time to recover. And listen to how God provided for us.

Since we’ve been sick, we’ve given no thought to preparing a festive meal. Yesterday, in God’s providence, a charitable friend who heard about our affliction left a box at the door.

It contained all the fixings for a perfect simply Thanksgiving dinner. I have a tear in my eye of gratitude to God as I type this.

Friends, don’t wait for people or ministries ask you for help. Whenever you have a hint or hear of a need, ask the Spirit how to best bless them and jump at the opportunity, giving sacrificially.

When you are kind to those in need, know that God will repay you abundantly. Go and do likewise knowing that sometimes you will get to give and sometime you will experience the miracle of receiving.

Again, Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

Ask your own servants and they will tell you. Therefore be favorable toward my men, since we come at a festive time. Please give your servants and your son David whatever you can find for them. 1 Samuel 25:8

Objection #7. Some may object concerning a particular person that they do not certainly know whether he be an object of charity or not. They are not perfectly acquainted with his circumstances. Neither do they know what sort of man he is. They know not whether he be in want as he pretends. Or if they know this, they know not how he came to be in want, whether it were not by his own idleness, or prodigality. Thus they argue that they cannot be obliged, till they certainly know these things. — I reply,

First, this is Nabal’s objection, for which he is greatly condemned in Scripture; see 1 Samuel 25. David in his exiled state came and begged relief of Nabal. Nabal objected, 1 Samuel 25:10-11, “Who is David? And who is the son of Jesse? There be many servants now-a-days that break away every man from his master. Shall I then take my bread and my water, and my flesh that I have killed for my shearers, and give it unto men, whom I know not whence they be?” His objection was, that David was a stranger to him. He did not know who he was, nor what his circumstances were. He did not know but that he was a runaway. And he was not obliged to support and harbor a runaway. He objected, that he knew not that he was a proper object of charity; that he knew not but that he was very much the contrary.

But Abigail no way countenanced his behavior herein, but greatly condemned it. She calls him a man of Belial, and says that he was as his name was. Nabal was his name, and folly was with him. And her behavior was very contrary to his. And she is greatly commended for it. The Holy Ghost tells us in that chapter, 1 Samuel 25:3, that “she was a woman of a good understanding.” At the same time God exceedingly frowned on Nabal’s behavior on this occasion, as we are informed that about ten days after God smote Nabal that he died.

This story is doubtless told us partly for this end, to discountenance too great a scrupulosity as to the object on whom we bestow our charity, and the making of this merely an objection against charity to others, that we do not certainly know their circumstances. It is true, when we have opportunity to be certainly acquainted with their circumstances, it is well to embrace it. And to be influenced in a measure by probability in such cases, is not to be condemned. Yet it is better to give to several that are not objects of charity, than to send away empty one that is.

Second, we are commanded to be kind to strangers whom we know not, nor their circumstances. This is commanded in many places. But I shall mention only one. Hebrews 13:2, “Be not forgetful to entertain strangers; for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.” By strangers here the apostle means one whom we know not, and whose circumstances we know not; as is evident by these words, “for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.” Those who entertained angels unawares, did not know the persons whom they entertained, nor their circumstances. Else how could it be unawares?

Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758) in Christian Charity or The Duty of Charity to the Poor, Explained and Enforced (1732) Section IV.

Edwards continues to offer us brilliant thinking as we enter a season of thanksgiving in America. It’s easy to be generous to those we have knowledge of their situation.

But we tend, as stewards, to think that measuring or assessing someone’s worthiness of our aid is part of our generosity, when the sin of Nabal and the command in Hebrews is clear.

Take time to read Nabal’s story today and ponder how Nabal and Abigail acted and it’s implications for your living, giving, serving, and loving. Do this in thankfulness to God for His grace and love.

In the days of Nabal it was a time much like “thanksgiving” so this could not be more relevant.

And now, brothers and sisters, we want you to know about the grace that God has given the Macedonian churches. In the midst of a very severe trial, their overflowing joy and their extreme poverty welled up in rich generosity. For I testify that they gave as much as they were able, and even beyond their ability. Entirely on their own, they urgently pleaded with us for the privilege of sharing in this service to the Lord’s people. 2 Corinthians 8:1-4

Objection #6. Some may object from their own circumstances that they have nothing to spare; they have not more than enough for themselves. — I answer,

First, it must doubtless be allowed that in some cases persons, by reason of their own circumstances, are not obliged to give to others. — For instance, if there be a contribution for the poor, they are not obliged to join in the contribution, who are in as much need as those are for whom the contribution is made. It savors of ridiculous vanity in them to contribute with others for such as are not more needy than they. It savors of a proud desire to conceal their own circumstances and an affectation of having them accounted about what they in truth are.

Second, there are scarcely any who may not make this objection, as they interpret it. There is no person who may not say, he has not more than enough for himself, as he may mean by enough. He may intend, that he has not more than he desires, or more than he can dispose of to his own advantage; or not so much, but that, if he had anything less, he should look upon himself in worse circumstances than he is in now. He will own, that he could live if he had less. But then he will say he could not live so well. Rich men may say they have not more than enough for themselves, as they may mean by it. They need it all, they may say, to support their honor and dignity, as is proper for the place and degree in which they stand. Those who are poor, to be sure, will say, they have not too much for themselves. Those who are of the middle sort will say, they have not too much for themselves. And the rich will say, they have not too much for themselves. Thus there will be none found to give to the poor.

Third. in many cases, we may, by the rules of the gospel, be obliged to give to others, when we cannot do it without suffering ourselves. As if our neighbor’s difficulties and necessities be much greater than our own, and we see that he is not like to be otherwise relieved, we should be willing to suffer with him, and to take part of his burden on ourselves. Else how is that rule of bearing one another’s burdens fulfilled? If we be never obliged to relieve others’ burdens, but when we can do it without burdening ourselves, then how do we bear our neighbor’s burdens, when we bear no burden at all? Though we may not have a superfluity, yet we may be obliged to afford relief to others who are in much greater necessity. As appears by that rule, Luke 3:11, “He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do likewise.” — Yea, they who are very poor may be obliged to give for the relief of others in much greater distress than they. If there be no other way of relief, those who have the lightest burden are obliged still to take some part of their neighbor’s burden, to make it the more supportable. A brother may be obliged to help a brother in extremity, though they are both very much in want. The apostle commends the Macedonian Christians, that they were liberal to their brethren, though they themselves were in deep poverty.

Fourth, those who have not too much for themselves are willing to spare seed to sow, that they may have fruit hereafter. Perhaps they need that which they scatter in the field, and seem to throw away. They may need it for bread for their families. Yet they will spare seed to sow, that they may provide for the future, and may have increase. But we have already shown that giving to the poor is in Scripture compared to sowing seed, and is as much the way to increase as the sowing of seed is. It doth not tend to poverty, but the contrary. It is not the way to diminish our substance, but to increase it. All the difficulty in this matter is in trusting God with what we give, in trusting His promises. If [people] could but trust the faithfulness of God to His own promises, they would give freely.”

Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758) in Christian Charity or The Duty of Charity to the Poor, Explained and Enforced (1732) Section IV.

Again, Edwards points out that anyone could say they have “nothing to spare” when there are opportunities to give.

And he rightly brings up “the rule of the gospel” which pushes us to suffer or even sacrifice following the example of our Lord Jesus.

But the conclusion got me. “If [people] could but trust the faithfulness of God to His own promises, they would give freely.”

He puts his finger on the one word that this whole question pivots on. Trust. It’s not about our margin or capacity but our willingness to trust God.

How would you measure up on this point? Don’t answer. Journal and ask God what areas He might want you to grow in trust.

But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because He is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Luke 6:35

Objection #5. Some may object against charity to a particular object because he is an ill sort of person. He deserves not that people should be kind to him. He is of a very ill temper, of an ungrateful spirit, and particularly, because he hath not deserved well of them, but has treated them ill, has been injurious to them, and even now entertains an ill spirit against them.

But we are obliged to relieve persons in want, notwithstanding these things, both by the general and particular rules of God’s Word.

First, we are obliged to do so by the general rules of Scripture. I shall mention two.

1. That of loving our neighbor as ourselves. A man may be our neighbor, though he be an ill sort of man, and even our enemy, as Christ himself teaches us by his discourse with the lawyer, Luke 10:25, etc. A certain lawyer came to Christ, and asked him, what he should do to inherit eternal life? Christ asked him, how it was written in the law? He answers, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.” Christ tells him, that if he shall do thus, he shall live. But then the lawyer asks him, who is his neighbor? Because it was received doctrine among the Pharisees, that no man was their neighbor, but their friends, and those of the same people and religion. — Christ answers him by a parable, or story of a certain man, who went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, who stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed from him, leaving him half dead. Soon after there came a priest that way, who saw the poor man that had been thus cruelly treated by the thieves; but passed by without affording him any relief. The same as done by a Levite. — But a certain Samaritan coming that way, as soon as he saw the half-dead man, had compassion on him, took him up, bound up his wounds, set him on his own beast, carried him to the inn, and took care of him, paying the innkeeper money for his past and future expense. And promising him still more, if he should find it necessary to be at more expense on behalf of the man.

Then Christ asks the lawyer, which of these three, the priest, the Levite, or the Samaritan was neighbor to the man that fell among the thieves. Christ proposed this in such a manner, that the lawyer could not help owning, that the Samaritan did well in relieving the Jew, that he did the duty of a neighbor to him. Now, there was an inveterate enmity between the Jews and the Samaritans. They hated one another more than any other nation in the world. And the Samaritans were a people exceedingly troublesome to the Jews. Yet we see that Christ teaches that the Jews ought to do the part of neighbors to the Samaritans; i.e. to love them as themselves. For it was that of which Christ was speaking.

And the consequence was plain. If the Samaritan was neighbor to the distressed Jew, then the Jews, by a parity of reason, were neighbors to the Samaritans. If the Samaritan did well, in relieving a Jew that was his enemy, then the Jews would do well in relieving the Samaritans, their enemies. — What I particularly observe is that Christ here plainly teaches that our enemies, those that abuse and injure us, are our neighbors, and therefore come under the rule of loving our neighbor as ourselves.

2. Another general rule that obliges us to the same thing is that wherein we are commanded to love one another, as Christ hath loved us. We have it John 13:34, “A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.” Christ calls it a new commandment, with respect to that old commandment of loving our neighbor as ourselves. This command of loving our neighbor as Christ hath loved us opens our duty to us in a new manner, and in a further degree than that did. We must not only love our neighbor as ourselves, but as Christ hath loved us. We have the same again, John 15:12, “This is my commandment, that ye love one another, as I have loved you.”

Now the meaning of this is not that we should love one another to the same degree that Christ loved us, though there ought to be a proportion, considering our nature and capacity, but that we should exercise our love one to another in like manner. As for instance, Christ hath loved us so as to be willing to deny himself, and to suffer greatly, in order to help us, so should we be willing to deny ourselves in order to help one another. Christ loved us and showed us great kindness though we were far below him so should we show kindness to those of our fellow men who are far below us. Christ denied himself to help us, though we are not able to recompense him, so should we be willing to lay out ourselves to help our neighbor, freely expecting nothing again. Christ loved us, was kind to us, and was willing to relieve us, though we were very evil and hateful, of an evil disposition, not deserving any good, but deserving only to be hated, and treated with indignation; so we should be willing to be kind to those who are of an ill disposition, and are very undeserving. Christ loved us, and laid himself out to relieve us, though we were his enemies, and had treated him ill. So we, as we would love one another as Christ hath loved us, should relieve those who are our enemies, hate us, have an ill spirit toward us, and have treated us ill.

Second, we are obliged to this duty by many particular rules. We are particularly required to be kind to the unthankful and to the evil. And therein to follow the example of our heavenly Father, who causes his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. We are obliged, not only to be kind to them that are so to us, but to them that hate, and that despitefully use us. I need not mention the particular places which speak to the effect.

Not but that when persons are virtuous and pious, and of a grateful disposition, and are friendly disposed towards us, they are more the objects of our charity for it, and our obligation to kindness to them is the greater. Yet if things be otherwise, that doth not render them not fit objects of our charity, nor set us free from obligation to kindness towards them.”

Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758) in Christian Charity or The Duty of Charity to the Poor, Explained and Enforced (1732) Section IV.

We once discussed this topic in a class I taught, Faith and Finances.

I asked the class to envision the most ungrateful person in the world. People envisioned murderers, persecutors of Christians, and other nefarious characters.

But a wise student, when asked whom he envisioned, he said humbly pointed to himself.

He got the lesson and illustrated it for the class. Christ lavished kindness on us when we were unworthy. And we are never more like Christ than when we do the same.

Who might you bless as we approach American Thanksgiving who is ungrateful and undeserving?

Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.” Mark 12:30-31

“Objection #4. Some may object against charity to such or such particular persons, that they are not obliged to give them anything, for though they be needy, yet they are not in extremity. It is true they meet with difficulty, yet not so but that they can live, though they suffer some hardships. — But,

It doth not answer the rules of Christian charity, to relieve those only who are reduced to extremity, as might be abundantly shown. I shall at this time mention but two things as evidences of it.

First, we are commanded to love and treat one another as brethren. 1 Peter 3:8, “Have compassion one of another; love as brethren; be pitiful.” Now is it the part of brethren to refuse to help one another, and to do anything for each other’s comfort, and for the relief of each other’s difficulties, only when they are in extremity? Doth it not become brothers and sisters to have a more friendly disposition one towards another, than this comes to? And to be ready to compassionate one another under difficulties, though they be not extreme?

The rule of the gospel is that when we see our brother under any difficulty or burden, we should be ready to bear the burden with him. Galatians 6:2, “Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.” So we are commanded, “by love to serve one another,” Galatians 5:13. The Christian spirit will make us apt to sympathize with our neighbor, when we see him under any difficulty. Romans 12:15, “Rejoice with them that do rejoice, and weep with them that weep.” When our neighbor is in difficulty, he is afflicted; and we ought to have such a spirit of love to him, as to be afflicted with him in his affliction. And if we ought to be afflicted with him, then it will follow that we ought to be ready to relieve him. Because if we are afflicted with him, in relieving him, we relieve ourselves. His relief is so far our own relief, as his affliction is our affliction. Christianity teaches us to be afflicted in our neighbor’s affliction. And nature teaches us to relieve ourselves when afflicted.

We should behave ourselves one towards another as brethren that are fellow travelers. For we are pilgrims and strangers here on earth, and are on a journey. Now, if brethren be on a journey together, and one meet with difficulty in the way, doth it not become the rest to help him, not only in the extremity of broken bones, or the like, but as to provision for the journey if his own fall short? It becomes his fellow travelers to afford him a supply out of their stores, and not to be over nice, exact, and fearful lest they give him too much: for it is but provision for a journey. And all are supplied when they get to their journey’s end.

Second, that we should relieve our neighbor only when in extremity, is not agreeable to the rule of loving our neighbor as ourselves. That rule implies that our love towards our neighbor should work in the same manner, and express itself in the same ways, as our love towards ourselves. We are very sensible of our own difficulties. We should also be readily sensible of theirs. From love to ourselves, when we are under difficulties, and suffer hardships, we are concerned for our relief, are wont to seek relief, and lay ourselves out for it. — And as we would love our neighbor as ourselves, we ought in like manner to be concerned when our neighbor is under difficulty, and to seek his relief. We are wont to be much concerned about our own difficulties, though we be not reduced to extremity, and are willing in those cases to lay ourselves out for our own relief. So, as we would love our neighbor as ourselves, we should in like manner lay out ourselves to obtain relief for him, though his difficulties be not extreme.”

Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758) in Christian Charity or The Duty of Charity to the Poor, Explained and Enforced (1732) Section IV.

I hope this exploration of the mental objections moves you as much as it does me.

When I read the objection, I wonder to myself how many times I have thought that. And then I love how Edwards answers with Scripture rather than self-righteous rationalization (which is our human proclivity).

My first thought when the light shined on extremity went to our responsibility to love our neighbor as ourself.

I felt happy that he went there, but only after helping us see that the rule of the gospel is to share the burdens of others. That touched me. I want to be quick to help others. And I need to let others know how they can help.

I want to thank those of you who have shared the burden of multiply stewards around the world with me. You have helped me build a team of ten accomplishing so much in so many places.

Read our 2023 GTP Annual Report to hear the amazing stories.

But today I realize a way you can share the burden with me. Rather than ask you to make a gift, become a monthly giver. Pray and ask God how much you can contribute and set up your gift here.

That would really encourage our global team and share the burden of multiplying generous stewards.