On "Getting" and "Giving"

Every now and then, something comes out that acts as a pretty decisive litmus test and causes a divide amongst followers of Christ.  A lot of emotions are stirred, a lot of augments are made, feelings are expressed, and more of the "gospel-according-to-the-interwebs" is exposed.

The most recent was from an article in the December 2015 New Era.  There were blog posts talking about how this was going to be damaging to the psyche of many a young woman because of impossible standards, how the implied message of the image was negative towards the "confident, modern young woman on the left", and other such non-sense.

The biggest message that came out was that people can be "both getter and a giver".  And as soon as I read those words I knew they missed the whole point.

I don’t think the article was saying you can only be a giver or a “getter”. I think they were talking about what we focus on first or the most.

I think it all comes down to what Jesus taught on the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 6:24) — we can’t have two primary focuses. We can, however, have a “Primary” and “Secondary” focus. It’s like the first and second great commandments — the first is to love God with all our heart / might / mind / strength, and the second is to “love our neighbor as thyself”. Elder Neal A. Maxwell explained about the relationship between these two commandments:

“Now, we don’t think about it enough in the Church, but the first commandment is first for a reason. And the second commandment is second for a reason. True, the second commandment is like unto the first, but it isn’t the first commandment. We worship the perfect object of that first commandment, God, because of His spiritual supremacy. We do not worship our neighbors. We are to love them but not worship them. This recognition of God’s supremacy on all counts is why that commandment is first and why it is completely safe for us to submit to Him.” (Ensign, Aug 2000)

Elder Lynn G. Robbins also illustrates this concept and the effect of our primary / secondary focus in a devotional he gave at BYU Idaho in October 2010:
http://www2.byui.edu/Presentations/Transcripts/Devotionals/2010_10_12_Robbins.htm

It all comes down to what we put first. If our primary focus is inward, (or if our primary fear isn’t getting enough) , then we can’t truly give the only thing that really belongs to us and the only thing He asks of us. As Neal A. Maxwell puts it,

“The submission of one’s will is really the only uniquely personal thing we have to place on God’s altar. The many other things we “give,” brothers and sisters, are actually the things He has already given or loaned to us. However, when you and I finally submit ourselves, by letting our individual wills be swallowed up in God’s will, then we are really giving something to Him! It is the only possession which is truly ours to give!

“Consecration thus constitutes the only unconditional surrender which is also a total victory!” (Gen Conf, Oct 1995).

Something I read in Screwtape Letters reminded me of this situation.

“He (the devil) always sends errors into the world in pairs--pairs of opposites...He relies on your extra dislike of one to draw you gradually into the opposite one. But do not let us be fooled. We have to keep our eyes on the goal and go straight through between both errors. We have no other concern than that with either of them.”  (C.S. Lewis)

I think we're dealing with one of those "twin errors" situation here.  One side says being a giver means never asking or receiving any help and spending all energy on any person with any need whatsoever regardless of their own personal state (covert self-centeredness), and the other side says they can be both "givers and getters" and retain their focus on themselves (overt self-centeredness).  Following the Lord's pattern of giving doesn't mean you neglect caring for one's self, any more than episodic giving means that one has put off their prideful enmity fro God. 

The only safe passage through the "strait and narrow" is, as Elder Maxwell puts it, "...a church that makes specific demands of us and gives us specific things to do and marks the strait and narrow way, lest we fall off one side of the precipice or the other."

Did you know the natural man can still survive intact in an environment of either too much, to little, or giving in the wrong order and pattern?  It is only through the right amount in the correct order and priority can it be truly put off.

Elder Dallin H Oaks warned against those who would give too much (to the point of being unhealthy and "beyond the mark":

"We are commanded to give to the poor. Could the fulfillment of that fundamental Christian obligation be carried to excess? I believe it can. I have seen cases in which persons fulfilled that duty to such an extent that they impoverished their own families by expending resources of property or time that were needed for family members.

"... Some persons have a finely developed social conscience. They respond to social injustice and suffering with great concern, commitment, and generosity. This is surely a spiritual strength, something many of us need in greater measure. Yet persons who have this great quality need to be cautious that it not impel them to overstep other ultimate values. My social conscience should not cause me to coerce others to use their time or means to fulfill my objectives. We are not blessed for magnifying our calling with someone else’s time or resources." ("Our Strengths Can Become Our Downfall", Ensign, Oct. 1994).

And Elder Maxwell also warned about those who do give, but may not being giving enough, including giving of the only thing that really makes a difference:

"Once the telestial sins are left behind and henceforth avoided, the focus falls ever more on the sins of omission. These omissions signify a lack of qualifying fully for the celestial kingdom. Only greater consecration can correct these omissions, which have consequences just as real as do the sins of commission. Many of us thus have sufficient faith to avoid the major sins of commission, but not enough faith to sacrifice our distracting obsessions or to focus on our omissions.

"Most omissions occur because we fail to get outside ourselves. We are so busy checking on our own temperatures, we do not notice the burning fevers of others even when we can offer them some of the needed remedies, such as encouragement, kindness, and commendation. The hands which hang down and most need to be lifted up belong to those too discouraged even to reach out anymore."

"...God seeks to have us become more consecrated by giving everything. Then, when we come home to Him, He will generously give us “all that [He] hath” (D&C 84:38).

"... The submission of one’s will is really the only uniquely personal thing we have to place on God’s altar. The many other things we “give,” brothers and sisters, are actually the things He has already given or loaned to us. However, when you and I finally submit ourselves, by letting our individual wills be swallowed up in God’s will, then we are really giving something to Him! It is the only possession which is truly ours to give!"

"Consecration thus constitutes the only unconditional surrender which is also a total victory!" (https://www.lds.org/ensign/1995/11/swallowed-up-in-the-will-of-the-father?lang=eng)

There is a proper pattern of giving under the guidance of "Wisdom and Order".  I think the best two illustrations of this pattern are given by Pres. Gordon B. Hinckley and Barbara B. Smith.

"Each of us has a fourfold responsibility. First, we have a responsibility to our families. Second, we have a responsibility to our employers. Third, we have a responsibility to the Lord’s work. Fourth, we have a responsibility to ourselves." (Gordon B. Hinckley, “Rejoicing in the Privilege to Serve,” Worldwide Leadership Training Meeting, June 21, 2003)

Sis Barbara B. Smith -

"Women’s first responsibility for service is to their families, for this is the fundamental priority established by the Lord. It must he their first consideration, and that of all those who call them to positions or seek their assistance in any endeavor; for the building of strong families is fundamental to a strong society.

"Service in the Church most often should be a woman’s next priority, with service in the community being a third consideration.

... "Another area of service within the general context of Church service is that of individual compassionate service on a spontaneous, personal basis. It is the kind of watchful care that each woman is expected to give to a neighbor in need.

... "Only when a woman understands the importance and the enrichment of service and evaluates her opportunities—neither making excuses to avoid service nor overextending herself unwisely—can she enjoy the promised blessings of service." (Ensign, October 1977, “She Stretcheth Out Her Hand to the Poor”).

Elder Maxwell, again, with a good rule-of-thumb on knowing when the giving might be out of hand and it might be a good time to check your priorities against the Lord's pattern of giving:

"The Lord has given us what might be called the 'wisdom and order' and 'strength and means' tests. Unwisely, we often write checks against our time accounts as we never would dare do, comparably, against our bank accounts. Sometimes we make so many commitments that they become like the vines in the allegory of Jacob, threatening to 'overcome the roots,' including the 'roots' of family relationships, friendships, and relationships with God." ("Wisdom and Order", Ensign, June 1996)

"When we run faster than we are able, we get both inefficient and tired. ... I have on my office wall a wise and useful reminder by Anne Morrow Lindbergh concerning one of the realities of life. She wrote, 'My life cannot implement in action the demands of all the people to whom my heart responds.' That's good counsel for us all, not as an excuse to forgo duty, but as a sage point about pace and the need for quality in relationships." ("Deposition of a Disciple", 1976, Deseret Book)

Every time I hear someone making the "getter-and-giver" argument, I get of glimpse of what it must have been like to hear Elizabeth Marsh explain how the pint of crème was really hers to use after all...