Skip to main content

it's for a good cause...

As I was walking down the street in downtown Montreal this week, I was approached by quite a few people who wanted my support for some cause or another.  The Red Cross guy was friendly and direct, giving us a pleasant "Have a good day!" even though we didn't stop to talk to him.  The Animal Rights girl was a little more aggressive in her questions and implied that because we didn't stop and sign her petition, we were in favour of animal cruelty.  Getting behind a cause is a trendy thing to do and charity is tacked onto any number of activities these days: everything from wearing ribbons to running 5 kilometers to climbing Mount Kilimanjaro to buying a piece of art at an auction to going to a gala.   And this trend makes me a bit sad. 

When I look at what is done in the name of charity, it seems odd to me that the actions are often very far removed from the cause they are supposedly supporting.  In fact, events are usually organised in such a way as to draw people in by making them feel good, inspiring them, and providing them with a sense of adventure or accomplishment.  And the goal is usually to raise as much money as possible (as if money were the answer to most of our problems). 

But what about really, truly getting involved with something we say we care about?  In a way that puts us in direct contact with the people or problems we are trying to help? 

It really is very simple to do something charitable, but it is also costly.  Buying some new running shoes, running 5 kilometers in a public event, getting some of my friends and family to sponsor me, and feeling really good about that accomplishment is not a particularly effective way to show that I care about those suffering from cancer (in my opinion).  If I really care, why don't I volunteer at a palliative care centre?  Or take the time to visit someone who is battling for their life and cook them a meal or clean their house?  Or why don't I go back to school and get training to work in the medical field?  Instead of being part of a mountain-climbing expedition for African aid and having the adventure of a life-time, why don't I adopt a child from an African orphanage and give them a new life?  Why don't I help recent immigrants and refugees as they struggle to establish a new home in my country?

Sadly, charity too often becomes more about us feeling empowered and inspired than about actually helping.  Real charity is not a big, loud rally, it does not clang pots and pans to draw attention to itself, it does not need to organize a fundraising event which will include influential people, it does not have a budget or monetary goal, and it does not usually offer an adrenaline rush.  Love shows itself by getting up close to another person, by sharing in someone's struggle, by listening to a painful story and not flinching at ragged scars, by cleaning up after those who can't clean up after themselves, by spending our own resources on someone whose resources are depleted and not advertising our generosity.  Acts of charitable service are costly, tiring, and often emotionally and physically draining.  But they are worth it. 

Let us get back to real charity - charity where the rubber meets the road, where we get our hands dirty, and where we are privileged to actually see and touch the people we are trying to help. Climbing Mount Kilimanjaro is a great feat, but a greater accomplishment would be to scale the challenging slopes of unselfishness and humility and charity by serving those around us.  I greatly admire the passion that many people display by getting involved in different causes, but let our activism not become self-serving and irrelevant.  Love cares more for others than for self.

Here is the trailer from a documentary that asks the question:  what is the pink ribbon campaign (breast cancer) really tied to?  Pink Ribbons   It is worth a look.

the photo:  window and greenery at College de Montreal. 

Comments

Shelley said…
This is a brave post Matte. I agree with you. But I was thinking as I was reading it was - since most of the people who do these adventures for charity would not do the real thing up close and personal...at least these events take their money. But maybe that is just letting them off the hook? I think people who have experienced true charity, either on the receiving or the giving end, are the ones who get in and get dirty. And I doubt if they equate running a marathon with it either...
Hmmm...I know people who run or walk in cancer events with much genuine feeling...and many of them are those who did care for a loved one in their life, and now they walk for them in their memory. I guess they should go and care for another instead, but many of us are not emotionally strong enough for that...
I agree that giving should be more closely reflective of the cause though, and not so focussed on satisfying the giver. I guess those who fundraise understand human motivators.
Hmmm....the more I think about this, the more complex it becomes!
Matte Downey said…
I always appreciate your thoughts, Shelley. I am aware that people walk or run in cancer events with much sincerity and genuine feeling. I am not trying to diminish their actions or sentiments nor imply that they ought to be doing something else. I am mostly talking about the general trend I see to tack some charitable cause onto social events or physical challenge adventures: things we would probably do anyway even without the cause.

Perhaps it is better to participate in an event of this sort than do nothing at all, as you say. But I am asking myself (my posts are always talking to myself as much as to anyone else) if there isn't a real problem in equating this type of social event/challenge activity with costly, sacrificial acts of service? It just seems to devalue true charity.

Yes, we are all on a learning curve when it comes to love, and I have much to learn in how to genuinely and effectively love those around me, but to pat ourselves on the back after running a few miles or raising a few dollars like we really did something important...I don't know.

In my opinion, this trend shows how quickly we as human beings can turn genuine compassion and concern into something that strokes our egos, helps market products, and heightens awareness of brands or corporations as much as the cause they are supporting.

While donated funds and goods are always needed, I think they should be given in conjunction with person to person contact and real, get your hands dirty, charity. It is a complex issue indeed, but those are my thoughts thus far.
Matte Downey said…
As an added note: I believe that Samaritan's Purse does a great job of trying to marry the two elements: generating much-needed funds and resources while bringing the donors in contact with those in need in some way. It is very difficult to do, since most of their projects are in other countries that we will never visit, but they are one of the most creative organisations in bridging this gap.

Popular posts from this blog

what binds us together?

For the past few weeks, I have been reading a book by famed psychiatrist M. Scott Peck which chronicles his travels (together with his wife) through remote parts of the UK in search of prehistoric stones. The book is part travel journal, part spiritual musings, part psychology, and part personal anecdotes. A mixed bag, to be sure, and not always a winning combination. At one point, I considered putting the book aside, not finishing it, but then Peck started writing about community. He is no stranger to the concept. He has led hundreds of community-building workshops over the years, helped start a non-profit organisation dedicated to fostering community, and written a compelling book about the topic, one which greatly impacted me when I read it oh so long ago.[1]

In preparation for a course I am teaching next year, I have been doing quite a bit of study on unity and community. Once you start thinking about it, you see and hear evidence of it everywhere. (See my blog on the impact of b…

job hunting

I am on the hunt for a job. PhD in hand, I am a theologian for hire. The thing is, not a lot of places are hiring theologians these days, and if they are, they are usually looking for scholars with skills and experience outside my area of expertise. Today I found job opportunities for those knowledgeable in Religion, Race, and Colonialism, Philosophy and History of Religion, Islam and Society, Languages of Late Antiquity, Religion, Ethics, and Politics, and an ad for a Molecular Genetic Pathologist. Not one posting for a Dramatic Theologian with  a side order of Spirituality and a dash of Methodology.

I know, I know. My expectations are a bit unrealistic if I believe I will find an exact match for my particular skills. I know that job descriptions are wish lists to some extent, so no candidate is ever a perfect match. I also realize that one must adapt one's skill set according to the requirements of the job and be flexible. But there are so few jobs which come within ten or even…

lessons from a theological memoir and a television series about lawyers

It's a hot Wednesday afternoon, so let's talk about false binaries. Basically, a false binary or false dichotomy happens when a person's options are artificially limited to two choices, thereby excluding all other possibilities. Insisting on the limited choice of either A or B leaves no room for middle ground or another, more creative solution. In other words, a false binary assumes the rest of the alphabet (after A and B) does not exist.

Binary thinking is quite prevalent in our society. Either you are for me or against me. Either you are guilty or innocent. Either you are a Democrat or a Republican, conservative or liberal. Either you are a Christian or a pagan. Either you are all in or all out. Admittedly, it is convenient to see things as either black or white, but we live in a multi-coloured world and not everything fits neatly into two categories. This is why insisting there are only two choices when, in fact, other options exist, is labeled as a fallacy in logic an…