[phaus]

Not sure if it was the case for Chuck, but a small percentage Christians strongly believe that charity should be anonymous because it actually says as much in the bible.

I'm not a Christian myself and definitely not rich at all, but I do prefer anonymous donations.

[wolfhumble]

Matthew 6, 1-4 (NIV):

1 “Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.

2 “So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 3 But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4 so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

[Guthur]

And Islam has similar, one of people that will be given shade on the day of judgement.

“…A man who gives in charity and hides it, such that his left hand does not know what his right hand gives in charity; and a man who remembered Allah in private and so his eyes shed tears.” (Abu Hurairah & collected in Saheeh al-Bukhari (English trans.) vol.1, p.356, no.629 & Saheeh Muslim (English trans.) vol.2, p.493, no.2248)

[superhuzza]

It's kind of sad how it's framed in those passages - Give in secret, or God will notice and hold back some of those heavenly rewards.

As if the whole thing is just a karmic ponzi scheme.

[TimTheTinker]

A Christian theologian would explain it this way: the point is what rewards the giver is seeking, because that is what reveals what’s in their heart as they do the outward action of giving. As one author observes, “The worth and excellency of a soul is determined by the object of its love.”

A gift given in secret is seeking the rewards truly worth having: the praise that comes from God. Those who seek that find it, because they loved what was truly worthy of love. But gifts given for others to see are seeking a reward on earth, not heaven—and that’s what they get. Either way, they’re not penalized if, say, the word gets out against their wishes. That’s not the point: God knows and judges the heart and rewards them based on what they were actually seeking.

So seeking rewards is not only categorically OK, it’s actually encouraged, but with the caveat that the seeker set their heart on what is eternally worthy of their love and desire.

[IfOnlyYouKnew]

That explanation doesn't require theology. I've seen Peter Singer make the case that it's only "true altruism" if you're just as happy when someone else does something good as when you do so yourself.

[TimTheTinker]

Sort of, but the difference is that Christian altruism results in an increasing expectation of being praised and rewarded by God on the other side for being his agent of love to others in this life.

The result is a lot of joy, knowing one has brought blessing and joy both to God and to other people.

[bobthechef]

Why? It sounds like you're misunderstanding something, perhaps what "reward" means in a biblical context.

This passage teaches people not to do things for show which is what many of us do in order to gain esteem and puff up our egos, often with still further gains in mind. This leads to enslavement to our egos, the approval of others, to things, and generally our constant grasping and our desires. Such false charity is pointless; it only leads to spiritual death. Allow your good deeds to remain a secret between you and the omniscient God. Charity is not loss. True charity produces spiritual "reward" by starving the monstrous, tyrannical ego that enslaves us to death. I would go so far as to say that it is even better for the giver than the receiver. The ego is Man's idolatry, and we cannot serve two masters. Thus killing the ego frees us to worship God and to live. The ego blinds us. It is like sitting in a bus at night with the lights on. All you see in the windows is yourself. Shatter the mirror and you will be freed.

[dvt]

That’s not sad at all. There are plenty of secular reasons for doing a good deed for the sake of the deed itself — not the reward or recognition. I mean, this is basically the entire underpinning of Kantian ethics.

[superhuzza]

That's exactly my point though. I'm an atheist, and I don't do good things out of a desire for "rewards in heaven", or rewards of any kind. I don't refrain from stealing because I'm afraid of hell or punishment. As you point out, they're done for the act itself.

This passage presents altruism as a tit-for-tat deal with God. Do good, and you'll get some of that back...later. I promise! It's almost tacky.

[wolfhumble]

It is not about tit-for-tat, it is about trust. A good parent often wants to give a child something they know will please the child more than what he/she is currently experiencing. Often the child will be angry and scream and hold onto the old, but the parent knows that as soon as the child let go and embrace what the parent has prepared the child will be happy and joyful.

God is more loving that any good parent: God IS Love, 1 John 4:8. I trust God's goodness and follow Him, I therefore don't have any reason to go into a tit-for-tat deal with God.

[dvt]

> This passage presents altruism as a tit-for-tat deal with God. Do good, and you'll get some of that back...later. I promise! It's almost tacky.

Correction: the passage makes no mention of "heaven."

I don't think you mean to say "tit-for-tat" as that means something else, but I do get the gist: it seems that there's some kind of contractual obligation on the part of God. The logical argument being: if you do [GIVE], then He does [REWARD]. This is a subtle argument, but flawed for a number of reasons (and why texts should never be taken out of context).

First, God isn't beholden to anyone. He does as He pleases, and the only "laws" He is bound by is His own nature (good, omniscient, eternal, etc.). There's many examples where Pharisees try to play these logical gotcha games with Christ, and they're always repudiated.

Secondly, the point of the passage itself is twofold: (1) avoid religious hypocrisy, and (2) avoid materialistic vainglory. Reading into the text deeper than that, brings us to my last point...

Finally, given that Christianity is a theist moral system, it makes sense that the ultimate arbiter of "goodness" is God -- in my opinion, that's why Chist brings up the "reward" -- which, for all intents and purposes, might just be God's approval (who knows what that entails).

[oska]

> This passage presents altruism as a tit-for-tat deal with God.

Only by an extremely shallow reading.

[simplify]

If you think people should be 100% selfless, you're asking for too much. Even good-hearted people help for the reward of feeling good about it.

[dropit_sphere]

Milk before meat.

[avip]

Or

"He who gives charity to the poor without knowing to who, and the poor knows not from who was taken, this is a true Mitzva"

The 2nd ranked charity level. [pls excuse my poor translation]

[jamestimmins]

I think this is actually the norm amongst Christians. It just seems like the minority because by nature these folks aren't talking about it.

[theuri]

Judaism has a similar approach - anonymous charity is the highest form of giving.

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/256321/jewish...