(prompt from here)
I realized today that I forgot to write a journal post last week due to our South Carolina festivities, so expect two this week. Here's the first:
What did you learn this week?
Since I finished Lois Lowry's The Messenger this week, I've been thinking a lot about charity. We talk frequently at church about how charity is "the pure love of Christ," which is a true and beautiful statement.
However, too often that charity is limited, the way that the love of Christ never is.
I see wonderful people doing wonderful things all the time: babysitting kids for free so a couple can go on a date night; taking meals to a new mom; moving a family into a new apartment. That's why it makes it even more baffling when I hear some of those same wonderful people judge the circumstances of others who have never had the same education/means/parenting/values that they did, and even scoff at the idea of helping those people because "they made poor choices" or "they brought this on themselves" or "they have to learn to be self-sufficient" or, the worst, "I have no sympathy for them."
What?
When did we become the dictators of charity? When did the Good Samaritan story turn into one where the Samaritan refuses to help the traveler because he was from a group to which the Samaritan was morally opposed (gay marriage advocate?) or of another religion (Muslim?) or belonging to a different social class (poor/on government assistance?)? Christ used that story as an answer to the question of which neighbor to love; where does he list the conditions for charity? Where is the checklist of the questions we should ask people to make sure they "deserve" our service and our sustenance, or to make sure they won't "abuse" our kindness, or to make sure our help isn't a "handout"?
Hint: That checklist doesn't exist. It's not our responsibility to judge why someone needs our charity. In fact, we're expressly told the opposite:
(The following is from the Book of Mormon, a sacred text in my faith that works in accordance with the Bible. One of my favorite portions is the address from Benjamin, whom we recognize as an ancient king and prophet. Apologies to those who may not be familiar with the language.)
"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 of my food, nor impart unto him of my
substance that he may not suffer, for his punishments are just—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.
...
And if ye judge
the man who putteth up his petition to you for your substance that he
perish not, and condemn him, how much more just will be your condemnation for withholding your substance, which doth not belong to you but to God, to whom also your life belongeth; and yet ye put up no petition, nor repent of the thing which thou hast done." (Mosiah 4:16-18, 22)
Our responsibility, instead, is to help however we can. We won't be held responsible for the choices other people make or the ways they use what we give them, but I'm pretty sure we'll be held responsible for withholding our love and service because of our arrogance in thinking we know what's best.
One of the great things about Jesus is that his religion had nothing to do with politics. We all have our different opinions on the government's role in aiding those less fortunate, but I still believe that if we were more selfless as a nation, the government wouldn't even need to be involved. Too often I hear people complaining about their "hard-earned money" going to "deadbeats" or "drug addicts" or any variation of "social pariah" that helps them justify the argument that they really just don't want their money going to people they don't like. It's fine if you don't want the government to be the distributor of wealth. It's not fine if your argument is that you earned that money and therefore you get to decide who's worthy to help.
"For behold, are we not all beggars?
Do we not all depend upon the same Being, even God, for all the
substance which we have, for both food and raiment, and for gold, and
for silver, and for all the riches which we have of every kind?" (Mosiah 4:19)
I am not a Biblical scholar. I'm not a spiritual leader in any capacity. In fact, I am almost daily humbled by people who are so much more accepting and loving and non-judgmental than I am (Ricky, for one, who is always the first to remind me not to judge the circumstances of others), and unconditional charity is one of my biggest weaknesses. All of the above applies to me more than anyone, I think, and I hope I remember to re-visit this topic in my future moments of selfish, ungrateful weakness.
I've seen firsthand that you don't need religion to be a good, kind, loving, charitable person. It's not religion or politics that are important here--it's charity. It's caring less about what we have and more about whom we help. Because if there's one thing I do know, it's that if we're not willing to help each other survive and succeed regardless of circumstances or background, we're really not good for anything.
Comments
Post a Comment