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 many 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.”
posted February 26, 2009 at 9:54 am
This appears to be a not-quite-perfect solution to an old problem. Churches have to balance their limited resources with the sheer number of people who show up asking for help. At my church, that happens literally every single day. Then there are the perceptions of the congregation to manage. Because there is often no mechanism in place to determine if a person is really in need (as many secular social service agencies require), some parishioners question the process and sometimes demand that the church “take care of its own” first. Not saying that is a correct attitude – it’s just a reality that church pastors face. Putting some kind of requirement on aid tends to diminish the requests and makes cranky parishioners happy.
At my church, several approaches have been attempted. One is that several churches came together and created a single point of contact that conducts screening and makes referrals. My church used to hand out cash; we no longer do that. We purchase gas cards (the most frequent request is for gas money) and other retail and restaurant cards. (Our youth group sells them as a fundraiser, so it helps the church too.) You would not believe that some people refuse these! Some just storm out in a huff when they can’t get cash.
So while this particular church is getting some flack over their approach, they are just regular, less-than-perfect people trying to do the right thing.
posted February 26, 2009 at 10:42 am
If the church has to cut down they number of people they want to serve, then they should be honest and upfront about it.
posted February 26, 2009 at 10:47 am
Paul you have to read the Melville story “The Two Temples”– it’s about exactly this issue.
posted February 26, 2009 at 1:53 pm
To Hootie1an:
My church is upfront about cutting the number of people who SEEK our help. We don;t have enough money for everyone who comes to us for money, as did the other churches we partnered with for the single point of contact system. We’re very upfront that we do not have the resources to help everyone who seeks financial help from us. We’re not trying to hide that.
posted February 26, 2009 at 1:59 pm
I’m exactly where you are on this, but I belong to a church that’s too small and poorly positioned to provide much in the way of direct services, so that exact question doesn’t come up. All of our outreach take place through other organizations such as Habitat, the Interfaith Hospitality Network, or the food pantry run by the local interfaith council, all of which are carried out by people of faith and none of which set that kind of requirement, as far as I know.
But pretty much every piece of printed literature our church puts out, as well as our website, includes the slogan “All are welcome, and we really mean it!” in a prominent location. I used to think that was sort of hokey, but it is fundamentally what we are about. All kinds of people who didn’t think they’d be welcome in church for whatever reason really are welcome to be with us, because that’s how we read what Jesus was about.
(Though to be honest I think our people would be challenged if a conservative Bible-quoting Christian showed up and tried to take a place among us, but so far we haven’t had to face that.)
posted February 28, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Interesting! – In Wakefield UK our church has run a shelter for “rough sleepers” (The homeless) for the first time this (cold) winter.
What has surprised and delighted us is that many clients actually want to come to our worship meetings – and they are engaging in ways that may even put some members to shame!
Though we are (mainly) middle class – we dont do “neat & tidy” church – maybe that helps too…
posted February 28, 2009 at 12:46 pm
When missionaries went into China they offered free rice for attending church services. This led to the fraze “Rice Christians” If study the history of the early church you will find that they encourage charity founded hospitals and ophanages. This was real witnessing their faith. May I suggest that the chucrch in Indiana try a little witnessing instead of trying to create “Rice Christians”
posted February 28, 2009 at 11:06 pm
True story:
Years ago, my husband and I were at my sister and brother-in-law’s. The 3rd couple at the table was a Salvation Army officer of some rank who seemed proud to proclaim that he felt free to preach dmnation at people with AIDS before helping them with any charitable handout. I gritted my teeth, but my husband spoke out saying, “There are 2 kinds of churches – those that preach (and dole out) God’s grace, and those that offer up God’s judgement”, and that frankly, we preferred the former. We never knew if he got the message or not, but the SA officer’s actions were not, imo, a “Christian” thing to do.
Flash forwrd to this past week. That same sister was being visited by that same SA officer. It was my husband’s and my turn to host the family dinner and naturally we said her company could come along, not knowing/remembering who it was until he walked in the door of our (gay) home. Tho my husband and I felt like doling out the judgement, we simply decided to proceed with dinner as planned. Later that week, the SA officer fell and hit his head, so naturally we called to inquire how he was. We think we gave him and his wife some pause to reflect on exactly what charity is.
God’s grace doesn’t require church attendance – or any other strings. Not sure why this self-described “church” in Indiana thinks it’s qualified to add conditions to grace.