Marilyn Garcia worked two jobs. She did not even have enough money to buy a Christmas tree. She agreed to buy at least the Hello Kitty car for her four-year-old granddaughter. She paid down on the car and placed it in a layaway plan at a Walmart store in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. On the deadline date for the final payment, she called the store to request an extension.
Upon receiving her call, a Walmart employee told Marilyn that no extension was necessary – “you could pick up your granddaughter’s present – it was all paid for in full.” Marilyn is one of hundreds of customers on layaway plans whose balances were paid off by persons who chose to remain anonymous.
According to a CNN report, an unknown male customer paid $50,000.00 to cover some 100 layaway accounts at that Walmart store. At another Walmart store in Lake City, Florida, an anonymous customer gave $59,000.00 to cover about 300 accounts. Still at another Walmart store in Chiefland, Florida a customer donated $51,000.00.
Layaway customers at Toys ‘R’ Us stores also benefitted from the Christmas generosity. Last year, some 600 customers benefitted. So far this year, at their store in Bellingham, Massachusetts, an anonymous woman paid $20,000.00 for every layaway item. She reportedly told the store manager on her way out of the store, “If you have it, give it...” Her contribution was able to clear 275 layaway accounts.
Recently I learned that there is even a non-profit organization that is devoted to helping people in need to buy their holiday gifts. Pay Away the Layaway was created in 2011 to assist families that may be unable to afford to complete payment on their layaway plans - donors are referred to as “layaway angels”.
Lee Karchawer, a 30-year old marketing professional from New York City, began soliciting donations through the website he founded, payawaythelayaway.org. The average donation he gets is $25. The first year he raised $2,000 from 75 people. Last year he raised $5,000 from 135, and this year he hopes to receive $8,000.
For Dave Wilson, 65, who went from living on a poor farm in Iowa to owning 17 car dealerships in Orange County, Calif., it's a way to give back. Every December, he gives his wife Holly, a Kmart receipt for her birthday. On it are listed hundreds of transactions, all the layaway account balances he's paid off at his local store. In 2011, it was 260 accounts to the tune of nearly $16,000. In 2012, it was more than 320 accounts at $18,000. This year’s figures are still to be calculated.
Wal-Mart said it has tracked more than 1,000 instances so far this season of strangers paying down others' layaway accounts. Kmart said strangers have paid more than $1.5 million in other's layaway contracts over the years.
One of the interesting features in all of the cases with layaway angels is that the donors have chosen to remain anonymous. They get no promotional mileage, nor tax benefits from their generosity. Other than helping someone who may need help, these donors know nothing more about the recipients.
This practice of giving purely for altruistic purposes benefits more than the recipients. Among other things, the practice fosters altruism in the wider society. The increasing cases of layaway angels this Christmas would seem to confirm this view.
In what Christians refer to as The Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said to those listening, “But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you” (Matthew 6:3-4).
In essence, our giving must never be the grim and self-righteous outcome of a sense of duty, still less must it be done to enhance our own glory and prestige among men – it must be the instinctive outflow of a loving heart. We must give to others just as Jesus gave Himself to us.
Earlier in the Matthew passage, Jesus taught that when one gives, it should not be done as when hypocrites give – they give to be seen and to be acknowledged. Interestingly, the English word hypocrite comes from a Greek word which means actor – one who is playing a part.
One of the things Jesus is also saying about giving in secret, is that what is secret to us, is not a secret to God, who knows all things. “This God,” Jesus contends, “will reward appropriately.”
The joy Walmart customers displayed when their bills were paid, pales, when compared with the joy authentic layaway angels will display after the God who knows all secrets, rewards them openly.
Monday, December 29, 2014
Monday, December 22, 2014
CHRISTMAS ROOTS!
The television mini-series ROOTS, which first aired in January 1977, was the most-watched TV show in US history. More than 36 million households or 51.1% watched it, giving it a Nielsen share of 71%. The movie was the dramatization of Alex Haley’s novel, Roots: The Saga of an American Family.
The release of the novel, combined with its hugely popular television adaptation, led to a cultural sensation in the United States. Because of Alex Haley’s work, an amazing interest in ancestral studies developed. Numerous books and movies received an overwhelming response from global enthusiasts, eager to learn of their ancestry or genealogy.
The interest in genealogy did not begin with Alex Haley. That interest has been within human societies for thousands of years. Whereas for many of us in the West, ancestral studies is a fad, the same cannot be said of persons in the Middle East.
In the Middle East, one’s rank in the community was often determined by one’s ancestral history. That became obvious when Jesus was challenged by some from His community. They had just heard Jesus contend that He was the fulfillment of an Isaiah 61 prophecy. “Isn’t this Joseph’s son?” they asked. In other words, does his ancestral rank give him this authority (Luke 4:20-22)?
Both Matthew and Luke were very much aware of this cultural requirement of anyone claiming to speak with authority. Therefore, in seeking to establish that Jesus of Nazareth was truly the promised Messiah, it was necessary to trace the ancestral roots of Jesus. Both Gospel writers chose to establish the ancestral roots of Jesus very early in their presentations. Although there are noticeable differences in their approach, they were both fully aware of the significance of establishing credible ancestry.
These genealogies of Jesus serve as a grounding force in the narrative that roots the text into an historical context. Interestingly, one of the main differences between the mythological stories of the Greeks and Romans over against the Bible is that the Greek myths include fantastical creatures such as Centaurs, Cyclops, sphinxes, and the like.
Biblical stories do not include any of these fictional characters, but rather seek to tell what actually happened. Genealogies establish human links and are rooted in reality. When you read through and grapple with the names and lineages of the genealogies of the Jewish people and of Jesus, you come away with the sensation that you are reading through a family tree, and you are struck with the fact that these were real people.
Genealogies in the Bible indicate to the reader that family identity and lineage is of utmost importance within the cultural milieu of Scripture. In providing the genealogy of Jesus, both Matthew and Luke were careful to provide credibility to their stories – credibility that was rooted in history and lineage. Those are the contexts in which they tell the story of the birth of Jesus.
Unlike other religions, Luke provided a story that was consistent with history, not legend. A legend is normally viewed as a story that evolved from within a community over a significant period of time. History on the other hand conveys information that can be verified either through artifacts or credible documentation.
In his opening verses, Luke established that he complied with rules of historical analysis. (Luke 1:1-4). Like other Greco-Roman historians, Luke refered to the sources that were at his disposal and declared that upon careful examination of those sources, he was convinced that they were reliable.
Furthermore, the birth of Jesus is consistent with Bible prophecy. In every other claim of virgin birth, no claim preceded the birth of the child. Claims were often made by supporters, after the birth and in an attempt to exalt the child born.
Some 700 years before the birth of Jesus, the prophet Isaiah made this prediction: “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel” (Isaiah 7:14). Matthew in his gospel, was convinced that Isaiah was referring to the birth of Jesus (Matthew 1:22-23). He reinforced this conviction by providing a genealogy that placed Jesus in an ancestral setting, consistent with community requirements and the expectations of the prophets.
It is the birth of that Jesus, I am celebrating this Christmas – not some mythological figure. Rather, one of whom Matthew said, “Mary will give birth to a son, and you are to give Him the name Jesus, because He will save His people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21). That Savior is the reason for the season of Christmas.
The release of the novel, combined with its hugely popular television adaptation, led to a cultural sensation in the United States. Because of Alex Haley’s work, an amazing interest in ancestral studies developed. Numerous books and movies received an overwhelming response from global enthusiasts, eager to learn of their ancestry or genealogy.
The interest in genealogy did not begin with Alex Haley. That interest has been within human societies for thousands of years. Whereas for many of us in the West, ancestral studies is a fad, the same cannot be said of persons in the Middle East.
In the Middle East, one’s rank in the community was often determined by one’s ancestral history. That became obvious when Jesus was challenged by some from His community. They had just heard Jesus contend that He was the fulfillment of an Isaiah 61 prophecy. “Isn’t this Joseph’s son?” they asked. In other words, does his ancestral rank give him this authority (Luke 4:20-22)?
Both Matthew and Luke were very much aware of this cultural requirement of anyone claiming to speak with authority. Therefore, in seeking to establish that Jesus of Nazareth was truly the promised Messiah, it was necessary to trace the ancestral roots of Jesus. Both Gospel writers chose to establish the ancestral roots of Jesus very early in their presentations. Although there are noticeable differences in their approach, they were both fully aware of the significance of establishing credible ancestry.
These genealogies of Jesus serve as a grounding force in the narrative that roots the text into an historical context. Interestingly, one of the main differences between the mythological stories of the Greeks and Romans over against the Bible is that the Greek myths include fantastical creatures such as Centaurs, Cyclops, sphinxes, and the like.
Biblical stories do not include any of these fictional characters, but rather seek to tell what actually happened. Genealogies establish human links and are rooted in reality. When you read through and grapple with the names and lineages of the genealogies of the Jewish people and of Jesus, you come away with the sensation that you are reading through a family tree, and you are struck with the fact that these were real people.
Genealogies in the Bible indicate to the reader that family identity and lineage is of utmost importance within the cultural milieu of Scripture. In providing the genealogy of Jesus, both Matthew and Luke were careful to provide credibility to their stories – credibility that was rooted in history and lineage. Those are the contexts in which they tell the story of the birth of Jesus.
Unlike other religions, Luke provided a story that was consistent with history, not legend. A legend is normally viewed as a story that evolved from within a community over a significant period of time. History on the other hand conveys information that can be verified either through artifacts or credible documentation.
In his opening verses, Luke established that he complied with rules of historical analysis. (Luke 1:1-4). Like other Greco-Roman historians, Luke refered to the sources that were at his disposal and declared that upon careful examination of those sources, he was convinced that they were reliable.
Furthermore, the birth of Jesus is consistent with Bible prophecy. In every other claim of virgin birth, no claim preceded the birth of the child. Claims were often made by supporters, after the birth and in an attempt to exalt the child born.
Some 700 years before the birth of Jesus, the prophet Isaiah made this prediction: “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel” (Isaiah 7:14). Matthew in his gospel, was convinced that Isaiah was referring to the birth of Jesus (Matthew 1:22-23). He reinforced this conviction by providing a genealogy that placed Jesus in an ancestral setting, consistent with community requirements and the expectations of the prophets.
It is the birth of that Jesus, I am celebrating this Christmas – not some mythological figure. Rather, one of whom Matthew said, “Mary will give birth to a son, and you are to give Him the name Jesus, because He will save His people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21). That Savior is the reason for the season of Christmas.
Wednesday, December 17, 2014
Is Christmas Christian?
Jesus never celebrated Christmas – neither did any of His disciples. Actually, for more than 300 years after the birth of Jesus, no one celebrated Christmas. The few birthday ceremonies we have recorded in the Bible were celebrated in non-Jewish communities.
Celebrating birthdays was never a Jewish practice. Because of the influence of Judaism on early Christianity, that non-interest became evident. The church even announced that it was sinful to contemplate observing Christ’s birthday “as though He were a King Pharaoh.”
The idea of celebrating the birth of Jesus on December 25 was first suggested sometime in the year 300. Other dates like January 6, March 25 and May 20 were suggested. May 20 became a favored date since Luke stated in his report – the shepherds who received the announcement of Christ’s birth “were watching their flock by night” (Luke 2:8). It is believed that shepherds guarded their flocks day and night only at lambing time, in the spring.
The early church fathers debated their options and chose December 25 because this date may have had a connection with the pagan celebration of the Dies Solis Invicti (Day of the Invincible Sun). Some believe that the choice of December 25 provided Christians with an alternative festival in place of the one held in honor of the sun-god, who was often identified with Mithras. So, it was not until December 25, 337 AD/CE, Christians officially celebrated the first Christmas.
Some historians contend that in the early 300’s, the cult of Mithraism was a serious threat to Christianity. For a period of time Mithraism was even proclaimed to be the official state religion by Emperor Aurelian (274). It was not until the reign of Emperor Constantine, Christianity began to receive favor from the state.
In 337, Constantine gave December 25 his blessing to observe the birth of Jesus. With time the observance of Christmas eclipsed the pagan festival of honoring the birthday of Mithras.
Initially, the celebration of Christ’s birth was a sacred event. In Christ’s honor, there was Christ’s mass – from which we get the term Christmas - the suffix mas evolves from the Old English word maesse meaning festival, feast day or mass.
By the year AD 360 the church was intentionally celebrating the birth, life, death and resurrection of Christ. By AD 386, Chrysostom, the great church leader, emphasized, “...without the birth of Christ there is no Baptism, no Passion, no Resurrection, no Ascension and no Pouring out of the Holy Spirit ...’ ”
As the centuries unfolded, the tradition grew to include Epiphany, January 6, when the visit of the Wise men is celebrated – this celebration preceded the celebration of Christmas as we know it. It is on this day that the Eastern Orthodox Church celebrates Christmas.
At this point in its evolving history, Christmas has adopted many traditions, many of these traditions from non-Christian sources. One tradition that has captured the season is the role of Santa Claus. The term is from the Dutch name 'Sinterklaas' – Saint Nicholas in English.
Saint Nicholas was born on the Mediterranean coast of Turkey sometime about 270 CE. He was the son of wealthy Christian parents who died when he was young - he was raised by an uncle, also called Nicholas, a Catholic Bishop of ancient Lycia.
Saint Nicholas eventually became a priest during a dangerous time of persecution for Christians - he later became the Bishop of Myra. He was famous for his generous gifts to the poor and was also associated with kindness towards children. The images of Saint Nicholas usually show an old man with long, grey hair and a beard. In Roman Catholic tradition, the Feast Day of Saint Nicholas is December 6th – the day of his death.
In the 16th Century in Europe, the stories and traditions about St. Nicholas had become very unpopular. But someone had to deliver gifts to children at Christmas, so in the United Kingdom, he became 'Father Christmas', a character from old children's stories. In France, he was then known as 'Père Nöel'; in Germany, the 'Christ Kind'.
Early in American history, the German image of ‘Christ Kind’ became known as 'Kris Kringle'. Later, Dutch settlers in America took the old stories of St. Nicholas with them and Kris Kringle became 'Sinterklaas' or as we now say 'Santa Claus'!
In the mix of traditions, it is easy to lose sight of the biblical story of the birth of Jesus Christ. In response, some Christians withdraw from the season. Others become so absorbed with the traditional trimmings, they lose sight of the main story.
For me, I reread the biblical story of Christ’s birth and use the season as an opportunity to recall the uniqueness of His birth, and not merely the traditions that surround the birth.
Celebrating birthdays was never a Jewish practice. Because of the influence of Judaism on early Christianity, that non-interest became evident. The church even announced that it was sinful to contemplate observing Christ’s birthday “as though He were a King Pharaoh.”
The idea of celebrating the birth of Jesus on December 25 was first suggested sometime in the year 300. Other dates like January 6, March 25 and May 20 were suggested. May 20 became a favored date since Luke stated in his report – the shepherds who received the announcement of Christ’s birth “were watching their flock by night” (Luke 2:8). It is believed that shepherds guarded their flocks day and night only at lambing time, in the spring.
The early church fathers debated their options and chose December 25 because this date may have had a connection with the pagan celebration of the Dies Solis Invicti (Day of the Invincible Sun). Some believe that the choice of December 25 provided Christians with an alternative festival in place of the one held in honor of the sun-god, who was often identified with Mithras. So, it was not until December 25, 337 AD/CE, Christians officially celebrated the first Christmas.
Some historians contend that in the early 300’s, the cult of Mithraism was a serious threat to Christianity. For a period of time Mithraism was even proclaimed to be the official state religion by Emperor Aurelian (274). It was not until the reign of Emperor Constantine, Christianity began to receive favor from the state.
In 337, Constantine gave December 25 his blessing to observe the birth of Jesus. With time the observance of Christmas eclipsed the pagan festival of honoring the birthday of Mithras.
Initially, the celebration of Christ’s birth was a sacred event. In Christ’s honor, there was Christ’s mass – from which we get the term Christmas - the suffix mas evolves from the Old English word maesse meaning festival, feast day or mass.
By the year AD 360 the church was intentionally celebrating the birth, life, death and resurrection of Christ. By AD 386, Chrysostom, the great church leader, emphasized, “...without the birth of Christ there is no Baptism, no Passion, no Resurrection, no Ascension and no Pouring out of the Holy Spirit ...’ ”
As the centuries unfolded, the tradition grew to include Epiphany, January 6, when the visit of the Wise men is celebrated – this celebration preceded the celebration of Christmas as we know it. It is on this day that the Eastern Orthodox Church celebrates Christmas.
At this point in its evolving history, Christmas has adopted many traditions, many of these traditions from non-Christian sources. One tradition that has captured the season is the role of Santa Claus. The term is from the Dutch name 'Sinterklaas' – Saint Nicholas in English.
Saint Nicholas was born on the Mediterranean coast of Turkey sometime about 270 CE. He was the son of wealthy Christian parents who died when he was young - he was raised by an uncle, also called Nicholas, a Catholic Bishop of ancient Lycia.
Saint Nicholas eventually became a priest during a dangerous time of persecution for Christians - he later became the Bishop of Myra. He was famous for his generous gifts to the poor and was also associated with kindness towards children. The images of Saint Nicholas usually show an old man with long, grey hair and a beard. In Roman Catholic tradition, the Feast Day of Saint Nicholas is December 6th – the day of his death.
In the 16th Century in Europe, the stories and traditions about St. Nicholas had become very unpopular. But someone had to deliver gifts to children at Christmas, so in the United Kingdom, he became 'Father Christmas', a character from old children's stories. In France, he was then known as 'Père Nöel'; in Germany, the 'Christ Kind'.
Early in American history, the German image of ‘Christ Kind’ became known as 'Kris Kringle'. Later, Dutch settlers in America took the old stories of St. Nicholas with them and Kris Kringle became 'Sinterklaas' or as we now say 'Santa Claus'!
In the mix of traditions, it is easy to lose sight of the biblical story of the birth of Jesus Christ. In response, some Christians withdraw from the season. Others become so absorbed with the traditional trimmings, they lose sight of the main story.
For me, I reread the biblical story of Christ’s birth and use the season as an opportunity to recall the uniqueness of His birth, and not merely the traditions that surround the birth.
Wednesday, December 10, 2014
Ouija for Christmas?
According to Google, sales of Ouija boards are up 300%. At this rate, Google, the internet sales giant contends that sales are threatening to become a Christmas “must buy”. Ouija boards interests have spiked since the new horror film, Ouija. The film tells the story of kids looking for something scary during the Halloween season.
Ticket sales would seem to suggest that kids loved the movie. Ouija benefited from audiences looking to get into the Halloween spirit by topping charts with $20 million from 2,858 locations. The film cost less than $5 million to produce, allowing Universal Pictures to realize enviable profit margins.
Actually, the Ouija board is just a piece of compressed wood, sold at virtually all toy stores and occult supply and book stores. Ouija is a combination of two words: "oui" and "ja" which mean "yes" in French and German respectively. The board itself is not dangerous but the form of communication that you are attempting often is.
To some, the Ouija board represents a harmless form of enjoyment, “a pretend-scary rite of passage” for teenagers in search of thrills on a stormy night. The board has been used by thousands for spirit
communication and is very similar to automatic writing - an alleged psychic ability allowing a person to produce written words without consciously writing. The words are claimed to arise from a subconscious, spiritual or supernatural source.
Playing with the Ouija board is often linked with playing séances – attempts to communicate with spirits. As a safety precaution, some researchers advise that the board be used in the presence of a psychic, medium or clairvoyant.
Like me, by now you might be asking, if this game is so harmless, why is it desirable to have psychics present when the game is being played? Or, what is so funny about contacting ghosts and spirits? Some scholars believe the Ouija must be avoided in that it is a trigger for psychological harm.
Dr. Carl Wickland, an American psychiatrist, wrote his classic work on mental illness, Thirty Years Among the Dead in 1924, within which he warns:
In his book, One Ultimate Reality, Adrian Cooper makes the point that “the only solution to such a serious situation involving inter-dimensional forces would be an exorcism carried out by a highly experienced practitioner. The most sensible solution therefore is to resist any such temptations completely, leaving the Ouija board and similar instruments such as a tumbler with playing cards and automatic writing very well alone for your own safety and for the safety of those around you.”
By now it is very obvious that the Ouija board is not the kind of game I would want to give to any of my grandchildren – or to anyone as a matter of fact. Why would I want to expose anyone to the occult? This is no “pretend scary rite of passage”. This is witchcraft – Webster's dictionary defines witchcraft as the act or instance of employing sorcery, especially with malevolent intent - a magical rite or technique.
Both the Old and New Testaments strongly condemn witchcraft and all forms of communication with unknown spirits. The instructions were clear to the Jews as they were preparing for the Promised Land: “Let no one be found among you who...engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritists or who consults the dead” (Deuteronomy 18:10-11).
Among Paul’s list of “the sinful nature” is “idolatry and witchcraft”. He concludes his list with a stern warning – “...that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God” (Galatians 5:19-21).
The use of Ouija boards is psychologically and spiritually harmful. It is not a game – rather, it is a subtle introduction to the occult – and that is not harmless, funny or merely scary.
Ticket sales would seem to suggest that kids loved the movie. Ouija benefited from audiences looking to get into the Halloween spirit by topping charts with $20 million from 2,858 locations. The film cost less than $5 million to produce, allowing Universal Pictures to realize enviable profit margins.
Actually, the Ouija board is just a piece of compressed wood, sold at virtually all toy stores and occult supply and book stores. Ouija is a combination of two words: "oui" and "ja" which mean "yes" in French and German respectively. The board itself is not dangerous but the form of communication that you are attempting often is.
To some, the Ouija board represents a harmless form of enjoyment, “a pretend-scary rite of passage” for teenagers in search of thrills on a stormy night. The board has been used by thousands for spirit
communication and is very similar to automatic writing - an alleged psychic ability allowing a person to produce written words without consciously writing. The words are claimed to arise from a subconscious, spiritual or supernatural source.
Playing with the Ouija board is often linked with playing séances – attempts to communicate with spirits. As a safety precaution, some researchers advise that the board be used in the presence of a psychic, medium or clairvoyant.
Like me, by now you might be asking, if this game is so harmless, why is it desirable to have psychics present when the game is being played? Or, what is so funny about contacting ghosts and spirits? Some scholars believe the Ouija must be avoided in that it is a trigger for psychological harm.
Dr. Carl Wickland, an American psychiatrist, wrote his classic work on mental illness, Thirty Years Among the Dead in 1924, within which he warns:
The serious problem of alienation and mental derangement attending ignorant psychic experiments was first brought to my attention by cases of several persons whose seemingly harmless activities with automatic writing and the Ouija board resulted in such wild insanity that commitment to asylums was necessitated. Many other disastrous results which followed the use of the supposedly innocent Ouija board came to my notice, and my observations led me into research in psychic phenomena for a possible explanation of these strange occurrences”.
In his book, One Ultimate Reality, Adrian Cooper makes the point that “the only solution to such a serious situation involving inter-dimensional forces would be an exorcism carried out by a highly experienced practitioner. The most sensible solution therefore is to resist any such temptations completely, leaving the Ouija board and similar instruments such as a tumbler with playing cards and automatic writing very well alone for your own safety and for the safety of those around you.”
By now it is very obvious that the Ouija board is not the kind of game I would want to give to any of my grandchildren – or to anyone as a matter of fact. Why would I want to expose anyone to the occult? This is no “pretend scary rite of passage”. This is witchcraft – Webster's dictionary defines witchcraft as the act or instance of employing sorcery, especially with malevolent intent - a magical rite or technique.
Both the Old and New Testaments strongly condemn witchcraft and all forms of communication with unknown spirits. The instructions were clear to the Jews as they were preparing for the Promised Land: “Let no one be found among you who...engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritists or who consults the dead” (Deuteronomy 18:10-11).
Among Paul’s list of “the sinful nature” is “idolatry and witchcraft”. He concludes his list with a stern warning – “...that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God” (Galatians 5:19-21).
The use of Ouija boards is psychologically and spiritually harmful. It is not a game – rather, it is a subtle introduction to the occult – and that is not harmless, funny or merely scary.
Tuesday, December 2, 2014
A Season of Giving
In America, charitable giving increases during the months of November and December. It is believed that many charities receive as much as half of their annual donations during that period.
According to Giving USA’s annual survey of philanthropy, Americans gave more than $321 billion to charity in 2012. That amount increased to more than $335 billion in 2013, an increase of 22% since the official end of the recession in 2009.
The single largest contributor to the increase in total charitable giving in 2013, over 2012, was an increase of almost $10 billion in giving by individuals. Much of this money was given by families and estates. Although giving by foundations increased, giving by corporations declined slightly in 2013.
According to Atlantic Monthly reports, “one of the most surprising, and perhaps confounding facts of charity in America is that the people who can least afford to give are the ones who donate the greatest percentage of their income. In 2011, the wealthiest Americans (those with earnings in the top 20%) contributed on average 1.3% of their income to charity. By comparison, Americans at the base of the income pyramid (those in the bottom 20%) donated 3.2% of their income.”
One wonders, to whom is all of this money given? Analysts contend that the poor tend to give to religious organizations and social-service charities, while the wealthy prefer to give to colleges and universities and museums. Of the fifty largest individual gifts to public charities in 2011, not a single one of them went to a social-service organization, or to a charity that principally serves the poor and dispossessed.
Such analyses lead one to ask questions like, what are some of the motivating factors that encourage people to give to charities and non-profit organizations? Because of the time of year most giving is done, it would seem safe to conclude that much giving is driven by tax incentives, and not the spirit of joy that captivates the season.
From her perspective, Dr. Una Osili, Director of Research at the Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy, “giving to education, health, and environmental and animal welfare organizations, in particular, have shown robust giving patterns in recent years.”
However, when compared with other countries, America’s giving is not that robust. According to the World Giving Index 2013, America was ranked thirteenth, with 62% of Americans reporting that they made a financial donation in the previous month. In the first place internationally is Myanmar, where 85% of its people made donations in the previous month. The United Kingdom was second with 76%.
According to Ted Hart, Chief Executive with Charities Aid Foundation, “what makes a society charitable is how we care for each other, not just the measure of how much money we give away.” Ted Hart is on to something interesting – charity is more than cash.
Jesus taught this to His disciples as they watched a crowd putting money into the temple treasury. According to the text, “many rich people threw in large amounts. But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a fraction of a penny.”
Jesus brought this act of giving to the attention of His disciples. He said to them - “I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything – all she had to live on” (Mark 12:41-44).
Jesus was not measuring the amount of money given, but rather the woman’s attitude to giving. Although she gave the smallest coins in circulation in Palestine, Jesus concluded that she “put more into the treasury...” But how could she have given more even though she gave less? It is because her giving was tantamount to sacrifice and not surplus. What mattered more to Jesus was not the amount that was given as much as the cost of the gift to the giver.
Another truth about sacrificial giving is that it is reckless – the widow in this story gave everything. Her understanding of sacrifice was not based on how much she kept, but rather, on how much she gave. Unlike so many in today’s culture, she was not driven by end-of-year tax incentives.
Another appropriate lesson for us at this time of year is the amount she gave. Had she been looking at the big donors, she would have been intimidated and would probably have decided against giving. She refused to allow the culture of superfluity to suffocate her knowledge of sacrifice.
Such an attitude is a big challenge to all of us during this season of giving. Let us be guided by sacrifice and not surplus and tax incentives.
According to Giving USA’s annual survey of philanthropy, Americans gave more than $321 billion to charity in 2012. That amount increased to more than $335 billion in 2013, an increase of 22% since the official end of the recession in 2009.
The single largest contributor to the increase in total charitable giving in 2013, over 2012, was an increase of almost $10 billion in giving by individuals. Much of this money was given by families and estates. Although giving by foundations increased, giving by corporations declined slightly in 2013.
According to Atlantic Monthly reports, “one of the most surprising, and perhaps confounding facts of charity in America is that the people who can least afford to give are the ones who donate the greatest percentage of their income. In 2011, the wealthiest Americans (those with earnings in the top 20%) contributed on average 1.3% of their income to charity. By comparison, Americans at the base of the income pyramid (those in the bottom 20%) donated 3.2% of their income.”
One wonders, to whom is all of this money given? Analysts contend that the poor tend to give to religious organizations and social-service charities, while the wealthy prefer to give to colleges and universities and museums. Of the fifty largest individual gifts to public charities in 2011, not a single one of them went to a social-service organization, or to a charity that principally serves the poor and dispossessed.
Such analyses lead one to ask questions like, what are some of the motivating factors that encourage people to give to charities and non-profit organizations? Because of the time of year most giving is done, it would seem safe to conclude that much giving is driven by tax incentives, and not the spirit of joy that captivates the season.
From her perspective, Dr. Una Osili, Director of Research at the Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy, “giving to education, health, and environmental and animal welfare organizations, in particular, have shown robust giving patterns in recent years.”
However, when compared with other countries, America’s giving is not that robust. According to the World Giving Index 2013, America was ranked thirteenth, with 62% of Americans reporting that they made a financial donation in the previous month. In the first place internationally is Myanmar, where 85% of its people made donations in the previous month. The United Kingdom was second with 76%.
According to Ted Hart, Chief Executive with Charities Aid Foundation, “what makes a society charitable is how we care for each other, not just the measure of how much money we give away.” Ted Hart is on to something interesting – charity is more than cash.
Jesus taught this to His disciples as they watched a crowd putting money into the temple treasury. According to the text, “many rich people threw in large amounts. But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a fraction of a penny.”
Jesus brought this act of giving to the attention of His disciples. He said to them - “I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything – all she had to live on” (Mark 12:41-44).
Jesus was not measuring the amount of money given, but rather the woman’s attitude to giving. Although she gave the smallest coins in circulation in Palestine, Jesus concluded that she “put more into the treasury...” But how could she have given more even though she gave less? It is because her giving was tantamount to sacrifice and not surplus. What mattered more to Jesus was not the amount that was given as much as the cost of the gift to the giver.
Another truth about sacrificial giving is that it is reckless – the widow in this story gave everything. Her understanding of sacrifice was not based on how much she kept, but rather, on how much she gave. Unlike so many in today’s culture, she was not driven by end-of-year tax incentives.
Another appropriate lesson for us at this time of year is the amount she gave. Had she been looking at the big donors, she would have been intimidated and would probably have decided against giving. She refused to allow the culture of superfluity to suffocate her knowledge of sacrifice.
Such an attitude is a big challenge to all of us during this season of giving. Let us be guided by sacrifice and not surplus and tax incentives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)