The woman squatted at a corner, soliciting handouts of money. I walked by. For a fleeting moment our eyes met. I mumbled to her something about returning later.
It was a Sunday. I'd just flown into Salt Lake City. Killing time, I walked the streets and visited an outdoor art display.
My ambling led me back to the corner. There was that woman, still squatting and eyeing passersby.
We struck up a conversation. I asked her to share an anecdote about herself.
She pointed to a spot farther up the street. A man had driven by in a car, stopped at that spot, and driven back. Then he did something extraordinary. He held out a one hundred dollar bill.
The woman accepted the donation. She thanked him. He said God told him to do it.
I too gave the woman a little something. It was a pittance in comparison.
Why didn't the driver hand over the money right away? Why didn't I initiate the conversation earlier? The answer is lag time, an interlude when when people consider whether to perform an act of charity.
During lag time, a tug of war plays out in our minds. On one side of the tug rope is rationalization. It warns us not to give money to a stranger. It could be a scam. The stranger might be a wino seeking money to get drunk.
The other side is conscience. It exhorts us to help someone in need.
Turns out, the woman was not a wino. She was seeking cash to pay her weekly rent. She lived with her husband in a flea bag motel. At least that's what she claimed. Maybe she fooled me. Maybe she laughed all the way to the liquor store.
Is conscience or rationalization a better guidepost to follow? I think conscience is the way to go.
But even when our conscience greens light a decision, we sometimes don't follow through.
No comments:
Post a Comment