The puritans were certainly not the first to believe in original sin, but they were the first to formalize a construction of charity. That original sin was the centerpiece of their worldview then becomes critical. Love of one｀s fellow man was to be motivated by hatred of oneself. Internal inconsistency doesn｀t get more inconsistent than that. It is impossible that a system with that basis could exploit the full potential of humanity｀s love. Indeed, it is remarkable that it motivated any. If we are to accept the modern enlighted view that we are all one, then hatread of oneself is nothing more than hatred for another. The absence of love for oneself leaves no love for anyone else. (3)
Charity has made the transition from individual to industry, but our thinking has not. The thinking that applies to helping one｀s neighbor will not suffice for solving the world｀s great problems. Micro beliefs are not relevant to macro issues. Indeed, beliefs that may make sense and may even work at the micro level can be nonsensical and disastrous on the macro level.
......
We receive no formal education in charity. Out schools teach math and English, woodshop and typing, but nothing about charity. Consequently, we learn everything we know about it, accurate or otherwise, through the dribs and drabs that come at us randomly through this system--the media is the principal spigot. (16)
The Puritans were not saying you can (a) make money in business and give it to the poor and (b) make money directly assisting the poor. They drew a line that implicitly said that you could make money on this side of it but not the other. Your piety could come from your wealth, but your wealth could not come from your piety. They didn｀t actually say this. They didn｀t have to. By making charity a penance for making money, it became axiomatic. How could you possibly make money helping the poor if helping the poor was your penance for making money? (23)
|