Andrew
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 8,345
|
Post by Andrew on Dec 23, 2017 21:52:40 GMT
In his book, Toxic Charity: How Churches and Charities Hurt Those They Help (And How to Reverse It), Robert D. Lupton calls out the bad in most short-term missions and charities—and tells us how to fix it. Here are 20 quotes from his book: “What Americans avoid facing is that while we are very generous in charitable giving, much of that money is either wasted or actually harms the people it is targeted to help.” (1) “The compassion industry is almost universally accepted as a virtuous and constructive enterprise. But what is so surprising is that its outcomes are almost entirely unexamined.” (3) “When we do for those in need what they have the capacity to do for themselves, we disempower them.” (3) “Giving to those in need what they could be gaining from their own initiative may well be the kindest way to destroy people.” (4) “The money spent by one campus ministry to cover the costs of their Central American mission trip to repaint an orphanage would have been sufficient to hire two local painters and two new full-time teachers and purchase new uniforms for every student in the school.” (5) “Service projects and mission trips do not effect lasting change. Within six to eight weeks after a mission trip, most short-term mission-trippers return to the same assumptions and behaviors they had prior to the trip.” (15) “Even the most kindhearted, rightly motivated giving—as innocent as giving Christmas toys to needy children—can exact an unintended toll on a parent’s dignity.” (33) “There is no simple or immediate way to discern the right response without a relationship.” (48) “…the overwhelming majority of our mission trips are to places where the needs are for development rather than emergency assistance.” (69) “Not only does aid foment political instability and corruption, it discourages free enterprise—like the African mosquito-netting manufacturer who was put out of business by well-meaning charities that handed out millions of free nets.” (95) “But isn’t it time we admit to ourselves that mission trips are essentially for our benefit? Would it not be more forthright to call our junkets ‘insight trips’ or ‘exchange programs’? Religious tourism would have much more integrity if we simply admitted that we’re off to explore God’s amazing work in the world.” (69) “A hunger-free zone may be possible, but developing the dependency-free zone is the real challenge.” (101) “To the extent the poor are enabled to participate in the system intended to serve them, their self-worth is enhanced.” (130) “Little affirms human dignity more than honest work. One of the surest ways to destroy self-worth is subsidizing the idleness of able-bodied people. Work is a gift, a calling, a human responsibility.” (152) “Becoming a neighbor to less-advantaged people is the most authentic expression of affirmation I know—becoming a real-life, next-door neighbor. When connected neighbors move into the struggling world of those who are poor in order to be friends (rather than profit-making gentrifiers), news possibilities begin to appear.” (153-154) “…it is far better to enter the neighborhood as a learner than an initiator.” (161) “Betterment does for others. Development maintains the long view and looks to enable others to do for themselves. Betterment improves conditions. Development strengthens capacity. Betterment gives a man a fish. Development teaches a man how to fish.” (167) “Think of the transformation that would occur if mission trips were converted from make-work to development work; if soup kitchen servanthood were redirected to afford homeless men the dignity of securing their own food; if Saturday service projects shifted from pity to partnership; if government giveaways became accountable investments.” (189) “Authentic relationships with those in need have a way of correcting the we-will-rescue-you mind-set and replacing it with mutual admiration and respect…”(190) “The poor, no matter how destitute, have enormous untapped capacity; find it, be inspired by it, and build upon it.” (191) Lupton urges all his readers to consider taking this oath before engaging in charitable work: Oath for Compassionate Service: -Never do for the poor what they have (or could have) the capacity to do for themselves. -Limit one-way giving to emergency situations. -Strive to empower the poor through employment, lending, and investing, using grants sparingly to reinforce achievements. -Subordinate self-interests to the needs of those being served. -Listen closely to those you seek to help, especially to what is not being said—unspoken feelings may contain essential clues to effective service. -Above all, do no harm. (8-9 I like some of his points but he comes across to me a kind of a strong free willer (he is Christian so he probably is). When it comes to considering those who appear to be less than thriving, I think that this Krishnamurti statement is always worth considering....''It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society''. Personally I think that creating dependency is only a problem if we see self sufficiency as a good thing. I don't particularly. I reckon just give people what they ask for. If they want drugs, give them drugs. If they want a house, give them a house. Just give people what they say they want, and let them work through their interests. Giving people what they say they want woyld be simple without the concept of material value, but we live in a world in which we are taught tlhat a car is worth more than a tree, or a house is judged as worth more than a piece of paper. Even people have a commodity value. This is nonsense. Every thing has equal value, whether it is a paperclip of a mansion. There's a Byron Katie story I like....she was selling her house and her annexe. Someone came to buy the annexe and jokingly asked Katie if Katie would give them the house for free. She said yes. This is really how things should work, but we have all been fooled into believing in the idea of material value. I'm guessing that in the case of many homeless, they are rebelling on some level against this idea.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Dec 23, 2017 22:29:08 GMT
I like some of his points but he comes across to me a kind of a strong free willer (he is Christian so he probably is). Hmmm....I see the general point he is making as standing on it's own, regardless of whether he believes in free will or not. I don't really get how that applies. But I will say that "profoundly sick," is itself a very deep judgement. So 'dependency' is a good thing? I don't agree at all. What folks are asking for though, is usually only obvious in an emergency situation. In most other cases, the do-gooder is usually surmising based upon his own values. And who would be the giver of houses if/when people ask for them...? There are logistics involved in something of that scale that would have to be figured out, no? & Do you draw a line? After all, acting Pedophiles want children at their disposal.... (an extreme example, but the drug example brings extremes to mind....after all, a parent high on drugs is not gonna parent very well). Yes, Monetary value is assigned to stuff based upon it's perceived and experienced value...which pertains to it's general degree of usefulness in a given situation. Hand a homeless man who is shivering in the cold, a paperclip instead of a house, and see how equal he sees to the two to be.
|
|
Andrew
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 8,345
|
Post by Andrew on Dec 23, 2017 22:47:17 GMT
I like some of his points but he comes across to me a kind of a strong free willer (he is Christian so he probably is). Hmmm....I see the general point he is making as standing on it's own, regardless of whether he believes in free will or not. Just saying, the 'free will' assumption comes through quite strongly to me. I don't really get how that applies. Applies to what?But I will say that "profoundly sick," is itself a very deep judgement. It could also be an objective observation. So 'dependency' is a good thing? I don't agree at all. I don't see it as a thing at all. In my paradigm, independence/dependence isn't relevant. What folks are asking for though, is usually only obvious in an emergency situation. Not necessarily. In most other cases, the do-gooder is usually surmising based upon his own values. Right, but all actions are based on values.And who would be the giver of houses if/when people ask for them...? If everyone just gave what was asked of them, all people would look after each other.
There are logistics involved in something of that scale that would have to be figured out, no? There's only difficult logistics because of the particular society in which we live.
& Do you draw a line? After all, acting Pedophiles want children at their disposal.... (an extreme example, but the drug example brings extremes to mind....after all, a parent high on drugs is not gonna parent very well). The pedophile issue is a valid point, but a great many of society's ills are a result of the alienating structures. Change the structures and most of the ills would disappear. Yes, Monetary value is assigned to stuff based upon it's perceived and experienced value...which pertains to it's general degree of usefulness in a given situation. Right, in a given moment, a paperclip can be more useful than a car (for example). If we look closely we can see that in our current system, value is often made up through marketing campaigns....the quite famous example is that of 'diamonds'. And in terms of usefulness, a nurse is often going to be more useful in a given moment than a sports star, and obviously the wages do not reflect that. The point is that even within our system that is founded on the idea of things having 'different value', the way that value is assigned is quite odd. Hand a homeless man who is shivering in the cold, a paperclip instead of a house, and see how equal he sees to the two to be. Right, but in that moment, the cold person needs a warm up, so give them a warm up.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Dec 24, 2017 4:47:10 GMT
Just saying, the 'free will' assumption comes through quite strongly to me. Okay...and I'm just sayin' I agree with the overriding theme of what he's saying about misguided charity, regardless of his Christian background or a free will assumption. The point I've making here about the path to hell, often being paved with good intentions. No. Both terms require personal judgement. No? So why not just take on a few homeless folks to tag along with you on your travels....tell them you'll take care of them as long as they need you to? I'm sure if you went out asking for those who wanted it, you'd have a few raising their hands... yes. I did after all say 'usually.' yes, all actions can be seen to involve values, however, the do-gooder believes that he knows best what is good for the other....often without inquiry as to the values of the other. He assumes. It's a nice idea, but, Wouldn't work because not everyone shares the same values. Well....yes...... We kinda DO have to work with the present paradigm, no? It's hard to imagine any actual scenario in which a paperclip would be deemed more valuable than a car. It's not just in a particular, given moment. [/b] [/quote] yes, have done. And It was not via the offering of a paperclip.
|
|
Andrew
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 8,345
|
Post by Andrew on Dec 24, 2017 10:22:37 GMT
Just saying, the 'free will' assumption comes through quite strongly to me. Okay...and I'm just sayin' I agree with the overriding theme of what he's saying about misguided charity, Well there's a lot that can be said about misguided charityregardless of his Christian background or a free will assumption. But I don't think we should ignore his own Christian beliefs when assessing his assessment. The point I've making here about the path to hell, often being paved with good intentions. I'm saying that if we start from that position, we may not walk the path to hell. No. Both terms require personal judgement. They require a standard and then an assessment of what things are like in relation to that standard. No? No.So why not just take on a few homeless folks to tag along with you on your travels.... My car isn't big enough for a start.tell them you'll take care of them as long as they need you to? I'm not sure they would even want that. But what I'm really not sure about is why you are saying this in response to me saying that 'independence/dependence' isn't a thing.I'm sure if you went out asking for those who wanted it, you'd have a few raising their hands... Perhaps, but again, not sure why me saying that 'independence/dependence' isn't a thing would have me asking that. yes. I did after all say 'usually.' I'm not even sure it is 'usual'.yes, all actions can be seen to involve values, yes exactly however, the do-gooder believes Yes, everyone has beliefs. that he knows best what is good for the other anyone involved in service will have to take that assumption to some extentoften without inquiry as to the values of the other. Yes, it is better to check the values of the other, but sometimes that isn't appropriate.He assumes. Yes, but again I'm not sure that there is any other way. It's a nice idea, Yes it is. but, Wouldn't work because not everyone shares the same values. Right, I am saying that if the values were by and large shared. Well....yes...... We kinda DO have to work with the present paradigm, no? Yes we do. And the observation of the sickness of the paradigm and its society is a useful observation. It's hard to imagine any actual scenario in which a paperclip would be deemed more valuable than a car. It's not hard for me to imagine at all. Animals have no concept of 'material worth', they have no sense of one thing being worth more than another, they can be protective of things, but they have no sense of wanting to TRADE them. Material worth, and trade, go together. So I just imagine a world in which folks like Byron Katie are giving someone their house just because they asked. It's not just in a particular, given moment. But it is.[/b] [/quote] yes, have done. And It was not via the offering of a paperclip. [/quote] I don't know what you mean there.
***
Looking back on that message, there is something interesting here for me. I have decided to embrace your favoured style of debating here, but in embracing that style, I have no sense at all of any actual point being discussed between us. I really have no idea at all WHAT we are discussing, there's no cohesive conversation. It's all just an ongoing point by point reaction, with no thoughtfulness to any of it. I never argue this way, I am always very clear as to what point I am wanting to make, and that's what I aim at. But I can see that if I wanted to derail a conversation, or just defend my own argument successfully, then this would be a easy approach. Basically, just interrupt everything the other person says at every opportunity lol.
|
|
Andrew
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 8,345
|
Post by Andrew on Dec 24, 2017 14:38:21 GMT
I like this guy a lot, he has grown himself quite a following in the last year in the UK.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Dec 24, 2017 15:57:26 GMT
Looking back on that message, there is something interesting here for me. I have decided to embrace your favoured style of debating here, but in embracing that style, I have no sense at all of any actual point being discussed between us. I really have no idea at all WHAT we are discussing, there's no cohesive conversation. It's all just an ongoing point by point reaction, with no thoughtfulness to any of it. I never argue this way, I am always very clear as to what point I am wanting to make, and that's what I aim at. But I can see that if I wanted to derail a conversation, or just defend my own argument successfully, then this would be a easy approach. Basically, just interrupt everything the other person says at every opportunity lol. [/b][/quote] Alright, I'll sum things up then with this: A blanket idea of 'serving others' perhps sounds like a good thing, but it's misguided and really, as self serving as it comes. Some of the greatest abuses arise of those who truly believe they are helping to fix what they deem to be 'a sick and broken world.' True kindness and compassion and acts that support that, arise spontaneously, of the moment, absent one who sits in judgement and sees sickness, evil and brokenness, and does not require a preconceived plan. In fact, I would say a preconceived plan to 'do good,' is a sure fire way to stomp on the feet of others. The self proclaimed healer who insists that the 'sick' loved one must heal himself, and thus, takes every opportunity to perform healing ritual's on their loved one, often amidst polite decline.....the do gooders who hand out free mosquito nets and end up closing down an emerging local business person's livelihood in the process......the one who is feeling bored and lousy about his own life, so he takes it upon himself to gift a needy looking family with what he deems them to be in need of, thereby insulting them and for the first time, seeing themselves as losers. All of them, stellar examples of the path to hell being paved by good intentions.
|
|
Andrew
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 8,345
|
Post by Andrew on Dec 24, 2017 16:26:12 GMT
Looking back on that message, there is something interesting here for me. I have decided to embrace your favoured style of debating here, but in embracing that style, I have no sense at all of any actual point being discussed between us. I really have no idea at all WHAT we are discussing, there's no cohesive conversation. It's all just an ongoing point by point reaction, with no thoughtfulness to any of it. I never argue this way, I am always very clear as to what point I am wanting to make, and that's what I aim at. But I can see that if I wanted to derail a conversation, or just defend my own argument successfully, then this would be a easy approach. Basically, just interrupt everything the other person says at every opportunity lol. [/b][/quote] Alright, I'll sum things up then with this: A blanket idea of 'serving others' perhps sounds like a good thing, but it's misguided and really, as self serving as it comes. Some of the greatest abuses arise of those who truly believe they are helping to fix what they deem to be 'a sick and broken world.' True kindness and compassion and acts that support that, arise spontaneously, of the moment, absent one who sits in judgement and sees sickness, evil and brokenness, and does not require a preconceived plan. In fact, I would say a preconceived plan to 'do good,' is a sure fire way to stomp on the feet of others. The self proclaimed healer who insists that the 'sick' loved one must heal himself, and thus, takes every opportunity to perform healing ritual's on their loved one, often amidst polite decline.....the do gooders who hand out free mosquito nets and end up closing down an emerging local business person's livelihood in the process......the one who is feeling bored and lousy about his own life, so he takes it upon himself to gift a needy looking family with what he deems them to be in need of, thereby insulting them and for the first time, seeing themselves as losers. All of them, stellar examples of the path to hell being paved by good intentions. [/quote] Okay, so your basic premise seems to be that being of service can create bad outcomes. Obviously this requires judging a bad outcome from a good outcome (your last paragraph were examples of what you see as bad outcomes). As another example of thise, it is also possible that the cups of coffee I handed out last night upset their tummies....that COULD have happened. So what I would say is forget the idea of good and bad outcomes, if you want to give because you feel good about it, then give. Whatever comes of it, comes of it. And yes I agree it is self-serving, ALL actions are self-serving. So for example, those who hand out free mosquito nets and close down an emerging local business....well this same businessperson may go on to do something which brings far more wealth. Or someone who gifts a needy family with what they deem to be in need of may insult them, but through that feeling of insult they are inspired into a new idea which brings them a new life. You see my point obviously.....it is very hard to judge outcomes as good or bad. If someone wants to give, just let them give...and let the outcomes be what they are.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Dec 24, 2017 16:41:47 GMT
Okay, so your basic premise seems to be that being of service can create bad outcomes. Obviously this requires judging a bad outcome from a good outcome (your last paragraph were examples of what you see as bad outcomes). As another example of thise, it is also possible that the cups of coffee I handed out last night upset their tummies....that COULD have happened. So what I would say is forget the idea of good and bad outcomes, if you want to give because you feel good about it, then give. Whatever comes of it, comes of it. And yes I agree it is self-serving, ALL actions are self-serving. So for example, those who hand out free mosquito nets and close down an emerging local business....well this same businessperson may go on to do something which brings far more wealth. Or someone who gifts a needy family with what they deem to be in need of may insult them, but through that feeling of insult they are inspired into a new idea which brings them a new life. You see my point obviously.....it is very hard to judge outcomes as good or bad. If someone wants to give, just let them give...and let the outcomes be what they are. No, my basic premise is not that 'service can create bad outcomes.' It's that a blanket plan that I am going to BE of service is founded upon a misconception and thus, very often backfires. The IDEA that I am going to serve, often gets conflated with actually serving the highest good of all involved. The idea/plan to serve, is not the same as actually serving the highest good. I am not saying that if an urge arises to help someone or to contribute that it should be shut it down, just that a blanket idea about a broken world that requires fixing, indicates one who is knee deep in delusion.
|
|
Andrew
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 8,345
|
Post by Andrew on Dec 24, 2017 16:51:50 GMT
Okay, so your basic premise seems to be that being of service can create bad outcomes. Obviously this requires judging a bad outcome from a good outcome (your last paragraph were examples of what you see as bad outcomes). As another example of thise, it is also possible that the cups of coffee I handed out last night upset their tummies....that COULD have happened. So what I would say is forget the idea of good and bad outcomes, if you want to give because you feel good about it, then give. Whatever comes of it, comes of it. And yes I agree it is self-serving, ALL actions are self-serving. So for example, those who hand out free mosquito nets and close down an emerging local business....well this same businessperson may go on to do something which brings far more wealth. Or someone who gifts a needy family with what they deem to be in need of may insult them, but through that feeling of insult they are inspired into a new idea which brings them a new life. You see my point obviously.....it is very hard to judge outcomes as good or bad. If someone wants to give, just let them give...and let the outcomes be what they are. No, my basic premise is not that 'service can create bad outcomes.' It's that a blanket plan that I am going to BE of service is founded upon a misconception and thus, very often backfires. The IDEA that I am going to serve, often gets conflated with actually serving the highest good of all involved. The idea/plan to serve, is not the same as actually serving the highest good. I am not saying that if an urge arises to help someone or to contribute that it should be shut it down, just that a blanket idea about a broken world that requires fixing, indicates one who is knee deep in delusion. The word 'backfires' there is the 'bad outcome' judgement. To be fair, it could easily be argued that you are deluded for thinking that a society which manifests homelessness ISN'T an unhealthy society (based on what you said there I am assuming that you think your society isn't unhealthy). Obviously these are quite subjective judgments to make either way....so again, I would just say...if the urge to give is there, then just go with it without trying to figure it out. Is my interpretation correct there, that you think your society is a healthy functioning one?
|
|