is giving ever truly selfless?

now that one week has gone by and i start dealing with the difficulties of adjusting to a shoebox-sized uninsulated apartment, ice-cold toilet seats and flooring, really slow and limited internet and - oh yeah! - no salary, i start asking myself "am i having fun yet?" where's that euphoria of "i'm going to help the poor"?

i recently read a study on "why do people give?" and stumbled across the following:
"Giving is an intrinsically good thing to do.  It makes people feel good about themselves and makes them feel like they are connected to a greater cause that does good things in the world."

huh...

if we give to feel better about ourselves, ie, we give because it feels good, then one can assume that there is some marginal level of utility in giving. by that i mean, we give just up to the point where it doesn't feel so good anymore. and if that were the case, wherein lies that point? does it differ per person? if so, what are the factors that influence each individual's rate of diminishing return?

if giving were a spectrum, on one end there would be distant charitable acts (putting loose change in those cans at the cashier's counter or giving some money to the Red Cross when there's a disaster) - you know, those one-off random acts that allow us to divert just enough attention to a situation, while going on with our comfortable lives. and on the other end there would be a sort of asceticism - totally giving of oneself to the point of complete denial of self and pleasure. these are the people who give until it hurts and then give some more.

i got to thinking about this more during a chat i had during my flight to johannesburg. luckily, i was seated next to someone quite interesting (this like NEVER happens to me). we got to chatting about mission work and he asked, "up to what point is it ok to have or want luxurious things, or live a 'nice' life?" and i knew exactly what he meant: in the face of the immense economic imbalance of our planet, how much is too much when we can (and perhaps should) actually live with less and give more?

i was reminded of this question as i woke up feeling slightly martyred by the fact that i could sit in the middle of my bed and touch my bedroom walls on either side (ok, not really…but almost) or the fact that i have no closet space and my fridge is really the size of a large microwave.

*warning* exaggeration here used solely for literary impact (ok, that and to evoke a little sympathy)

i found myself wishing that my new home were a little, well…nicer. and then i immediately felt guilty for wishing that considering the living conditions of the people i've come here to serve. struggling to find my point along the spectrum, it is hard to find balance.

but then i stumbled across this passage in the irresistible revolution, by shane claiborne (a book that i'm reading right now):

"when we talk of materialism and simplicity, we must always begin with love for God and neighbor, otherwise we're operating out of little more than legalistic, guilt-ridden self-righteousness. our simplicity is not an ascetic denunciation of material things to attain personal piety, for if we sell all that we have and give it to the poor, but have not love it is meaningless (1 Cor. 13:3). " 

how could i forget LOVE? if Love is not at the centre of my work here then it really counts as naught. and so instead of trying to figure out how much i should or shouldn't have or want, i want to let Love be the guide. Love means that even if i do have a lot, i will want to give it to someone who has none. AND, Love dictates action over emotion. so feeling good about giving becomes irrelevant because Love will cause me to act in a way that sees everyone else just as important and deserving as my own self, despite how i feel about it.