Misunderstanding Charity
Photo by Benjamin Disinger on Unsplash
There has been a friendly response to my article on charity that I did not expect. A few requests to elaborate on the subject have given me pause. What exactly is the attraction that people have to this post? My thinking is that at first glance we think charity it self-evident: to be kind, to give of our goods, time and labour, yet there is more to charity than the obvious. It is good to remember that charity should work both ways. It is just as uncharitable to refuse charity or help, as it is to withhold it.
Fiddler on the Roof
How, you may ask, is it possible to be uncharitable when we refuse to accept help? I’m reminded of a scene from ‘Fiddler on the Roof.’ A brother or relative of a newly arrived immigrant fiddler refuses to help after many previous handouts that he has given to his brother. The new arrival reminds the once charitable brother that he should be grateful for the opportunity to be charitable. This, he claims, will be his ticket to heaven! He clearly saw his begging as a quid pro quo situation – you help me and you will receive your reward in heaven. Not quite the attitude to have when begging but, the counterpoint on refusal to accept help has to do with pride.
Pride
I recall as a child hearing my mother often say, we may be poor but we have our pride and we will not accept charity! Like the Fiddler we have to remember the opportunity we give others when we accept charity, though not to abuse this, and put pride aside for a while. The ‘pay it forward’ idea, which is to be charitable in turn when you can be, helps to do this. From the aspect of the giver it is wise to remember that empowering the other is more useful than repeated charity. The charitable brother was teaching his beggar brother that independence from charity is better in the long term than repeated handouts. In some respects, charity can disable.
Self-Serving
The points made in my previous article deal mainly with charity that is self-serving. Self-serving is to have an ulterior motive when acting in charity. This I consider not to be charity. Here, the giver benefits more from this gesture. However, that is all it is, a gesture, if the giver benefits more or has an ulterior motive. It is also usually a temporary measure and not a solution. Often the need to control a situation or to control the lives of others is the motive behind the gesture. This happens in many worldwide organisations that deal in famine. Stop the wars that create death and hunger. Stop the greed of powerful nations and their rampant consumerism. Instead, help to make the receiver independent of your charity. That is true charity!
Two-way Street
Photo by Tory Doughty on Unsplash
To get back to the two-way process charity should be, I also recall another story. A zealous missionary could not bring new converts to his faith. This puzzled him greatly since he put every resource he had to helping a community he saw as very poor. He sought advice from one of his workers. The man considered the missionary’s dilemma and then asked him what had he required from the people? He answered that the missioners needed nothing, so why would he ask anything of poor people? And that is when he realised his mistake – make people feel useful and you get better co-operation. It was not long before his mission was booming as a joint venture. Although this story is also about ulterior motive, it is an ulterior motive for the best reasons, and if in the process one learns that charity goes both ways, then all the best to all parties involved! We should not focus only on the good that we do but on how to share that feel-good feeling that charity brings.
