Charity vs. Enabling

[Tull]

It does, but the fact is that such is not always the case.

These days it has all but disappeared from the conversation

 

[alsughasoughaiuyfygh]

.

 

[dogs4thewin]

These days it has all but disappeared from the conversation

What has?

 

[dogs4thewin]

I recently had to discontinue a charitable habit of mine due to the abuse. Charity is meant to help people in need, not to allow freeloaders an easy ride.

I used to buy sandwiches for alcoholic Native Americans in my town. You always see them on the streets drinking and panhandling. Most businesses will not hire them because the Native community in my town has such a bad reputation for being lazy, drunk and entitled. After giving them a sandwich or a cheeseburger, they just kept coming back for more and developed a dependency on me. Some even asked for food after walking out of the liquor store with a case of beer.

I had to think, "How is it they have money for alcohol every day but never enough to buy a $6 sandwich?" I also had to recognize that the Natives where I live get easy welfare from the government, subsidized housing and they don't even have to pay taxes on the reserves. They have tons of benefits for being born a certain heritage and still seem to demand more. As I see it now, all I did was enable their sense of entitlement for some of them.

"For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat." 2 Thessalonians 3:10

The above quote is there for a reason. There is no such thing as a free lunch and an act of charity will come out of someone's pocket. Just be careful because there are a lot of dishonest people in the world that will take advantage of people's kindness to fuel their own bad habits.

One thing I suggest to people is do like you were doing if they claim to need food offer them food if they refuse it then clearly they do not need help they just are looking for a free ride.

 

[Tull]

What has?

Jobs,work,industry and the serious need for them.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Jobs,work,industry and the serious need for them.

As well as the serious need for people to do them. People say there are no jobs in many cases actually there are none they are willing to do BIG difference.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Great book.

 

[Jane_Doe]

So the other day, a passenger tried to get on and demand a free ride. When my husband insisted on either a pass, or paying a cash fare, the passenger accused him of not being a good Christian. A good Christian, says the passenger, would let a guy ride for free. (Incidentally, my husband states that he doesn't remember seeing this passenger before, and has no idea how the passenger would even know he claims to be one.)

A) The person didn't know your husband was a Christian. They were taking a guess (as the US is >50% Christian) and trying to use his faith as a pawn in their scam. It is very despicable action to do.
B) No, it is not "charitable" of someone to let another person steal. That's what this scammer was wanting: to have your husband permit him to steal. Not ok.

There *are* cases in which it would be proper to give a courtesy ride, as it's called, but that's only in emergencies. The case can be made that how does the driver really know whether it's a scam or a true emergency? He could ask questions, but then those questions are really none of his business, are they?

A true emergency requires an ambulance, not a bus. The only question he needs to ask is "shall I dial 911 for you?".

I've seen it before, this notion that it's not our place to determine if someone really needs help or not. Jesus didn't run drug tests on everybody before he fed the 5,000, so therefore as Christians, we're obligated to just shut up and fork it over rather than worrying about whether or not that person deserves help.

This is very disjointed from rest of your post. And no, a person of any religious persuasion is NOT required to "shut up and fork it over rather than worrying about whether or not that person deserves help." In fact, often times such an action would be HARMFUL to the person in question, not charitable.

So... are we really called to be pushovers, easily letting others take advantage of us? Is that what charity is all about?

Pardon my bluntness: "charity" is not "allowing someone to steal". Charity = the pure love of Christ, and is not addressed by any of these scammers.

 

[Jane_Doe]

I recently had to discontinue a charitable habit of mine due to the abuse. Charity is meant to help people in need, not to allow freeloaders an easy ride.

I used to buy sandwiches for alcoholic Native Americans in my town. You always see them on the streets drinking and panhandling. Most businesses will not hire them because the Native community in my town has such a bad reputation for being lazy, drunk and entitled. After giving them a sandwich or a cheeseburger, they just kept coming back for more and developed a dependency on me. Some even asked for food after walking out of the liquor store with a case of beer.

I had to think, "How is it they have money for alcohol every day but never enough to buy a $6 sandwich?" I also had to recognize that the Natives where I live get easy welfare from the government, subsidized housing and they don't even have to pay taxes on the reserves. They have tons of benefits for being born a certain heritage and still seem to demand more. As I see it now, all I did was enable their sense of entitlement for some of them.

"For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat." 2 Thessalonians 3:10

The above quote is there for a reason. There is no such thing as a free lunch and an act of charity will come out of someone's pocket. Just be careful because there are a lot of dishonest people in the world that will take advantage of people's kindness to fuel their own bad habits.

I would argue that your stopping giving out sandwiches was the CHARITABLE thing to do. Giving out the sandwiches was just hurting people, not showing Christ-like love.

 

[alsughasoughaiuyfygh]

.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

I would argue that your stopping giving out sandwiches was the CHARITABLE thing to do. Giving out the sandwiches was just hurting people, not showing Christ-like love.

Great answer. Not many see that their "help" is often the most unloving thing they could do.

The question needs to be asked: do some people "help" simply in order to feel better about themselves? Do they avoid the more difficult job of confrontation (when appropriate) because they love themselves more than they do the poor?

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

I have several thoughts, based on various experiences.

Our church has a food pantry for the community, and a clothes closet for children. Now and then, we find people who need help in other ways. Our head deacon considers this a reliable test for whether somebody actually needs help, or they're running a scam. When, for example, they ask for money to put gas in their car, he'll offer to go with them to the gas station and pay for a fill-up. If they accept gratefully, he's glad to help. If they're mad, and they just want him to hand over the cash, then it's a good bet that something else is going on here. They might not even have a car in the first place. They wanted the money for something other than filling a gas tank. But what they want it for is nobody's business but their own, right? You Christians need to stop trying to tell other people how to live their own lives!

At another church I went to years ago, an obviously transient man showed up to the morning service one week. Afterward, he approached a member of the congregation. "I'm sure a fine Christian like yourself would give a hungry man a bite to eat." Bob, an older man not quite retired but not far from it, then told the visitor that there was a good amount of work that needed to be done on his property. In addition to a meal, he was willing to pay good money to have that work done. The visitor walked away, disgusted. He didn't want to work for pay. He just wanted Bob to give him something to eat, if Bob is the Christian he claims to be.

Then there is the quote attributed to Joel Osteen: "Your job is not to judge. Your job is not to figure out if someone deserves something. Your job is to lift the fallen, to restore the broken, and to heal the hurting." That sounds an awful lot to me like "Shut up and fork it over." Am I understanding it wrong?

I've got more, but I don't want this post to get too long.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

I have several thoughts, based on various experiences.

Our church has a food pantry for the community, and a clothes closet for children. Now and then, we find people who need help in other ways. Our head deacon considers this a reliable test for whether somebody actually needs help, or they're running a scam. When, for example, they ask for money to put gas in their car, he'll offer to go with them to the gas station and pay for a fill-up. If they accept gratefully, he's glad to help. If they're mad, and they just want him to hand over the cash, then it's a good bet that something else is going on here. They might not even have a car in the first place. They wanted the money for something other than filling a gas tank. But what they want it for is nobody's business but their own, right? You Christians need to stop trying to tell other people how to live their own lives!

At another church I went to years ago, an obviously transient man showed up to the morning service one week. Afterward, he approached a member of the congregation. "I'm sure a fine Christian like yourself would give a hungry man a bite to eat." Bob, an older man not quite retired but not far from it, then told the visitor that there was a good amount of work that needed to be done on his property. In addition to a meal, he was willing to pay good money to have that work done. The visitor walked away, disgusted. He didn't want to work for pay. He just wanted Bob to give him something to eat, if Bob is the Christian he claims to be.

Then there is the quote attributed to Joel Osteen: "Your job is not to judge. Your job is not to figure out if someone deserves something. Your job is to lift the fallen, to restore the broken, and to heal the hurting." That sounds an awful lot to me like "Shut up and fork it over." Am I understanding it wrong?

I've got more, but I don't want this post to get too long.

Great post.

We must be wise, and we must resist the urge to do what is easiest rather than what is best. To love your neighbor means doing what is best for him or her, not simply doing what is asked or demanded of you.

 

[Cearbhall]

So... are we really called to be pushovers, easily letting others take advantage of us? Is that what charity is all about?

In the case of your husband, definitely not. He's acting as an employee. Refusing to give out free rides is not the same as, say, a businessman engaging in unethical practices. Not only is he fully justified in protecting his own job, but he also is not causing harm. At the very worst, I think it would be called a sin of omission. Think of it this way: if more and more people are riding for free, then the cost of a ticket will likely go up, making it less affordable for everyone.

Outside of that context, still no. For example, I don't give money to people on the street because I don't want to pull out my wallet within reach of a stranger. Sure, most times it will be fine, but what about the one time someone steals my entire wallet to buy drugs? Now I have to pay to get everything replaced, and I probably won't be able to donate to any charities for a while. I'm not harming them by waiting for a transparent opportunity to donate. Skipping over vetting only ensures that resources won't do the most good.

 

[dogs4thewin]

That's what I figured. In the end I concluded that by giving them sandwiches, I was just making them spend less of their own money on food and more of it on alcohol. I honestly tried to generous like the Bible has told me but it just ended up that people would look at me and think, "Mmm, sandwiches!"

I'm just a man with limited resources, not a walking soup kitchen. Nature Parks have the 'Do Not Feed The Bears' signs for a reason.

However, one option would be to direct them to help; because exterme alcoholics are tricky. I am NOT suggesting that you give them money or even food, but what many people do not realize is that if someone is an EXTERME alcoholic they can actually die in withdrawals. At that point an option may be directing them to help because you do not want them to die but on the other hand you do not want to enable them, either.

 

[dogs4thewin]

I have several thoughts, based on various experiences.

Our church has a food pantry for the community, and a clothes closet for children. Now and then, we find people who need help in other ways. Our head deacon considers this a reliable test for whether somebody actually needs help, or they're running a scam. When, for example, they ask for money to put gas in their car, he'll offer to go with them to the gas station and pay for a fill-up. If they accept gratefully, he's glad to help. If they're mad, and they just want him to hand over the cash, then it's a good bet that something else is going on here. They might not even have a car in the first place. They wanted the money for something other than filling a gas tank. But what they want it for is nobody's business but their own, right? You Christians need to stop trying to tell other people how to live their own lives!

At another church I went to years ago, an obviously transient man showed up to the morning service one week. Afterward, he approached a member of the congregation. "I'm sure a fine Christian like yourself would give a hungry man a bite to eat." Bob, an older man not quite retired but not far from it, then told the visitor that there was a good amount of work that needed to be done on his property. In addition to a meal, he was willing to pay good money to have that work done. The visitor walked away, disgusted. He didn't want to work for pay. He just wanted Bob to give him something to eat, if Bob is the Christian he claims to be.

Then there is the quote attributed to Joel Osteen: "Your job is not to judge. Your job is not to figure out if someone deserves something. Your job is to lift the fallen, to restore the broken, and to heal the hurting." That sounds an awful lot to me like "Shut up and fork it over." Am I understanding it wrong?

I've got more, but I don't want this post to get too long.

When my mother worked at a church what they did was if someone claimed to need money for food, for example they had arangments with a local store to offer something like the old fastion food stamps that could ONLY be used for food. If a person came in needing a bill paid they would write the check out for them TO THE BUSINESS. This way they could ONLY pay the bill.

 

[quatona]

[...] and I want to get input from non-Christians too.[...]
Christians, we're obligated to just shut up and fork it over rather than worrying about whether or not that person deserves help.
[...]
So... are we really called to be pushovers, easily letting others take advantage of us? Is that what charity is all about?

As a non-Christian, I am not in the position to tell you what a "good Christian" should do.
Anyway, "this or that makes me a pushover, this or that means letting others easily take advantage over us" is just a matter of personal interpretation.
IMO giving someone a free ride (without double checking they really need it) means neither.
My personal opinion: "deserving" is a very shaky concept anyway, and "worrying about" who deserves what isn´t doing anybody any good.
On another note, I could easily live with the risk that I have given someone a free ride even though wasn´t an emergency, whereas with the risk I that I have denied someone a free ride even though it was an emergeny - not so much. And as a busdriver, I guess I wouldn´t see in-depth investigation as part of my job description.

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

As I understand it, Quatona, the passenger gave no reason for wanting a free ride. Wants to visit a family member in the hospital, needs to go to the store to get formula for a hungry baby, had a few too many and doesn't feel safe to drive, or whatever, those situations might be reasonable. He didn't offer any of that, though. Just, "I don't want to have to pay to ride this bus, and if you expect me to, you're a lousy Christian." My husband didn't feel this was fair to the other passengers who had paid.

Speaking of "I don't have money to pay a fare, but I need to go see someone in the hospital," my husband heard that one not too long ago. The thing is, there are only two hospitals in this entire city, and the bus he was driving wasn't going to either one. Nor was it intersecting a route that would go there. When my husband told the passenger that, and tried to direct him toward the stop for the correct bus, the passenger got angry. Apparently he actually wanted to go somewhere other than to the hospital. Where? Who knows? Is it any of my husband's business? Of course not. But it seems to me, a passenger probably shouldn't expect a free ride if he's not willing to be honest about the reason for needing one.

Are you saying it would be best for drivers to waive the fare for any passenger who asks, just in case there might be a reason? Or did I misunderstand?

I think I'm using my husband's experiences as a springboard to discuss the topic of when giving assistance does cross the line into being a pushover.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

As a general social rule I think that the bell curve (normal distribution) applies. Some people "get lucky".

I think that some of the "low rollers" at the rough end, they aint going to fit into a sleek capitalist society very easily. And thats a recurring statistic which isnt easily solved...

Also with mentlaly ill, its not they cant do anything, but the high pressure 9 to 5 is likely to extreme for them. But thats the way the show is run, for and in terms of normal people.

Enabling these "less blest" people ought to take a different form than trying to fit them into normal society and standardise them, just like the paralympics have different rules etc...

Maybe what we ought to do (in terms of a parallel humane life for the unlucky) could turn out to be more socially expensive in monetary terms. A hand out here and there is potentially cheaper than social transformation which revolves around respecting human dignity (eg dignity in work as the Catholics teach) at all social scales.

Eg finding work for a manic depressive who is ok one day and down the next. It would need a culture shift, to a partially "medieval" style economy where odd jobs here and there were more common.

One idea is, at a day centre, could the recipients maybe do some washing up or painting etc. Recently I asked some homeless what their talents were and paid for nic nacs etc. The next week I saw homeless with drawings etc, in exchange for cash gifts!

 

[quatona]

As I understand it, Quatona, the passenger gave no reason for wanting a free ride. Wants to visit a family member in the hospital, needs to go to the store to get formula for a hungry baby, had a few too many and doesn't feel safe to drive, or whatever, those situations might be reasonable. He didn't offer any of that, though. Just, "I don't want to have to pay to ride this bus, and if you expect me to, you're a lousy Christian."

Personally, I don´t like the way Christian (or other ideologists) put pressure on each other by appealing to their ideology.

My husband didn't feel this was fair to the other passengers who had paid.

Well, if creating fairness (or what he thinks is fairness) is so important to him and is his duty in such cases, I guess that´s the way he has to act.

Speaking of "I don't have money to pay a fare, but I need to go see someone in the hospital," my husband heard that one not too long ago. The thing is, there are only two hospitals in this entire city, and the bus he was driving wasn't going to either one. Nor was it intersecting a route that would go there. When my husband told the passenger that, and tried to direct him toward the stop for the correct bus, the passenger got angry. Apparently he actually wanted to go somewhere other than to the hospital. Where? Who knows? Is it any of my husband's business? Of course not.

So - to me - the question is: Why does he make it his business?

But it seems to me, a passenger probably shouldn't expect a free ride if he's not willing to be honest about the reason for needing one.

...but that´s a different question, isn´t it? It seemed to me you asked what the busdriver should do - not what the passenger should do.

Are you saying it would be best for drivers to waive the fare for any passenger who asks, just in case there might be a reason? Or did I misunderstand?

I´m just wondering what prompts him (or you?) to be so concerned with the issue.

I think I'm using my husband's experiences as a springboard to discuss the topic of when giving assistance does cross the line into being a pushover.

If I understand correctly, it´s not your husbands bus, it´s not your husband´s money. I´m not sure why being generous without even suffering a loss is considered being a pushover.