Charity v. Generosity

How do we explain the difference between a person who demonstrates charity and a person who demonstrates generosity?

This is a question that I have had occasion to ponder recently and, almost certainly, will continue to ponder for some time to come.  The reason is that it is hard to reconcile the presence of a positive trait in a person but to recognize that there is still something missing -- as in having generosity without charity.

What is generosity?  It seems straightforward.  Isn't it just the habit of liberality in giving?  It is an inclination that manifests itself in free acts of fullness or excess.  In the best examples of generosity, a giving mindset (read:  will and spirit) accompanies the material things that are given, but this is not necessary for us legitimately to describe someone's giving as "generous."  (I realize that one may be generous with non-material things, like time, but usually we have in mind material things that are exchanged.)  Generosity perhaps is closer to benefaction than benevolence.  The latter emphasizes the role of the will in the good that is given; the former emphasizes the good thing that is provided.  Generosity, then, may for our purposes be understood as liberal benefaction.

What then about charity?  It is similar to benevolence, but it seems something more.  It entails benevolent giving, a caring while providing, to be sure; however, that "something more" also seems to include an always outward and often unlimited love and kindness.  This is what motivates the giving and animates the giver.  This love and kindness -- or lovingkindness, to use an old term -- is not merely fleeting.  It can be deeply emotional, but it is not merely an emotion.  An emotional impulse can drive an act of generosity or even, before the December 31 tax deadline, charitable giving.  These are often genuine desires to help others through a deductible monetary gift, and I do not want to be understood as denying them.  But this is not what I have in mind.

When I think of charity, I think of a mode of being, not simply of individual actions sparked by a (momentary) inclination.  It is an inner disposition, firmly possessed, that is expressed outwardly.  In the Christian moral tradition, it is an unconditional lovingkindness to God and neighbor that simultaneously reflects the lovingkindness that the individual has received from God.  It is the disposition that manifests itself in action within a community that is familiar to people through the seemingly ubiquitous wedding reading of the apostle Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, chapter 13.

Charity (Latin, caritas; Greek, agapē) in this tradition and in this context at least is a form of reciprocating, or imaging, or reflecting, God's charity/love in a way newly energized by the Spirit of the resurrected Jesus.  Paul's point seems to be that charity, in this sense, is a central fruit of the Spirit, who provides people vital union and communion with the ascended Jesus and with one other.  Redemption results in charity.

Something similar is on display in the Jewish tradition.  Redemption from slavery in Egypt was the motivation for imperatives that Israel display kindness to sojourners within its midst.  God had demonstrated lovingkindness to Israel; Israel was commanded to demonstrate lovingkindness to others.  Redemption results -- or should result -- in charity.

Yes; we confuse in today's common parlance charity with generosity.  Some of that confusion is due to the tax code itself and other secular uses of this religious sense of the term.  But why is the tax code structured in this way?  Why is it structured so as to provide an incentive to citizens to contribute to organizations that, in various senses, demonstrate charity to others?

Because at some point in the past, and apparently also still in the present, American society through its elected representatives agreed that a society is better off when charity, even in its organizational forms, is robustly practiced and supported than when it is not.  Something is gained from charity that is not gained from generosity alone.  There are, no doubt, many reasons for this.  And one may question whether the magistrate is actually supporting -- or promoting -- charity in the way I have defined it.  Behavioral modification is relatively easier than dispositional modification.  You can condition a person's actions more easily than you can alter a person's prevailing affections.   Nevertheless, it is worth noting the term that was originally (and is still) used with reference to tax deductions:  charity, not generosity.

So how should we think about charity versus generosity?  The original question with which I started is not about the Internal Revenue Code (although that is revealing).  It pertains to the manifestation in individual persons of generosity and not charity.   When we experience generosity, we are rightly grateful.  Someone has gone above and beyond in giving.  But generous giving can be cold, distant, perfunctory.  Often it is.  Therefore, when we do not experience charity along with generosity, or simply when we do not experience charity by itself, we typically feel as though something is missing.  And it is.

What is missing, among other things, is supportive solidarity and tangibly-felt well-wishes.  That which is received from a generous hand really assists, but without charity it can (though not always) seem hollow.  It can seem superficial, impersonal, without substance, lacking alignment, empathy, and confidence.  What we seek is that which is patient, kind, not envious, not boastful, not arrogant, not rude, not insistent upon its own way, not irritable, not resentful, rejoicing in truth and justice.  What we seek, in other words, is the person who has the inner disposition that manifests itself outwardly in both benefaction and benevolence.  And this person, this personal quality of charity, will bear all things, confidently await all things, and endure all things.  

Charity does this.  Generosity does not.