With the growing scandal of charity fraud in this country, a lot of secular humanists wearing Christian skinsuits are going to start attacking Christian critics of endless migration and handouts by pulling the “Jesus said to give all you have” card. Counter them with this passage from the Didache, one of the earliest Church documents:
“Give to everyone who asks, and ask nothing in return; for the Father wishes that a share of his own gifts be given to all. Blessed is the man who gives according to the commandment, for he is without blame. Woe to the man who takes. However, if the one who takes is in need, he is without blame. But should he not be in need, he shall give an account of the why and the wherefore of his taking it. And he will be put in prison and examined strictly about what he did, and shall not go out from there until he has paid the last cent. But in this matter the saying also holds: Let your alms sweat in your hands until you know to whom you are giving.”
In other words, nothing requires that Christians be suckers.
Quote source: Early Church Fathers Collection, Word on Fire Classics, 2024
A quote worthy of thought! The key here is as the Didache says; Let your alms sweat in your hands until you know to whom you are giving.”
I think one problem is that many people of good will start with "How generous should I be?" and work towards that target. I think that is a poor way of going about it for two reasons. First, it edges into a legalistic approach by setting an arbitrary level for attaining some imagined 'Righteousness', and secondly because it starts with ME.
My wife and I rarely if ever give to solicitations from charities or door knockers, etc. But when we see a cause that we think we should support, we do our due diligence and then donate. The generosity is founded in their need, not our pre-determination. In the past this has often been an unexpected need within our own community.
Not a perfect system, and it would be nice if we could give more; but it's the best we can manage.
I love that line as well, it really stood out to me when I read it the first time. It slows down the reflex "I must give to be good" which bad actors like to use against Christians. Stop, take a step back and ask "Will this really help the people it claims to help" and also ask (sadly) "is this a scam?" Do the research.
If the scholarship is correct and parts of the Didache do go back to the first century, I find it fascinating that the Apostles may have dealt with the same issues we do, and took a firm line on things.
Well said. This is what Allie Beth Stuckey calls, "Toxic Empathy." I have a Christian friend who just went on an angry rant today on social media. I'd like to respond, or talk to her in person, but I think the anger will prevent us from having a profitable discussion. Any recommendations on this front, or should I just leave it alone?
My rule of thumb is to ask, "is this person open to reason?" (James 3:17). Can they be persuaded or have they been ideologically captured? When talking to a conservative who has a different point of view, most often I find them to be reasonable, even if we don't see eye to eye on something. When talking to a progressive, they are almost always ideologically captured and unwilling to have a reasonable dialogue. I've found that rule of thumb to be helpful.
Michael, I’d like to ask you, “are you open to reason?” Tell me: how are you not equally as captured by an ideology like the leftists?
You have already defined the categories as “conservatives = more normal, more human = generally on the right side of things” and “progressives = almost rabid-like ideologues = on the wrong side of things.” It’s the age-old division of the world into the righteous and the unrighteous, the clean and the unclean. Paul’s argument in Romans decimates this kind of thinking.
Clear-eyed, disciplined, and overdue—this piece exposes how language, outrage, and false compassion are being weaponized against Christians who don’t think critically. No theatrics. No fluff. Just signal clarity in a fog of manipulation. Read it. Share it. Stop being played.
I agree that Scripture calls Christians to love with knowledge and discernment. Paul is clear that love is not blind sentimentality (Philippians 1:9–11), and believers should not be easily deceived or led by emotion alone (Ephesians 4:14). On that point, we are aligned.
Where I believe this argument goes astray is not in its call for discernment, but in how discernment is defined and applied.
Biblical discernment is never exercised in isolation from humility, compassion, and self-examination. Scripture consistently warns that truth wielded without love becomes harmful rather than holy. Paul himself reminds us that even if we “understand all mysteries and all knowledge,” without love we gain nothing (1 Corinthians 13:2). Discernment is meant to shape love, not replace it or weaponize it.
Additionally, Scripture does not permit us to dismiss concern for suffering people as mere emotional manipulation without careful witness and restraint. The Bible is filled with commands to hear cries of distress, especially from the vulnerable, the foreigner, and the oppressed (Exodus 22:21–23; Deuteronomy 10:18–19; Proverbs 31:8–9). Responding with concern or lament does not automatically make someone gullible, nor does it place them outside faithful Christian witness.
Jesus Himself modeled a posture that held truth, accountability, and compassion together. He confronted sin clearly, yet He also wept over suffering, defended the vulnerable, and warned against hardness of heart—especially among those confident in their own righteousness (Matthew 23:23; Luke 10:33–37; John 8:1–11). Discernment in Scripture is cruciform; it is shaped by the cross, not by contempt.
Finally, Scripture cautions us against assigning motives, condemning fellow believers broadly, or equating disagreement with rebellion or lawlessness (Romans 14:4; James 4:11–12). We are called to speak truth, yes—but also to “speak the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15), to be “quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger” (James 1:19), and to correct others “with gentleness” (2 Timothy 2:24–25).
Christian love must indeed be discerning. But Christian discernment must also be patient, humble, truthful, and marked by the fruit of the Spirit. When any of those are missing, we should pause—no matter how confident we feel that we are defending truth.
Antonio, thank you for reminding others of the witness of Scripture. I fear the culture of American, evangelical Christianity is now consumed by an ideology that has little to do with our crucified and risen Lord.
Michael, you would do well to read your own post mutatis mutandis.
Your linking 'un-Christian' with 'un-American is a strong clue. If it's not the politics you approve of, it must be 'un-Christian'.
I have ye to see anyone argue that Pretti was 'un-Christian' is trying to protect a woman who had been pushed to the ground and sprayed.
He attempted to do this without causing any harm to anyone; and he was sprayed and knocked to the ground for his troubles. Still, he made no attempt to harm anyone, even in self-defence. He hunkered down, nothing more.
Thern, AFTER being disarmed (a gun which he never reached for, but was totally legal for him to carry), the ICE thugs pulled back from him. Still he made no attempt to approach anyone, nor even to stand. Then, with him doing nothing threatening and everyone out of reach anyway, he was shot. Something over six times, some say ten times.
I think you might need some 'discernment' here yourself; tell me what he was doing wrong, except showing that he disagreed with how those ICE thugs were treating a woman who disagreed with them. In any civilised country this would be stone cold murder. But not in the Land of the Free, where so many excuse the need for guns as a protection in case the government becomes tyrannical and turns on its own citizens.
I see the government disregarding the Rule of Law and Due Process in so many ways, in pardoning hundreds found by unanimous jury decision to be violent criminals, refusing basic habeas corpus, and now finding excuses for a summary execution as penalty for an act of mercy.
Where are or 2A heroes now? Where are our Christians now?
And for Hellish 2050, "Email to bishops: enhance the conversion rate of ICE agents."
Yes, I am a real person, and have been for 74 years. And does my post read like a bot? I pride myself on being an original writer, so I would find that deeply offensive. Now, if you want a face, I'm sure a bot would be able to come up with a very convincing one. But you can see me if you check out my website at https://bobbook.info You can even buy one of my books.
If you don't want to put your money towards a 'heretic', then download some of my freebies. I hope you enjoy them. I've put a lot of time and thought into them.
In fact, if you send me an email address and a title (via my site, not publicly), I'll send you the ebook file free of charge. I'm not into it to make money, but to give Christians something to think about. As Michael says, not enough Christians think.
Thanks, Bob… Sorry about the slight descent into sarcasm; didn’t intend to offend (as if intention matters). Note to self: don’t post anything after midnight. I also enjoy thinking, even though my comments don’t always reflect that. One of the “good problems“ with Substack is that there is a lot of good content, and I tried to provide some from time to time. I don’t usually make comments other than encouragements. I did look at your profile with the lovely black blob image and it looks like we share some common beliefs and disagree on some other things. Bots are usually not that complicated at least at this point in their development. I wish you well in your endeavors and pray that all of us believers find some way toward unity. God bless…
Not a problem, Scott! With the number of bots and trolls around, that's always a fair question. And I appreciate your apology, even when not required.
Would you care for a free ebook? 'Pope Barnabas' is the one closest my heart; it's written as though a 'Thinking Man's Dan Brown'. That offer extends to everyone who reads this thread.
Hey Michael, I cannot too strongly disagree—on biblical, Gospel-centered, Christian grounds. It’s ironic that you end up sounding in many ways like a liberal biblical studies scholar. To invoke Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation, you are revealing yourself to be a “theologian of glory” (which is not a compliment). You have a concept of God and his characteristics, but they are divorced from the crucifixion. In other words, despite your references to the Bible, Christianity, God, Jesus, love, etc., it is Christless, or at least a Christ without a cross.
I made a Note on a similar theme a few weeks ago:
With the growing scandal of charity fraud in this country, a lot of secular humanists wearing Christian skinsuits are going to start attacking Christian critics of endless migration and handouts by pulling the “Jesus said to give all you have” card. Counter them with this passage from the Didache, one of the earliest Church documents:
“Give to everyone who asks, and ask nothing in return; for the Father wishes that a share of his own gifts be given to all. Blessed is the man who gives according to the commandment, for he is without blame. Woe to the man who takes. However, if the one who takes is in need, he is without blame. But should he not be in need, he shall give an account of the why and the wherefore of his taking it. And he will be put in prison and examined strictly about what he did, and shall not go out from there until he has paid the last cent. But in this matter the saying also holds: Let your alms sweat in your hands until you know to whom you are giving.”
In other words, nothing requires that Christians be suckers.
Quote source: Early Church Fathers Collection, Word on Fire Classics, 2024
Mr/Ms Chesterton,
A quote worthy of thought! The key here is as the Didache says; Let your alms sweat in your hands until you know to whom you are giving.”
I think one problem is that many people of good will start with "How generous should I be?" and work towards that target. I think that is a poor way of going about it for two reasons. First, it edges into a legalistic approach by setting an arbitrary level for attaining some imagined 'Righteousness', and secondly because it starts with ME.
My wife and I rarely if ever give to solicitations from charities or door knockers, etc. But when we see a cause that we think we should support, we do our due diligence and then donate. The generosity is founded in their need, not our pre-determination. In the past this has often been an unexpected need within our own community.
Not a perfect system, and it would be nice if we could give more; but it's the best we can manage.
I love that line as well, it really stood out to me when I read it the first time. It slows down the reflex "I must give to be good" which bad actors like to use against Christians. Stop, take a step back and ask "Will this really help the people it claims to help" and also ask (sadly) "is this a scam?" Do the research.
If the scholarship is correct and parts of the Didache do go back to the first century, I find it fascinating that the Apostles may have dealt with the same issues we do, and took a firm line on things.
Thank you for this Michael. I have been thinking about this but never been able to articulate it with "discernment ".
Well said. This is what Allie Beth Stuckey calls, "Toxic Empathy." I have a Christian friend who just went on an angry rant today on social media. I'd like to respond, or talk to her in person, but I think the anger will prevent us from having a profitable discussion. Any recommendations on this front, or should I just leave it alone?
My rule of thumb is to ask, "is this person open to reason?" (James 3:17). Can they be persuaded or have they been ideologically captured? When talking to a conservative who has a different point of view, most often I find them to be reasonable, even if we don't see eye to eye on something. When talking to a progressive, they are almost always ideologically captured and unwilling to have a reasonable dialogue. I've found that rule of thumb to be helpful.
Michael, I’d like to ask you, “are you open to reason?” Tell me: how are you not equally as captured by an ideology like the leftists?
You have already defined the categories as “conservatives = more normal, more human = generally on the right side of things” and “progressives = almost rabid-like ideologues = on the wrong side of things.” It’s the age-old division of the world into the righteous and the unrighteous, the clean and the unclean. Paul’s argument in Romans decimates this kind of thinking.
This is required reading.
Clear-eyed, disciplined, and overdue—this piece exposes how language, outrage, and false compassion are being weaponized against Christians who don’t think critically. No theatrics. No fluff. Just signal clarity in a fog of manipulation. Read it. Share it. Stop being played.
Thank you!
Very wise. I will use that question as my guide. Thank you.
Great post... just shared to Notes!
Thanks Jim!
I agree that Scripture calls Christians to love with knowledge and discernment. Paul is clear that love is not blind sentimentality (Philippians 1:9–11), and believers should not be easily deceived or led by emotion alone (Ephesians 4:14). On that point, we are aligned.
Where I believe this argument goes astray is not in its call for discernment, but in how discernment is defined and applied.
Biblical discernment is never exercised in isolation from humility, compassion, and self-examination. Scripture consistently warns that truth wielded without love becomes harmful rather than holy. Paul himself reminds us that even if we “understand all mysteries and all knowledge,” without love we gain nothing (1 Corinthians 13:2). Discernment is meant to shape love, not replace it or weaponize it.
Additionally, Scripture does not permit us to dismiss concern for suffering people as mere emotional manipulation without careful witness and restraint. The Bible is filled with commands to hear cries of distress, especially from the vulnerable, the foreigner, and the oppressed (Exodus 22:21–23; Deuteronomy 10:18–19; Proverbs 31:8–9). Responding with concern or lament does not automatically make someone gullible, nor does it place them outside faithful Christian witness.
Jesus Himself modeled a posture that held truth, accountability, and compassion together. He confronted sin clearly, yet He also wept over suffering, defended the vulnerable, and warned against hardness of heart—especially among those confident in their own righteousness (Matthew 23:23; Luke 10:33–37; John 8:1–11). Discernment in Scripture is cruciform; it is shaped by the cross, not by contempt.
Finally, Scripture cautions us against assigning motives, condemning fellow believers broadly, or equating disagreement with rebellion or lawlessness (Romans 14:4; James 4:11–12). We are called to speak truth, yes—but also to “speak the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15), to be “quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger” (James 1:19), and to correct others “with gentleness” (2 Timothy 2:24–25).
Christian love must indeed be discerning. But Christian discernment must also be patient, humble, truthful, and marked by the fruit of the Spirit. When any of those are missing, we should pause—no matter how confident we feel that we are defending truth.
Antonio, thank you for reminding others of the witness of Scripture. I fear the culture of American, evangelical Christianity is now consumed by an ideology that has little to do with our crucified and risen Lord.
Michael, you would do well to read your own post mutatis mutandis.
Your linking 'un-Christian' with 'un-American is a strong clue. If it's not the politics you approve of, it must be 'un-Christian'.
I have ye to see anyone argue that Pretti was 'un-Christian' is trying to protect a woman who had been pushed to the ground and sprayed.
He attempted to do this without causing any harm to anyone; and he was sprayed and knocked to the ground for his troubles. Still, he made no attempt to harm anyone, even in self-defence. He hunkered down, nothing more.
Thern, AFTER being disarmed (a gun which he never reached for, but was totally legal for him to carry), the ICE thugs pulled back from him. Still he made no attempt to approach anyone, nor even to stand. Then, with him doing nothing threatening and everyone out of reach anyway, he was shot. Something over six times, some say ten times.
I think you might need some 'discernment' here yourself; tell me what he was doing wrong, except showing that he disagreed with how those ICE thugs were treating a woman who disagreed with them. In any civilised country this would be stone cold murder. But not in the Land of the Free, where so many excuse the need for guns as a protection in case the government becomes tyrannical and turns on its own citizens.
I see the government disregarding the Rule of Law and Due Process in so many ways, in pardoning hundreds found by unanimous jury decision to be violent criminals, refusing basic habeas corpus, and now finding excuses for a summary execution as penalty for an act of mercy.
Where are or 2A heroes now? Where are our Christians now?
And for Hellish 2050, "Email to bishops: enhance the conversion rate of ICE agents."
Are you a real person? Please show your face. I don’t care to debate with bots. Thanks!
Yes, I am a real person, and have been for 74 years. And does my post read like a bot? I pride myself on being an original writer, so I would find that deeply offensive. Now, if you want a face, I'm sure a bot would be able to come up with a very convincing one. But you can see me if you check out my website at https://bobbook.info You can even buy one of my books.
If you don't want to put your money towards a 'heretic', then download some of my freebies. I hope you enjoy them. I've put a lot of time and thought into them.
In fact, if you send me an email address and a title (via my site, not publicly), I'll send you the ebook file free of charge. I'm not into it to make money, but to give Christians something to think about. As Michael says, not enough Christians think.
Thanks, Bob… Sorry about the slight descent into sarcasm; didn’t intend to offend (as if intention matters). Note to self: don’t post anything after midnight. I also enjoy thinking, even though my comments don’t always reflect that. One of the “good problems“ with Substack is that there is a lot of good content, and I tried to provide some from time to time. I don’t usually make comments other than encouragements. I did look at your profile with the lovely black blob image and it looks like we share some common beliefs and disagree on some other things. Bots are usually not that complicated at least at this point in their development. I wish you well in your endeavors and pray that all of us believers find some way toward unity. God bless…
Not a problem, Scott! With the number of bots and trolls around, that's always a fair question. And I appreciate your apology, even when not required.
Would you care for a free ebook? 'Pope Barnabas' is the one closest my heart; it's written as though a 'Thinking Man's Dan Brown'. That offer extends to everyone who reads this thread.
Highly full day…after midnight so I have to wait till tomorrow to reply according to my new policy. This doesn’t count…
Did you engage with what Bob said, or did you simply dismiss him by calling him a bot?
Hey Michael, I cannot too strongly disagree—on biblical, Gospel-centered, Christian grounds. It’s ironic that you end up sounding in many ways like a liberal biblical studies scholar. To invoke Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation, you are revealing yourself to be a “theologian of glory” (which is not a compliment). You have a concept of God and his characteristics, but they are divorced from the crucifixion. In other words, despite your references to the Bible, Christianity, God, Jesus, love, etc., it is Christless, or at least a Christ without a cross.
“Nicer than God” is the antithesis of truth…and kindness!
Email to Bishops: enhancing the conversion rate of Muslims
Helping them to leave Islam is an act of kindness
https://hellish2050.substack.com/p/email-to-bishops-enhancing-the-conversion