I came across this article on Christian generosity by Christopher Cocca last week, as well as his excellent follow-up. He argues in both that the Church universal has within its giving power to the ability to eliminate extreme poverty and other related social ills, provided that such giving is consistent and directed towards well-run, competent organizations founded to alleviate these problems. For me, both articles were at the same time convicting and inspiring, and I was thankful that they received a significant amount of media attention. The following excerpt really encapsulates the essence of each, in my opinion:
The truth is that many Western Christians could give a full tithe to their churches and a full second tithe toward the eradication of extreme poverty in efficient, responsible ways without losing much of our lifestyle. Isn't it something of a scandal that so many of us can even talk about lifestyle when so many more are barely clinging to life?
***
If we were honest with ourselves, I think we'd admit that a "lifestyle of philanthropy" is vastly out of most of our comfort zones, though I don't think many of us would assert, if pressed, that engaging in philanthropy "just isn't for me." That being said, however, I believe society's general perception toward philanthropy could be broadly summarized in the following: Philanthropy is either A) a practice for the wealthy (largely because they have the financial cushion to do so) or B) the thing the rest of us practice with our spare change after all the other "necessities" have been taken care of.
Of course, there are many exceptions to the above generalizations -- and I pray that there are far more than I can comprehend. Thank God that such exceptions exist. We can all "give more" in the tangible sense, and of course we should do so. But the real need, I think, is a radical change in perspective. What if we started seeing philanthropy -- the giving to worthy organizations and individuals who will use the money for the common good -- as one of the "necessities" along with utility bills, rent/mortgage, food, entertainment, and tithing? Wouldn't this make reaching the "phantom trillion" Cocca mentions even more of a reality?
A "lifestyle of philanthropy" is one that demands some level of consistent sacrifice. A friend said it well, "Do we want to [just] give, or do we want to give easily?" There is a significant, paradigm-shifting divide between the two questions. I'd argue even that giving primarily because we are "financially able to do so" does not truly embody philanthropy, the "love of humanity", in its purest form. If "ease of giving" provides a primary motivation behind our philanthropic pursuits, aren't we really just saying, "Let me wait until I have enough dough so that I won't miss it when I give some of it away?"
For me, it comes down to this question: Am I willing to revamp my budget for philanthropic purposes because I have the financial excess to do so, or because it's the right and responsible thing to do regardless of how much I make an hour? Christ wasn't kidding when He said, "Give, and it will be given to you. Good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over..." Or, as it is said in the Proverbs, "Whoever brings blessing will be enriched, and one who waters will himself be watered." Sacrifices will not go unnoticed.
There's probably a lot more to a lifestyle of philanthropy than just the giving of one's monetary resources. Maybe I'll write about other aspects of it in subsequent posts, but for now, it's safe to say that it is high time that we started committing ourselves to telling generosity's better story.
