Last week I attended the funeral of a very beloved man named Bob who clearly knew how to give. The chapel was filled for his service and those that spoke on his behalf consistently commented on his generosity and giving spirit. One speaker made a point to say that Bob was not “a taker.” This statement, clearly accurate about Bob, got me thinking about the difference between receiving and taking.
I think one of the reasons so many people resist receiving is because they confuse it with taking. In reality, these are very different actions. To receive, there first must be a giver. To receive, something has to be offered to you. It’s the opposite with taking, however. Taking implies the thing has not been offered, so if it is to be acquired, the would-be receiver must act to get it. With receiving, the process is initiated by the giver. With taking, it’s the taker that performs the primary action, and the suggestion is that the thing taken belongs to someone else.
In truth, “taking” is a more complex term than I realized. An online search revealed 41 definitions for “take” ranging from the innocuous “take a photo” to “take someone” as in to cheat. Among the 41, there are a few relevant meanings where the taker is not the initiator. The first is to “claim or assume something” as in to “take the blame.” Another is to “accept something” as valid and true, such as to “take criticism.” Finally we have to “bear something” as in “take abuse.” None of these uses fits my description of taking above. They are examples of where we can accept something (criticism or blame, for instance), but we don’t have to receive it. We can acknowledge what the other person is saying, but we don’t have to believe that it’s true; we choose to let it go.
Thankfully it really isn’t difficult to distinguish receiving from taking. We know when something is being offered to us. When we receive, both we and the giver are blessed, and that’s a good thing.