I read this parable by Mark Driscoll after reading a Haitian missionary's response to it. The missionary's name is Heather and I follow her blog, though I don't know her personally. Her family sees the poverty in Haiti close-up every single day. She was revolted by his post.
I have read the parable now three times. On first reading, I sided with Heather. I agreed that it seems self-indulgent to keep a shiny new bike for oneself when one could give it to a missionary to reach unreached people groups with the gospel.
On second reading, however, I was starting to think, "Driscoll is right. Why can't God's children just enjoy His provisions even if they're brand spanking new, and worship Him with every gift? Why do some of us feel guilty that we have so much? When we give our own kids new gifts, do we hope they feel guilty and give their gifts away? Of course not! We delight in their smiles and gratitude and their enjoyment of said gifts."
On third reading, I could understand why Driscoll used the word "tragically" to begin his summary paragraph. It is indeed tragic to disobey God, no matter what. So you think it's selfish to keep a shiny new bike and therefore you don't keep and use His gift when He has made it clear that's what He wants? Do you know better than God? Driscoll's tangible object of a shiny new bike in the parable could be a symbol for any gift from God--a musical talent, a leadership ability, a knack for building wealth using biblical principles. One can ostensibly "give away" or "sacrifice" any of those in the name of "not wanting to look proud." A skilled Christian musician whose private life of worship demonstrates he or she has the heart of a worshiper should audition for the worship band if the Lord says ,"Now." A leader should not defer to another if God says, "You're the one for the job even though deference might masquerade as humility. Humility does not mean being wishy-washy or letting others bully you." Someone who has the God-given ability to make wealth (by earning, saving, giving, investing, and spending wisely) should not settle for status quo; that's not humility but stupidity. I used to think the ability to make wealth was a matter of good fortune and selfish ambition. I now see it as the gift that it is from God; some use it to bless His kingdom in practical ways that require money. And of course, some people use it selfishly.
Regardless of our justification for sacrificing our gifts, obedience is better in God's eyes. Who else's eyes matter, really?
First Samuel 15:22:
One only needs to read about the building of God's Temple to see that God not only approves of wealth, but commands the use of it for His glory. In the case of the Temple, God did not say "sell all these jewels and use the money on the poor." He did not say, "Make clothing out of the the fine linen instead of making curtains for my house." God did not build that temple of cubic zirconias , Goodwill linens, or Craigslist castoffs. He commanded the use of precious jewels, fine woven linen, and newly carved wood. The accessories of gold were His idea. He did not apologize for building His Temple in a land filled with poverty. He used His wealth to bring glory to Himself ,and that meant using people who might think it a bold, selfish, prideful task to take part in.
God did not tell Solomon to give his bike away. God has plenty of bikes, but expects our obedience if He says "worship me with the bike I've given you." Sometimes that means "give away your possessions." Sometimes that means do the harder thing and keep that shiny new bike. Believe me, it IS harder for some people, truly it is, to keep nice things. Or to receive anything--help when they're sick, money when they're near bankruptcy, or tutoring when they don't understand a subject in school. Pride can keep us from receiving more often than from giving.
Granted, I am not endorsing materialism, and I think herein lies the problem with how I first read Driscoll's parable. (Perhaps other readers got tripped up as well, especially if they only read the parable once. ) I couldn't quite tell if Driscoll is trying to help Christians learn to really appreciate what our heavenly Father has given us and worship Him with those gifts, or if, on a deeper (and supposedly hidden) level, he is showing us how to justify our consumerism.
The parable's meaning is simply unclear. Perhaps I'm obtuse . Perhaps I should read it a fourth time, put in on the proverbial back burner and come back in a week or two to analyze it.
But for now, the grade I give this parable of Driscoll's is a C-. Here's why:
1. Good writing should not have to be read more than once for clarity. A good sentence, a good paragraph, a good story or parable, should be clear on the first read. A parable, by nature, should be simple enough for a child to understand. If many fellow Christians and even non-Christians are offended by your message, it isn't necessarily the wrong message. Jesus called Himself the Rock of Offense. If , however, a reasonably intelligent adult is confused by your message, you have more work to do. Your theology, your writing, or both, need to be revised.
2. The dialogue of the Father does not sound like the gentle heavenly Father of the Bible. The tone sounds impatient and abrupt.
3. The Father does not take the son in his arms and commend him for his generosity or humility, for his tender, compassionate heart (albeit shrouded in guilt) to give away things as nice as what as he's received. Instead the Father jumps to his point: obey and worship Me.
4. The Father also puts the onus on the boy to ask for a bike for the missionary, when clearly the boy sees "an answer to prayer" at his fingertips. It would be a big "duh" for a kid to ask for a bike when he's just been handed one. Don't scold a kid for thinking like a kid.
For those four main reasons, I give Driscoll's parable a C-. It's decent writing mechanically , but not excellent in every way. It has a message, but I am unclear about the author's intent. But most of all, it didn't stir me to think of God as a generous provider, but rather as a demanding father who gives gifts accompanied by a stern lecture and a guilt trip. "If you had asked, I would have..." So the boy is left thinking, "Then it's my fault missionaries don't have bikes." No wonder he can't enjoy the shiny new bike; he hasn't prayed enough! There are still poor missionaries without bikes around the world! A better approach would be, "Son, I want you to have a this shiny new bike. I also hear a missionary in Guatemala asking me for a bike. Ask me now to provide one for him, too, and I will. That will bless all of us!"
Then let the son smile, give his dad a tight hug, and ride off on his shiny new bike, with the wind whistling in his ears, while he thinks what an awesome and generous dad he has who never runs out of good gifts and never tires of being asked to give to others also. Let the Father stand there relishing the joy of having a son who gives and takes with exuberant love, not guilt.
On second reading, however, I was starting to think, "Driscoll is right. Why can't God's children just enjoy His provisions even if they're brand spanking new, and worship Him with every gift? Why do some of us feel guilty that we have so much? When we give our own kids new gifts, do we hope they feel guilty and give their gifts away? Of course not! We delight in their smiles and gratitude and their enjoyment of said gifts."
On third reading, I could understand why Driscoll used the word "tragically" to begin his summary paragraph. It is indeed tragic to disobey God, no matter what. So you think it's selfish to keep a shiny new bike and therefore you don't keep and use His gift when He has made it clear that's what He wants? Do you know better than God? Driscoll's tangible object of a shiny new bike in the parable could be a symbol for any gift from God--a musical talent, a leadership ability, a knack for building wealth using biblical principles. One can ostensibly "give away" or "sacrifice" any of those in the name of "not wanting to look proud." A skilled Christian musician whose private life of worship demonstrates he or she has the heart of a worshiper should audition for the worship band if the Lord says ,"Now." A leader should not defer to another if God says, "You're the one for the job even though deference might masquerade as humility. Humility does not mean being wishy-washy or letting others bully you." Someone who has the God-given ability to make wealth (by earning, saving, giving, investing, and spending wisely) should not settle for status quo; that's not humility but stupidity. I used to think the ability to make wealth was a matter of good fortune and selfish ambition. I now see it as the gift that it is from God; some use it to bless His kingdom in practical ways that require money. And of course, some people use it selfishly.
Regardless of our justification for sacrificing our gifts, obedience is better in God's eyes. Who else's eyes matter, really?
First Samuel 15:22:
| ||||||||
One only needs to read about the building of God's Temple to see that God not only approves of wealth, but commands the use of it for His glory. In the case of the Temple, God did not say "sell all these jewels and use the money on the poor." He did not say, "Make clothing out of the the fine linen instead of making curtains for my house." God did not build that temple of cubic zirconias , Goodwill linens, or Craigslist castoffs. He commanded the use of precious jewels, fine woven linen, and newly carved wood. The accessories of gold were His idea. He did not apologize for building His Temple in a land filled with poverty. He used His wealth to bring glory to Himself ,and that meant using people who might think it a bold, selfish, prideful task to take part in.
God did not tell Solomon to give his bike away. God has plenty of bikes, but expects our obedience if He says "worship me with the bike I've given you." Sometimes that means "give away your possessions." Sometimes that means do the harder thing and keep that shiny new bike. Believe me, it IS harder for some people, truly it is, to keep nice things. Or to receive anything--help when they're sick, money when they're near bankruptcy, or tutoring when they don't understand a subject in school. Pride can keep us from receiving more often than from giving.
Granted, I am not endorsing materialism, and I think herein lies the problem with how I first read Driscoll's parable. (Perhaps other readers got tripped up as well, especially if they only read the parable once. ) I couldn't quite tell if Driscoll is trying to help Christians learn to really appreciate what our heavenly Father has given us and worship Him with those gifts, or if, on a deeper (and supposedly hidden) level, he is showing us how to justify our consumerism.
The parable's meaning is simply unclear. Perhaps I'm obtuse . Perhaps I should read it a fourth time, put in on the proverbial back burner and come back in a week or two to analyze it.
But for now, the grade I give this parable of Driscoll's is a C-. Here's why:
1. Good writing should not have to be read more than once for clarity. A good sentence, a good paragraph, a good story or parable, should be clear on the first read. A parable, by nature, should be simple enough for a child to understand. If many fellow Christians and even non-Christians are offended by your message, it isn't necessarily the wrong message. Jesus called Himself the Rock of Offense. If , however, a reasonably intelligent adult is confused by your message, you have more work to do. Your theology, your writing, or both, need to be revised.
2. The dialogue of the Father does not sound like the gentle heavenly Father of the Bible. The tone sounds impatient and abrupt.
3. The Father does not take the son in his arms and commend him for his generosity or humility, for his tender, compassionate heart (albeit shrouded in guilt) to give away things as nice as what as he's received. Instead the Father jumps to his point: obey and worship Me.
4. The Father also puts the onus on the boy to ask for a bike for the missionary, when clearly the boy sees "an answer to prayer" at his fingertips. It would be a big "duh" for a kid to ask for a bike when he's just been handed one. Don't scold a kid for thinking like a kid.
For those four main reasons, I give Driscoll's parable a C-. It's decent writing mechanically , but not excellent in every way. It has a message, but I am unclear about the author's intent. But most of all, it didn't stir me to think of God as a generous provider, but rather as a demanding father who gives gifts accompanied by a stern lecture and a guilt trip. "If you had asked, I would have..." So the boy is left thinking, "Then it's my fault missionaries don't have bikes." No wonder he can't enjoy the shiny new bike; he hasn't prayed enough! There are still poor missionaries without bikes around the world! A better approach would be, "Son, I want you to have a this shiny new bike. I also hear a missionary in Guatemala asking me for a bike. Ask me now to provide one for him, too, and I will. That will bless all of us!"
Then let the son smile, give his dad a tight hug, and ride off on his shiny new bike, with the wind whistling in his ears, while he thinks what an awesome and generous dad he has who never runs out of good gifts and never tires of being asked to give to others also. Let the Father stand there relishing the joy of having a son who gives and takes with exuberant love, not guilt.
4 comments:
I think I'd like your parable, Zo. Maybe you should try writing it. ;)
I like the part where you mention the boy riding his shiny new bike while asking the Lord to provide a bike for the missionary kid in Guatemala b/c God owns it all and never runs out of gifts to give. That point is provoking for me. I can often struggle w/ material goods, the cost of things, etc. We've talked about it in the past. I'm still finding my way w/ this issue, but I appreciate your thoughts here.
Thanks, Briana. As long as this post was, I edited it way down because I started discussing my tension in my heart also, with examples of course. There is no easy dialogue, discussion, essay, post, or book that satisfies anyone I know when it comes to a "righteous" perspective on money (for lack of a better term).
I thought about writing my own parable, but have a feeling it, too, would be just a C- !
Zoanna,
I loved reading what you wrote. It's always good to hear how others respond to these kind of thoughts and teachings. I appreciated so much of what you said, even if I don't agree with all of it. I have to post this in two parts because my comment is so long! Yikes!
The main argument you have that is difficult for me is the one that says this parable could be talking about anything. If that's true, then my response was overboard (it could still be overboard even if this parable could be read to be about anything...not just about material possessions.)
The title of the parable is called A Poverty Theology Parable.
Mark Driscoll is an amazing teacher who does a fantastic job at calling believers back to valuing solid, bible-based theology. For that reason, I don't believe that this parable is just an artistic attempt at a story that could have multiple meanings and be about a vast number of things. I don't think the "bike" can be anything. I believe in order for this to be a response to Poverty Theology, the bike has to be some sort of material possession.
Poverty Theology is a real theology and Mark Driscoll was writing an educated response to it (although he's chosen a more artistic approach than simply being forthcoming and spelling out exactly what he's trying to say).
Poverty Theology says that since Jesus was poor all Christians should be poor and live exactly like Jesus did. Many people believe this in the church today.
This parable Driscoll wrote is his own personal response to Poverty Theology. He is responding to those teachings and ideas with this parable.
Like my husband said in one of the comments on our blog, we do not believe that everyone should be poor just like Jesus. That's silly. In that way, poverty theology can be a little crazy. BUT a lot of what people are wrestling through as they ask hard questions about their possessions and how to follow Jesus' example are wrapped up in some of the ideas that make up "Poverty Theology." A lot of the questions people are asking themselves lead some people to embrace the idea of Poverty Theology.
What I'm saying is Mark Driscoll's response to something that is complicated and huge...and most importantly refers to a large group of believers who genuinely love the Lord and are asking honest questions about their life and how to be more giving (and ultimately how to take the Bible seriously) is trite and practically mocks those people for caring so much about being generous individuals who really care about honoring God in the way they handle the wealth of resources they have been given.
Those people are people like us...and many more who may not get it right all the time, but are desperately wanting to have God's heart towards missions, giving, and our own personal possessions.
His parable also puts words in God's mouth about this huge topic of material possessions that God has NEVER said on His own. As a matter of fact, we could argue that God says just the opposite. I think that's frightening.
Since Poverty Theology is a real theology being argued and discussed among Christians right now, I can't believe that this post could be read in that vague form that allows for the "bike" to be anything that God gives.
Instead, this is Driscoll's educated response (although I disagree with it) to poverty theology...to believers who are struggling to understand how God would have them live their lives in relation to the poor and how He would have them give of their lives and their material possessions in order to live a life like Jesus.
Those are not easy questions to ask ourselves, and I suspect we'll all keep asking them forever. That's why his parable that seemed to make fun of people asking genuine questions is hurtful (in my opinion).
I also stick to my guns about the reason Jesus did not write this parable is because He knows we are naturally selfish, greedy people. Those qualities in our hearts don't have to be encouraged.
I'm thankful for the "bikes" God has given me, but I'm also thankful that God is okay with me asking questions about whether or not I should keep all of them.
Again...
Thank you for your response. So many parts struck a cord with me, and I learned from what you said. I agree that you should try your hand at your own parable!
Heather
Post a Comment