Concepts change as the times change! In the four years I lived in West Africa, I met only one white haired man. It was traditional for men to dye "salt and pepper" hair to black. Thus, only if a man lived long enough to have completely white hair would any change in color be evident. Since the average life expectancy at that time in that area was only forty years, white haired men were rare!
This man's life span included an enormous transition. It went from seeing the first white man in his area to a full awareness of the men who visited the moon! As I considered all he was exposed to in his lifetime, I was astounded!
If that seems an incredible situation to you, use the area of benevolence to consider our social changes in the past one hundred years. There was the great depression triggered by events in l929, the war on poverty that began in 1964, and the years of prosperity and improving lifestyles in the past three or four decades.
Most of you have no personal memory of the great depression. Many of you have little or no memory of the beginning of the war on poverty. All of you have a personal awareness [created by personal experience] of prosperity and improving lifestyles. All the experiences of these transitions in our society radically affected the role and concept of benevolence in this nation.
With roots in the great depression experience, many adults of that era preferred to endure the harsh expressions of severe poverty rather than to accept "charity" from anyone. To persons of such convictions/perspectives, offers of benevolent help were considered personally demeaning. To many who were struggling under the inescapable chains of poverty, the "honorable" safety nets created by a determination to destroy poverty in America seemed wonderful. Many who benefited early from this effort had little or no concept of the future realities of entitlement programs. In all these events, receiving benevolence took major steps forward toward an improved image. The end result: it was not longer demeaning to receive benevolent help.
One result of the improved lifestyle and entitlement programs of past decades is the conviction by many who receive benevolence that they should receive the best. Today, there is little hesitation by many to benefit from benevolent thrusts. In fact, we now have some who have the heritage of a lifestyle based on more than a generation who benefit from benevolent programs.
In one century in this society we went from, "I can take care of myself, thank you! All I want is opportunity, a job, not a handout!" to "I will take anything you give me--as long as it is the best!" Our society went from insulting people by offering benevolence to insulting people by not offering quality in benevolence.
There is a radical difference in basic concepts toward benevolent acts in eastern societies and western societies. In eastern traditions, this basic view of benevolent acts is commonly accepted: "Those with significant disabilities should do something to aid their families in the quest for survival. For individuals in such circumstances, begging is an honorable activity. If all a person can do is beg, he/she should beg. Such people actually provide the healthy and blessed with an opportunity to honor God."
In societies influenced by eastern concepts, there was/is a strong bond between a benevolent act and honoring God.
Ancient Judaism is a good illustration of the concept. Read Leviticus 19:9, 10; 23:22; Deuteronomy 24:19-22; and Deuteronomy 15:1-18. Note these were commandments from God that honored the God of Israel's deliverance. Because they appreciated what God did for them in redeeming them from Egyptian slavery, they were to express their appreciation in their treatment /care of the poor.
In yielding to God's commands, it is easy to create check lists. "Do not harvest the field's corners? Check, did that. Do not harvest my field twice? Check, did that. Do not harvest my vineyard twice? Check, did that. Do not beat my olive tree branches twice [to dislodge ripe olives]? Check, did that. Do not pick up ripened fruit on the ground? Check, did that."
Note all the commands to Israel concerning their harvest and the poor among them were based on an attitude as well as an act. It is easy to focus on the act and forget the attitude. It is easy to conclude that the act makes the effort 100% acceptable to God if wrong attitudes or no attitudes exist. It is easy to conclude that caring for the poor is all God considers important-- regardless of the reason the poor receive care. However, (1) Israel was to care for her poor because her ancestors existed in slavery's poverty. (2) Israel was to care for her poor because she appreciated God's redemption when she could do nothing to release herself.
Jesus said motives were as important to God as were correct acts. Was one's objective in helping the poor (1) glorification of God or (2) calling attention to self? "When you help the poor, do not call attention to yourself by tooting your own horn! Know God sees and responds to secret acts! People do not have to see and praise you for God to see and appreciate you."
There is no conflict between Matthew 5:16 and 6:2-4. Matthew 5:16 seeks to glorify God. Matthew 6:2-4 seeks to glorify self. If the motive is to glorify self by receiving honor from people, there will be no additional blessing from God. You got what you wanted!
Today, Christians need personally to be as concerned about their "whys" as their "whats."
For Thought and Discussion
Link to Teacher's Guide
Lesson 3