Sunday, October 12, 2014
Gems from Bob Lupton #2
In Judaism, there are 8 levels of charity ranked from highest to lowest.
1.Enabling the recipient to become self-reliant
2.Giving when neither party knows the other's identity
3.Giving when you know the recipient's identity, but the recipient doesn't know your identity
4.Giving when you do not know the recipient's identity, but the recipient knows your identity
5.Giving before being asked
6.Giving after being asked
7.Giving less that you should, but giving it cheerfully
8.Giving begrudgingly
How much of what social gospel christians do is in the lower half of the hierarchy?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
"Gem" BS:
How much of what social gospel christians do is in the lower half of the hierarchy?
I'll assume that Bob is just ignorant, not deliberately spewing lies.
But by all means: Demonstrate that "social gospel Christians" don't aim for self-reliance? Is there even ONE SHRED of evidence for this spurious claim that we don't advocate that?
And of course we frequently give without the other knowing who has given it, another ignorant statement.
As is the assumption that we wouldn't give before being asked.
This claim is just nuts, that somehow progressive Christians would be less progressive in their giving ideals.
I certainly have seen the case in reverse... that some conservatives only give out of the last two or three tiers of that hierarchy, but I would not make the assumption that this is the case for all conservatives.
Why? Because I don't believe in claims based in ignorance. It's not a good starting point.
To clarify the goals for me and folk like me:
1. We should work for justice - moreso than for charity - for those in need. Charity almost always has the great potential for a negative paternalism, "We, the well off are going to help you poor wretches..." even when that is not the intent, for the recipient, it has the potential feel to it.
2. When direct assistance is given, the general goal should be towards sustainable situations.
3. When direct assistance is given, the effort should be done in a way that empowers and encourages as much as possible, avoiding any kind of demeaning or dependence.
This is just very basic social services ideals, Craig. Bob would benefit, it appears, from learning a bit from good social workers.
"I'll assume that Bob is just ignorant, not deliberately spewing lies."
1. You'd actually be defaming Maimonades, not Lupton, by why let facts get in the way.
2. Why would you assume anything about someone about whom you can't be bothered to learn anything.
3. My you do just go by your assumptions, don't you.
Of course you are much more knowledgeable than someone who has spent over 40 years involved in community development, and who is simply following the research in the field.
Oh, again maybe it would be helpful to actually read the post and respond to it, rather than simply venting your emotional outbursts?
re: "Maimonades..." You are the one who titled this post "Gems from Bob Lupton." So, when YOU SAY that Bob Lupton has said, "How much of what social gospel christians do is in the lower half of the hierarchy?" I assume that you are citing Bob Lupton.
Your failure to accurately source your quote is not my fault, Craig.
Why would you assume anything about someone about whom you can't be bothered to learn anything.
I'm not assuming anything about anyone. I'm saying that for someone to make a blanket claim (asking the leading question assuming that progressive Christians don't care about "higher levels of charity" is ignorant.
Where am I mistaken?
Rather than go on the attack, why not read your own words and understand the point being made?
"In Judaism, there are 8 levels of charity ranked from highest to lowest."
Clearly, not a sourcing issue as I explained that this was a Jewish tradition. The fact that I heard it from Lupton, is simply where I heard about the concept.
"I'm not assuming anything about anyone."
Really, it seems as if the magic of copy/paste strikes again. Your very words from Feb 13, at 11:16.
"I'll assume that Bob is just ignorant, not deliberately spewing lies."
Should I assume that when you said "I'll assume" you really meant something else?
"I'm saying that for someone to make a blanket claim..."
Had someone made a claim, you might be correct, however no one actually made a claim.
"...(asking the leading question assuming that progressive Christians don't care about "higher levels of charity" is ignorant."
!. The question is a question, not a claim. You frequently point out that I should not presume that your rhetorical questions are claims, perhaps you could do the same as a gesture of common courtesy.
2. The question is not leading.
3. The question does not address what Social Gospel christians care about.
Once again, perhaps if you had read the actual question (How much of what social gospel christians do is in the lower half of the hierarchy?), and responded to the actual question asked. Your confusion would have been minimized and you would not have felt the need to smear someone about whom you know absolutely nothing.
"Where am I mistaken?
See above.
"Rather than go on the attack, why not read your own words and understand the point being made?"
Apparently had I chosen the way of grace and accused you of being ignorant and spewing lies it would have been acceptable, but it seems as though pointing out your errors is going "on the attack".
You are right, had you read and responded to what was actually written as opposed to what you wanted to see, it would have been better.
"BS"
One can only assume that this is one more example of how you model grace.
Dan,
What just struck me is that you were so desperate to find fault with this post that you threw any pretense of objectivity out the window and came out blasting.
Instead of looking at the entirety of the post, and acknowledging that the concept of levels of "charity" is an interesting concept and that something valuable could possibly be learned from this ancient wisdom, you choose a different (grace filled) path.
Right out of the gate you start with "BS", then you move to "ignorant" and "spewing lies". Then you make the huge leap of illogic changing a broad general QUESTION into some sort of allegation (aimed at you). Then you characterize the QUESTION as a "ignorant statement", and a "claim". Surely you are aware that a question is NOT (by definition) a statement or a claim? You then close with an "admonition for Goff as if you know everything you need about his background from one quote, and that you feel free to condescendingly give advice.
For shame.
Maybe, instead of viewing everything through your limited experience, it might be wiser to step back, turn off your prejudices, and be open minded. Just maybe someone else might have something worth considering.
Or at least worth not dismissing out of hand.
Instead of looking at the entirety of the post, and acknowledging that the concept of levels of "charity" is an interesting concept and that something valuable could possibly be learned from this ancient wisdom, you choose a different (grace filled) path.
Indeed, that IS an interesting and worthy consideration. IT is a shame, then, that your "Bob Lupton" chose to mar it with a slanderous snipe about those he disagrees with.
Take up your graceless charge with him. That I called him on his clear BS is no fault of mine.
Irony. You give pass to BS when it comes from a political ally, but if someone calls one of your allies on their BS, THEN you choose to take up the cause of "grace."
Do you understand the meaning of the word, Craig?
"IT is a shame, then, that your "Bob Lupton" chose to mar it with a slanderous snipe about those he disagrees with."
Interesting, that you are unable to understand that a question is (by definition) not a snipe. It is a question. If one were to read that question as written, one would find that there is not even the appearance of a snipe. It is a simple straightforward request for information. The fact that you can't reason this out and instead choose the path of attack and vitriol is puzzling. One might even suggest that your refusal to accept the question as written, but to instead try to transform it into something else is (in fact) B.S. One could suggest such a conclusion, because your approach in this thread has been B.S.
So, if you can't deal accurately deal with what was actually posted. If you can't dial back on the vitriol. If you can't stop what is flat out lying. Then I will need to delete any further comments from you on this thread.
The fact that you are allowing your prejudices and assumptions to overtake your vaunted ability of "Reason", makes any further interaction with you on this worthless.
So, either deal with what was actually written, stop lying, and embrace the grace you demand of others, but seldom show, or see any further comments on this deleted.
What are these supposed prejudices you keep speaking of? I've already demonstrated in the real world that I'm able to set aside my partisan/cultural biases and look at other options. Remember, I was raised very conservatively. I HAVE set aside cultural biases/prejudices to adopt to what I think is a better reflection of reality and morality. So, what "prejudices" are you attempting to castigate me about?
To your point: If you honestly think that Mr Lupton's question was not an intended slight to "social gospel Christians," well, maybe so, I can't prove it any more than you can disprove it. It sounds like an intended slight. Perhaps he will clarify.
But on what basis then did he single out "social gospel Christians"? Why not "how much of what modern Christians do is in the lower half..."? Why not "how much of what evangelicals do is in the lower half..."?
If I am mistaken, I will gladly apologize. Who is this Mr Lupton whose "gems" you so admire?
"What are these supposed prejudices you keep speaking of"
Your clear prejudice that conservatives have nothing to offer in this debate.
Your clear prejudice that Lupton is a conservative. (I honestly have no idea what his politics are. I just know that his 40 years of real world experience and the more recent studies make a lot of sense. I'm not sure why you feel compelled to make this a partisan issue anyway)
Your clear prejudice that you know all you need to know about Lupton's credibility from one paraphrase of something he quoted. The fact that you clearly won't back down from your uninformed knee jerk reaction, and do any research just buttresses this.
"I've already demonstrated in the real world that I'm able to set aside my partisan/cultural biases and look at other options. Remember, I was raised very conservatively. I HAVE set aside cultural biases/prejudices to adopt to what I think is a better reflection of reality and morality. So, what "prejudices" are you attempting to castigate me about?"
You have repeatedly asserted the above as a fact, which is not the same as demonstrating the factualness of the claim.
"If you honestly think that Mr Lupton's question was not an intended slight to "social gospel Christians," well, maybe so, I can't prove it any more than you can disprove it."
Actually I CAN disprove it. You have assumed that the question was Lupton's, when in fact it was mine based on the ancient Jewish wisdom Lupton introduced me to. So, since I posed the question, I believe that I am qualified to speak with some degree of authority on the intent of the question.
"It sounds like an intended slight. Perhaps he will clarify."
It was a question (note the use of the little "?" at the end?), and I just did clarify. Unless, of course, you are prepared to call me a liar?
To be fair, I could have pointed this out earlier in the conversation, but it's been informative to see where your assumptions and presumptions have taken you.
"But on what basis then did he single out "social gospel Christians"?"
I singled out "social gospel" christians because I asked the question. It's my blog and I can ask whatever questions I want. However, much of what is being found to be harmful in terms of charity are things that are seen from "social gospel" types.
"Why not "how much of what modern Christians do is in the lower half..."?"
This is a good question, and it's not unreasonable. It's is just a question I chose not to ask in this context.
"Why not "how much of what evangelicals do is in the lower half..."?"
See above.
"If I am mistaken, I will gladly apologize."
You are, and I doubt you will.
"Who is this Mr Lupton whose "gems" you so admire?"
Thus making my earlier point about how you are so driven by your preconceptions that you won't even do your own research to see if you are right or not.
As I've said, he's been involved in community development for 40 years, he's done a good job analyzing the mistakes he's made, as well as the things he's done right. He's also one of a group of folks doing some convincing research that suggests that much of what is done in the name of charity is harmful. It's interesting. If you could have gotten past your grace filled (B.S.) knee jerk response and wrong assumptions, you might have found some things that could have been valuable. Instead, you chose a different path.
To be clear, the things guy's like Lupton are saying rocked my world, because some of what I thought about "charity" was not healthy. I know that my church is in the process of a total revamp of how we do missions (locally and globally) because of what Lupton and people like him have concluded.
Personally, I was gratified that my employment of the homeless was something that fits with much of what this research is showing. I'll be honest, I lucked into (or it was a God thing) doing things in a better way than I could have, and I'm thankful that I (hopefully) helped more than I hurt some folks.
Craig...
Your clear prejudice that conservatives have nothing to offer in this debate.
Didn't say it, don't believe it.
You keep forgetting that I come from conservative stock. I know good conservatives who have a good deal to add to this topic.
So, you asked the question because you honestly did not know/do not know how "social gospel Christians" give? Do you suspect we give on the "lower" half of the hierarchy? Or you were just randomly wondering how liberals give in regards to this, but not wondering how conservatives give? If not, why not?
If you honestly did not intend to besmirch liberals, then I apologize. Hopefully you can see how when you single out a group like this, it sounds as if you are attacking, not asking. Something to consider in the future.
~Dan
And I'm glad you've learned how to do charity better thanks to Mr Lupton. I wonder if you might have learned the same thing if you'd asked social gospel Christians a long time ago?
Dan,
One last bit of s revelation. I know this may be hard for you to understand, but not everything I post is aimed at you or about you.
You see, I live and work in a place which is full of "social justice" types (both christian/Christian and non). My reality is that I am a minority both in my community and my workplace. I'm surrounded by a bunch of loving, open minded, tolerant progressives who are quite content to live in a world where the Koch brothers are the focus of all that is evil, and who conveniently ignore the fact that in our largest metropolitan school district (District/county/city all controlled by progressives for the past 25 plus years) that the graduation rates have been below 50% for minorities. All the while blaming conservatives and throwing up roadblock after roadblock to any sort of education alternatives.
So, when I used "social gospel" christians it's because they're the folks I see day in/day out so caught up in the status quo and the lefty narrative that they wouldn't consider any change.
This is the same world where woman born in Zambia, with a masters from Harvard and a PhD in economics from Oxford gets shouted down by a bunch of tolerant progressive rich white guys, because she dares to suggest that the long term systematic aid given to Africa might have actually been a negative.
So, while you might not see it much in your neighborhood, my experience is a bit different. (Not better or more valid or right, just different) so when I do this I do it from my experience.
If you don't like it, sorry.
"Didn't say it, don't believe it."
That's why you are always so complimentary and accepting of conservative folks, right? If I've mispercieved what appears to be your prejudice, my bad.
"You keep forgetting that I come from conservative stock."
No, I don't. I am frequently reminded that you claim to have been conservative at one point in your life. I frequently remind you that you claiming something doesn't make it true. I and others have also commented on the fact that for someone who claims to have been conservative, you certainly don't seem to have a very good grasp of what conservatives believe.
"If I am mistaken, I will gladly apologize."
"You are, and I doubt you will."
Well I guess we found out, didn't we.
For misunderstanding your sincere question, then Craig, I am sorry. I apologize.
The answer to your question, by the way then, if you are seriously wanting an answer is, AS I STATED in my original first paragraph here:
The question must be based on ignorance (and I'm assuming it's not a deliberate lie because, you know, grace).
Of course, progressive types give for a variety of reasons and motives, just as conservatives and anyone else does. Of course, many progressives give for "higher" reasons, although surely some give for "lower" reasons. Just as it is with conservatives.
Now your question has been answered. As I did right from the start.
"For misunderstanding your sincere question, then Craig, I am sorry. I apologize."
Thanks, I'm shocked and impressed.
"The answer to your question, by the way then, if you are seriously wanting an answer is, AS I STATED in my original first paragraph here:"
There is no answer to the question as asked. If there was an answer it would be something like "Social gospel christians do x% of their charitable work in the lower half of the list.". That would be an actual answer. It could have been followed by something like, "But how much of what Evangelical Christians do is in the lower half of the list?". That exchange might have sparked an interesting conversation. Instead you start with "BS", and move on to "ignorance" and it deteriorates from there.
To clarify, I asked the question because I don't know (am ignorant) of precisely how much of what "social gospel chrsitians" do is on the lower half of the list. Often, when I don't have information, I ask questions hoping to get information. In this case, you provided a response, but not an answer. You also, chose not to respond in the way of grace, but rather in the way of scorn and derision (BS) (ignorant) (spewing lies).
"Now your question has been answered. As I did right from the start."
Actually had you answered as you did at the end, in your first comment (instead of BS and spewing lies), this could have been interesting.
But, you chose otherwise.
Too bad.
But you did apologize, so that's something.
Post a Comment