A Responsibility For All Of Us

Great column by New York Times writer Nicholas Kristof, who in his self-confessed transparent attempt this holiday season to shame liberals into being more charitable, makes a number of interesting and good points which ultimately lead to an imperative for all of us.

The article outlines a number of facts and figures provided by Arthur Brooks, author of "Who Really Cares" and a study by Google, some which I was aware of and some which I was not. Liberals tend to push for government spending which benefits the poor both here and abroad, but tend to not be generous as individuals. There are a number of other cuts of data that are shown, such as taking into account how "religious" or the income level of the givers, and the destination of the charitable contributions.

It's a responsibility for all of us to care for the needy. Regardless of political leaning or socioeconomic class, providing clothes for those who are naked and food for those who are hungry is not a matter of charity, it's a matter of fundamental human rights. If you count yourself as a Christian, the charge as seen the parable of the Sheep and the Goats (Matthew 25:31-46) makes this even more compelling. If we're not caring for the poor, we're not simply being lazy - we're being disobedient. Need ideas? Consider giving to or volunteering at the Goodwill Rescue Mission or Bowery Mission.

I also find it amazing and humbling that the working poor are the most generous segment of our population when it comes to giving as a percentage of income. I wonder if part of that is due to the blindness of so many of us who are upwardly-mobile, upper-middle class and above, who are so self-focused in our perspective that we can only see how "poor" we are in comparison to the people who we sometimes aspire to be - those who we believe are "really rich". Could it be that contentment and not having eyes fixed on achieving the next income band might free us to be more charitable and generous?

Now whether charity should be a matter of government coersion or personal liberty is another issue altogether. I can appreciate the arguments on either side, and I touched on some of this on a previous post around the purported immorality of Social Security.

Kristof also writes, "When liberals see the data on giving, they tend to protest that conservatives look good only because they shower dollars on churches — that a fair amount of that money isn’t helping the poor, but simply constructing lavish spires." Whether this is what Kristof believes or his representation of what liberals think, it's a gross cynical misreprentation of the truth. Having visibility into our own church's finances, we don't spend money constructing lavish spires or any sort of analogous lavish spending despite my continued efforts to get us to purchase a foosball table for the church office (kidding). We do devote significant amounts of funds (as well as time) for mercy towards those inside and outside our church and a core tenet of our theology admonishes our members to do likewise.

The largest bulk of our funds goes to making and growing disciples inside and outside our church - helping people to grow in faith and become disciples who are loving their God and their neighbor in word and deed. Is this helping the needy? I think so - I'd argue that there is no greater need to be addressed.