(Psalm 112; Luke 14:1, 7–14)
Years ago I was a graduate student in religious studies at McMaster University. One of the required seminars was on method and theory in the study of religion. Every week the professor assigned a reading from philosophy, theology, sociology, or the like. One week he handed out a reading that was only five pages. One of my colleagues commented that this was very short. The prof looked at him for a second or two, and then said: “This is cognac, not beer; you can’t swill it.”
I remembered that incident when I heard what our summer theme would be. I don’t know why … Is there a relationship? Bible – newspapers | cognac – beer? I don’t mean to sound like a snob; I’m a beer drinker myself, I know nothing about cognac. But one of the hints or I want to leave with us today is that there is a difference between the Bible and newspapers, and that it might be similar to the difference between fine cognac and cheap beer; or between Beethoven and pop music, between fast food and a fine meal, and so on. Most of us have developed tastes in at least one of these. If you are able to appreciate the distinction between a really good wine and a decent wine, or between a great performance of music and a competent performance, you might find that this distinction helps you be more patient in your slow growth to understanding the Bible. You will know that it can take years to develop taste, to learn to appreciate the distinction between the good and the truly excellent. There are probably the same number of words in the Bible as in the Saturday or Sunday Star, but one can be read in a few hours, or in a morning, whereas the other, the Bible, can still seem new, or strange, or puzzling after decades of study and contemplation. Again, I want to be careful: all of us should read the Bible, and keep reading the Bible even if we find it strange or difficult. All of us can enjoy a good meal; fewer of us are able to describe precisely why it tastes so much better than fast food. If you’re content to enjoy any kind of food, or cheap beer as well as fine wine, or any kind of music, there’s nothing wrong with that.
Also, I don’t mean to suggest that newspapers and other media are not important. Good critical reporting and reflection are vital to democratic culture. Information really is one form of power and it’s vital that governments and other corporations not be allowed to keep more secrets than necessary. This isn’t my holy headline for the day, but one fascinating story I read this past week – on a blog – was about China. Shortly after Wikileaks had made US Iraq documents public, the Chinese Communist Party held a conference on strategies for protecting archives. The media wasn’t allowed into the conference, of course, but there were some unofficial reports. The Chinese Communist Party is very afraid that there will be a Wikileak from their archive – not just one or two documents, but that tens of thousands will be leaked. They are instigating measures, said the official release, to prevent the vandalism of archives. I’m sure some brave journalists in China are working to get access to those archives.
My ‘holy headline’ today is from the July 24 issue of the Globe and Mail. The headline was ‘China’s top philanthropist shows super-rich how it’s done: He gives it all away.’ The sub-headline gave an added twist to the story: ‘Eccentric developer from humble roots shocks nation by leaving offspring nothing.’
I was intrigued by the story for several reasons. First, because it revealed some of the cultural differences between Chinese values and Western values, or, at least, my version of Western values. The headline caught my eye because the man, Yu Pengnian, had given everything away. If he had given away only a portion of his wealth, it wouldn’t be as newsworthy. He gave away about 900 million US dollars; others, including some other Chinese philanthropists, have given away much more. It is giving everything away that is unusual. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet give away a lot of money, but as a percentage of their wealth, it’s not so much. But the average Chinese, it seems, saw something different. The Chinese were shocked that Yu Pengnian had left nothing to his children. To give everything away is to neglect one’s obligation to one’s children. This difference in values struck me, so I read the story, wanting to know what had motivated the man to do this, something counter to the expectations of his culture. Yu Pengnian had seemed to follow Jesus’ command that his disciples give up everything to follow him; I wondered whether he had been influenced by any religious teaching, Christian or otherwise. But there was no mention of religion or spirituality in the story. The man’s motivations are simply human: he was born very poor and wants to help others who are poor. For example, one of the things he does is to go back to his home village in rural China every year to hand out envelopes filled with cash to all of the seniors in the village, whose children are often working in the city but haven’t been as successful as he has been. Yu Pengnian expects his children and grandchildren to work for their own success.
My second and third ‘headlines’ are regular Saturday features in the Globe and Mail, in the business section. One is called ‘Giving Back,’ and tells the story of a donor or philanthropist, usually someone – or a family or group – who has given a significant gift for a particular purpose. The second is ‘Financial Facelift’: every week an individual or couple asks for advice on how to achieve long-term goals. The story lists the person’s income, assets, liabilities, and monthly expenses. Most of these are people with middle-class incomes, although there was an eye-popping example last year of a couple that had a combined income of more than $100,000 per month and were having trouble paying the bills. It’s interesting to see what people do with their money, and especially how few people give regular monthly donations. In yesterday’s paper, a couple, with one child, and a net monthly income of $5,700, gave $50 per month in donations; several weeks ago a couple, both teachers, no children, with a combined net income of $10,500, also donated $50 per month. I haven’t kept track, but I suspect that only a minority of people whose stories were told in the past year gave regular monthly donations. Government statistics have shown for years that only a minority of Canadians claim charitable donations on their tax returns. I knew that, but when I read the individual stories of people with good incomes, and lots of discretionary income, I wonder why they don’t give a little more. I wonder too why more of them don’t lie, and claim that they are giving more than they are. There’s clearly no social status to be gained by giving regularly.
I want to turn to the scripture texts read earlier, but first, perhaps I could offer a few observations on these three holy
headlines. First, all of these stories highlight one-time giving. Giving is something we do on a special occasion, it’s more like Christmas than a regular discipline. This contrasts strongly with the emphasis on saving some money every week or every month. There is strong overt and subtle pressure in the financial facelifts to save more and invest more. A second message of these stories seems to me to be that philanthropy is something that rich people do. It’s not clear what counts as ‘rich,’ but the stories in the section ‘Giving Back’ are rarely about gifts of less than $1 million. Third, the donation or major gift often establishes something that can preserve the name of the donor. In yesterday’s Globe, the story was about a couple that gave a gift to establish a lectureship at McGill University, in human rights. The lectureship is named after themselves. Yu Pengnian gave all his money, almost one billion US dollars, to a foundation named the Yu Pengnian Foundation. Yu Pengnian runs the foundation, and at it appears to pay him a good honorarium, since he still lives in a hotel he used to own, now owned by the foundation, travels business class, and has an American credit card. I don’t want to imply that it’s bad that donors preserve their names in this way. In time that wears off – there are Carnegie libraries in Toronto, for example: how many of us know anything about Andrew Carnegie? In fewer cases, at least among the stories told in the Globe and Mail, donors will give in honour of someone else. I don’t mean these to sound like criticisms, I simply would like us to keep them in mind as our world, our value system, as we turn now to the Bible. I think you’ll notice some interesting similarities.
We heard two of our lectionary texts this morning. I will concentrate on Psalm 112. My ‘holy headlines’ are about giving, more specifically, about giving financially. Neither of these texts is one of the classic ‘giving’ texts in the Bible. There is nothing about tithing in either text, not explicitly, at least. These texts are not examples of giving everything, as in the story of the widow who put two copper coins – pennies – into the temple offering. In that story, in Luke 21:4, Jesus says about this widow that ‘the others have contributed out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty has put in all she had to live on.’ This is an aside, but I suspect that in the background of this story there is an inner-Jewish dispute about tithing, and that Jesus is challenging the rigid interpretation and application of the commandments on tithing. But that’s for some other time.
Psalm 112 opens with ‘Hallelujah’ – it is a psalm of praise to God. But there is very little in it that sounds like praise – so far as I know, this psalm hasn’t been set to music as a contemporary chorus. Perhaps it should be. It describes the kind of person one should be if one pretends to praise God. It describes the consequences, or rewards of being this kind of person: your descendants will be mighty in the land, you will have wealth and riches, you will be remembered forever. The practice of reciting this psalm regularly would have a psychological effect, to motivate people to become more like this. At TUMC, we recite a communal response when people join the church, or when parents of new children come to dedicate themselves and their children. We the congregation make commitments in response, and the act of reciting those commitments out loud does, I think, make it a little more likely that we will keep those commitments. In the same way, those who recited this psalm regularly in worship might slowly have become more like the persons praised in it.
In the NRSV, the modern translators or editors have given this psalm the title ‘Blessings of the Righteous.’ I don’t think that’s wrong, but I think the word ‘righteous’ distorts what the psalm is about. The psalm promises that those who greatly delight in God’s commandments will be happy. Older translations have ‘blessed’ instead of ‘happy.’ I will leave you to ponder the difference between ‘happy’ and ‘blessed,’ and how keeping commandments or laws can lead to happiness. It’s not mysterious, I think; the slogan ‘drive safe, arrive alive,’ is one simple example of the attitude that is expressed here. I want us to note carefully that the psalm does not say that those who keep God’s commandments are righteous. No, they will be happy. This is not about our legal status before God. There is a Hebrew family of words commonly translated as ‘righteous’ or ‘just,’ with variations like ‘justice,’ ‘righteousness,’ etc. You may have heard these Hebrew words before: ‘tsedek,’ ‘tsadik,’ ‘tsedakah.’ They appear four times in the psalm, and in the NRSV are translated as ‘righteous,’ or ‘just.’ It is instructive to look at a recent Jewish translation of this psalm (despite its gendered language): ‘Hallelujah, happy is the man who fears the Lord, who is ardently devoted to his commandments. His descendents will be mighty in the land, a blessed generation of upright men. Wealth and riches are in his house, and his beneficence lasts forever. He shines as a light for the upright in the darkness; he is gracious, compassionate, and beneficent. All goes well with the man who lends generously, who conducts his affairs with equity. He will never be shaken; the beneficent man will be remembered forever. He is not afraid of evil tidings; his heart is firm, he trusts in the Lord. His heart is resolute, he is unafraid; in the end he will see the fall of his foes. He gives freely to the poor; his beneficence lasts forever; his horn is exalted in honor. The wicked man will see it and be vexed; he will gnash his teeth; his courage will fail. The desire of the wicked man will come to nothing.’
You have heard the word ‘beneficent’ or ‘beneficence’ four times. It’s not a word in common use today. I suspect the committee that did this translation argued long and hard whether this was the best word to use here, but they clearly wanted to use a word that did not have the legal or moral implications that ‘righteous’ has. Tsedaqah is the contemporary Hebrew word for justice, but it is also the word for charity or an act of charity. In other words, it can be used to name what we call ‘giving a donation.’ It has had this meaning since the time of the Mishna at least (the time of Jesus or shortly thereafter). The translators of this new Jewish version believe that this connotation of the word is present already in the Old Testament. ‘Beneficence’ is a decent translation; it means, simply, ‘doing something good,’ ‘a good deed,’ but also has connotations of giving – giving money or giving other things. I think it makes much better sense of the psalm.
Look again at verse 3, for example: ‘Wealth and riches are in his house, and his beneficence lasts forever.’ Remember that these are words in a song of praise to God, and that the words are intended to have a psychological effect on those who recite or sing the psalm. What might someone who recites this psalm conclude? First, he (or she, but in the ancient world it was mostly ‘he’) he might see a logical connection: if wealth and riches are in my house, then my beneficence should go on, and on, and on. There is an obligation, in other words. He might also conclude that or realize that there is a promise here. If he takes for granted that someone who has wealth and riches is expected to
give or share, then he might see here the promise that the consequences or effects of his giving will last forever – a long time, at least. Giving has rewards: you get your name in big letters above the entrance of a hospital, and everyone who goes there for medical care will be grateful to you for funding the hospital. The positive effects of your beneficence will last forever. Verse 9 is similar to verse 3: ‘he gives freely to the poor; his beneficence lasts forever.’ Again, I think, both of the meanings I mentioned earlier are present here. Someone who is ardently devoted to God’s commandments will give freely to the poor; he will give forever, that is, he will give regularly, faithfully. As well, there is the second meaning: there are long-term consequences of giving, as Jesus puts it in Luke, ‘the poor will bless you.’ It’s nicer to have people bless you and not curse you, especially if your culture believes that blessings and curses have real power. There are other consequences of giving. To use contemporary language, people who have more resources are not sick as often, their children learn better in school, they are less likely to turn to crime. There are a lot of positive social outcomes; this is not something discovered only in the last hundred years. I think that the psalmist had this meaning in mind also in the words ‘his beneficence lasts forever.’
In verse 4, the psalm appeals to another psychological fact that motivates giving: to be an example to others: ‘He shines as a light to the upright in the darkness; he is gracious, compassionate, and beneficent.’ Yu Pengnian is quoted in the Globe story as saying that he hopes his example will encourage others to give. An important part of being a light or example to others is consistency of giving; this is mentioned in verse 6: ‘he shall never be shaken; the beneficent man will be remembered for ever.’
This psalm, then, is the ancient Hebrew equivalent of a donor appeal. It appeals to a prosperous person’s sense of social responsibility, to his desire for recognition and to be remembered after his death, it appeals to the desire to be a leader and an example to others. It does so in a religious context, but it’s important to remember that there was no distinction between religion and public life as there is today. I think it can still motivate us today.
I want to acknowledge some of the challenges with the kind of giving described and encouraged in this psalm. First, the psalmist takes for granted that there are distinctions between people: some have more resources, and should give to others who don’t have the same resources. We should remember that ancient Hebrew society had practices for dealing with these distinctions. The kind of giving that the wealthy man is encouraged to do in this psalm is on top of the tithes he is commanded to pay. There was also the year of jubilee, which leveled some of these differences or distinctions in resources. But the distinctions remained, as they do in our society despite many efforts to create a more equal and equitable society. Some still become wealthy, and others, for many complex reasons, are unable to. Second, we know, and people have always known this, I think, that receiving a gift creates obligations. A theologian wrote a paper a few years ago, with the provocative title, ‘Can a gift be given?’ Well, that depends on what you mean by ‘gift’. At Christmas, we give gifts, but we also receive gifts. If you give someone a gift, and that person doesn’t give you a gift, how do you feel? If you don’t notice, then it was a ‘real’ gift. If you’re annoyed, then the gift you gave wasn’t really a gift. Jesus is intimately familiar with this problem, because mutual gift-giving and mutual hospitality were fundamental to the Greco-Roman society surrounding Judea. There are customary practices, Jesus says in our lectionary text from Luke. One common ancient practice is to invite everyone from the village and treat them all to a feast. This showed that you were a generous person and deserved the respect of all. Ed Mirvish used to hand out free turkeys on Thanksgiving. That’s a bit similar to the situation in Luke, but it no longer has the same social importance that it did in the ancient world. The second motivation is, I think, still with us today. We invite others like us, who will be able to invite us in return. This too is much weaker than it used to be, and there are allowances for certain classes of people: students for example. At least, I hope it’s weaker than it used to be, since we’ve received a lot of hospitality from many of you that we haven’t paid back! Jesus, in Luke 14:7–11, is making a point about the situation as it actually exists. In Luke 14:12–14, Jesus tells his host to start giving dinners and inviting those who can’t repay. ‘You will be blessed,’ he tells his host, in language that recalls Psalm 112. The host will have his reward in the resurrection of the righteous, not now. Does that create other kinds of obligation?
These issues are still very much with us. I lived with them in a small way for twelve years. In 1997, Evan recruited me to work on a pilot project that MCC was doing with the support of Correctional Services Canada: the Reintegration Project, or Circles of Support and Accountability. Some of you are familiar with it. I don’t know what Evan was thinking – I’m not a social worker at all, and have no pastoral skills or interest in acquiring any. There I was, trying to help men coming out of prison to reintegrate into society. One of the first men I met was John. He looked like a biker, a Hell’s Angel. He had beard, long hair – on the sides, he was bald on top – a big gut, and was covered in tattoos. He was 35 years old and had been in prison for twelve years. I lasted only one year with MCC, but John and I remained friends. For twelve years, we talked regularly on the phone, and went out for lunch about once a month or so. John had health issues and was on a medical pension for most of that time. Since he smoked, and wasn’t very good at financial planning, he was chronically short of money. So I was the one who usually paid for lunch. About every six months, however, he would announce that it was payback time, that it was his turn to pay for lunch. Sometimes he announced after we had ordered, so I wasn’t able to order something cheaper to save him some money. Sometimes he would pay after I had given him a loan. It took me some time to get used to that: John would ask me for a loan, and then use the money to pay for lunch. Psalm 112:5 promises that ‘all goes well with the man who lends generously’; Jesus qualifies this, in Luke 6: 35: ‘lend generously, expecting nothing in return.’ I know what Jesus meant. It was a hard lesson to learn, but I now know existentially what Jesus meant, and perhaps even why Jesus said what he said. John died suddenly of a heart attack, a year ago next week Tuesday, but I continue to learn from the memory of our relationship.
Many of you can tell similar stories. The stories may be about people like my friend John. Or the stories are about helping refugees come to Canada, people who have nothing and can never repay the generosity they receive. Some of you have been refugees, or are the children or grandchildren of refugees, and know what it means to receive gifts that can’t be repaid. Like ancient Hebrew society, our society has tried to minimize the difference between rich and poor, or at least to make the poor less dependent
on the generosity of individuals. I don’t think there is any disagreement that our attempts, as a society, have not yet achieved accomplished what they’re aiming at. There are still those who are rich and those who are poor, and the poor are increasingly dependent on the generosity of the rich: the growing number of people who are dependent on food banks is evidence of this. As a congregation and as individuals, we do our best: We give generously to MCC without being asked, and MCC is able to share our resources in ways that don’t lead to direct obligations to those who give to MCC, making the donations true gifts. When God’s kingdom comes in its fullness, there will be no more need for giving. Until then we need to continue to give, and to do so in ways that does not make it painfully obvious that some of us are able to give and others are dependent. May we continue to practice giving; and may we continue to wrestle with the emotional and psychological effects of giving and receiving beneficence from others. Happy are those who are ardently devoted to God’s commandments.