In the days of the Patricians of Rome it was common for members of this upper class to feed the poor and they would recount the number of visitors to their door. This was not done solely to alleviate the social problem of poverty; it was done to demonstrate the wealth of the individual patricians themselves. Charity has always contained an element of self-satisfaction for those who are charitable. It makes you feel good. It makes you believe that you are doing something worthwhile. It can give you something to boast about, as it did with the patricians. It is one of the things that the business of charity feeds upon to get people to make contributions.

I am not aware of one charity that has successfully eradicated a social evil.

Some of them state that their objective is to alleviate suffering in a particular area, which is admirable but also rather vague. Others exist, apparently, to offer support to people who suffer from certain conditions, diseases, or social situations. Neither of these scenarios have an end objective, they both presume that all of the criterion that they use to define their reason for existence will continue indefinitely. History would suggest that they are correct to do so. Social evils are as prevalent today as they were back in ancient Rome and many of them are just the same; oppression, poverty, disease, discrimination, intolerance, lack of education, sexual exploitation, and many more. Charity has never been an answer. In some instances, it has been a parasite, a means of creating wealth from the misery of others, a chief executive of a British charity can expect to earn up to £200,000 a year. It has become a big business in its own right, adding billions of £’s to the British economy every year.

That charity exists in the 21st century is proof that society, as represented by the majority of those who live within it, does not genuinely care about the social problems that it creates. A minority of people do, but perhaps from the point of view of the majority it is only a minority of people who require charitable support, therefore, the majority are not interested in the continued existence of the social problems that, in their turn, support the continued existence of the charities. It is easy for even the most cynical of people to make a donation to a charity and feel good about it.

Despite the massive resources that a society like Britain has it is to the individual, usually the lower paid working person, that society looks to answer any or all of the problems that charities deal with. The origin of these problems may be found in society, but the solution is not to be expected to come from society. It is logical that the resources of the average individual will never amount to that required to deal with a growing problem like poverty and why should it? Society creates poverty and always has done. Some individuals have done remarkably well out of it and others dream of belonging to their club, hence the annual Times ‘Rich List’ and the general hero worship of the super-rich. In a different time, they were actually known as ‘robber barons’! More often those actually in poverty are demonised and marginalised.

The fact is that society, as an aggregate of all the different parts that constitute it, including the various Christian churches, lacks humanity on a massive scale and charity exists as a consequence. If this were not true society would have used its impressive resources to end social ills and not merely offloaded the obligation to the individual instead.