Reviews, Interviews, News, Commentaries, Excerpts, My Top 5 Books, Wilson's Bookmarks, Book AwardsWasted Charity
Robert Lupton's new book is going to ruffle some feathers.
In Toxic Charity: How Churches and Charities Hurt Those They Help (And How to Reverse It) (HarperOne), the 40-year veteran urban minister "takes the gloves off" and argues that much of Americans' charitable giving "is either wasted or actually harms the people it is targeted to help."
The reason is that the "compassion industry" is "almost universally accepted as a virtuous and constructive enterprise," but its "outcomes are almost entirely unexamined." Years of charitable giving at home and abroad, Lupton contends, have made barely a dent in reducing poverty and often encourage dependency. Toxic Charity offers some statistics, but more stories, as evidence that both our philosophy and practice of charity are frequently misguided.
The news here is painful. Our self-centeredness contributes to the problem. We evaluate our giving, Lupton argues, "by the rewards we receive through service, rather than the benefits received by the served."
Short-term mission trips are a case in point. Such "junkets" involve expenditures of between $2.5-5 billion annually, yet produce little lasting change, often displace local labor, and distract indigenous church leaders from more important work. We get more than we give when we go.
Meanwhile, our relief-oriented, commodity-based charity flourishes at home because even though its effects are irresponsible, it feels good to the givers. Lupton grieves that "our free food and clothing distribution encourages ever-growing handout lines, diminishing the dignity of the poor while increasing their dependency."
Lupton does offer some ideas for improvement. He proposes a new "Oath for Compassionate Service" for the charity industry to adopt, much as the medical community has adopted the Hippocratic Oath. Lupton's Oath offers six key guidelines: (1) Never do for the poor what they can do for themselves; (2) Limit one-way giving to emergencies; (3) Empower the poor through employment, lending, and investing, using grants sparingly to reinforce achievements; (4) Subordinate self-interest to the needs of those being served; (5) Listen closely to those you seek to help; (6) Above all, do no harm.
The Oath embodies the philosophy of "asset-based community development" (ABCD). This is a glass-half-full strategy that focuses on a community's strengths more than its needs. It takes seriously the gifts and talents of the poor, and seeks to do ministry in the community with them rather than for them, thus protecting people's dignity.
For example, Lupton profiles a church that replaced its traditional food pantry with a food co-op. Local residents pay $3 in co-op dues for $30 worth of groceries, and they buy the food, box it, and distribute it. Another congregation turned its free clothing closet into a revenue-generating thrift store that teaches job skills. Still another transformed its soup kitchen into an entrepreneurial venture for female recipients who had a vision for starting a catering business.
Star Trek Into Darkness
(on articles open to the public, you must at least register for a free account).
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Newsletters
Google
Comments
Displaying 1–3 of 15 comments
See all comments
Steve Skeete
Lupton's critique of charitable giving sounds good, but I have a few points to raise. First, does the book provide any scriptural support for his ideas? Ms. Sherman does not tell us. Second, to say that often people's philosophy and practice of charity are frequently misguided is to state the obvious. However, there are enough examples of those who get it right to demonstrate that dignified compassion is alive and well. Third, the relentless attack on short-term missions is, in my view, unwarranted. Spending good money to take young people on a joy ride deserves to be criticized, however most sending agencies make sure that recipients are truly served while those who serve have a life-building experience. And third, it would be nice if those who criticize do so with a bit more charity? Terms like 'Compassion Industry', 'Toxic Charity' etc. may represent a few without speaking meaningfully of the well-intentioned. Maybe Lupton should take his own advice and above all "do no harm'.
HK
We are instructed Biblically to share our resources (not just the extra) with the poor, distressed, alien, widow, orphan, etc. If they are God's concern, they must be our concern. Having worked for a faith-based NGO for many years, I saw that money is many times the bottom line. Charity Navigator doesn't investigate, but rather reports the information that is turned in. Those organizations that collect "Gifts in Kind (GIK), use the value of the donated resources as income to offset fund raising. Take away those donated resources and many times you'll find the administration fee ratio to be 50% rather than 10% or less. In addition, there are organizations that fold their fund raising efforts into "communications" or "advocacy" rather than what it really is. People should be concerned with how and where their funds are spent and that there is really progress.
Clark Coleman
I read in the Bible that farmers left some grain in their fields to be gleaned by the poor. Notice that the poor had to WORK. They had to go out and work by hand in the fields to get the grain. They did not ask the farmer to do the work for them and give him an address where he could ship the grain when he was done. This kind of mutuality is what Lupton seems to be advocating. His critics need to let us know where in the Bible we are told to avoid mutual work in favor of handouts. As for the commenter who wondered where we are told to avoid creating dependency, it is called the Golden Rule and goes back to Leviticus 19:18. Do you want someone to help you become self-sufficient, or to make you dependent on them for the rest of your life? If you prefer the former, then the Golden Rule mandates that your charity be in accordance.