That's Why I Blog in the First Place...

I remember when I was a kid, the common phrase used--I think mostly by my grandma--when we left the front door open was, "What are you trying to do, heat up the outside?" Although perhaps scientifically incorrect, it was sufficient motivation to shut the door. That and the wooden spoon with which to whip our butts if we failed to heed her instruction.

That said, it was like everyone left their doors open today--nice and warm; almost tropical, I'd say. In fact, I was walking home from school this afternoon, and I almost took my jacket off. Almost. It's still windy. But the warmth today melted most of the snow on the ground, which leaves a pretty pathetic little base behind. It's sort of an in-between stage, as though nature had started a big snowfall and then changed its mind.

What remains is the thick layer of ice that was hiding underneath the snow. You don't expect it, which makes it worse. A couple days ago, when we were walking the streets with Tanya and Mark, I think all of us slipped on one patch of sidewalk, which was amusing in and of itself. It's insidious, that ice. Hopefully the warm weather will keep up and we'll have a fresh canvas for winter to paint her amazing artistry on again in a week.

Eventful day today. Had a visit from Steph's cousin and great-aunt (I think, at least) and her cousin's young son, who I guess would be her second cousin, although I've never been sure of the nature of that foggy relationship. Anyway, the point is that the little boy, Gabe, is almost exactly one month older than Theo, which meant that copious playtime was had by both. It was actually really funny because the first thing Gabe did when he met Theo was poke him in the eye.

Just to take a little side-track here, wouldn't it be fun if we could still do that? "Right, let's see what you're made of, chap," followed by a quick poke. If the person didn't recoil in horror, we'd know a lasting friendship could be had, albeit one based on various proddings to various body parts at random times. But like Inspector Clouseau said, it keeps you sharp.

Anyway, much cuteness was observed in Three Hills this afternoon. Theo, for his part, kept his peace about being poked in the eye. It was actually really cute because you could tell he just wanted to hit Gabe right in the face, but he didn't. He even raised his hand to hit, but stopped. What a good boy. Clearly, he has my pacifist streak. Good thing he's an MB.

Stay tuned to Theo's blog next week for some video chronicling the meeting of the two babies. It'll be compelling TV. Especially since you can't see a new episode of Lost until February.

The main thing that I wanted to get to was to give a brief follow-up on what I said this morning about the shoeboxes. I think that in my haste to blog, and with my lack of proofreading, what should have come across as philosophical simply ended up sounding pretty uncharitable and selfish. I want to explain where I was coming from, and this time I've done a bit more research.

First off, my response was sparked by Lydia's comment (see last blog posting for Lydia's blog links), which I'll paste below because it gives a good starting point. And by the way, thanks, Lydia, for the interaction. That gives me great joy as a blogger because (a) I know someone's taking the time to read and respond, and (b) I like the exchange of information. I feel that in college especially, I'm expected to fall into a certain design for a "student" that is a note-taker , lecture-absorber, and test-writer. Unfortunately, I don't learn well that way, and I crave the interaction. Which is probably why my response will be so long. Anyway, here's her comment, along with my (rather long) response...

***

Hi Mark,

Interesting post. I am glad you're doing shoeboxes because it makes you feel good. However, what about when doing these kinds of things doesn't make you feel good? Don't you think we should just do it anyways, because as followers of Jesus the poor should be pretty high on our priority list?

***

I guess what I was getting at was the difference in motivation. I think we do too much "grin and bear it" stuff as Christians simply because we think we're doing the right thing. We give money or time to causes that are no doubt worthy, but we do it not because we want to, but because we’re bound out of a sense of obligation, thinking that we should do it.

When faced with an immediate need, we tend to ask ourselves “What would Jesus do?” and then go and do it, with that being our sole motivation, and yet we fail to understand the motive behind it. When our motivation comes extrinsically or is rooted in guilt, it indicates a deeper problem with our faith, one that has to be looked at before we can even worry about things like shoeboxes or giving money to the poor. Yes, Jesus did say that when we help the poor and the needy, it’s the same as helping Him (Matt. 25:34-46, especially 40, 45), and we’re also told to visit orphans and widows (the downtrodden in society in today’s interpretation) (Jas. 1:27). Surely the commands are good motivation in themselves, but being told you should do something has never held much motivational value for us. My question is why these things are important in and of themselves—what motivates us intrinsically to do them? How do we move from should to want?

That’s where my opinion about insincere giving comes from. If by the act of giving we’re actually giving to God, that means we’re offering of ourselves to Him, not to the needy people we’re actually helping in the immediate sense. And this means that we have to give our best. God told Hosea, “I delight in loyalty rather than sacrifice, and in the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings” (Hos. 6:6). God loves what we offer, but He wants us to offer it with a sincere heart out of a desire and knowledge that we’re giving to Him, because, to use a verse
that’s become clichéd, “God loves a cheerful giver” (2 Cor. 9:7).

One more passage, if I can be so bold, really makes me think in this area. Jesus said in Matthew 7:21-23, “Not everyone who says to me ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.” I think there’s some application in this verse as well, in that if we do something in Jesus’ name, and yet fail to appreciate the will of the Father, it’s probably better for us not to do it at all. God wants us to give to the needy, and yet if we do it out of obligation or guilt, we’re not appreciating His will in that situation.

This isn’t to say that we should all just stop doing charitable things until we’re perfect. That would be like making perfection a prerequisite for church membership, in which case there’d be nobody in church. All I’m saying is that we need to check our motives and look at what’s behind the giving. If it comes from a sincere heart, one that gladly gives out of pure motives, without guilt or obligation, then we’re on the right track. The solution for not having that motivation isn’t to stop giving; rather, it’s to check that motivation, make it right, and proceed. If we do that, then I think we’re on the right track.

Whew; I'm spent. Sorry for the long response, but that's my entire logic and argument behind why I said what I said this morning. Thanks again, Lydia, for the challenge--you made me have to think through my position, and I hope my response has been adequate (it's amazing how sometimes length has nothing to do with adequacy). Anyone else feel like weighing in? On anything? This is a good forum to do so; you can even be anonymous if you'd like. Whatever. I just really like the conversation, even if it is pretty one-sided.

Thanks again for stopping by, and I'll see you tomorrow.