I know that the start of Matthew 6 is more about attitude than direct practical imperatives (eg I doubt we're meant to literally follow the command to not let our left hand 'know' what our right hand is doing). But perhaps Matty chose giving as his example because money is particularly seductive.
So I'm reluctant to enter into an arrangement where the person giving me money knows from the outset that I will see how much they give and how often. I'd much prefer it if the organisation would just give me:
- updates on how my overall financial support is going,
- names of anyone who's not giving what they said they would (but not the amount!), so I can remind them,
- a list of my financial supporters, so I can thank them and keep in touch.
Almost every time I've mentioned this to someone, they don't seem to share my concern. Am I missing something here?
Posts
2 comments:
I don't share the concern, and I think it's got to do with the personal partnership that a missionary and their sponsors enter into.
It's not general people knowing what you give to the people. Nor is it even the church leadership knowing what I give in my regular church giving (I don't like that).
This is the donor becoming a (silent) partner in a specific missionary enterprise. The missionary and the donor are actual shared-owners of this enterprise in a special sense.
What do you think?
A prickly post for ya Mikey ;-).
I think I see what you're saying and it does make it a whole lot better. But I'm still inclined to think that, if possible, it's better to avoid it altogether - which you just might be able to with the dotpoints I outlined.
Post a Comment