Share with Each Other
There are a fair number of negative commentaries about the earliest church gatherings. They are disdainful of the Christian practice of caring for each other. The biggest rebuke is that it would be so easy for someone to cheat them--to join the church to take advantage of the shared wealth, rather than joining out of faith. 

In the early church, all of the wealth of the members was shared in common. We don't know exactly how that worked, but we know that it happened, not only from the witness of Acts (2:42-47), but because of the writings making fun of the practice. Sharing prayers, studying scripture, and eating in homes may have been the primary sharing. They gathered their resources, purchased what was needed for dinner,  cooked, and cleaned together.  Perhaps there was a more complicated plan.

What kind of plan would we need in our churches today to replicate this practice? We are likely to face times in the near future where food prices go up, unemployment goes up, and government benefits go down. We should fight that, and we'll talk about those strategies later, but in the immediate context, we will have people in our churches, our neighbors, the family of God, who will need material help to get by. And isn't that what we do best--care for one another?

The thing that helps households the most when facing financial difficulty is cash. Giving people money to spend as they choose is what gives the greatest support.  It feels counter-cultural just to say that out loud! How do we just give people money? 

We could encourage people to give or take from the offering plate as it is passed, although in my churches there is little there to take (most give by check or online.) We could hand out $50 bills to those who come to worship, encouraging those with plenty to give it away, and those with little to keep it. If you prefer a more organized structure, people with excess in their budgets can create a fund that is distributed (once a month?) among those who don't have enough. 

I can hear all of your worries as you read this, because I have them too. How will we make sure that only people who need money are receiving it? Like the first century Romans, I can't help but worry about cheaters. But also how will we make sure that those who need money will choose to take advantage of the program? Should we figure out a line for what constitutes need? What if someone uses the money for alcohol or for illegal drugs? Although many pantries and other give-away programs have strategies for the receivers to qualify for the goods, those are in most cases not actually required. We are allowed to give what we have to whoever we want to. Sara Miles corrects a volunteer in her book Take this Bread: they can't steal from us, because we are offering it for free. 

And remember that we are talking about caring for members. We'll get to how to create a wider circle in a later conversation. Here I am wondering about just taking care of people that we know. Can we find a way to provide for Marla who sits on the back left; or Harold who sings in the choir, or Juan who comes once a month with his grandson? 

We have small ways of doing this now. We have the pastor's discretionary fund, which I hate, where someone comes in private to beg as carefully as they can, and the pastor decides who is worthy, and of how much they are worthy for. Our positive intent is to maintain confidentiality and allow the possibility of deeper care, but the impact is that only people who have the nerve to ask, to plea, for help have access to that fund. How much risk would we be taking if there is no explanation required--members of the congregation who need money are handed money. Is that over the top wild?

We are incredibly concerned that it won't be fair. That someone who needs more won't get it or that someone will get more than they need. That someone will feel guilty for not giving, or embarrassed to receive. Perhaps, like the Romans, we are afraid that hundreds of poor people will join our church just to get their share of the wealth. Certainly that fear gives me pause. Don't we want more people to join, so they can help, and pledge, and hear the good news? (Wait, is that the right order?) We aren't really afraid too many poor people will join us, are we?

The good news in the first century was that Kingdom of God was really, right then, at hand. I find it hard to feel that way right now. But if we could create small communities where everyones  financial needs are cared for, wouldn't that be a miracle? Wouldn't that be good news?