Guest Editorial: What can wash away my sin?

I am not exactly a product of diversity. As a Southern Baptist, I grew up sure of our traditions and practices, but not our doctrine. I had a clear picture of who we were but had no idea what it was—other than hymns, potlucks, full-immersion and architecture—that distinguished us from the imposters to the true faith around me.

Fred SmithEverything we thought and every question we had about salvation, God, this world and the world to come was in the Baptist Hymnal, so we sang our way into believing each Sunday. And one of those hymns, “Nothing but the Blood,” probably has shaped more people than any sermon or book. It certainly shaped me.

What can wash away my sin? Nothing but the blood of Jesus;

What can make me whole again? Nothing but the blood of Jesus;

Nothing can for sin atone, Nothing but the blood of Jesus.

“Charity” & “philanthropy”

So, you can understand my confusion when I began reading about charity as a means of atonement in the early Church tradition. First, Jeremy Beer, in his book, The Philanthropic Revolution, introduced me to the idea there is a significant difference between “charity” as taught by the early church fathers and “philanthropy” as practiced today. More recently, in David Downs’ Alms: Charity, Reward and Atonement in Early Christianity, I read Western thinking about voluntary giving today has little to do with the Christian tradition of charity, and even less with the theology of almsgiving that gave rise to that tradition.

Increasingly, modern philanthropy begins with what one can accomplish in measurable outcomes, while charity was not a tool for bringing about social change but was for thousands of years a way to atone for sin. Charity was, among other things, a way of cleansing from personal sin. This was not the forgiveness for sin that only comes through the sacrifice of Christ, and it was not seen as a way to replace absolute trust in Christ alone. But, as St. Augustine wrote, it was held as a means to erase the “passing and trivial sins of every day from which no life is free…Thus, there are many kind of alms, by which, when we do them, we are helped in obtaining forgiveness of our own sins.”passing and trivial sins of every day from which no life is free…Thus, there are many kind of alms, by which, when we do them, we are helped in obtaining forgiveness of our own sins.”

In other words, while philanthropy begins with the motivation of doing good out of love for mankind, charity rightly understood begins with the recognition of the necessity of forgiveness of every day sin.

Begin with atonement

Charity begins not out of altruism or even in the hopes of accomplishing some goal—great or small. I give because I recognize I have sinned and am in need of cleansing and atoning for my behavior.

The purpose of giving to the poor was not to eliminate poverty but to atone for sin. It was the recognition of the need for confession, forgiveness and atonement that motivated charitable gifts.

Beer writes, “The loss, or conscious rejection, of the doctrine of atoning almsgiving may be one reason why for many Christians, whether inside or outside the Protestant tradition, the theological logic of charity has been replaced by the techno-logic of philanthropy, even if this latter mode of thinking is often given a Christian gloss.”

Charity as penance? Isn’t that simply bribing God?

Not according to Augustine: “Of course, life must be changed for the better, and alms should be offered as propitiation to God for our past sins. But he is not somehow to be bought off, as if we always had a license to commit crimes with impunity.”

Needless to say, everything in my upbringing resists this and labels it as salvation by works or even buying indulgences. But that’s not what the church fathers were saying at all. They were writing and preaching that acts of mercy, material assistance to the needy and caring for the poor will cleanse us from “passing and trivial” sin.

So, what if many no longer give out of a response to sin? I would imagine most philanthropists if asked would not say their giving is motivated out of their need for cleansing or atonement. I suspect the answers would be more along the lines of giving back or finding a solution to a problem or even gratitude for what they have been given.

Something tangible

However, as I have thought about this for the last several days, I have come to recognize there is something genuine—not soul-saving—in the recognition that I sin and there is something tangible I can do in repentance for my sin.

Giving does not spring from altruism but from our own need.

Giving is not a sign of our love of mankind but of our recognition of our own sin and need for absolution.

Giving is not merely a voluntary act of goodwill but both a responsibility and necessity.

Instead of hoping the poor will recognize my help and be grateful, I can say: “Thank you. This is not out of the goodness of my heart but out of my need for forgiveness.”

Fred Smith is president of The Gathering, a group of individuals, families and foundations interested in Christian philanthropy. The Gathering convenes for its main event each September. Fred also teaches Sunday school at Green Acres Baptist Church in Tyler, Texas.