You and I have discussed this several times, and I agree with your assessment wholeheartedly. I think the whole point of helping the poor is the effect that it's supposed to have on the individuals both giving and receiving. That effect is lost when the giver is a faceless organization.
One other aspect which I think is often overlooked regarding the Biblical model of charity is that the poor essentially had to earn generosity. Think about gleaning - the rich was required to leave the wheat on the ground but the poor was required to actually pick it up. I cut the American Religious Right a little slack here because the American "poor" generally not only demand to live at standards which the rest of the world considers to be middle class, but they demand that it arrive on their doorstep and be carried inside while they stay on the couch in their air conditioned room while watching their large screen.
BTW - nice, but understated, refernece to Ayn Rand. Too many people confuse her idea of Capitalism with that of Adam Smith. Although I don't think she would support corporatism, either.
Good points, especially on the individual's responsibility to help aid the poor. I think one reason God set it up this way is that helping others is an excellent remedy for pride.
The question I have had is why has the religious right seemingly abandonned charity altoghether?
The religious right has abandoned charity?
Is there any proof of this?
As someone who was firmly in the Religious Right for many years, I have seen the RR come up with plenty of reasons to essentially forego charity. The rationalle is usually that the poor are so because of their own choices and could choose some other circumstance. (My comment above is a reflection of my background, but it's much different than it would have been 10 years ago.)
For example, the church that I was a member of for 15 years was surrounded by poverty and drug abuse. Most of the members lived in the suburbs and never left the relatively safe borders of the church property, so they choose to avoid seeing what surrounded them. Sure there was some charity, but it was essentially limited to a small "store" which operated a few days a week and soup served by staff once a week. In my mind this was only marginally superior to government aid, as essentially no one from the congregation was involved in the actual care for the poor. It was not too surprising when the church decided to move to the suburbs, as its congregation essentially had no roots in the surrounding community. That same church literally sent millions of dollars for missions work around the world, so it wasn't for a lack of money.
Maybe one of these days I'll get around to writing my theory as to why so many conservative Christians just don't seem to give a damn.
Part of the problem when discussing the Christian imperative to assisting the poor is that the modern definition of "poor" may not be an accurate description of what the Bible defines as "poor." The Apostle Paul also wrote that he who does not work should not eat.
One of the consequences of private charity is that in most cases, the recipient is required to modify their behavior, even if only temporarily, to meet the minimum expectations of the donor. Charity without any requirement of accountability for the recipient is an empty act.
At the very least, when private donors give charitably, they expect an expression of gratitude. That requirement of gratitude has powerful consequences for the recipient. In other cases, more accountability may be required. Habitual recipients may inspire the donor to try to get the donee to change their personal behavior so that personal habits (like alcoholism, drug addiction, anger, etc.) that prevent them from being even mimimally successful are addressed. In other cases, the donor may observe that their are other issues which need more attention, such and physical or mental incapacity.
The "poor will always be among" us because people make bad choices. Some of those choices affect only that person. But more often, they affect others, such as children and family members, as well. Impersonal corporate charity absolves the donee from having to confront the donor. It absolves them of responsibility for their own failed habits, and of the minimum requirement of being at least grateful for the assistance they receive. They begin to believe that they are entitled to such assistance, instead of recognizing and appreciating the sacrifices that others make to provide them with that charity.
When the average "poor" adult in America is overweight, unemployed, unmarried, unmotivated, ungrateful, and in possession of material goods (such as cell phones, television, automobiles, etc.) that previous generations would consider extreme luxuries, it calls into question just what "poor" really means.
Despite all that, we are still commanded to assist the poor. That they bring much of their poverty on their own heads because of bad choices and bad attitudes does not absolve us of our duties. But it bears mentioning that "poor" is a relative term.
By most accounts, even the very poor in America are far richer than many of those in other countries. Those of us who are well off are indeed super-rich when compared not just with our neighbors, but with the world at large. We also need to learn to be grateful for what we have. Grateful people are better donors and better recipients of charity. But gratefulness demands historical and cultural perspective that far exceeds the popular imperative pushed in the American media and entertainment worlds which elevate greed and envy above all else.
Well if you call sending people who need money to a stewardship class charity, then I guess they haven't. From my experience the right avoids charitable activities as being too liberal. This doesn't mean that individuals aren't doing great things. As a group though, the religious right does little if anything that I would describe as charity.
To Scott's comment: (sorry this got a little long)
http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/
0...ew01_100_01.htm
In the United States there were in 2004 37 million people below the poverty line. 13 million of those - more than a third - were below 18. Another 3.5 million are over 65 (though many of those do not need a substantial income level and so are better off than this statistic would indicate, if I recall correctly from past studies of this.) Of course, in most parts of the country the poverty line is a poor indicator of poverty - it's considered to be too low, so you can guess the numbers of persons in poverty are actually higher.
7.8 million of those persons were employed an average of at least 27 hours per week. The Bureau of labor Statistics calls them the working poor. (http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2004.pdf - pdf).
So, of the more than 37 million in poverty, more than half work or cannot work. The rest, who knows. Obviously some have good reasons for not working, while some don't. But if we go by the majority, the majority of the poor cannot really be accused of not trying. So, we wouldn't want to be too sweeping in our characterization of the poor. The average poor person is not unemplyed, for example, despite your assertion.
A couple other picky things: (1) Having luxury items like, say TVs, doesn't make you any less poor. You can get a TV for free - people literally throw them away - but that has nothing to do with whether you can eat or get health insurance or buy a uniform for work - real measures of whether people are poor. (2) I can't buy the whole "poor decisions" bit. Okay, it's true of some people but there's a whole body of evidence that suggests that porverty breeds poverty, even before choices. E.g. the poor have a worse diet, and thus worse performance in school, thus lower paying jobs. Furthermore, "bad choices" are all too often things that happen in people's youth but drag them down for the rest of their lives. How long should we expect them to be punished? We're the ones talking about grace all the time right? (3) "Charity without any requirement of accountability for the recipient is an empty act." Ah, but, "Loan without expecting to be repaid." Certainly Jesus wasn't advocating empty action.
Having said all that, it might be true that in terms of setting priorities we might want to consider the relative wealth of our poor. There are few people in this country actually starving (though there are still many children who don't get enough food), whereas in some parts of the world starvation is a common problem, at least after disasters. Of course, we also have to consider that the poor of this nation live right next to us. To rip off John, if you can't love your neighbor whom you can see, how can you love a foreigner whom you can't see? (Not that we shouldn't feed the starving in Africa - please let's do! That's also a much cheaper problem to fix which makes our inaction that much
Ben Martin, I think you are on the right track.
There is poverty in dollars, there is poverty in intellectual inheritance and stimulation, there is poverty in emotional development and there is poverty in life skills: Etc.
I believe in charity without any requirement of accountability. There is a difference between 'charity' and 'teaching/encouraging' through charitable means. In fact, I would argue that the benefits of an act of pure charity accrues to the giver, rather than the recipient, and is the number one reason why the giver's action should be done with humility.
Also, the argument that the poor in the US 'have so much, so they're not really poor, compartively' has always irked me. They are simply the 'down-stream recipients' of a very rich, technologically-advanced society. It would be like condemning a poor man of a century ago for having (or having access to) a toilet or running water. Many did not, but the mere possession of same did not preclude a definition of poverty.
I think you are right. Charity with strings attached is not charity, it is a reward for doing what the giver wants.
Charity is commanded of Christians because it changes us, not them.
By the way, I've been poor at several points of my adult life and I am neither overweight or undermotivated. I don't think going to seminary was a bad choice either. The first church I worked for kept me in poverty as well. (Churches are notoriously cheap.) The only blanket cause for poverty is the fall.
I think there's a difference between charity which requires action and charity which requires accountability. The latter is what I found in the Religious Right - they are concerned with trying to change someone's actions.
Now, to be fair, I think the RR's intentions aren't bad. The thinking is that if they can teach the poor to fish then they'll be able to feed themselves. But I think there's a Biblical mandate for plain old charity - giving out food and money by individuals to individuals - that's ignored by the RR and most Americans.
"The 'poor will always be among' us because people make bad choices."
This is not my experience. I noticed the comment that disagreed with this already, but I wanted to emphasize this as well as disagree with the use of "demanding" and "entitled" regarding the needy. That is rarely the case.
It is discouraging for me to see such false images of the needy on top of what are some true observations of rhetoric about charity. The left does overemphasize the role of government in doing any better than we do now. It is also true that the human interaction helps both sides. It is more than a good feeling. Those in need are able to get past shame and the anxiety of not knowing what to do, both of which can make it harder to manage one's problems. Those providing help learn love, patience, maybe all the fruits of the Spirit. Plus I'm sure there are spiritual benefits of doing what God wants us to do.
It is not just a matter of teaching someone to fish. There are vast numbers of people with mental or physical disabilities too mild to be on Social Security, but too severe to hold a job. You try to be a day laborer at age 60.
I volunteer at a charity now, after having spent a career helping people as a physician. I have my own opinions about how importantly God sees charity, both to build character and decrease suffering, but just what's in the Bible is so powerful, such as Matthew 25: 31-46. Yet Christians have their excuses why that doesn't apply to them.
From the comments here, I don't see much experience with charity, just intellectual musing. What makes anyone think that pleases God? If people don't care about pleasing God, then I don't think it matters what their theology is.
There are plenty of times I wish I could pull God out from behind a post for a client or for someone else who could use His words and say, "Here, listen to Him." It doesn't work that way. I could write for days to detail my experience, and it wouldn't matter more than what I have written already. That's one reason why people should help the needy themselves. Is there any other way to understand?
Something succinct occurs to me.
Will either the left or the right sound off that neglecting the needy is a problem in God's eyes, as it is in Matthew 25:46? The left does that some, but in prescribing government programs then says that God wants someone other than me to fix it. So it doesn't get fixed. I believe God wants me to live my life to end poverty and live my life to end conflict. There's not much I can do about either one, but at least I can do my share, even something more than that.
How about trying to make that a common standard for following God? Just because someone believes that salvation is from faith, not works, doesn't mean it's OK to neglect the needy.
While I'm no longer a part of the RR, I don't think making excuses for not helping the needy is solely their domain, however much my baser inclinations wish I could pawn off everything on 'them' 
Interesting comments by DavidD. I agree there are certain things we should try to do. We aren't called to succeed, just to attempt. Sanctification sometimes occurs in the attempting and failing (because it drives us to God.)
Thanks for thinking deeply on these issues. Recently in my hometown in rural West Virginia many of my friends joined forces to raise $150,000 to defend a lawsuit against hanging a picture of Jesus in the school. After some research, I concluded that the money could have been used to provide clean water for over 21,000 people in a place in Africa where the child mortality rate is 65%. I'm trying to challenge the community to raise the same amount for this cause, but I'm not making much progress thus far. You can check it out at http://jesuspicchallenge.blogspot.com.
OK, I hear the people whodon't like to hear that there are no poor in America, but after living 14 years in the 9th poorest county in America, I maintain that the only reason anyonein america goes without food is because they are mentally ill,a substance abuser, or the child someone who is mentally ill or a substance abuser. Ok, I got that out of the way, and I will agree that there are people suffering in America and that it is the duty of believers to help them, and that we fall woefully short. I have donemy little bits here and there, but I still live in relative luxury, so I could do much more.
Dignan:
I have a couple of point to make here which, in the end, may be minor points. However, here goes.
[1] The "religious" left is always a little funny because they are not traditional liberals: they are traditional radicals with views that undercut the basis for making their claims for the moral high-ground. You know: Wallis can say what he wants about American Christianity all he wants, but I'd like him to first tell me whether or not the central claim of Cchristianity -- which is he exclusivity of Christ as Savior -- is a true claim. That is, is it factually true, and as such does it invalidate all the other religious claims of the world?
If Wallis' answer is "no" (and I suggest to you that it is, based on his view of other religions), then his basis for citing Christ as a moral authority is significantly eroded. His theology is a subtle equivocation -- one he doesn't talk about much. For actual Christians, invoking Jesus is invoking God Himself; for Wallis, it's invoking a guy a like Gandhi. So even if Wallis is right about what the Bible says about this or that political action, the moral foundation for following what the Bible said is actually gone.
-more-
-cont-
[2] The other thing which sort of jarred me when I read it in your essay here was this statement by you:
While I have nothing against big business per se, I am baffled at how we as a society have gone to great lengths to subsidize large businesses through tax breaks, various business incentives, and the like.
In my book -- and in Adam Smith's book(s) -- tax breaks can't be considered "subsidies". A subsidy is the redistribution of wealth -- taking money from one source and giving it to another by force, usually through a political means. Cutting taxes, or offering credits against taxes, to businesses (for example, since that's what we're talking about) is not redistribution of wealth: it's allowing them to refrain from paying taxes.
To be as specific as possible, I'm not talking about bailing out the airlines after 9/11 here, and I'm not talking about the government funding businesses through other kinds of direct payments. On that, I am sure you and I would agree that this is one of the most bizzare developments politically of the last 200 years, and I'm always a little staggered by the things the government wants to pay people to do when those things can't be sustained at a free market cost. What I am talking about here is the idea that tax cuts = subsidies.
You might argue that tax cuts incentivize some actions or de-incentivize others, and I'd agree with you on that. But being an "incentive" and being a "subsidy" are two different things.
OK. I said my bit. Back to you blog.
-30-
And then I read the meta here ...
OK: it's interesting to find out that some body of people spend thousands of dollars to advance or protect some action in court, and it's also very intriguing to find out that if we spent those thousands of dollars in Africa, we could have given this people group water for the rest of human history. It may also be factually true.
The problem is that it's comparing apples to hand tools. See: we have this free society which, even in Adam Smith's view of things, is bounded by government. So when we have a problem with somebody else -- you know: somebody wants to hang a picture of Jesus up in school, and somebody else thinks that's a crime on the same level as treason -- we don't have to have a civil war over it. We can resolve it in the judicial process as rational men and women.
So when we spend money to defend our choice of public displays of art, we aren't wasting our money: we are exercising what makes our political system both vital and healthy. In that, making the comparison to how that money could have saved lives in another part of the world is a red herring: in very real political ways, that money saved lives in this country by not requiring us to hold a revolution or stage a riot in order to make our political point.
It is not less-moral to spend money in political activism. It is a different part of our moral apparatus. Now: if the question comes back, "did Jesus tell us to prosecute legal judgments in order to advance the Gospel?" I'd have to answer, "no -- but he did advocate for the legitimacy of government as authority."
There's no question that we have more discressionary wealth than any civilization in the history of the world. No question at all. But we should check a fact or something before we start griping about whether or not Americans, or Christians, or American Christians are doing their particular part for the sake of the poor in the world. Doing what Americans will do in treating government as legitimate authority does not exclude doing what they might also do for the sake of personal charity -- or even corporate generousity. But comparing them as if one is more morally-compelling than the other seems a little lopsided to me.
underbeath most relgions dont stand for what they say they do.
they tell you to help the poor, but the wealth of the churches cud easily pay off 3rd world debt...
Commenting by HaloScan
