"Christian" Charity

[Thorolf]

T,

Granted that charity is about more than writing a check, and granted that any sort of organization (or program) could be improved incrementally as time goes on and flaws and potential fixes are revealed...

Is your concern mostly with the psychological and emotional distance of the person who wishes to be charitable, the human connections which are distanced?  Or is it a more general thing about the mechanization of something that could be more personal?  Or something else?

My concern is more about the attitude people have toward charity today. I think it's something of a slippery slope AWAY from charity, and toward expecting OTHER people to do what we ought to be called to do ourselves. We have problems in this world, and not enough people willing to take care of their own neighbors - but at least we still have lots of people willing to write checks to appease their consciouses. 

I don't think that's enough. I think, especially as Christians (those of us who are), we have accepted a responsibility to be more than passive givers, especially when we don't even know how that money is being used, who it is supposedly helping, and what percentage of it actually makes it to the one who needs it (the percentages are often appalling...). I think we need to return to an attitude of what I called earlier as "true" charity - that is getting your hands a little dirty in the personal effort to help people, as I described earlier.

[WorldWarrior]

T--


Would you explain why you think that someone giving up something in their own life (IE--making a sacrifice--which is a very "Christian" thing to do) to be able to write that check is a "passive giver"?

[Thorolf]

T--


Would you explain why you think that someone giving up something in their own life (IE--making a sacrifice--which is a very "Christian" thing to do) to be able to write that check is a "passive giver"?

They aren't giving up their time, emotional energy, etc, etc... they're giving up money - and the Bible has a few things to say about money.

It's a cop-out, WW. It's passive charity. It's ALWAYS easier to throw money at a problem than become invested in actually solving it - even *IF* it's a sacrifice to spend the cash.

I'm not saying that people SHOULDN'T contribute to charities, but I think there is more we should be doing...

[WorldWarrior]

As a Christian--do you see someone sacrificing something they really love--like a box of Dove bars--and a nice hot burger for lunch--to be able to help people in China as "passive"?


Didn't Jesus tell us to do that?

[SquirleyWurley]

Well it does seem to me that ultimately whatever can and should be done by programs or organizations, it is really crucially important for people to 'get their own hands dirty' helping someone build a house, prepare for an interview, learn to garden, learn a trade, get to the doctor, etc.

[SquirleyWurley]

They aren't giving up their time, emotional energy, etc, etc... they're giving up money - and the Bible has a few things to say about money.

The widow who gave a little bit of money, was commended for her generosity by Jesus in the one story.  The criticism was against the rich who patted themselves on the back for giving what was for them a small amount relative to their wealth, while the widow gave little but was so poor, it represented more of a sacrifice for her.  In the story there are no negative comments made by Jesus about giving money.

But what more do you think should be done, and how, and by whom?  What do you think sounds promising?

[Thorolf]

As a Christian--do you see someone sacrificing something they really love--like a box of Dove bars--and a nice hot burger for lunch--to be able to help people in China as "passive"?


Didn't Jesus tell us to do that?

I don't remember reading anything about dove bars and burgers in the Bible.

Do you actually know how to NOT play the "let's try to trap the other guy" game?

Read my posts, and you'll find your answer. I'm tired of playing your game.

[Thorolf]

They aren't giving up their time, emotional energy, etc, etc... they're giving up money - and the Bible has a few things to say about money.

The widow who gave a little bit of money, was commended for her generosity by Jesus in the one story.  The criticism was against the rich who patted themselves on the back for giving what was for them a small amount relative to their wealth, while the widow gave little but was so poor, it represented more of a sacrifice for her.  In the story there are no negative comments made by Jesus about giving money.

But what more do you think should be done, and how, and by whom?  What do you think sounds promising?

And, again, I don't condemn people who give money. But I think we should do more - we need to become personally/emotionally invested in helping other people. ONLY giving money and feeling good about ourselves for being so charitable, kind, and sacrificial is not what I think we are called to do...

There is no limit to the opportunities, no limit to who can do it, and people are amazingly creative. I'm not putting a cieling on the idea of charity - just suggesting that there is more than just the ground floor.

[WorldWarrior]

T says--


"I don't remember reading anything about dove bars and burgers in the Bible"



Why belittle the sacrifices that people make in order to try to help others?

Do you feel that *only* your way is the "right way"?

Do you truly think that God is going to judge people's hearts by your overly critical criteria?

I certainly don't.



If I were still involved in working with/for an NPO I would find your psots disturbing in that on their face they sound like they'd be very discouraging to those people who want to help others but who can only give a little money and have no time--and no expertise--to be able to help others face to face.

Your posts never did address the point by SW--that there are many things that only experts or highly trained personnel can deal with--like meeting medical and psychological needs of clients.

[Thorolf]

*sigh*

If this is all you can do, play games, I'm just going to stop responding to you altogether.

I don't belittle anything. I am critical of a prevailing attitude in the world today that donating money that is largely wasted or inefficiently applied while walking past people in our own life who NEED our help, if we'll only stop for a minute and give them some of our time is somehow "good enough."

I don't feel ONLY my way is the RIGHT way. Never said that. In fact, I think I've quite clearly said that there are limitless opportunities and methods...

I haven't said ONE WORD about judging, especially God's judgment. I don't set critical criteria like that.

I WORK FOR a nonprofit. My wife has a masters in nonprofit administration, and also works for a nonprofit, as well as consulting for several and presenting conferences on nonprofit issues and administration. I do NOT criticize people who work for NPOs or NGOs, nor do I say that people should NOT send money to good causes... please READ what I say rather than assume you know it all. You don't. Clearly.

I don't discourage anything except settling for self-aggrandizing appeasement when people could, and IMO should, be more personally invested.

I *DID* address SW's point.

Reading is FUNdamental.

Now, because this trend of completely ignoring what I actually say and the context in which I say it in favor of inventing some caricature with which you can play your petty little games is so prevalent in your posts, I am now forced to ignore your posts in this thread - at least until you can start having an intellectually honest discussion. This "get Thorolf" (or "get anybody who isn't lockstep with your tunnelvisioned paradigm") crap is tired, and I'm not going to play anymore.

I may even be forced to have your posts hidden if this is the tack you insist on following.

[WorldWarrior]

T says--

"I am critical of a prevailing attitude in the world today that donating money that is largely wasted or inefficiently applied while walking past people in our own life who NEED our help, if we'll only stop for a minute and give them some of our time is somehow "good enough"


You haven't deomonstrated that money donated to large NPOs like the Red Cross is "largely wasted or inefficiently applied."

And if you work for an NPO and you hold these views one has to wonder just how badly your employing NPO is doing things that makes you think that most NPOs do things that way.


Mine certainly didn't and I know many many others that get the work done efficiently and well.


Why do you paint NPOs as "inefficient" and not able to do the work in their mission statement except by "wasting" large amounts of money?



btw--if this is a debate board--why do questions and challenges about your ideas bother you so much?

[Thorolf]

Either trust me, or do the research... most NPOs and NGOs (no matter the size) deliver only pennies on the dollar to the intended beneficiary. Even the BEST tend to end up somewhere around $0.60 on the dollar, give or take a few pennies - and the government is among the worst in terms of efficiency.

And yes... yours did, too - it doesn't matter which you say you worked for. Every NPO has employees, overhead, insurance, etc, etc... not to mention simple waste, advertising, and so on. It's a very special NPO that can deliver a high percentage of each dollar they receive to the people who they intend to serve.

Not that it matters AT ALL to the heart of what I'm saying.

Not that you care, of course, because you think you can "get" me by targeting ancillary points and hijacking the thread.

btw, you don't question and challenge my ideas. You make things up and PRETEND those are my ideas.

[WorldWarrior]

T says--

"And yes... yours did, too - it doesn't matter which you say you worked for. Every NPO has employees, overhead, insurance, etc, etc... not to mention simple waste, advertising, and so on. It's a very special NPO that can deliver a high percentage of each dollar they receive to the people who they intend to serve."



It was my own NPO and almost all the money went to fulfill the mission.

I designed it that way.

If yours is wasting that much money something is very wrong.

I know plenty of other NPOs in which almost all the money goes to the mission.

Those are the ones I learned from.


Your posts discourage people from donating money by saying that it's in effect second hand giving. and not the "proper Christian way" to do things.

That's in your very first post.




How is it wrong to raise questions about the main issues in your statements? is this not a debate board?

How can questions about forms of giving be "hijacking" when that is your main point--that one form of giving is superior to another?

[Thorolf]

 

It was my own NPO and almost all the money went to fulfill the mission.

I designed it that way.

If yours is wasting that much money something is very wrong.

I know plenty of other NPOs in which almost all the money goes to the mission.

Those are the ones I learned from.

Sure. Whatever you say. Your OWN NPO... gotcha. Guess you didn't pay yourself or any employees, worked out of your bedroom, did not hire anyone, did not pay an accountant, lawyer (oh, right... you went to law school), garbage man, computer technician, etc... for their services, didn't travel, didn't have any advertising, didn't make phone calls, etc, etc... Too bad 99% of NPOs aren't run like that, eh?

Your posts discourage people from donating money by saying that it's in effect second hand giving. and not the "proper Christian way" to do things.

That's in your very first post.

Did I say "second hand giving?" I don't remember that.

I thought that what I said was something along the lines that simply writing a check is not, IMO, sufficient to satisfy what we should be doing in terms of charity. That Charity used to be something more involved than simply sending some organization money and hoping it ends up where it was intended to go, and that I think we need to work on getting back to being personally involved... but if you read that I want people to not send money to good causes, despite my now oft-repeated statements to the contrary... well, you must be right. I guess I must think that, because you said so.

How is it wrong to raise questions about the main issues in your statements? is this not a debate board?

*sigh* You must be right again. Clearly I have said that it is wrong to raise questions about the main issues in my statements. Yep... you're right. I mean, those posts where I said the exact opposite are just figments of my imagination... or maybe I was lying. That could be it... whatever it takes for you to be right. Because you don't play games... you're never wrong... you always just ask questions about the main points in people's posts.

Yep.

 

How can questions about forms of giving be "hijacking" when that is your main point--that one form of giving is superior to another?

Yep... my entire thesis is about superiority of forms of giving. You must be right again... nevermind that I have said repeatedly that we have chosen to focus almost exclusively on the one particular form, while I believe Christians are responsible for getting more personally involved than just that, and that I have said repeatedly that I do NOT suggest that people not donate money to good causes. I must have been lying again... because you're right. Of course.

Smell that? That's "sarcasm."

I'm going to delete any more of your posts in this thread because you have proven unwilling to stay on-topic, have repeatedly misrepresented my statements and positions, preferring to focus on ME rather than the actual points and context posted, and refuse to stick to the discussion at hand. This is a debate board, and, unfortunately, there has been a serious lack of actual debate in your posts. I will be sending you a PM, as well.

[WorldWarrior]

T says--

"Sure. Whatever you say. Your OWN NPO... gotcha. Guess you didn't pay yourself or any employees, worked out of your bedroom, did not hire anyone, did not pay an accountant, lawyer (oh, right... you went to law school), garbage man, computer technician, etc... for their services."


I had the legal aspects covered myself and the accounting etc--and had my office at home.

Whatever I couldn't do I got donated as in-kind services so the people who donated their time and expertise could take that as a deduction.


 If you work on it you can get most services donated too.

At the same time I was volunteering for an NPO that was run in a very similar way and they were kind enough to give me tips on how to do some of those things I couldn't figure out for myself.

Among the donated services--The artwork for the brochures.  Printing and mailing--donated as in-kind.  Gasoline ditto. Computer help--donated.

The list goes on.

90%+  of cash donations went directly to fulfilling the mission.


It's mostly in how you present the work of your NPO.
I happened to be very good at it because I did a lot of planning and work on it ahead of time and knew how to aim my messages to each potentioal services donor.

It's all in the planning and in staying focussed on specific goals for your NPO.

[Thorolf]

Congratulations... I'm skeptical, but acknoweldge that there's an advantage of being so small - you can get things like that. You can work out of your home. You can trade services... Of course, if you calculated (as you are legally supposed to) a portion of your mortgage or rent, utilities, hardware and supplies, etc... to bill proportionally to the business (or nonprofit), you may have seen a bit of a drop on your stated percentage... but we're really not here to discuss that.

The vast majority of nonprofits do not, and cannot operate in such a manner - and as a result cannot get anywhere NEAR 90%.

Of course, this thread really has nothing to do with that, either.

It has to do with encouraging the type of charity that we have let slip away - personal investment in the welfare and life-changing adjustments of the people around us who need our help.

I'm honestly not that concerned with whether or not you agree with the statement I made about the inefficiency by many organizations. Strike that - I'm not concerned AT ALL with whether or not you agree with that statement.

 

[Thorolf]

I want to take a second to offer an apology... I was incorrect in my assessment of efficiency of the "best" nonprofits in the ancillary discussion in this thread.

My wife actually corrected me. 

So I owe WW and SW an apology, and I'm not too proud to give it. 

I'm sorry.




Of course, that STILL is ancillary to the theme and point of this thread. 

[SquirleyWurley]

Well we're all talking about what we think the facts are, because we are concerned with what is actually taking place, whether we get distracted or not, whether we are successfully corrected on parts of our views or not.  I'm open to be corrected by reality, too.  That's why I explore various issues with other people in the first place.

As for the main theme, I'm trying to wrap my brain around it, is your main point the love shown to neighbor as an interactive, personal way to relate to others practically and person-on-person, or is your main point the practical help that can be offered, or is your main point the laziness of certain types of charity?  Perhaps all of the above.

It seems like your concern with the check-writing thing is the indirect nature of the help, the easiness of it, the feeling that there is a call to do something personal and practical with someone one-on-one.

[Thorolf]

As for the main theme, I'm trying to wrap my brain around it, is your main point the love shown to neighbor as an interactive, personal way to relate to others practically and person-on-person, or is your main point the practical help that can be offered, or is your main point the laziness of certain types of charity?  Perhaps all of the above.

Sort of all-of-the-above... I think it's important to not lose sight of the people around us who need our help, and that "help" is not necessarily in the form of a few bucks.

My wife's grandparents have exemplified this for me over the years... they write those checks I mentioned, and have anonymously donated the money for students to attend our private school who otherwise could not have afforded it... so there is a time and place for writing a check. But they ALSO have brought people who needed help getting on their feet, for a wide variety of reasons, into their home to live with them for as long as it took. They fed them, gave them a bed and a roof over their heads. They tutored them and taught by example how to live in a productive manner - they changed lives, not just by writing a check, but by "getting their hands dirty."

And I think that's something that is slipping away in modern society. Everybody wants a check, and it's so easy to write one... but I think if we really heed the call to charity, that we will become more personally invested. Not necessarily to the point of bringing someone into our homes, but SOMETHING more than shipping some cash off for who-knows-what.

It seems like your concern with the check-writing thing is the indirect nature of the help, the easiness of it, the feeling that there is a call to do something personal and practical with someone one-on-one.

I think that's pretty accurate... not that there is no value in writing a check, but that it's not the limit of charity, and that we need to get back to the kind of charity that has a proven track record of changing lives... the kind in which we are personally invested.

[SquirleyWurley]

Without trying to 'sell' someone our own way of life, our own ideas, etc., we can certainly talk to others who seem to be struggling, check on them regularly for the sake of encouraging them to do their best and acknowledging them when they are putting in effort on positive constructive healthy things.  And sometimes we can see that they need socks hats and gloves in the winter time, or some sterno because they live in the woods, etc.

It's really not that hard to befriend someone who is down and out.  But it goes best when we are able to listen for long periods and refrain from imposing our own judgment or view, and just acknowledge and encourage what is good and healthy.  What is actually helpful, or may be seen as helpful, will usually reveal itself sooner or later.

But some times that can get us embroiled in a bit of sadness or even chaos.  Some are more equipped for this sort of thing than others.  Some can handle more of it than others.