An observation on Charity

[2ndRateMind]

Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

1 Corinthians 13 1-13 KJV

I thought I might mention this passage, today, for no particular reason beyond the desire for a conversation. And I thought I might mention a hierarchy of charity, and see what you all make of it.

Some charities, we see as duties, others, we see as simply good to do, if one has the money to spare once the bills are paid and our obligations are met and our hobbies indulged.

We have, for example, charity to our conventional, nuclear family of two adults and 2.4 children. But few would see the breadwinner feeding the rest as charity, or even a duty. It is just what one does, because one loves. And so for our parents, though we may be obliged to them, in return for their love, and provision, when we were children.

Then our friends. We help them, when we can, because we love them. Charity.

Then our neighbourhood, our county, our state, our country. And now this charity thing is getting attenuated. We may not even know the individuals our tithes and taxes go to help. But they are at least our fellow countrymen, raised in the same society as us, and sharing our core values. We can love them, through our abstract ideas about our fellow citizenry, and not begrudge the welfare.

And then there is the rest of the world. They are other. They don't speak the same language, or read the same books, or agree with our politics, or follow the same religion. It is harder to love them; they are not like us. And so the charity runs dry.

I want to suggest that the closer one gets to following Jesus' ideal of loving one's neighbour is the closer one gets to loving these others. And that a good enough approximation of this confluence is the amount of cash we are prepared to part with to support people who need our help, maybe living in absolute poverty on less than $600 per year, but who are 'not like us'. Anyone can give to one's nearest and dearest; the true measure of charity is giving to those who are not near, and not dear. The extent of our charity, I suggest, is demonstrated by our gifts to others in reverse order of the extent of our natural loves.

Comments and criticisms welcome.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[gclayjr]

2ndRateMind,

I assume you don't expect a poor man in Somalia to give money to a homeless man in Chicago, rather than feed his kids. One who can't take care of himself, can't help anybody else. We All have limited resources. All charity is not effective Charity. That is one reason why Government Charity almost always impoverishes its own citizens by taking from those who have to squander it inefficiently to create an always growing dependent class. As Maimonedes famously said

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

I can have more effect teaching my own kids to fish, than sending a few pennies all over the world to not even be able to give many poor men fish to eat.

You do have a point that many of us don't think that we can "afford" to help because we are too attached to our luxuries. That doesn't change the need to prioritize.

A man who cannot take care of himself cannot help anybody
A man who does not provide for his own family has no character
A man can be more effective in helping his neighbors and friends than sending his time and resources abroad

And for those with enough resources, it is definitely Christlike to help as many as you can including the many who live in poverty in the far flung reaches of the globe.

Regards,

George Clay

[Obrien]

Charity so often becomes conflated with giving money. The OP scripture states that without charity, giving away all your goods to the poor profits you nothing. Obviously, your giving is not a proper measure of your charity.

Jesus taught us to love our enemies, do good to those who abuse us, love our neighbor as we love ourself etc. Charity is more than giving, it's recognizing the need because we see someone in a position we would not like to be in, then acting to help. Charity can be encouragement, service, a warm jacket, a hot cup of coffee on a cold day, an embrace, a letter, a jumpstart in the parking lot or a reassurance that God knows and loves YOU.

Thanks for the OP, 2RM. You cause me to considerize great thoughts this Thanksgiving morning.

[lundbaek]

Also, there are many who believe that righteousness and charity include creating and supporting initiatives, programs and legislation that force people to involuntarily contribute to the welfare of others thru taxation.

[2ndRateMind]

Yes, I think that when the passage from Corinthians talks about charity, the meaning is caritas, or agape. These I take to be the unconditional love of humanity (which does not necessarily mean unconditional approval), for no better reason than that we share a biology and a psychology, and many of the same pleasures and sufferings. Insofar as we may try to distance ourselves from those who are 'not like us', I truly think we do damage to our capacity to feel this unconditional love, do damage to our capacity to follow Jesus' injunction to 'love one another, as I have loved you', and, ultimately, do damage to our prospects of salvation. Even if salvation is solely about what we believe, which I do not think for one moment, belief must be accompanied by the extension of that belief, which requires the understanding and expression of it.

Best wishes, and happy thanksgiving, 2RM.

[Original_Intent]

I liked most of the OP, the only fly in the ointment was conflating taxes in any way shape or form with charity.

But overall, I like it.

[marc]

Thank you for your post, 2RM.

[Thinker]

Yes, I think that when the passage from Corinthians talks about charity, the meaning is caritas, or agape. These I take to be the unconditional love of humanity (which does not necessarily mean unconditional approval), for no better reason than that we share a biology and a psychology, and many of the same pleasures and sufferings. Insofar as we may try to distance ourselves from those who are 'not like us', I truly think we do damage to our capacity to feel this unconditional love, do damage to our capacity to follow Jesus' injunction to 'love one another, as I have loved you', and, ultimately, do damage to our prospects of salvation. Even if salvation is solely about what we believe, which I do not think for one moment, belief must be accompanied by the extension of that belief, which requires the understanding and expression of it.

Best wishes, and happy thanksgiving, 2RM.

I like your thoughts on this, especially the implication that faith and love are active, not just beliefs.

When I think of charity, I think of those in my sphere of influence - especially those who are under my sole stewardship - my children. They are my priority. "Nothing can compensate for failure in the home" - not even charity to those in extreme poverty. Still, once I became a parent, I began to realize that all of humanity were once as lovable as my newborn, and I felt more love and care for all. Yet, there's a season for things - when my kids are growing up, I need to prioritize parenting them. When they are grown, I can direct my love toward others more. And as you suggested, as we grow in our ability to love well, we will love with more awareness - including those out of sight, but not out of mind nor our hearts.

It is definitely testing when others hurt me - do I try to hurt back, or do I turn the cheek. More recently, both. I began to try to hurt back, but then I realized how I was being mean too, and I stopped, established boundaries and forgave. There are some people in my life who have mental illness - so they hurt me, yet they blame me for it rather than take responsibility. It is extremely difficult to love them and love myself, so I must maintain boundaries because I do think that the greatest commandments are not just loving others and God, but also loving ourselves. In fact, I believe that only when we love and compassionately understand ourselves (warts and all), are we able to really love and compassionately understand others.

[ajax]

Charity so often becomes conflated with giving money. The OP scripture states that without charity, giving away all your goods to the poor profits you nothing. Obviously, your giving is not a proper measure of your charity.

This. Charity is not so much about giving away money, though helping the poor is important, it is about becoming:

Do I suffereth long?
Am I kind?
Do I envy not?
Am I puffed up?
Do I seek my own?
Am I easily provoked?
Do I think evil?
Do I rejoice not in iniquity but rejoice in truth?
Do I bear all things? Believe all things? hope all things? endure all things?

In essence, have I become like Jesus?

[davedan]

Charity is the pure love of Jesus Christ .... for the Father.

Because of Christ's love for the Father, Christ was empowered to do more for others and be more than anyone ever has.

If we love and put the Father first, we can be inspired to love and serve others more than we could alone because the Father knows and loves our neighbor more than we ever could on our own.

[2ndRateMind]

I liked most of the OP, the only fly in the ointment was conflating taxes in any way shape or form with charity.

But overall, I like it.

Thank you, buddyI

But I just wanted to talk briefly about why, for me, at least, part of the taxes I have paid might be considered charity, and the advantages of a redistributive system of taxation. Even Jesus, when questioned on the topic of taxes, thought we should 'render unto Caesar, what is Caesar's, and render unto God, what is God's'. And that was long before any conception of the idea of a state system of welfare.

It seems to me that if we leave the poor to their own devices, they will sink, not swim, in this dog-eat-dog capitalist world we have built for ourselves. Weighed down by the cumulative disadvantages of poverty, it is hard, if not impossible, for them to compete for the resources they need to sustain their lives, while richer people suck them up with ease. If we are to redistribute wealth, and have a just, fair world where nobody wants for the basic necessities of life, then taxation has three, key, advantages over private philanthropy:

1. The resources appropriated by the state for redistribution are appropriated fairly, according to the democratic will of the people. We do not have a situation where some kind-hearted people are obliged to give more than their dues to meet the perceived need, and more than and while the hard-hearted avoid their humanitarian duties to others.

2. An impartial arbiter (the democratically elected government) decides the extent of need, and raises sufficient funds to meet it. Were all welfare voluntarily charitable, there is no guarantee that enough would be raised to meet even this, often parsimonious, level of provision.

3. The resources are distributed fairly and justly, according to each citizen's need, as determined by impartial rules set down by the government, and as subject to criticism and challenge by the electorate. A voluntary system of charity is far more likely to be partial, biased, and favour the favourites of the rich.

So, I do not begrudge my taxes. Governments are not perfect, and even I may disagree with some of their decisions. But, I recognise that these decisions are reached openly, transparently, by people more qualified than I to take them. And if I feel particularly strongly about some decision, I can raise my voice in 'The Great Debate', and have it heard, if I have something pertinent to say, worth saying, and worth listening to.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Original_Intent]

Whatever questionable merits taxation may have, it still does not qualify as charity.

When welfare systems are involved in a democratically representative government, taxes are often nothing more nor less than the ability to legislate the theft of others for your own enrichment. This includes the privileged class tasked with the burden of equitably redistributing wealth - thankfully they are well compensated for taking on this difficult responsibility.

Equitable should never trump agency.

[2ndRateMind]

Whatever questionable merits taxation may have, it still does not qualify as charity.

I honestly think this is a question of attitude. To be sure, if you avoid your taxes, there are penalties. Nevertheless, we can choose to pay our taxes the hard way, regretting every penny, as if we were miserly with nothing better to do with our lives than amass wealth, or the easy way, in gratitude that we are wealthy enough to pay taxes at all, and gratitude for the nation that allowed and facilitated that wealth, and gratitude for the good our taxes do for the benefit of the whole of society, and not just ourselves.

And if you choose the easy way, you may well find paying taxes not altogether different from a charitable donation. The penalties for avoidance become quite irrelevant, and the agency is not disrupted, at all.

Cheers, 2RM.

[Dave62]

Thank you for reminding me of this scripture. Without pure love we are nothing.

[gclayjr]

2ndRateMind,

Britain is home of 1% of the world's population 4% of the World's GDP and 7% of the world's welfare spending. Wonder whatever happened to Gran Britannia, where the industrial revolution started. The home of great inventors such as James Watt, and the country with the stamina and heart to stand alone against Nazi Germany?

The welfare state has done much to destroy the character of what was once a great nation. Government welfare benefits neither the one from whom the money has been taken, nor the ones to whom they give it. Private and religious organizations are far better.

I work as a financial clerk in our Ward (congregation). I write the checks we use to help people with their rent, medical expenses, utilities etc (Food is delivered directly). One of the big jobs a Bishop (sort of like an unpaid parish priest) has is to do is is to work with a family receiving financial help to either reduce their need, or to become independent. This may be helping them to manage their budget, or find a job. This is much more difficult than simply writing a check. But it is better for the recipient, because self-reliance is better that helplessness.

If you want to understand LDS belief about Charity read the following Conference Talk by Marvin J Ashton

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/ ... y?lang=eng

Government welfare is NOT charity it destroys both the recipient and the giver(?). I guess if you have to pay taxes, it is best to do so with a good attitude, but don't think that government welfare is true Christlike Charity. It is Satan's counterfeit!

Regards,

George Clay

[2ndRateMind]

Hi George

Be assured, Britain will be there, when the world needs her again. Her anthem is this;

I vow to thee, my country, all earthly things above,
Entire and whole and perfect, the service of my love;
The love that asks no question, the love that stands the test,
That lays upon the altar the dearest and the best;
The love that never falters, the love that pays the price,
The love that makes undaunted the final sacrifice.

And there's another country, I've heard of long ago,
Most dear to them that love her, most great to them that know;
We may not count her armies, we may not see her King;
Her fortress is a faithful heart, her pride is suffering;
And soul by soul and silently her shining bounds increase,
And her ways are ways of gentleness, and all her paths are peace.

As for the character of Britons; well, I don't find it so eroded. More confused, if I'm honest. But, when we are called, and the call be for good to measure itself against evil, I have no doubt that we will be there, and will be counted, and will prevail.

Cheers, 2RM.

[gclayjr]

2ndRateMind,

And I always thought your anthem was "God Save our Gracious Queen". I appreciate having pride in one's own nation. I am proud to be an American.

That being said, The welfare state is not only destroying Britain, but America also. We have many families that have been on welfare for generations. We have urban areas where almost no one works. In these areas, violence, crime, drugs, and prostitution dominate the life of these people.

As John Greenleaf Whittier said

Of all sad words of tongue or pen, the saddest are these, 'It might have been

What greater sorrow, than to wile away one's life in waste and idleness, rather than reach one's potential. God wants us to grow and become the best person we can be. What loving god would want this destruction upon his children?

Pride in one's country does not hide the truth that Satan's imitation of Christlike Charity is evil, destructive, and destroying both of our countries!

Regards,

George Clay

[2ndRateMind]

We have many families that have been on welfare for generations. We have urban areas where almost no one works. In these areas, violence, crime, drugs, and prostitution dominate the life of these people.

George, welfare, of course, cannot solve these problems, in the strict sense of the welfare word. Such welfare is just meant to keep these poor alive, while more effective interventions can be devised, tested, proved, and implemented. Meanwhile, I do not think we should limit our welfare for those needy who are not violent, not criminals, not drug dealers or addicts, and not prostitutes, for no better reason than that some people are. I deplore such lifestyles, but I am not too keen either on virtuous wealthy people casting aspersions and making judgment on those less well off than they are, when they have yet to walk a mile in their tattered, down-at-heel, sole-worn, laceless boots.

I agree we have a problem, Houston. I just do not think the way to tackle it efficiently is to make poor people poorer, and compound the incentives that drive them to the twilight world you describe.

Cheers, 2RM.

[bornfree]

If you eliminate drug dealers, prostitutes , violent people,
Drug users, illegals etc., there might be little need for welfare, help with providing jobs, education, use that welfare money for funding these programs, with a policy that if you don't work you don't eat, unless disabled.
Welfare creates a nation dependant on the government, is that the plan ?

[2ndRateMind]

Hmmm. So let's also eliminate the communists, the socialists, the liberals, the jews, and moslems, and atheists, those who earn less than $12,000 a year, those in debt, those who don't own their home. Let's eliminate particularly anyone who has ever drunk a pink gin. Let's eliminate Bulgarians and free-thinkers and intellectuals and the left-handed. Let's eliminate anyone who considers themself 'creative', together with anyone who smokes gauloise cigarettes or owns a pet cat. Let's eliminate aristocrats and baseball fans. Let's eliminate anarchists and anorexics and republicans and telephone sales agents. Let's eliminate immigrants and schizophrenics and feminists. Let's eliminate fat people, and people with red pubic hair and especially anyone who likes 'jazz'. Let's eliminate prison-inmates and alcoholics and manic depressives and homosexuals. In short, let's eliminate anyone not like me, who I disapprove of, or who disagrees with me about any of my ideas, at all...

It would be paradise, were it not for the fact that there would be no one left to share it with...

Cheers, 2RM.

[gclayjr]

2ndRateMind,

I agree there is a problem, Houston. I just do not think the way to tackle it efficiently is to make poor people poorer, and compound the incentives that drive them to the twilight world you describe.

For that reason, I think well run private charity is superior to Government Charity, because government charities DO make poor people poorer! The government has no incentive to help you out of welfare, because they have your vote, if you depend upon them. They have no incentive to honestly and effective distribute the welfare, because there is no competition, no penalty for waste and inefficiencies.

Did you read that talk by Elder Ashton? I think it explains it well.

Regards,

George CLay

[2ndRateMind]

Yes, I've done that talk, now, George. There is much good in it. I am already persuaded, however, that private charity is 'A Good Thing'. I do not need to be convinced in this matter. But, as I have pointed out, public charity (government intervention as a safety net for even the least deserving of the poor) has it's advantages, also. The proper discussion, I think, is not 'which of these should we choose?' but, 'What is the best proportion of each to apply?' In other words, I prefer a 'both/and' solution to an 'either/or' dichotomy.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[gclayjr]

2ndRateMind,

I can "Kind of" go along with you. While I believe that the world would be better with a world of minimalist governments that focus on protecting society from enemies both foreign and domestic, and capturing and prosecuting criminals who rob, steal, murder etc, and eliminating the socialist ideas of regulating and controlling everything, and redistributing money to the "poor", we cannot start from the beginning. We all live in different societies, and the cultures and governments and these have effected us in how we live our lives.

There have been studies that have shown that citizens of more socialized countries give much less to earthquake and hurricane relief than those who live in less socialized countries. It has been determined that a major reason for this is that many citizens of these more socialized believe that they have already paid taxes and it should be up to their government to provide this charitable relief.

So I would agree "waving a magic wand" and instantly eliminating all government social programs would be disastrous. However, I think the evolution should be towards reducing this welfare, rather than increasing it.

Also, a free, democratic (representative republic) is only an effective form of government for a society that is generally honest and honorable. Once a society's citizens descend into a low enough level of evil and corruption, then only a strong (usually thuggish) dictatorship will keep the streets safe.

Although it is not politically correct to point this out, but every reasonably freely elected Arab government in the past century has turned out to be much worse than the thug dictator that was deposed.

God help us not descend into a society that can ONLY be governed by a dictator.

Regards,

George CLay

[gclayjr]

BornFree, 2ndRateMind,

I think that maybe we need to look at cause and effect here. Some people will always choose to be

drug dealers, prostitutes , violent people, Drug users, illegals etc

and we do actually have a moral obligation to them as our brothers and sisters, there are environments that encourage such bad behavior and environments that that discourage it. And based upon these environments you either get more of it or less of it.

Secular socialism does NOT recognize the importance of individual effort, and does not encourage or reward individual accomplishment. Such an environment cultivates the above behavior.

This war, like the war in heaven is a war of ideas. If we lose, then Satan prevails and misery follows.


Regards,

George Clay

[2ndRateMind]

BornFree, 2ndRateMind,

I think that maybe we need to look at cause and effect here. Some people will always choose to be

drug dealers, prostitutes , violent people, Drug users, illegals etc

and we do actually have a moral obligation to them as our brothers and sisters...

I think this is absolutely right, a definite and definitive hit on the target, and a bullseye at that.

Cheers, 2RM.