Blog Links
CHAPTER 9
HIGH DEMANDS OF FAITH
Faith is an inner character
that must be developed
for the purpose of eternal dwelling.
The opportunities for evangelism in the world today are so great that we must have
laborers of great faith to seek the challenge of world evangelism. We must call on those
who through faith are willing to leave fathers and mothers, houses and lands for the
salvation of the lost of the world. We need those with mountain-moving faith to uproot
and reach out to a world that is hungering for truth.
Evangelists with roots in the West, and residents of the cocooned culture and
affluent society, often glance into the face of faith and shudder because of their own
self-sufficiency. The challenge we see in the world of have-nots always taxes our
dependence on that which is possessed. When we contemplate faith’s demand we
struggle to sacrifice that which is always first to go when faith comes calling – the
security of a world that demands little faith. The empirical walk we so often trust
agonizes down the hall of faith.
There is always something unnerving about faith’s call. It is a call to us in our
secure culture to venture out into the unknown. This is not thinking outside the box. It
is a call to live outside the cocoon of the material security we have created for ourselves.
It is a challenging call only because our nerves and emotional constitution have been
trained to walk on the crutches of the seen and known.
Nevertheless, we fight to allow ourselves the test of trusting the Almighty Unseen in
(This series of blogs compose a book that carry the title, “Making Disciples In A Global Community.” )
the altogether unknown. I often wonder that if faith was a fortune at the end of a
rainbow of supporting evidence, I might be the poorest of them all.
Any Western evangelist who manages to escape the isolated cocoon of Western
materialism usually crashes with his cultural baggage on his voyage into the Third
World. If he or she does not sense in this new and common world the absence of the
affluency of his homeland, then the elevator has not yet reached the top floor. This is
the real world, the world that exists everywhere and on every continent. It usually
cannot be seen by the rich for the rich never look down, while the poor are always
looking up. The poor see everyone at the top. But because the rich do not want to be
reminded of them, they more often refuse to look down to the bottom.
Before one can accomplish acculturation, he or she must discover self. One is only
truly aware of his surroundings when he is aware of himself. I have always wondered at
the lack of self-awareness of those who live in the affluent societies of the world. They
who are of that exclusive world class find it difficult to condescend to men of lower
estate. They simply do not understand the poor, their plight and their problems. Third
World thinking is such an ellusive concept to those of the First World.
Our self-realization of who we are and where we are from, however, often leads to
frustration. Being one of the haves often separates us so far from the have-nots that we
lose contact with this Third World mentality that we never had in the first place. We
thus accuse the Third World resident for having no initiative or being lazy, backward,
indifferent, etc. Our frustration is not knowing what to do with ourselves in the midst of
those who have so little, or those we presume are desperate because they possess so
little.
You say Jesus dealt with it by saying that the poor are always with us. He was not
giving us an excuse. Neither was He excusing Himself. He was so often abased during
His ministry, though He had food and clothing. The comparison of my sacrifices with
His sacrifice of leaving heaven for earth, however, is no real comparison. His was
extreme. Mine is too often only external. Remember, most of us presently have more
now than Jesus owned in His entire lifetime.
So we compare. Was Jesus poor in relation to ourselves? Yea, verily. Thus comes a
possible shocking reality we are usually not willing to live. Must we be as Him in order
to understand and be able to say what He said about the poor without such a statement
being either an excuse or justification for our own materialism? As a culturally born
and reared materialist, we shudder at our conclusions to these dreadful postulations. If
we are right, then we are wrong.
The face of faith is still there. It glows more now in these days and beckons more
fervently than when I first met the poor. But you are afraid that I take you down this
road of thought. You may be afraid to face faith. I am apprehensive about taking you
there, for I know you will not understand, and if you do, we will turn around in the
middle of the road. Nevertheless, we will venture on. There are too many souls to be
saved to turn around in the road.
Would we be as Jesus in order to be able to say and do as Jesus? Must we become
all things to all people in order to cross the cultural bridge of communication? And in
order to communicate, must we be abased in order to abound in our cultural relationship
with the lost? Our conclusion to these postulations wearies our souls and frightens our
affluent cultural roots.
We must ask ourselves, Would we be as Jesus in order to be able to say and do as
Jesus? Is the price tag too high for us to condescend to those of lower estate? How can
we identify with the poor to whom Jesus went if we cannot identify with the poor to
whom Jesus sends us? We might be irritated at such questions. They make us think.
They make is look into our own cultural mirror, and when we look, we might see a man
standing there we do not want to see.
So we rationalize. It’s not wrong to be rich. Then we read, “They sold their
possessions and goods.” But we appreciate our multitude of clothes. Then we read, “I
was naked and you did not clothe me.” But we can be rich and spiritual. Then we read,
“Few that are in high places are called” and “Those who desire to be rich fall into
temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and harmful lusts which drown men in
destruction and perdition.” But we say we have a right to our material way of life.
Then we read, “He emptied Himself and was made as a man.” So this struggle of
cultures continues within us. “I discipline my body,” wrote Paul, “and bring it into
subjection, lest, when I have preached to others, I myself should become disqualified.”
Then we contemplate our fellow affluent cultural victims. Has our frustration level
with our brethren become a measuring rule of their unrealized materialism? We would
not so judge lest we fall into the sin of arrogant snobbery. Nevertheless, that frustration
is there when we experience those of “home” who quibble over the color of cars and the
fashion of the latest outrageously priced tennis shoes. We suppose that our experience
outside that cultural “cell” has awakened our awareness of who we really were, and to
some extent, still are. When one works in the “careless” societies of the affluent world,
and at the same time among the barefoot poverty-stricken prisoners of the Third World,
it is hard to feel sorry for someone with a full refrigerator. When we return to the world
of games and things, it is hard to identify again with a world from which we came and a
culture that lingers in our own being.
The problem with too much money is that one starts inventing how to keep the cash
flow going through his hands in order to maintain a materilistic lifestyle. That cash
flow, mind you, is through my hands and unto my desires. So I take up a sport and
discover some new land to which I must travel. I buy another bicycle or car. Another
pair of shoes won’t hurt. I stop in at the shopping mall for a tube of toothpaste and end
up at the counter with a full shopping cart of incidentals to stuff away in some cabinet at
home. When I have purchased beyond my needs I discover flea-markets. I then buy
trinkets to continue this self-centeredness, this cycle of money-out-things-in lifestyle.
There’s always enough money in hand to let it flow. However, I am unaware of a new
psychology that is setting in.
The problem with materialism is that it reveals a low self esteem. The materialistis
shouts, “Look at who I am because of what I have.” The poor humbly say, “What you
see in me is what you get. Nothing more.”
The cash flow through the materialist’s hands changes him into a new and different
person. As the money goes out, things and activities come in. They all come his way.
He has now set up an inward selfishness that makes him an extremely self-centered
person. The more money he has the more things and activities that come his way. His
psychology changes. He wants to maintain this selfish cycle. He fights to keep it
happening because it has become his culture. Those in his world have all adopted the
same lifestyle. He excludes those who threaten his culture and becomes agitated with
anything or anyone who would disrupt this selfish cycle. Presidents are cursed for
recession and missionaries are shunned because they keep disrupting his cycle of self by
asking for his money. They keep reminding him of who he is and what he must give in
order to accomplish the mission of his Christian profession. Whether or not he realizes
it – usually he does not – he has now become a part of that way of life which
dictionaries refer to as materialism.
But we must not be mistaken in our definitions. My Third World brethren define
materialism in a much different way. The affluent society glances over the word. Those
who are victims of a cultural deformity too often become oblivious to the handicap. But
by Third World comparison, lives exist in an environment that is on the other side of the
continuum. To the poor man, materialism is living or being any place than where there
is continual sickness, poverty, death, starvation and war. In his environment he has
never set up the psychology of selfishness, for he has never had the opportunity to buy
toys and activies to enjoy. Giving to others does not threaten him, for his hostile
environment has continually extracted from him since the day of his birth.
I have always wondered why it was easier for the widow to give her mites than the rich man to give his surplus thousands. The poor have never had enough money to start
this vicious cycle of materialism. People always want more. I would say that in a sense
all people have greed, both rich and poor. However, the poor have never had enough to
allow their wants to digress to a psychology of materialism.
One advantage the less financially advantaged have is that they do not give out of
their surplus. In other words, sacrificial giving brings joy because one has given that
which he could have used to better his own life. If one gives only of his surplus, his life
does not change when he gives. He can maintain his lifestyle regardless of his
contribution. On the other hand, the one who gives that which could have been used to
improve one’s life, is blessed with joy for he has given sacrifically. He has sacrificed a
better life for the sake of giving to another.
It is always easier for the poor man to share what he has than for the rich man to do
the same. Requests for help do not disrupt any selfish cycle of materialism in the
society of the poor. You can be assured that the rich man will give. But you can also be
assured that he will not so give as to disrupt his cycle of materialism. He will continue
to play his games and buy his things. What he gives will often simply be the surplus of
what he does not need to maintain his lifestyle. You see, giving to the point of sacrifice
is a personal infringement upon his psychology; it is against his materialistic culture.
The poor are usually never offended when they are asked to give. That is one reason
why there is such great receptivity for the gospel message among the poor. The nature
of the Christian life fits the nature of the financially disadvantaged. Jesus said, “Freely
receive, freely give.” Because they have not been fashioned according to the nature of
materialism, it is easy for those who are not materialistic to freely give. That is why the
Philippians, who were in deep poverty, begged Paul to take their contribution for the
famine victims in Judea (2 Co 8:1-4).
Are you angry with me because I point these things out in our lives? There are so
many poor in the world. They are so receptive to the gospel. Citizens of the West live
in the top two percent of the wealth of the world. How can those of this materialistic
cocoon come out of this top two percent and identify with the other ninety-eight percent
in order to preach the gospel to the poor? This is certainly the challenge for the Western
missionary. But while considering this challenge, remember that when John sent
messengers to Jesus to question if He was the Messiah, Jesus responded that the gospel
was being preached to the poor (Mt 11:5). If preaching the gospel to the poor was one
of the evidences that Jesus was the Messiah, then it must be the same evidence of true
Christianity today. If we do not preach the gospel to the poor, then we have developed
another form of churchianism after our own materialistic isolationism.
We must keep in mind that there is a “bright” side to poverty. It does produce
receptivity. Africa is thus a place of great receptivity. It is so because it is a place of
poverty.
Africa and India will be receptive for many decades to come. Why? They will be
receptive simply because they will be economically challenged for a long time to come.
It is ironic. The center of Christianity has moved to the poorest nations of the world.
Jesus was right. Few who are in high places will hear. His message to comfort John in
prison was that the poor had the gospel preached to them. That focus in evangelism still
brings comfort. The poor have the gospel preached to them because they are the ones
who receive it the most. Must we not go to those who are the most receptive?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.