1.
Reasons for Withholding Charity from Those in
Need
There are many reasons why we might refuse to extend charity
to those who are in need. If we are
honest with ourselves, most of the reasons stem, we know, from some defect in
our own character. We are too
self-centered, selfish, unkind, greedy, and insensitive. We
don’t want to part with the possessions we have or to spend money we have saved. We are too absorbed with our own affairs, or
those of our immediate family, to look beyond ourselves. We do not see the needs of others or, if we
do, we do not feel an obligation to help them.
We lack the capacity to put ourselves in the shoes of our neighbors and
do not feel their pain and suffering as though it were our own. We lack the compassion and empathy necessary
to help when help is needed.
Before going on, what do we mean by “charity.” We
have no special definition—charity has two component parts: first, it always
involves the sacrifice of something—time, energy, resources or money--for the
benefit of another, who is in need.
Certainly, charity may involve the giving of “money” or “commodities,”
but giving money is only one form of charity, and often that form of charity is
the “cheapest, ” most “disconnected,” and “most impersonal,” removed from the
real needs of those whom we intend to serve.
Second, charity always involves the “right” state of mind—we sacrifice,
not for the purpose of being seen of others, or getting the praise of men, but
instead we sacrifice with a genuine desire to help others, growing out of our
love and concern for them.
But, like many things, life can be complicated and what
seems simple may not be as simple as we think.
For there are occasions, when one wishes to extend charity (and has the
right state of mind), but still chooses not to help. The
purpose of this section is to identify circumstances where this may happen and
to consider whether we are justified under these circumstances from not extending
charity to those who have real needs.
(a)
“I have done my share.”
Sometimes, we feel as though we have done enough, and
shouldn’t be asked to do more. The
feeling can be fleeting—with a little time, we are ready to contribute
again--or it can stem from the feeling that we are really maxed out when
operating at our normal pace. We can’t
imagine squeezing much more out of our days to help others. From the perspective of charitable
contributions, the Church asks all faithful members to pay tithing (10% of the
members’ income) and to be generous in making monthly fast offering
contributions.[1] Without doubt, members who are obedient to
both commandments make significant monetary contributions to the Church, the
proceeds of which are used for charitable purposes. When compared to others, faithful Church
members throughout the world contribute more, whether measured in absolute
dollars or as a percent of total income, than others who belong to the same socio-economic
groups in the countries in which they live.
In addition, members are generous
with their time—they are often active in community and social groups, such as Little
Leagues, Boy Scouts, PTAs, United Way, and the like, to which they make generous
monetary contributions and offer their services. They volunteer to work in schools and
library, coach sports teams, and serve as scout and community leaders. So
busy are they with Church and non-Church activities many feel they have little
extra time for further volunteerism. They
feel they have done their share, and asking more of them would be unfair.
The Church has never said or implied that members have done
all they should by obeying the Church’s financial laws and by being active in the
Church. Certainly they recognize those
are major contributions. But at the
same time Church members are expected to be good stewards over all that is
entrusted into their care. Some have
more than others. Of those who have
much, much is expected. The wealthy
(and by Malawian standards, almost everyone in the United States, could be
considered wealthy) should make
financial contributions above and beyond the faithful payment of tithing and
fast offering contributions. Each
members is expected to be generous, taking in account what they need for their
family, and the excess available to bless the lives of others. Members are always well aware that there
have been occasions in Church history when much more was required of the
saints. Both the United Order, as well
as the law of consecration, are reminders that the Lord may ask for more. Sacrifice is at the heart of the Mormon
experience. And many members have at
the back of their mind that the time may come when they are in fact asked to be
more generous by the leaders of the Church.
Most of the faithful probably believe that they would respond favorably
to such requests if made, but privately they think as long as they are not
asked to do so, they are justified in going as far as they do, current
sacrifices being enough for the time being.
One may reasonably wonder if that
is enough.
(b)
“I have given all I have and I have no more to
give.”
Many in the Church may feel they are stretched thin,
believing they have little more to give or it would be unfair to ask more of
them at this time. But few, if any,
could claim that they have given all they have. Most live comfortable lives and see
themselves as being the beneficiaries of rich blessings at the hand of the
Lord. That the saints could be asked to
get all as a symbol of their discipleship seems unlikely and far-fetched. Yet we can read of such sacrifices in the
scriptures. One such famous account is
the story of the poor widow to whom the prophet Elijah comes, asking her for a
little water and a morsel of bread. There
has been a terrible drought in the land, leaving many of the poor
destitute. The widow responds to
Elijah, saying: “As the Lord thy God liveth, I have not a cake, but an handful
of meal in a barrel, and a little oil in
a cruse: and, behold, I am gathering two sticks, that I may go in and dress it
for me and my son, that we may eat it, and die.”[2] No doubt, having foreseen the blessings to
which she is in store, Elijah promises her”
“Fear not; go and do as thou has said: but make me thereof a little cake
first, and bring it unto me, and after make for thee and for thy son. For thus saith the Lord God of Israel, The
barrel of meal shall not waste, neither shall the cruse of oil fail, until the
day that the Lord sendeth rain upon the earth.”[3]
To those from Western countries, the account seems almost apocryphal,
since being on the brink of starvation in first world countries is almost
inconceivable. But to someone in
Malawi, where the risk of facing starvation is real--something most subsistence
farmers may face on any given year due to floods, droughts, and other climatic
conditions-- the circumstances can easily be imagined. It is interesting that the Lord even speaks
to this extreme case. “And again, I say
unto the poor, ye who have not and yet have sufficient, that ye remain from day
to day; I mean all who deny the beggar, because ye have not; I would that ye
say in your hearts that: I give not because I have not, but if I had I would
give.”[4] What matters is the attitude of the poor—they
should have compassion and be willing to share if they had the substance to
share. That the right attitude is at
the core of charity is reflected in Paul’s famous chapter on faith, hope and
charity: “And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give
my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.”[5] The act of giving confirms what is in the
heart—it is the work that evidences the faith—but ultimately what matters is
the compassion, kindness, caring, empathy that one feels. Without the act, the record of the heart is
left empty.
(c)
“I do not give because I have no confidence in
the channel of distribution.”
Often we are asked to give money to charitable
organizations, dedicated to a wide range of worthy causes—fighting against
cancer; protecting battered women; caring for orphans; helping refugee victims;
and combatting treatable diseases like malaria. At the same time, we hear horror stories
about the abuses perpetuated by some unethical charitable organizations. Some of these organizations divert the vast
majority of the charitable contributions they receive to pay salaries, cover
bloated overhead, pay management and other fees to profit making affiliated
entities, so that only a small percentage of the donations ultimately find
their way to the intended beneficiaries.
This sorry history has rightfully given rise to a great degree of cynicism
on the part of the public. Many are now skeptical
of those claiming to have philanthropic intentions, and wonder whether the
charities raising money really have the best interests of the needy in
mind.
As a consequence, many potential donors hold back, turning down
opportunities to contribute, even for causes they support. They are only interested in contributing to
charities that are scrupulously honest in their dealings with the public, are
committed to getting the maximum dollars to the target beneficiary group, and
have a track record for helping efficiently those in need. By these standards, the humanitarian arm of
the Church scores well, as do a number of other well-regarded charities. Consequentially many members are willing to
contribute to humanitarian causes through the Church or through other
commonly-recognized charities with pristine credentials while they are wary of
making similar contributions through other charities. It
is not surprising that most of the charitable giving in the United States is
not directly from donors to donees, but instead is fueled through intermediary
charities, like United Way, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Catholic
Relief Services, who have in place the partnering relationships with on-site
organizations capable of deploying the monies raised to those in need.
(b) “The
individual asking for money has no claim upon me.”
All of us are surrounded by individuals, who, for one reason
or another, have some claim upon us for support. These claims grow out of the sense of
responsibility we feel for others. The
most obvious example is the members of our immediate family. Fathers and mothers are expected to provide
for the needs of their children. The
scriptures impose this obligation, and the obligation is generally recognized
in all societies. “And ye will not
suffer your children that they go hungry,or naked; neither will ye suffer that
they transgress the laws of God and fight and quarrel one with another….”[6] This sense of responsibility to help out,
for most of us, goes far beyond immediate family—we feel a duty of care for
parents, grandparents, and other members of our extended family. This includes not only blood relatives, but
those who play the roles of blood relatives.
For my purposes, I think of these fields of responsibility much like
concentric circles around us, and those for whom I feel responsibility fall
within the rings radiating outward from the core. The closer to the core the individual, the
greater the sense of responsibility I have for their welfare.
For some of these circles, including those including family
members, the membership of the group is fairly fixed; yet for other circles,
those within the circle may come and go from time to time. For example, some of our circles include
close friends, neighbors, people at church, and colleagues at work. The circles are not static and are subject
to constant change. Sometimes our
circles grow out of “callings” we have in the Church—a bishop feels a responsibility
for all within his ward; a seminary teacher for the students in his class; a home
teacher for the families he home teaches.
How strongly we identify with the individuals in some of the more
amorphous circles ebbs and flows, depending upon lots of factors—how much
contact we have; how long we have known them; how much personal affinity we
feel for one another; how much we have been called upon over the years to help
one another out. For Carole and me, our
circle now includes many of our Malawian members. What I find intriguing is how the scope of
our fields can change just through the act of caring. Several weeks ago Carole and I began
visiting with Enita and her sick daughter Angellah. Sure they were members of our Zingwangwa
Branch family, but the more we visited with them in the hospital, the greater
our tie. What was initially a somewhat
impersonal relationship became very personal through the act of caring. I am
sure this is one of the reasons it is important to pray for individuals by
“name,” to break down the impersonality of our relationships and to create in
us a sense of “responsibility.”
Those who are outside of our circles of responsibility
rarely have much claim upon our charity.
This is another way of saying that we can’t assume responsibility for
everyone—some things we just have to let go, however much we might wish it to
be otherwise. Of course, we may make
anonymous charitable gifts and we may help people we don’t know well—just out
of a generosity of spirit that may animate us as we enjoy more of the Lord’s
Spirit. But, for the most part, those
to whom we give the most—of our time, money and other resources—are those
within the concentric circles closest to us.
It is much easier for us to say “no” to those with whom we have no or
limited ties.
(c) “I am not going to give
because the one seeking aid is “undeserving.”
On occasion, we refuse to give aid because the intended
beneficiary is, in our opinion, somehow “undeserving.” We say to ourselves—whether honestly or
not—that were it not for this, we would otherwise be willing to help. Lots of reasons can be adduced as the basis
for disqualifying individuals from getting aid.
Some of the reasons are more
justifiable than others. We have dealt with them in the past and find them
to be dishonest, ungrateful, and dependent.
They take advantage of the charity they receive from us or others. They misrepresent the extent of their
needs. After receiving aid, they are demanding,
fail to show gratitude, refuse to extend to others charity when they are in
need. They are not willing to work to
provide for themselves and their family.
They are lazy and thoughtless.
They use the aid given to them to support addictions. The list of disqualifying behavior is almost
endless. And all, or many of these,
factors seem justification enough to support withholding charity.
The difficulty with this approach to charity is that it
requires of us to make a judgment as to the worthiness of those in need before
extending charity. If they are worthy
of charity, we will provide it; if not, we will withhold the charity, even
though they are in need. To be sure, it
is impossible to live life without making constant judgments —we all do it and
we all do it all the time. Rational
life requires that of us. The problem
is, however, that unlike the Lord, our judgments are not always “just.” We often judge with a beam in our eye;[7]
we judge after the sight of our eyes and the hearing of our ears; we do not
look upon the heart, nor do we know the thoughts and intents of men.[8] Only the Lord can be said to execute
“righteousness judgment.” “And shall
make him of quick understanding in the fear of the Lord: and he shall not judge
after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his
ears. But with righteousness shall he
judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall
smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips
shall he slay the wicked.”[9]
Interestingly, King Benjamin touches upon this vexing
problem when discussing the morality of withholding aid to those in need on the
grounds that their own behavior brought upon them their own misery. “And also, ye yourselves will succor those
that stand in need of your succor; ye will administer of your substance unto
him that standeth in need; and ye will not suffer that the beggar putteth up
his petition to you in vain, and turn him out to perish. Perhaps thou shalt say: The man has brought
upon himself his misery; therefore I will stay my hand, and will not give unto
him my food, nor impart unto him of my substance that he may not suffer, for
his punishments are just.”[10] This of course is one example of many
possible cases of “undeserving” behavior on the part of those in need. Where the need is real, King Benjamin is
quick to point out that withholding charity is not justified on the basis that
“it’s their own fault.” Indeed, his
language is quite blunt: “But I say unto
you, O man, whosoever doeth this the same hath great cause to repent; and
except he repenteth of that which he hath done he perisheth forever, and hath
no interest in the kingdom of God.”[11] What is required of us is to be charitable—to
“succor those that stand in need of your succor.”[12] King Benjamin reminds us that we are “all
beggars” in the sight of the Lord—all that we have comes from God—and at the
same time—we must all petition the Savior for the remission of our sins. We are all dependent upon the Lord and are
all unworthy. How can we expect the
Savior’s mercy if we are not willing to extend our mercy to others? If God is prepared to grant our petitions
for mercy, surely we should be willing to grant the petitions for mercy from
those in need, imparting of our substance to them in need.[13]
Some, both in the Church and out, will be startled by the
following statement in one of the Church leadership handbooks outlining the
terms upon which Church welfare is administered: “Providing welfare assistance should not be
based on the activity level or worthiness of those who need it. Using the welfare principles outlined in
this handbook, the bishop administered assistance to all members in need. He encourages less-active members who receive
assistance to improve their spiritual well-being by attending church, praying,
reading the scriptures, and increasing their in the Church.”[14] What drives the administration of the charity
is the recipient’s need—not the recipient’s activity level or worthiness.
(d)
“There is a difference between “smart” charity and
“stupid” charity. Some charity does
more harm and good. I will not give aid
if I think it hurts more than it helps.”
God expects his disciples to be “wise as serpents and
harmless as doves.”[15] I have always thought this admonition should
be read broadly. To me it means that
all involved in the Lord’s work are to be intelligent, discerning, careful,
thoughtful, and wise. There is no
excuse for sloppy discipleship.
Certainly, the Lord expects our hearts to be pure, innocent, to be free
of deceit and guile, to be single-minded in pursuit of God’s work, to rely upon
the Lord and not the arm of flesh. But
such innocence, and reliance upon God, should be not confused with carelessness.
With this in mind, the saints should exercise good judgment
in how they perform their charity. They
should be looking for ways to help that “really” help. We have a right to approach giving charity
in intelligent ways. Charity does not
mean honoring all of the requests of those who are in help. Sometimes, perhaps even often, those in need
do not know what is best for themselves.
They may ask for help of one type when help of a different type is
actually what is needed.[16] We are expected to be discerning in how we
provide charity.
However, in saying this, we need to be careful--we are not
excused from helping those in need just because they ask for the “wrong” type
of help, because they don’t know what is right for themselves or because we
find them annoying or pushy. Where
there is a real need, we have an affirmative obligation to help as best we can,
at least as to those within our circles of responsibility. For
the Church, the circle of primary responsibility includes the Church
members. For us, the circles of primary
responsibility include first of all family members and then others for whom we
have, one way or the other, assumed responsibility. When speaking of help those in need, what kind
of needs are we talking about?
Certainly, we mean, at a minimum providing for the basic needs of
life—shelter, food, water, clothing, and companionship. Of these basic needs the Savior spoke
often: “Come, ye blessed of my Father,
inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was
an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a
stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye
visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.”[17]
There is, to my thinking, an
affirmative obligation to figure out how best to help those in need—in short to
be smart about being charitable.
(e) “I can’t do
everything. Too much is being asked of
me.”
The needs of the needy go far beyond what anyone can do,
even if one were willing to do what the young rich man could not do—dispose of
all of one’s possessions, give them to the poor, and follow the Savior through
a life of dedicated and single-minded discipleship. It is easy to see how quick one might become
discouraged. To avoid this
discouragement, we need to do what we reasonably can do--we need to take
satisfaction in that and we need not to torture ourselves by what we can’t
do. I think there are two keys to this
problem. First, one needs to take on
manageable projects;[18]
and second, one needs to adopt a manageable pace—taking into account one’s age,
health, energy, and other commitments.[19] King Benjamin is unstinting in the advice he
gives to those hoping to be “guiltless before God”—“I would that ye should
impart of your substance to the poor, every man according to that which he
hath, such as feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and
administering to their relief, both spiritually and temporally, according to
their wants.”[20] Yet,
immediately after making that statement, he says: “And see that all these things are done in
wisdom and order; for it is not requisite that a man should run faster than he
has strength. And again, it is expedient
that he should be diligent, that thereby he might win the prize; therefore, all
things must be done in order.”[21]
[1]
See __________________________.
[2] 1
Kings 17: 12.
[3] 1
Kings 17: 13-14.
[4]
Mosiah 4: 24.
[5] 1
Cor. 13: 3.
[6]
Mosiah 4: 14.
[7]
See, e.g., Matt. 7: 1-5.
[8]
See, for example, 1 Samuel 16: 7. “But
the Lord said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his
statute; because I have refused him: for the Lord seeth not as man seeth; for
man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart.”
[9]
Isa. 11: 3-4.
[10]
Mosiah 4: 17.
[11]
Mosiah 4: 18.
[12]
Mosiah 4: 16.
[15]
See, e.g., Matt. 10: 16. “Behold, I send
you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents,
and harmless as doves.”
[16]
For example, many of the Liwonde saints live within the flood plain along the
Upper Shirer River. Ever so often, the
Upper Shirer River floods, destroying the crops of the subsistence farmers
working the farms along its banks. At
some point in time, those saints need to leave their homes and fields along the
flood plain or somehow come up with another solution to the periodic flooding
that destroyed their crops and undermines the livelihood. They cannot continually put themselves in
harms’ way and expect others—the Church or the government—to bail them out. Church leader need not be apologetic about
giving unwelcome advice, telling those members to leave their historic farms
and homesteads and find some other way to make a living, if that advice is
necessary in order for them to be self-reliant.
[17]
Matt: 25: 34-36.
[18]
See the discussion under ____________________.
[19]
For example, the Church does not expect senior missionaries to keep the
schedule, and to work at the pace, of the younger missionaries. This does not mean that the senior
missionaries are less effective.
[20]
Mosiah 4: 26.
[21]
Mosiah 4: 27.
No comments:
Post a Comment