Thursday, September 25, 2014
Questions
Elsewhere Dan was making a big deal of what he and his church do to help those in need. At the outset, let me say that this is a good thing. Then he made a comment to someone else along the lines of "Well why don't you just go ahead and fix things for them" or words to that effect. That comment brought back some things I've wondered about for a while when it comes to Dan and what he does for those in need.
Now, before I go further, I need to clarify something. It sounds like Dan and his church do a lot of work with the those with mental health issues. I suspect that if this is a major part of what they do it probably colors Dan's attitudes and how he frames his involvement. My point is that much of what I might say does not apply to those in need of mental health services. I just needed to get that out up front.
Back to Dan's comment. It seems as though he is suggesting that the way things are supposed to work is that it is a matter of fixing things for people. But is that really the right approach? It seems that there is a growing body of research that suggests otherwise.
What I'd be interested in is exactly what Dan and his church do to help those in need. How they measure success, or failure. How many of the people they help are receiving help long term. How is the determination made to determine who needs help, and what type of help they need or get. Is there accountability. Whom makes the decisions. How often do they evaluate how things are going.
What I'm trying to do is avoid the trap of allowing my preconceptions color my conclusions. I have no idea if I'll ever get a response, or if it will be detailed. I'd hope to, but who knows.
But it's out here waiting.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Craig, how in the world would I ever have known these questions/comments were here? I don't think you ever told me that. Because for such a long time, you didn't post much here, I quit checking here for anything. I just happened to randomly find these pages today.
If you don't tell me, "hey Dan, check out my blog..." I really can't guess that you're doing this.
To your questions on this post:
We at Jeff St believe in, Doing Justice, Loving mercy and walking humbly with God, as the Prophet Micah had said.
Loving mercy, to us, suggests doing acts of charity, helping out those in need. We do this in a number of ways, collectively and individually. We have a disproportionate number of social workers, teachers, health care workers, mental health providers and other "givers" in our congregation. The vast majority of our adults work in those fields, giving by providing aid.
We have a homeless drop in center we run daily in the mornings, providing food, healthcare, community, assistance and a safe, welcoming place to the homeless, mentally ill and otherwise marginalized.
We have started a couple of housing groups for homeless women and children, helping these women move from homelessness to self-sustaining lives.
We have a lunch table providing food to the hungry nearly every Sunday.
We have an open mic coffee house for everyone, but especially our homeless and mentally ill friends, to give them a safe, warm and inviting place one Saturday night a month to come, hang out and "be normal," even participating in the open mic, sharing their talents with others.
We have an annual "reclaiming Christmas project" where we encourage friends and families to give to projects for those in need rather than to us. These projects have included wells, schools, heating projects etc in Latin America and in Morocco (specifically to our Muslim brothers and sisters).
We also helped start (many years ago) the local Habitat for Humanity group in Louisville.
Among other things/actions.
All of that from a church of about 70-80 members.
Those are our charity or mercy works.
In addition to mercy/charity, we strive to take seriously the DO Justice command. This is taking actions to make systemic changes that lead to homelessness, oppression, racism, etc.
So, to be clear: We differentiate between acts of kindness/charity done mostly at the individual level and acts of justice, done to make systemic changes on behalf of/alongside with the needy and marginalized.
Our acts of Justice have included forming a Direct Action Justice organization made up of churches across our city to take on projects/issues like...
Pay Day/predatory lending (which can lead to the poor -typically - being loaned money at rates up to 400$!!);
"school-to-prison" pipelines, where many of our poorest/often minority students get systematically moved from classroom to suspension to "troubled school" to juvenile court to prison;
reparative justice solutions in school as opposed to "zero tolerance" (which in turn, leads to that school to prison pipeline noted above);
etc.
So, we do charity and we strive to make just, rational, research-based systematic changes at the local and state gov't levels.
Form an intentional community group where several families have moved to some land together, providing an alternative model that is simpler and more sustainable that a more consumeristic model;
Among other things.
And, of course, we also strive to walk humbly with God, which we tend to see as communal worship and our daily walk with God.
Who makes these decisions? We all do. Including the very poor whom we seek to help. Our church strives for a very holistic, inclusive, bottom up approach to justice and charity, not one that is patriarchal and top-down ("here, let us do this for you, you poor and pathetic ones...")
Craig...
It seems as though he is suggesting that the way things are supposed to work is that it is a matter of fixing things for people. But is that really the right approach?
Like many churches, we certainly have, in the past, been quite guilty of "let us fix things for these poor people" approach. We have deliberately moved away from that model for many reasons.
Now, what we do is more collaborative, as noted. As is true in social work (good social work, anyway) in general: The point is not to "fix things" for the poor and tell them that it's now fixed, the point is to collaborate and work for just and sustainable solutions.
Many other questions:
How they measure success, or failure?
Deliberately, by benchmarks and notable changes.
How many of the people they help are receiving help long term?
Depends on the situation. Sometimes, we're giving some money to a family for rent to avoid being kicked out of their apartment tomorrow. One and done.
Other times, we're working long-term with families in a collaborative/case worker sort of model.
It all depends on the specific circumstances and needs.
And, as noted, at the same time we are also working on systemic changes. Like many poorer people we meet are continually running short of money and have turned to payday lenders who start out borrowing "just $200 til payday.." and that snowballs and the interest accumulates til there is no way to get out from under the debt. If it were illegal to charge, in effect, 400% on these types of loans, then that would resolve one part of the problem.
And again, this is something we decided on as a group process, in talking with churches across the city, including the very poor who were trapped by these circumstances. It's something we've collaborated on to make systemic change for a more just state.
How is the determination made to determine who needs help, and what type of help they need or get?
Depends on what level the problem is at and how it arises. Our pastor and staff have a small "benevolence fund" that they use for those emergency situations, to pay rent this time to keep from being kicked out, but that is a minor part of what we do.
Is there accountability.
Yes, at every level, there is accountability.
Okay, that's enough for now, hopefully you get the gist.
Craig...
Then he made a comment to someone else along the lines of "Well why don't you just go ahead and fix things for them" or words to that effect.
In relation to the topic of gov't "welfare" for the poor (and similar topics), I have offered up the compromise to conservatives: IF you don't want to have gov't paying to deal with the needs/problems of the poor, then by all means, step up and fix things yourselves. IF conservatives banded together and ended the problem of homeless families, for instance, then gov't would certainly step out of the way and allow that to happen. Further, by and large, people would applaud those conservative efforts (if they were done reasonably). There is absolutely nothing preventing conservatives from putting gov't out of the welfare business IF they just stepped up and solved the problems at hand.
That, I think, is what you're referencing here. And I think that is a very reasonable compromise and a win/win for conservatives as well as the poor and everyone else. IF they stepped up and did it. Conservatives would be widely lauded and respected for taking care of these problems.
However, the problem is complaining about gov't's solution to these problems but not stepping up to do something yourself.
Now, from my perspective, the problem (I think) is that sometimes, a central "gov't" (ie, WE the people) is the best place for a solution. On air pollution, for instance, the state of Kentucky COULD step up and, via regulations, education and other efforts, reduce all their air pollution significantly, but if Ohio, West Virginia, Indiana and surrounding states did not do the same, we would still have polluted air. Same goes for water. Sometimes, central regulations, programs, plans are essential to getting the problem solved/remediated.
So, we at Jeff St do what we can, as 80 or so people, working with other likeminded folk, but sometimes, what is needed are central gov't solutions - as with the problems of disabled (physically and emotionally) veterans, as with the problems of predatory lending, as with the "school to prison pipeline," etc.
Just by way of clarification.
"However, the problem is complaining about gov't's solution to these problems but not stepping up to do something yourself."
1. I think I can safely say that I have stepped up and done a few things myself, so cut that crap.
2. There is plenty of actual statistical evidence that conservatives are doing things in this area. Or that things are being done by applying conservative principles. The fact that you simply presume the opposite just makes my point.
Craig, I know you've done good work, I was not speaking of you individually. The point, in context, was that if conservatives (as a group, not you individually) want to get "gov't" out of the welfare business, they could collectively step up and solve those problems. The point stands, get off your high horse, brother, and understand the point being made.
"The point stands, get off your high horse, brother, and understand the point being made."
I understand that the dominant narrative on the media and the political left is that conservatives don't engage in charitable activities to any great extent. I also understand the narrative that one "cannot" oppose government intervention unless they are prepared to step up and take over.
Like much of the dominant narrative, it is faulty. Perhaps you should do some research on the negative affects of government spending to reduce poverty. Maybe, just maybe, there are some folks out there who have studied this, as well as having years/decades of practical experience that challenges the conventional wisdom. How about if you check some of this stuff out on your own, rather than simply parrot back the narrative.
For example, the media narrative is that the Koch brothers are evil and that they are single handedly responsible for excessive money in politics. This meme fails on two levels.
1. They aren't anywhere near the biggest donors to political causes (actually way down the list at 59).
2. They donate tons of money to all sorts of charities.
Again, put aside the narrative, do the research and think for yourself.
Ask yourself. How much aid (Governmental and private) has been donated to help worthy causes in Africa? Then ask, are the common citizens of the countries that have received this aid better or worse than they were 20 years ago? Has GDP of these counties risen or fallen? How many people have been moved out of poverty? How much infrastructure has been built and maintained?
You could ask the same kinds of questions about poverty in the US. What is the ROI on the billions of tax dollars spent to eliminate poverty?
Don't expect me to spoon feed you the answers, if I did you would just dismiss them anyway. Do the research, don't just read the reviews of books on Amazon, read the actual books. Look at the evidence and make up your own mind.
Craig...
Maybe, just maybe, there are some folks out there who have studied this, as well as having years/decades of practical experience that challenges the conventional wisdom. How about if you check some of this stuff out on your own, rather than simply parrot back the narrative.
And maybe, just maybe, your collection of wisdom and sources is not the end all/be all of wisdom, Craig, have you considered that?
Have you considered that I have lived, worked, researched, worked alongside others who have done the same and read on the topics of poverty and the problems associated with them, and that I have done so for most of my adult life - 30+ years - with several of those years being a time where I was operating from a more conservative mindset.
I have read a decent spectrum of opinions on topics related to poverty and am not unfamiliar with the theories and ideas associated with it.
Surely you can think for yourself and realize that, just because I disagree with you is no indication that I'm unfamiliar with the topic.
Put aside the dominant paradigm of your echo chamber, Craig, and maybe you'll realize that not everyone agrees with your conclusions and that disagreement with Craig does not equal ignorance of the topic.
Get off your high horse, brother. Arrogance does not equal intelligence and belligerence does not equal grace or wisdom.
"And maybe, just maybe, your collection of wisdom and sources is not the end all/be all of wisdom, Craig, have you considered that?"
This shouldn't shock you, but it probably will, but I never said it did. I know things like actual studies and decades of experience that don't confirm your prejudices might be hard to accept. But maybe if you would try taking an open minded look at what experts in the field are saying, you might be surprised.
"Have you considered that I have lived, worked, researched, worked alongside others who have done the same and read on the topics of poverty and the problems associated with them, and that I have done so for most of my adult life - 30+ years - with several of those years being a time where I was operating from a more conservative mindset."
Yes Dan, you've spewed this vague generalization ad nauseum. But, what you fail to even begin to consider is that your personal experience in a relatively small geographic area of a reasonably small city might not be the be all and end all of how best to deal with these issues. Further, although you continue to assert your former conservatism, your lack of understanding of mainstream conservative positions and the difficulty you seem to have in getting past that liberal narrative, make me question how conservative you actually were. But be that as it may, I'm not sure what conservative or liberal has to do with this conversation. I have no idea of the ideology of the folks who have been studying this. I'm much more interested if effectiveness than ideology. The fact that you choose to make unfounded assumptions about ideology, instead of actually doing the research, makes me question how objective you are. But, this is just one more instance of you placing your anecdotal experience over what anyone else might have to say.
"I have read a decent spectrum of opinions on topics related to poverty and am not unfamiliar with the theories and ideas associated with it."
Once again, a blandly generic statement so void of detail that it can mean whatever you want it to mean. Which is, of course, nothing.
"Surely you can think for yourself and realize that, just because I disagree with you is no indication that I'm unfamiliar with the topic."
Surely you can read English and realize that I never even suggested that you were unfamiliar with the topic. As a matter of fact, it was your very claim to be such an expert on the topic, that raised the questions in the first place.
"Put aside the dominant paradigm of your echo chamber, Craig, and maybe you'll realize that not everyone agrees with your conclusions and that disagreement with Craig does not equal ignorance of the topic."
I have no dominant paradigm, I am seeing what amounts to a wholesale change in the this area and am willing to look at the current state of things and re think how I (and my church) do "charity". I can't believe that you are so insecure that the smallest hint of questioning your methods provokes such anger. Are you really so confident that you have this wired as to not be willing to even consider any alternatives? It's pretty clear, that you're in your own little echo chamber and it's easier to accuse me, that to take the time and do some reasearch.
"Get off your high horse, brother. Arrogance does not equal intelligence and belligerence does not equal grace or wisdom."
Interesting, I'm not on any high horse, not being arrogant or belligerent. But I guess in your world falsely accusing people of things they haven't engaged in is the very definition of grace and wisdom.
Yes, it is funny that you can't seem to let go of your prejudices. It is funny, that instead of addressing issues, you resort to derision.
Yes, funny.
Post a Comment