I will reject that statement. Protestants prefer to 'teach a man to fish' - That is true. But when the man can't fish, then the aspect changes. As a survivor of a long term illness, I was a recipient of that charity... Some of it directly from church coffers, but much more in 100 dollar bills simply left inside my screen door. And more came in support of my wife who suddenly found herself the sole and primary provider of a family of six. Her income had to change drastically, and that 'teach a man to fish' aspect was in service. From a mini-van suddenly appearing in the driveway, to clients bolstering her newly formed business; many, many good Christian folks helped us out in the most wonderful sort of charity - Mostly anonymously, straight from the heart.
So by my personal testimony and witness, across YEARS as a direct recipient thereof, I can tell you without reservation that your criticism holds no water at all.
But that is exactly my point. The instinct is to favor a philosophical preference that is secular and comports with sound economics. Certainly nothing wrong with that from a conservative political perspective. However, the “charity” doesn’t begin until after an evaluation is done by those in a position to offer charity. That is what I’m objecting to.
The question being asked is not, “Can I...” but, “Should I...”
This does not relieve the recipient of the obligation to do what they can for themselves but it’s not our place to judge our acts of charity on that criteria. I’m sure you wouldn’t agree that the charity shown you was dependent on the presence of the ‘teach a man to fish’ effort on the part of your family.
And if my criticism holds no water I would suggest one take a gander through the rest of FR to see the prevalence of that thought held by so-called Christians whose first instinct is to ask, “What are they doing to help themselves?”
Good post and God Bless you. We need to catch up:)