Relying on IRS data from 2003 (the most recent available), the study reveals that the "super rich" are the least generous group in our society. Here's the "take away" from the study:
If affluent young and middle-aged filers had donated as high a proportion of their investment asset wealth to charity in 2003 as did their less affluent peers, total individual charitable donations that year would have been over $25 billion higher, an increase of at least 17%.Sure, the rich still make up an enormous amount of the charitable giving in this country, but when you consider that much of what they give does not actually go to the poor, and that they are not living out the charge - to whom much is given, much is expected - it appears that a high tide raises all yachts...but leaves those on life rafts to fend for themselves.
Do the rich have the right to use their income however they want? I suppose. Should they be forced to share the wealth? Probably not. But, at least they should have to face up to the fact that they are in it for themselves, that they are not saviors of the downtrodden. Where are the religious leaders on this topic? How come we don't hear sermons about this in our churches? Because the pursuit of individual wealth is sacrosanct. You can gain much more traction attacking gays and liberals than telling your parishioners to give away everything and follow God. If the leaders of the evangelical Right want people like me to ever take them seriously, they must address this disparity with the same prophetic fervor as they pursue the conservative agenda.
By the way, there's plenty of criticism to go around. The study shows that even the most charitable among us give at about a 3-4% range, with most of us giving in the 1% range. That's a far cry from 10% tithe I was taught growing up. My family gives over 10% each month, with the bulk of it going to Rainbow Network (I spent a week in Nicaragua and saw that the money goes exactly where it should). But it still isn't enough. When I pray, I don't pray that God will smite the wicked, I pray that God will give me the faith to do with less so I can give more.
I believe that giving is largely about bringing comfort where there is suffering; but it should also bring suffering where comfort is too much with us. It's an overlooked and underappreciated symbiosis. If our giving does not create any kind of discomfort for us, it probably isn't fulfilling the giver side of the equation.
May you have a merry Christmas. And, if you don't celebrate Christmas, may you experience the spirit of grace and generosity. May we all learn to take less and give more.
14 comments:
I am always dumbfounded by the recklessness of the woman who broke the bottle of perfume on Jesus' feet. Judas protested (disingenuously, we presume) that the money could have gone to the poor. Jesus often responds to a person's thoughts, instead of a person's words. (Read some of his dialogues, and you'll see what I mean.) But in this case He knew Judas' words needed the response. "You will always have poor people. But you will not always have me."
Now that Jesus is not with us in the same way He was then, does that mean we are to focus on poor people again? I don't think so. Let's waste it all on Him! Let's be guilty of extravagant worship and foolish generosity and absolutely unconditional love. Not only are the poor still with us, everyone is poor!
It is wrong to ignore the financially poor. It is equally wrong to ignore the spiritually poor, the emotionally poor, and the relationally poor. But it is the ultimate wrong to ignore the One who made Himself poor to give us eternal wealth. And it is through the sincere worship and obedience of Him that all other justice is found.
Keep it up, reacher. Not because everyone else needs to be reminded that they've given like a beggar, but lived like the rich, but because i need it.
My wife and i are considering whether or not to completely alter the way we do Christmas in years to come. We barely have enough income just to pay our basic expenses (housing, utilities, transportation, insurance, food, etc.) so giving extravagantly to everyone (family, friends and the poor) is not an option for us. It might be different hadn't we a baby daughter, but her well-being is our first priority now.
Because of that, we have to either (1) choose who to give to or (2) finance our gifts. While it's very common to go into debt for Christmas gifts, i don't find that a particularly wise choice. So we're trying to choose #1. Instead of giving to family and friends (at least those who aren't destitute), we want to give all of our Christmas money to families in need.
But that leaves us in a very difficult, painful situation. If we do that, then our families will despise us. Our friends will probably understand, but our families, regardless of whether or not they understand, will be hurt by our lack of participation in merchandise-swapping each Christmas.
My question is, "Is doing Christmas this way worth the price of losing the respect and affection of our families?" We'd be damaging dozens of relationships for the sake of just a few. But would it be worth it, if our gesture was a testimony to the grace of Christ? Would it be worth it to suffer in brief in order to be revolutionary in the long run? Furthermore, do you think our gesture would be so revolutionary as to be contagious amongst our families? I suppose you'd have to know our families to answer that. But those are the questions we're wrestling with.
So often in this conversation, the argument is made that "we're all rich here in America". It is true that America's poor are financially, materially or opportunistically richer than those of lesser-developed countries. However, i would hesitate to say that their quality of life is richer. On the contrary, some of the poorest people on the face of the earth are infintely happier than most of the world's affluent. But in the face of America's utterly ridiculous affluence, our "poor" suffer more from having their pride stomped on than anything. They suffer from the muddy soles of our shoes stepping on their faces.
While i'm not confident in this, my answer is that we should do our best to instill and restore pride to those who are downtrodden wherever and however they may be. If that means helping pay their utility bill, buying them a car, paying a few months rent, teaching them life skills, such as financial management, the 3 r's (for crying out loud), cooking, family management, gardening, or bringing them to church with us, then that's what is required of us. But there's still part of me who wishes to escape the spoils of my ambition and the shackles of the comfort of my couch to the paradise of simplicity that exists outside the Euro-American borders.
"God bless America" may well look more like an economic depression than the prosperous times we now "enjoy". Maybe then we would have to depend on one another for existence. Maybe then we would be forced to engage in authentic relationship. Maybe then we would start genuinely, tangibly having compassion on one another. Maybe then we would look to God for our salvation.
Reacher,
This is a start...this is what I suggested we reach for back in the post shortly after Katrina: an honest debate about how to help the less fortunate. But then I found myself drowning in the "all wrongs stem from Bush" Kool-Aid that I used my time for better things and I tuned out.
If we can have an honest debate including balancing giving recklessly with witholding from the slothfull, then I'm all in. Let's talk about the stats you presented, and let's talk about how tax cuts increase revenue dispite what Bono may tell us. Let's talk about it all. Let's talk about politicians who don't give a damn about the poor, and let's talk about politicians who give lip service,but thier policies keep the underclass dependant. Let's talk and share our disagreements while earnestly seeking some answers. Let's deal with the irony of "the poor will always be among you" and "whatsoever you do for the least of these..."
It could be good.
Shalom,
Jim
Balance is good. Balance is very good. Focusing on one side is bad, very bad. Yes, let's talk about the paradox Jesus left us with. The quotes of Jesus you and Coreman mentioned are quite helpful.
I'm curious as to why the traffic on this post is so low. Maybe because it doesn't lend itself to pointing fingers, shifting the blame, evading responsibility? Maybe because our left hand should not know what our right hand is doing? Maybe because people are busy for the holidays?
Hmmm.
Beloved,
Something that my wife and I have been doing is making things ourselves. Yes, it can be cheesy macaroni art that one of the kids did in Sunday School, but we haven't gone that far. Starting last year, my wife scrapbooked a present for one set of parents. She has three set (her parents are divorced and remarried and she has her late husband's parents) and I have my set. I will admit that when I got the final total for the two scrapbooks she's finished, I was way beyond angry, but then I thought about it and figured out that she had spent during our times of having a few extra dollars throughout the year, because these things don't happen overnight, and no one went hungry in our house. This year was probably the worst for finances, but we had put away a little and managed to pay on the bigger presents without having to finance them. So, kind of unfortunately, the sets of parents who didn't get the scrapbook got a jar of cookies. But the cookies were made by our two kids and that made it a little more meaningful. I'm just saying that there is a way to do Christmas and make it meaningful without having to go into debt, and, no, I don't think there's anything wrong with giving gifts to the ones we care for.
I don't think damaging those relationships is what Jesus would have you do. In the early church, much of the correcting done in the Epistles was to those who didn't love each other. I had a class in John's Epistles and the entire set is focused on abiding in God by abiding in each other and demonstrating the salvific love of God in us by loving each other in the same sense. For John, salvation has a communal aspect to it. We cannot fully realize our salvation without being involved in a community. Your family is a part of your community and you have to love them and show them your love. If you demonstrate your love in this way throughout the year, then you family will not be as disheartened if they don't receive gifts during Christmas.
As far as a comment to Reacher. I agree, those of us who are trying to see the world as God sees it are failing miserably in acting as Jesus did. After our tithe, our money goes to things that will make my wife and I more comfortable.
Is it right? No. Do I feel convicted? yes. Am I going to do something about it? I certainly hope so.
Hey, just back in town from three days in a computer-less cabin high above the White River in Arkansas.
I won't have the time to respond to all comments thusfar, but I would say that the traffic is noticeably lower; but it is likely a byproduct of the date. This site went from 150-200 hits a day in early December to a dramatically lower 40-50-ish a day since the 20th. People don't blog on holiday. Unless, of course, you consider yourself people. Sadly, most traffic comes from people reading at work. Less people working means less reading.
I suffer the same struggles some have described about how to deal with the deeply entrenched materialism of the season, and how to respond to your relatives. I have no good answer for you. It is a challenge. We usually end up being known as the cheapass group in the family, because we refuse to lavish expensive gifts on people who don't need a damn thing.
Jim, I welcome the discussion as well. I think the thing that could distinguish our talk from some you referenced is that I am not primarily interested in talking about poverty in terms of taxation and social programs. I am as interested in the giver side of the equation. How does our giving affect us? If we only think in terms of our effect on the receivers, we will inevitably become political, and we will rationalize our excess. If we think about how our giving changes us, it can be a primarily spiritual issue, I think.
The thing i primarily struggle with is not whether it's good or bad to give gifts to family, friends and others who don't particularly "need" anything. That certainly can't be wrong in and of itself. What i struggle with is the choice i have to make. No one in my family (that i know of) is what you would consider "poor", although they are very good at living on very little (and have had to for decades). Probably because instead of choosing to be depressed about their meager income, they chose to find additional ways to earn money, such as picking up walnuts, mowing lawns, cutting/hauling firewood, etc. But that's beside the point.
My struggle is that we have to choose either to give to family and friends or to the poor (with whom i don't currently have personal relationships with). It's not quite as easy as just picking which family members to give to. When you're wrapped up in decades, sometimes scores, of traditions involving name drawing and gift giving, you're not really left with a choice. And when you throw "his, hers and ours" times two in the picture, complete with 3 or 4 sets of parents and grandparents, cousins, nieces and nephews, not to mention each other, it gets a little overwhelming. The average American spends about $750 on Christmas. While that seems like an awful lot, it's not very hard to wrack that up when you count it all up.
And that's not to mention the fact that few people even give serious thought to their gifts anymore. "Gift card, anyone?" And that's probably because everyone's so overwhelmed by the number of gifts and the complexity of wants that everyone has. My only solution to the complexity and stress of Christmas is just celebrating the birth of Jesus and giving to those in need. Period. If i could nix the stockings, the gift exchanges, the trips to the mall and to Wal-Mart, i'd do it in a heartbeat. The question is, do my wife and i want to be seen by everyone as "cheapasses"?
Beloved, if it makes a difference, if I had a family member explain to me that he chose to give to the needy rather than me, it'd be myself I'd be calling a cheapass. Among other things.
Reacher,
I agree entirely...In fact, as I lay beside my swelling wife in bed last night the same thought occured to me. That is, no matter what powers might be in place, God is more concerned with the condition of my heart and my willingness to sacrafice for others than He is in establishing proper rule in this world. I shoul've got up out of bed and added a post script.
Jim
For the record, Jim's wife is swelling with child, not from the holiday beatin' he put on her for not bringin' him a sammich.
Hey, did you pick up the extent to which keeping the giver "comfortable" is a fundamental consideration in the methodology over at newtithing.org?
"When I pray, I don't pray that God will smite the wicked, I pray that God will give me the faith to do with less so I can give more."
What a great practice. I should take that up. Not that I pray to smite the "wicked" - I meant that I should take up praying for faith to do with less so I can give more.
And I feel a bit guilt-stricken as I read the comments here . . . I am reading this at work.
I think most employers grant you absolution from the sin of time-wasting if you are contributing to The Reach.
Check it out. It's in your contract.
I know it doesn't jive with your agenda...but someone's gotta speak the truth.
To stay progressive, one must never let the facts get in the way of a good self-righteous/feel-good rant.
Damn those greedy conservatives!!!
http://www.billoreilly.com/currentarticle
Post a Comment