Charity with a Catch: No Religion, No Food

There is a church in Indiana which requires people taking advantage of the food kitchen and homeless shelter to also participate in the life of the church. In short hand - no religion, no food. Just to be clear, the church has allowed that the people do not have to worship at their church - it can be at another church or even AA. But they have to at some level engage in a spiritual practice if they are going to take advantage of the church's material largess.

Of course, this strikes most of us as draconian and the worst kind of religious bribery. The mandate to help those who are in need has no strings attached. You do not feed the hungry, house the homeless, and clothe the naked so they will believe what you believe. Rather you do it because, one, it is the right thing to do; and two, because it has its own spiritual rewards. So, the idea that you give with one hand while giving a head lock with the other is repugnant.

But there is another way to look at this. I have often seen churches which are heavily involved in social services to the poor, but on Sunday morning in the pristine sanctuary there is not one person who was there during the week in search of food or other help. This divide between who is welcome to come to the soup kitchen and who is welcome to the Sunday service is just as disgusting. Of course, it is never made explicit, but it is felt. The invisible rope of class often can be just as forbidding as the velvet rope in front of any other exclusive club.

Part of the reason this church in Indiana caused a ruckus was the question of federally funding for their programs. Of course, they shouldn't receive funds for social services if they are using those programs to force people to attend their churches. But if you believe as I do (and from my own experience) that religion can help the individual to overcome many of life's challenges, then encouraging participation in religious activities is part of providing efficacious services. It is about being effective. I believe a church should have the right to invite (not force) people to services. A simple sign in the soup kitchen would be enough - "We welcome you here through the week, and we welcome you on Sunday too."

Ultimately it gets so complicated, and legally fraught that it is probably better to keep worship and social services separate. But this strict separation can foster a very patronizing dynamic which signals to those who come to our churches in times of desperate need - "you are good enough for me to feed you across the counter, but not good enough for me to kneel with you before the Lord."

Cross Posted from Beliefnet's Progressive Revival

Comments

[Puskara]

Continued.­..

For many churches their social programs exist as a way to bring more into their folds. To increase their numbers and their power in the community and to homogenize thought in the area to eliminate the disruptive influence of disagreement. Remember that disagreement in thought threatens the groups ability to maintain their beliefs which is what unifies them and gives them the appearance of safety.

This is also why many conservative churches oppose government programs. They subconsciously fear that if government programs can solve societies woes then the people will not believe, that THEY will no longer believe. They need to believe that god is the answer and that humanity is the problem. If government, and thus humanity, can solve its own problems then what need is there for god. How will they feel about their dedication to religious belief as the salve to cure our ills when it is demonstrably unnecessary?

If you are still tempted think otherwise consider my former co-worker Sandeep who told me of Christian missionaries in his hometown who are paying the locals cash rewards for converting to Christianity. These are people who are poor and lack most modern conveniences. If someone is willing to fly across the world and pay then money to change their religion what is it that they are after? Do they seek to help others are are they concerned with racking up a winning score? "See we are many, thus we are strong, thus we are right!"

Puskara

[Puskara]

"You do not feed the hungry, house the homeless, and clothe the naked so they will believe what you believe. Rather you do it because, one, it is the right thing to do; and two, because it has its own spiritual rewards. "

While I agree with the author without reservation that we SHOULD do these things simply because they are right and because they convey psychological or as the author put it "spiritual" rewards that is most certainly NOT why most churches do it.

Churches are primarily an expression of human tribalism. To maintain the group they are boded together by fantastical and contradictory beliefs and the more they believe the more they are accepted and respected. Not because believing unbelievable things has merit in and of itself but because strong belief in the groups unworthy tenants conveys your loyalty and commitment to the group.

Not surprisingly this sort of is hard to maintain and thus the more unreal the beliefs the more one must surround oneself with like thinkers and the more one must exclude unlike thinkers.

To be continued.­..

[historymatters]

"But there is another way to look at this. I have often seen churches which are heavily involved in social services to the poor, but on Sunday morning in the pristine sanctuary there is not one person who was there during the week in search of food or other help. This divide between who is welcome to come to the soup kitchen and who is welcome to the Sunday service is just as disgusting­."

I thought this was the most interesting observation in the post. A small (but seems to be growing) number of churches make it far too clear who they think is "good enough" to worship a god they claim loves everyone. In addition to poor people, homeless people, and those with addictions, they're all too ready to close the doors against anyone they judge as socially unacceptable in some way. Like those churches that refuse membership to gays and lesbians, for instance.

[stelmachm1]

Maybe the church should stop leveraging fear against its constituents.

[bannorhill]

Maybe the nonbelievers should go to their local atheist run food kitchen.

[bannorhill]

Wait I forgot. Atheist don't want to help feed the hungry and run food kitchens.

[bcarries]

That's odd, I'm an atheist and I...

Routinely give to the poor/less fortunate
donate food, clothes, time to various drives and organizations
Encourage others to do the same
Coach kids sports for free
Fix computer equipment for free for many local schools, daycares, churches and places that do good things in the community

But according to you, I ...as an atheist...­don't want to do these things.

What I really think is that maybe you just found 1 or 2 atheist who are bums and you want to group us all into that mold. You can't do that. That would be the same as me noting the massive number of "religious" people I know who lie, cheat, steal, degrade others, hurt each other, etc. and then labeling all people from those religions /denominations (Catholics, Baptists, Evangelicals, Episcopalians, Jehovah Witnesses, Buddhist, Muslims, Jewish, etc.) as liars and cheaters and thieves and so on.

Labeling and stereotyping is just wrong. What the world needs more of is people getting to know one another instead of shutting off one another because of their religious, political, or any other affiliation.

[Schaz]

I pass a small church on my way to work that has a huge sign out front -- "Everyone welcome. Come as you are."

That's the way to be inviting!

[PlaceboStudman]

Let's see if they would say that to someone entering with Pagan or Satanic cloaks

[noralou]

I am sure Jesus Christ would support this whole-heartedly (not!) I was raised a non-Christian and was told that helping others is its own reward. If you do it for the glory or put conditions such as these on it, all you are is a self agrandizing bully. Feeding people when they are hungry is the "Christian" thing to do, blackmailing them with the food is a disgusting idea.
I am a Buddhist. I try to live my life under the Golden Rule (treat others as you wish to be treated). Helping others is good for me spiritually, if I made that help contingent on the helped person converting to my religion, my spirituality would suffer.

[oustfan]

I consider "the worst kind of religious bribery" as the kind where they say they'll kill you if you don't practice their religion. But, we're all entitled to our own opinion.

I don't understand your last sentence. Wouldn't that be true if they told the needy that they could NOT worship with them?

However, I completely agree that churches shouldn't receive a penny from federal funds.

[Erica2526]

I don't think charity should come with strings attatched the purpose of giving is not to require that you get something back. People should not be forced to believe in something that they don't believe in just to get a free meal. On the other hand if they want to give stuff away on their on terms, I suppose thats up to them.
http://whatwouldyoudo-if.blogspot.com/

[boophus]

NOT with MY DIME they don't! If they take NO tax dollars they can do whatever they want. Otherwise they can't discriminate based on some one not falling in line with thier beliefs.

[LeftRight]

I actually don't think that there's a problem with this. First, because it is the church's choice to provide that charity or not. Second, because it's not a governmental agency forcing that religion on the people needing charity. And Third, because they aren't insisting that the people they are helping attend THEIR church, just SOME spirituality!

[boophus]

So they take someones tax dollars to refuse to help someone who doesn't practice spirituality. I see something VERY WRONG with this. I would starve before I would let some sanctimonious jerk tell me to crawl and submit to thier beliefs because the government gave them tax dollars to force me to crawl to eat. This is why churches should get NO federal money. Then they can practice thier peculiar justification for not following what Christ said.

Not only do they get tax free status on thier investments but now they actually get 'handouts' to enable them to deny anyone who doesn't believe like them. This is DIsgusting

[whateverlolawants]

But what defines spirituality, and why should I have to partake in it? I haven't found any form of it that benefits me or even fits into my life and worldview. Someday I might, but I'm living fine without it. Some people take yoga classes with a spiritual aspect. Would that be included? I think it's legally wrong to get federal funds for this, and it's morally wrong to do this. I thought Christians were supposed to lead by example, and their example would make others want to join them. I agree that too many church-run charities aren't welcoming those they help into their congregations, though, and ENCOURAGING them to attend is fine.

[LeftRight]

But are you asking a CHURCH to provide you with charity?? If you are then it's reasonable for them to place certain limits on it (although I would hardly consider it Christian.­...)