I’m beginning to believe we’ve sold our personal compassion. “The sympathetic consciousness of others’ distress together with a desire to alleviate it.” The definition versus actual application just doesn’t match. We say one thing but do another.

We’ve appointed surrogates to be our compassion, do the dirty work and heavy lifting, while we tell ourselves how great our compassion is. Each time the surrogates bungle our compassion we stand idly by. We seem to push any remaining compassion we have left further from our psyche.

Crudely put, money can add compassion as part of its definition (synonym). We use money as our answer to relieving others’ distress. Just like we let money rule our government, morality, desires, liberties, etc. Is allowing relatives to live in poverty or on welfare, when you are a man of means and a public surrogate, a satisfactory expression of compassion?

Historically, families took care of their own. Neighbors shared. Communities kept vigilance. Federal government answered questions and protected. Today, the government controls the individual, the family, the neighbor, the community and virtually all activities. We’ve allowed our consciousness to be dictated to us while abdicating our responsibility. Is this “new compassion,” to let the government take our money, get out of the way and feel good about it?

How can we send our soldiers into harm’s way and not adequately support them when they get injured? Why are there so many charities for injured veterans? Where is the government’s compassion and support? How does one define this kind of compassion and duty? What, send more money and feel good about it? Really!

Charles Colson said: “Few things are so deadly as a misguided sense of compassion.”

Is our compassion now defined by the dollar amount on the charities line of our tax return?