The meaning of words changes over time; the word \u201ccharity\u201d is no exception. Here are two translations of Cor. 13:4-7; the first is from the KJV and second, the Message:<\/p>\n
Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, [5]\u00a0 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; [6]\u00a0 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; [7]\u00a0 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.<\/p>\n
[4]\u00a0 Love never gives up. Love cares more for others than for self. Love doesn’t want what it doesn’t have. Love doesn’t strut, Doesn’t have a swelled head, [5]\u00a0 Doesn’t force itself on others, Isn’t always \u201cme first,\u201d Doesn’t fly off the handle, Doesn’t keep score of the sins of others, [6]\u00a0 Doesn’t revel when others grovel, Takes pleasure in the flowering of truth, [7]\u00a0 Puts up with anything, Trusts God always, Always looks for the best, Never looks back, But keeps going to the end.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The word \u201ccharity\u201d in the KJV and \u201clove\u201d in the message are different translations of agape. C. S. Lewis in \u201cThe Four Loves\u201d identifies Affection, Friendship, Eros and Charity. The greatest of these loves is Charity because it is a supernatural rather than a natural love, an unconditional love that is not dependent on any lovable qualities that the object of love possesses.<\/p>\n
Over time, \u201ccharity\u201d came to mean the provision of help or relief to the poor or almsgiving, a worthy endeavour, but one that falls short of agape. More recently, \u201ccharity\u201d has peppered Christian cyberspace with such profligate abandon that I have become suspicious of its intended meaning by those that scatter it hither and thither. We are admonished to exercise charity when arguing against people with whom we disagree. I would be the first to admit that, try as I might, in my dealings with humanity it is second nature to demonstrate my innate misanthropy rather than the true meaning of charity; but is that what our cyber-nannies have in mind?<\/p>\n
Some years ago, I enjoyed listening to a talk by Bishop Moses Tay, bishop of Singapore. One of the things he said was this: if North American Christians have a besetting sin, it is that they are too sensitive \u2013 you cannot abide criticism. He was correct. It is expressed in society by our conviction that we have a right not to be offended; if someone tramples on that right, we haul them to the Human Rights Commission. Christians are more subtle: rather than appeal to the HRC, we have changed the meaning of the word \u201ccharity\u201d to \u201cwhatever you do, don\u2019t offend\u201d; and we intone this with axiomatic and monotonous regularity. Inevitably, there are times when it is necessary to take a broad perspective and the charitable thing to say may be unavoidably offensive: Luke 14:26 or Matt 23:27, for example.<\/p>\n
For those who disagree, please exercise your God-given intelligence \u2013 charitably, of course.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The meaning of words changes over time; the word \u201ccharity\u201d is no exception. Here are two translations of Cor. 13:4-7; the first is from the KJV and second, the Message: Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity … Continue reading