This is the post I promised ages ago about charity.
It relates to reading To Heal a Fractured World by Rabbi Jonathan Sacks. It’s prompted tonight in part by watching American Gangster and being reminded yet again about Jewish ethics. Throughout the film, the crims and other cops find it impossible to believe that Richie (Russell Crowe) could possibly have found almost $1 million in unmarked bills in 1970 or so and turned it in. The idea of honesty and ethics is just so foreign to them.
Tikkun olam, or healing the world, is a Jewish mitzvah, or good deed, one of the 613 we are supposed to do in our lifetime, listed in various parts of the Old Testament. Charity is another. Charity is a part of tikkun olam, according to Sacks.
I’ve now been working for an organisation that does fundraising for charity for six weeks. It brings up a number of questions for me.
1. The height of Jewish charity is giving someone a gift or loan or accepting them into a business partnership so that they can make a living for themselves and so no longer need to rely on charity. I think that’s why I like Kiva so much, even though I still haven’t done it myself.
2. Giving anonymously so that neither the giver nor the receiver know each other’s identities. This used to take place in temples with a special room. I like it with the Smith Family too.
3. The giver knows who the recipient is but the recipient doesn’t know who the giver is. I think this still happens with anonymous bequests.
4. The poor person knows from whom they are taking but the giver doesn’t know to whom they are giving. This apparently used to happen with rabbis throwing coins over their shoulders so that the poor didn’t need to be embarrassed by people knowing their identities. I think these days it’s called theft. Seriously, though, I can’t think of a modern example of this. Oh, wait, yes I can: a recipient of funds from something like the Bill Gates Foundation. Bill wouldn’t know the identities of all the people who benefit, but they all know the name of their benefactor.
5. Next, someone gives a person something before they ask. We do this all the time but on small scales with people we know.
6. Lower, they give only after they are asked. I think this is where most of our current charity operates. I think it’s one of the reasons we find ourselves in this resentful position towards “charity muggers”. We only give after being asked, convinced, cajoled.
7. Worse, they give less than needed, but in a friendly manner and with good intentions. I did this today, taking only a few coins from my purse to put into a tin instead of the $5 I could have afforded. But I smiled…
8. Worst, they give begrudgingly.
So, of the organisations I’m working with, ChildFund, my favourite, is at the top level. It gives training and income-generation to communities in developing countries, yet people are very resistant and begrudging; Greenpeace isn’t about the poor and most people only give after they are asked but people seem more willing to donate; WSPA is about saving animals and people walk up to offer to sign up, so it’s level five — why are they happier to do that for animals than for humans? I don’t get it.
Anyway, this is mostly just thinking out loud, but I was intrigued and I’m interested in your opinions. What is the role of charity in the modern world?