Charity and Its Fruits

This last Christmas the Ashland Times Gazette reported that local charities increased their distribution of goods within the community. I wish I knew more about this whole incident because many questions arise in my mind.

For one, I wonder if the increase in charity was a result of an increase in poverty/unemployment. (From statistics I have read, this shouldn't be the case.) Perhaps the increase was a result of more people being identified as impoverished. It may be that the same amount of people were impoverished as in prior years. It was simply that they had been neglected or overlooked before.

Secondly, I wonder about the real poverty level of those receiving charity. Scholars recognize different levels of poverty: All out destitution, below the average community income level, or in a low tax bracket (under say $25,000) to name a few. All out destitution is extremely rare in our country. Most of our "poor" fall into one of the other categories.

One of my biggest concerns is that some people are receiving charity, but shouldn't. Most people who would qualify as impoverished are people who have cable TV (or even a satellite dish!), who eat out on a regular basis, smoke, drink (be it alcohol and/or an immense amount of soda pop), and express other habits that do not fall along lines of frugality. (This of course is not even to mention those who don't work because of their sloth.)

In my humble opinion, many of our acts of charity need to be re-evaluated. I believe that for some, charitable giving simply feeds one's love of luxury. I don't think that someone who can't afford toys for their kids because they splurge all year round on things that are not necessities should receive charity. What they need is an education on how to conserve finances (or a stern rebuke in some cases). Rewarding their senseless spending only re-enforces their materialism.

Teaching someone to shop for groceries and cook a good meal (which may even leave leftovers for the next day) rather than picking up something from the fast food restaurant would help them conserve (and would be healthier!). Helping that chain smoker break his habit would pay many dividends in the end. It would boost that family's bank account, not to mention assist their lungs. Moreover, these steps would allow wealthier families to donate their money towards other worthy causes in our community (such as the Ashland Care Center, the group that promotes life and saves unborn children).

I also believe that social justice comes far too often in the form of throwing money or goods at someone. I don't think that sort of charity is most needed in our day. The church would be better off spending man power on mentoring and financial accountability among those they seek to help.

Certainly opening your wallet is much easier to do, but opening your life pays more benefits to those around us. It brings you into the life of another person. By doing this you become their role model and perhaps even a tool in drawing them to Christ.