Since when has charity had a price?

[IndependentVoice]

I was reading the editorial section of my local newspaper today, when I happened to come across a letter to the editor from a local woman. The title foreshadowed what I knew would appall me, but much like a train wreck I could not look away. The title was simply put, Charity should come with a price. this is what Susan M. Stephens of Lima, OH, has to say. "Luke 15 tells the story of the son who squandered his inheritance and of how hunger brought him to repentance". The opening paragraph showed me I was in for a talking to from a self-righteous Christan twit, unfortunately, I was right.

Paragraph two follow in suit as such; "Years ago, charity was a function of the local church and the church leadership followed biblical principals, such as refusing to feed those who refused to find work. The person was assisted in finding gainful employment and their eternal destination was deemed more important than their temporary comfort." But the next paragraph, proves that, even the shortest of statements can be the most meaningful, and reflect best a persons true nature.

"Today many churches have adopted a socialistic philosophy. Some pastors will deliver a trunk load (trunk not truck) of groceries or will give out cash cards with no accountability required".

Now I did a search and apparently it seems that google and miss Stephens are at odds. When I searched for the definition of charity I came up with some weird answers.

-A foundation created to promote the public good.

-A kindly and lenient attitude toward people.

-an institution set up to help the needy.

I even found some christan definitions, just for miss Stephens and all the others who agree with her.

-Charity is a term in christan theology (one of the three theological virtues), meaning loving kindness toward others; it held to be the ultimate perfection of the human spirit, because it is said to glorify and reflect the nature of God.

-Spiritual love for others, giving to the needy.

-Used in some parts of the New Testament to translate the Greek agape, which is often translated as "love" or "affection".

So it seems both webster AND other traditional Christan's have a hard time agreeing with miss Stephens. She seems to think people have to work for charity, you know like the homeless, disabled and mentally ill, you know the lucky group who get to lay around and beg all day in the streets, and get free food at their soup kitchens, and to top it all off, they sleep wherever they want! Outrageous!

But let me tell you where I stand. I believe that some people, hell all people, who are down and out deserve to get a simple trunk load of food, that will last them for god knows how long and, make their lives a little easier. But its more than that, its showing them that there are still good people in the world, there is still some hope, that some people are willing to help you even if your down and out, because your still a person. That means that your life is just as valuable as mine, and it would be wrong to deny you even food just because I don't know if your going to be reliable with it.

What the real issue to me with this article was not simply the blatant statement, but the undertones right beneath the surface. Its yet more evidence of a good, well based religion, that values life and virtue, honesty and kindness, love and caring, starting a slow decent into the variety in the political field. The kind that values money and possessions, greed and indifference, fame and power instead. I see this as one more person, one more case, and that much more evidence of a good religion, slowly going bad, one person at a time.

But hey thats just me.

[Warpy]

1. Read "Angela's Ashes"

for a look at what wholly church based charity is really like. It combines the maximum of degradation and humiliation with the minimum of actual help.

The last people who should be trusted with charity work are the smugly religious.

[Igel]

2. I worked for a church.

We helped the poor.

We had a set of policies, based upon whether a person couldn't or wouldn't work.

Some people were merely out of work and looking. They got help. As long as they needed it. In some cases, they were hired by the church for odd jobs.
Some people simply couldn't make enough money for things like telephone service, and got help.
Some people simply couldn't work. They were too old, too young or too sick. They got help. If it was a psychological problem, they were expected to get counseling and improve, if possible.

A couple of people wouldn't work and wouldn't get help. They got nothing. If they had a family, steps were taken to help the family without helping the wannabe parasite.

There were too many people needing help to help those that think they deserve it for merely existing. The people that contributed money contributed it for the needy, not the self-made needy.

We strongly preferred paying bills directly than giving people money. And we monitored people, esp. those not in the church. Some folks had no trouble whatsoever scamming churches.