Charity

In a little under one week, I, along with around 35,000 others, will be competing in the London Marathon. Since the first London Marathon in 1981, half a billion pounds has been raised for charity. This is a phenomenal amount, and proof, that when it comes down it, people can display extraordinary acts of kindness and generosity. Yet for a time I couldn't  help but wonder why it takes such a grueling and painful effort from the tens of thousands of people each year to generate such revenues for charity. I’d like to note at this point, that I have been blown away by the support of friends, colleagues & family when trying to raise the sponsorship needed for the marathon. You would always like to believe that the people around would give while you put yourself through the painful months of training but I have truly been in awe of the level of generosity that people have shown and how far they have dug into their pockets. The point, I was getting at though, was that it has taken something as huge as the London Marathon to raise this massive figure of half a billion pounds. Without the marathon would the charities have received the same level of support through other means? Would people have displayed support for the charities? I’m of the opinion, it is a no in both cases. But does that mean there is something wrong with the world?

Rabbi Maimonides once described eight levels of charity (http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/45907/jewish/Eight-Levels-of-Charity.htm)

They range from giving little and begrudgingly all the way through giving without being asked,  to giving without knowing the exact needy people you are giving to and without them knowing who has supported them and then finally giving or helping other people in a way that they can then go on to sustain themselves.

Do these “levels” hold value in the modern era? Or are they out-dated? Personally, I think you could make a case both ways. But ultimately, I think you would be hard pressed to disagree when I say that giving to charity, when asked, must still be a considered a good deed. Just because it had to take an email, a charity event, a charity box being waved in front of you doesn’t lessen the act or make it less worthwhile or different from an anonymous donation to a charity. Surely the achievement of having raised half a billion pounds in 30 years has to be celebrated, surely the fact people will give so generously and people will put their bodies through such as grueling physical challenge must be honoured?

It was put to me last week, if the charity element was taken away from the London Marathon, how many runners would still compete? The point, I believe, that was being made was that there is a number of the runners who are just running and the charity element is a hurdle they have to jump in order to run in the London Marathon. I would certainly be foolish to dismiss that notion and you can be certain that there are a number of people who do fall into that category. Does it mean though, that any money they raise for charities hold any less value than those who run in order to raise money as their primary objective? Most charities ask for a competitor running on their behalf to raise £1500 - £2000 as a minimum. So whose money is more valuable? I think if you asked the charity they would say that they both hold the same value but would hope that some of the runners continue to support their charities post marathon. At the end of the day, both “types” of competitors would have raised around the same money and the idea that one of theirs is somehow, worth more because of their mindset towards the marathon seems to me, to be somehow unnecessarily idealistic.

The fact that so many people are willing to put themselves through the training a marathon requires and the day itself, and with so many people are willing to sponsor so generously, all this must be applauded and to my mind, can be held in no less value that any philanthropist’s anonymous donation. Surely?


There are those that donate their time to charity, handing our meals at homeless shelters for instance, or listening to stories and keeping some senior citizens company is another. This form of charity is no different, in my mind, to someone who donated money. I guess there would be some who could argue it may be worth more. The point I make, is that charity is not necessarily some definable value or commodity, it means different things to different people. And people will give to charity in their own way and that all ways and all levels have value.

I could go on with different ways people have helped the disadvantaged or the needy, but I think we all give to charity in our ways and I do believe that any contribution to charity, no matter the type, no matter how it was sourced, has to be good and that people are capable of amazing feats of kindness and generosity.