Photo by Noah Buscher on Unsplash

Kindness

Although it may seem a stretch to compare kindness to charity since kindness is of itself a separate thing, there is a notion that to give someone ‘the benefit of the doubt’ is to be kind. It is a condescending notion yet, sometimes we have to assess a situation for the best outcome. Along with common sense, discernment, and experience, we give someone the benefit of the doubt. Put another way, be charitable by suspending possible judgemental view, criticism, or scepticism. To do so is what I consider the warmer side of charity, as warm as the sun-kissed desert sands, unlike the blast of icy freezing charity described in my first article.

Trust

To suspend judgment requires confidence in our powers of discernment, our empathy or emotional intelligence.  It also needs a rejection of any negativity affecting the decision. The onus is not on the receiver of our charity to effect a positive outcome.  It is up to us to accept whatever the outcome we stand by our decision to think positively in the situation. This requires trust in our abilities and trust in the powers of positivity, regardless of disappointment.  When we think if something can go right it will, rather than that if something can go wrong it will, as suggested in ‘Murphy’s Law’.

Attitude

Attitude plays a powerful role in the decisions we make. If a child or learner is to produce the best results from our teaching, the teacher’s positive attitude makes all the difference. There are countless adults that come through the education systems who can testify to the difference a positive teacher made. An important quality we need is also the ability to see the good potential in people and to assist others. Anyone who has difficulty achieving their potential for good can have this made easier drastically with a little help. Taking the time to care for other’s needs, be they material or psychological, is also charitable. That ‘I see you’ ability is crucial. We need to learn to give the best of our abilities rather than the least.

Doubt

Why, you may ask, is it that so many times a negative result of a decision we made disappoints? Is doubt not a necessary ingredient needed to guide the decisions we make? At the very moment that we have doubts, we have to remember, that disappointment is a necessary component of the life process.  The minor setbacks and the large are the very things that make the learning process possible. Hence we have the advice that to learn to ride a horse we have to get back in the saddle even after a fall. That is why we tolerate the rain when all we want is the sunshine, or the drought, because we know it teaches us to appreciate the rain when it finally arrives. Disappointment must lead us to find another way.

Photo by Ospan Ali on Unsplash

Doubt has a role to play, and that role is as a fact check. Once you decide that even though the check did not have a hundred percent result and you move forward anyway, you now trust in a positive outcome. Inaction goes nowhere. You either go forward in confidence, or you make conditions or positive changes to affect the dynamics involved to ensure the best outcome.  You could point out that your confidence in the other person depends on positive outcomes, as in giving an employee a challenging task to perform. Reckless trust is not being advocated here, particularly if results affect the wellbeing of the business.

Con Artist

Con artists are a dime a dozen and we must outsmart them at all costs.  Excellent research and wisdom gained from experience are the guides to placing your trust wisely, not recklessly. Learning our lessons well is important, however, not all decisions will be excellent decisions. We must remember, though, that disappointment is all grist to the mill of life that develops the qualities of discernment and resilience that we need to grow. Finally, we have to be charitable in our thinking and in our actions, to get anywhere in our relationships with society at large. Undue criticism, scepticism, and condemnation are less likely to have positive results.

Lynda Rogle ©

The post The Warmer Side of Charity appeared first on lyndaroglebooks.

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.

The post Commentary on article called Charity appeared first on lyndaroglebooks.

Hotel Ejects homeless man for charity!?

Photo by John Moeses Bauan

An article that refers to the ejection of a homeless man from a hotel to make room for a charity event inspired this article. To have an aversion to self-promoting, condescending patronage that poses as charity may seem like an excuse to avoid being charitable. The case for charity is to help those less fortunate than ourselves, assuming that one can help to start with. Some will tell you, no matter what your situation, share what you have, be it resources, time or emotional support.

All this is commendable, so how did charity become for me, so unpalatable? How do I balance the feel-good glow I get when I sincerely want to help, with the self-serving side of charity? It would depend perhaps on personal experience.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Focus 

One could dismiss the whole question with the observation that it depends on where the focus is. Is it in caring or honest self-interest; and is it alright to be honest about charity for self-interest? This seems to be the norm in our capitalist society. In fact, that is the way capitalism works if you look at companies that use charitable contributions to reduce tax payment. Even charitable non-government organisations do their charity work by depending on big-name donors. These donors donate funds and help off-set company taxation.

World Food Funding Open to Corruption

Look at national lotteries, which take money from the people for the people but keep the bigger chunk of proceeds for the company running the scheme. With lotteries, lower the running costs so that more help goes to charities; perhaps install AI to keep costs down. As in taxes, if you take from the people for the people, then give back to the people. The company, the government or the employees must not be major beneficiaries. It may be a good idea to have NGOs run the lotteries. Is this likely to happen? Unlikely that this would happen in a capitalist situation! There’s also the problem of who would ever qualify to run such an NGO? Who could do so without corruption or the unpredictable human factor entering the equation?

The Evil Twins  – War and Greed.

We need a drastic change in the human psyche; a change from that embedded need for self-preservation at all costs, that is the very kernel of our being. Yes, we have a duty to preserve the God-given gift of life, but at whose expense? Is the charity dispensed by world organisations really charity, when the wars are started by greedy, powerful countries and governments, thus creating the need for the very charity they dispense.

Harsh Reality

Photo by Ilse Orsel on Unsplash

Shangrila is not being advocated here, just the harsh reality of plain common sense. To deliberately impoverish nations through war and greed benefits nobody. Stop calling what is plain self-interest charity. Allow people the freedom to become self-reliant, so they do not require handouts. The only ‘charity’ we need is through natural disaster or infirmity and untimely death that creates orphans. Any healthy person can survive without charity if given the chance to do so.

Charity’s freezing point peaks in the implied inference that I’m okay Jack, but ag shame, poor you beneficiary of my charity! Does all this heart-searching change anything for me? Not likely, Brrrr! I still find charity as cold as ever.

Please click here to go-to Articles

 Lynda Rogle ©

The post Charity appeared first on lyndaroglebooks.