All religions stress the need to effectively attend to the needs of others.
Giving is not advocated for its own sake but as a way of showing selfless love
and sincere compassion to one's neighbor.

Giving is putting one's time, money, or other assets at the disposal of someone else while not asking for or expecting anything in return. It is not like selling or lending, when the buyer or borrower must, in exchange, give money or a promise for the future.

Gratuitousness is customary within a family or other small community. The father and mother freely bring in what they have or can provide. Children and other weaker members freely receive what they require. In larger groups, however, trading is the normal practice. Trying to do away with this customary system of economic relations and abolish the use of money as an instrument of exchange always ends in disastrous failure. This was the fate, for example, of a utopian attempt of this sort by the Khmer Rouge in "Democratic Kampuchea" (Cambodia).

Religions are not opposed to normal trading relations provided that the stronger party does not take advantage of the weaker's inferiority to set an unfair price. But they also greatly value selfless giving. In Buddhism, dana paramita is the first of the Six Perfections. Mosaic law demands that Jews give out one-tenth of their resources. In Islam, almsgiving is one of the five obligations Muslims must fulfill. Christians see charity as the greatest virtue, meaning by that both divine love and "works of charity," helping the needy in every possible way. "For the Church," Pope Benedict XVI says, "charity is not a kind of welfare activity which could equally well be left to others, but is a part of her nature, an indispensable expression of her very being."

Religions thus can help steer the world away from the present global situation in which the right of unlimited profit-taking and maximum possession seems to be given priority as a matter of course.

Giving in the Modern World

In today's world, where commercialization seems to prevail everywhere, giving plays a surprisingly large part. That presents be given to friends and loved ones for their weddings and birthdays, at Christmastime and on similar festive occasions, is a universal custom. Many people give money to neighbors or relatives in need or help them in other ways. Some nuns give up everything to devote their entire lives to the care of the needy. Large donations by private citizens or companies often significantly augment the amount of tax money spent by governments on culture, education, and social services. Foundations established with grants from rich people or legacies from them after they die fund medical research, finance the restoration of historic monuments and works of art, subsidize museums and institutions of higher learning, set up scholarships, and perform many other useful tasks. Major fund-raising campaigns appeal to the public's generosity for similar goals, often with great success.

Private individuals who give money in this way often enjoy tax benefits. In France, for example, half the amounts contributed to a large number of organizations with a cultural or social object is deducted from the giver's income tax. This demonstrates to what extent governments value such contributions.

Some initiatives of this sort are explicitly motivated by religious considerations. Others are not. But in all cases, they break with the current global culture of selfish individualism in a way that reflects the lasting influence of religion on many people's behavior. Religious leaders play their role by inciting believers to give generously not only to charitable institutions established within their denomination but to secular ones as well.

Religion also emphasizes that giving money is not the only thing required. Signing a check does not, after all, demand much effort. Dedicating some of one's free time in support of a worthwhile cause is perhaps even more meritorious. Wherever mere survival does not absorb the total time and energy of adult men and women, volunteer workers are found who help take care of various social needs that public institutions do not meet. They visit the sick and comfort the dying. They help the homeless, jobless poor maintain a minimum of human dignity while searching for better circumstances. They provide free tutoring to schoolchildren from impoverished backgrounds. They guide visitors in landmarks and museums. All of this, of course, is done without pay.

Some volunteers are moved by feelings of simple humanity, natural compassion, and a desire to be helpful to others. But religion is a strong motive. A reporter once followed Mother Teresa near the sick and the dying in the most destitute slums of Kolkata (Calcutta). At the end of the day, he told her: "I wouldn't do that for a million dollars." She is reported to have replied: "Neither would I, but for Jesus Christ, I do it willingly." The importance of a religious motivation is confirmed by the fact that in societies where materialism is growing and the influence of religion seems to be on the wane, volunteers are more difficult to find among young, able retired men and women who often seem to prefer more gratifying activities.

Religious Norms for True Selfless Giving

All religions stress the need to effectively attend to the needs of other human beings. Giving is not advocated for its own sake but as a way of showing actual selfless love and sincere compassion to one's neighbor. Giving must be done with kindness and, one might say, an intelligent perception of what will do the most good for the recipient.

Giving is hardly worth the name when it is, in fact, selfish, if, for example, givers hope to profit by advertising their generosity. Jesus warned against that when he said: "Let your left hand be ignorant of what your right hand is doing."

When asked "to spare a dime" by a beggar on the street, it is not enough just to fish out a coin and drop it into his extended cap without a word, without a smile, without even eye contact. True giving is not merely a way to get rid of an annoying presence while pretending to comply with the commands of one's religion. In fact, this beggar may not want money only. He may perhaps be in need even more of respect and a minimum of sympathy.

Giving a child a piece of candy just to keep the child quiet for a while and go on with one's business undisturbed has, similarly, little to do with selfless love. Children need attention, not indulgence. Besides, refusing to give them something that may be harmful to them can in no way be considered a violation of religious commands.

The need to respect the person whom one would wish to help may require a high degree of tactfulness. He or she is, for the moment, in a position of inferiority. He or she might want to show an ability to quickly get back to self-sufficiency. A loan rather than a gift may be what will take into account this important consideration.

For the same reason, there was a time when foreign aid to poorer countries took the form of loans rather than outright grants. Later developments showed this to have been a mistake. These loans and the massive indebtedness they caused made the situation of these countries worse, not better. Foreign grants, however, raise the problem of "conditionality." Donor agencies usually insist on deciding what use will be made of the funds they provide. They often prescribe also what policies should be followed by the recipient government in other areas. This is not an outright gift when the beneficiary country cannot do what it wants with the money received.

This is a difficult issue, even in relations among individuals. I do well if I give money to an inveterate gambler or drinker who asks me to help pay for a cure to get rid of addiction. A religious person must, a priori, be prepared to trust any human being. If, however, I have strong reasons to fear that the person will use my gift for indulging his or her vice, I would do better by giving nothing directly and paying the unpaid rent to the person's landlord, so that the person concerned and his or her family can avoid the risk of being thrown out of their home.

Developing countries would often wish to spend the proceeds of foreign grants for other purposes than those prescribed by the donors. In some cases, indeed, local authorities know what their people require better than foreign aid institutions. In other cases, unfortunately, donors are right to suspect the honesty of their local partners. One possible solution to this dilemma is an open and public negotiation between donor agencies and a regional group of developing countries. Such a discussion may result in a common understanding of what is really needed and can form the basis of an agreement satisfactory to both parties.

Giving aid to poorer developing countries is, in any case, something that religions must ceaselessly urge, reminding governments in richer countries of the commitments they announce and too often ignore later.

A recent example is the declaration issued in Sapporo on July 3, 2008, by one hundred high-level religious leaders representing all major religions and all regions in the world on the eve of the summit meeting of the eight major economic powers. They said: "We request the G8 Summit to take leadership to ensure the achievement of the MDGs [Millennium Development Goals], including delivery on the Gleneagles aid quantity and quality promises, particularly reaching the goal of 0.7 percent of Gross National Income for Official Development Assistance."

Opportunity for Multireligious Cooperation

A group of senior religious leaders representing the World Conference of Religions for Peace delivered this text to the Japanese prime minister in his capacity as host and chairman of the G8 Summit in Hokkaido. Many readers of Dharma World know about this important multireligious organization, of which Rev. Nikkyo Niwano was one of the founders. Religions for Peace, on this occasion, made a strong appeal to rich countries for increasing their giving to people in need in poorer countries.

This appeal is based not on political considerations but on a set of moral values that all religions share and are willing to proclaim together. This is how the Sapporo declaration puts it: "We are united in our commitment to peace, which includes our concern for the inviolable dignity of all people the dire suffering of so many, and the well-being of our shared Earth. . . . Action by all governments, civil society, private sector, religious communities, and--in the final analysis--every member of the human family is required to advance the common good. . . . We are united in the conviction that all religions obligate their followers to work for justice among all peoples and to care for one another and our common home, the earth."

This is clearly an appeal for giving, as described above, in the broadest sense of the word. Giving is presented as a major contribution to world peace. It is a way to overcome some of the intolerable situations that feed rebellion. It helps people to get used to cooperation rather than resorting to the desperate choice of fighting.

This appeal is remarkable also for describing the duty to give as universal in two different ways. Everyone is called to give and to give to everyone. One's generosity must not be reserved to members of one's particular community. Giving must transcend all borders, national, cultural, ethnic, or religious. What senior leaders of all major religions in the world had in mind is the entire human race. They emphasized its unity and the brotherly love that must prevail over all divisions by referring to it as "the human family."

Multireligious cooperation is capable also of making giving more effective. In the Sapporo declaration, representative figures of all religions noted that "collectively, our religious communities are the world's largest social networks, which reach into the farthest corners of the earth and include countless institutions dedicated to caring for people." Pooling these facilities in mixed towns or villages can be most useful. It helps reduce the tensions between communities. It is welcomed by potential donors who would hesitate to subsidize competing establishments.

The spirit of giving is needed today more than ever before. Religions can help to keep it alive and fortify it. Spreading it to the coming generations should be a major concern of anyone concerned with education.

From 1984 to 1994, Jacqueline Rougé was an active president of the International Committee of the World Conference of Religions for Peace and is now one of its honorary presidents. She is also now official Religions for Peace representative with UNESCO.

back to this issue's table of contents