Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
Charity and justice for all
FAITH IN ACTION
By Katherine Marshall
The dust has yet to settle on the scramble for charitable gifts at the end of 2009. In the last few weeks, a combination of extraordinary need and new outreach technologies produced an extraordinary flood of appeals. Up to 60 percent of charitable gifts generally come in the last days of the year.
Caring for those in need is fundamental to most faith traditions (read more about religion and charity) but the arguments for charity take different forms and different urgency. Charity is so fundamental to the Christian faith that the word is woven together with love, of God and of fellow man. Giving is one of the five pillars of Islam. Tzedakah, the Hebrew word for charity, is closely tied to justice.
From ancient times charity has been wrapped up in a mix of virtue and self-interest. Historically, the act of giving often benefited the giver as much as the receiver. Sharing one's wealth appeals to the best of human nature, but it is also crucial to the community: social capital, we call it today. In Charles Dickens's A Christmas Carol, the Ghost of Christmas Present calls on Scrooge to beware of ignorance and want, two great evils and dangers, and to do something about them.
All societies wrestle with questions about how much an individual is responsible for the welfare of others and how much it is a community obligation to care for those in need. Visitors to America often marvel at the extraordinary range of charitable organizations even as they puzzle at why individual charity, not community solidarity, is the norm.
When the giver gives to feel good or salve conscience, the receiver can feel patronized and help may be erratic and unreliable. Recently the notion of rights has gained prominence--especially for children, regarding education and health. The idea is that people should not depend on voluntary gifts nor should they feel beholden to the giver.
Rights-based approaches to welfare, of course, come with their own perils. Entitlement has come to have a bad odor, and there is always the fear that handouts will stifle initiative and personal responsibility. So where's the proper balance?
Maimonides, the great 12th-century philosopher and rabbi, propounded a profoundly modern guide to charity. It takes the form of a ladder of virtue, where the highest form of charity and giving is to allow the receiver to take off and have the dignity of self sufficiency. His ladder goes on, though, putting a stress on the anonymity of the giver (so that the receiver does not feel obligation) and receiver. At the bottom, but still on the ladder, is grudging giving, only when asked. Mamonides stresses the obligation of the giver to make sure that funds given are well used.
These insights offer guidelines for a modern approach to charity. Most important is the sense of caring and community that charity is really about. It harks back to the core wisdom of the golden rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Think beyond the self to what we know will truly make for a good society - and what is more important than fighting ignorance and want? Education, health, and jobs are clearly part of the common good. That will necessarily involve public institutions. The rich variety and spark of genius and initiative that characterize American civil society are also part of the mosaic of charity. What's needed is an informed, nuanced mix of public and private.
As we look to 2010, we face enormous needs, at home and abroad, and we know well that the systems to address them are fractured. We need that complex mosaic of charitable impulse and institutions to fulfill the ancient ideal of Maimonides, for all humankind. That means a system constructed on true respect for human dignity that works with all the tools we have to open the path to the modern dream of a world where poverty is truly relegated to history. Modern charitable appeals can then appeal less to ancient guilt than to a modern hope for a fair and just community.
Katherine Marshall is a senior fellow at Georgetown's Berkley Center for Religion, Peace and World Affairs, a Visiting Professor, and a senior advisor for the World Bank.
By Katherine Marshall |
January 4, 2010; 12:04 AM ET
| Category:
Faith in Action
Save & Share:
Previous: A Christmas prayer |
Next: Secular radicals
Posted by: mwpalmer | January 6, 2010 4:31 PM
Report Offensive Comment
And the biggest charitable giver on the globe is??
The US Government aka the US taxpayer!!!
And that includes by the way keeping all those European countries free at no expense to them!!!
Posted by: ccnl1 | January 5, 2010 1:14 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Oh please! The US is like a third world country compared to most countries of western Europe. Our infrastructure, schools, hospitals, parks, and social services are far superior to anything that is available to the American public.
We have charities here in France. However, necessities are paid for from public funds. There is no need to hold public bake sales to pay for little Jimmy's new kidney. No need to beg at the church door to pay for Mother's chemotherapy. We don't turn our neighbours into beggars during their time of need.
With university educations free for all who can meet the stringent entrance requirements, working class kids have as much chance of attending the best universities as the children of more elite parents.
The general view over here is that the charity Americans are so proud of is made at the expense of community, solidarity, and society as a whole. Americans, more worshiping of their so-called ‘independence’ than the religion to which they give so much lip service, toss some dollars at their charities of choice – all tax-deductable, of course – knowing that they are turning their needy fellow citizens into beggars. It smacks of Victorian condescension.
Posted by: darling_ailie | January 5, 2010 4:41 AM
Report Offensive Comment
We as a society need to have a discussion on a range of issues. I believe the American "independence" image has been elevated almost to idolatry. My own rights have overbalanced the needs of the community and of others. In a realm that has nothing to do with charity, the example of roads is illustrative. After two years in Germany, where virtually every road is well maintained, I was confronted with roads in the DC area, which are not much better than many third world areas...I'd rather spend more on gas than have to deal with sudden and costly unanticipated repairs. It is the same with issues of well-being. Are we better off not spending money, and having lots of homeless, or of spending more through taxes, to have people a safe place to live? And where to we draw the line? And what about the percentage (high!) of homeless who are (especially, Viet Nam) Veterans...to perhaps are homeless due to the impact of their service?
We need to lose the image of everyone for themselves. That sort of cut-throat environment is not one most of us want to live in.
PR Chris
Posted by: CalSailor | January 4, 2010 12:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Is charity in the USA just a band aid approch which will cause the problem to continue without social change in goverment?
Posted by: usapdx | January 4, 2010 11:19 AM
Report Offensive Comment
And why does WaPO continue to run commentaries from those who work for a university that sold its soul to Islam for $20 million???? One might say said university is itself acting like an organization that needs charity!!!!!!
Posted by: ccnl1 | January 4, 2010 11:11 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
Realizing a perfectly fair and just society, one without poverty or social suffering is easy. The key is for each individual to be at least as concerned with his neighbor's welfare as he is with his own. It is a very local thing and depends completely on the goodness of everyone involved. In this system, everyone is both giver and receiver. Everyone contributes as they can and everyone benefits alike.
Sadly, such a system is easily scuttled by pride and envy. When the giver or receiver starts thinking enough was received or not enough given... When either the giver or receiver starts telling the other what to do... When entitlement and coercion come into play... real charity vanishes and no amount of social engineering can fix the injustices that follow. In fact, government action only aggravates the problems.
Thus we see the need for less public action and more personal introspection. That's where charity is.