Layman

Like laws against infanticide, the idea in the West that individuals, organizations, and the state should offer help to those who are truly in need--is largely due to Christianity's influence. Indeed, the teachings are directly traced to Jesus himself.

Matthew 25:34-40:

"Then the King will say to those on his right, `Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.

Then the righteous will answer him, `Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

The King will reply, `I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'"

We also have the story of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10:30-37. Jesus had instructed the people to love their neighbors as themselves. When asked who was a neighbor, Jesus was clear: those in need of help.

There was, of course, Old Testament precedent for charity. The Old Testament instructs land owners to allow the poor to glean their fields for food. And First Century Jews were known for the practice of "alms giving." But it was Christianity that carried the virtue of Charity to an uninviting pagan world and transformed that culture into one in which Charity was considered a virtue and a duty.

While the Jews had precedent for charity, and the Christians embraced and expanded the concept, the pagans did not. As I will discuss in more detail below, the pagan concept of "charity" at the time was really nothing more than politicking or an exchange of favors. This does not mean that certain pagans did not act in a charitable manner, but it is clear that such was not the cultural norm and was not supported or encouraged by the pagan culture, religions or government.

Christianity--as with infanticide--placed much higher moral expectations on its members. "Christian values of love and charity had, from the beginning, been translated into norms of social service and community solidarity." Rodney Stark, The Rise of Christianity. Acts records that the Jerusalem Church had established a common fund for the support of widows (Acts 6:1-6) and Paul took up a collection from all of his churches to help support the Jerusalem Church when it fell upon hard times. Another New Testament Epistle states that an inherent part of religion is the support of orphans. James 1:27, "religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this, to look after orphans . . . ." These teaching translated into Christian promotion and encouragement of Charity among its members.

The Didache (around 100 CE), and kind of instruction manual for recent converts, instructed Christians to "give to everyone who asks thee, and do not refuse." Similarly, the Shepard of Hermas (early 100s) instructed Christians to "Give simply to all without asking doubtfully to whom those givest but give to all." In the early 200s, Tertullian reports that Christians had a voluntary common fund into which Christians monthly deposited what they could. The common fund was then used to support widows, the disabled, orphans, the sick, the elderly, shipwrecked sailors, prisoners, teachers, burials for the poor, and even for the release of slaves. Apology, 39.

The need was great. Not only was there an abundance of human misery (in a broad range of forms), but the pagans did little or nothing to assist them. The Christians had their work cut out for them. For their charity was broadly based, instead of limited to small groups or exchanges of favors. "To cities filled with the homeless and the impoverished, Christianity offered charity as well as hope." Stark, at 161. This Christian creed of charity was widespread and embodied in the actions of individuals, families, and churches. "In homes, whole families adopted a style of life modeled on that of the Apostles; some devoted themselves to missionary works, others to Charitable deeds among the outcasts of Roman Society--lepers and other identified as 'unclean': vagabonds, prostitutes, the homeless and destitute." Judith Herrin, The Formation of Christendom, at 57. "Churches everywhere took care of widows and orphans; tended the sick, the infirm, and the disabled; buried the dead, including indigents; cared for slaves; and furnished work for those who needed it." Hinson, at 171. This Charitable Impulse was uniquely Christian.

The pagans had a very different idea of "charity," which was, in effect, no concept of charity at all. Indeed, Pliny the Younger even wondered if charities that gave to the poor should be allowed to exist. Plato stated that "a poor man who was no longer able to work because of sickness should be left to die." Republic 3.406d-410a. The Roman Philosopher Plautus stated, "you do a beggar bad service by giving him food and drink; you lose what you give and prolong his life for misery." Trinummus 2.338-2.339.

As Will Durant wrote, "Charity found little scope in this frugal life." Caesar and Christ, at 71. To the extent it existed in any form, it was not selfless or religious in any sense. Rather, occasionally a more wealthy patron would provide assistance to a lesser family or citizen. Not even given to the truly poor or destitute, such "charity" was given to secure political loyalty and favors.

As Robin Lane Fox explains: "Whereas the corn doles of pagan cities had been confined usually to citizen, usually to those who were quite well-off, the Christians' charity claimed to be for those who were most in need." Pagans and Christians, at 668. Moreover, "at their festivals, the great pagan families made distributions to the small class of councillors, the male citizens, and lastly, if at all, to the women. Christians brought their funds to those in need, men and women, citizen and noncitizen: Christian "charity" differed in range and motive from pagan "philanthropy." Id. at 323. E. Glenn Hinson also notes the difference between pagan philanthropy and Christian charity: "One of the strong links in the Christian chain was its charities and social aid, offered with little discrimination. Although the Romans practiced largess, they sought something in return, if not quid pro quo in the gift." The Early Church, at 140. In other words, "[t]he active, habitual, and detailed charity of private persons which is such a conspicuous feature in all Christian societies was scarcely known in antiquity." Lecky, The History of European Morals, 2:78-79.

The difference in practice was recognized by pagans of the time. The pagan satirist Lucian mocked Christians for their charity. The Pagan Emperor Julian, who hope to lead his empire back to paganism, was frustrated by the superior morality shown by the Christians, especially when it came to charity. "The impious Galileans relieve both their own poor and ours... It is shameful that ours should be so destitute of our assistance." Epistles of Julian, 49. Julian "especially admired the letters bishops wrote to commend poor travelers to the care of other Christians." Hinson, at 211. In an attempt to emulate the Christian Church, Julian attempted imposed a high sense of moral behavior on his priests and attempted to copy aspects of the Christian charity he so admired. In fact, one of these emulations is found in his instruction to his pagan high priest in Galatia to establish numerous hostels in each village so that strangers could have the care they needed. Id.

Robin Lane Fox credits in part this stark difference between pagan and Christian concepts of Charity with the spread of Christianity in the Roman Empire. Christian charity was so well known that it actually served to attract new members to the sect. "To the poor, the widows and orphans, Christians gave alms and support, like the synagogue communities, their forerunners. This 'brotherly love' has been minimized as a reason for turning to the Church, as if only those who were members could know of it. In fact, it was widely recognized." Id. at 324.

But as with Christian opposition to infanticide, Christianity's support of charity was unable to fundamentally transform Roman culture until it reached some level of prominence. Perhaps best signifying Christianity's triumph in transforming the pagan culture into one which actually valued the virtue of Charity, is that Constantine, the first Christian Emperor, set about to widen the scope of charity in the Roman Empire. "He also acknowledged the new ideal of charity. Previous emperors had encouraged schemes to support small numbers of children in less favored families, the future recruits for their armies. Constantine gave funds to the churches to support the poor, the widow and orphans." Moreover, according to Fox, the church used the funds it received from Constantine to fund their charitable efforts. "Swollen by the Emperor's gifts, it helped the old, the inform, and the destitute." P and C, at 668.

Nor did this Christian concept of Charity end in ancient Rome. It was an important part of the Christian faith thereafter and into our modern age. The modern charitable impulse--traceable to these early Christians--is still strongly linked to Christianity.

In North America, 750 Protestant missions dispense $2 billion annually. Christian churches support over 500 religious rescue missions in our urban areas. Organizations like the Salvation Army, Catholic Social Services, the Pew Charitable Trust, Red Cross, YMCA, YWCA, and the United Way all have Christian origins. Although the United Way and Red Cross are secular charities, their origins are indisputably Christian. The United Way alone, growing from the Christian "Charity Organizations Societies", disbursed $3.58 billion in charity alone in 1998-1999. Henry Durant, founder of the International Red Cross, was a Swedish evangelical who felt moved by God to establish the Red Cross after witnessing the leftover carnage of a battlefield. The American Red Cross was founded by Clara Burton, whose source of inspiration was the aforementioned verse from Matthew. "In as much as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren ye have done it unto me" (Matt. 25:40). In reference to this verse Clara said, "I never in my life performed a day's work in the field that was not grounded on that one little sentence, and that it did not come to me hourly till kindly sleep brought relief to both body and soul." Charitable organizations like the Salvation Army, YMCA, YWCA, Catholic Social Services, and countless others retain their expressed Christian orientation.

But link between Christianity and Charity is not limited to the creation of such charitable organizations, but with giving to charity in general. A Gallup Report, "Religion and the Public Interest," revealed the widespread factor of Christianity and religion in charitable giving. "Churches and synagogues contribute to America's social service more than any other non-governmental institution, including corporations." Moreover, "religious institutions contribute $19 billion [annually] to care for children and the elderly, education, healthy, food for the hungry, housing for the homeless." Additionally, the dollar value of church volunteers' time for such services is estimated to be more than $6 billion.

[ January 30, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>

jess

Christianity's teachings on charity are far less stringent than Jewish teachings--- one should then argue that the Jews contributed far more to charity than their followers--- thus making the premise that the Christians brought charity into the world a faulty one.


I am distressed by the practice of 'saving souls' before saving bodies in many of the modern Christian charities--- namely, it distresses me that they force recipients to pray before helping them.


I will note here, however, that the Catholics seem far more interested in getting th donations out than in saving souls.


I am speaking expressly from personal experience: here, in Buffalo, if you go the the Catholic church for food because you are hungry, they hand you a plate of food, no questions asked. If you go to the Baptist mission, they make you confess your sins and pray for forgiveness first.


I would also like to point out that donations to charity were mandatory in most of the greco/roman pagan religions in biblical times.

(edited to add)

my local Christian radio station was quoting statistics that something like 43% of non Christians donate money to charity, while 28% of Christians do.

(sorry i rambled. I have the flu today)

[ January 25, 2002: Message edited by: jess ]</p>

Layman

In what way was Jewish teachings on charity superior to Christianity's? And what are your sources for that statement?

But even if it was, that's really irrelevant to my point. My point was the historical impact of Christianity's value on charity on Western Civilization. I really don't see how you can dispute the historical sources above that reveal the stark difference between the existing cultures lack of charity and the early Christian emphasis on charity. In other words, Christians are the ones that used the virtue to chance the broader culture.

I really don't see any problem with a prayer before the meal. That's a common enough practice.

I respect a lot of the work of Catholic charities.

That hasn't been my personal experience in working in various Christian charities. None of them were exclusively Baptist--I am a Charasmatic--but some of them were joint church efforts which included Baptists.

Not according to my sources. Or, no one listened to this "mandatory" requirement.

Not sure who you were listening to or where they got their information from, but according to an Independent Study Report conducted by a polling outfit, "religious belief is a major factor in contributions of time and money. Those who attended religious services weekly, 'were clearly the most generous givers of both time and money, compared with all other groups.'" Also, "people who attended church regularly were far more likely to give a higher percentage of their household income to charitable causes."

dangin

Blah blah blah.

Contributing to the benefit of one's society benefits the individual. Be as charitable as you wish, but realize that you are getting something out of it, don't pretend it is piety that leads you to helping others.

Also social species gain benefit from behaving socially, more importantly behaving antisocially reduces individual benefit, and access to society. These simple rules predate your mythology by all the years that our species was social prior to the creation of the particular dogma you profess. (can you say millions of years?)

And the truly impressive human is good to others without the idea that big guy is watching and will reward said individual with a cushy afterlife.

But please, come back and talk down to us some more with your half baked idea of "good".

Layman

That first statement is decidedly speculative and by no means certain. Nor, even if true, is it necessarily the motive of the person that gives.

I, as I'm sure many skeptics on this board, do give to charity. But I derive little tangible benefit from it. It costs me much more than I ever get out of it.

To the extent I get some sense of subjective satisfaction out of it, that's a good thing. And the reason I get some sense of subjective satisfaction out of it is because my religious faith has trained me to believe that compassion is a good virtue that should be acted on.

Whatever may have predated mythology, the historical fact of the matter is that Christianity changed Roman attitudes towards Charity. For the better you seem to concede.

The problem with your assertion that people don't act selfishly because they know that it will hurt them by harming society is that it's not true. But more importantly, we are discussing a societal shift. It was not considered anti-social to commit infanticide in ancient Rome. Nor was giving to Charity considerered particularly social. Indeed, some pagan thinkers frowned on such activities.

I don't really think I will get more reward in heaven corresponding to my giving here. But religion has taught me that human life is valuable and that I should have compassion--and act on it--towards those less fortunate them myself.

I'm sorry you think giving charity to orphans, widows, and the infirm is not really "good." I admit that I was assuming that the readers of my post would agree with me that such actions are indeed "good."

However, I am more sorry you think I'm talking down to you. That was not my intent. I have no idea if I give more to charity than any other poster on this board. I suspect I give more than some, but I wouldn't at all be surprised if some gave more than me. The point of the thread was to show a clear impact of Christian values on Western Civilization. To the extent you think it's not really "good," we disagree. To the extent you think its just common sense, I would point out that such sense was--according to Fox, Durant, Hinson, Lecky, Stark and others--not very common at all at the time. To the extent it became common, Christianity is due some measure of credit.

[ January 25, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>

E_muse

Interesting too is the fact that Jesus was, by virtue of the fact that he lived under the Old Covenant, a traditional Jew.

The sayings attributed to him in the NT have him saying that not one jot or tittle of the law would pass away under the new covenant. One doesn't get the impression that he wanted to relax things a little!

Over issues such as charitable deeds for example, it would seem that Jesus was in no doubt that these things should happen, it was just the means by which it would be achieved.

IMHO Christianity should teach that generosity should stem out of a desire to give rather than a legal requirement to do so.

Me too! And anyone on the receiving end of this sort of treatment could well ask, "You're not bloody interested in any other need I have, so why are you so bloody obsessed with my soul?"

Hats off to the Catholics!


But does a legal requirement to give make a person any more generous on the subjective level?

Probably not, and I think that it is this that Christian teaching seeks to address. Or at least should IMHO.

But would this include means of giving such as the lottery in which there is a clear greed motivation - the hope of millions?


Well, if you did, you certainly got me thinking.

Hope you feel better soon.

E_muse

Could you suggest a way in which a person could give in order to benefit their society and not benefit from it themselves if they are also a part of that society? How can you participate in society, give to it and not benefit from it? This seems to be about a causal relationship within a society and makes no comment about personal motivation.

Your comment says nothing about the motivations of individuals who are giving. You seem to be insisting that there must be an element of selfishness somewhere. Why?

If this principle is so obvious why do things such as the National Lottery have to artificially create a knowledge of reward in order to guarantee a return?

How can you act in a way which is beneficial to society and not benefit yourself if you are a part of that society? And how does this inescapable causal relationship comment on the motivation of individuals who are giving?

I agree. The Christian principle is 'freely you've received, now freely give'. The apostle Paul taught that eternal life was a free gift and not a reward for good works and that good works should flow out of our knowledge of God's generosity. He who has been given much will love much .... that sort of idea.

Well firstly, I don't think that it's fair that you refer to theist ideas of 'good' as half baked without offering your own definition of good. I think that you would also have to demonstrate that your idea didn't exist within theism to begin with and couldn't have been role modelled.

What new and ultimately more radical concept of a 'good work' can humanism come up with?

How does one judge 'good' anyway? You mean, good in your own eyes? I think that viewing an outcome and calling it 'good' is a window on oneself rather than the event.

Well, I'm not talking down to you, but I am questioning some of your ideas. Hope you don't mind.

[ January 25, 2002: Message edited by: E_muse ]</p>

cheetah

Jess, DO you have any stats to back this up? I believe this too, and have heard it, but now I am being challenged on it, my acquaintance insists that most of them would never even consider this (or other types of witholding) bribing and blackmail.

REALLY? I'd love to be able to reference that, too, because just like Layman, my friend recently quoted some stats about religious people being more generous. But, maybe they are being selective in WHAT charities. They probably don't count "liberal" charities like greenpeace, WWF, etc. Anyway, if anyone has some link or reference to back this up, I would be very happy!

Jess, why did the Christian station say this? Was it as a motivation to get Christians to donate more so they don't look bad compared to non-Christians?

Layman

The issue on charitable giving is complex. It is undisputed that Churches and Synagogues are the biggest private sector contributors to charities providing social services: feeding the hungry, providing shelter to the homeless, helping pay utilitly bills, providng clothing.

Then there are the Christian/or Christian inspired Charitable Foundations. Such foundations, for example, being the top three in 1999:

1. Salvation Army.

"The Salvation Army led the 1999 survey of the top 400 charities for the eighth straight year, receiving $1.4 billion in cash and donated goods, according to The Chronicle of Philanthropy, the weekly "Newspaper of the Nonprofit World," which began compiling contribution statistics in 1991."

2. YMCA

"The YMCA of the USA ranked second with $693.3 million in donations . . ."

3. Red Cross

". . . followed by the American Red Cross, which saw a 25 percent increase in contributions to $678.3 million."

Then there is the issue of private charitable giving by individuals, which was the follow-up poll I discussed. I believe that the last category counted all charitable organizations, including such things as your local church and Greenpeace, etc.

E_muse

Is it?

Let us assume that religious organizations are statistically more generous than others.

If God does not exist this would simply prove that certain humans behaviours are not goverened by rationalism or knowledge of 'truth'. That certain human behaviours cannot be derived by rationalization, they are instinctive, and people will rationalize away in order to justify that behaviour. This is simply true.

An adult male is not sexually attracted to an adult female because he can rationalize what is going on.