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?”
For even when we were with you, we laid down this rule for you: "If a man does not work, neither shall he eat."
Then your point is wholly lost on me.
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.
So, as an instance, you would seem to object to food or clothing being given to a bum who is obviously a drunkard - You would prefer that he is given money directly so that he could contentedly pour it down his throat? In what way is that charitable? It is participation in, and enabling, the very thing that is keeping him down and out...
And in what way is taking him out and buying him a good coat and a good meal not charitable? Is it not meeting a need? Is he not warm? is his belly not full?
And it is not a matter of 'philosophical preference and sound economics'- It is 'teach a man to fish' vs. 'feed a man a fish' - and I would submit that the former is charity in it's truest form... A hand up is better than a hand-out. The Book of Ruth is very instructive in this matter, and in the obverse, so is the history of Cabrini Greens in Chicago, Illinois.
Bear in mind that I (my house) received BOTH. First 'feeding the man' - unquestioning provision - And later, 'teaching the man' in the form of opportunity and assistance in my wife's business. In that, whichever way you might argue, the good Christian folks who helped me administered charity regardless (packed down, baker's dozen), and by that I declared that your criticism 'held no water'.
The question being asked is not, “Can I...” but, “Should I...”
Not at all! The question being asked is 'How can I'... 'Should I' has already been determined. Of course one should, or no act of kindness would be forthcoming at all.
As an example, I had the occasion to help a family whose husband/father was a drunkard and a gambler. The children were in desperate need, and the woman was under tremendous stress. But these are proud folks, and would resist a gift, and any money given directly would either be turned down or wind up in the old man's pocket for his nightly reverie. There is no 'Should I'. These folks need help. The question is 'How can I'...
The resolution was to befriend the man in order to begin working upon the direct and obvious problem, and at the same time, I surreptitiously began a program of hiding money in the kitchen where the wife would be sure to find it in her cleaning. Now, would you criticize me for these machinations? Had I given the money directly, I would have only been feeding the man's addictions. As it was, there was a notable increase in the house, and an easing of the lines in the woman's face.
I see nothing wrong in what I did, with the exception of promoting a certain dishonesty between the wife and her husband, I suppose... but no doubt she would agree that was of a necessity. As it was the 'bang for buck' went right where it was most needed.