Policy on Charity (2-2)

Regarding the question of who are these widows who are indeed widows, and who are these widows who are really in need, we now have our answer. Paul is referring to those women whose husbands have died and left no relatives to support them. But if there are close relatives who can support them, such as the children or grandchildren, then the church is not to be burdened with them. Thus these widows must first go to their children or grandchildren for financial and material support, or better, the children or grandchildren should actively and eagerly offer their support. Once the women's husbands have died, the widows should not have to beg for the help that is owed them.

If these children or grandchildren refuse to put their faith into practice, and if they abandon their widowed parents and grandparents, then these women would become widows who are indeed widows, widows who are really in need, widows who are really alone and destitute. In that case, verse 3 would apply to them, and these widows would become eligible for the churches support. As for the children or grandchildren who refuse to care for these widows, Paul will have something to say about them in just a few verses later.

And if these children or grandchildren are non-Christians, they might still decide to support their parents and grandparents out of ordinary human affections and a natural sense of responsibility, so that these widows would not be widows who are left alone and destitute, and they would not be eligible for the church's support. But if they are abandoned by the children or grandchildren, then of course verse 3 would again apply.

There is a related biblical teaching that we should bring up at this point. Besides giving us a better understanding of our passage, it will also serve as an example of why it is important to understand any biblical teaching in the light of the entire Bible. I am referring to what Paul says in 2 Corinthians 12:14. There, he writes, "After all, children should not have to save up for their parents, but parents for their children." We have no time to look at the full context, but if you look at the passage in your spare time, you should be able to see the relevance. Also, the idea expressed here is not found in an isolated part of Scripture, but it is taught throughout the Bible, both explicitly and implicitly, that the parents are to take care of the children and leave them an inheritance. Ideally, the children should not have to take care of the parent's financial and material needs.

That said, our passage in 1 Timothy 5 is not talking about the ideal situation. It is talking about a situation in which after her husband has died, a widow is left without the necessary finances to survive. She may be in such a state because her husband had squandered their earnings when he was alive. She may be in such a state because her husband had failed to make the necessary plans for her. Or, she may be left in such a state simply because her husband could barely earn enough for them to survive while he was alive, and could not save up anything for her. In the days of Paul, certainly there were many who could not leave their widows enough to sustain them for the rest of their lives.

Therefore, the children or grandchildren are to take care of these widows. Nevertheless, we must not undermine or discard the biblical teaching that,, if at all possible, the parents are to save up for the children, and not the other way around. Paul says that "children should not have to save up for their parents." We may not always be able to attain the ideal, but we must always keep it in mind; otherwise, we will forget about it and never attain it, and the second-best will become the norm.

This teaching addresses something crucial to the development of a family. There is the pressure in some cultures and traditions for children to start giving money to their parents once they begin to earn their own incomes even when the children are struggling and the parents are not. The children are expected to give part their income to the parents as a matter of principle, and not because the parents are suffering and in need.

While we can admire the intention of gratitude and the acknowledgment of a debt owed to the parents, this practice can often cripple a developing family, and inflict damage upon even the next generation, that is, the grandchildren. Even if this new family receives an inheritance from the parents afterward, fewer resources would have been devoted to establishing this new family during the grandchildren's developing years, perhaps when they needed these resources the most.

In 1 Timothy 5:4, the teaching refers to how the children or grandchildren should take care of their parents and grandparents who are, as verse 3 indicates, "really in need." So verse 4 does not apply when the parents are richer than the children. Of course, the children and grandchildren must still put their religion into practice, and they must still acknowledge their debt to the parents and grandparents in some way. Furthermore, it is also true that their needs are not only financial, but they have spiritual and social needs as well.

But it would be senseless to give part of the income to the parents when the parents have no need of it, and especially when the children need it much more. This is not an excuse for the children to abandon their parents, since the teaching is undeniable that if the widows, and verse 4 mentions even parents and grandparents, are in need such that they cannot survive without help, then the children or grandchildren must care for them. If you are a parent, know that you are entitled to your children's support when you are old, but if it is at all possible, you should make sure that this will not be necessary when the time comes.

(to be continued)