Ornate Almsgiving

“You don't reward reaction; you reward results,” said the founder of Christian Men’s Network, Edwin Louis Cole, most likely without the realization that those five common words hold a momentous standard to live by when in the right order; a standard almost as powerful as “Love thy neighbor as thyself” or “Don’t forget to wash behind your ears.” How easy it is to pluck a check from daddy dearest’s eager hand and proudly deposit it in the collection basket, swelling with self-righteousness at what? Having moved a piece of paper from Point A to Point B? Without an ounce more effort put into the matter, seeing as one did not work for the money by oneself and that one feels no noticeable loss at the disappearance of the currency in question, from where does one pull such pride? In this day and age, a careful re-examination of the line between the charitable and the ostentatious is needed.

As Cole pointed out, no reward of pride is deserved when one does not fully commit oneself to making a difference. Only when results are reached has one truly earned the happiness derived from charitable acts. If little Johnny B. Goode is raised expecting to pass go and collect two hundred dollars on his merry way to heaven based alone on the amount of times his mother gave him coins to jingle on the way to the donation jar, shall he suffer the cruel fate of the hypocrites who beat their breasts on street corners in the time of Christ? Probably. All he did was follow the yellow brick road all ‘upstanding’ citizens tread by priding himself on charity that was hardly charity at all. A truly charitable person willingly gives with sincerity until it hurts, not just deposits a few dollars into an envelope and washes their Pilate-esque hands of the situation.

If meager contributions of canned goods and gently used clothing now constitute charity, then the majority of charitable people in our midst are nothing but pompous, self-satisfied fools. If charity has come to such petty means, then why not become petty oneself? Those who gain are those who help themselves. For those who hunger for more than the feeling received in exchange for charitable acts, grades will lure the suddenly ‘thoughtful’ soul out just long enough to contribute to a good cause before said soul turns apathetic once more. It makes one whom is smiled upon for the wrong reasons no less favored when rewarded for their donation. There is no harm in advancing oneself whenever an unobtrusive opportunity is offered. Incentives are beneficial to the cause of monetary collection, and do a substantial amount more good than harm.

If one must coax more donations out with bait, then so be it. A favorite back-pocket life lesson shared by virtually every mother seems to be the concept of quantity versus quality. “Would you rather have a million acquaintances,” she might ask with the raise of a knowing brow, “or one best friend?” Obviously, spectators would volunteer, “Best friend!” A satisfied pat on the head along with a nod would confirm the choice, and the listener would be free to go. Mother always knows best, and now, thanks to the lesson that quality reigns supreme, the listener does too. In the case of charity, this ever-accepted dogma no longer applies. The intentions of the giver can be disregarded when the dollar amount is all that counts. For those satisfied with only a warm fuzzy feeling, it is just as well, but for those who seek more, let them have their cake and eat it too, seeing as it was probably a prerequisite for their change in heart anyways.

In conclusion, although the matter of grade incentives offered for charity may raise a few PTA eyebrows, let it be so in the name of all that is good and charitable. After all, those indignant soccer moms are probably the guiltiest of them all.