Christian Charity

I was recently reminded of a “real” which we should often reflect upon: Christians give more to charity, do more charitable work, than any other single group. Studies indicate that the churchgoer gives up to twice as much to charity as any other person, religious or non-religious (giving even more to non-religious affiliated charities than non-Christians). In addition to charitable work, Christians also provide an impressive degree of first-response disaster relief. Name a disaster in the last fifty years and a Christian-affiliated response team was among the first ones there.

Even if one takes into account the fact that a great deal of Christian giving goes towards “ministers' salaries, church upkeep, and Sunday School” the simple fact is that Christians still give more than any other group. What can explain this?

I will delve into the realm of “motivations” only to say this: whether the Christian gives more because they “are forced to” (an ignorant claim I’ve often heard), i.e. it is their (absolute) duty as a Christian, or because they have a genuine concern for the suffering of the world, matters little to me. In fact, one could argue that "giving as a duty" takes nothing away from the charitable act, but speaks a great deal rather about the integrity of an ideology that requires providing assistance to others. What concerns me here is the outcome: Do the suffering receive aid? Motivations are a moot point (though I would accept an argument which attacks a “charity” with strings attached). In a twist on St. Paul’s discussion concerning the preaching of the gospel: “But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice” (Phil. 1:18) -What does it matter? (Why question the motives of the Christian here?) The important thing is that Christians give more, whether from false motives or true, to the aid organizations of the world. And because of this I rejoice.

Apart from motivations, one of the major contributing factors to this incredible amount of Christian giving must certainly be related to organizational structure. I've touched on this briefly in a previous blog (in relation to the possibility of reconciliation): Isn't it precisely the Christian system, a system which provides a structure within which giving is made a simple matter, a system in which large groups of people are effectively empowered to give, in which giving itself is a kind of cherished narrative within the community, that has contributed to the success of Christian charity? (This should give those anti-organizational Christians pause: Do not forget the power of an organized people to change the world).

I agree here with my beloved philosopher: The way to show our respect for an authority (an individual or organization, political or not) is to be ruthlessly critical. I want to add: And let us also give honour where honour is due.

The Modern Malaise

I recently spoke with a group of Christian scholars concerning Charles Taylor's A Secular Age (2007). This particular conversation involved an analysis of what Taylor calls "the malaises of modernity." Briefly, summarizing Taylor, the malaises of modernity involve the following:

1) The sense of the fragility of meaning and the search for an over-arching significance (those moments we no longer feel our chosen path is compelling, or cannot justify it to ourselves or others).

2) The felt flatness of our attempts to solemnize the crucial moments of passage in our lives (for example birth, marriage, death- previously solemnized by linking with the transcendent-holy-sacred, but now many people use the rites without feeling any connection with religion, eg. marriage in a church).

3) The utter flatness, emptiness of the ordinary (in the repeated cycle of desire and fulfillment in the consumer culture, "the cardboard quality of bright supermarkets, or neat row housing in a clean suburb; the ugliness of slag heaps, or an aging industrial townscape").

For Taylor these malaises are ones of immanence, the loss of the transcendent (of the Other outside of ourselves, i.e. God). What I found interesting about our discussion was how the group took it for granted that what Taylor was discussing was indeed a universal Western condition. This simply is the way things are. A suspicion steadily arose in my mind: is this not an entirely post-Christian sentiment? I cannot begin to count the many times I've heard Christians tell me that "without God life would be meaningless." I too have experienced a great sense of the "fragility of meaning," of no longer being able to justify my beliefs to others or myself. This was of course when I "lost my faith". It took several years before I was able to recover from this (and I might add, without help, support, or understanding from almost anyone- there is a great need for qualified and understanding workers in loss-of-faith contexts). The point here is, however, that in order to experience this "malaise", this loss of feeling/living towards the transcendent, one must have something to lose in the first place. Yes for the post-Christian this loss and subsequent sense of flattening may indeed be experienced (though of course it is not inevitable), but when I reflected on acquaintances who were raised in non-faith homes or who had never believed in a transcendent Other in the first place, I came to the conclusion that perhaps there has been a mis-diagnosis here, that many people live without displaying any of the three symptoms above. Perhaps it is because they are unreflective! Yes perhaps.. many people certainly do not reflect on the bigger questions. Regardless, it simply isn't true that the "modern malaise" afflicts everyone in the West, or perhaps even that it afflicts the majority of people.

How convenient it is to think so if one is a Christian. "People are lost and adrift without God: therefore, we, the Church, have an important answer for them- inoculation against meaninglessness." [In my mind I see a more sinister (hopefully fictional) Christian character discussing his plan with his underlings: "If the malaise of modernity didn't exist, we would have to invent one. In other words: In order to justify our continuing belief in this myth we must first invent a problem for which we alone have the solution."] The malaise Taylor speaks of here is the post-Christian malaise of the loss of meaning. It is, afterall, in modernity that Christian faith has taken a number of blows from various sources (perhaps ultimately from itself: I am totally in agreement with Taylor here). It is, therefore, (and I wouldn't extend this too far beyond it), a Christian illness, rather than a societal one per se.

Didaskalos

I believe we owe a great debt to our teachers. I've come to this conclusion after a little conflict within myself. The reason for this conflict was two-fold:

1) Is it not my teachers who often cause me to feel foolish, who challenge my most cherished convictions, who show me again and again how ignorant I am, who refuse to give me any comfort?

My teacher is therefore my enemy.

2) Is it not my teachers who remind me that I haven't "arrived," that there is still work to be done, who guide me and illuminate my path?

My teacher is therefore my friend.

The conflict dissipates when one transforms the moral-ontological field on which Reason #1 is premised so that it reads thus:

1) My foolishness is based on ignorance, many of my cherished convictions have remained unanalyzed and assumed, my comfort is derrived from a false sense of self-assuredness and self-righteousness, all of which are challenged by my teacher.

My teacher is therefore a god.

[For the weak of heart I will add: This is not the Christian or Muslim conception of a divine who commits no error. This is the ancient Jewish divine who not only falls short of his design, but regrets too his own blundering. Here is a god who also learns and is therefore qualified to teach.]

To the keepers of the Idea: the Immortal

My teachers.

The Human Condition

A recent article published in Lancet medical journal relates how a California college professor has sequenced his own genome and discovered he has a high risk of suddenly dropping dead from a heart attack, as well as being at a high risk for prostate cancer. The technology cost approximately $50,000, but the latest equipment can do it for $5000 (from such companies like Illumina and Life Technologies Corp). The team leader who analyzed the professor's DNA says "The $1000 genome is coming fast."

Using science to make accurate predictions about how one will die, or even when, is not new. A test for Huntington's chorea (a central nervous system disease resulting in uncontrolled movements, loss of mental abilities, and changes in personality or behavior, eventually leading to immobility and complications such as congestive heart failure and pneumonia -there is no cure), has been available for pre-symptomatic carriers for some time. It's interesting to note, however, that only 5% of potential carriers ever take advantage of the test. Prenatal testing is also available, raising ethical issues surrounding aborting fetuses known to be carriers.

My wife and I recently watched the movie "Gattaca", a sci-fi set in the not too distant future. In it, citizens have been genetically modified from conception to avoid such health problems as heart disease, cognitive disabilities, and even poor eyesight. Those whose parents have opted for a natural birth are often shunned, given jobs like scrubbing the toilets of the more genetically "perfect". The movie follows the efforts of a character played by Ethan Hawke, a man born naturally, to participate in a space mission to Titan. Having been turned away from entry into the prestigious space training center because he is not genetically "up to the task," Hawke embarks on a long journey of training and deception in order to achieve his goal. I won't spoil the ending for those who haven't seen it...

As much as this movie is about class society, the haves and the have nots, the elite and the workers (including the bodily discipline that so marks the working class, who often have only their own bodies), this movie is also about the coming (and already upon us) genetic revolution. What was once science fiction has now become non-fiction. It raises several questions:

If it is possible to detect and screen out genetic conditions leading to health issues, why not? If there is a way to manipulate genes to make us smarter or healthier shouldn't we jump at the chance? Here we might also enter into the debate about the use of performance enhancing drugs in sport and academia. If one can pop a pill to aid memory or energy without adverse side-effects, shouldn't one do it? I admit to being a regular user of the performance enhancing drug caffeine, a drug with relatively few side effects! But there are many more powerful and effective drugs now available.. So if one is able to circumvent even this (or supplement it) through genetic manipulation, why not?

This also raises the more fundamental question of what it means to be human. Do these advances in bio-genetics not challenge us for a redefinition? It will continue to do so as scientists are even now capable of creating life at a basic level (not reconstituting life from spare parts, but actually constructing it from a molecular level). The resistance given to such projects is telling. What is it exactly that is being resisted?