It’s Giving Tuesday. Let’s talk about giving.

Last updated on: December 3, 2019 at 4:37 pm by Jane the Actuary

It’s Giving Tuesday. Let’s talk about giving. 2019-12-03T16:37:19-06:00 Jane the Actuary

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

from https://www.flickr.com/photos/chrstphre/5489717927

Many years ago, I was a graduate student studying medieval history. Heck, I even got as far as doing some of the initial research on a doctoral dissertation (I didn’t make it very far), which would have been about medieval “hospital sisters,” who were unique in the religious landscape in providing active service “in the world” rather than being cloistered. Now, I never managed to really find a lot of sources, and didn’t really have a good angle on them other than “hey, they are interesting,” but one thing I recall was that among the religious literature written for them were variations of commentary on Jesus’s statement that “the poor you will always have with you” — a statement that I had always figured was a sort of throwaway line justifying the use of the precious oil, but which the medieval authors took seriously: what Jesus meant is that it will always be important for us as Christians to do good works for others, for the sake of our spiritual well-being; therefore, there will always be people who will to be cared for.

Now, as it happens, in the year 2019, there are growing numbers of people who reject the idea of “good works” — by which I mean not merely the 500 year old debate about faith vs. works vs. “faith without works is dead” but the idea of private individuals and organizations caring for the needy.

For the past week or so, I’ve had the book Pressure Cooker, Why Home Cooking Won’t Solve Our Problems and What We Can Do About It, by Sarah Bowen, Joslyn Brenton, and Sinikka Eliott, sitting on my desk. It’s the sort of book that I had thought I would write a review of, in some fashion, but fundamentally, it’s not a very good book — in part because it was a follow-up to an article and they really didn’t have enough content for a book, in part because the topic was “home cooking” but the underlying issues of the nine families they profiled were, by and large, more about poverty and joblessness. So they spent lots and lots of time detailing the conversations at these families’ meals, and describing their shopping trips, but then they discuss challenges carless families face in getting to work on time, and there’s this long drawn-out episode in which a woman is being driven to the grocery store by a family member, but the fast food paycheck isn’t released until 3 pm, but she doesn’t have much time until the family member has to go to work, so they do the shopping, then get the paycheck, then come back to the store. And their bottom line is that the poor should have access to prepared meals from such sources as their children’s schools or daycares, among other things.

But this is what the authors say about food pantries:

But the charitable food system has also snowballed out of control . . . originally intended as a temporary stopgap to relieve suffering from relatively short-term setbacks, it has grown into “a seemingly permanent feature of the country’s landscape.”

Yet, we might ask, if these food charities are serving a need, and clearly they are, is there really a problem?

The simple answer is yes. The entrenchment of this vast system of food charities, critics point out, has negative implications: for the people who rely on food pantries and food banks, and four our ability to adequately resolve the problem of hunger in the United States.

Charitable efforts work at the individual level, by serving as a “moral safety valve,” reducing people’s discomfort with seeing visible inequality and destitution. At the governmental level, these efforts “work” by making it easier for policymakers to shed responsibility for the poor.

In other words, food pantries are bad because it allows the government to get away with not meeting 100% of the food needs of everyone living in America. (Which is easier said than done when the issue isn’t really hunger so much as low wages generally speaking, and chronic unemployment, and so on — and they acknowledge this later on in placing on their wishlist community meals sponsored by churches with sliding-scale or pay-what-you-can pricing.)

And this fits in with a larger philosophical attitude, that private charity is, in fact, not a good thing. Readers, if I had the time (and, let’s face it, the inclination), I’d find sources to cite so that you can trust that I’m not just making this up but you likely have heard these sorts of statements before:

“It is undignified and humiliating for any given individual to be dependent on charity for the necessities (or even the nicities) of life; what’s right and fair is for the government to guarantee their provision on an ongoing basis for the poor, or in a rapid and income-replacing fashion for those who lose their jobs or become disabled.”

“The wealthy should not have the privilege of donating their wealth as they see fit, because it is the community at large (through both legislators and bureaucrats making decisions on their behalf) that should be making those decisions. One billionaire might have his own ideas about education that are at odds with what the school board or the teachers or the teachers’ union believes, and it’s unfair for that billionaire to be able to decide by means of choosing to fund some things and not others. Therefore, they should be taxed to the fullest extent necessary for proper provision of services.”

“It’s simply morally wrong for billionaires to have as much money as they have, and intentions to donate that money in some nice fashion or another don’t make up for the inherent wrongness of having it in the first place.”

But let’s think about this for a minute.

Various progressives/leftists in the United States will say that they believe that they fulfill the command to care for the poor precisely by supporting at the ballot box those candidates who support extensive safety-net benefits. But look at how this plays out in the current election cycle: Elizabeth Warren, for example, is not promising to fund Medicare for All by means of a flat tax so that we all collectively care for our less fortunate neighbors. She is promising that the Billionaires and the Banks (along with a fuzzy “maintenance of effort” provision for employers) will fund healthcare for the rest of us.

And in those countries were a solid social welfare system is firmly established, where the whole wishlist of American progressives has already been met, with welfare checks large enough that no food pantry is needed, and with the fundamental lack of any concept of charity — well, I’m just not sure it’s possible to square that with the words of Jesus.

And locally, consider that local food pantries still accept your donations of nonperisable foods, but the Greater Chicago Food Depository doesn’t hesitate to say, “we prefer cash.” My local church switched to a “giving tree model” of “give cash so the head of the family can buy gifts for the children” (and now struggles to get people to take names).

Longtime readers will know that this is something that has bugged me for, well, a long time. It just doesn’t feel like “vote for the candidate most generous with social spending” counts as a Work of Mercy. And now that I’ve left a regular paying job — well, the “write the damn check” school of thought would say I really should have stuck to it in order to have more money to donate, but that hardly feels like a reasonable approach.

And here I come to the end of my comments.

Previous Post

November 20, 2019

We're burying people all wrong!

Next Post

December 4, 2019 In defense of that Peloton commercial

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Actuarial/Retirement Issues Politics Uncategorized

Select a Month September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 December 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 August 2021 June 2021 April 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who tried to lure Nehemiah into a trap to discredit him?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Haggai and Zerubbabel Ezra and Eliashib Darius and Cyrus Sanballat and Tobiah