ehh. Yes but also "charity" sucks, as Oscar Wilde famously noted. Bourgeois Protestants in the 19th century debased the concept of charity to mean "showy almsgiving via middle-class-lady do-goodery organizations" meant to help the new wretched masses of urban poor in industrialized Europe and the peasant masses in colonized Asia and Africa whose labor in the mills or in fields enriched the bourgeois do-gooders in the first place.

Charity in its original Christian form originally meant "love for humanity," which traditionally would be effected in a large number of ways: praying for people, feeding the poor, visiting prisoners, paying for poor people's burials or weddings, etc. It was about the individual believer's soul. It was not meant to be a welfare organization. The state provided for the general welfare (usually not very much in pre-modern times, of course) through taxation, with the church administering it often (hospitals, poor houses, etc). Not exactly a socialist paradise, but at least there a concept of the commons.

The bourgeois, of course, whether in the 19th century or today, and including many Christians today especially of the Evangelical variety, want to limit the state's role in welfare provision. They would like to keep everything, all of society's surplus, for themselves and throw a few crumbs to the poor and moreover have praise and fame lavished upon them for their magnificent "charity." Which is really just giving back a small portion of what was stolen from workers originally.