Things Heard: e110v4
Thursday, March 18th, 2010 at
9:10 am
Good morning.
- Career choices in the UK.
- Genocides.
- No. Charity does not imply a power hierarchy.
- Enforced charity however, does incur disgruntlement.
- Three more for St. Patrick’s day, here (a defence) and here (some history) and here (Irish jokes).
- Eucharist and confession.
- Some economic indicators … including “attractive wait staff.”
- When you start off by misreading … going from there means straw men are afoot.
- HUD for the rest of us.
- Russian elections.
- Hitler and Pakistan.a
- Gooder English.
- Fer the kiddies … or not.
- Next comes Evagrius, then Cassian … then swim in the Bosphorus? 😉
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
Thanks for the link, Doug. But I wonder why you state emphatically, “No, charity does not imply a power hierarchy.”?
My point on that post is that sometimes, in the real world, people are shamed by receiving charity from a church. As a result, they are the poor needy person and the church is the good helpful people.
In the real world, we often see that this imbalance in roles is so shaming that it can be difficult for the recipient of charity to be a member where they’ve received help. I’m not saying it’s the case every time, just often. This observable reality is what I was referring to as a power imbalance or as a power hierarchy.
Do you disagree with that reality or just my choice of words in describing this phenomena as hierarchical and imbalanced?
Don,
People are shamed not by the charity or the church but by their expectations from society that they should be self-reliant. It’s not a facet of charity, which is (or should be) a type of love, caritas (latin) or agape (Greek). Furthermore, as the Fathers teach (Chyrsostom, Basil, et al) charity is a calling for all Christians … the poor and needy included. If you have nothing to give … you are called to pray for those others, for example those in need can pray for those who are not for they have cares and concerns which touch and distress them as well which often are not shared by those in need.
To clarify, I disagree with your connection of charity to the power imbalance. Charity and the need for it does not depend, require, or go away in the presence or lack of any power imbalance. Charity/caritas/agape is a virtue to which all Christians should aspire/practice at all times.
BTW, Mark not Doug. 😀
Sorry, Mark (not Doug).
Perhaps I was unclear. I’m not saying that charity is a bad thing at all. It IS a good thing and a needed thing. I’m just trying to note the reality that I’ve seen that charitable giving often has consequences – unintended consequences, perhaps, but consequences.
Do you attend a church that gives financial or other assistance to those in need in your neighborhood? Do you have many of those folk who join your church?
My experience over my adult lifetime in several churches (and the experiences of many churches around me) is that it is difficult for those who receive charity from a local congregation to feel comfortable in joining with that congregation. This does not mean that we don’t assist those in need, nor does it mean that we don’t strive to put folk at ease and make it as equitable and comfortable a situation as possible. Nor does it mean that sometimes we aren’t able to assist those who ARE a part of our church or who become part of our church.
I’m just noting the reality that I’ve noticed in several urban settings.
I think it is an accurate description to say that there IS an imbalance in power between the giver and the receiver and that imbalance makes it difficult to be in an equitable relationship. But, if you disagree, so be it.
Yes, folk are shamed by societal expectations, I’m not disagreeing there and I’m not saying (at ALL) that charity should go away because of the imbalance of power, I’m just noting what I think is the reality of the situation because I think it wise to be aware of it.
Also, I note the difference because I think that charity – while VITALLY important – is the lesser of the two virtues (charity and justice).
It gets back to that whole “give a man to fish vs teach a man to fish” thing, with the added twist of “work to make changes in the system so that the man has equal access to clean water in which to fish…” to keep in mind.
Yes, giving a fish to a starving person is a good thing. BUT, changing the circumstances so that the person is able to get their own fish, that is the better thing. The Just thing.