On the merits of Charity

[pecunium]

Faith, Hope and Charity. Three virtues.

The Overtly Religious boast of the first, and seem to have the second (though for what they hope, I am not certain, save that I seem not to share it).

But what of Charity? I have posted before on the need for works. On the actual demands Jesus made of his followers (love each other, love your neighbours, love your enemies, forgive those who wrong you and, most of all, help the poor).

So Digby (over at Hullabaloo) did me (and thee) the great favor of seeing what those with Vocal Vocations, and bully pulpits to the Faithful, have done to help those who suffered from the tsunami.

Not bloody much.

Most have not mentioned it at all (though Focus on the Family seems to have added a small squib, it's still less important than remembering them as the new year begins.

Some have gone so far as to thank God for His good works in killing so many perverts (it seems the Swedes are particularly egregious in this. One web site said,"Thank God for Tsunami & 2,000 dead Swedes!!!" asking, "How many tsunami-dead Swedes are fags and dykes?". Yes, it's Phelps, and he is a special case (and Lord, what have we done that You see the need to afflict us with him?, but rejoicing in the deaths of others seems to pass schadenfruede and move over to the range of sociopathic.

If I thought it would help, I'd quote 1 Cor. 13 to them, "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a clanging cymbal."

Comments

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

Are there Christian organisations out there, down in the weeds, doing good works? You betcha. Some of them are also merely proselytising by works, but I have no beef with them (though railing against the ill, without praising the good can make one seem anti-something, when what one is against is the failure to properly express that thing).

My complaint is with the actions, for by their works shall ye know them. These are the people who rail at my lack of moral values, because I don't see homosexuals as evil, becauase I don't want to have them possessed of the right to shove their brand of faith down my throat (and I was reared in the Church, in much the same time, but I was an altar boy with promise. Our Pastor wanted to make me a scripture scholar, both because I think he knew I had the seed, if not the actual germ, of a calling [it certainly seems I have a vocation] and that without some direction, the difficulties of reconciling doctrine, dogma, faith, practice and text, might lead me further rom the Church than I have;in fact, strayed. But I digress) and prevent me from doing something similar.

So here they are, with millions of people who listen to them. They have the chance to be compassionate, to do to the least of His brethren, that ought to move move them.

IF that doesn't they can do good for their cause (however misguided I might think it) by taking advantage of the fact that millions more people will be looking at what they do, and could be persuaded they aren't just spewing theocratic; narrow-minded hate. They could be cynical, and manipulate this cause to their actual advantage.

But they don't. Mammon, and power, seem to be their credo.

And we have more works by which to weigh them in a balance.

TK

[lazaruslong2004.livejournal.com]

While I agree that there exists the environment for a very nice little PR move by the Church, whatever happened to charity for charities sake. When did doing good and right acts have to be rewarded with a feather in the cap? I seem to remember that in The Sermon on the Mount that there were a few passages about not wearing your faith for all to see, and you will have your reward in heaven. I paraphrase, but the idea still stands.

It just grates that the message of "give until it hurts" comes from marbles halls while they heirarchy lives in guilded luxury.

Whatever would St. Francis say?

[akirlu.livejournal.com]

Or, not to put too fine a point on it, what would Jesus do?

[bella-peligrosa.livejournal.com]

I actually remember that quite well. Charity for the sake of charity, not for the sake of reward or recognition. The argument can go pretty far with several different virtues, but is most apparent with charity. Everyday I watch as people pick up a stick and say "look at me! Look at me! I'm helping these poor, helpless wretches." Please! It's not limited to just Christian organizations operating in this disaster. I see it everywhere. Grantors who throw money at a cause just so they can have their name associated with a movement, not because they truly want to support and care,usually attaching so many conditions on the money that it's hardly worth the check its written on.

I know I'm rambling.

Just a random note to say, I agree.