The Greatest of These is Charity

Am I really that selfish, insensitive, greedy, or uncaring if I want to keep more of my earnings and pay less in taxes? Contribute your fair share, they say. We all need to do our part, they say. It's the Christian thing to be charitable, they....

Hold on right there. You need to be careful about bringing "Christian" into it. I dedicated most of an earlier blog to criticism of invoking God's name to further your own ends. Mind you, charity is certainly supposed to be a Christian virtue; surely it is highly regarded by all major religions. But what is it?

In the old King James Bible, the 13th chapter of I Corinthians ends with:

And now abide faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

More modern translations use the word "love" instead of "charity" in that verse, so I don't think that's quite the meaning we're looking for, but it may be close.

Going back to the old Merriam-Webster, we find "benevolent goodwill toward or love of humanity", "generosity and helpfulness especially toward the needy or suffering", "public provision for the relief of the needy"; "mercy" is offered as a synonym. Maybe that's helpful, but I want to look at some examples of what I believe charity really is, and is not.

When person A notices that he has something that person B needs, and freely gives some or all of it to B, that is charity. However, if B is then expected to give A something of somewhat comparable worth, that's not charity; that is trade or commerce. There is nothing at all wrong with trade, as long as both A and B knowingly and willingly entered into it. But when A gave directly to B (charity), every bit of what A gave entered B's possession, B knows whence it came, and if B has any feelings of gratitude they would naturally be directed towards A. But this has nothing at all to do with our tax or welfare system.

Now consider when a third party, C, takes from A and gives to B. Is that charity? I don't think so. Now if A was unfairly withholding what rightfully belonged to B, and C recaptured it and returned all of it to B, then what you have is justice, or perhaps you have merry olde Robin Hood.

But what if B could use that which A has but has no particular rightful claim to it, and what if C forcibly takes from A, gives some of it to B, and keeps the remainder for himself. That is much more like what occurs in the modern welfare state. Instead of A being the hero, C will be the recipient of B's gratitude (if any), even though C contributed nothing except the threat of force, and in fact profited from the exchange. And A just feels like he's been well taken, because he indeed has, and he may also feel frustrated that not all of what was taken from him even went to help B. That's not the charity that has anything to do with love; that's just wealth transfer, and self-aggrandizement on C's part.

It does bear some resemblance to the last dictionary entry, "public provision for the relief of the needy," but since none of the other definitions had anything to do with the public, I think that last one is just an example of the warping of the language through constant misuse.

But actually the welfare state is even worse than that. As C takes more and more, and grows steadily more powerful, it seems like most of the B's never see any real improvement, but become increasingly dependent on the handouts.

So don't you dare tell me I need to be more charitable when you're demanding more taxes out of me. I'm tired of being the A in the above transaction, as the governmental juggernaut C just keeps getting bigger and bigger. There is nothing loving and charitable about making someone else more and more dependent on you for the necessities of life.

Remember, as Reagan said, a government that is big enough to give you everything you need is big enough to take everything you have. But, given that government tends to be run by people that like having power, which do you think is more likely to happen?