Recently in Faith, Hope, Charity Category

And so, to the doctors of death, we proclaim, "Screw off!"

It borders on evil when we are so engrossed in ourselves that we refuse to take a moment to help a hit and run victim. Yet this is precisely what several Connecticutians (or, would it be Connecticites?) did last Friday. I saw the video on Fox News Channel while channel surfing for a few minutes last Friday night. Pedestrians ignored the man lying in the street. Drivers slowed down, but only to maneuver past him. There were two calls to 911 shortly after the man was hit, but the video shows that the two people who called were outnumbered by the people who ignored the victim.

We have either lost sight of what it means to "love thy neighbor," or we never had the vision in the first place. This fact is reflected not only in passers-by ignoring the hit and run victim but also in the responses of people we do help. Recently, I have had two occasions to help people jump start their cars: yesterday at the university bookstore and a few months ago at the city dump. The guy at the bookstore asked, "How much do I owe you?" The lady at the dump had a similar response: "Let me pay you for your time." My answer to the guy at the bookstore was, "Nothing." My response to the old lady was, "Absolutely not!" I understand their gratitude for receiving help—I have been in similar situations. But their felt need to offer money speaks to the overwhelming focus of society on me and my time. Because they perceived that they took my time, they felt they needed to pay me for it, as if for services rendered. If I drove a wrecker, I would expect payment, but I'm just an ordinary guy offering to help. I freely gave my time. They did not take it.

A few years ago Oprah Winfrey made "random acts of kindness" popular. I would argue that calculated acts of charity are far better. By charity I do not necessarily mean making tax-deductible donations to the local food pantry, although it is admirable to donate to charitable organizations regardless of whether we receive tax deductions. But what I am talking about is the virtue of charity. In his first letter to the Corinthians Paul writes about three great virtues. These days they are translated out of the Greek as "faith, hope and love" (1 Cor. 13:13, NIV). In the original Greek, they are pistis, elpis, and agape which are more forceful terms than our English equivalents. For instance, pistis and elpis imply conviction and anticipation, respectively (Strong's Dictionary s.v. 4102, 1680). For agape, most older English translations use "charity." "Love" is not a bad translation, but agape implies something very different than our modern notions of love. The love we see on prime time teen dramas is mainly attraction, desire, pleasurable feelings—in other words, romantic love. The Greek for romantic love is eros and it has an important place in the Christian life, directed not only toward our spouses but toward God as well (see Peter Kreeft: "Is There Sex In Heaven?"). Agape, however, is the ultimate love. It implies a giving of the self, a commitment of the will to the well-being of another. Agape is the word Jesus uses when he gives the two great commandments in Matthew 22:37–39 and when he elaborates on them in Matthew 25:31–46. Oprah's "kindness" doesn't quite live up to that.

Supposing that we replace kindness with charity, would "random acts of charity" be okay? Not really. "Random" implies that I can be charitable only if I feel like it. If I decide at random to whom I give help and from whom I withhold help, the charity is still about me and whether I want to help. That is not charity—not agape. When James expounds on the second great commandment, to love your neighbor as yourself, he says "My brothers, as believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ, don't show favoritism.... If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, 'Love your neighbor as yourself,' you are doing right. But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers" (Jas. 2:1, 8–9, NIV). So, random kindness does not live up to calculated charity.

The Fox News story quotes Hartford, CT police chief Daryl Roberts as saying that the hit and run incident shows that "We no longer have a moral compass." Natural law philosophers would disagree (see J. Budziszewski: What We Can't Not Know). We have not lost our moral compass—we just ignore it. Natural law says that there are some things we can't not know. We can't not know that it is wrong to refuse to help a man who has been hit by a car. We can't not know that we need to help the guy whose car won't start. We can't not know that it is wrong to ignore the plight of others simply because my time is more important. We can't not know these things, but we choose to ignore our responsibility to the needs of others, very much like the priest and the Levite who walked right by the man who "fell into the hands of robbers" (Luke 10:30ff., NIV). We may not always have opportunity to help a hit and run victim, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, or visit those in prison. However, we may have opportunity to jump start someone's car. But those of us who refuse to act in charity "will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life" (Matt. 25:46, NIV).