It's Not About Sacrifice

     The topic of sacrifice came up recently in a conversation about ethics and faith. Among other ideas, the thought was voiced that there was a correlation between the depth of a person's faith and how much they were willing to sacrifice. Now, the discussion didn't use exactly that language, nor was the comparison that black and white. I'm simplifying a bit for the sake of brevity.

     Sacrifice is not a new concept. Jesus is quoted as saying that one person can have no greater love for another than to lay down their life for them. Surely we would consider that the "ultimate" sacrifice. While our conversation wandered around this idea, we bumped into another common theme in religion. The question of guilt.

     If we calculate the depth of our faith by measuring our willingness to give up our possessions, we would likely all experience a certain discomfort. A feeling that we're not doing enough. Guilt.

     I had just met the person who had raised the question, but it was certainly obvious that he was a compassionate person, sincere in his commitment to both family and community. And he was aware that, as a reasonably successful individual, he was better off than many. Should he and his family make do with less in order that others might have more?

     I don't think that's the right answer.

     Now, I don't want to appear as though I'm discouraging generosity or charity in any form. I give full credit to anyone who donates their time, talent, money, or anything else to help others. Whether its coaching little league or spending time with a shut in, volunteerism is incredibly important. And there will always be disasters and tragedies that overwhelm our ability to cope, and for which we will rightly be called upon to reach out and assist.

     However, when the sincere desire to help others becomes coupled with guilt it ceases to be an empowering and encouraging impulse. Instead, it becomes a source of resentment and hostility. The effects of that resentment are already obvious as worthy causes face growing challenges in raising funds or finding volunteers.

     A public service spot that ran many years ago noted that if all of the food in the world was evenly distributed, we would each have the equivalent of a single cup of rice a day. It was a sobering thought. I'm not that fond of rice.

     However, the solution was not for me to sacrifice the second slice of cake I was eating. The solution was, and still is, to create a society that provides adequate food for everyone.

     Sacrifice is not a uniquely Christian concept. Siddhartha Gautama was the son of a wealthy man. When he saw the impoverished state of the people around him, he relinquished all of his possessions and began a journey that would eventually lead him to found Buddhism.

     I have great respect for the teachings of both Buddhism and Christianity. The underlying concept that we cannot be satisfied as long as some have more while others suffer, is unarguable. A Golden Rule centered life could not accept any other position.

     However, rather than resolving inequity by lowering the standard of living for an over-affluent minority, why don't we try focusing on raising the standard of living for the majority?

     When we imagine the ideal world, do we simply imagine an equitable distribution of what we already have? Or do we imagine a world where no one lacks for anything, material or spiritual? Do we see a world where we all have a single cup of rice a day, or a world where anyone can have a second slice of cake?

     Creating that world is not about having enough faith to sacrifice, it's about having enough faith to change.