Since I led the communion service at the assisted living facility last Sunday, I heard the Gospel reading of the Last Judgement three times, including proclaiming it once myself. It includes:
For I was hungry and you gave me food,
I was thirsty and you gave me drink,
a stranger and you welcomed me,
naked and you clothed me,
ill and you cared for me,
in prison and you visited me.'
Then the righteous will answer him and say,
'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you,
or thirsty and give you drink?
When did we see you a stranger and welcome you,
or naked and clothe you?
When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?'
And the king will say to them in reply,
'Amen, I say to you, whatever you did
for one of the least brothers of mine, you did for me.'
What strikes me is how personal this is. Jesus doesn’t ask us to fund facilities to see that people’s needs are addressed. Jesus is calling us to, indeed stating that our eternal lives are dependent on, actually feeding, clothing, sheltering, and visiting the lest among us. An honest examination of conscience reveals that promoting welfare spending, or throwing some money toward soup kitchens, does not discharge me of this duty.
As our Inboxes fill with Giving Tuesday appeals, and scandals have brought increased scrutiny to the Effective Altrusim movement, it’s worth considering what we accomplish by giving.
I think most people in the Effective Altruism are sincere, and are motivated by a desire to maximize the amount of good they are doing. Freddie de Boer notes that their beneficial observations are obvious
but I think their witness has raised awareness that, to pick the easiest example, say, buying mosquito nets is likely to produce more good than giving to Harvard, and have pushed more accountability to charities in how they spend their money and donors in ensuring they are giving to improve lives rather than raise their status.
The problem I see with the movement is arrogance in thinking that they have found a solution to the problem of corruption in the charitable world. That they have reduced charity to a solvable math problem that we can all simply execute.
The very existence of an Effective Altruism community bears this out. It acknowledges that giving is something that is done in the context of a community, not as individuals executing a formula. Otherwise, it would just be a website.
And it’s also true that there is no magical fairy that turns money into mosquito nets. We have to give people money, and trust that those people are going to (efficiently) use it to buy and distribute mosquito nets. Along the way, there is plenty of room for mischief from unscrupulous people, as we have seen. And there is also the problem that if you are convinced that you have special knowledge of the best way to allocate money to do the most good, then a logical result is that you should have as much money as possible.
To again, quote Jesus, the poor will always be with us. Our charitable giving is not going to solve poverty, or climate change, or war, or anything else. It can make a difference; it can alleviate suffering; it can save lives, and all these things are worth doing. But it’s also important that we connect with each other, and with those who we aim to serve, even if that means we are less than maximally efficient.