"Just Give Us the Money" or ...

How does giving work in God's economy?

Last night we watched The Man Who Invented Christmas a second time. It's an excellent movie, I think. Clearly Dickens understood this concept: Some people suffer so that other people can learn to be generous. Tiny Tim suffered in that story so that Scrooge could be given a last-minute chance to repent, change, and open both his heart and his pocket-book.

We learned this spiritual truth years ago from our own lives and the lives of others who suffered. God puts suffering into the lives of innocent, unsuspecting people for the sole benefit of others whom He asks to help them. When the money or clothes or house or car or job is given to the needy person, it looks like that person is the recipient of God's mercy. But by a wonderful trick of God's economy (which is full of surprises), the actual beneficiary is the giver. He is changed ... or he is supposed to be. His participation in the giving is essential, and the more he participates -- the more he gives of himself in the exchange -- the more he benefits.

So, is it better for a person to open his wallet, place the $20 bill in the offering plate, and have no contact with the recipient because the church leadership gathers the money and sends a check? Is it better for a person to take a hungry person to a diner and spend $20 on a meal while talking for an hour? Is it better for a person to buy a $20 gift and drive it to the home of a child who has longed for it, seeing the child, seeing the home, seeing himself there?

We know the answers to these questions. It's better for the giver to be physically and emotionally involved as much as possible. The giving of help or cheer is not just for the sake of the recipient. In God's economy (Who can easily draw help for the poor from any source He chooses, yes?), the giving is probably more for the sake of the giver. Hmm. That thought twists our brains around and makes us uncomfortable. 

Recently Samaritan's Purse's Operation Christmas Child ("the shoebox ministry") has come under fire. Many feel that the cheap plastic toys Christians buy and send overseas are an utterly useless waste of money. Even a well-packed and thoughtful shoebox, they say, is a waste of resources. Couldn't all that money on stuff and postage have been better used as a single monetary gift to the church in the area in Africa? Buy a cow herd or dig a new well? It's a compelling argument. If you want to read more about this issue and some sticky, uncomfortable events in the shoebox world, click on the three links below:
Missionary wife breaks the silence.
Samaritan's Purse responds.
Missionary wife explains further.

All these articles are thoughtfully written. It seems there is some corruption on the level of the National Team that Samaritan's Purse is likely unaware of and will deal with eventually. 

The missionary wife extensively quotes the local pastors, who suggest this:
"If we could convince them [the donors] to just send it [the funds], it would be a very good idea, because I feel that even though this is for the sake of Christmas, the things that the kids get, and we thank God that what they are getting is American standard, but still it doesn’t really meet the needs of the children. These kids get a box – they’ve never been to school! They might get a toothpaste that is of a higher American standard, but we also have toothpaste here. So it’s nice that Christmas comes once but we can use cheaper things and in that way Christmas can go on and have a more lasting impact. Maybe we can convince some to just turn that [their box] into money. Because child-centered programs are incredibly important. And there’s a lot that can be done to mitigate the challenges that the children are facing."

The pastors make very good points. They know the needs. The shoebox contents are not as helpful as money would be. This makes givers in the U.S. scratch their heads and wonder what to do. Ditch the shoeboxes? Choose another ministry that also involves the givers individually, emotionally, physically? Doesn't it sound like the most helpful choice is simply to put $20 in the offering plate and have your church send a check?


Why does God command us to give? What changes of attitude and acts of repentance does God intend to work in us? I've seen people who would never donate $100 to mission work, happily spent it in packing six shoeboxes and paying for their shipping. Why is that? Is there a joy in giving when someone allows you to fully participate? To decide, in your own inept way, what to give to a specific child far away? Is there any value in the joy of the child when she receives hair bows or toe socks or scented soap or a puzzle of a kitten, rather than having her family get a new cow? (Samaritan's Purse does livestock donations too -- click over!)

Must it be an either/or choice? Of course not. Lots people give to lots of ministries. And this is my personal advice (worth all of a penny!): give in the way that God leads your heart. If you love doing shoeboxes, keep doing it, and pray that God uses it fully for His kingdom, because He surely can. He can accomplish just as many eternal, kingdom blessings with shoeboxes as he can with cows. God's economy works that way.

But if you prefer to support ladies making jewelry and selling it in the U.S., do that. Or digging a new well for better water for a village, do that. Or taking an Angel Tree gift to a child four blocks away, do that. Or sending a big check to a mission board, do that. Be open to the prodding of the Holy Spirit. He will direct you to give in the way that will most pry open your heart and tenderize it, which is His goal. 

God can always rise up people to help the poor, and He will do it. The question is, will I be one of them? When I give, then He takes the gift, whatever it may be, and He changes and uses it to meet His ends. That's the wonder of an economy of need and giving, ruled by the King.