One of the dramatic scenes in the Christian New Testament in the Acts of the Apostles is the healing of a crippled beggar by Peter and John. The poor man, disabled since birth, was carried every day to sit by a gate of the temple where he could beg alms from passersby. Seeing the two apostles approaching he extended his hands hoping for a coin or two, but instead of receiving money which they did not have, he is told to get up and walk and he does so leaping and dancing for joy at his good fortune. It is a double miracle, the crippling condition suddenly disappears and this man who never in his life had stood up or walked can suddenly prance about like a seasoned performer.

The two apostles must have gone home very pleased with themselves for the good deed they had performed in God’s name. I wonder if they ever gave a thought or felt any concern for all the troubles that lay ahead for the beggar they had cured. Think of it: all of his life he had sat on the ground or lain on a litter; he had grown up without most of the social encounters that had formed his brothers and sisters. When he first went about after his cure full of curiosity and eagerness he must have seemed like a country bumpkin entering the synagogue for the first time or trying to make friends. He would have to learn from scratch the simple etiquette of eating at table or proper social behavior, how to interact with strangers, officials and friends. He might not even have known how to use whatever toilet or bathing facilities used by non-disabled folks in those days.

All those kind of difficulties were only temporary, of course, and would pass in time, but a more serious problem lay ahead. His family must have been overjoyed at first when he came running home cured, but that would have turned to dismay when they realized they no longer would have the small but steady income from the alms he collected. And now that he could stand up straight, he was in urgent need of a new set of clothes they could ill afford. He had no education and no marketable skill. Would he have to go back to begging for alms or would some relative or friend take him in hand and teach him something that would enable him to work for a living? Or would his family kick him out forcing him to search for some Christian community that would let him in?

I don’t know the answer to those questions, but I hope and presume like the apostles that the miracle was the beginning of a better life. The point of my remarks is not about the apostles at all. They were sure that the miracle would be a blessing and for all we know, they might even have followed up sending some Christian to see how the man was now doing or to take him in hand. My point is, what are we doing? Do we discern first what possible effects our actions might have on the lives of others or do we just act on impulse scattering our favors whenever we can?

I am thinking of the time I was sitting in my wheelchair at a street corner waiting to be picked up by a friend, when a would be good Samaritan seeing me there, grabbed my wheelchair and pushed me across the street, leaving me there without a word, going off, no doubt, proud that he had just done his good deed for the day, while there I was having to find someone else to push me back across the street to my arranged place of rendezvous. Another time I had just come out of an elevator and found myself being pushed madly at high speed down a corridor and left there in the lobby near the front door of the hospital where I worked. My destination had been the dining room in the opposite direction.

There are lots of stories in fact and fiction of how the unexpected windfall of suddenly receiving a million dollars leads to a happy ending for some and to ruin for others. I guess that what I am trying to say by bringing up the story of the cured beggar is that next time you give away a million dollars or bestow some favor on someone you consider first what effects it might have on that person’s life. And it would be a very good idea to follow up what happens so you can intervene if things start to turn sour.

Most people would agree that morality is concerned with right and wrong. Do what is good and avoid what is evil. A person is good if he/she does what he/she believes is morally good and avoids what he/she believes is morally wrong. A person is bad if he/she does what he/she believes is morally wrong. Is a person still good if he/she does something morally wrong thinking it is morally justified? Is a person still bad if he/she does something morally wrong thinking it is morally right?

Add comment

The comments are moderated by the editors: their publishing can be postponed or refused if they do not meet the magazine editorial standards.

Name (required)

E-mail (required)

Website

Notify me of follow-up comments

Anti-spam: complete the task

Send

Cancel