Don’t Trust Corporations With Your Charity

When it comes to in-person shopping, one of the more frequent complaints I’ve encountered recently concerns self-checkout registers. It seems many people despise using them. I do not. Whether Kroger, Walmart, Lowes, Home Depot, and the like, I almost always choose the self-checkout station over an in-person cashier. In fact, I will wait in line for the self-checkout even when a line for an in-person cashier is unoccupied.

It’s not that I dislike human cashiers, it’s just that I prefer being in control of the check-out process, and the typical convenience of the self-checkout. There’s another reason that I prefer the self-checkout: I never get solicited by a cashier at a self-checkout.

It seems that retail, fast-food, financial corporations, and the like, are frequently in the business these days of asking their customers to donate to one pet cause or another. If you happen to have to deal with a cashier today, a common method of “charitable” soliciting often goes something like this: “Would you like to round-up your purchase to support ____________ (fill in the blank)?”

My answer virtually every time: “No, thank you.” Of course, this is not because I’m against charity, rather it’s because almost every corporation in America today has proven itself to be quite unworthy of stewardship over a single penny of my charitable income.

In case you haven’t noticed, one of the largest reasons we’re currently in a “woke” war is due to the actions of corporate America. On virtually every moral issue facing the world today, most all of corporate America stands in opposition to the truth. Whether capitalism—yes, even capitalism!—climate change, crime, guns, immigration, abortion, the evil LGBT agenda, and so on, corporate America is almost always on the wrong side of the truth.

As is the case with our schools, our government, our media, and tragically, even our churches, our corporations are merely a reflection of the culture at large. And as is the case with almost any American institution one can imagine, U.S. corporations are so often on the wrong side of the truth because there is a widespread ignorance of what is truth in America today. This is due to the widespread rejection of Christianity that prevails in America today.

Instead of embracing the absolute, unchanging, undeniable truths of the universe given to us by the Author of truth Himself and living by those truths (whether we want to or not), for decades now, much of America—increasing numbers it seems as time moves onward—has decided to go their own way and decide “what is truth” for themselves. In other words, many of us have rejected God as the ultimate Authority in the universe and have decided to rule our own world.

This secular humanist worldview dominates the thinking in corporate America today. Thus, instead of merely quietly and subtly heeding what is good and right, or simply acknowledging a preference to their bottom line, U.S. corporations today are dedicated to nonsense such as the “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) and “environmental, social, and governance” (ESG) scams. Both DEI and ESG are dogmatic rejections of truth that are born of modern leftist orthodoxy. Yet, corporate America has embraced these boondoggles as a means of declaring to the world, “Look at how much we care!”

If corporate America truly cared about the world we live in and the human beings who occupy it, then the likes of DEI and ESG would be quickly and enthusiastically rejected. If corporations truly had the well-being of humanity in mind, they would realize that true charity is—or should be—far more than words or actions that make us feel good.

Additionally, charity is about far more than simply giving to the poor. Giving to or caring for the poor ought to be one of the most obvious actions of a charitable person or organization. Most importantly, charity must be rooted in truth. The most charitable person who ever lived—Jesus Christ—makes this clear. When Jesus healed the sick, fed the hungry, or even raised the dead, He didn’t do this only to satisfy their physical needs—though that is indeed a good thing. The ultimate goal of all of the good works of Jesus was to point people to a magnificent spiritual truth.

In other words, the ministry of God—feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, healing the sick (things often deemed as “charitable”)—should never be separated from the message of God—to repent of our sin and believe that Jesus was who He claimed to be: the Son of God and the Savior of the world. The ministry of God and the message of God—both together complete the mission of God. In other words, any sound charity should ultimately help complete the mission of God.

Thus, even if a corporation is doing what seems like legitimate charitable work, or even if it has ties to what many conclude are legitimate charitable organizations, given the current track record with the truth that is prevalent in corporate America today, I will not trust corporations with my charitable income. Instead, I choose to do my charitable giving directly myself. I encourage you to politely do the same.

(See this column at American Thinker.) 

Copyright 2023, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America
trevorgrantthomas@gmail.com

 

Why Big Government Can't Do Charity

Lost in all the uproar over Obamacare, and for that matter, in virtually every debate over government “entitlements” or “handouts” or whatever you want to call them, is the fact that, when it comes to charity, our government is just about the last place that one should turn. Time and again, Big Government liberals love to paint themselves as the champions of the poor and down-trodden—while at the same time making conservatives out to be selfish brutes (when, in reality, conservatives are far and away more personally generous than liberals).

That liberal of liberals, Paul Krugman of The New York Times, recently did so. “Republican hostility toward the poor and unfortunate has now reached such a fever pitch that the party doesn’t really stand for anything else,” he wrote on Halloween. He added that, “[Republicans are] still clearly passionate about making sure that the poor and unlucky get as little help as possible…” This is one of the greatest (if not the greatest) lies of liberalism.

In general, liberals aren’t for the poor and others in need. This may have been somewhat true of classic liberalism, but today most liberals are for those in need as long as it helps them feel good about their immoral anti-God behavior, make money, win elections, and/or remain in power (or keep other like-minded liberals in power).

So just why should we help those in need? The answer is not as obvious (to most) as it seems. First of all, the truly needy must be identified. To pad their voting rolls, liberalism has made this purposefully difficult. Of course, not all those who ask for help need it or deserve it. So what is our standard? Where do we look for moral guidance in this significant (literally to the tune of trillions of dollars) matter? The same place that we should look in all such matters: Scripture.

If you are secular minded, don’t balk. In his attempts to justify his extremely liberal Big Government agenda, Obama himself has made many appeals to the Bible (as do other like-minded liberals). In the 2008 election, when Obama was asked by pastor Rick Warren what he thought was, “the greatest moral failure of America,” Obama (almost certainly with his Big Government agenda on his mind) responded that, “I think America’s greatest moral failure in my lifetime has been that we still don’t abide by that basic precept in Matthew that whatever you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me…”

When describing the “least” of us, Scripture often mentions those such as orphans, widows, and the physically impaired (lame, blind). Of course, people in those circumstances will usually be “poor.” The first laws God gave concerning those in need (in Leviticus) instructed the Israelites to refrain from “gleaning” their vineyards or reaping the corners of their fields (in other words, gathering every last morsel).

This was so that the “needy,” the “stranger,” or the “alien” would have something to harvest. Notice that even those described as needy were expected to work and gather for themselves. Those who owned the fields and vineyards were simply instructed to provide the “needy” with an opportunity.

In the New Testament, Jesus often spoke of ministering to the poor (sometimes more accurately described as “the poor in spirit”). Among other things, He instructed His followers to give to those in need without expecting anything (in this world) in return. Jesus’ ministry modeled such generosity. He went about healing those who were desperately ill, feeding the hungry, delivering the demon possessed, and even raising the dead. He told His followers to “go and do likewise.”

However, (and this is what often escapes those who attempt to justify their Big Government policies with the words and deeds of Jesus), Jesus didn’t perform acts of charity simply to fulfill some physical need a person had. Consider that the greatest miracle recorded in Scripture, performed by Christ, was raising someone from the dead. (There are three recorded instances of this occurring.) This was not done merely out of “niceness,” only to save the lives of those who had died. They would, after all (with apologies to James Bond), “die another day.” His ultimate goal was to give them “everlasting life.”

This could be said of every miracle Christ performed. It is true that He healed, fed, and cast out demons because of His great love for those in need. However, these acts alone did not save anyone. Those healed of one disease or sickness would someday die of another. Those fed would someday be hungry again. Christ’s ultimate goal was to bring people into His Kingdom. In other words, God became man not simply to help us with our troubles in this world, but to make us into new creatures.

“Niceness” and “good deeds” are excellent things. Jesus told His followers to “let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven (Matt. 5:16).” Inversely, as C.S. Lewis puts it, “When we Christians behave badly, or fail to behave well, we are making Christianity unbelievable to the outside world.”

Lewis continues, “We must try by every medical, educational, economic, and political means in our power, to produce a world where as many people as possible grow up ‘nice’ (performing good deeds); just as we must try to produce a world where we all have plenty to eat. But we must not suppose that even if we succeed in making everyone nice we should have saved their souls. A world of nice people, content in their own niceness, looking no further, turned away from God, would be just as desperately in need of salvation as a miserable world—and might even be more difficult to save.”

Thus we see, the ministry of God—feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, healing the sick—can never be separated from the message of God—to repent of our sins and believe that Jesus was who He claimed to be: the Son of God and the Savior of the world.

It should also be pointed out that, in today’s American culture that is so obsessed with self, especially the sexual gratification of self, the message of “repent of your sin” must include the truth about marriage (one man for one woman for life) and the sins of homosexuality, abortion, divorce, and the like. The ministry of God and the message of God—both together complete the mission of God. And this is why a secular government can never effectively do charity.

Copyright 2013, Trevor Grant Thomas

At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason

Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World

tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Making a god of Government

Recently, Jim Wallis, president and founder of Sojourners, and a leader of the so-called “evangelical left,” declared the government shutdown was “unbiblical.” On a video produced by Sojourners, Wallis said, “There is a deeper problem here than politics. There is a theological problem. As a Christian, I want to say, shutting down government is unbiblical.”

With his long-time, deep-seated liberal worldview, Wallis comes to this conclusion because the conservatives with whom he disagrees “don't believe in government per se. They want to destroy the House [of Representatives] and shut it down. That's not biblical.” He continues, “Secondly, because government has a biblical responsibility to care for the poor, they're against poor people. They get hostile to the poor because they are hostile to government. That's also wrong. It's unbiblical.”

In addition to being a complete lie (there are at least three in Mr. Wallis’ statement—is lying “unbiblical?”), it is a worn-out, but reliable, tactic of liberals to attack conservatives as uncaring, cold-hearted, uncompassionate, selfish brutes whenever the idea of shrinking government is broached. But “unbiblical?” Please. (As my website has declared for years, “It is no act of charity to be generous with someone else’s money.)

One really has to be committed to a Big Government worldview to use Scripture to try to shame conservatives. The GOP presidential debate of September 2011 provides a great example of Democrats, aided by their allies in the Mainstream Media, using this line of attack.

CNN’s Wolf Blitzer presented Ron Paul and other republicans with a hypothetical: A 30-year-old man who chose not to purchase health insurance suddenly finds himself in need of six months of intensive care—Blitzer wanted to know what the “compassionate conservative” response would be.

Congressman Paul stated, “That’s what freedom is all about — taking your own risks.” Thrilling liberals everywhere, Blitzer pressed the matter and asked whether “society should just let him die.” The New York Times’ Paul Krugman piously concluded that, “The incident highlighted something that I don’t think most political commentators have fully absorbed: at this point, American politics is fundamentally about different moral visions.”

Asking “Where Are the Compassionate Conservatives,” Washington Post columnist, Eugene Robinson, noted that Blitzer next turned to Michele Bachmann, “whose popularity with evangelical Christian voters stems, at least in part, from her own professed born-again faith. Asked what she would do about the man in the coma, Bachmann ignored the question and launched into a canned explanation of why she wants to repeal President Obama's Affordable Care Act.”

Robinson then declared that, “According to the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus told the Pharisees that God commands us to ‘love thy neighbor as thyself.’ There is no asterisk making this obligation null and void if circumstances require its fulfillment via government.”

The book of Luke records that, when Jesus is asked by “an expert in the Law” what he must do to inherit eternal life, Jesus asks him what the Law requires. The man answers correctly: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind,’ and ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”

Sounding like a liberal pundit or politician, or as Scripture puts it, “attempting to justify himself,” the man smugly asked Jesus, “who is my neighbor?” That is when Jesus launches into the Good Samaritan parable. Of course, the parable reveals that, as a true act of love, a Samaritan—whom the Jews of Jesus’ day generally despised—took care of an injured Jew on his own time and with his own resources. (Not quite the picture of Obamacare that today’s liberals would have us believe.)

Liberals love to quote Scripture when they think it might help them further their Big Government social agenda. They also love to talk about compassion and morality but would prefer it if you left Scripture out of it. Perhaps if more liberals were for posting the Ten Commandments in every public school and post office in the U.S., more Americans would feel comfortable putting health care in the hands of the federal government.

Perhaps if more liberals were willing to allow their morality and compassion to move them to protect the most defenseless among us—the unborn—more Americans would take them seriously when they talk in terms of “moral visions,” “compassion,” or “caring for the poor.”

Why would any sincere Christian want to put caring for the poor, or any other charitable act for that matter, in the hands of a godless secular government (the type of government that, of course, most of today’s liberals crave)? Is it Christ-like to support legislation that promotes servitude, dependence, and massively grows government—to the tune of trillions of dollars—all the while piling up more and more debt?

The bottom line here is that most liberals, at least those who end up getting elected, do not allow Christian morality to guide their politics. (Is that not the song-and-dance we get from Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, et al when it comes to abortion?) Instead, bowing at the altar of Big Government, they simply align their politics with whatever morality will get them elected or re-elected. (See the same-sex marriage debate.)

Good government should be rooted in Christian morality. (All law is rooted in some morality.) As I’ve said recently, good government must recognize what it means truly to come to the aid of those in need; what it takes truly to change bad behavior—something that “gets to the heart” of individuals—and, at best, partner with such efforts, or at least, do nothing to hinder them. Most importantly, good government should never enact laws that are contradictory to the laws of God. As Blackstone taught us, “[The] laws laid down by God are the eternal immutable laws of good and evil…This law of nature dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this…”

(See this column on American Thinker.)

Copyright 2013, Trevor Grant Thomas

At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason

Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World

tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Sweet Land of Generosity

Americans are the most generous people on the earth. WORLD Magazine recently reported that, “A new study by the Hudson Institute's Center for Global Prosperity says that Americans account for 45 percent of all philanthropic giving worldwide. Not only is that significantly more than any other nation on earth, it's also dramatically more on a per capita basis. One example: The average American gives 14 times more to charity than the average Italian.”

The Hudson Institute also revealed that the U.S. government gives more than any other nation on earth. According to their study, in 2006 the United States gave out $23.53 billion in aid, almost twice as much as No. 2 Great Britain ($12.46 billion). However, when private giving is included in the numbers, the U.S. total rises to $192 billion.

These numbers should not be surprising. Along with being the world’s lone military superpower and lone food superpower, the United States is the world’s lone economic superpower as well. Although we account for only about 4.5% of the world’s population, we account for more than 25% of worldwide economic activity.

WORLD Magazine also reported that the results of the Hudson Institute study came as no surprise to Arthur C. Brooks, a fellow at the Hudson Institute. “Americans give at least twice as much as anyone else,” Brooks said. “And we're giving now more than ever before.” WORLD adds that, “Brooks said the myth of the ‘ugly American’ has persisted in part because ‘it’s in the interest of a lot of people’—those who want to see the size and role of government enlarge, for example—‘to portray Americans as callous and uncaring.’”

“Callous” and “uncaring,” along with “hypocrite,” are favorite labels that many “big government” liberals try to attach to conservatives—especially Christian conservatives. Too often, they claim, Christians are driven politically by the issues of abortion and gay marriage, while ignoring the plight of the poor, the sick, those suffering from racism, etc. I submit that it is the Christians who are most concerned with the suffering of others, and part of the evidence is in their “social activism.”

When it comes to social involvement, recent George Barna research (www.barna.org) showed a significant difference between what he describes as “active-faith” Americans, [the vast majority of whom are Christians] who tend to be more conservative in their politics, and “no-faith” Americans, who tend to be more liberal. Barna reports that, “One of the most significant differences between active-faith and no-faith Americans is the cultural disengagement and sense of independence exhibited by [no-faith Americans] in many areas of life. They are less likely than active-faith Americans to be registered to vote (78% versus 89%), to volunteer to help a non-church-related non-profit (20% versus 30%), to describe themselves as ‘active in the community’ (41% versus 68%), and to personally help or serve a homeless or poor person (41% versus 61%).”

There is also a significant difference between active-faith Americans and no-faith Americans when it comes to the amount of money donated to charitable causes. On this, Barna notes that, “The typical no-faith American donated just $200 in 2006, which is over seven times less than the amount contributed by the prototypical active-faith adult ($1500).” Furthermore, as of 2005, according to the Christian Science Monitor, of the top 10 U.S. charities that are categorized as social services or relief/development, nine are Christian charities.

When it comes to domestic charity, total U.S. giving in 2006 was just over $295 billion according to The Giving USA Foundation. Of this amount, 83.4% was given by individuals, which far outpaces the giving by U.S. corporations, whose total giving came in at 4.3%. [Giving by foundations made up the other 12.3%.] According to Generous Giving Inc., “religious observers, which are those who attend weekly services [again, the vast majority are Christian], while only about 38% of all Americans, donate two-thirds of all charitable dollars in the United States.”

Now, I am not saying that all Christians are conservative in their politics, and neither am I implying that all Christians are generous while all non-Christians are not. In fact, I would suggest that while Christians do most of the charitable giving (as they should) in the U.S., they could (and should) be doing quite a bit more. For example, Generous Giving also reported that, while religious observers give significantly more than the non-religious, their giving still only amounts to 3.4% of their annual income.

If Christians want to give less of their money to government, while at the same time having more control over how what they give is spent, I suggest that they give more to the churches and the charities thatare “loving their neighbors as themselves.” Also, Christians should invest not only their money, but also their time in caring for those in need. In this way we can show our fellow Americans what should have been clear all along: the Church is better at charity than the government is.

Copyright 2008, Trevor Grant Thomas

At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com