Waiting and Walking

One of my wife's heroes never knew that he was her hero, and she doesn't even know his name. Some years ago, she was working in a grocery store, and a man came in looking for a job. He had just been laid off from an oil company executive position, and was searching for another, but meanwhile he needed to be earning something even if it meant sacking groceries. She recounts that he showed up every day in a starched white shirt with a tie, and he did his job well. But after a few weeks he was gone, presumably to another job more like the one from which he'd been laid off.

Why is he one of her heroes? Because he stepped up and did what needed to be done, when it needed to be done, to support his family. He didn't complain about not finding what he wanted right off, nor did he whine about sacking groceries being beneath his dignity or his education. He just took the job and put his best effort into it for as long as was necessary.

Why is that so hard for some people to understand? Why do some people seem more like Cousin Eddie Johnson in Christmas Vacation, explaining his seven-year stint of unemployment with "I'm holding out for management"?

Yet those who wait for the Lord
Will gain new strength;
They will mount up with wings like eagles,
They will run and not get tired,
They will walk and not become weary.

—Isaiah 40:31 (NASB)

I count this among a number of scripture passages in which I think one phrase is perhaps overused while other phrases are overlooked. It seems like some can wait on the Lord forever, hoping that He will eventually just wave away whatever mess they've found themselves in. Don't forget the rest of the verse: once the Lord provides some kind of wings, you're supposed to leave the nest, even if they are not the specific wings you were expecting. You are not completing the verse until you get out and do some walking and running.

I know people (I bet we all know a few) that never seem to expend any real effort to improve their situation, and instead just seem to be holding out for somebody to rescue them in just the fashion that they wish to be rescued. If you offer them any suggestion that is not in line with their ideas, there will always be a "reason" why it does not apply to them or can't possibly work. I really think some of them see their position as virtuous, depending on God alone, as in Habakkuk 2:4 "the righteous will live by his faith" (NASB) But they remind me of the joke about the guy who prayed for years to win the lottery. If only he won, he could get out of his hole and be such a generous person. Then one day as he was complaining in prayer about never having won, he heard a voice: "It might help if you bought a ticket."

My wife and I have an expression, "sometimes you need to just buy a ticket." (Note to the metaphor-impaired: this is not an endorsement of state lotteries!) To truly live by faith, the righteous need to first pray and then put their feet to their prayers.

At the other end are people who boldly go out to do whatever they wish and expect God and others to honor their "stepping out in faith." Sometimes what one might call faith, another would probably call presumption, expecting God to go along with your program.

We need to be open, watching and listening for opportunity, but we also need to wisely consider whether our plans are honoring to God and His purposes, that they are needs and not just wants. There is always a balance point somewhere. Jesus alluded to that in John 14:13, "Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son," and 15:7, "If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you." Just anything you want does not fit in that description, but pretty much anything you really need does.

The saying "God helps those who help themselves" is not in the Bible: not all that God has helped began by doing the work themselves, and not all that set out to help themselves saw God step in to finish it. Nevertheless, it is a good saying, and I believe that God honors our honest attempts to do that which honors Him, including caring for the needs of our family. And I believe that because we have seen numerous examples in our own lives and in lives of those around us. And unfortunately we've seen negative examples as well.

A Jim Croce song recounts a failing search for "an executive position". But unlike Cousin Eddie Johnson, at least he went ahead and took the job at the car wash. And maybe when he does get himself straight he can have that air conditioned office.

I hope the unnamed hero wound up with an even better job than the one he lost. He deserves it after mounting up new wings in the grocery store.

The Greatest of These is Charity

Am I really that selfish, insensitive, greedy, or uncaring if I want to keep more of my earnings and pay less in taxes? Contribute your fair share, they say. We all need to do our part, they say. It's the Christian thing to be charitable, they....

Hold on right there. You need to be careful about bringing "Christian" into it. I dedicated most of an earlier blog to criticism of invoking God's name to further your own ends. Mind you, charity is certainly supposed to be a Christian virtue; surely it is highly regarded by all major religions. But what is it?

In the old King James Bible, the 13th chapter of I Corinthians ends with:

And now abide faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

More modern translations use the word "love" instead of "charity" in that verse, so I don't think that's quite the meaning we're looking for, but it may be close.

Going back to the old Merriam-Webster, we find "benevolent goodwill toward or love of humanity", "generosity and helpfulness especially toward the needy or suffering", "public provision for the relief of the needy"; "mercy" is offered as a synonym. Maybe that's helpful, but I want to look at some examples of what I believe charity really is, and is not.

When person A notices that he has something that person B needs, and freely gives some or all of it to B, that is charity. However, if B is then expected to give A something of somewhat comparable worth, that's not charity; that is trade or commerce. There is nothing at all wrong with trade, as long as both A and B knowingly and willingly entered into it. But when A gave directly to B (charity), every bit of what A gave entered B's possession, B knows whence it came, and if B has any feelings of gratitude they would naturally be directed towards A. But this has nothing at all to do with our tax or welfare system.

Now consider when a third party, C, takes from A and gives to B. Is that charity? I don't think so. Now if A was unfairly withholding what rightfully belonged to B, and C recaptured it and returned all of it to B, then what you have is justice, or perhaps you have merry olde Robin Hood.

But what if B could use that which A has but has no particular rightful claim to it, and what if C forcibly takes from A, gives some of it to B, and keeps the remainder for himself. That is much more like what occurs in the modern welfare state. Instead of A being the hero, C will be the recipient of B's gratitude (if any), even though C contributed nothing except the threat of force, and in fact profited from the exchange. And A just feels like he's been well taken, because he indeed has, and he may also feel frustrated that not all of what was taken from him even went to help B. That's not the charity that has anything to do with love; that's just wealth transfer, and self-aggrandizement on C's part.

It does bear some resemblance to the last dictionary entry, "public provision for the relief of the needy," but since none of the other definitions had anything to do with the public, I think that last one is just an example of the warping of the language through constant misuse.

But actually the welfare state is even worse than that. As C takes more and more, and grows steadily more powerful, it seems like most of the B's never see any real improvement, but become increasingly dependent on the handouts.

So don't you dare tell me I need to be more charitable when you're demanding more taxes out of me. I'm tired of being the A in the above transaction, as the governmental juggernaut C just keeps getting bigger and bigger. There is nothing loving and charitable about making someone else more and more dependent on you for the necessities of life.

Remember, as Reagan said, a government that is big enough to give you everything you need is big enough to take everything you have. But, given that government tends to be run by people that like having power, which do you think is more likely to happen?

Musing on KFAB

This week, Scott Voorhees' page at KFAB.com features a blog that is a combination of the two I wrote last year about the E?IC: the rant against it, and a suggested alternative.