Pages

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Charity vs Ministry

"But blessed are your eyes, because they see; 
and your ears, because they hear."
-Matthew 13:16

"But is there need of visiting them in person? May we not relieve them at a distance? Does it not answer the same purpose if we send them help as if we carry it ourselves?" Many are so circumstanced that they cannot attend the sick in person; and where this is the real case it is undoubtedly sufficient for them to send help, being the only expedient they can use. But this is not properly visiting the sick; it is another thing. The word which we render visit, in its literal acceptation, means to look upon. And this, you well know, cannot be done unless you are present with them. To send them assistance is, therefore, entirely a different thing from visiting them. The former, then, ought to be done, but the latter not left undone...If you do not, you lose a means of grace; you lose an excellent means of increasing your thankfulness to God, who saves you from this pain and sickness, and continues your health and strength; as well as of increasing your sympathy with the afflicted, your benevolence, and all social affections.
-John Wesley, On Visiting the Sick
The above excerpt from one of Wesley's sermons is one of the most powerful points I've read of his. This past summer I took a class called, "The Poor and Wesley's Social Ethic", which took an intentional look at how Wesley ministered to and treated the poor of his time. It's important to note that in 18th century England, almost everyone was poor, so the topic is not just one of special interest, but vital to understanding his overall ministry. The quote can be summed up as saying, "It is not enough to send help, you must also BE the help." Many good Christians in Wesley's time preferred to financially support the poor and disadvantaged, but not actually interact with them personally. Wesley called them to account, and said that foregoing personal visitation was the same as foregoing a means of grace, an encounter with God.

I am challenged by these words because it's easy to say that I care about people who are struggling, but am I willing to step out and help them, and even more, meet them personally?

Corrie and I take this challenge very seriously. While in Lexington, we volunteered regularly with an organization called Movable Feast. Everyday meals were prepared for Hospice patients and those suffering from AIDS and HIV related illnesses, and volunteers would show up to deliver these meals to the homes of those patients. I can only imagine how humbling/humiliating it is to have your dinner delivered every night - it is a constant reminder that I can't cook anymore, I can't afford it anymore, I can't live a normal life anymore. But it is equally humbling to be the deliverer, the one who knocks and says, "It's your dinner!", and not knowing who will open the door. Is it a Hospice nurse or is it a transvestite? Corrie and I were introduced to parts of Lexington we never knew existed. Our eyes were opened.

And this is the point of Wesley's sermon. Our eyes need to be opened, but that can only happen through personal engagement. That's the difference between charity and ministry. Charity gives, but it is an empty giving because there is no relationship involved. Ministry is giving in the context of love and relationship, love of God and love of neighbor. How can we know who needs God's love and truth spoken in to their lives, if we are not willing to have our eyes opened?

Now we live in Oxford. Oxford is a deceptive place. On the outside, it is affluent, academic, and attractive. But just drive down Price Hill Road, South 18th Street, or North 7th Street and you'll see a different story. Corrie and I can see these places because we've had our eyes opened. And now that they're open we can do something about it. We have found Manna, a ministry of the local Episcopal church that takes meals every Thursday to Oxford's poorest neighborhoods. And now we take Isaiah because we want him to grow up with his eyes opened as well. Who says a 21 month old can't be a minister?

No comments: