Treasures in Heaven (Updated with More Blegging!)
[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.]
One of my constitutional heroes is a little known figure named Thaddeus Stevens, whom Fawn Brodie correctly called the Father of the Fourteenth Amendment. And one story I read in one of his many biographies told of how once he was playing cards with man about to be married the next day. It wasn’t poker, but like in poker gambling was involved and Stevens cleaned the young man out by several hundred dollars. After the man left, Stevens then went and found the bride-to-be, and gave the money to her, instructing her not to tell him he had given her the money—to make up some story on how she happened to find the same amount—figuring that it would be best if the young groom took this incident as a cautionary tale. The fact we know this story at all is proof she broke that promise of confidentiality.
The other night I was watching O’Reilly when Ann Coulter declared that conservatives were more charitable than liberals. And this morning I learned that Lawrence O’Donnell issued a challenge to see who could donate more to a given charity—conservatives or liberals. And I thought I would take a moment to remind people of something that Jesus once said. From Mathews 6:1-4 in the “God’s Word” translation:
1Be careful not to do your good works in public in order to attract attention. If you do, your Father in heaven will not reward you. 2So when you give to the poor, don’t announce it with trumpet fanfare. This is what hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets in order to be praised by people. I can guarantee this truth: That will be their only reward. 3When you give to the poor, don’t let your left hand know what your right hand is doing. 4Give your contributions privately. Your Father sees what you do in private. He will reward you.
Now, of course not everyone reading this is a Christian. I am not even sure O’Donnell himself is one. But let’s talk about it as philosophy, and not necessarily the Word of God. Isn’t what he is saying making some sort of sense? If you are really being selfless about something, than making a public display of it takes away from that. I mean for several years now you hear of “Santa Claus” types giving away massive amounts of money and no one even knowing who they are. The latest version of that is a man who left $100,000 in a Salvation Army Kettle, and no one knows who did this. These people understand that principle that Jesus spoke of better than Ann Coulter does, who takes her charity as an in-your-face achievement.
Now, in that Biblical passage, Jesus is not saying it is a sin, per se, but merely that when it comes to visible acts of charity, what you gain on this Earth is all you get. In one translation (I forgot which one), Jesus says you will gain no treasure in Heaven from this, hence the title of this post. So if everyone thinks you are the most wonderful person on Earth, there is your reward. But don’t expect anything from God.
Not that Coulter is unique. When you donate to charity, for instance, do you declare it on your taxes? I know from having set up at least one charity as part of my job (long story) how vital it is to set up the ability to deduct taxes. Isn’t that the same thing? And yes, even publicly asking people to donate to a worthy cause probably counts too, so that makes me a violator of this rule, as well. And like I said, none of this is sinful, but perhaps before you make a display of your charity, you need to ask yourself why you are doing it. Would you be better justified in keeping it to yourself?
So on one hand, I think Coulter didn’t represent herself or conservatism very well by turning charity into a cheap bragging point. By comparison, O’Donnell and O’Reilly (with his famous charitable work) are defensible in their conduct because by doing what they do, they are doing concrete good in the world. I don’t think that it suddenly means that you will be building “treasure in heaven” but you can be satisfied you are helping others, justifying your departure from Jesus’ well reasoned dictum.
Update: Here I will depart from the rule again and say, hey, if you like what you read here, or even lament “When Patterico will be back to blog on a regular basis and send this idiot Aaron Worthing packing?!” why not click on the right hand column and donate to our host? And let me quote this from his bleg way back when:
This is important: if you’re going to use a PayPal account funded by cash, you can use the top button. That is best because I get every cent. If you are going to make a one-time payment that is funded in any way by a credit card, you have to use the second button. PayPal takes a small amount off the top, but that’s the nature of the beast. I can’t accept credit card donations made using the top button.
And I want to point out that third button, which is my favorite. It is a subscription button, which allows you to set up a recurring monthly payment of $9, which I am calling a “subscription.” I’ll take any donation, but I’d really encourage people to “subscribe,” as that would give me some idea of the resources available to me on a monthly basis that I could hopefully use to keep the site up through an Instapundit link, just once! A couple of you have already become “subscribers” without my mentioning it, and I really appreciate it. (I can also accept recurring payments funded by credit card at the third button.)
Patterico has been giving to you for years, asking very little in return, which strikes me as a form of “in-kind” charity. You might consider returning the favor with the cash version.
And no, Patterico didn’t ask me to say this. In fact he feels like he doesn’t deserve it, an opinion I respectfully disagree with.
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]
So true…
The same applies to ‘forced’ charity as well…
Keep that in mind when the Left so speciously proclaims that that the forced ‘charity’ of welfare and other assistance programs is something that “Jesus would do” in some make-believe world where taxes taken from you and given to another ‘counts’ as Christian charity.
They lie about everything…
MJN1957 (11a3c3) — 12/22/2010 @ 10:56 ammjn
no, no, charity requires me to take from other people and give to others. like if a man steals your wallet and gives your cash to orphans, he is a swell guy.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 12/22/2010 @ 11:00 amI did not see the segment but Ann is probably referring to Arthur C. Brooks book “Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism” This is the product description from Amazon.com
“We all know we should give to charity, but who really does? In his controversial study of America’s giving habits, Arthur C. Brooks shatters stereotypes about charity in America–including the myth that the political Left is more compassionate than the Right.
Brooks, a preeminent public policy expert, spent years researching giving trends in America, and even he was surprised by what he found. In Who Really Cares, he identifies the forces behind American charity: strong families, church attendance, earning one’s own income (as opposed to receiving welfare), and the belief that individuals–not government–offer the best solution to social ills.
But beyond just showing us who the givers and non-givers in America really are today, Brooks shows that giving is crucial to our economic prosperity, as well as to our happiness, health, and our ability to govern ourselves as a free people.”
This was not a generalized comment by Ann, there is an actual study to back up what she said.
Caroline S. (2c7e1c) — 12/22/2010 @ 11:22 amI agree that one should not brag about their charity.
Though one downside of being Anonymous is that in order to deduct a charitable donation in excess of $250, you have to have a receipt from the charity. Since you are anonymous, then the charity has no name to put on the receipt and therefore loss of deduction.
Joe (6120a4) — 12/22/2010 @ 11:22 amIf Thaddeus Stevens had lived longer, there might not be a race problem in America today. When he died he lay in state at the Capitol, flanked by a Black Honor Guard from Massachusetts. And a few short years later, after the Democrats and Klan had won in the South, he became in turns a villain and then non-person. Pity.
Kevin M (298030) — 12/22/2010 @ 11:30 amI did see the interview and Coulter wasn’t saying how great she was for her giving. It was a reference to the general charitable patterns of liberals vs conservatives. The point was that conservatives actually do care about various causes but don’t think government intervention is the solution.
Aarons take on this is strange.
CAL (37712d) — 12/22/2010 @ 11:30 amCoulter was citing the results of a study done by some liberals [thernstrom i think is the spelling] that found that liberals were less charitable than conservatives to their own surprise.She was merely being defensive rather than her usual combative style and not using herself as the exemple.Beating liberals with their own stick is just what they deserve.
dunce (b89258) — 12/22/2010 @ 11:43 amI didn’t see the Coulter clip, but the factual evidence is as discussed.
And yes, the number one reason to be a Democrat is because “Democrats care about people, Republicans don’t”, like not caring if children go to bed hungry or have no clean water to drink in 20 years. Seriously, I think that characterization is why Democrats win elections. Differences like “the govt. shouldn’t spend more money than it takes in” are intuitively obvious and correct. It is feelings, not rational thinking that sways the majority of peopl to vote Dem.
On a reciprocal note, sometimes people (conservatives) make a big deal when the Bidens or the Obamas don’t give to charity. I think it is perfectly rational for them to give nothing to charity, if they instead give more money than necessary to the US Treasury. Conservatives largely think grass-roots private mercy and compassion are the best way to help those in need, libs think it is through government programs. I say let the facts be broadcast, not the mischaracterizations. Now, a liberal rich person who doesn’t give extra to DC is like a conservative rich person who doesn’t give to private charity.
As far as reporting donations to the IRS, I think the typical person is simply trying to make the money stretch as far as possible, in order to give more away as well as keep more for themselves. Besides, no one is going to win praise from the IRS for giving to charity, if anything you’ll get audited if you give away more than they think you should. Of course, if you want to impress your accountant or the public when your tax return is made public for some reason, as you said AW, it isn’t so much a sin as just realize the accolades you get on earth is “all the points you’re going to get”.
The person who donates large sums anonymously simply sees being anonymous as more importnat than the tax write-off and doesn’t mind missing out.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 12/22/2010 @ 12:09 pmKevin M
You get a gold star for respect, for knowing that much about a guy that no one else seems to know jack about.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 12/22/2010 @ 12:12 pmWhat people like Larry the Socialist really like to do is have the government take other peoples money and give it to political causes that they agree with. Nothing spends as easily as other people’s money.
JD (07faa1) — 12/22/2010 @ 12:14 pmIf publicizing will cause other people to give more money then it is justified. Indeed, you will get credit in heaven for what you convince others to give. There is a story in the Talmud of a Rabbi and his wife who would deliver food anonymously to a poor family every week. Once the family tried to catch them so that they could find out who it was.
The Rabbi and his wife jumped into a nearby oven to hide (though it was still hot). It is better to burn in the oven than to embarrass someone. The Rabbi was slightly singed while the wife had no damage. The reason was that he would give money to charity while the wife would feed the poor directly.
Sabba Hillel (dd522e) — 12/22/2010 @ 12:37 pmI am no Bible scholar but the section you quoted is the basis for the story in the novel “Magnificent Obsession.” Two bad movies were made from this novel but it is still worth reading although it was written in 1928. The story is of a neurosurgeon who gives away money and aid to people in trouble but he does it anonymously and swears the people to secrecy. He drowns accidentally and young rich man is saved from drowning at the same time in the same lake. Many people blame him because the respirator that was used to save him was owned by the neurosurgeon who drowned because it was in use on the other side of the lake.
The young man decides to go to medical school and try to take the place of the other man. Along the way, he learns about the other’s giving and his theory that doing so in secret was the reason for his success. The “Obsession” of the title is about the urge to secret charity that, once the giver realizes he is being rewarded, becomes an obsession.
One interesting twist in the story is that Lloyd C Douglas, the author, was a minister in Ann Arbor and knew the neurosurgeon who was the model for the story. He was a rich young man who decided to become a neurosurgeon and who took no salary from the university. He started the department of neurological surgery at Michigan and was revered by his residents. He spent his life running the department. He was also well known as a donor but his charities were secret.
Mike K (568408) — 12/22/2010 @ 12:49 pmNext year’s headline: “Ancient Malawi forests clear-cut for new indigenous school desk industry.”
gp (72be5d) — 12/22/2010 @ 1:03 pmCoulter wasn’t bragging about her own Charitable givings. She was making the point that liberals view our money as their money to take. This moved into the discussion about “charity” and how liberals and conservatives view it through a different prism.
CarolineS: She mentioned the Brooks book as a good reference.
kas (b8aaff) — 12/22/2010 @ 1:52 pmI agree we should not use good deeds for personal gain but sharing stories of good deeds can inspire us to do likewise. Like this.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 12/22/2010 @ 2:36 pmThad Stevens. A real hard-case. One of his targets was fellow Pennsylvania Republican Simon Cameron, a notorious hack. Lincoln made Cameron Secretary of War (it was a political move he was stuck with).
When Stevens heard, he expressed disgust, with an implication of graft. “Why,” said a colleague, “do you think Cameron would steal?”
“Well,” said Stevens, “he wouldn’t steal a red-hot stove.”
Cameron took offense, and demanded that Stevens retract.
“Very well,” said Stevens. “Mr. Cameron objects to my saying that he wouldn’t steal a red-hot stove. I retract that statement.”
Rich Rostrom (f7aeae) — 12/22/2010 @ 5:01 pmRich
Okay, another gold star for being someone else who remembers stevens.
And yeah, that is a pretty good quote from him.
Aaron Worthing (b8e056) — 12/22/2010 @ 5:04 pmGod gives freely to those who ask
James 1:5
Luke 11:10
God withholds his blessings and prevents men from receiving them
John 12:40
Josh 11:20
A good man leaveth an inheritance to his children’s children…
Proverbs 13:22
Sell that ye have and give alms…
Luke 12:33
(God is extremely clear on this)
N 26th St (9c3171) — 12/22/2010 @ 7:01 pmI thoroughly disagree that taking the tax breaks being offered violate this provision of the bible.
It’s a question of the idea (made very clear in the passages in question) of utilizing the charity to gain approval in this world, thus eliminating the need for receiving any in the next. “You already got your reward. What makes you think you deserve still more?”
Saving on your taxes doesn’t get you approbation, it’s generally done silently, too — indeed, if Dems are aware of how much you do it they’ll claim it’s a “loophole”, that you’re a thieving rich bastard, and try to find a way to “close it” — hence it just gets you more of your own money to keep or to provide as charity.
IGotBupkis (31f4bd) — 12/22/2010 @ 8:47 pmDonating anonymously means you don’t get a bajillion other charities asking you for money.
Teri (7dcb0b) — 12/24/2010 @ 5:31 pmThanks for mentioning Thaddeus Stevens in your blog. If you’d like to know about Thad and support efforts to promote his memory, you can visit our website at thaddeusstevenssociety.com or email me, Ross Hetrick, the president of the group, at contact@thaddeusstevenssociety.com. Thanks again for mentioning Thaddeus Stevens.
Ross Hetrick (c2ac6a) — 12/25/2010 @ 8:38 am