Reconsidering Charity
November 22, 2007
This is the time of year when we are reminded of charitable needs. Mark Winne, who used to work for the food bank system in Connecticut, wrote a poignant article last week in the Washington Post. In it he suggests that there may be something intrinsically ‘wrong’ with much charitable giving:
The risk is that the multibillion-dollar system of food banking has become such a pervasive force in the anti-hunger world, and so tied to its donors and its volunteers, that it cannot step back and ask if this is the best way to end hunger, food insecurity, and their root cause, poverty.
You can read the rest of the article here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/16/AR2007111601213.html
November 22, 2007 at 5:50 pm
Call me cynical, but unless a cataclysmic change happens in human culture, poverty and hunger may be the unsolvable problems. The best thing we can do is to do our best to give, educate, love, and care for those in need.
Yes, maybe some gifts to food banks are well-placed and well meaning but wrong, but what other “no strings attached” source do people have when they cannot provide for themselves.
November 23, 2007 at 10:24 am
I think your response (which is where my mind mostly is as well) is indicative of the problem this fellow is addressing If this is how most of us in the church best see our energies being spent in this area then complacency is bound to set in. I think Jesus spent more time talking about systemic injustice than he did about ‘charity’.
Besides, there are quite a few people who are taking advantage of the food bank system. The bank’s greatest concern is that organizations not turn around and sell this food in order to finance their own special interests. Often these are churches that are trying to fund their ministries. Some even say that this is a noble use of the food (I’ve heard ‘em).
November 23, 2007 at 12:41 pm
I dunno. We were blessed by a small food ministry during some of our hard times.
One large church was having men work for their food so to speak–like sweeping the warehouse area. An assistant pastor at another church said they checked records to see if the person in need had been giving–sort of a means test for charity. Giving ought to be just that–giving.
We had given a lot of dough and time to a church over several years. When we needed our water turned back on, the pastor paid the bill, but said I ought to work to pay back the money. I helped paint an area of the church’s rented space–I was grudging in this, especially after we had supported the church financially and in kind over the years.
What does all of this mean? For immediate needs, help when you can. For long term systemic solutions? We may be over the top, so to speak, and the problems are so complex that fixing them might not be possible. I want to be more idealistic, but as you know Chris from contact with city kidz, the mentality of defeat is inculcated in many people. As far as the government “doing something”–I estimate (after glancing at a WIKI article about federal spending) over 60% of the money this country has spent since the Great Society programs has gone to various forms of Welfare (including Social Security).
The problem, therefore, isn’t a lack of charity or generosity–it may be as simple as too many people needing more than just a few bucks.
Worldwide? Tough nut to crack. Redistributing wealth is not the answer–think of all the unemployed that would create. For example, I was watching a program about mega-yachts. If these sailors were forced to sell their ships and give the money to charity, it would result in hundreds of people becoming unemployed for every yacht forced to be sold. Designers, salesmen, chauffers, cooks, cabin attendants, dock workers, etc. would be stuck.
Multiply this to any forced redistribution of wealth–like in Cuba or Zimbabwe–which creates a class of corrupt leaders, and puts property owners off their land with no compensation, or as many have said, it makes equality, all are equally poor.
November 23, 2007 at 12:43 pm
P. S. Want to see nice people become extremely judgmental? Watch what happens in church the next time you see a fairly prosperous family fall on hard times.
November 23, 2007 at 3:04 pm
Redistribution of wealth (the forced kind, anyway) is not the answer, I agree. It has failed miserably. And the Great Society ’solutions’ were reactive, weren’t they? As you suggest, throwing money at people doesn’t solve the problem. Again, I think that was the tone of Winne’s article.
Cynicism aside, many are not likely to be serving the Kingdom while some of our more popular spiritual leaders are living in $10 million dollar mansions (Hinn) flying in Lear jets (Copeland) or sitting on $23,000 marble commodes (Meyers). There may not be anything illegal about that (though there probably is) but there very well may be something immoral working here. When some of the more visible preachers of the ‘gospel’ are wallowing in wealth and many Christians are hesitant to ‘judge’ their actions and lifestyles then it is no wonder we are so often seen as hypocrites. Then again, perhaps the poor are not praying hard enough, they just lack the faith to be ‘prospered’.
The first thing to change must be our hearts. It needn’t be a spectacular revolutionary change, but when multiplied by millions of members of the Church…..we can do all things through Christ who strengthens us.
November 23, 2007 at 3:20 pm
I’m sorry. I did not mean to be insensitive to the plight of marble commode making artisans. Or the employees of the Lear corporation.
Check out this website. I’m not crazy about all of their theology but they did a good job compiling this information. It is very sad.
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/tele-evangelist_lifestyles.html
November 23, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Oh, come on! How can you criticize the Touched One (Hinn), The Short Sweatered One (Copeland) and the Joyced One? And how would you know about her throne?
November 23, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Don’t you think you’re being harsh on these Servants?
November 23, 2007 at 3:42 pm
The real problem is not the “servants” (although the over used word ‘outrageous’ is most appropriate) but the MILLIONS of people who have swallowed this poison of theirs – sending in their money in the hopes that God will ‘prosper’ them as well.
Imagine if all those folks decided to follow Jesus and cut out these crooked middle men and women.
November 23, 2007 at 4:12 pm
Tsk Tsk Tsk. So cynical and so young. You’ll wake up one morning, look in the mirror, and see Andy Rooney if you don’t change your ways! (or don’t trim your eyebrows)
November 23, 2007 at 4:26 pm
Okay–I read about some of the televangelists. Pick on Benny Hinn or Jakes, but leave Billy Graham alone!
November 23, 2007 at 5:53 pm
I don’t think they were picking on folks like Graham or Zacharias. Seems to me that they included those salaries for the sake of perspective. Although they are not hurting their salaries are in line with those of doctors and lawyers. The others are in the neighborhood of pro athletes and rock stars.
I like that Andy Rooney line. So true about the eyebrowes -his and mine.
November 24, 2007 at 10:00 am
Zacharias? Not too Crazy about Ravi. His analogies are far beyond the bounds of mortal man.
November 24, 2007 at 12:56 pm
The conclusion is simple. People think they are supporting God’s work (or supporting God–I’ll tell an amusing anecdote below). The preachers use the rhetorical proofs of ethos, establishing themselves as experts, and pathos, emotion. They convince the people that God will change economic circumstances through the “generosity” of the audience.
Amusing anecdote: My first grade students were discussing giving at church. One lad asked why give to God–a precosious classmate answered, “Because He needs the money!”
November 24, 2007 at 1:07 pm
News Item: The president of Oral Roberts University who is facing accusations he misspent university funds to support a lavish lifestyle resigned from his position, officials said Friday.
Surprise! What about all of the other excess lived by Oral and Company?
November 24, 2007 at 1:08 pm
Edit that last comment. I don’t want to be sued for libel–I have no proof that Oral and company lives an excessive lifestyle.
November 24, 2007 at 2:17 pm
I also have issues with tele-evangelists. They seem to prey on the weak of body and emotion. If it were only so easy to send in money and be healed… I had a friend once who went to a Benny Hinn “extravaganza” at the MCI center and for several hours (before Mr. Hinn appeared) the audience sang over and over the same song–kind of sounds like some hypnotic trance. Everyone was in a frenzy by the end and when Mr. Hinn came out it was to the hymn “How Great Thou Art”. Mmmm…
November 24, 2007 at 5:00 pm
Oh–Pardone–Its Orel, isn’t it? BTW, Did Jesus ever carry out the Whack on Orel?
November 25, 2007 at 5:26 pm
People are very loyal to these folks.
November 25, 2007 at 10:46 pm
Kathy, I once had a friend (of yours as well) say that in spite of the obvious inconsistencies with Benny Hinn, he supported him because he has seen him bring many people to the lord. I remember this remark very clearly because it caused me to start re-thinking the whole ‘altar call’ experience.
Altar calls aside, these kinds of extravagant lifestyles bring these preacher’s authenticity into serious question.
November 25, 2007 at 10:52 pm
Bring to Christ? Hmm. Watch a Benny program. He performs “healings” then he rides around the stage on those scooters for handicapped people. Then he “slays” people by breathing on them–I haven’t watched much past this.
Read “The Seduction of Christianity” by Dave Hunt. I’m not the greatest fan of Dave, any more (although he is a nice guy) but in Seduction, he nails the prosperity preachers dead to rights–including Hagan, Copeland, and Benny Hinn.
How do we support any of these people in light of the Scriptures. If we read 1 an 2 Timothy it clearly states that those who preach “gain as godliness” are to be run from.
November 26, 2007 at 12:51 pm
This whole article seems to be quite a simplistic and… well… synical view of the issue. Not atypical for the Washington post.
The best line is the last:
“We know hunger’s cause — poverty. We know its solution — end poverty.”
This guys should be in line for a Nobel Prize! In one sentance he solved the world hunger problem. All we have to do in end poverty!!
November 26, 2007 at 1:10 pm
Sure that was simplistic. It was hyperbole. But the guy’s point is that the current food bank system may be somewhat of a culprit here, in the same way that the welfare state has done little to solve any problems.
“All we have to do in end poverty!!” -well that would solve the problem. Is it do-abe? In the foreseeable future it seems pretty doubtful. Is it still a worthy goal? I think so.
November 26, 2007 at 1:30 pm
No, I don’t think it’s doable. It’s a sliding scale. We’ve been down in the city the past few days. While my heart bleeds for the homeless there, and I in now way want to belittle what they are enduring, the fact is that they are ‘living the life’ compared to many other people in the world. There will always be a bottom.
Nowhere in Scripture are we given any glimmer of hope that we can erradiate poverty. We are however given specifics on how we are to treat and care for those with less.
Even if it were possible to end hunger there would be those who would just redefine what it means to be hungry. That happens now doesn’t it? The author of that article talks about how they have to weed out the bad (yet edible) food from the donations. So there’s some level above just ingesting nutrients that’s already involved.
I wonder if the hungry in Africa and Hati, etc would be so ‘discerning’?
November 26, 2007 at 4:08 pm
I don’t know if the words ‘hunger’, ‘poverty’ and being ‘poor’ should be too closely related. You are right to say that the designation ‘being poor’ is on a sliding scale. Perhaps poverty has taken on the same quality as well. I don’t think that being poor means that one is impoverished in today’s language (although they both hail from the Latin word ‘pauper’) There are all kinds of folks in this country that are commonly considered ‘poor’ and though they may live in bleak surroundings may very well own plasma TV’s and PS3s (like the new one that one of my students just showed me) and eat fairly well.
Most of the students in my school are ‘poor’ but most are overnurished, not undernurished. Our job is to provide them with the proper amount of nutritional calories 10 times a week. Some must be quadrupling our efforts. (Too much ‘bad’ food. Still a serious problem). And yes, some of them have alreay redifined the word ‘hunger’. Still, we know how many calories and of what sort of foods are necessary to support healthy living and it seems that most of the world’s truly hungry are not in this country but abroad.
So if there are, proportionally, not too many starving people in the US ( not to trivialize their plight) then perhaps all the effort and money that goes into the food banks are misdirected.
November 26, 2007 at 6:39 pm
Not saying we shouldn’t help others in need–we certainly should. However, poverty, hunger, etc is not going to end in this lifetime. It’s a fallen world. Kind of like praying for world peace, it’s not biblical. Call me cynical…
November 26, 2007 at 6:55 pm
Exactly. The bible says nothing about an end to hunger or poverty… or war. At least not until Christ comes again.
OC, good banks etal are doing exactly the right thing. We can’t ‘fix’ hunger, we can only help those who need it. If it weren’t for food banks there may well be more ’starving’ people in the US.
There’s plenty to do… plenty… We just need to direct in the right way and not chase some elusive dream of ending hunger and poverty.
November 26, 2007 at 6:55 pm
I don’t think that this fellow is talking about helping others in need as much as taking a look at one part of the system that might be more efficient. If more of us did this then perhaps there could be ways in reducing the numbers of those in need. Jesus said the poor will always be with us, he didn’t say how many.
November 26, 2007 at 7:10 pm
Kathy-so? That is so perfect for you.
November 26, 2007 at 8:11 pm
In a nation that spends trillions of dollars on “Defense,” most of which is given to inside-deal contractors for virtually nothing, we could do so much. Imagine if the brainower used to build nuclear weapons was applied to developing drought-proof food sources, or breeding disease-resistant animals–we really could, as a race begin to solve these world problems.
I believe this–God gave humanity the means to manage the earth–but to whom much is given, much is required. I’m squirming here–the systems that have taken over education, government, NGOs, etc., that grind in bureaucratic waste are among the greatest evils.
November 26, 2007 at 11:12 pm
Yep. If we could increase our agricultural yield how many more tax dollars would we have to spend buying up (or destroying) the surplus to keep it profitable for agribusiness’?
Heck, where do you think the food commodities that supply the food banks come from?
November 27, 2007 at 12:56 am
Interesting discussion/topic. my $0.02??
Concerning eliminating world hunger or bringing about world peace – you guys heard the story of the girl and the starfish??
Man is taking a walk along a massively large long remote beach that is covereed in dead and dying starfish. As he walks along he sees a tiny red-headed girl walking to the water throwing something in the ocean and walking back again, over and over.
When he reaches her he asks her what she is doing?
“I’m saving the starfish!” she says.
The man looks away beyond her at the milions of starfish ahead and then turns a looks back the way he walked at the even more millions on the long stretch of fish covered beach he entered into a short walk back and says:
But why? You cannot possibly hope to help all of them? You can’t ever make a difference here – you’re only a little girl. What difference can you possibly make to all these dying fish?”
“Well, ” she says as she throws another starfish back into the water to be given a second chance and not dehydrate in the baking sun; “… I made a difference for that one!”
Never underestimate the Power of One!
Especially if we all follow His lead
love
November 27, 2007 at 9:37 am
LWBUT,
I guess that’s my point. We can definitely make a difference but lets not get distracted or discouraged by trying to solve an unsolvable problem.
The focus should be on the people in need.
ambrosia,
Come on… that’s a little too simplistic for you… Didn’t you ever see “It’s a Wonderful Life”? For every action there’s an equal and opposite reaction. Like squeezing a balloon; squeeze here and it pops out there…
November 27, 2007 at 10:28 pm
No Buddy, it is not simplistic. God gave resources for man to have compassion and give. The problem is that rich governments have made two choices–feed the military, like the U. S., or feed the bloated leaders of the military, like the U. S.
I agree with Lyndon Johnson–Guns and butter, without the guns, and without Halliburton as the middle man.
We have reneged on our responsibility towards the poor–we meaning the church.
For example, a rich church in southern California–one of the first mega-churches, used to give out rice and beans to people who say they have a need (maybe the food ministry has expanded). The church always had millions of $$$ when it needed a piece of real estate for a “Retreat Center” or plenty when the church bought a tank for the government of Israel (at least that was the rumor) but paid chicken feed to the people who worked for the church.
I have known few in Christianity with the compassion and the money to back it up–when the two come together, that is the best combination. On the other hand, I have seen plenty of those with compassion and no $$$ or a lot of $$$ with little compassion (or $$$ and silliness and thin support for ministries who help the poor).
The bottom line is that there are unsolvable problems, homelessness, hunger, disease may be among the leaders.
But I believe Christians are called to help those with food and substantial assistance, and not just a token few cents a day.
November 27, 2007 at 11:04 pm
My Wise Old Mother always told me ‘Charity Begins at Home’. – How are all those fine folks in New Orleans faring lately – we don’t get the pictures of their homes being demolished because there is no funding to resume locally needed services as often as we used to on our news so i suppose everything there is just fine now huh??
Chris – your weather details and answers are up on my blog now – any Q’s – just ask
Happy to help out my friends 
love
November 28, 2007 at 6:26 pm
New Orleans is another problem altogether–like a circle, all the politicians pointed fingers at eachother–here’s one I read.
The governor was against the mayor because he, at one time, supported a republican in a campaign.
The second problem is that the Corp of Engineers has done little to shore up the levies. It is another Katrina waiting to happen.
November 28, 2007 at 7:58 pm
Actually I think the New Orleans disaster is an example of the ‘fallen world’ and perhaps even harkens back to the Levitical injunctions to stay within God ordained boundaries. And I am not talking about any malfeasance or ineptitude on the part of the politicians and bureaucrats.
Certain factors, particularly greed, encourages man to expand his territory and establish settlements, staking his claim to land or even colonizing the land of others.
New Orleans came about because it was uniquely situated on the river and near the Gulf to enhance commerce. It’s closest rival port was Galveston but that was nearly wiped out by a hurricane of it’s own over 100 years ago, establishing New Orleans as the premier port on the Gulf.
But it should not have been. It is no mystery why so many aborigines are ‘nomadic’ and tend not to establish year round permanent settlements, especially in places that are host to frequent hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and drought. They knew well (as did we for quite some time) that the Mississippi wants to wander, its course changing direction like an undulating snake. Many oxbow lakes are left stranded when the river changed course.
To prevent this natural occurrence from happening, leaving New Orleans high and dry in the middle of the Gulf, the Army Corps of Engineers has spent millions (perhaps billions) of dollars upgrading and reinforcing the levee system. Now, as John McPhee illustrated in “The Control of Nature” (written over 20 years ago) the Mississippi sits high above the surrounding flood plain like a vein upon the back of an old man’s hand. It desperately wants to join with the Atchalafaya on it’s race to the sea and some day most probably will, leaving New Orleans up the creek without a river.
The Katrina disaster was inevitable. It will happen again. But why? Well there would be no disaster if there were no large city on the site. Just as there would be no houses in California sliding off the slopes of the rising Sierra Nevada if folks didn’t build dream homes there. Or there would be much less damage to high rises hotels and condominiums if they weren’t built on the unstable sands of barrier islands in the hurricane belt. The Colorado river is a mere trickle when it enters the Gulf of California, leaving the residents with little fresh water, because we have suburbanized the Great American Desert of the Southwest and Western US.
The father of a close friend had this advice for us when we came of age; “Boys, never build in a flood plain.” Good advice. If we think Katrina was awful just wait for when a big storm hits the Netherlands.
The question I have is this: although we need to be sympathetic to the plight of people who have become victims of the natural course of events, how long should we tolerate it? How many times must we rebuild that hotel? Many people in New Orleans did the right thing after Katrina; they moved to someplace safer.
November 28, 2007 at 8:07 pm
Although I have to share a sadly ironic story here; my sister has a neighbor in Carroll county Maryland. A few years back a hurricane touched down in their area and destroyed this woman’s home. She had just recently moved to Maryland from Oklahoma. To get away from the hurricanes.
November 28, 2007 at 9:51 pm
A. You mean tornados.
B. The Sierra Nevada is hundreds of miles from where the fires have been-a-burning.
C. Houses slide down slopes in Malibu, San Clemente, and
Anaheim Hills.
D. Are you saying Jesus’ words not to build on sand is authentic?
E. Check my private email for this one, it might offend.
November 28, 2007 at 11:02 pm
No, I meant tornadOES, Mr. Quail. Both forms are correct.
What fires? Oh, yeah.
And you’re right about the mudslides. I was getting them mixed up with the mudslides in the Sierras that fall ON houses.
And what could offend? Very interesting stuff. Is there anyplace ’safe’ to live?