The Robbery of Refusing to Receive

We are entering that time of year when we seem to think more about giving than usual. November brings an emphasis on giving thanks, and December brings the giving of gifts. A common verse related to giving that is often quoted, even by those who do not believe in Jesus, is part of Acts 20:35, where Paul quotes Jesus, saying, “It is more blessed to give than to receive.”  This verse is used to encourage the cultivating of a giving spirit, but the way we interpret these words often has the added effect of discouraging a receiving spirit. It’s as if we attach an addendum to the phrase, reading it as if it said, “It is more blessed to give than to receive, so be sure you’re giving and not receiving.” But is that really what the verse is saying?

First of all, we shouldn’t add anything to Scripture, so the fact that there is no addendum should be the first major clue that Jesus was not telling us to avoid receiving. But aside from that clue, we should look elsewhere in the Bible, because the best place to go for insight on how to interpret a passage of Scripture is another passage of Scripture.

One such passage where we can look to shed light on the giving/receiving idea is 2 Corinthians 8. Paul is telling the Corinthians about the generosity of the Macedonians and encouraging them to give in kind. In explaining the extent of the Macedonians’ generosity, Paul writes in verses 3 and 4, “For they gave according to their means, as I can testify, and beyond their means, of their own accord, begging us earnestly for the favor of taking part in the relief of the saints” (ESV).

These verses, like the ones in Acts are reinforcing the idea that giving is good. But notice how Paul describes the Macedonian view of giving. They wanted “the favor of taking part in the relief of the saints.” There were fellow brothers and sisters in Christ in need, and the Macedonians wanted to be part of the blessing of meeting those needs. They gave; others received; and all were blessed by it. But what if those in need had refused to receive what the Macedonians gave? Not only would they still have been in need, but the Macedonians would have been robbed of the blessing of giving.

Over and over again, I have seen this hypothetical scenario play out in reality—Christians are in need, but they refuse to receive help, sometimes even refusing to reveal their need in the first place. Perhaps this refusal comes as an effect of the Church’s focus on giving with the implied notion that receiving is bad. Perhaps it stems from deep-seated pride (heaven forbid we admit a weakness or acknowledge some deficiency on our part). Perhaps it is rooted in a misguided sense of self-sufficiency that is only encouraged by our individualistic, “American-dream,” pull-yourself-up-by-your-own-bootstraps cultural mentality (heaven forbid we meet something that we cannot fix or solve or provide for on our own). Perhaps it emerges from a well-intentioned desire not to be a burden to others.

Whatever the reason, it is all-too-often the case that we in the Church are hesitant to or even adamantly against making our needs known to our family in Christ, whether they be physical or spiritual. If pride and self-sufficiency are our reasons, then repentance is in order. And if the reason is the thought that receiving help is equivalent to being a burden, we should broaden our view.  What we fail to realize when we refuse to receive, whatever our reason, is that not only is our stubbornness and pride keeping us from having our needs met, but it is also robbing our brothers and sisters of the opportunity to be obedient to Christ by giving and of the blessing that comes with this generous obedience.

I am reminded of an inner-city ministry that I once was a part of, which was largely run by volunteers from the church every Saturday. The operation had many moving parts and required a good deal of organization. One day, someone approached the leader with an observation that there was a way to streamline the process, reducing the number of volunteers needed to successfully fulfill the ministry’s objective. The leader’s response has always stuck with me. To paraphrase, he said that, yes, this observer was probably right but that the purpose of this ministry was not merely to serve the inner-city community but also to provide church members with an opportunity to serve, to be in the inner-city and see the needs firsthand. Simplifying the process would make it more efficient, yes, but it would reduce the number of people who would experience giving to those in need.

Similarly, how often does our refusal to ask for or receive help keep others from fulfilling the ministry of giving? And, really, if we stop to think about it, how can those of us who are in Christ legitimately be proud enough to refuse aid, physical or spiritual, from obedient human hands? Have we not received the most humbling gift of all—unearned and undeserved salvation from God Himself? So whenever we are tempted to keep our needs to ourselves, let us put our pride to death, remember the cross of Jesus Christ, and reach out to our family of faith, the community that God has given us. In doing so, we will not only open the door for ourselves to receive, but we will also be giving the opportunity to give, thus blessing those who bless us.

On Gender, Truth, and Trust

It’s hard to think of a more polarizing issue in recent days than the appointment and confirmation of Justice Kavanaugh—and in our increasingly divided culture, that’s saying something. The events surrounding his confirmation and the accusations made against him have brought out some of the strongest feelings in people across the political spectrum. I have my own opinions on the specific matter of the accusations and subsequent decisions made in this instance, but the following post is not about that. Rather, I want to speak to some of the broader, deeper, more general issues that this whole debacle has brought to light, or at least that it should bring to light.

We’ve seen the calls, ranging from genuine pleading to shrill demanding, that victims of abuse be heard. As someone who has many dearly loved ones who have been abused in one way or another and to varying degrees, I agree that the abused most certainly should be heard. We must take care not to heap trauma upon trauma. In the past weeks, though, we have seen this call for the abused to be heard expanded to include the assertion that women should be heard—and believed—period. As a woman, I agree that women should be respected and heard. I also agree that they should be believed—if they are telling the truth.

The concerning problem with the trajectory we have seen of late is that the message seems to assert that women should be believed simply because they are women, and it equates women with victims (or, alternatively “survivors”) and vice versa. This assertion and equating of terms is problematic. First, it’s a problem for a very a practical reason: it’s simply not logically sustainable. Here’s why:

Victims are not always women, and perpetrators of abuse are not always men. Or, put another way, women are capable of abusing and manipulating others because we have the same inherited corruptness that men do. So whether we equate victimhood and womanhood or whether we rate womanhood over victimhood in the scheme of who should always be believed, we leave no room for two categories—male victims of female abuse and female victims of female abuse.

Some might think it’s absurd that I even bring up male victims of female abuse, since they certainly seem to be the minority. (I haven’t done any studies on statistics in this area.) But they do exist (see Genesis 39 for an ancient example), and they are no less worth caring for than female victims. In our cultural "war on patriarchy," must we therefore ignore, disbelieve, and disrespect men who have been ill-treated by women? Should we have no care for the trauma they have experienced?

But perhaps you’re not ready to go there yet. Perhaps you still have a bad taste in your mouth where men are concerned and believe that to recognize male victims of abuse is to take the focus off of women, spitting in the face of womankind and adding insult to injury. Even so, there is still a problem with saying women should always be believed. If women are to be believed without question, who do we believe in a she-said/she-said scenario?  (Check out 1 Kings 3:16-28 for a doosy of a case.)  If two women tell contradicting stories, they can’t both be right; to believe one woman is to disbelieve the other.  So the principle of always believing women is one that cannot be followed in the most basic, practical sense.

The second problem with asserting that women are to be believed simply because they are women is the corresponding implication that men are to be disbelieved/distrusted simply because they are men. Just as perpetrators of abuse are not always men, men are not always perpetrators of abuse. Yes, some men are abusers. But many are not. And just as we women would not want the actions of some women to be used to characterize all of us, we should not characterize all men by the actions of some.
 

Newsflash: men are no more inherently evil than women are, and women are not inherently good. All of us have the imprint of corruption on our souls. And any woman who does not recognize her own capacity to manipulate, lie, and abuse needs to take a good, long look in the soul-mirror. Our female forebears have given us a myriad of case studies for these vices: Sarah, Rebekah, Rachel, Potiphar’s wife, Delilah, Jezebel, just to name a few. These women’s lives should be cautionary tales to all of us, for we have the same seed of sinfulness buried deep within us, and unless we get a spiritual heart transplant from God himself, we are not free to conquer our depravity, and our default remains corruption. 

Having established that women are capable of lying and/or of misrepresenting the truth, we see another, philosophical problem with this idea of believing women solely because they are women: adhering to it requires that sometimes we believe things that are not true.  For postmodernists, this won’t be a problem, because when truth is relative, there can be no untruth. Thus, what is true for you doesn’t have to be true for me, and if two people tell contradicting stories, no one has a right to say that one is correct and the other is not. Explaining the unsustainability of a postmodern view of truth is a topic for another day, but for the sake of argument, let’s say that we’ve already had that discussion and established that truth is not relative.

If we accept that truth is not relative, then we can posit that only things that are true should be believed. This does not mean that only true things are believed, just that only true things should be believed. In other words, we should care that what we believe is actually true. Citing a person’s gender as the sole basis for believing them, with no concern for discerning the truth, is thus an assault on the very foundation of truth itself.

The challenge is that when it comes to people, sometimes it can be difficult to discern who is telling the truth or who is giving an accurate account.  Some things we will never know the truth about this side of eternity. But thankfully, there is Someone who has told us the truth about Himself and about ourselves, and He is completely trustworthy. He has told us that all of us—female and male—are both made in His image and afflicted with an inherited corruption from our first ancestors. This two-sided reality means that we should both respect every individual (because of his or her inherent dignity as God’s image-bearers) and accept that every individual is imperfect and thus cannot be blindly assumed to be trustworthy.

As imperfect humans, we are not unfailingly trustworthy. We will hurt each other, and we will let each other down. So we must earn each other’s trust, not demand it. And this must be done at an individual level—for men and women alike. Furthermore, as seekers of truth, we need to be discerning, using our minds to evaluate the veracity of someone’s statements. After all, if we believe that all are created equal, then all deserve to have their claims evaluated by the same standard, not prejudged one way or the other based on the claimant’s gender. Men and women are different, yes, but we are both human. Let’s not forget that.