James Whitford
Founder & CEO
Read more from James

Listen to this article:

Check out True Charity Ennoble on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.

The Truth about Panhandling

Just about all of us have encountered panhandlers with a sign that reads, “Anything helps.” 

But is that true? Does anything help?

Years ago, Kenny came off the streets to our shelter and while searching through his backpack, we came across a 12” x 12” piece of cardboard containing four messages he used while standing on the center median at stoplights. 

If the cardboard was folded in one particular way, it read, “Hungry, blesst are you,” which he used if someone seemed willing to give him cash with no questions asked. If folded another way, it said, “Food stamps, ½ price.” That was for motorists he thought were looking to make a deal. 

If you looked compassionate and sappy-hearted, he flashed, “Cold, wet, and cast out for nearly a month.” Finally, serious “just give me the facts” types saw, “Traveling, lost ID, need work, God bless.”

Obviously, utilizing one piece of cardboard to create four unique messages means Kenny is very intelligent. But his dishonest tactics also mean it’s worth thinking more carefully about how we “help” panhandlers.

Why Giving Cash Often Does More Harm

That need is even more acute when one considers at least two studies indicate around ninety percent of panhandlers are addicted. Since those studies relied on self-reporting, that number is probably higher. If you’re like us, knowing there’s more than a ninety percent chance the cash we hand someone will feed an addiction means it’s time to rethink the way we’re giving. 

Along those lines, in Renewing American Compassion, Marvin Olasky  says Jesus’ words that whatever we do for the least of these brothers of His, we do for Him (Matthew 25:40) should challenge us to ask: Is giving money to panhandlers they in turn use to buy drugs akin to sticking heroin in Jesus’ veins?

That’s sobering. And it leads to the obvious conclusion that just anything doesn’t help.

What Actually Does? 

Here are three things we can do to assist someone from life on the streets to a life of self-sufficiency:

• First, remember incentives. Paying someone to stand on a corner only incentivizes standing on a corner, so we shouldn’t hand out money. It’s far better to create a card with a list of ministries or services committed to the appropriate kind of help and hand that out. It may not be what the panhandler wants at the moment — but if we give it with sincere encouragement, at some point they may pull it out and realize it’s just what they need.  
• Second, we can take them up on their offer. A common panhandling sign reads, “Will work for food.” We should put that to the test by considering how to employ that person. It can be as simple as asking them to help us wash our car or pick up trash in the area. We can also invite them to a nearby fast food restaurant to get to know them and discern what their true needs are. 
• Third, we can get our community on board. If we’re bothered by panhandlers’ suffering, we should consider how to motivate our community to do something about it. By engaging in one-on-one conversations with community leaders, pastors, and others involved in poverty alleviation, we can help change the narrative around poverty and truly help those stuck on street corners.

We’re happy to report Kenny finally escaped the streets. Giving up a life of panhandling was certainly part of that. If we will think about incentives, offer work to those who need it, and get our communities on board to do the same, today can be another day we go out there, fight poverty — and win. 

James Whitford is co-founder and executive director of Watered Gardens Ministries in Joplin, Mo. and True Charity, which exists to champion the resurgence of civil society in the fight against poverty. He is also the author of “The Crisis of Dependency.

Ready to empower others to move from unhealthy dependency to flourishing? Learn to practice effective, Biblical compassion on our YouTube Channel. 

BETHANY HERRON
Vice President of Education
Read more from Bethany

Listen to this article:

Check out True Charity Ennoble on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.

This article was originally published with the Institute for Faith & Culture.

Learn more about True Charity here.

Nathan Mayo
Vice President of Operations & Programs
Read more from Nathan

Listen to this article:

Check out True Charity Ennoble on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.

As a booster of civil society, I believe that whenever possible, uplifting the poor is better left to their family, friends, and communities. In addition, while I affirm the superiority of voluntary action, I believe every person has an inescapable moral obligation to help the poor.

At first glance, the latter point seems to contradict my first point. If serving the poor is that high an obligation, shouldn’t it be enshrined in law like the moral obligation to care for our children or not murder our neighbor?

To answer that, we must examine the state’s capacity to enforce moral obligations.

That starts with the belief that, as created beings, our lives are not our own. God created us with moral obligations (also called duties). Some duties are unique to our situation; for instance, our duty to honor our parents. Likewise, if we have children, it’s our duty to provide for them. Other obligations are universal. Examples include the cultivation and preservation of the environment for future generations and our duty to assist people in need, to the degree we can.

In our era, it is far more popular to talk about rights (i.e., protections or provisions we are owed) than duties. But without duties even the most fundamental rights cannot be implemented. For instance, a child’s right to life, liberty, and property is of no use if his parents abandon him to the elements at birth. If you have a right to property, then others must have a duty to respect it. To put it another way, all genuine rights are the other side of someone else’s duties.

Ironically, those who contend that expansive rights eliminate the need for personal responsibility quickly discover their system relies heavily on the state’s assumption of duty for their vision to succeed. For example, universal basic income only works if the state sees providing money to citizens as its duty. And unless the fond hopes of material abundance promised by AI-boosters come to pass, the state would only have resources to give if most citizens feel duty bound to continue working rather than spend more time fishing.

That affirms what many in the charity space have discovered: When people fail to do their duty voluntarily, others suffer. If no adoptive family fulfills their duty to the less fortunate, abandoned children are forced into a revolving foster care arrangement. And even if a child is adopted, while he may grow to love his adopters, he may never fully recover from the years of neglect he suffered before being taken in. While both arrangements are better than abandonment, they’re not nearly as good as if his parents had done their duty in the first place.

Yes, the government occasionally enforces moral duties, such as the duty to not murder (an inverse of the right to life) or a parent’s duty to send a child to school. However, the state is limited as to which duties it can effectively enforce. It can require specific, tangible actions. But it cannot mandate mental states, relationships, or anything approximating love.

What happens if it attempts to do so? Let’s say a law mandates that all citizens honor their mothers by buying them birthday cards. Without doubt, some cards—and the motives behind them—would be genuine and heartfelt. Yet equally without doubt, the mandate would diminish many mothers’ perception of their children’s sincerity—and therefore the card’s value.

And it would only be a matter of time until a well-intentioned bureaucrat observed it would be much more efficient to forgo individual enforcement and just have the government write and send the cards on the children’s behalf. Many who never cared to write cards might be happy it’s being done for them.

After a while, it would be expected—and a second generation of children would grow up thinking filial gratitude was an essential function of government. Why bother crafting crayon creations when a nice government card is on the way? Eventually, legislators would dismiss the idea that the market and civil society should provide cards, seeing it as a pipe dream from a bygone era.

Despite the self-evident foolishness of mandating love, the current regime of state-sponsored “charity” attempts to do just that. But as the card illustration shows, while material aid can be transferred by force, it will never be attended by the heartfelt concern and relational capital that accompanies genuine charity.

Such charity refines the character because it expands our capacity for compassion, love, and mercy through subsidiarity—that is, aid rendered by those closest to the situation who can also provide the non-monetary things that the poor need. These tailored and personal interventions include encouragement, a listening ear, skills coaching, useful connections, and economic opportunities. It is better morally, and it and works better practically. Food stamps are a poor substitute for a food co-op, employer connection, and a church community. Public welfare is like a stale crust of bread: Enough to sustain you, but not enough to nourish you.

Some good things can only exist at the person-to-person level. To institutionalize them drains them of their moral power. As Illich expounded in his assessment of the Good Samaritan, the state can aid the man who fell among the thieves, but the state cannot be his neighbor. While this leaves open the possibility that the state is well intentioned, and even achieves some positive effect, it can never fulfill our duty to love our neighbors.

If we shirk our duty to love our own neighbors, a vicious cycle ensues. The dysfunction of poverty leads to voters demanding that lawmakers, “Do Something.” “Something” inevitably results in some new program that assuages voters’ guilt with a slick sound bite—but condemns the poor to assistance as impersonal as a block of government cheese.

And yet, a positive cycle is just as possible. When more individuals take it upon themselves to dine with the down-and-out, fewer people in need will cling to public assistance as their only lifeline. This cycle is worth the pursuit and requires us to bring out our best dishes as we inform Uncle Sam that he no longer needs to bring the stale (and very expensive) bread to the party.

Indeed, a call for less government provision is not a call for a more selfish society but for a more generous one. Without question, voluntary charity is best—but only if we understand it as an essential duty.

This article was previously published by Front Porch Republic.

Image Credit: Eugène Delacroix, “The Good Samaritan” (1852) via Wikipedia.

James Whitford
Founder & CEO
Read more from James

Listen to this article:

Check out True Charity Ennoble on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.

What Is the Principle of Affiliation?

“What’s really going on here?”

If you’re like me, you ask that question often. Too many times, people at our mission approach me with a need — and a story — and as I begin to ask other questions, it doesn’t take long before I’m asking that one. 

“Who knows what’s going on?” is just as important. 

The answer is “someone who really knows that person.” That’s why, before we help someone, we practice affiliation, which is finding out who might be more knowledgeable about the situation and have more responsibility to help. Failing to do so means we risk missing the mark of accurate charity and disrupting the right order of relationships that should exist in any healthy society. To learn more, visit university.truecharity.us.

Affiliation and Subsidiarity Go Hand-in-Hand

Affiliation in effective charity is closely tied to the Catholic social teaching called subsidiarity which means matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest, or least-centralized competent authority. In other words, before a local mission steps into help, has the person’s immediate family done their part? Before the government steps in, has the local mission rendered assistance, etc?

When larger, more centralized forms of charity step in, rightful responsibility and better forms can be pushed out. The tough part is we don’t always know when that’s happened — which is why asking the right questions is so important. 

A Real Story of Affiliation and Subsidiarity in Action

Let me share an example: John sat at my desk, telling me his need and his story. And yes, I thought to myself, “What’s really going on here?” That led to another question: “Where’s your family? Do you have parents who are alive, [John]?” He said his mother lived in California, they hadn’t been in touch for years, and assured me she wouldn’t want to talk to him.

I asked if he had her phone number. He didn’t. I asked if he recalled where she lived. He did, so I looked her up in the white pages and found the number. I asked his permission to call her. He agreed and moments later, I was on the phone telling her he was sitting right across from me.

Then the magic happened.

She asked to speak with him. I wish you could have seen him as I handed over the phone and watched him say, “Mom? …”  While I don’t remember the conversation, the result was amazing. Two weeks later, his sister flew in from California, stood in the foyer of our mission in southwest Missouri, embraced her long-lost brother … and took him home.

John was a chronically homeless man who came to our mission with some basic needs. Convinced he’d permanently burned the bridge to his family, he had no thought of asking them for help. With a little advocacy — and with regard for subsidiarity — the employment of affiliation paid off. 

To be realistic, that doesn’t always happen. Yet there are many times it does, which means our first act of aid should be to call upon closer relationships to render help.

Three Practical Steps You Can Take to Apply This Principle Today

1. When you engage someone in need, ask “Who’s most closely affiliated with this person?”
2. Investigate by asking questions like, “Where’s your family? Do you have a church? Do you have a friend who’s helped you before?”
3. Make a call. It can help you understand more and … who knows? It might result in an amazing moment of reconciliation.

Now let’s go out there today, fight poverty, and win.

Want to make your charity efforts more effective? Learn more about True Charity’s proven principles by following the Ennoble Podcast on your favorite listening platform. 

BETHANY HERRON
Vice President of Education
Read more from Bethany

Listen to this article:

Check out True Charity Ennoble on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.

It’s no secret — something has to change in poverty alleviation. 

• Homelessness rose 12% from 2022 to 2024.
• 57,000 unhoused families in the U.S. have at least one child under 18.
• One in three Americans depend on at least one government assistance program.

Not to mention:

• Two-thirds of adults making under $50,000 a year are lonely.
• 16.7% of Americans over 12 struggle with addiction.

If you’re anything like me, this reality is incredibly discouraging — especially when the government spends over $1 trillion a year trying to solve these complex problems.

But no amount of funding alone can solve the brokenness ravaging our nation. That’s because poverty involves more than physical and financial issues. It’s about real people (made in the image of God) with real stories, designed for relationships and created with the capacity to use their hands to care for one another, their families, and the world.

In other words, we’ve missed the mark. As our nation’s leadership considers withdrawing funding from many welfare programs, civil society has a unique opportunity to course correct by harnessing the vast potential of voluntary associations that form schools, churches, and community organizations.

Voluntary associations alone, however – when not coupled with virtue – have the potential to do great harm. Examples include:

• The Salem Witch Trials of 1692
• The social punishment of divorced women in the 19th and 20th Century 
• McCarthy Era Blacklisting
• The lynching of black Americans in the 1900s

These are just a few of the many times in history where voluntary associations led to tremendous injustice instead of good. 

In addition to considering civil society’s failures, we must remember the change in economic climate that occurred over the centuries. 

Prior to 1900 …

Poverty was rampant, especially in rural areas. As rural workers moved to cities in search of opportunity, urban poverty surged. 

Meanwhile, social class distinctions led to exploitation of the poor during a period of immense industrialization. 

Despite such failures, in some urban areas care for the poor was successfully handled by local government and private charities. In these areas, communal bonds were strong, and caring for one’s neighbor was deemed important. 

According to Marvin Olasky, this era was marked by these seven principles of   effective charity: 

• Affiliation: Whenever possible, support an individual’s natural relationships. 
• Bonding: Build healthy relationships with those we serve. 
• Categorization: Assess a person’s uniqueness and willingness to be part of their solution. 
• Discernment: Combine compassion with wisdom to determine the best form of help.
• Employment (or Exchange): Whenever possible, partner with individuals so they earn what they need.
• Freedom: Choose interventions that empower individuals to create their own solutions. Charity that enslaves is no help at all.
• God: Understand the spiritual factors that drive poverty and encourage restoration through an active faith in Christ. 

Even then, charity was not perfect; hunger was rampant due to lack of both social and economic resources. Still, pockets of success marked by these seven principles demonstrated charitable care can work well. 

During the Progressive Era (1897–1920) …

The state took on more responsibility for the working poor, widows, single mothers, and children — even though middle-class incomes rose. Communal responsibility began to shift away from communities.

In the Great Depression (1929–1939) …

State-led charity collapsed. Roosevelt’s federal programs provided aid, further weakening local bonds. The West became more self-focused and continued to lose sight of local, relationship-driven charity.

Finally, when the War on Poverty was initiated in the 1960s …

President Lyndon B. Johnson expanded welfare programs like Medicaid, Medicare, food stamps, and urbanization initiatives. On the surface, poverty declined, but dependency on government welfare rose — indicating freedom from poverty was not truly present. 

Meanwhile, community responsibility eroded and those in need became increasingly reliant on government aid — which has continued to expand over the last 50 years. Now, with threats of these programs being pulled back, many are in an uproar over the alleged abandonment of those in need. Even some Christians are concerned we’re violating the biblical command to care for the poor. 

Where do we go from here?

Amidst charitable care’s changing landscape, we stand at a crossroads. Will we grab hold of historic principles of effective charity — or continue to cheer on distant, ineffective, and many times harmful welfare programs?

Tocqueville, the 19th-century French political philosopher, would give us this guidance: “Among democratic nations, all citizens are independent and weak; they can achieve almost nothing by themselves. … Therefore, they sink into a state of impotence if they do not learn to help each other voluntarily.” 

That means we must turn our eyes off ourselves, restore virtue, and re-learn the art of voluntarily linking arms for the good of our friends, families, neighbors, and community. 

It’s time for a resurgence of civil society — where churches, schools, and community groups work hand-in-hand to understand the poor’s complex situation and bring their experience, ideas, and interests together to meet the needs of the community. 

Where do we start? Again, Tocqueville instructs us, “The only way opinions and ideas can be renewed, hearts enlarged, and human minds developed is through the reciprocal influence of men upon each other.”  In other words, we start together. 

Let’s embrace our responsibility as civil society to link arms once again in the fight against poverty!

Learn more about True Charity here.

Jon Barrett

Executive Director of CVCCS
Guest Contributor

Listen to this article:

Check out True Charity Ennoble on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.

As a local non-profit ministry on the front lines, CVCCS (and our colleagues in other organizations) are in a unique position to observe a dramatic shift in the emotional and mental health of the people we serve — so much so that it’s arguably the most pressing need we face in addressing poverty. And candidly, there are no easy fixes, blanket approaches, or government policies that will make things right. 

To be very clear, not everyone in poverty struggles with mental or emotional issues. Indeed, poverty’s root issues are always unique to each situation.

That said, the extreme number of cases we’ve observed have more to do with relief being offered as the remedy when relief is not what’s really needed. Indeed, organizations practicing charity must be very careful not to miscategorize someone’s need and therefore misapply the solution.

Relief is designed to meet an urgent need ONLY. It is temporary and not meant as a long-term fix. Keeping multitudes in perpetual relief has failed to address the root causes of poverty and is why we are facing chronic homelessness issues.

It has also caused an epidemic of dependency. Root causes have been pushed aside in favor of “meeting needs,” bringing us to a breaking point when it comes to offering appropriate aid for emotional and mental health issues.

Therefore, if we ignore root issues any longer it will be to our peril. We must recognize the practice of true charity means moving away from doing something for someone to working with them. As such, we must seek to lead others in going back in order to go forward.

What do I mean? Well, no one is exempt from unhealthy emotional patterns and behaviors learned from our families. (That’s even true of those raised in the healthiest homes). Thus, the issue no one talks about is the grave number of unhealthy, generational cycles where people repeat the messages, patterns, and scripts (the procedure for how to handle things) passed down to them from their families. These are root issues that, if not dealt with in a healthy manner, lead to destructive behaviors.

In Nehemiah 9:22-31, the people of Israel were compelled to examine how they ended up in captivity. It led them on a journey of deep exploration into their family of origin so they could unearth and remedy destructive emotional and behavioral cycles. This brief overview will help you identify what those were:

After God blessed them, verse 26 describes what took place next: 

“Nevertheless, they (Israel’s prior generations) were disobedient and rebelled against You and cast Your Law behind their back and killed Your prophets, who had warned them in order to turn them back to You, and they committed great blasphemies.”

In other words, there was disobedience, rebellion, murder, idolatry, pride, and blasphemy (among other things) in their family of origin. Do you think these things affected generations to follow?

Eventually, the people were brought to a place of honesty about themselves and their past. Continue reading in chapter 9 and we see they were prompted to go back in order to go forward: “… for You have dealt faithfully and we have acted wickedly. Our kings, our princes, our priests, and our fathers have not kept Your Law or paid attention to Your commandments and Your warnings that You gave them.” (9:33-34)

Israel’s keen awareness of negative generational cycles led them to first take responsibility for themselves. It wasn’t about blaming, bashing their families, or playing the victim. Rather, they wanted to learn from their past so they could mature in the present.

Doing the hard, inner work of going back to go forward takes deep contemplation — yet those we help can be confident God’s grace is waiting there. The Israelites came to realize that; in Nehemiah 9:38 we see that confidence fueled their commitment to go back to go forward: “Because of all this we make a firm covenant in writing; on the sealed document are the names of our princes, our Levites, and our priests.”

Likewise, as those in non-profit work, we must gently guide the people we serve in the process of emotional integration. That’s why building relationships is so key to effective charity.

Here are some helpful questions to start with in helping others recognize what is deep under the surface:

1. How were conflict, anger, and disagreements handled in your family of origin? How do you deal with those things now?
2. How did your family of origin define “success?”  How do you define it?
3. What generational patterns or themes were present in your family or origin? How do those impact who you are now?
4. What traumatic losses did your family experience when you were growing up? How have those losses affected who you are today?
5. What unhealthy scripts are you still carrying from your family of origin?

Awareness brings freedom. Yet unless we’re willing to dive deep under the surface with those we serve, our approach will continue ignoring root issues and leave them stuck where they’re at. At CVCCS, we believe people are much more than mouths to feed and bodies to clothe. Ensuring we are really helping is more important than simply having a benevolent heart.

FROM THE TRUE CHARITY TEAM: We appreciate the perspective of our knowledgeable guest contributors. However, their opinions are their own, and do not necessarily represent positions of True Charity in all respects.

The True Charity Network exists to help you learn, connect, and influence in the realm of effective charity.  Learn more about the Network here.

Already a member? Get access to all of your benefits through the member portal.

Listen to this article:

Check out True Charity Ennoble on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.

Ancient philosophers and early church fathers collectively identified seven key virtues as indispensable to human interaction and flourishing: Prudence, Justice, Fortitude, Temperance, Faith, Hope, and Charity. They emanated from the belief that God, the ultimate moral authority, was their source and that absolute morality was grounded only in Him. In some sense, distinguishing virtues is similar to parsing colors in a rainbow. I.e., while they are a continuous spectrum with naturally blurry boundaries, categorizing seven colors (with subsets of shade, as needed) provides a framework to delineate differences and provide a means of expression. 

Over the centuries — and most notably, in recent times — vigorous debate has ensued about whether justice or charity is the most seminal for poverty alleviation. The fiercest disputes occur when both sides believe they are on the side of the angels. But since zeal doesn’t necessarily correlate with correctness, we need to dig deeper than slogans. To ensure promotion of the right solutions for the right reasons, we need a clear picture of the difference between the two. And further, whether they can be employed harmoniously to propel those in need to a flourishing life.

At True Charity, we value our eponymous virtue. A century ago, charity was a synonym of “love,” meaning “to will the good of the other.” These days, “charity” has the more specific meaning of “voluntary aid rendered to people in need.” This shift is not a problem because both are needed; our conviction is that the modern sense of “charity” is a natural expression of love.

But even as we uphold charity as a necessary expression of love, we know it alone will not lead to a flourishing society. Other virtues are essential. For instance, people who intend to be generous, but lack self-control, will find they have very little left to share with those in need. People who receive generosity, but lack wisdom, may squander their newfound opportunities.

Which brings us to justice. Western philosophers encapsulated its meaning with the Latin phrase suum cuique: “to each his own.” This assumes people have some tangible and intangible assets (like homes and free speech) that are rightly theirs and others should respect their ownership. Precisely what these assets (or “rights”) are can be hotly debated, but logic dictates that they must be grounded in a universal moral source (such as God) to be anything more than personal preference.

In this telling, justice is primarily concerned with preventing and reversing exploitation. Usage of the Hebrew word “mishpat” (“justice”) in Scripture affirms that. Verses addressing justice in the context of vulnerable groups like widows and orphans, describe refraining from oppression or intervening to stop it. For instance:

Isaiah 10:1-2 says, “Woe to those who decree iniquitous decrees, and the writers who keep writing oppression, to turn aside the needy from justice and to rob the poor of my people of their right, that widows may be their spoil, and that they may make the fatherless their prey!”

Jeremiah 22:3 reads, “Thus says the Lord: Do justice and righteousness, and deliver from the hand of the oppressor him who has been robbed. And do no wrong or violence to the resident alien, the fatherless, and the widow, nor shed innocent blood in this place.”

Thus, our conviction is charity and justice should be seen side-by-side and stems from the premise that not all good things are “rights.” Rights can be procured by justice, which often involves the use of force through self-defense or legal protection. Charity goes beyond merely giving people what they are entitled to. In one apt synopsis of how the relationship works at the individual level: “charity leads us to help our neighbor in his need out of our own stores, while justice teaches us to give to another what belongs to him.” In other words, justice is a minimum, achievable standard for interaction with others. Charity has no definite upper bound, since you can always love or assist someone to a greater degree.

Some poverty doubtless stems from injustice, and in many cases, exploitation is the majority cause of regional poverty. This is most apparent in cultural systems like apartheid, kleptocracy, slavery, feudalism, or caste. In other cases, injustice-induced poverty results from negligence rather than malice. For instance, medical malpractice or drunk driving could both harm and lead a victim to poverty. In another instance, a malformed attempt at private charity or a government policy could harm instead of help, leaving victims in its wake. In any event, ending such abuse and providing restitution is the unflinching demand of Lady Justice. 

But even if all humans treat each other fairly, intelligence, cultural inheritance, natural disasters, birth year, location, whether one’s grandparents made good life choices, physical health, and more can play into our ability to prosper. In the race of life, not everyone starts from the same line — and that can’t always be attributed to nefarious oppression. In other situations, a sorry state results from poor choices despite advantages, such as when the prodigal son squandered his ample inheritance and found himself eating pig slop as his just desert (Luke 15:11-16). Further, even when poor outcomes are due to exploitation (such as child abuse) just restitution of a lost childhood isn’t something that can be reclaimed from the abuser. In other words, traditional justice, with its focus on ending oppression, is inadequate to lift all people from poverty and suffering.

Some propose the solution is “social justice.” That is, expanding justice to include equal outcomes — or at least an equal starting line —enforced by law through wealth and income redistribution. However, such proposals inevitably concentrate dangerous amounts of power in the hands of a few who arbitrate and “handicap” “runners” based on where they start the race. The materialist assumptions of this framework tend to ignore that relationships also matter to one’s life outcomes and satisfaction. Indeed, there are very few proposals to redistribute parents and siblings (though Karl Marx promoted eliminating family altogether).

We also observe that when fully implemented, the primary effect of that system is that no one runs their best race. It therefore drastically shrinks the economic and social pie and anywhere it is tried, breeds bitter contention rather than utopia.

A better solution is effective charity fueled by compassion. It involves recognizing that unlike a race, life is not a zero-sum game. Those further ahead, running their best race, have a loving responsibility to compassionately share with those who started further back. This time-tested, proven approach will not equalize all outcomes but will maximize them, allowing every person to flourish meaningfully.

That blueprint will still give rise to wide-ranging discussion on the appropriate application of justice and charity in a given case. Yet distinguishing the two firmly establishes the need for both as partner virtues en route to a world where the will of Him in Heaven is better done on earth. In that world, we will find a recommitment to justice and a revival of compassionate charity.

The True Charity Network exists to help you learn, connect, and influence in the realm of effective charity.  Learn more about the Network here.

Already a member? Get access to all of your benefits through the member portal.