Give More, and Give More Wisely

Recently listening to George Michael's 1990 release, Listen Without Prejudice, Vol. 1 (a fantastic album – if you don't know it, give it a chance), I was struck by the lyrics of the opening track, “Praying for Time,” a tune that intrigued me upon its initial video release on MTV back in the day, but one that I'd never properly absorbed lyrically. It's about the haves and the have-nots, or as Michael offers, the “beggars and the choosers.”

He sings:

The rich declare themselves poor
and most of us are not sure
If we have too much
but we'll take our chances
’Cause God's stopped keeping score

And something a bit more direct in verse two:

These are the days of the empty hand
You hold on to what you can
And charity is a coat you wear twice a year

Strong stuff, and the call to action implicit in “Praying for Time” is something that I think needs to be wrestled with. Whether or not you believe in God, I think it's better to live as if what we do matters, and if believing – or merely considering – that there is an entity "keeping score" of our actions is what spurs you into doing more to help others, so be it. Unfortunately, for many of us – even those who do believe in God – charity is indeed nothing more than a few articles of clothing dropped off at Goodwill twice a year.

To which I say, do more. Give like it matters. Give like someone is tallying all of your actions, keeping score, whether or not you think it’s nonsense.

I find it fascinating and frustrating that many who consider themselves Christians don’t take Luke 18:25 to heart:

Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.

I’ve heard preachers attempt to wriggle their way out of that verse, claiming it’s taken out of context, blah blah blah, but to me it sounds pretty fricking straight forward. Give. Don’t amass obscene amounts of wealth. If you do, you have a lot to answer for when you meet your maker.

Similarly, I find it no less fascinating and no less frustrating that many who consider themselves Jewish don’t take seriously the laws of tithing found in Leviticus 27:30, Numbers 18:25–28, Deuteronomy 14:22–24, and 2 Chronicles 31:5–6. 

Whether or not these Bible verses speak to you, you may find some assistance on how much to give and where to give on philosopher and philanthropist Peter Singer’s terrific website, The Life You Can Save. I’ve recently reevaluated the charitable giving for my household because of it.

Singer believes that not only do we not give enough, we don’t give wisely. We support charities that offer very little bang for the buck, eschewing the good we can do to the most destitute overseas in favor of helping far fewer here at home. I’ve chosen to take a middle-ground approach. I still have my favorite local organizations that I feel strongly about, but I am going to set aside a significant percentage to improving the lives of those who need it most (as well as to environmental causes). Singer’s website offers simple ways to give directly to the causes that you feel most strongly about: tackling climate change, saving lives, helping woman and girls, education…there’s certainly no shortage of worthy causes for you to focus on.

What I found particularly helpful is determining how much to give. If you take tithing to the letter of the law (and I’m not saying you shouldn’t), you give 10% of your income. Period. My family has been giving less than that, but now that we’ve paid our last tuition bill, I wanted to get some guidance on what makes sense for us going forward. Peter Singer’s website actually has a calculator that suggests a target amount for charitable giving, and if you want to know more, they include the formula used to determine the amount. Using this, my family will now boost our giving by about 50% next year. It may not be a perfect calculus, but it’s a nice guideline when asking the question, “How much should I give?”

Perhaps you won’t find the answer that works for you on the above website. But if charity for you has been “a coat you wear twice a year,” I urge you to reconsider your role on Planet Earth and what you can do to alleviate as much suffering as possible. You may have the power to do more good than you think.

Blueprint for Charitable Giving

Over the years I’ve devoted two blogs to the topic of charitable giving and how much of our time and money should be spent helping those in need, a concept I often wrestle with.  (One could argue that if I spent as much time giving as I do wrestling with the question of how much I should give, I’d be a much better person!)   In my writings I referred to the Jewish concept of tithing, the “upper limit” concept of the Babylonian Talmud and the New Testament reading of the Good Samaritan, but I’ve never walked away from these investigations with a clear-cut sense of what I should be doing to help others – only that I should be doing more.

Well, leave it to a pastor to help clarify things.  As I’ve discussed in previous posts, I get a double dose of religion as I occasionally attend Friday night services at synagogue and regularly attend Sunday morning services at a Presbyterian church where I play piano.  Once again, I’ve concluded that the applicable teachings of Sundays often trump the intellectual teachings of Fridays.  At Elmhurst Presbyterian last Sunday, Pastor Lyda offered a concept of giving so obvious that I had a hard time not uttering the words “well, duh!” out loud.  Ready?  Here it is:

Give to others as much as you spend on entertainment for yourself.

How simple is that?  

On the surface, it’s straightforward.  If you spend $30 on a movie, allocate $30 to a charity or other cause that’s in need of money.  

Ah, but what do we consider entertainment?  If you think about it, much of what we spend could fall into this category: electronics, cable, Netflix, internet, sports events, concerts, amusement parts, going out to eat, hobbies, junk food, parties, presents, timeshares or second homes, alcohol, coffee, cigarettes.  Last year, my family did what it had never done before: spent a great deal of money (for us) on an all-inclusive vacation to Mexico.  Clearly, this falls under the category of entertainment, but a vacation of this magnitude would have to be looked at twice if the cost suddenly doubled to include an equal amount for charity.

Still, I think it makes sense.

The hard-core rationalist might find a way to avoid matching the cost of most of the aforementioned categories.  A cycling hobby could be placed under a health category instead of entertainment, or an internet bill could be listed as a necessity. But look at what you spend your money on, and I think you’ll conclude that much of it is inessential.

As we head toward the holiday season, spend some time taking a close look at what you spend on yourself and your family, and consider matching it for those in need.  It might do two things: raise your awareness for just how blessed you are, and offer some assistance to make the world a better place. 

How Good do we Have to Be?

While my family endeavors to single-handedly revive the economy this holiday season with frivolous gifts, and while we attempt to meet our charitable goals for the calendar year, a question keeps entering my mind: how good do we have to be?  Can we spend money on unnecessary items knowing that it could instead improve or even save another’s life?  Should we in effect take a vow of poverty, agreeing to forgo any of our own pleasures while others are in need?  If not, where do we draw the line?  How much should we devote to helping others while we pursue our own security and interests?

I suspect that a couple of hundred years ago giving was easy.  Living in the relative isolation of a small farming town in Europe, a charitable person would probably have given to their church or synagogue, nearby families enduring hardship, and the local beggar.  They you’d have it.  You’d be good to go.

Nowadays, when the woes of the entire world make headlines daily, it’s impossible to confine your giving to local needs without wondering about the atrocities occurring half a world away.  There is always more to do.  In 1800, a tsunami in Japan would hardly have been a concern for a person living in America.  Today, it’s another tug on our consciences.

Or at least some of our consciences.  A woman I met in 1995 said to me once, “Charity starts at home.”  The problem is, for many people, that’s exactly where charity ends.

A recent article in the Sacramento Bee discussed charitable giving and highlighted the One Percent Foundation, an organization whose members give one percent of their annual income on-line and vote for a cause quarterly to donate to.  They attract young adults primarily – those still in school or still paying off student loans and getting their career paths set – and while it’s a nice start to be sure, one would hope that it instills a habit of lifelong giving that grows as incomes rise, because one percent hardly seems enough.

Mitt Romney’s run for the White House this year highlighted the Mormon Church’s practice of tithing, whereby 10% of one’s income is devoted to the church.  This is similar to the tithing Jews set into law in the Torah, but after the Temple was destroyed, Jewish tithing was amended to giving at least 10 percent of net earnings to helping those in need.  This is somewhat ironic, since in fifteen years of attending Shabbat services, I've rarely heard that tithing is a goal Jews should be aspiring to.  By contrast, the Presbyterian church where I’ve played piano for the last year has already devoted a sermon on tithing and how we are not doing nearly enough to help those in need.

Then there are the mega-wealthy – Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and the like – who’ve committed to The Giving Pledge, a promise for billionaires to give at least 50 percent of their wealth to charity in their lifetime or after.  Nice, I suppose, but not nearly as charitable as my 10 year-old son would be in similar circumstances.  I was overcome with pride last summer when he concluded that if we won the lottery, we should keep about ten percent and give the rest away.  I couldn’t agree more.

But we are not lottery winners.  We are people living comfortably but who have a mortgage, three college educations and a retirement to consider.  And we like to have fun.  Did we really need to buy five tickets to see “War Horse” in Chicago?  After all, if we’d instead donated that money to Feed My Starving Children, we could have fed a meal to 2045 people.  How can three hours of entertainment be justified?

This isn’t a no-brainer, but being human has always encompassed so much more than giving.   Education.  Art.  Beauty.  Creating.  Athletics.  Family.  Friendships.  Community.  Should we really forego great architecture and resort to concrete structures because there are people in need?  Should we stop commissioning sculptures, painting and symphonies?  Are movies and sports luxuries we should no longer succumb to? 

It’s comforting to know that smarter minds than ours have struggled over the years with these questions.  For my money, the most reasonable conclusion comes from the Babylonian Talmud.  It states: “One who wishes to donate generously should not give more than a fifth of his income, lest he himself come to be in need of charity.”  This might not cover the billionaires of today, but it could be a good guideline for the rest of us: try to contribute ten percent of one’s net earnings, and, if possible, up to another ten percent.

Either way, how good do we have to be?  Probably a whole lot better than we’ve been.