Good giving
We are convicted by the numbers.
In yesterday's Epistle reading as assigned by the Revised Common Lectionary, we heard in James 2 that "If a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food, and one of you says to them, 'Go in peace; keep warm and eat your fill,' and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that? So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead."
America gives generously, but a story in the New York Times this weekend pointed out that the bulk of charitable giving is not earmarked for the poor. Indeed, if you research the Chronicle of Philanthropy, you will find that of the top 25 gifts so far in 2012, only one was designated for a recipient which might actually help people in need (a gift of $150 million the Oregon Community Foundation in Portland). The others went to colleges, museums, libraries and the arts. Scrolling further down the list, it is revealed that only two in the top 100 gifts are designated for social services
What does this mean?
It means that we are giving out of selfishness, not out of the genuine desire to help a world in need. Writes Martin Luther, "A Christian is the servant of all and made subject to all. Insofar as he is free he does no works, but insofar as he is a servant he does all kinds of works." What kind of works? Those of love. "Each caring for an working for the other, bearing one another's burdens and so fulfilling the law of Christ. This is a truly Christian life." (Luther's Works, Vol 31, pp. 358 and 365, quoted in Samuel Torvend, Luther and the Hungry Poor)
While Luther himself might not enjoy being referenced in a blog post which also quotes James (which he dismissed as an "epistle of straw" for what he perceived as its emphasis on works righteousness), Luther's words do get to the heart of what genuine charitable giving is all about. This is not to dismiss the critical importance of gifts to nonprofits which serve vital educational and medical services. But it does appear that "there is a great gulf fixed" (Luke 16:26, KJV) between the needs of America's poor and the wealthy who seek to make a name for themselves through their lavish gifts.
As a postscript in this highly charged political season, it is also interesting to note in the Chronicle of Philanthropy that red states give significantly more than blue states. It is left to the reader to ponder why this is so.
Comments
Post a Comment