Welcome to chapter two! This chapter aims to lay out the argument against direct service charities. This is the introduction to the chapter. In the end my thesis will argue we can redeem direct service by including the people who need the services in the work to provide the services.
We need to change US food systems, which is a long-range project. In the meantime, there are people who will not get the food they need without programs that meet immediate needs. Hungry people can’t just wait for us to make systemic changes. Churches can and should be engaged in helping to create systemic change; they are already engaged in direct food service by providing food pantries, meals programs, and most recently, gardens.
Traditionally we provide food in the form of “charity”—that is we who have plenty of food give food to those who do not have enough food. When stated in this way it is clearly a win-win—the person with plenty has an opportunity to care for their neighbors and the person in need gets more of what they need. All is good. Or all appears to be good. It turns out charity in the form of direct service is not that simple.
People who need food may need, or want, or dream of, particular types of food, available in particular ways, and at particular times; people who have plenty consider keeping costs down, simplicity of serving, storage capacity, shelf-life, and the pleasure they get from being the givers. The givers make rules about who and how and when and why people can receive; those in need respond by adjusting the story they tell, adapting to meet the required why, complaining about when the food available, explaining how important this is to them, working hard to meet the rules that have been laid out. The givers are now the authority, deciding what it is the eaters need; they are far removed from the eaters who are allowed only what the authorities decide. The distance between the givers and receivers makes it so those that are trying to help do not actually know what help is needed.
When those who can give become only givers, and those who receive become only receivers we have created an us-vs-them scenario instead of neighborly sharing. Our evangelism becomes disconnected from our direct service charity because we cannot imagine the people who need food as our neighbors, our sisters and brothers, as part of the Body of Christ. But more than that we come to see the people need food as only receivers, and thus as only people with problems. We come to see people with enough food as only givers, and not in the same need of redemption as the receivers. Not knowing people makes it impossible to love them as full human beings.
People giving from their bounty care about reducing waste, increasing fairness, and creating efficient systems to minimize the number volunteers needed, so we implement strategies for making the giving more effective, and these strategies make the giving even more impersonal. We worry about serving maximum numbers efficiently rather than about creating the maximum opportunities to serve. We serve people who have gifts and talents and experience that would make them excellent volunteers, but we do not let them lead.
If we don’t get to know the people our food ministries serve, don’t love people who need food as neighbors with gifts and strengths, and don’t share the work of leadership in our ministries than our charity creates an us vs. them environment and becomes not very charitable.
Unrelated to my thesis, I notice that blogs require short paragraphs and an academic paper has many long paragraphs.
We need to change US food systems, which is a long-range project. In the meantime, there are people who will not get the food they need without programs that meet immediate needs. Hungry people can’t just wait for us to make systemic changes. Churches can and should be engaged in helping to create systemic change; they are already engaged in direct food service by providing food pantries, meals programs, and most recently, gardens.
Traditionally we provide food in the form of “charity”—that is we who have plenty of food give food to those who do not have enough food. When stated in this way it is clearly a win-win—the person with plenty has an opportunity to care for their neighbors and the person in need gets more of what they need. All is good. Or all appears to be good. It turns out charity in the form of direct service is not that simple.
People who need food may need, or want, or dream of, particular types of food, available in particular ways, and at particular times; people who have plenty consider keeping costs down, simplicity of serving, storage capacity, shelf-life, and the pleasure they get from being the givers. The givers make rules about who and how and when and why people can receive; those in need respond by adjusting the story they tell, adapting to meet the required why, complaining about when the food available, explaining how important this is to them, working hard to meet the rules that have been laid out. The givers are now the authority, deciding what it is the eaters need; they are far removed from the eaters who are allowed only what the authorities decide. The distance between the givers and receivers makes it so those that are trying to help do not actually know what help is needed.
When those who can give become only givers, and those who receive become only receivers we have created an us-vs-them scenario instead of neighborly sharing. Our evangelism becomes disconnected from our direct service charity because we cannot imagine the people who need food as our neighbors, our sisters and brothers, as part of the Body of Christ. But more than that we come to see the people need food as only receivers, and thus as only people with problems. We come to see people with enough food as only givers, and not in the same need of redemption as the receivers. Not knowing people makes it impossible to love them as full human beings.
People giving from their bounty care about reducing waste, increasing fairness, and creating efficient systems to minimize the number volunteers needed, so we implement strategies for making the giving more effective, and these strategies make the giving even more impersonal. We worry about serving maximum numbers efficiently rather than about creating the maximum opportunities to serve. We serve people who have gifts and talents and experience that would make them excellent volunteers, but we do not let them lead.
If we don’t get to know the people our food ministries serve, don’t love people who need food as neighbors with gifts and strengths, and don’t share the work of leadership in our ministries than our charity creates an us vs. them environment and becomes not very charitable.
Unrelated to my thesis, I notice that blogs require short paragraphs and an academic paper has many long paragraphs.
RSS Feed
