Charity with preaching

[s_gunter]

I go the idea for this thread from another thread, so instead of hijacking it, I thought I'd start my own.

First question: Have anyone experienced this? You (in general, no one specific) aren't a wealthy citizen of the country. So, sometimes you do have to go to the local soup kitchen. Or, a disaster strikes your home town(s), and there aren't any necessities of life available, except for those that charity organizations bring in after the fact.

Before you get your supplies (food, drink, clothing, etc) did you have to sit through a sermon first? Did it seem like you were being forcibly converted, in order to get what you needed?

Second question: Do you think that it is ethically right to do this? Preach first, serve later. Or, should charity be totally free?

 

[s_gunter]

And okay, I'll start this show.

Me reading that other thread that gave me the idea for this one brought back some memories. I was one of those that had to swallow her pride and accept relief from charitable organizations and churches after Katrina. But first, most of the time, I had to listen to a sermon first, and I remember how much I didn't like it, even though I am a Christian, and I was one long before Katrina was even a wave in the ocean.

And yes, this does happen. (If it didn't, why would the Pope have included it in his first encyclical?) In the case of charity, I agree with the Pope:

c) Charity, furthermore, cannot be used as a means of engaging in what is nowadays considered proselytism. Love is free; it is not practised as a way of achieving other ends.[30] But this does not mean that charitable activity must somehow leave God and Christ aside. For it is always concerned with the whole man. Often the deepest cause of suffering is the very absence of God. Those who practise charity in the Church's name will never seek to impose the Church's faith upon others. They realize that a pure and generous love is the best witness to the God in whom we believe and by whom we are driven to love. A Christian knows when it is time to speak of God and when it is better to say nothing and to let love alone speak. He knows that God is love (cf. 1 Jn 4:8) and that God's presence is felt at the very time when the only thing we do is to love. He knows—to return to the questions raised earlier—that disdain for love is disdain for God and man alike; it is an attempt to do without God. Consequently, the best defence of God and man consists precisely in love. It is the responsibility of the Church's charitable organizations to reinforce this awareness in their members, so that by their activity—as well as their words, their silence, their example—they may be credible witnesses to Christ.

--Deus Caritas Est, paragraph 31c
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/b...ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est_en.html

Yes, I do agree with the entire paragraph. It's just that it sometimes best to keep one's mouth shut....

 

[gwenmead]

When my spouse was homeless he had this happen to him.

Many of the local soup kitchens are run by churches. He found that at a good many of them he'd either have to hear preaching first before being fed, or else be subject to a sermon (or the reading of Bible verses) while he was eating.

I don't think he was impressed. He reports that he had the tendency to speak up and ask the preacher questions about what he was being told. Which lasted fine until the preachers got frustrated that they couldn't come up with any good answers to his doctrinal questions and basically told him to shut up.

I suppose there's a couple of ways of looking at the whole issue. I mean, perhaps a lot of local churches justify preaching because they feel that they're offering something to someone (i.e., food) and thus have the right to expect something back (i.e., the ear of a captive audience).

Others simply give because they feel that it's meeting a need in the community, and don't really expect anything back. The local food bank in our county is more like this. It's run mostly by older Christian women, using facilities donated by the local school district. When we were in a tight spot a few years ago the spouse and I sought food there for a few months. The ladies never hid their faith, but neither did they ever preach at or judge us - they simply helped us out.

Their attitude of simple giving and helping certainly spoke to my sense of gratitude much, much more than would a situation where I had to get preached at to have a basic need met.
I suspect the spouse, too, would've responded better to a church setting that fed him with a smile and some respect, and perhaps helped him find community resources instead of preaching at him - that is, offered him real help instead of trying to sell him religion.

It just bites the moose to be in a position where you're financially strapped and have to seek out charity. We sure didn't like it, even though we had to do it for awhile. Nobody is obliged to offer any, certainly, but I'd really hope that anyone who would offer charity would do it in such a way as not to further humiliate the individual or family who has to seek it. To have the receiving of food be contingent on hearing a sermon is just slimy, in my not-at-all humble opinion - it takes advantage of an individual who may well already be beaten down by hunger, which I find just despicable. I'd sure feel exploited if it were me, anyway.

Feed first, and don't preach at all, or else preach later. People can take in a message better on a full stomach anyway.

 

[Gardenia]

First question: Have anyone experienced this?

Second question: Do you think that it is ethically right to do this? Preach first, serve later. Or, should charity be totally free?

I have not personally had this happen to me, as (thank God) I have never been in that sort of situation. However, I have heard of this happening, and have spoken with Christians who do this. Preach first, charity last. Thankfully I have never heard of a Christian who would refuse to help someone because they did not accpet the preaching and convert.

I don't think it's okay. I would never preach first serve later. It really smacks of trying to take advantage of someone in a bad situation - when is that ever okay? Also, I can't see it having very good results.. I think most people would be less likely to convert, but I don't know for sure.
It is not something I would do, it's against what I feel is right. If someone is interested in my religion, they can approach me about it, but first they will be fed, clothed, and have shelter if it is at all in my power to do so.

 

[momalle1]

I think charity should be simply given. I think in the long run, when you try to force something on people, most will resist it simply because it's being forced. There will be some looking for the message and a few weak minded people that would go for anything. On the other hand, people will see this act of kindness and be inspired by it, and what better advocate do you have than one who came by choice? The person that brought me to Jesus did it through inspiration, never preached a word to me.

 

[meh]

I lived next to a mission in downtown Chicago. They didn't preach, but gave out pocket-size Bibles. Some people got them 3 times a day, with every meal. It seemed to be more effective than holding people almost hostage to receive charity they should be freely given in the first place. (IMO).

 

[justanobserver]

there was a short period in my life that I relied charity that came from church groups and yes a sermon was given but I didnt mind - I was eating a meal, but I will confess I wasnt really listening either. Its been over 20 yrs since I use to read the bible so my aging memory might not remember but did Jesus and the disciples ever feed a bunch of hungry folks without giving a sermon? I dont remember if yes or no.

 

[chalice_thunder]

True Charity is a sermon in and of itself.

Wasn't it Martin Luther who said something like:
"Preach the gospel - and if necessary, use words."

 

[Cleany]

I go the idea for this thread from another thread, so instead of hijacking it, I thought I'd start my own.

First question: Have anyone experienced this? You (in general, no one specific) aren't a wealthy citizen of the country. So, sometimes you do have to go to the local soup kitchen. Or, a disaster strikes your home town(s), and there aren't any necessities of life available, except for those that charity organizations bring in after the fact.

Before you get your supplies (food, drink, clothing, etc) did you have to sit through a sermon first? Did it seem like you were being forcibly converted, in order to get what you needed?

Second question: Do you think that it is ethically right to do this? Preach first, serve later. Or, should charity be totally free?

charity only after preaching? that isnt charity - its manipulation.

 

[elijah115]

The act of charity is itself witnessing. I think charity should be given indiscriminately, and I think the option should then be given to hear the sermon, or leave without hearing the sermon. So, charity before the optional sermon.

 

[Lynden1000]

I go the idea for this thread from another thread, so instead of hijacking it, I thought I'd start my own.

First question: Have anyone experienced this? You (in general, no one specific) aren't a wealthy citizen of the country. So, sometimes you do have to go to the local soup kitchen. Or, a disaster strikes your home town(s), and there aren't any necessities of life available, except for those that charity organizations bring in after the fact.

Before you get your supplies (food, drink, clothing, etc) did you have to sit through a sermon first? Did it seem like you were being forcibly converted, in order to get what you needed?

Second question: Do you think that it is ethically right to do this? Preach first, serve later. Or, should charity be totally free?

When I was fresh out of college, with no medical insurance and no money, I broke my toe and had to visit a free medical clinic. The clinic was a joint effort by the Assembly of God church and the Roman Catholic diocese. It was run by members of the Assembly of God but located on Catholic church property.

Not once did anyone ask me anything about my religious beliefs or indicate that certain religious beliefs were required for service. There was a small rack of Christian tracts on the back wall, a few bibles, and some religious magazines scattered around that you could read if you wanted to, and if you didn't, no one asked you to.

Since then I have worked with a number of faith-based charities and I have never once encountered any type of proselytization, much less the suggestion that help would not be given to those with other beliefs.

 

[faster_jackrabbit]

Thankfully I have never heard of a Christian who would refuse to help someone because they did not accpet the preaching and convert.

I have heard of far worse. I mentioned this in another thread, but in another forum, a victim of Katrina reported that some christian groups wouldn't help her at all simply because she was an atheist. They were initially friendly, but when they found out she didn't believe in god, they simply walked away and left her standing there to fend for herself.

Fortunately, other groups did not behave like that, so she did get help from those who actually behaved in christian fashion, as opposed to being christian in name only.

I have a very low opinion of relief groups with an agenda. I would rather support the red cross, who helps people simply because people need help.

Many christian relief organizations require a "statement of faith" before you can work with them. Why is that? Even <gasp> an atheist can pour coffee and serve food. Oh, right. An atheist wouldn't be useful for the evangelism part. So an atheist won't sign the statement and then gets accused of not wanting to help people. Where can we volunteer, except at the red cross?

Another point is that they are taking advantage of someone who is in a refugee state and vulnerable. The victims are grateful for the help, and are more likely to listen to their pitch than someone whose life is secure.

 

[coyoteBR]

Once I had to go to a hospital in a hurry. It was a catholic instituition. So I was there, alone, with only a pocket radio as a distraction. After several minutes of struggle, I managged to tune it in the local easy listening/blues station. As if she was waiting for it, the moment I managed to tune in, a nun entered, smilling, yankked the radio of my hands, saying "There's always something good for us to listen" and tuned in a sermon of a priest.
Needless to say, I was not amused. And I was catholic, at the time.


My mother belongs to a soup kitchen. There is a portrait of Jesus at the eating area, they pray before starting to serve the food and let everybody know that, having any personal problem they wanted to share, stay around and the kitchen people would listen to then in private, after the meal. I don't think it is "preaching", however, sometimes, interesting things happen.

Once, during the pray, the quote "no one is so rich they don't need help, nor so poor that can not give help" was used, but more in the spiritual/motivational level. One of the persons at the food line heard that and, next day, brought a bunch of bananas.
That man's gesture was a pray in itself.

Other time, the folks at the kitchen soup deceded to make an efford to help mothers in need, and gathered baby clothes, milk, booklets with information for new mothers, diapers, ... well, they mananaged to to quite a kit for less favoured women and their babies.
They noticed several women went, but there was a particular one who stayed at the gate.
The people of the kitchen went to ask if she wanted something.
"Yes, I'd like a mother kit"
"Sure", saud the volunteer, and asked her to come in, to choose the baby clothes she like more.
"I can't get in" was the answer "I am an evangelical christian and my pastor said you are people of the devil. Just want my stuff."

we got to say, that was a resoursefull young mother. She got her kit, and respected her pastor, the same time

 

[Argent]

I think that the "skidrow" missions had, and perhaps still do, have a policy of making people sit through a sermon before they fed them. I don't really agree with that, but they have traditionally worked with a population that was very self destructive or unable or unwilling to take care of themselves and the mission felt that the best hope for these people was conversion to Christianity, not just for the salvation of their souls, but also that they would then become more responsible citizens.

I think we now realize that that particular population is more likely to have mental health issue that led to chemical dependency and destitution, rather than just being indolent.

Here in New York, I don't know of any christian charity for the poor who requires a sermon attendance before aid is given. And that's the way it should be.

 

[happydapy]

I think that requiring someone to listen to a sermon before giving them help is a not so wonderful idea. Maybe an informal talk about God and salvation after the help if the person is reciptive would work a lot better.
You try and force the Gospel on someone who is hurting before helping them will make them resent you and enough people of faith do it possibly resent the faith as a whole or be less likely to go to a charity that is run by people of faith.
I personally would be grateful to get help and would have no problem sitting through a sermon during or afterwards...but then again I like sermons.

But giving a person a fire and brimstone lecture while they are hungry or hurting or in need of charity is kinda of mean.

 

[September]

Wasn't it Martin Luther who said something like:
"Preach the gospel - and if necessary, use words."

St. Francis of Assisi

 

[chalice_thunder]

St. Francis of Assisi

Thanks sister!!