The Problem with the Genecrite
The genecrite, first cousin to the hypocrite, is a problem I’ve seen in myself and all around the world lately.
It’s a fascinating development in this last decade and gathering steam going into the second decade of this millenia. You see, we’ve always had had a problem in the world with hypocrites, those that say they represent one leader or belief or group, and actually live out something completely different, but recent developments have brought a frenzied wave of a new cousin.
Around the turn of the century, a firestorm of love and service began to blaze throughout the world. People began to start organizations to help and serve people in record numbers. The world appeared optimistic and things looked great! You can read all about this in Gregg Easterbrook’s amazing book, written in 2004, called “The Progress Paradox”.
But in the last year, with the downward spiral of our economy and the overarching pessimism appearing everywhere, people still believe in giving, but it’s a different kind of giving.
Here’s how I do it.
I love to give and be generous, so I’ll invite someone out to eat for lunch, and I’ll pay for their lunch. But what I wonder is whether or not I would be so generous if I were geting nothing out of it. That is, would I just give that person $15 for lunch without me? Or am I a genecrite?
A genecrite is a person who says they are generous (as I did above) and then will only give when they get something out of it? A conditional generosity.
I will give money or gifts to my family if they come and visit me? Genecrite.
I will share what I have with people I like? Genecrite.
I will give to my church as long as they are making me happy? Genecrite.
I will take someone to lunch, only if I get to do some of the eating? Genecrite.
What about you? Are you a Genecrite?
Related posts:
So taking someone to lunch isn’t generous if you eat with them? That makes no sense.
Also I refuse to acknowledge your right to make up a new word.
Ian – I don’t think the point is eating with them or not eating with them. It’s the heart attitude. Kind of like when Jesus said to be weary of acting like the Pharisees, becuase they proclaimed Godliness while they lived completely opposite. I think the point is are you only taking someone out to eat so you can feed your belly, or because you really want to spend time with that person and build a relationship with them.
It’s just not generous if your underlying motive is getting your belly stuffed!
Marty – Is that pronounced Jean-crit or Jenna-Crit?
Sorry Ian. My intent wasn’t to say that it is wrong, but simply to question whether my own intent was generous, which I have a right to do, AND when I question my own intent, does make sense. You’re right, if I were to say, “It is wrong to ask someone to lunch and pay for it” then that would make no sense. But since I never said that…
Also, the guys at Finders today allowed for me to make up this new word, so your refusal is vetoed.
Also, thanks for sharing with me that I skipped a word a few posts back. I fixed it, I think.
Good call Al, it’s Jenna-crit.
I thought it was going to be related to racial issues. But I guess that would be “genOcrite.”
I daresay we all are at times; motives are vital, but I’m not sure we should always overanalyse to the point where we decide NOT to do some of those things. Sometimes in the acts of generosity themselves, the motives and feelings follow. On the other hand, I think the (RED) campaign taps into this tendency really well (“I’ll feel better about buying myself this totally useless product if I know that five cents of my purchase is going to help AIDS prevention in Africa . . . “).
I hate your blog.
Is there any importance in the fact that we’re called to love God with all our mind, strength, and spirit but we’re called to love our neightbors as we love ourselves? Is Jesus perhaps drawing a distinction between agape (divine & selfless love) and self-interested love?
I had a very similar conversation with my tattoo artist. I mentioned really enjoying being able to pay for someone to have fun with me or if they need help with money and they’re a friend. I said I valued selflessness above all other qualities. He quickly replied that even if I do something selflessly, I’m still getting my jollies out of it, so in a way you can never do anything completely selflessly. I guess I just had to accept it and let it better affect my decisions to be “generous” or “selfless”
My wife always kicks me under the table when i talk about stuff like this. She thinks i’m a “downer”. Is it wrong to have so much in common with a tattoo artist? Burns, you should have asked if that person was a Christian: the comment demonstrated a key component of “the fall”.
This subject separates the men from the boys, the ‘emmos’ from the machos. It’s a pill the size of a taxi to swallow for those who rely upon good deeds to satisfy God or their own conscience.
Just do good, feel good, and praise the Lord. Let God sort out the genecrisy.
That’s a valid way to look at it, but there’s another way to look at it too.
The fact of the matter is that we’re human; we have to condition ourselves to do good things. Our genocricity is a tool we can use to condition ourselves to be charitable.
Right now, charitable giving to organizations is not a very genocritous activity. We should try to find ways to make it more genocritous so that people find it easier to give.
When you start framing these problems in this way, you start to see solutions instead of simply despairing about the human condition.
Thought provoking.
Thanks
typed my link wrong above.
oops, is this a genecrite’s action?
i was willing to post a positive comment but i guess i wanted my blog link to be valid in the comments section… huh