So said our associate pastor this morning in church. He said there are two kinds of people, givers and takers, and that it is better to be a giver. He then moved onto the next topic.
I disagree.
It is most certainly better to be a giver than a taker, but receiving is not passive, it's active. To whom would the givers give if there was no one to receive?
It is not always easy to receive, especially when one is a giver.
It's hard to be in need to the point of needing someone to give to you.
But it's also difficult to be open and detached enough to receive what someone wishes to give to you.
Think about it.
I send one of my kids for coffee, and he returns with the wrong kind.
Someone prepares a meal for me using ingredients I don't like (I'm not talking the strong, "I'm gonna throw up if I eat eggs" dislike or "I'm allergic to peanuts; it's an ER trip if I eat this). I'm talking subtleties, like a dish containing canned mushrooms, when I prefer fresh.
I receive a gift of a coveted clothing item - except the giver bought the wrong color.
I'm eagerly presented with a hat that someone feels screamns, "Me," and it's not my taste.
And so on.
Actually, if it's not something that hurts me (see food allergy - or eggs ) i;m usually so touched to be considered that I'm thrilled with the gift. But that's me.
Because I have heard people bitch about the really nice things people do for them because it wasn't up to their standards. Often, they are the same people that complains no one will do anything for them.
So if that's the midset, it truly is better to give than to receive. Because it's easier to give and walk away. It's harder, muich harder, to humbly receive, keep, and treasure.
But when giving and receiving is done with pure intentions, both actions are honorable and full of blessing.
Think about it.
I disagree.
It is most certainly better to be a giver than a taker, but receiving is not passive, it's active. To whom would the givers give if there was no one to receive?
It is not always easy to receive, especially when one is a giver.
It's hard to be in need to the point of needing someone to give to you.
But it's also difficult to be open and detached enough to receive what someone wishes to give to you.
Think about it.
I send one of my kids for coffee, and he returns with the wrong kind.
Someone prepares a meal for me using ingredients I don't like (I'm not talking the strong, "I'm gonna throw up if I eat eggs" dislike or "I'm allergic to peanuts; it's an ER trip if I eat this). I'm talking subtleties, like a dish containing canned mushrooms, when I prefer fresh.
I receive a gift of a coveted clothing item - except the giver bought the wrong color.
I'm eagerly presented with a hat that someone feels screamns, "Me," and it's not my taste.
And so on.
Actually, if it's not something that hurts me (see food allergy - or eggs ) i;m usually so touched to be considered that I'm thrilled with the gift. But that's me.
Because I have heard people bitch about the really nice things people do for them because it wasn't up to their standards. Often, they are the same people that complains no one will do anything for them.
So if that's the midset, it truly is better to give than to receive. Because it's easier to give and walk away. It's harder, muich harder, to humbly receive, keep, and treasure.
But when giving and receiving is done with pure intentions, both actions are honorable and full of blessing.
Think about it.
No comments:
Post a Comment