Latest / Reformed Thinking / Why True Christians Must Help the Poor | Jonathan Edwards

Transcript

Why True Christians Must Help the Poor | Jonathan Edwards · Reformed Thinking

0:00
Imagine finding out that the money sitting in your savings
0:02
account right now legally belongs to someone else.
0:06
Oh wow. Yeah, and not only that, but
0:08
keeping it there, like gaining interest for your own
0:11
retirement, is considered embezzlement by the true owner.
0:14
That is a rough reality check. It really is welcome to Reform
0:18
Thinking, where we take a deep dive into historical text to see
0:22
how they challenge our modern lives.
0:23
Glad to be here. You know, usually when we talk
0:25
about a financial audit, there's this expectation of, well,
0:30
precision. Right, the accountant looks at
0:32
your bank statements. They look at your receipts and
0:34
the reality is binary. You either paid what you owed or
0:37
you did not. Yeah, the Ledger balances or it
0:39
shows a deficit. It is clean, mathematical, and
0:42
comforting because we like things to be visible.
0:45
We like things categorized neatly into columns.
0:47
We really do. But today?
0:49
We're going to throw that clean Ledger right out the window.
0:52
That is a highly disruptive way to start, but it hits the mark
0:56
perfectly. Well, I try.
0:58
When you step into the realm of personal generosity,
1:01
specifically how we view our financial obligations to those
1:05
in need, the moral landscape gets, you know, incredibly
1:09
murky. Yeah, fair murky.
1:10
People use all sorts of sliding scales to justify their
1:13
financial habits. We convince ourselves that we
1:15
are being prudent when in reality we might actually be
1:18
hoarding. Spot on.
1:20
We are looking at an essay today that removes all of that
1:24
ambiguity. All of it.
1:25
It is a rigorous, comprehensive piece of writing by the 18th
1:29
century theologian Jonathan Edwards, titled Of the
1:31
Obligation of Christians to Perform the Duty of Charity to
1:34
the Poor. And I have to say, this is not
1:37
casual weekend reading. No, definitely not.
1:40
Our mission today is to unpack Edwards's unyielding biblical
1:43
arguments for giving. We are going to watch him
1:46
systematically dismantle like almost every single common
1:49
excuse we use for withholding charity.
1:52
He brings a sharp scalpel to this topic.
1:54
He really does, and for you, the listener, this is a chance to
1:57
evaluate your own personal generosity through a
2:00
historically significant theological lens.
2:03
And we are going to do it without getting bogged down an
2:05
academic jargon. Right.
2:07
We want to see how his specific theological framework dictates
2:11
practical, everyday financial decisions.
2:14
The primary value of this text is how it forces a mirror in
2:17
front of the reader. A very unflattering mirror
2:20
sometimes, yeah. Edwards does not allow you to
2:23
hide behind polite societal norms.
2:26
He goes straight to the core of human nature and divine law.
2:29
So where does he kick things off?
2:30
He starts by dropping a massive theological anchor, asserting
2:35
that charity is not some optional extra credit for the
2:39
Super religious right. It is a central non negotiable
2:42
duty. He brings in Leviticus chapter
2:44
25, right? Yes, where God lays out the law
2:47
for helping a poor brother. And God enforces this command
2:50
with a very specific phrase, I am the Lord thy God.
2:54
Let me stop you right there, because that phrase is so
2:56
familiar to anyone who reads the Old Testament that we, well, we
2:58
tend to skim right past. It we do, it just sounds like
3:01
standard biblical language. Yeah, God adds.
3:03
I am the Lord thy God to a lot of commands.
3:06
Why does Edwards latch onto that specific sign off when it comes
3:09
to the topic of giving to the poor?
3:11
It's a great question. What is the functional weight of
3:14
that phrase in this context? It is an appeal to ultimate
3:17
authority by attaching I am the Lord thy God to the command to
3:22
relieve the poor. God is essentially saying your
3:25
obedience in this matter is a direct reflection of your
3:28
submission to my Lordship. Wow.
3:30
OK, so it makes it an issue of lordship, not just kindness.
3:33
Yes, it removes the command from the realm of human preference,
3:37
economic theory, or, you know, cultural custom.
3:40
If you acknowledge God as Lord, you must acknowledge His
3:44
absolute right to dictate how you handle your resources.
3:47
Precisely. Edwards then connects this to
3:50
Micah chapter 6, verse 8, where loving mercy is listed alongside
3:54
doing justly and walking humbly with God.
3:57
It is presented as the very substance of religion.
3:59
Yeah, it's not a side issue. He also pulls in James chapter
4:02
one, verse 27, defining pure religion as visiting the
4:05
fatherless and widows in their affliction.
4:08
He is building an airtight case that you cannot separate true
4:12
faith from act of charity. But Edwards takes it a step
4:15
further, and this is where I think modern readers might get a
4:18
little uncomfortable. Oh, absolutely.
4:20
He points out that the Scriptures elevate mercy even
4:23
above the outward ordinances of worship.
4:25
This is a huge. Point he quotes Hosea chapter 6
4:29
verse 6 where God says I desired mercy and not sacrifice.
4:34
That is a staggering thought when you unpack the
4:37
implications. How so?
4:38
Well, Edwards is dealing with human depravity here.
4:41
We have this natural inclination towards selfishness, a desire to
4:45
hoard resources for our own security.
4:47
Right. Survival instinct, yeah.
4:50
Going to church, participating in religious rituals, singing
4:52
hymns, all of those outward acts of worship are commanded.
4:56
They are good things. They are.
4:58
But Edwards, using Hosea, argues that if those outward acts are
5:01
disconnected from a heart of mercy toward the vulnerable, God
5:04
rejects them. The sacrifice means nothing if
5:07
the mercy is absent. Spot on.
5:09
So someone could have like, perfect attendance at their
5:12
weekly work of service ties to the building fund and sing
5:16
louder than anyone else. But if they are cold hearted
5:19
toward the poor in their community.
5:21
Edwards would argue their religion is functionally
5:23
bankrupt. Yes, bankrupt is the word.
5:25
That cuts right through the idea that our vertical relationship
5:28
with God can, you know, ignore our horizontal relationship with
5:33
our neighbors. Precisely.
5:34
And Edwards explains this by looking at the original design
5:37
of humanity. OK, take us back to the garden
5:40
then. Real While human depravity makes
5:42
us selfish, Edwards argues that a selfish spirit is actually
5:45
unnatural for humanity in its original created state.
5:49
Unnatural. Yeah, God made humans in his
5:52
image, and God is inherently giving.
5:54
He gives life, breath, everything.
5:56
God provides rain and sun for the just and the unjust.
6:00
Therefore, to be relentlessly selfish, to constantly look out
6:03
only for number 1, is to contradict the very design of
6:07
human nature. I want to look at the analogy
6:09
Edwards uses to illustrate this, because I really cannot stop
6:12
thinking about. It the natural body analogy.
6:14
Yes, he compares mankind to the natural body.
6:19
He says we are made to subsist by society.
6:22
We are social creatures. Humans simply cannot survive
6:25
alone. You can't grow all your own
6:27
food, build your own shelter, manufacture your own medicine,
6:30
and like, defend yourself simultaneously without the help
6:33
of a community. It's impossible.
6:35
We are physically, economically and socially intertwined.
6:38
We are entirely dependent on mutual cooperation.
6:41
The individual components of a human body cannot survive if
6:45
severed from the whole. The hand needs the heart to pump
6:48
blood. And the heart needs the lungs to
6:50
provide oxygen. If the hand decides it is going
6:53
to keep all the blood for itself and not allow it to circulate,
6:56
the hand dies and eventually the whole body suffers.
6:59
Following that logic, Edwards makes a sharp, almost aggressive
7:03
observation. He doesn't pull his punches.
7:05
He really doesn't, he says. A person who keeps everything
7:07
for themselves, who is all for himself and none for his
7:10
neighbors, is essentially useless to the body.
7:13
Worse than useless, honestly. In fact, Edward says, such a
7:16
person deserves to be cut off from human society and turned
7:18
out among the wild beasts. Yeah, that line is intense.
7:22
He says a private niggardly spirit is more suited to live
7:26
among wolves and other beasts of prey.
7:29
It is a highly vivid image and it is meant to shock the reader
7:33
it. Definitely shocked me.
7:34
Wolves operate on a predatory instinct.
7:36
They take what they can, whenever they can, strictly for
7:39
their own survival. And often at the expense of
7:41
others. Right.
7:42
By hoarding wealth and ignoring the suffering around us, Edward
7:46
suggests we are abandoning our humanity and adopting the ethos
7:50
of a predator. Whoa, hold on.
7:52
That is incredibly harsh. It is.
7:54
Edwards is literally saying if I don't give to charity I should
7:57
be exiled from society. Well, he's using hyperbole to
8:01
make a theological point. How does he justify that level
8:04
of aggression though? Most people who don't give to
8:06
charity aren't actively stealing from the poor, they're just
8:10
keeping the money they earn. They aren't predators in the
8:12
sense of actively hunting people down.
8:14
It is a harsh assessment, but Edwards is looking at the
8:17
passive harm of withholding. Passive harm.
8:20
OK, explain that. In a community where people are
8:22
starving or lacking basic necessities, passively hoarding
8:26
excess resources is a form of active harm to the community
8:29
survival. So inaction is an action.
8:31
Yeah, you might not be hunting someone down like a wolf, but by
8:36
operating solely on a self preservation instinct when you
8:39
have surplus and others have deficit, you are acting contrary
8:43
to the cooperative design of human society.
8:45
You're acting like an animal that knows nothing of mutual
8:48
care. That's the logic, yes.
8:50
So nature itself, our biological and societal need for one
8:54
another, dictates mutual help. If you want the benefits of
8:57
living in a society, you have to contribute to the preservation
9:00
of that society. But Edwards does not stop at
9:03
nature. Nature sets the baseline right.
9:06
The Gospel provides a much higher, much more rigorous
9:09
standard for generosity. This moves us into the
9:11
theological weight of Christ's sacrifice, which Edwards views
9:15
as the ultimate model for charity.
9:17
OK, let's look at the gospel narrative.
9:19
When you look at it, Christ did not evaluate humanity to see if
9:23
we were worthy of his help. We definitely weren't.
9:25
We were. According to the theology,
9:27
Edwards is operating within enemies of God, completely
9:31
unworthy and hostile to his rule.
9:33
Yet. Christ did not grudge his own
9:35
blood to save us that. Word grudge is so convicting.
9:39
It really is. We grudge giving up $20.00 for a
9:42
charity drive. Oh, all the time.
9:44
We grudge the time it takes to help a neighbor fix their car.
9:47
We sit there and calculate whether the person really
9:50
deserves our help, whether they will appreciate it enough.
9:52
We want to return on our investment, yeah.
9:55
But Edwards points out that Christ did not grudge his very
9:58
life. He denied himself to make vile
10:01
wretches rich, clothing us with kingly robes when we were
10:04
completely naked and exposed. This raises a massive question
10:08
about how we view our own possessions.
10:10
OK. What's the question?
10:11
To understand Edwards argument here you have to grasp the
10:14
concept of stewardship. He relies heavily on 1st
10:17
Corinthians chapter 6, verse 20. You're not your own, for you are
10:21
bought with a price. Yes, if you are not your own,
10:24
the nothing you possess is actually your.
10:26
This circles right back to the hook we started with.
10:28
We act like we are the CE OS of our own bank accounts.
10:32
We think we earn the money, so we have the absolute right to do
10:35
whatever we want with it. But.
10:37
Edward says we are just middle management.
10:39
Barely even that. We do not own our possessions.
10:42
God lends them to us. We're simply stewards holding on
10:46
to the masters goods. The legal and historical role of
10:49
a steward is crucial to understanding this text.
10:52
Give us some historical context for that work.
10:54
In the 18th century, a steward was not just a casual employee.
10:58
A steward was entrusted with managing the master's entire
11:01
estate. This is.
11:02
A huge responsibility. Massive The steward's job was to
11:05
distribute the master's resources according to the
11:07
master's will, ensuring the household was fed, the business
11:11
ran smoothly and the property was maintained.
11:14
The steward had zero right to claim the master's wealth as his
11:17
own personal property. None whatsoever.
11:20
Let's run with that analogy because it completely changes
11:22
the paradigm of personal finance it.
11:24
Really flips it upside down. Imagine a wealthy householder
11:28
goes away away on a long trip. He leaves his steward in charge
11:31
of a massive storehouse of food, clothing and supplies.
11:35
And he leaves strict instructions, right?
11:37
Yes, strict instructions to feed the entire staff and take care
11:41
of the local villagers while he's gone, but the steward
11:44
decides he likes the look of those supplies.
11:47
He starts getting greedy. He starts hoarding the best
11:49
provisions in his own private quarters.
11:52
He feasts on prime cuts of meat, buys himself luxurious new
11:56
clothes from the estate funds, and ignores the fact that the
11:59
rest of the household is literally starving outside his
12:01
door. It's a terrifying scenario.
12:04
What happens when the master returns?
12:06
The master would fire him immediately.
12:08
The steward would be thrown out and prosecuted.
12:10
Because it is literal embezzlement.
12:12
Yes, the steward is stealing resources that were intended for
12:16
the benefit of the whole household and repurposing them
12:20
for his own private luxury. And that is Edward's punchline.
12:23
It's a heavy one. When we hoard wealth.
12:25
When we buy our third luxury car or build a massive addition on
12:29
our house while our literal neighbors cannot afford
12:32
groceries or medical care. Edwards is saying we are
12:35
embezzling the masters goods. We are taking funds designated
12:39
for the whole household of God and stockpiling them in our own
12:42
private quarters. We will all give an account of
12:45
our stewardship. That's a sobering thought.
12:48
When the master returns to settle accounts, he will ask
12:51
what we did with the resources he provided.
12:54
Edwards finds it utterly absurd that humans who rely entirely on
12:58
the unmerited kindness of God for their very existence.
13:01
For the air in their lungs and the salvation of their souls.
13:04
Would grudge a small financial matter for a fellow human.
13:08
We live on charity, yet we refuse to extend it.
13:12
If God is the master of the house, how does he view our
13:15
interactions with the poor? Edwards argues that God takes
13:18
our behavior toward the poor very personally.
13:21
Extremely personal. He doesn't just view it as an
13:23
administrative failure of the steward, he views it as a direct
13:26
offense against himself. Edwards points to Proverbs
13:29
chapter 19, verse 17, which states He that hath pity on the
13:34
poor lendeth to the Lord. That is a stunning financial
13:38
proposition. God is making himself the
13:39
guarantor of the poor man's debt.
13:41
When you give to someone in need, God views it as a direct
13:45
transaction with himself. Wait, let me make sure I'm
13:48
framing this correctly. Go ahead.
13:49
If I hand a struggling single mother $100 to help with her
13:54
electric bill, Edwards is saying I am not actually giving the
13:58
money to her. You're not.
13:59
I am lending that $100 directly to the creator of the universe,
14:03
and he is putting his own name on the promissory note.
14:06
That is the biblical logic Edwards is highlighting.
14:09
God assumes the debt. The poor person might never be
14:13
able to repay you. They might not even thank you.
14:16
But God sees the transaction and he promises to settle the
14:19
account. Let me throw a hypothetical at
14:22
you, one that Edwards himself poses to his congregation.
14:25
I love this one. Let's hear it.
14:26
If Jesus were physically present on earth right now, walking
14:30
around your city in a frail human body, and he was homeless,
14:34
needing shelter, needing a hot meal, what would we do?
14:38
Oh, the vast majority of people who profess Christianity would
14:41
rush to supply him. They would empty their bank
14:44
accounts to make sure he was comfortable.
14:46
They would consider it the highest honor to host him in
14:49
their homes. We would be fighting over who
14:51
gets to pay for his dinner. We would post about it online.
14:55
We would feel incredibly privileged.
14:57
But Edwards argues, based on Matthew chapter 25, that Jesus
15:01
is present in the needy members of society.
15:04
Christ said, In as much as ye have done it unto one of the
15:08
least of these, my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
15:11
So ignoring the poor is literally ignoring Jesus on the
15:14
street. That brings us to the mechanics
15:17
of giving, specifically the promised rewards and the risks
15:21
of withholding. Edwards firmly believes that
15:23
charitable giving operates on a principle of cause and effect.
15:26
Much like agriculture. Right.
15:27
Yes, he quotes Ecclesiastes Chapter 11, verse one.
15:30
Cast thy bread upon the waters, for thou shalt find it after
15:33
many days. Now casting bread on the water
15:36
sounds like a terrible investment strategy.
15:38
It really does. You are just throwing resources
15:40
away into the ocean. It sounds reckless.
15:42
It looks like a total loss from a worldly perspective, but the
15:45
agricultural metaphor is key. OK.
15:47
Unpack the farming metaphor for. When a farmer sows seed into the
15:51
dirt, it looks like he is throwing away perfectly good
15:54
grain. He is burying it in the mud.
15:56
But he does not view it as lost, he views it as planted.
16:00
He expects a return. Edwards argues that giving to
16:03
the poor is sowing seed. The scriptures are full of
16:06
promises that this leads to temporal prosperity.
16:09
OK, I have to push back here. Push away.
16:12
When Edwards says giving brings temporal prosperity, how does he
16:16
reconcile that with the fact that many generous early
16:18
Christians were martyred or lived in abject poverty?
16:22
That is a very fair question. How is he not just preaching an
16:25
18th century prosperity gospel here?
16:28
You know the kind I mean. Give God $10 and he will give
16:31
you a private jet. Yeah, that is a massive point of
16:33
confusion. And frankly, a dangerous
16:36
theology. It is a vital distinction to
16:38
make. Edwards is not promoting A
16:40
manipulative formula where you treat God like a slot machine to
16:43
guarantee a life of luxury. The prosperity gospel treats God
16:47
as a means to an end, the end being your own material wealth.
16:51
Right, Edwards is talking about divine Providence.
16:53
He argues that withholding more than his proper actually tends
16:57
toward poverty. Because God can easily diminish
17:00
a person's hoarded wealth through sickness, a sudden
17:03
economic downturn, or unforeseen accidents.
17:06
Conversely, God can prosper the generous person in 1000 subtle
17:10
ways. Providing favorable business
17:12
opportunities, health and favorable circumstances to
17:15
ensure they always have enough to continue being generous.
17:18
So the goal of the prosperity isn't to make you rich, the goal
17:21
is to resource you to be a better steward.
17:23
So it is about trusting that God manages the macro economy of our
17:27
lives. Giving away money makes you feel
17:29
vulnerable. You have less of a safety net.
17:32
Edwards is saying that obedience builds a better safety net than
17:35
in a hoarded savings account. Because you are placing your
17:38
security in the hands of Providence rather than the hands
17:41
of a volatile stock market. There is a specific detail
17:44
Edwards highlights from Proverbs chapter 28, verse 27 that
17:48
illustrates the negative side of this principle.
17:50
What does it say? It says, He that give it to the
17:52
poor shall not lack, but he that hideth his eyes shall have many
17:56
a curse. That phrase he that hideth his
17:59
eyes, is psychologically brilliant.
18:02
We all do this. Let's do a thought experiment.
18:04
OK, I'm ready you. Are sitting at a red light.
18:07
You see someone standing on the median with a cardboard sign.
18:11
What is your immediate psychological reaction?
18:14
You look at your phone. You aggressively adjust the
18:18
radio dial. You stare intensely at the
18:20
traffic light, willing it to turn green.
18:23
You intentionally hide your eyes so you do not have to engage.
18:26
Why do we do that? Because seeing the need creates
18:29
A moral obligation to respond. If our eyes meet, a human
18:32
connection is established. The person goes from being an
18:35
abstract societal problem to a specific individual requesting
18:39
aid. We make ourselves willfully
18:41
blind. Edward says uncharitable people
18:43
do this intentionally. They do not want to find proper
18:46
objects of charity, so they pretend the need does not exist.
18:49
And by doing so, Edward says, they bring a curse upon their
18:52
own affairs. Calamity can strike anyone.
18:54
A sudden illness, A market crash, A natural disaster.
18:58
Edwards used charitable giving as a way of storing up provision
19:01
for those future uncertain times.
19:03
By being generous now, you are essentially depositing goodwill
19:07
into the Bank of Providence. When your own winter comes, God
19:11
will ensure that you are provided for.
19:13
Often through the reciprocal generosity of others or through
19:16
unforeseen providential care. All right, we've laid out the
19:19
theological groundwork. This is where Edwards really
19:22
rolls up his sleeves. He anticipates that his
19:24
listeners are squirming in their pews, coming up with every
19:27
excuse in the book to avoid this duty.
19:30
He systematically breaks these objections down into categories.
19:33
Let's start with the internal theological excuses.
19:36
The first objection is quite specific to the theological
19:39
climate of Edwards Day, but the underlying attitude persists.
19:43
What is it? The objection is I am in a
19:46
natural condition. In the theological language of
19:49
the time, this means unconverted or not, a true believer.
19:52
Right. The argument someone might make
19:54
is that since they do not have the Holy Spirit, any charity
19:57
they do would be done with the wrong motive.
19:59
It would be entirely fleshly. And therefore it would not
20:02
benefit them spiritually to give.
20:04
It is basically saying I shouldn't do good things because
20:08
my heart isn't perfectly pure yet.
20:10
Exactly the logic. Since I can't give with
20:13
absolutely pure selfless motives, I am just going to keep
20:17
my money. I don't want to be a hypocrite.
20:19
Edwards dismantles this with rigorous logic.
20:22
He points out that even if an action is performed out of moral
20:25
virtue rather than pure spiritual grace, God still
20:28
attaches temporal blessings to it.
20:31
Honesty in business, Diligence in work.
20:35
These yield positive results in the real world, regardless of
20:38
your internal spiritual state. Furthermore, if you use the
20:41
excuse of impure motives to avoid giving to the poor, you
20:45
would have to logically abandon all religious duties, right?
20:48
You have to stop praying, stop going to church, stop telling
20:51
the truth. We don't abandoned attending a
20:53
worship service just because we might be doing it out of habit.
20:55
Or because we are worried about what our neighbors think, we
20:59
recognize the duty remains. So why do we apply that standard
21:02
of absolute purity only to our wallets?
21:05
Is a convenient excuse to protect our bank accounts.
21:07
This leads to the second objection, which is closely
21:10
related. If I give, I will make a
21:12
righteousness of it. For the listener who isn't
21:15
steeped in theological debate, making a righteousness
21:18
essentially means virtue signaling to God.
21:21
Trying to earn salvation. Yeah, it is the fear that if I
21:25
give $100 to a homeless shelter, I am going to subconsciously
21:30
think I just bought my way into heaven.
21:32
I will become prideful and trust in my own good works for
21:35
salvation, which is a sin. So people literally used I need
21:39
to stay humble as an excuse to keep their wallets shut.
21:42
It is a massive intellectual dodge.
21:44
Huge. Edwards points out that God
21:46
commands us to give. To say that obeying God's
21:49
command will do you more harm than good is to claim you are
21:52
wiser than God. You are saying God gave you bad
21:54
advice, that his command to give is actually a trap that will
21:58
ruin your humility. Of the irony I am going to
22:01
withhold money from starving people so I can maintain my
22:03
stellar humility. Edwards has absolutely 0
22:06
patience for that logic. The third internal objection is
22:09
1 based on personal experience. Someone says I gave before and I
22:14
met with misfortune anyway. I donated heavily to the church
22:17
and the very next week my car broke down or I lost my job.
22:21
So this whole giving leads to blessing thing doesn't work.
22:26
I tried it and I got burned. People often treat God like a
22:30
cosmic vending machine. You put a $20 bill in the slot,
22:33
press the button, and out pops a blessing.
22:35
When the blessing doesn't drop into the tray immediately, we
22:38
kick the machine and walk away. We assume the system is broken.
22:42
Edwards provides several compelling counters to this
22:44
assumption. First, he challenges the nature
22:47
of the past. Giving was it done grudgingly?
22:50
God does not promise a reward for expressing covetousness.
22:54
If you give a few dollars, but your heart deeply resents
22:56
parting with the money, you haven't actually practiced the
22:59
virtue of charity. You have just engaged in a
23:02
reluctant transaction. You kept the covetous spirit
23:05
intact while handing over the cash.
23:07
And Edwards points out that you cannot judge God's Providence on
23:11
your own timeline. You cast your bread on the
23:13
water, but you expect it to wash back up to your feet 5 minutes
23:16
later. God might be holding that return
23:19
for a future winter. You might need that blessing 10
23:22
years down the road when a Meiji health crisis hits.
23:24
Trusting Providence means waiting for the due season.
23:28
You cannot demand God settle the accounts on your schedule.
23:31
So we've established that the internal theological excuses
23:34
failed to hold up against the weight of the command.
23:36
But what happens when we shift our focus from our own internal
23:40
motives to the recipient? This moves us into the second
23:43
block of excuses, which we can call interpersonal objections.
23:47
These are the ways we judge the person asking for help to
23:50
justify our refusal. Right, this is where we start
23:53
looking for disqualifying factors in the poor person.
23:56
The 4th overall objection is they aren't in extremity.
23:59
They are struggling but they aren't literally starving to
24:02
death in the street so I don't need to help.
24:03
We want people to hit rock bottom before we throw them a
24:06
rope. But Edwards brings in this
24:08
brilliant fellow traveler analogy.
24:11
Walk us through that one. Imagine you were on a journey
24:14
with a group of companions. You are hiking through a harsh
24:17
wilderness. One of your friends runs out of
24:19
water and food. They aren't dying yet.
24:21
They haven't broken a leg. But they are hungry, tired and
24:25
their pack is empty. Do you wait until they collapse
24:28
from dehydration before you offer them a granola bar or a
24:32
sip from your canteen? Of course not.
24:35
That would be sociopathic behavior among friends.
24:37
You share out of brotherly sympathy because you are on the
24:40
journey together. You don't demand that they reach
24:43
the brink of death to prove they are worthy of your extra water.
24:47
Edwards points out that we are all pilgrims and strangers on
24:50
earth. We are fellow travelers.
24:52
It contradicts the basic rule of loving your neighbor as yourself
24:55
to wait for total catastrophe before offering relief.
24:58
You wouldn't wait for your own situation to become dire before
25:01
seeking a solution. If you felt a sharp pain in your
25:04
chest, you wouldn't say, well, I'm not dead yet so I won't go
25:07
to the doctor. You would seek immediate relief.
25:09
You shouldn't impose A stricter criteria on your neighbor then
25:12
you impose on yourself. So we've established it's hard
25:15
to give when we feel the person isn't desperate enough.
25:19
But what about when we feel we don't have enough?
25:21
This brings us to the 5th objection, and it is the most
25:24
universal one. I don't have enough to spare.
25:26
Everyone says this, The middle class person says it, the person
25:30
living paycheck to paycheck says it, and the millionaire says it.
25:33
I have my own expenses, I need to maintain my standard of
25:36
living. I simply don't have extra.
25:38
Edwards cuts right through our modern definition of enough.
25:42
He notes that if we define enough as having all our desires
25:46
met and maintaining our chosen level of comfort or societal
25:51
status without any financial stress.
25:53
Then no one will ever have enough to give.
25:56
Our desires will always expand to consume our income.
25:59
But Edwards points to the scriptural principle of bearing
26:02
one another's burdens. This is a heavy concept.
26:05
If your neighbor is carrying 100 LB weight and you are carrying a
26:08
20 LB weight, you are required to take some of their burden,
26:12
even if it makes your walk harder.
26:14
You are required to take on some of their deficit.
26:17
Edwards sites the Macedonian church from the New Testament
26:20
who gave out of deep poverty. They didn't give out of their
26:22
surplus, they gave out of their own necessity to relieve someone
26:26
whose necessity was even greater.
26:27
That requires a total re evaluation of what constitutes a
26:30
need versus a want. If we are completely honest,
26:34
much of what we claim is necessary for our survival is
26:37
actually just necessary for our comfort.
26:40
We convince ourselves that eating out twice a week, or
26:43
upgrading our phones or taking a certain vacation is a baseline
26:46
necessity. Edwards forces us to look at
26:49
those expenses and ask, are these comforts taking precedence
26:52
over my neighbor's basic survival?
26:54
But what if the scarcity isn't in your wallet?
26:57
What if the scarcity is in your patience, Your Grace?
27:00
What if the person needing help is someone who actively harmed
27:03
you? This is objection 6.
27:04
They are an I'll sort of person or they are my enemy.
27:07
They've treated me badly or they have a terrible attitude, so
27:10
they don't deserve my money. Here, Edwards leans heavily on
27:13
the parable of the Good Samaritan.
27:15
The Jews and the Samaritans had a deep historical and vicious
27:19
enmity. They were cultural and religious
27:21
enemies. The animosity was palpable.
27:23
Yet Christ uses a Samaritan to demonstrate what it means to be
27:27
a neighbor to a wounded Jew. Christ is explicitly teaching
27:31
that our enemies are our neighbors.
27:33
We are commanded to love one another as Christ loved us, and
27:37
as we established earlier, Christ laid out himself to
27:40
relieve us when we were his enemies.
27:42
We were hostile toward God, yet He provided the ultimate relief.
27:47
So when someone wrongs you and then they fall into poverty, the
27:50
gospel mandate is to help them, not to gloat or withhold aid out
27:54
of spite. That is a bitter pill for human
27:57
nature to swallow. Our instinct when an enemy falls
28:00
on hard times is to view it as cosmic justice.
28:03
We think they're getting what they deserve.
28:05
To step in and relieve their suffering requires an unnatural
28:08
level of grace. It requires you to operate on
28:10
the economy of the gospel rather than the economy of human
28:13
vengeance. Let's tackle the final block of
28:16
excuses. I call these the systemic
28:17
objections. These are the arguments we use
28:20
to push the responsibility onto someone else or blame the
28:23
structure of society. Objection 7.
28:26
It's their own fault they are poor.
28:28
They made bad investments. They were lazy.
28:30
They bought things they couldn't afford.
28:32
We love the bootstraps mentality.
28:34
If you just work hard, you won't be poor.
28:36
Therefore, if you are poor, you must not have worked hard.
28:40
Edwards has a remarkably nuanced approach to the issue of fault,
28:44
especially for an 18th century thinker.
28:47
He breaks it down into different categories.
28:49
First, he addresses a lack of business sense.
28:51
Some people simply do not have the intellectual faculty, the
28:55
foresight, or the administrative skill to manage money well.
28:59
Edwards says this is a calamity, much like being born blind or
29:02
losing a limb. If a person is physically blind,
29:04
you don't blame them for tripping over a Rock, You help
29:07
them up. So if a person lacks financial
29:10
acumen, why treat that deficit as an unpardonable crime?
29:14
That is a fascinating perspective.
29:16
We idolize financial savvy in our culture.
29:19
We treat wealth as a sign of moral superiority.
29:22
If someone doesn't have financial intelligence, we treat
29:25
it as a moral failure rather than a lack of a specific gift
29:29
or skill set. And Edwards goes further.
29:32
He says even if their poverty is due to a direct oversight, a
29:36
stupid mistake they made, we shouldn't hold it against them
29:39
forever. What's the analogy of our own
29:42
children? We forgive our children when
29:43
they make foolish mistakes and need to be bailed out.
29:46
We don't exile our teenagers when they crash the family car
29:49
due to carelessness. We pay the insurance deductible
29:52
and help them learn. Why do we hold a stranger to a
29:55
standard of absolute flawless profession before we will offer
29:59
them a dime? OK, I have to play devil's
30:01
advocate here. Let's hear it.
30:02
What if the poverty is due to actual vice?
30:05
What if the person is an addict, or they gamble away every
30:08
paycheck, or they just refuse to work?
30:10
Are we supposed to keep handing them cash to fund their
30:13
destruction? Edwards does not advocate for
30:15
funding vice. He argues that if the person
30:18
repents and turns from those vices, we are obligated by the
30:21
gospel to forgive them and help restore them.
30:23
But even if they continue in their destructive habits,
30:26
Edwards introduces a critical point.
30:29
Their innocent families still need help.
30:31
Yes, if a father is gambling away his paycheck, his kids
30:34
still need to eat. You cannot let the children
30:37
starve to punish the father. You might have to find creative
30:40
ways to ensure the aid gets to the family and isn't squandered
30:44
by the addict. Maybe buy the groceries directly
30:47
instead of handing over cash. But the obligation to help
30:50
remains intact. You cannot wash your hands of
30:52
the entire situation just because the root cause of the
30:56
poverty is messy and complicated.
30:58
This leads directly into Objective Section 8, which deals
31:01
with the power dynamics of giving.
31:03
The mentality is let them ask me first if they really need help,
31:06
they know where to find me. I'm not going to force my
31:08
charity on them. I have to say, this excuse
31:11
really bothers me on a visceral level.
31:13
It is incredibly cruel to force someone to beg.
31:16
Begging is humiliating. It destroys a person's dignity.
31:20
If you know someone is struggling and you make them
31:22
come to you hat in hand to ask for a loan or a handout, you are
31:26
exerting power over them. You are making them perform
31:28
their desperation and for your satisfaction.
31:31
It feeds A savior complex. It absolutely does.
31:35
You want them to acknowledge your superiority and their
31:37
dependents. Edwards points to Isaiah chapter
31:40
32 verse 8, which says the liberal person devises liberal
31:45
things. A truly generous person is
31:47
proactive. They do not wait passively for
31:50
the needy to show up at their door.
31:52
They investigate. They look for needs in their
31:54
community. They find ways to relieve the
31:57
suffering without putting the person through the pain of.
31:59
They act to preserve the dignity of the recipient.
32:02
Think about how you act with your close friends.
32:05
If you know your best friend just lost their job, you don't
32:08
wait for them to call you crying and begging for grocery money.
32:10
You show up with a casserole. You slip a gift card in their
32:13
mailbox anonymously. You devise a way to help that
32:16
saves them the embarrassment of asking.
32:19
Edwards is saying that proactive, dignified care
32:22
shouldn't be restricted only to our inner circle.
32:24
Which brings us to the final objections, numbers 10 and 11.
32:28
This is the ultimate passing of the buck the town should
32:31
provide. The government has welfare
32:33
programs or their own relatives should step up.
32:36
It's not my personal problem. This is perhaps the most
32:39
relevant systemic excuse for our modern era.
32:42
We pay taxes, we fund social safety Nets.
32:45
So why do I need to reach into my own pocket when the state has
32:48
a whole department dedicated to this?
32:50
Edwards acknowledges that relatives have a primary
32:53
obligation. And that society, through laws
32:56
and local government, should create safety Nets so the poor
32:59
are not left to the uncertain whims of voluntary charity.
33:02
He is not an anarchist. He agrees that a legal structure
33:05
for poor relief is necessary and good.
33:08
But, and this is a massive but, he argues that if those systems
33:12
fail, your obligation as an individual Christian actually
33:15
increases. Precisely if the family refuses
33:19
to help, or if the town's resources are inadequate, the
33:22
person is still standing in front of you in need.
33:24
The failure of the primary responsible party does not erase
33:27
your secondary obligation. Let's look at the Good Samaritan
33:30
again. The religious leaders, the
33:32
priest and the Levite who walked past the wounded man had a
33:35
systemic and religious obligation to help.
33:37
They failed. The robbers who caused the
33:39
damage were the ones primarily at fault.
33:42
The Samaritan stepped into a situation where the responsible
33:45
parties had completely failed and he assumed the burden
33:48
himself. So you cannot look at a
33:50
struggling single mother and say, well, her ex-husband should
33:53
be paying child support, so I'm not going to help her buy
33:56
groceries. If the ex-husband fails, the
33:59
need is still real. The state provision, the welfare
34:03
check, the food stamps, these do not erase the Christian mandate
34:08
for voluntary, proactive charity.
34:10
You don't get a pass on personal generosity just because you pay
34:13
income tax. In fact, the failure of the
34:16
system makes the situation more dire and therefore your
34:19
intervention more critical. Edwards writes that a man must
34:23
hide his mental eyes to think that the government programs in
34:26
his day were sufficient to eliminate all need.
34:29
And that is certainly true today.
34:31
The presence of state aid does not absolve the individual heart
34:34
from the duty of compassion. Bringing this all together, what
34:37
is the synthesis of Edward's massive argument?
34:39
The mandate for charity is not just a nice suggestion for those
34:43
who happen to feel philanthropic.
34:45
It is fundamentally tied to the character.
34:46
Of God. It is modeled by the sacrifice
34:48
of Christ, who gave everything for his enemies.
34:51
And it is driven by the sober reality of stewardship.
34:54
We are managing God's money, not our own.
34:57
We will be audited by the Master.
34:59
And that final audit will not just look at our balance sheets,
35:01
it will look at our reactions. Did we hide our eyes at the
35:05
stoplight? Did we devise liberal things to
35:08
preserve people's dignity? Did we use every available
35:11
theological, interpersonal and systemic excuse to justify
35:16
keeping the masters goods for our own private comfort?
35:19
We want to ask you, the listener, to evaluate your own
35:22
habits. When you see a need, what is the
35:25
very first thought that pops into your head?
35:27
Is it a genuine desire to relieve the burden, or is it a
35:30
rapid fire sequence of excuses? It's their own fault.
35:34
I don't have enough. They'll just waste it.
35:36
Edwards forces us to confront those internal monologues and
35:39
recognize them for what they often are, a grudging, covetous
35:42
spirit masquerading his financial prudence.
35:44
It forces a hard look at our household budgets.
35:47
How much of our income is devoted to ensuring our own
35:49
extreme comfort, our own entertainment, our own aesthetic
35:52
upgrades? While ignoring the basic
35:54
necessities of those within our immediate sphere of influence.
35:57
I want to leave you with a final concept that you want, a
36:00
provocative thought that builds on Edwards but takes it into our
36:04
current reality. Edwards condemned the people of
36:06
his day who hid their eyes from local poverty.
36:10
They looked away from the beggar in the town square.
36:12
They had to physically walk past someone to ignore them.
36:14
But today we live in a digital age.
36:17
Our smartphones and television screens expose us to the needs
36:20
of the entire globe. We see war refugees in real
36:23
time. We see famine victims in high
36:25
definition. We see online campaigns for
36:28
medical bills from strangers 3 states over.
36:30
The visibility of need is no longer restricted restricted by
36:33
geography. We cannot claim ignorance.
36:36
The entire world's suffering is curated and delivered to our
36:39
pockets every single hour. You scroll through social media
36:42
and you are bombarded with legitimate, devastating needs.
36:46
So here is the question. How does this total, relentless
36:50
visibility alter our obligation? If we apply Edwards rigorous
36:55
standard that we must relieve need whenever we see it, even to
36:58
the point of taking on the burden ourselves, how do we do
37:01
that without succumbing to complete psychological and
37:04
financial paralysis? We can't fund the entire globe.
37:08
We would be bankrupt in 5 minutes.
37:10
How do we take the force of Edwards argument and apply it to
37:13
an endless digital feed of suffering without just turning
37:17
off our phones and hiding our eyes completely out of sheer
37:20
self preservation it. Requires a massive amount of
37:23
wisdom, a clear understanding of our specific sphere of
37:26
stewardship, and a reliance on divine guidance to direct our
37:30
resources where they can actually relieve the burdens we
37:33
are called to bear. You cannot save the whole world,
37:35
but you can save the person God places in your path.
37:38
The challenge is ensuring you don't use the overwhelming
37:41
nature of global suffering as a brand new excuse to ignore the
37:46
person right next door. That is a staggering challenge.
37:49
But remember where we started? We like our financial ledgers
37:52
clean and binary. We want the receipts to match,
37:55
but. When the ultimate audit comes,
37:57
the master isn't going to check if your columns balance
38:00
perfectly for your retirement fund.
38:02
He's going to look at whether you hoarded the provisions in
38:04
your private quarters or whether you threw open the doors of the
38:07
storehouse and fed the household.
38:09
The Muddy Waters of personal accounting suddenly look a lot
38:12
clearer when you realize whose money you are actually spending.