Over the past few months an interesting storyline has emerged as a major headline, the infamous health care bill. It has been noted that such a bill was necessary in order to promote "fairness" for everyone. After all, what could be more benevolent than sharing each others' load? Yet, such rhetoric has caused me to pause and speculate. Can generosity be demanded? To be sure, culture can call for generous giving "or else". Yet, can giving rightly be called generous, when offered as a response to such a demand?
To be generous is to be "forbearing". Intriguingly, forbearing means to "hold back". A forbearing person is one who seems to be willing to do without, to "hold himself back" from the front of the line, so to speak. Generosity is marked by one who prefers others before herself. Another interesting concept used to define "generosity" is "openhanded". Immediately, we must think of Jesus. His hands are open to us, he offered Himself with open hands as Roman soldiers nailed him to a cross. The openhanded person is the one who does not grasp for himself.
Thus, I return to my former question, "can generosity be demanded? Generosity cannot be demanded, because it can only be given out of a willing heart. In poetic fashion, well meaning (I hope) policy writers suggest that people need to support such openhearted, because is it beneficent and generous. After all, isn't it right to be generous? However, generosity by definition can only be openhanded forbearance in favor of another, not forced handed obedience as a prevention to punishment. The key question is, what would motivate "Sid the citizen" to willingly give of his/her wealth (or lack thereof) for the sake of another? Would one be compelled by the argument, "its the right thing to do?" Perhaps "Sid" could retort to such a claim "says who"? "Who determines what the right thing is?" Leaders might respond, "well, Sid it is your Government." Sid may note that "government is made up of humans that are just the same me", therefore, "why is their opinion more authoritative than mine?" "Oh Sid," the leaders might reply, "society clearly believes that this is the right thing to do" (in the case of the health care law, this is not true, but for the sake of argument we continue int his line of thought). Sid might similarly respond, "yes, but society is made up of humans, just like me, so why is their opinion any greater in importance than mine?" Thus, not only is it ignorant to demand generosity, it is equally silly to attempt to motivate it through human opinion.
No, true generosity comes from a heart that has learn to be forbearing. A "give or else," generosity, is neither benevolent or fair, but tyrannical. To be sure, people will give, but not generously. Such an approach is misguided at best, and dishonest at worst. To be forced to give to a cause, no matter how noble, is akin to saying "you will give, so you may as well like it and feel good about yourself". What is interesting in all of this is the fact that many people seem unwillingly to give to this noble cause. However, I would posit that many people are unwilling because they do not have the proper motive. Motivation born from fear leads to rebellion, but motivation born of love leads to transformation. It is interesting that our society, similar to societies of the past has sought to eliminate the presence of God from its midst, while at the same time seeking to preserve all that Theism (God-centeredness) provides. However, you cannot have a generous culture without a generous God. This openhanded generosity is a foreign thing to humanity. We are born with our fists clenched. It is God who teaches us to open our hands and be forbearing. How intriguing, our leaders are seeking to force us to act like Christians, but without the motivation of Jesus Christ. Could anything be more ironic?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Friday, July 6, 2012
Can Generosity Be Demanded?
Over the past few months an interesting storyline has emerged as a major headline, the infamous health care bill. It has been noted that such a bill was necessary in order to promote "fairness" for everyone. After all, what could be more benevolent than sharing each others' load? Yet, such rhetoric has caused me to pause and speculate. Can generosity be demanded? To be sure, culture can call for generous giving "or else". Yet, can giving rightly be called generous, when offered as a response to such a demand?
To be generous is to be "forbearing". Intriguingly, forbearing means to "hold back". A forbearing person is one who seems to be willing to do without, to "hold himself back" from the front of the line, so to speak. Generosity is marked by one who prefers others before herself. Another interesting concept used to define "generosity" is "openhanded". Immediately, we must think of Jesus. His hands are open to us, he offered Himself with open hands as Roman soldiers nailed him to a cross. The openhanded person is the one who does not grasp for himself.
Thus, I return to my former question, "can generosity be demanded? Generosity cannot be demanded, because it can only be given out of a willing heart. In poetic fashion, well meaning (I hope) policy writers suggest that people need to support such openhearted, because is it beneficent and generous. After all, isn't it right to be generous? However, generosity by definition can only be openhanded forbearance in favor of another, not forced handed obedience as a prevention to punishment. The key question is, what would motivate "Sid the citizen" to willingly give of his/her wealth (or lack thereof) for the sake of another? Would one be compelled by the argument, "its the right thing to do?" Perhaps "Sid" could retort to such a claim "says who"? "Who determines what the right thing is?" Leaders might respond, "well, Sid it is your Government." Sid may note that "government is made up of humans that are just the same me", therefore, "why is their opinion more authoritative than mine?" "Oh Sid," the leaders might reply, "society clearly believes that this is the right thing to do" (in the case of the health care law, this is not true, but for the sake of argument we continue int his line of thought). Sid might similarly respond, "yes, but society is made up of humans, just like me, so why is their opinion any greater in importance than mine?" Thus, not only is it ignorant to demand generosity, it is equally silly to attempt to motivate it through human opinion.
No, true generosity comes from a heart that has learn to be forbearing. A "give or else," generosity, is neither benevolent or fair, but tyrannical. To be sure, people will give, but not generously. Such an approach is misguided at best, and dishonest at worst. To be forced to give to a cause, no matter how noble, is akin to saying "you will give, so you may as well like it and feel good about yourself". What is interesting in all of this is the fact that many people seem unwillingly to give to this noble cause. However, I would posit that many people are unwilling because they do not have the proper motive. Motivation born from fear leads to rebellion, but motivation born of love leads to transformation. It is interesting that our society, similar to societies of the past has sought to eliminate the presence of God from its midst, while at the same time seeking to preserve all that Theism (God-centeredness) provides. However, you cannot have a generous culture without a generous God. This openhanded generosity is a foreign thing to humanity. We are born with our fists clenched. It is God who teaches us to open our hands and be forbearing. How intriguing, our leaders are seeking to force us to act like Christians, but without the motivation of Jesus Christ. Could anything be more ironic?
To be generous is to be "forbearing". Intriguingly, forbearing means to "hold back". A forbearing person is one who seems to be willing to do without, to "hold himself back" from the front of the line, so to speak. Generosity is marked by one who prefers others before herself. Another interesting concept used to define "generosity" is "openhanded". Immediately, we must think of Jesus. His hands are open to us, he offered Himself with open hands as Roman soldiers nailed him to a cross. The openhanded person is the one who does not grasp for himself.
Thus, I return to my former question, "can generosity be demanded? Generosity cannot be demanded, because it can only be given out of a willing heart. In poetic fashion, well meaning (I hope) policy writers suggest that people need to support such openhearted, because is it beneficent and generous. After all, isn't it right to be generous? However, generosity by definition can only be openhanded forbearance in favor of another, not forced handed obedience as a prevention to punishment. The key question is, what would motivate "Sid the citizen" to willingly give of his/her wealth (or lack thereof) for the sake of another? Would one be compelled by the argument, "its the right thing to do?" Perhaps "Sid" could retort to such a claim "says who"? "Who determines what the right thing is?" Leaders might respond, "well, Sid it is your Government." Sid may note that "government is made up of humans that are just the same me", therefore, "why is their opinion more authoritative than mine?" "Oh Sid," the leaders might reply, "society clearly believes that this is the right thing to do" (in the case of the health care law, this is not true, but for the sake of argument we continue int his line of thought). Sid might similarly respond, "yes, but society is made up of humans, just like me, so why is their opinion any greater in importance than mine?" Thus, not only is it ignorant to demand generosity, it is equally silly to attempt to motivate it through human opinion.
No, true generosity comes from a heart that has learn to be forbearing. A "give or else," generosity, is neither benevolent or fair, but tyrannical. To be sure, people will give, but not generously. Such an approach is misguided at best, and dishonest at worst. To be forced to give to a cause, no matter how noble, is akin to saying "you will give, so you may as well like it and feel good about yourself". What is interesting in all of this is the fact that many people seem unwillingly to give to this noble cause. However, I would posit that many people are unwilling because they do not have the proper motive. Motivation born from fear leads to rebellion, but motivation born of love leads to transformation. It is interesting that our society, similar to societies of the past has sought to eliminate the presence of God from its midst, while at the same time seeking to preserve all that Theism (God-centeredness) provides. However, you cannot have a generous culture without a generous God. This openhanded generosity is a foreign thing to humanity. We are born with our fists clenched. It is God who teaches us to open our hands and be forbearing. How intriguing, our leaders are seeking to force us to act like Christians, but without the motivation of Jesus Christ. Could anything be more ironic?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment