Who Gives Money by Motte Brown on 11/28/2006 at 1:28 PM

Have you seen those "Jesus Is a Liberal" bumper stickers? Well, given the recent data on giving, you could equate that claim with "Jesus Isn't Very Charitable."

In yesterday's Wall Street Journal opinion section, Syracuse University Professor Arthur Brooks highlights three values affecting charity: religion, belief about the role of government, and family life. In short, weekly church goers are 25 percent more likely to give than people who rarely or never attend; people who want more government welfare are less likely to give food or money to a homeless person; and couples give more than singles, even if they earn the same amount. Here's more on this last point:

Couples, even when they earn the same amount as single people, are more likely to give to charity, and the simple act of raising children appears to stimulate giving as well -- children help us fill the collection plate even as they drain our wallets.

The correlation between marriage, raising children and giving is that each requires a sacrifice for the benefit of another. Giving, it seems, is a matter of practice. By the continual giving of oneself in one capacity, we learn to give in others.

Jesus displayed perfectly what this kind of sacrifice means. And somehow I don't think it has anything to do with liberalism.

Who Gives Money by Motte Brown on 11/28/2006 at 1:28 PM

Have you seen those "Jesus Is a Liberal" bumper stickers? Well, given the recent data on giving, you could equate that claim with "Jesus Isn't Very Charitable."

In yesterday's Wall Street Journal opinion section, Syracuse University Professor Arthur Brooks highlights three values affecting charity: religion, belief about the role of government, and family life. In short, weekly church goers are 25 percent more likely to give than people who rarely or never attend; people who want more government welfare are less likely to give food or money to a homeless person; and couples give more than singles, even if they earn the same amount. Here's more on this last point:

Couples, even when they earn the same amount as single people, are more likely to give to charity, and the simple act of raising children appears to stimulate giving as well -- children help us fill the collection plate even as they drain our wallets.

The correlation between marriage, raising children and giving is that each requires a sacrifice for the benefit of another. Giving, it seems, is a matter of practice. By the continual giving of oneself in one capacity, we learn to give in others.

Jesus displayed perfectly what this kind of sacrifice means. And somehow I don't think it has anything to do with liberalism.

Comments

[1. John M. said the following at 1:56 PM on Nov 28:]

1

Liberals are fine with giving to the less fortunate, but they think it should be done *through the mechanism of government*. People shouldn’t be allowed who to choose to help. This should all be decided by smart people (i.e. liberals), and the rest of us should be told how to expend our charity, at the barrel of a gun if necessary.

[2. Mark Willard said the following at 2:27 PM on Nov 28:]

2

Boundless, is the constant equating of conservative politics with being a Christian really necessary? Maybe it was in the rest of the article, but I don't see anything in the excerpt about the political views of the churchgoers or married couples. So why is it assumed? Jesus didn't preach Republican politics, he preached the gospel. Half the time when I read Boundless I feel like I'm reading an apologetic for the Republican party. There is such a thing as a mature Christian with "liberal" political views -- see Donald Miller and Derek Webb. (And for the record, I'm a registered Republican and usually vote that way. I'm just not dogmatic about it as if it were Biblical doctrine.)

[3. Dr. Ransom said the following at 4:00 PM on Nov 28:]

3

Regarding Mark Willard's comment: I agree that Christians need to ensure more that we don't equate political conservative with Christianity. However, in a "trade publication" for already-Christians like Boundless, it seems fine to discuss political issues, as they come up frequently in college and post-college settings.

Also, no matter how careful we are, it is inevitable that some Liberals will rush to portray all Christians as "just in it for the power," "using religion for political gains," etc.

Meanwhile, the Biblical Jesus is of course quite charitable -- and one could argue, as many conservatives do, that He wouldn't support moral relativism, abortion, Godless socialism philosophies and "charity" by means of paperwork-intensive wealth redistribution by government. (The latter, of course, tends to negate the Biblical commandment to give cheerfully, but that would apply only to true Christ-followers, would it not?)

In pointing all this out to "Jesus is a liberal" drivers, it's helpful to question their definition of "Jesus" -- just as it's helpful to question their definition of just about anything. One drawback to the whole "WWJD?" fad of last decade is the assumption that we must Live as Jesus Did ... possibly, without looking backward to ask the question, as does Ray Comfort, "What Did Jesus Do?"

And there we find again that He certainly did not support liberal ideas like pseudo-"charity" by means of government welfare systems (as John M. noted above), and He was quite clear in His directly expressed views about marriage, Law and Grace and other truths. And of course we need not limit His words to those of the four Gospels, of course. Jesus, as God, had a lot more to say about many other issues by inspiring writers of the rest of the New Testament, and the Old.

Do political Liberals adhere to these truths? and expanded Biblical understanding? Likely not. Instead, many Liberals preach a "different Jesus," redefining the Name to suit their own agendas -- just as, unfortunately, some "Churchian" conservatives do to support their agendas.

The true Jesus has His own platform: the Gospel, and redeeming those whom He will. However, at least at present, the platform of Western political conservatism contains more planks similar to that of Christ's than does the platform of Liberalism.

[4. Jonathan said the following at 5:20 PM on Nov 28:]

4

Arthur Brooks' site is at www.arthurbrooks.net

He also gives the following interesting statistics:

-People who give money charitably are 43 percent more likely to say they are “very happy” than non-givers and 25 percent more likely than non-givers to say their health is excellent or very good.
-A religious person is 57 percent more likely than a secularist to help a homeless person.
-Conservative households in America donate 30 percent more money to charity each year than liberal households.
-If liberals gave blood like conservatives do, the blood supply in the U.S. would jump by about 45%.

Anyway, thought I haven't seen any of those bumper stickers it strikes me that 1) you don't see "Jesus is a conservative" stickers; and 2) leftwingers (think Richard Dawkins & Elton John) still hate religious people so that kind of sanctimonious campaigning will only fire up Christians.

[5. Jessica said the following at 7:36 PM on Nov 28:]

5

My question goes to Dr. Ransom who wrote that "we find again that [Jesus] certainly did not support liberal ideas like pseudo-"charity" by means of government welfare systems". Where do you find this in the Bible? It's dangerous ground to assume we know what Jesus would and would not support, when such a system did not exist (at least not like it does today) in the first century. It seems to me that Jesus is pretty clear about our obligation to help the poor. Is the welfare system the best way to do that? Absolutely not. If the Church stepped up to the plate, then we wouldn't need the welfare system, but as far as I can see, that's not the world we live in. Can God work through the welfare system? I would like to think He can. We live in a fallen world, and therefore no system is going to be perfect, but I would give caution to those people that are quick to declare that Jesus is against food stamps.

[6. Dr. Ransom said the following at 8:25 AM on Nov 29:]

6

A most interesting question, Jessica.

When writing that above, I almost thought to disclaim that in Scripture we do find a variety of things Jesus didn't directly discuss or condemn: for example, infanticide. But where the Savior Himself offers no quote about what *not* to do, we can certainly find Him speaking in favor of what we *should* do and take the simple reasoning from there.

For example, some smarter Liberals will point out that Christ never condemned homosexuality. This is a most astute observation -- He never said anything against polygamy either. Yet in Matthew 19 and Mark 10, we find his very clear reference back to Genesis about the purpose of marriage. Keeping in mind that as God incarnate, Jesus gets ultimate credit for Genesis' authorship (something many Liberals would deny), we can cross-reference that and infer, from the positive definition of what marriage *is*, what it is *not*.

The same is true of God's words on Giving: before, during and after Jesus' time on Earth, when He spoke directly and through human authors, He was clear that giving is an act of the heart, done cheerfully.

Of course, God *can* use anything to accomplish His will, including government welfare. But it's a rather far leap to go from believing that because the Church hasn't "stepped up to the plate" in this regard (a debatable point, anyway), to deciding we bypass the Church and allow the government to appropriate its role.

I wrote more on my own site about the likely problems resulting from the church-bypassing, welfare-state concept:

------------------------------

- Government members of this persuasion, because of sinful human nature, are all too eager to assume the power and exact resources from everyone they please, in the name of “benevolence.”

- People who don’t want to help (the stingy, the ultra-capitalists, a selfish libertarian here and there) are forced to “help” others, upon being forced by government. They resent the poor, and they are not personally helping others. If they’re outside the Church, that is not their job anyway! Which is more Biblical: God loves a cheerful giver, or, God loves a begrudging “'giver” whose clenched hands must be plied apart by government?

- Government, which is not the spiritually-minded Church, cannot differentiate from those who truly need help and those who will play the system to get what they want.

- But this next is perhaps the worst consequence. The Church, quite aware that government is Helping the Poor, will itself become lazy and retreat from its very real responsibility to help, voluntarily and joyfully, those who truly cannot help themselves. 2 Corinthians 8 and 9, in particular, describe the Christ-followers in the ancient city of Corinth who gave joyfully, and sacrificially, to help others. They responded to the Apostle Paul’s requests for a collection, and they loved it. This is the duty of true Christ-followers: to help others with gladness, to be filled with joy upon doing so and thus further glorify God!

[. . .]

So which came first, [one] might ask: the church’s failing, or government’s appropriation — and subsequent fouling-ups — of the task?

Further discussion may be necessary to answer. But ultimately this matters little. Helping people is the Church’s responsibility, regardless of whether it has lived up to the task. Enforcing law and security is the role of government. If the Church is failing, we must repair the Church from within, not despair and turn to another source.

------------------------------

[7. Jessica said the following at 11:13 AM on Nov 29:]

7

Dr. Ransom,
You make some good points in your answer to my question. It is true that there a number of issues that Jesus did not speak on directly, but using correct biblical interpretation and discernment, we can conclude that Jesus was "for" certain things and "against" others. I guess your response raises some more questions for me though. For instance, what happens to those in need while the church is getting their act together and the government stops their aid? This could take years ... and people still need to eat. And I take issue with the assumption that the "spiritually-minded Church" is able to differentiate between those that are truly using the system for their benefit and those that are just playing games, while the government is unable to. People can "play" the church, just as much as they can "play" the government. And finally, maybe this naive of me, but I would think that Christians who are paying taxes and knowing that some of that tax money goes to help the marginalized of society, would be able to rejoice in that fact. I know there are many things our tax money gets used for, but I find it much more fulfilling to know that my money is going to help the poor in our society and AIDS victims in Africa, rather than fixing potholes on I-25. I realize that the potholes must be fixed and I'd be pretty sour if our roads ceased to be maintained, but I have to believe that there is some aspect to our government that should entail aid.

[8. Dr. Ransom said the following at 5:32 PM on Nov 29:]

8

Someone get Matt Kaufman in here; he'd love this ...

Along with you, I can only speculate as to the best solutions for the problem, which seems to be this: too much of the church has abandoned charity functions, and the government has picked it up.

Some may argue otherwise -- perhaps suggesting that LBJ or FDR or somebody intentionally undermined the church's role and shoved them aside in favor of the Great Society programs or the New Deal or whatever; so it's their fault, not the Church's.

I don't know whether that's the case, and I don't want to assume automatically that the Church is primarily at fault and reflexively shoot at "our own."

But let's proceed as if it's true: that the church slacked off sometime and the government picked up the charity role instead.

"For instance, what happens to those in need while the church is getting their act together and the government stops their aid?"

Firstly, that won't happen anytime soon. This nation, and its mindset, has already gone too far in the direction of government-driven welfare and now it almost seems irreversible.

But even if the opportunity existed to reverse the welfare state, I doubt many informed Christian -- or at least Judeo-Christian-morality-minded -- leaders would try for a full stop. Instead, they'd try to taper off. Or they'd come up with something that combines the Church with government aid, and call it "faith-based initiatives" or some such term. Oh wait. They already tried that. What happened there?

"I take issue with the assumption that the 'spiritually-minded Church' is able to differentiate between those that are truly using the system for their benefit and those that are just playing games, while the government is unable to."

I agree that the Church's members, engaging in charity, wouldn't perform flawlessly in discerning between who truly needs help and who's just trying to play the system and get a free lunch every day.

However, we could guess that Christ-following charity workers would perform a *little* better. And even if they do botch the job here and there, perhaps accidentally handing out cash to the non-working who fake illnesses or injuries -- well, the overall effort would be done in the Name of Christ anyway, and not in that of The Great Society.

"I would think that Christians who are paying taxes and knowing that some of that tax money goes to help the marginalized of society, would be able to rejoice in that fact."

First, we must unfortunately ften deal with that whole ultra-conservative, ubercapitalist myth of "well almost no one would be poor anymore if everyone would just get up and work like Iiiii diddd!"

Informed observers realize that of *course* that is not the case with everyone. But for those with the spread of right-wing political beliefs, the false memes will always be hovering about -- the same as with environmental causes being hijacked by extreme, anti-Biblical views.

Perhaps some Christians do take solace in the fact that at least someone is doing something about the poor, though the Church is not (supposedly). Yet for me, anyway, I can speak from personal basis, and suggest that it's almost counterproductive to know that Someone Else is helping alleviate the problems. In the past, it has actually lessened my motivation to give to ministries and organizations that help others in the Name of Christ.

That mindset is actually best summarized by "Ebenezer Stooge," from the 1991 "Adventures in Odyssey" episode "A Thanksgiving Carol," written by Paul McCusker.

In this radio-program-within-a-radio-program version, a cheerful lady -- named Cheerful Lady -- visits the miserly Mr. Stooge in his cold office and asks him to donate funds to her orphanage:

STOOGE: Are not welfare and missions available to the poor?

LADY: Well, yes --

STOOGE: Welfare and missions paid for by taxes?

LADY: Of course, but --

STOOGE: Well then I suppose I have *already* given money to the poor! Let them take advantage of those institutions and I will keep my "donations" to myself.

[1. John M. said the following at 1:56 PM on Nov 28:]

1

Liberals are fine with giving to the less fortunate, but they think it should be done *through the mechanism of government*. People shouldn’t be allowed who to choose to help. This should all be decided by smart people (i.e. liberals), and the rest of us should be told how to expend our charity, at the barrel of a gun if necessary.

[2. Mark Willard said the following at 2:27 PM on Nov 28:]

2

Boundless, is the constant equating of conservative politics with being a Christian really necessary? Maybe it was in the rest of the article, but I don't see anything in the excerpt about the political views of the churchgoers or married couples. So why is it assumed? Jesus didn't preach Republican politics, he preached the gospel. Half the time when I read Boundless I feel like I'm reading an apologetic for the Republican party. There is such a thing as a mature Christian with "liberal" political views -- see Donald Miller and Derek Webb. (And for the record, I'm a registered Republican and usually vote that way. I'm just not dogmatic about it as if it were Biblical doctrine.)

[3. Dr. Ransom said the following at 4:00 PM on Nov 28:]

3

Regarding Mark Willard's comment: I agree that Christians need to ensure more that we don't equate political conservative with Christianity. However, in a "trade publication" for already-Christians like Boundless, it seems fine to discuss political issues, as they come up frequently in college and post-college settings.

Also, no matter how careful we are, it is inevitable that some Liberals will rush to portray all Christians as "just in it for the power," "using religion for political gains," etc.

Meanwhile, the Biblical Jesus is of course quite charitable -- and one could argue, as many conservatives do, that He wouldn't support moral relativism, abortion, Godless socialism philosophies and "charity" by means of paperwork-intensive wealth redistribution by government. (The latter, of course, tends to negate the Biblical commandment to give cheerfully, but that would apply only to true Christ-followers, would it not?)

In pointing all this out to "Jesus is a liberal" drivers, it's helpful to question their definition of "Jesus" -- just as it's helpful to question their definition of just about anything. One drawback to the whole "WWJD?" fad of last decade is the assumption that we must Live as Jesus Did ... possibly, without looking backward to ask the question, as does Ray Comfort, "What Did Jesus Do?"

And there we find again that He certainly did not support liberal ideas like pseudo-"charity" by means of government welfare systems (as John M. noted above), and He was quite clear in His directly expressed views about marriage, Law and Grace and other truths. And of course we need not limit His words to those of the four Gospels, of course. Jesus, as God, had a lot more to say about many other issues by inspiring writers of the rest of the New Testament, and the Old.

Do political Liberals adhere to these truths? and expanded Biblical understanding? Likely not. Instead, many Liberals preach a "different Jesus," redefining the Name to suit their own agendas -- just as, unfortunately, some "Churchian" conservatives do to support their agendas.

The true Jesus has His own platform: the Gospel, and redeeming those whom He will. However, at least at present, the platform of Western political conservatism contains more planks similar to that of Christ's than does the platform of Liberalism.

[4. Jonathan said the following at 5:20 PM on Nov 28:]

4

Arthur Brooks' site is at www.arthurbrooks.net

He also gives the following interesting statistics:

-People who give money charitably are 43 percent more likely to say they are “very happy” than non-givers and 25 percent more likely than non-givers to say their health is excellent or very good.
-A religious person is 57 percent more likely than a secularist to help a homeless person.
-Conservative households in America donate 30 percent more money to charity each year than liberal households.
-If liberals gave blood like conservatives do, the blood supply in the U.S. would jump by about 45%.

Anyway, thought I haven't seen any of those bumper stickers it strikes me that 1) you don't see "Jesus is a conservative" stickers; and 2) leftwingers (think Richard Dawkins & Elton John) still hate religious people so that kind of sanctimonious campaigning will only fire up Christians.

[5. Jessica said the following at 7:36 PM on Nov 28:]

5

My question goes to Dr. Ransom who wrote that "we find again that [Jesus] certainly did not support liberal ideas like pseudo-"charity" by means of government welfare systems". Where do you find this in the Bible? It's dangerous ground to assume we know what Jesus would and would not support, when such a system did not exist (at least not like it does today) in the first century. It seems to me that Jesus is pretty clear about our obligation to help the poor. Is the welfare system the best way to do that? Absolutely not. If the Church stepped up to the plate, then we wouldn't need the welfare system, but as far as I can see, that's not the world we live in. Can God work through the welfare system? I would like to think He can. We live in a fallen world, and therefore no system is going to be perfect, but I would give caution to those people that are quick to declare that Jesus is against food stamps.

[6. Dr. Ransom said the following at 8:25 AM on Nov 29:]

6

A most interesting question, Jessica.

When writing that above, I almost thought to disclaim that in Scripture we do find a variety of things Jesus didn't directly discuss or condemn: for example, infanticide. But where the Savior Himself offers no quote about what *not* to do, we can certainly find Him speaking in favor of what we *should* do and take the simple reasoning from there.

For example, some smarter Liberals will point out that Christ never condemned homosexuality. This is a most astute observation -- He never said anything against polygamy either. Yet in Matthew 19 and Mark 10, we find his very clear reference back to Genesis about the purpose of marriage. Keeping in mind that as God incarnate, Jesus gets ultimate credit for Genesis' authorship (something many Liberals would deny), we can cross-reference that and infer, from the positive definition of what marriage *is*, what it is *not*.

The same is true of God's words on Giving: before, during and after Jesus' time on Earth, when He spoke directly and through human authors, He was clear that giving is an act of the heart, done cheerfully.

Of course, God *can* use anything to accomplish His will, including government welfare. But it's a rather far leap to go from believing that because the Church hasn't "stepped up to the plate" in this regard (a debatable point, anyway), to deciding we bypass the Church and allow the government to appropriate its role.

I wrote more on my own site about the likely problems resulting from the church-bypassing, welfare-state concept:

------------------------------

- Government members of this persuasion, because of sinful human nature, are all too eager to assume the power and exact resources from everyone they please, in the name of “benevolence.”

- People who don’t want to help (the stingy, the ultra-capitalists, a selfish libertarian here and there) are forced to “help” others, upon being forced by government. They resent the poor, and they are not personally helping others. If they’re outside the Church, that is not their job anyway! Which is more Biblical: God loves a cheerful giver, or, God loves a begrudging “'giver” whose clenched hands must be plied apart by government?

- Government, which is not the spiritually-minded Church, cannot differentiate from those who truly need help and those who will play the system to get what they want.

- But this next is perhaps the worst consequence. The Church, quite aware that government is Helping the Poor, will itself become lazy and retreat from its very real responsibility to help, voluntarily and joyfully, those who truly cannot help themselves. 2 Corinthians 8 and 9, in particular, describe the Christ-followers in the ancient city of Corinth who gave joyfully, and sacrificially, to help others. They responded to the Apostle Paul’s requests for a collection, and they loved it. This is the duty of true Christ-followers: to help others with gladness, to be filled with joy upon doing so and thus further glorify God!

[. . .]

So which came first, [one] might ask: the church’s failing, or government’s appropriation — and subsequent fouling-ups — of the task?

Further discussion may be necessary to answer. But ultimately this matters little. Helping people is the Church’s responsibility, regardless of whether it has lived up to the task. Enforcing law and security is the role of government. If the Church is failing, we must repair the Church from within, not despair and turn to another source.

------------------------------

[7. Jessica said the following at 11:13 AM on Nov 29:]

7

Dr. Ransom,
You make some good points in your answer to my question. It is true that there a number of issues that Jesus did not speak on directly, but using correct biblical interpretation and discernment, we can conclude that Jesus was "for" certain things and "against" others. I guess your response raises some more questions for me though. For instance, what happens to those in need while the church is getting their act together and the government stops their aid? This could take years ... and people still need to eat. And I take issue with the assumption that the "spiritually-minded Church" is able to differentiate between those that are truly using the system for their benefit and those that are just playing games, while the government is unable to. People can "play" the church, just as much as they can "play" the government. And finally, maybe this naive of me, but I would think that Christians who are paying taxes and knowing that some of that tax money goes to help the marginalized of society, would be able to rejoice in that fact. I know there are many things our tax money gets used for, but I find it much more fulfilling to know that my money is going to help the poor in our society and AIDS victims in Africa, rather than fixing potholes on I-25. I realize that the potholes must be fixed and I'd be pretty sour if our roads ceased to be maintained, but I have to believe that there is some aspect to our government that should entail aid.

[8. Dr. Ransom said the following at 5:32 PM on Nov 29:]

8

Someone get Matt Kaufman in here; he'd love this ...

Along with you, I can only speculate as to the best solutions for the problem, which seems to be this: too much of the church has abandoned charity functions, and the government has picked it up.

Some may argue otherwise -- perhaps suggesting that LBJ or FDR or somebody intentionally undermined the church's role and shoved them aside in favor of the Great Society programs or the New Deal or whatever; so it's their fault, not the Church's.

I don't know whether that's the case, and I don't want to assume automatically that the Church is primarily at fault and reflexively shoot at "our own."

But let's proceed as if it's true: that the church slacked off sometime and the government picked up the charity role instead.

"For instance, what happens to those in need while the church is getting their act together and the government stops their aid?"

Firstly, that won't happen anytime soon. This nation, and its mindset, has already gone too far in the direction of government-driven welfare and now it almost seems irreversible.

But even if the opportunity existed to reverse the welfare state, I doubt many informed Christian -- or at least Judeo-Christian-morality-minded -- leaders would try for a full stop. Instead, they'd try to taper off. Or they'd come up with something that combines the Church with government aid, and call it "faith-based initiatives" or some such term. Oh wait. They already tried that. What happened there?

"I take issue with the assumption that the 'spiritually-minded Church' is able to differentiate between those that are truly using the system for their benefit and those that are just playing games, while the government is unable to."

I agree that the Church's members, engaging in charity, wouldn't perform flawlessly in discerning between who truly needs help and who's just trying to play the system and get a free lunch every day.

However, we could guess that Christ-following charity workers would perform a *little* better. And even if they do botch the job here and there, perhaps accidentally handing out cash to the non-working who fake illnesses or injuries -- well, the overall effort would be done in the Name of Christ anyway, and not in that of The Great Society.

"I would think that Christians who are paying taxes and knowing that some of that tax money goes to help the marginalized of society, would be able to rejoice in that fact."

First, we must unfortunately ften deal with that whole ultra-conservative, ubercapitalist myth of "well almost no one would be poor anymore if everyone would just get up and work like Iiiii diddd!"

Informed observers realize that of *course* that is not the case with everyone. But for those with the spread of right-wing political beliefs, the false memes will always be hovering about -- the same as with environmental causes being hijacked by extreme, anti-Biblical views.

Perhaps some Christians do take solace in the fact that at least someone is doing something about the poor, though the Church is not (supposedly). Yet for me, anyway, I can speak from personal basis, and suggest that it's almost counterproductive to know that Someone Else is helping alleviate the problems. In the past, it has actually lessened my motivation to give to ministries and organizations that help others in the Name of Christ.

That mindset is actually best summarized by "Ebenezer Stooge," from the 1991 "Adventures in Odyssey" episode "A Thanksgiving Carol," written by Paul McCusker.

In this radio-program-within-a-radio-program version, a cheerful lady -- named Cheerful Lady -- visits the miserly Mr. Stooge in his cold office and asks him to donate funds to her orphanage:

STOOGE: Are not welfare and missions available to the poor?

LADY: Well, yes --

STOOGE: Welfare and missions paid for by taxes?

LADY: Of course, but --

STOOGE: Well then I suppose I have *already* given money to the poor! Let them take advantage of those institutions and I will keep my "donations" to myself.