Facebook and Privatized Giving

I recently launched the Facebook cause PIONEERS-USA as one of the first steps toward initiating unreached peoples advocacy groups for our organization. Facebook allows you to recruit your friends to join and give to the causes close to your heart and also posts how much you and your friends have given to these causes--creating a competition of sorts.

It sounds good, but it's caused me to think about the concept of the "right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing" (a la Matthew 6:3). Isn't it wrong to talk about what you're giving? Shouldn't your giving be privatized?

I say "No." Privatized giving is one of the banes of 21st-century evangelicalism. It has allowed wealthy Western Christians to keep and spend vast sums of God's money without a shred of guilt, simply because none of the brothers and sisters to whom they're supposed to be accountable have a clue how much their giving. Guys join accountability groups to combat porn addiction. Women join support groups for eating disorders. But when's the last time you heard someone ask a fellow Christian about whether they really needed a new 18-foot bass boat?

In Matthew 6, Jesus wasn't prohibiting public giving, he was condemning those who give for the purpose of impressing some, demeaning others and raising their status with God. As the author of Hebrews says, "And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds" (10:24).

I guess that's where Facebook comes in. Who'd a thought?

Facebook and Privatized Giving

I recently launched the Facebook cause PIONEERS-USA as one of the first steps toward initiating unreached peoples advocacy groups for our organization. Facebook allows you to recruit your friends to join and give to the causes close to your heart and also posts how much you and your friends have given to these causes--creating a competition of sorts.

It sounds good, but it's caused me to think about the concept of the "right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing" (a la Matthew 6:3). Isn't it wrong to talk about what you're giving? Shouldn't your giving be privatized?

I say "No." Privatized giving is one of the banes of 21st-century evangelicalism. It has allowed wealthy Western Christians to keep and spend vast sums of God's money without a shred of guilt, simply because none of the brothers and sisters to whom they're supposed to be accountable have a clue how much their giving. Guys join accountability groups to combat porn addiction. Women join support groups for eating disorders. But when's the last time you heard someone ask a fellow Christian about whether they really needed a new 18-foot bass boat?

In Matthew 6, Jesus wasn't prohibiting public giving, he was condemning those who give for the purpose of impressing some, demeaning others and raising their status with God. As the author of Hebrews says, "And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds" (10:24).

I guess that's where Facebook comes in. Who'd a thought?

An Internet Scam

I'm a typical guy--I can't resist an incredible deal. So, when I was surfing car ads on AutoTrader.com, I saw a 1999 Honda Accord with 80,000 miles for $2,800, I shot the seller an e-mail to set up a time to view the car. (Note: This is less than half of the Blue Book value for this vehicle.) Considering the age and the price paid, I figured acquiring this car would still allow me to maintain membership in the Junky Car Club.

Probably some little old lady who doesn't know how much the car is worth, I thought.

Sure, the e-mail response was in broken English. Sure, the seller was living in Europe, and the car was here in the U.S. Sure, the images they sent me of the car were 72 pixels high (exactly an inch). Sure, the seller kept putting off my requests to look at the car. But what a deal!

The plan, the seller explained, was this: I would pay a $1,500 deposit and the car would be delivered to my door. I would have 5 days to try out the car. If I liked it, I would pay the balance of the cost of the car. If not, I would get my $1,500 back. [Wouldn't it be cool if you could actually buy a car this way.]

I immediately recognized that this was a scam, but decided to go along for the ride and see if I could play with the tricksters a little bit myself. Perhaps, by wasting their time, I could prevent them from snookering someone else. So, I asked for some more photos and the VIN number, so that I could run a CarFax check while they prepared my "invoice."

The "invoice" came in the form of an e-mail from a Hotmail account instructing me to go to my nearest Western Union and wire $1,500 in cash to a gentleman in London. My payment would be guaranteed by SafePay Solutions.

My response? I expressed "concern" that the e-mail was generated by Hotmail and not SafePay and noted that SafePay does not accept cash payments for online transactions.

"However, I hope this is not a scam," I wrote cheerfully. "I really want this car!"

Unfortunately, they've not been in contact with me about delivering the car ... Oh, well.

An Internet Scam

I'm a typical guy--I can't resist an incredible deal. So, when I was surfing car ads on AutoTrader.com, I saw a 1999 Honda Accord with 80,000 miles for $2,800, I shot the seller an e-mail to set up a time to view the car. (Note: This is less than half of the Blue Book value for this vehicle.) Considering the age and the price paid, I figured acquiring this car would still allow me to maintain membership in the Junky Car Club.

Probably some little old lady who doesn't know how much the car is worth, I thought.

Sure, the e-mail response was in broken English. Sure, the seller was living in Europe, and the car was here in the U.S. Sure, the images they sent me of the car were 72 pixels high (exactly an inch). Sure, the seller kept putting off my requests to look at the car. But what a deal!

The plan, the seller explained, was this: I would pay a $1,500 deposit and the car would be delivered to my door. I would have 5 days to try out the car. If I liked it, I would pay the balance of the cost of the car. If not, I would get my $1,500 back. [Wouldn't it be cool if you could actually buy a car this way.]

I immediately recognized that this was a scam, but decided to go along for the ride and see if I could play with the tricksters a little bit myself. Perhaps, by wasting their time, I could prevent them from snookering someone else. So, I asked for some more photos and the VIN number, so that I could run a CarFax check while they prepared my "invoice."

The "invoice" came in the form of an e-mail from a Hotmail account instructing me to go to my nearest Western Union and wire $1,500 in cash to a gentleman in London. My payment would be guaranteed by SafePay Solutions.

My response? I expressed "concern" that the e-mail was generated by Hotmail and not SafePay and noted that SafePay does not accept cash payments for online transactions.

"However, I hope this is not a scam," I wrote cheerfully. "I really want this car!"

Unfortunately, they've not been in contact with me about delivering the car ... Oh, well.

A Consistent Ethic of Life

I want to have as much consistency in my ethic of life as possible.

That's why I thought it was a good idea in 2000 when Illinois placed a moratorium on its death penalty. DNA evidence was exposing grave instances of injustice in which men were being executed for crimes they didn't commit. If there is uncertainty as far as the guilt of an accused murderer, I take the side of life.

I'm sure presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama would agree with me.

I am equally disturbed with our nation's seeming nonchalance about the collateral civilian lives that have been lost in the conflict in Iraq. According to a March 15 issue of The Washington Post, 1640 civilians had already lost their lives in Iraq in 2008. Estimates of the civilian death toll in Iraq since the beginning of conflict are edging toward 90,000. While many of these were likely killed in Iraqi-initiated attacks, others are victims of errant missiles, friendly fire, mistaken identity, etc. This number doesn't include the civilian victims of the conflict in Afghanistan. These deaths are indirectly the result of our nation's response to the murder of 3,000 American civilians on September 11, 2001. Simply put, the numbers reveal an unspoken premise that American civilian lives are worth more than the civilian lives of Iraqis and Afghans. If there is uncertainty about the effectiveness of a military campaign that is destroying the lives of countless civilians, I take the side of life.

I'm sure presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama would agree with me.

I'm not sure when life begins. If it begins at conception, what happens to the many zygotes that are naturally aborted before implantation? When does a human being possess a soul? If it doesn't begin at conception, when does it begin? I do know however, that if there is uncertainty about when life begins, I take the side of life and its preservation.

Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama agree with me on this uncertainty, but in the case of abortion, it's apparently just not politically expedient for them to take the side of life. Pathetic.

A Consistent Ethic of Life

I want to have as much consistency in my ethic of life as possible.

That's why I thought it was a good idea in 2000 when Illinois placed a moratorium on its death penalty. DNA evidence was exposing grave instances of injustice in which men were being executed for crimes they didn't commit. If there is uncertainty as far as the guilt of an accused murderer, I take the side of life.

I'm sure presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama would agree with me.

I am equally disturbed with our nation's seeming nonchalance about the collateral civilian lives that have been lost in the conflict in Iraq. According to a March 15 issue of The Washington Post, 1640 civilians had already lost their lives in Iraq in 2008. Estimates of the civilian death toll in Iraq since the beginning of conflict are edging toward 90,000. While many of these were likely killed in Iraqi-initiated attacks, others are victims of errant missiles, friendly fire, mistaken identity, etc. This number doesn't include the civilian victims of the conflict in Afghanistan. These deaths are indirectly the result of our nation's response to the murder of 3,000 American civilians on September 11, 2001. Simply put, the numbers reveal an unspoken premise that American civilian lives are worth more than the civilian lives of Iraqis and Afghans. If there is uncertainty about the effectiveness of a military campaign that is destroying the lives of countless civilians, I take the side of life.

I'm sure presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama would agree with me.

I'm not sure when life begins. If it begins at conception, what happens to the many zygotes that are naturally aborted before implantation? When does a human being possess a soul? If it doesn't begin at conception, when does it begin? I do know however, that if there is uncertainty about when life begins, I take the side of life and its preservation.

Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama agree with me on this uncertainty, but in the case of abortion, it's apparently just not politically expedient for them to take the side of life. Pathetic.

Resurrection for Dummies ... Like Me

Imagine living in Old Testament times. Imagine your mortal vulnerability to the mosquito, the amoeba, the lion, childbirth, appendicitis, leprosy, etc. For the ancient, death stalked everyone and made far fewer allowances for wealth, geography, race, age or gender than it does now. Imagine facing the death of a child, mother, father, spouse or friend while living in the Old Testament times. What comfort would you have? What scriptures would you lean on?

The Pentateuch? Sorry, you’re on your own. The patriarchs spoke of being "gathered to their fathers," but that could easily have referred to joining them in the grave. Similarily, in the Historical Books, David expects to join his dead son, but what type of life does he expect?

The first clear vision of a New Testament conception of the resurrection comes from a homeless guy scraping his boils with a discarded piece of pottery and contemplating the death of his children and the abandonment of his wife:

"I know that my Redeemer lives, and that in the end he will stand upon the earth. And after my skin has been destroyed, yet in my flesh I will see God." – Job 19:25,26

But how was this read by early Jews? The poetic rantings of a man half-mad with grief? Why don’t we hear more of this kind of talk in the Old Testament?

Then, Jesus busts on the scene. He raises a widow’s son, Jairus’ daughter and even Lazarus after three days in the tomb. But a Jew could easily have pointed backward to Elijah and said, “He's just another prophet with special powers. How pitiful that all this guy is doing is giving people who are all going to die a few extra years. Isn’t this guy just postponing the inevitable?"

But with Lazarus, Jesus offered the resurrection to everyone—not just those who were fortunate enough to die while he was walking the earth, those whose friends were persistent enough to drag him to their graves. It seems that people in Jesus’ time were just as clueless about the hereafter as people nowadays are—they had superstitions about ghosts (see their surprise at Jesus walking on the water and Peter’s return from prison, etc.)

“I am the resurrection and the life," he said. "He that believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live.”

They must have known he wasn't talking about what happened to Lazarus. Jesus likely attended many funerals in the course of his ministry--without raising any of them from the dead.

So, the best way that Jesus could debunk their misunderstandings was to show them:

Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15, calls Jesus the “firstfruits” of the resurrection—the model upon which our own resurrection is based.

"But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ's at His coming, then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be abolished is death." - 1 Corinthians 15:20-26

Jesus possesses a body more real than ours, more fit for eternal realities—able to enjoy the stuff of earth (e.g. eating fish) yet not limited by its substance (e.g. walking through walls.) Our current bodies could not begin to handle the rarified air of heaven on earth. I would imagine we'd be like the weird oil fish of Lake Baykal in Siberia. Accustomed to the crushing depths of the mile-deep lake, when they are caught, exposed to air and placed in a boat, they melt into a pile of oil and bones.

Perhaps it was only when they saw the resurrected Jesus that the full meaning of the echoes of Old Testament promises made sense. He wasn’t just talking about raising people from the dead so that they could die again, or even freeing their spirits to roam the earth, haunting their enemies. He was talking about reconstituting their physical atoms, molecules, fibers and bones into a new reality--the stuff of heaven.

How does this effect our lives today?

In the early church, the resurrection was a lynchpin of evangelism. In other words, since the church couldn’t honestly make the promise that peoples’ lives would improve by becoming believers, they emphasized the reality of the resurrection. One could argue that the resurrection was the engine behind the almost reckless witness of people like Ignatius, first century bishop of Antioch:

I write to the Churches, and impress on them all, that I shall willingly die for God, unless ye hinder me. I beseech of you not to show an unseasonable good-will towards me. Suffer me to become food for the wild beasts, through whose instrumentality it will be granted me to attain to God. I am the wheat of God, and let me be ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of Christ. Rather entice the wild beasts, that they may become my tomb, and may leave nothing of my body; so that when I have fallen asleep [in death], I may be no trouble to any one. Then shall I truly be a disciple of Christ, when the world shall not see so much as my body….

- from my devotional @ Pioneers, Tuesday, April 15

Resurrection for Dummies ... Like Me

Imagine living in Old Testament times. Imagine your mortal vulnerability to the mosquito, the amoeba, the lion, childbirth, appendicitis, leprosy, etc. For the ancient, death stalked everyone and made far fewer allowances for wealth, geography, race, age or gender than it does now. Imagine facing the death of a child, mother, father, spouse or friend while living in the Old Testament times. What comfort would you have? What scriptures would you lean on?

The Pentateuch? Sorry, you’re on your own. The patriarchs spoke of being "gathered to their fathers," but that could easily have referred to joining them in the grave. Similarily, in the Historical Books, David expects to join his dead son, but what type of life does he expect?

The first clear vision of a New Testament conception of the resurrection comes from a homeless guy scraping his boils with a discarded piece of pottery and contemplating the death of his children and the abandonment of his wife:

"I know that my Redeemer lives, and that in the end he will stand upon the earth. And after my skin has been destroyed, yet in my flesh I will see God." – Job 19:25,26

But how was this read by early Jews? The poetic rantings of a man half-mad with grief? Why don’t we hear more of this kind of talk in the Old Testament?

Then, Jesus busts on the scene. He raises a widow’s son, Jairus’ daughter and even Lazarus after three days in the tomb. But a Jew could easily have pointed backward to Elijah and said, “He's just another prophet with special powers. How pitiful that all this guy is doing is giving people who are all going to die a few extra years. Isn’t this guy just postponing the inevitable?"

But with Lazarus, Jesus offered the resurrection to everyone—not just those who were fortunate enough to die while he was walking the earth, those whose friends were persistent enough to drag him to their graves. It seems that people in Jesus’ time were just as clueless about the hereafter as people nowadays are—they had superstitions about ghosts (see their surprise at Jesus walking on the water and Peter’s return from prison, etc.)

“I am the resurrection and the life," he said. "He that believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live.”

They must have known he wasn't talking about what happened to Lazarus. Jesus likely attended many funerals in the course of his ministry--without raising any of them from the dead.

So, the best way that Jesus could debunk their misunderstandings was to show them:

Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15, calls Jesus the “firstfruits” of the resurrection—the model upon which our own resurrection is based.

"But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ's at His coming, then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be abolished is death." - 1 Corinthians 15:20-26

Jesus possesses a body more real than ours, more fit for eternal realities—able to enjoy the stuff of earth (e.g. eating fish) yet not limited by its substance (e.g. walking through walls.) Our current bodies could not begin to handle the rarified air of heaven on earth. I would imagine we'd be like the weird oil fish of Lake Baykal in Siberia. Accustomed to the crushing depths of the mile-deep lake, when they are caught, exposed to air and placed in a boat, they melt into a pile of oil and bones.

Perhaps it was only when they saw the resurrected Jesus that the full meaning of the echoes of Old Testament promises made sense. He wasn’t just talking about raising people from the dead so that they could die again, or even freeing their spirits to roam the earth, haunting their enemies. He was talking about reconstituting their physical atoms, molecules, fibers and bones into a new reality--the stuff of heaven.

How does this effect our lives today?

In the early church, the resurrection was a lynchpin of evangelism. In other words, since the church couldn’t honestly make the promise that peoples’ lives would improve by becoming believers, they emphasized the reality of the resurrection. One could argue that the resurrection was the engine behind the almost reckless witness of people like Ignatius, first century bishop of Antioch:

I write to the Churches, and impress on them all, that I shall willingly die for God, unless ye hinder me. I beseech of you not to show an unseasonable good-will towards me. Suffer me to become food for the wild beasts, through whose instrumentality it will be granted me to attain to God. I am the wheat of God, and let me be ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of Christ. Rather entice the wild beasts, that they may become my tomb, and may leave nothing of my body; so that when I have fallen asleep [in death], I may be no trouble to any one. Then shall I truly be a disciple of Christ, when the world shall not see so much as my body….

- from my devotional @ Pioneers, Tuesday, April 15