Quality article as always Johann. The parable of the Good Samaritan emphasizes that your neighbor can be anyone, not that it is everyone. This also lends to the Catholic social teaching principle of subsidiarity quite nicely as well as a foundational Christian principle.
".... the literal injunction to love everyone is a bit of a stretch. Me..I love my friends and family (most of the time). And my fellow man?....well I feel strongly well-disposed to about 10% of them (ish) – 5% maybe. The next 60% or so I can rub along with, somewhere between cordial and indifferent. And the remaining 30%?...somewhere on a scale from mildly dislike... to despise... to dread....."
I immediately thought of subsidiarity too and the lamentable state of how it is now often presented. Much like prudence, it is an idea that in the modern context has been nice-washed of its true content.
I have lamented many times; we should not be looking for "good deeds" to do. God brings the good works he planned for us right to us; like the Samaritan, laying them at our feet. So called "charities", many of whom are complete shams, allow us to ignore our neighbor while simultaneously fanning the self righteous ideas we have of ourselves. One of the ways I have chosen to combat this is every year at the holidays, I ask the clergy of a few solid bible teachin churches in my town for the names of two families in their congregation who are really struggling. I then buy money orders that are anonymously given to them. We can always find ways to be loving to our neighbors. Charities are the worst way.
Yes, perfectly put. If I believe that my "good deed for the day" was saving a life in Africa, a small kindness to a local family becomes so trivial in comparison that I can convince myself to brush it off.
You’re thinking in political terms when this is a personal teaching. So yes, any individual Africans you personally encountered would be your neighbours. But in political terms, you can still argue for them to go back
Without the definition of a stranger in our midst, the command to love a neighbor defined by proximity rather than one’s own kith and kin is disarming, and throws open the gates. You can be hospitable, but that has its limits. I like Rudyard Kipling’s definition as laid out in his poem, “The Stranger.”
I don't think you have to make the tradeoffs you're implying.
You don't have to love a neighbor defined by proximity _rather_ than your kith and kin. You can love your own regardless (ie. "love one-another").
And the fact that you love the strangers you encounter does not mean that you have to be naive to their status as strangers and potential threats. You are called to love your enemies, but not to give up on the idea of having no enemies.
You ask me, charities of the tax-exempt kind are indulgences - an outsourcing of one's duty to be charitable, the same way you'd send a factory abroad for cheaper wages, or a call center.
The main function to the donor is the tax benefit. For the large donors, the donation would never be made without that. Small donations are not necessarily made for this purpose. The main function to the organization is to keep the donors donating. The mission of the organization is secondary. This is true of most charities. I worked in the nonprofit industry for over 6 years and this is what I saw. A true charity would be striving to work itself out of a job. Few, if any, are.
I think about this sometimes. Charities are problem-solving machines, so they always need a problem to be their raison d'etre. They are inherently not interested in actually solving the problem.
Absolutely. A good example is the American Cancer Society. They all start with a noble cause, but when the $$ starts rolling in big, any 'problems' they solve are quickly replaced by different 'problems', creating an ever moving goalpost and endless need for yet MORE $$.....
Oooh, so right! Comparing charities to indulgences is really hard-hitting. Pretty accurate too, I'd say. This line of thinking has really influenced me.
This is similar to St. Augustine's Ordo Amoris idea, where all our loves need to be in the right ordering to be truly virtuous. I see a strange inversion in the 'compassion' of the modern world, which Solomon foresaw when he wrote, "the mercy of the wicked is cruel." It is easy for us to try and replace the obligations we have to our own with random 'good' acts, so our conscience does not hound us too bad. This is a temptation from the household level to the nation level. But I think that if we are truly doing our duty toward our own, we will have God's blessing overflow to bless others.
“Everyone” and “the whole world” are ideas. They are representations people carry around in their head. Thus, caring for “everyone” is really a way of caring about your own ideas of everyone. Ideas are far easier to love, because they are entirely subject to our whims. Ideas don’t call you at 2 Am looking to get picked up from the hospital “The homeless guy I walk past on the way to work”, is not an idea, it’s a specific person. Loving specific people is much harder.
Having said this, I do think there is something good about some aspects of EA, in that they are at least trying to have some definition of The Good other than “whatever makes me feel good.” They are at least trying to hit some standard of giving, which most people aren’t hitting. I’d saw them as wayward Protestants much moreso than as participants in the degenerate corporate culture.
Yes - 'everyone' the abstraction and 'everyone' the collection of billions of actual people with histories and experiences are two very different things.
This might be my first visit to your Substack, but from reading this article I’m persuaded to get your book when it becomes available.
My daughter and I were just discussing how much our large family prospers because of the legacy of stability, financial and otherwise, that we received going back many generations. Our ancestors loved us into flourishing.
I have observed the same in people who participate in protests. Many of them just go for fun. They will curse out their actual neighbour, and go chant for people they don’t know or care about halfway across the world. It makes them feel morally superior to others who don’t engage in protests, or worse yet, engage in protests for the opposite side. It’s once again a cheapning of the real virtue of charity.
There is a sweet homeless man, living in his car in the library parking lot - recovering from surgery and getting sicker by the day because a car is no place to recover from major surgery. He got sick and lost his job. Because he has no job, he now has no health insurance. Because he has no job, he could not afford his rent and got evicted. One of the librarians has gotten him onto every housing list she can find and they let him wash up in the bathrooms and continually check in on him.
I am told that each American taxpayer has given about $6,000 to Ukraine. I'd rather that $6,000 go to the man living in his car in the library parking lot. (That would cover his rent for about 4 months). He's my neighbor.
Meanwhile, the young adults in our small town are madly protesting about the Gaza/Israel conflict. They wave signs by the highway. One of the teenagers got a town council member to "formally take a stand for Palestine." There was a write-up in the newspaper with pictures. I suspect this has absolutely zero effect on the citizens of Gaza. I doubt they care what the young adults in an affluent town in Washington state are doing. However, the teenager gets to validate their image of being a tireless advocate for Gaza. But this "act of resistance" didn't really cost anything. In our town, being pro-Palestine is very popular and wins one social justice points. In a way, the people who took a formal stand for Palestine only gained from the suffering of the Palestinians.
Thank you for this wonderful reflection. It brought to mind Wendell Berry's writing on community, and embracing our partiality towards the specific places and people of our lives:
“No matter how much one may love the world as a whole, one can live fully in it only by living responsibly in some small part of it. Where we live and who we live there with define the terms of our relationship to the world and to humanity. We thus come again to the paradox that one can become whole only by the responsible acceptance of one's partiality.”
You're so welcome! He is a farmer-philosopher, and I think you would enjoy both his expository work and his poetry. I believe that quote came from The Unsettling of America, but I could be wrong. Happy reading :)
I've never understood the well-off Christians in my city in south Texas who spend thousands on overseas mission trips but would never dream of, say, restocking the library or tutoring second graders at the public schools for the poors on the other side of the tracks. There is so much need right here in our own community.
This is one of my main issues with The Hole in The Gospel by Rich Stearns. He argues that because of globalization, everyone is “your neighbor” and so you have a duty to send a percentage of your income to orphans in Uzbekistan etc. This ballooning out of our attention and obligation is alarming and overwhelming.
I took an adult class on Kierkegaard last year. During our discussion of his "Love Thy Neighbor" essay, I was struck by how my classmates took "neighbor" to mean everyone, in the whole world, with people even musing about countries across the globe and the U.S.'s responsibilities to them. Nobody really reacted to my suggestion that "neighbor" might be read literally.
Yes, very good. I even get uneasy hearing from missionaries who take their families into "interesting" parts of the world to spread the church. If evangelisation is the path it should be undertaken by the childless and preferably bachelors. In fact I find it is much more common to find a man of the church with an impressively selfless "ministry" than to find an impressively devoted father. Even in the heat of the abolitionist debate Emerson was damning about such men as held out bleeding hearts for southern slaves whilst they neglected their kin or dealt sharply in business.
I guarantee that the public school nearest you has a nurse who buys hygiene supplies out of her own pocket for the stinky kids she has to counsel who say "I can't ask my mom for deodorant. I know she doesn't have the money." If you want to help an immediate need, give a Walmart or Amazon gift card to a school nurse and she'll quietly help kids who are struggling and ashamed to keep their dignity.
Quality article as always Johann. The parable of the Good Samaritan emphasizes that your neighbor can be anyone, not that it is everyone. This also lends to the Catholic social teaching principle of subsidiarity quite nicely as well as a foundational Christian principle.
Thank you glof! "The parable of the Good Samaritan emphasizes that your neighbor can be anyone, not that it is everyone" - this is very nicely put.
Interesting post this (just came across it late via Substack Reads). I wrote about this same thing on STB recently: https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/love-of-the-people
".... the literal injunction to love everyone is a bit of a stretch. Me..I love my friends and family (most of the time). And my fellow man?....well I feel strongly well-disposed to about 10% of them (ish) – 5% maybe. The next 60% or so I can rub along with, somewhere between cordial and indifferent. And the remaining 30%?...somewhere on a scale from mildly dislike... to despise... to dread....."
I immediately thought of subsidiarity too and the lamentable state of how it is now often presented. Much like prudence, it is an idea that in the modern context has been nice-washed of its true content.
It's kind of wild when you see so many virtues that have been "nice-washed" - constancy and sloth are similar examples.
I have lamented many times; we should not be looking for "good deeds" to do. God brings the good works he planned for us right to us; like the Samaritan, laying them at our feet. So called "charities", many of whom are complete shams, allow us to ignore our neighbor while simultaneously fanning the self righteous ideas we have of ourselves. One of the ways I have chosen to combat this is every year at the holidays, I ask the clergy of a few solid bible teachin churches in my town for the names of two families in their congregation who are really struggling. I then buy money orders that are anonymously given to them. We can always find ways to be loving to our neighbors. Charities are the worst way.
Yes, perfectly put. If I believe that my "good deed for the day" was saving a life in Africa, a small kindness to a local family becomes so trivial in comparison that I can convince myself to brush it off.
If the state brings the Africans here, are they my neighbors now?
You’re thinking in political terms when this is a personal teaching. So yes, any individual Africans you personally encountered would be your neighbours. But in political terms, you can still argue for them to go back
Without the definition of a stranger in our midst, the command to love a neighbor defined by proximity rather than one’s own kith and kin is disarming, and throws open the gates. You can be hospitable, but that has its limits. I like Rudyard Kipling’s definition as laid out in his poem, “The Stranger.”
I don't think you have to make the tradeoffs you're implying.
You don't have to love a neighbor defined by proximity _rather_ than your kith and kin. You can love your own regardless (ie. "love one-another").
And the fact that you love the strangers you encounter does not mean that you have to be naive to their status as strangers and potential threats. You are called to love your enemies, but not to give up on the idea of having no enemies.
You ask me, charities of the tax-exempt kind are indulgences - an outsourcing of one's duty to be charitable, the same way you'd send a factory abroad for cheaper wages, or a call center.
If you want something done kind, do it yourself.
Obligatory link.
https://argomend.substack.com/p/sing-a-shanty-with-me
Haha that's a good way of putting it. Effort arbitrage.
The main function to the donor is the tax benefit. For the large donors, the donation would never be made without that. Small donations are not necessarily made for this purpose. The main function to the organization is to keep the donors donating. The mission of the organization is secondary. This is true of most charities. I worked in the nonprofit industry for over 6 years and this is what I saw. A true charity would be striving to work itself out of a job. Few, if any, are.
I think about this sometimes. Charities are problem-solving machines, so they always need a problem to be their raison d'etre. They are inherently not interested in actually solving the problem.
Or when the "problem" is solved, per Obergefell, the mission continues under other forms.
This idea often also applies to caring professions like psychology and social work.
Victory is nice, a steady paycheck is better.
Absolutely. A good example is the American Cancer Society. They all start with a noble cause, but when the $$ starts rolling in big, any 'problems' they solve are quickly replaced by different 'problems', creating an ever moving goalpost and endless need for yet MORE $$.....
Oooh, so right! Comparing charities to indulgences is really hard-hitting. Pretty accurate too, I'd say. This line of thinking has really influenced me.
This is similar to St. Augustine's Ordo Amoris idea, where all our loves need to be in the right ordering to be truly virtuous. I see a strange inversion in the 'compassion' of the modern world, which Solomon foresaw when he wrote, "the mercy of the wicked is cruel." It is easy for us to try and replace the obligations we have to our own with random 'good' acts, so our conscience does not hound us too bad. This is a temptation from the household level to the nation level. But I think that if we are truly doing our duty toward our own, we will have God's blessing overflow to bless others.
I'm going to integrate Augustine's thought into the final book - I completely agree it's essential.
“Everyone” and “the whole world” are ideas. They are representations people carry around in their head. Thus, caring for “everyone” is really a way of caring about your own ideas of everyone. Ideas are far easier to love, because they are entirely subject to our whims. Ideas don’t call you at 2 Am looking to get picked up from the hospital “The homeless guy I walk past on the way to work”, is not an idea, it’s a specific person. Loving specific people is much harder.
Having said this, I do think there is something good about some aspects of EA, in that they are at least trying to have some definition of The Good other than “whatever makes me feel good.” They are at least trying to hit some standard of giving, which most people aren’t hitting. I’d saw them as wayward Protestants much moreso than as participants in the degenerate corporate culture.
Absolutely! Well said.
Yes - 'everyone' the abstraction and 'everyone' the collection of billions of actual people with histories and experiences are two very different things.
This might be my first visit to your Substack, but from reading this article I’m persuaded to get your book when it becomes available.
My daughter and I were just discussing how much our large family prospers because of the legacy of stability, financial and otherwise, that we received going back many generations. Our ancestors loved us into flourishing.
That's wonderful to hear! Please do subscribe and come with us on the journey. Your family is doing it right.
The purpose of charity is to show a love of God through labor.
Thanks to utilitarianism and all its wretched descendants, what we call “charity” displays neither love nor labor.
Truly. A bank transaction does not qualify.
I have observed the same in people who participate in protests. Many of them just go for fun. They will curse out their actual neighbour, and go chant for people they don’t know or care about halfway across the world. It makes them feel morally superior to others who don’t engage in protests, or worse yet, engage in protests for the opposite side. It’s once again a cheapning of the real virtue of charity.
When Vatican II scrubbed the Catholic Church of its ancient hymnography, it destroyed this gem from Nunc Sancte Nobis Spiritus --
Flammescat igne caritas
Accendat ardor proximos.
Proximos! Not omnes.
I had never heard this, beautiful. You can only 'catch the flame' from those close to you.
A more literal translation of my lines would be --
Let charity light up with fire
Let love inflame those close by.
There is a sweet homeless man, living in his car in the library parking lot - recovering from surgery and getting sicker by the day because a car is no place to recover from major surgery. He got sick and lost his job. Because he has no job, he now has no health insurance. Because he has no job, he could not afford his rent and got evicted. One of the librarians has gotten him onto every housing list she can find and they let him wash up in the bathrooms and continually check in on him.
I am told that each American taxpayer has given about $6,000 to Ukraine. I'd rather that $6,000 go to the man living in his car in the library parking lot. (That would cover his rent for about 4 months). He's my neighbor.
Meanwhile, the young adults in our small town are madly protesting about the Gaza/Israel conflict. They wave signs by the highway. One of the teenagers got a town council member to "formally take a stand for Palestine." There was a write-up in the newspaper with pictures. I suspect this has absolutely zero effect on the citizens of Gaza. I doubt they care what the young adults in an affluent town in Washington state are doing. However, the teenager gets to validate their image of being a tireless advocate for Gaza. But this "act of resistance" didn't really cost anything. In our town, being pro-Palestine is very popular and wins one social justice points. In a way, the people who took a formal stand for Palestine only gained from the suffering of the Palestinians.
Thank you for this wonderful reflection. It brought to mind Wendell Berry's writing on community, and embracing our partiality towards the specific places and people of our lives:
“No matter how much one may love the world as a whole, one can live fully in it only by living responsibly in some small part of it. Where we live and who we live there with define the terms of our relationship to the world and to humanity. We thus come again to the paradox that one can become whole only by the responsible acceptance of one's partiality.”
That's a beautiful quotation Rachel - I'll have to explore Berry's work further. Very useful in preparation for my book on this subject - thank you.
You're so welcome! He is a farmer-philosopher, and I think you would enjoy both his expository work and his poetry. I believe that quote came from The Unsettling of America, but I could be wrong. Happy reading :)
I've never understood the well-off Christians in my city in south Texas who spend thousands on overseas mission trips but would never dream of, say, restocking the library or tutoring second graders at the public schools for the poors on the other side of the tracks. There is so much need right here in our own community.
I will write about this but there's a lot of evidence that 'mission tourism' is actively counterproductive for the recipient communities
This is one of my main issues with The Hole in The Gospel by Rich Stearns. He argues that because of globalization, everyone is “your neighbor” and so you have a duty to send a percentage of your income to orphans in Uzbekistan etc. This ballooning out of our attention and obligation is alarming and overwhelming.
I took an adult class on Kierkegaard last year. During our discussion of his "Love Thy Neighbor" essay, I was struck by how my classmates took "neighbor" to mean everyone, in the whole world, with people even musing about countries across the globe and the U.S.'s responsibilities to them. Nobody really reacted to my suggestion that "neighbor" might be read literally.
Yes, very good. I even get uneasy hearing from missionaries who take their families into "interesting" parts of the world to spread the church. If evangelisation is the path it should be undertaken by the childless and preferably bachelors. In fact I find it is much more common to find a man of the church with an impressively selfless "ministry" than to find an impressively devoted father. Even in the heat of the abolitionist debate Emerson was damning about such men as held out bleeding hearts for southern slaves whilst they neglected their kin or dealt sharply in business.
I guarantee that the public school nearest you has a nurse who buys hygiene supplies out of her own pocket for the stinky kids she has to counsel who say "I can't ask my mom for deodorant. I know she doesn't have the money." If you want to help an immediate need, give a Walmart or Amazon gift card to a school nurse and she'll quietly help kids who are struggling and ashamed to keep their dignity.
This is very nice advice. Thank you.