Thanks, But No...
I was once serving a meal at a homeless shelter in downtown Sarnia. This place wasn't just for the homeless, of course - low-income folks of every stripe could come through the door and line up to receive the meal of the day. On this particular day, I believe we were serving chili, and it was a good one - lots of beef, some beans, onions and peppers, and just little bit of zip to it. But one fellow got to the window, looked down at the bowl, and said, "I don't eat chili." What? You don't have enough money for food, you're here receiving a free meal, prepared by someone else, donated by a local church, served by friendly faces when you'd be turned away from most of the dives in the rest of the town, and yet you're able to say, "I don't eat chili." Really? Not, "I get heartburn," or "I'm allergic to onions" or something else that might be, you know, a "real" reason, but "I don't eat chili." Don't. Do not. It could be the only food left on the planet and I would then starve because I. Do. Not. Eat. Chili. As I recall, we heated up some vegetable soup for him, but I've never really forgotten that incident, because my understanding has always been, if you're really hungry, you'll eat whatever's put in front of you.
This comes to mind because we are having an issue here in GTown regarding homeless youth. In this mostly affluent area, the homeless and indigent aren't really visible - they don't panhandle on street corners or squeegee windows at the stop lights or anything like that, but they sleep in cars and on friends' couches and in clothing bins because they've been kicked out of their homes or have left for whatever reason. We have a drop-in centre for them here, but it's apparently on the verge of closing because of funding cuts from wherever their major source of income was located, and the $75,000 gap is not one that even a levy on local churches could make up! An article was in the newspaper this week to bring attention to the situation, but it really stops short of asking for any kind of permanent solution. It doesn't say the drop-in centre is going to close, nor how much it would take to keep it open. It says that "investing in these shelters is investing in the lives of today's youth." (That is, shelters or drop-in centres, either/or)
However, in the heart of the article, it also talks about three kids who were found sleeping outside in the killing cold that we've been experiencing lately; they were given an emergency position at a local motel, room paid-for by the region, but when they were asked if longer-term arrangements could be made for them, they politely but firmly refused. Nope, we'll be fine, they said, and the author of the piece noted that if people refuse to be helped, there's nothing we can do to force them to accept it.
In another country, we might view this as a type of social Darwinism - if they don't accept the help, we (the government / church / charitable organization) won't force it on them, and if they die, we shrug and say, "We would have been there for them, but they refused to be helped!" And we (the outside viewers), with logic faculties in full swing and most certainly NOT in need of any such assistance, would say, "How can this be? People are dying! The assistance must be inadequate, or poorly managed, or corruptly maintained, or something, because if help is there, people will take it!" But no, this is Canada, where everyone gets benefits if they are in any kind of need - refugees coming off the boat get assistance for the six months or so during which their case is being assessed, for Pete's sake! And they take it because that's what they came for! But our own people, born here, raised here, won't.
So here's the two sides of the coin: on one hand, the Church will always have work to do, people to try to help, and a hand out to try to offer a hand up and then to offer the comfort of the gospel, while on the other hand we will continue to fail because we are dealing with people who, in the deepest, darkest, most desperate times of their lives, will still try to dictate the terms on which they are helped. Many people, good Christians, will give up after a while. I did that with someone once and it was suggested to me that my love for that person was "conditional," that only if they accepted the help I offered (that is to say, the terms I dictated) would I truly love them; my reply, in my heart if not from my lips, was that those terms were what I offered, and all I could offer. I thought they were generous and accommodating. And yet, they were still refused, and that person is now pretty much out of my life. I'm saddened by it, but I've come to realize that it wasn't me. As long as the person on the "weaker" side demands terms from the one in the position to give (not negotiates, mind you, but demands), the relationship is out of balance.
Thanks be to God, we have been given the covenant of grace through Christ's cross... although people still refuse to accept it, and still seek to dictate terms with God. People don't get a miracle, don't win the lottery, get sick and die, get Alzheimer's and forget how to die, see nothing but tragedy in the world around them and seek to lay it all at God's feet, call Him "callous," "uncaring," and "vindictive." Christians themselves try to dictate who will and will not receive God's grace - us, of course, but not the gays, not the blacks or browns, and certainly not anyone who has never spontaneously spoken in what may well be gibberish but which fell on our ears as God-inspired gibberish!
*sigh*
The weaker side, the side in need, should receive. Just a thought. And since we are all sinners, ultimately we are all on the weaker side of eternity.
This comes to mind because we are having an issue here in GTown regarding homeless youth. In this mostly affluent area, the homeless and indigent aren't really visible - they don't panhandle on street corners or squeegee windows at the stop lights or anything like that, but they sleep in cars and on friends' couches and in clothing bins because they've been kicked out of their homes or have left for whatever reason. We have a drop-in centre for them here, but it's apparently on the verge of closing because of funding cuts from wherever their major source of income was located, and the $75,000 gap is not one that even a levy on local churches could make up! An article was in the newspaper this week to bring attention to the situation, but it really stops short of asking for any kind of permanent solution. It doesn't say the drop-in centre is going to close, nor how much it would take to keep it open. It says that "investing in these shelters is investing in the lives of today's youth." (That is, shelters or drop-in centres, either/or)
However, in the heart of the article, it also talks about three kids who were found sleeping outside in the killing cold that we've been experiencing lately; they were given an emergency position at a local motel, room paid-for by the region, but when they were asked if longer-term arrangements could be made for them, they politely but firmly refused. Nope, we'll be fine, they said, and the author of the piece noted that if people refuse to be helped, there's nothing we can do to force them to accept it.
In another country, we might view this as a type of social Darwinism - if they don't accept the help, we (the government / church / charitable organization) won't force it on them, and if they die, we shrug and say, "We would have been there for them, but they refused to be helped!" And we (the outside viewers), with logic faculties in full swing and most certainly NOT in need of any such assistance, would say, "How can this be? People are dying! The assistance must be inadequate, or poorly managed, or corruptly maintained, or something, because if help is there, people will take it!" But no, this is Canada, where everyone gets benefits if they are in any kind of need - refugees coming off the boat get assistance for the six months or so during which their case is being assessed, for Pete's sake! And they take it because that's what they came for! But our own people, born here, raised here, won't.
So here's the two sides of the coin: on one hand, the Church will always have work to do, people to try to help, and a hand out to try to offer a hand up and then to offer the comfort of the gospel, while on the other hand we will continue to fail because we are dealing with people who, in the deepest, darkest, most desperate times of their lives, will still try to dictate the terms on which they are helped. Many people, good Christians, will give up after a while. I did that with someone once and it was suggested to me that my love for that person was "conditional," that only if they accepted the help I offered (that is to say, the terms I dictated) would I truly love them; my reply, in my heart if not from my lips, was that those terms were what I offered, and all I could offer. I thought they were generous and accommodating. And yet, they were still refused, and that person is now pretty much out of my life. I'm saddened by it, but I've come to realize that it wasn't me. As long as the person on the "weaker" side demands terms from the one in the position to give (not negotiates, mind you, but demands), the relationship is out of balance.
Thanks be to God, we have been given the covenant of grace through Christ's cross... although people still refuse to accept it, and still seek to dictate terms with God. People don't get a miracle, don't win the lottery, get sick and die, get Alzheimer's and forget how to die, see nothing but tragedy in the world around them and seek to lay it all at God's feet, call Him "callous," "uncaring," and "vindictive." Christians themselves try to dictate who will and will not receive God's grace - us, of course, but not the gays, not the blacks or browns, and certainly not anyone who has never spontaneously spoken in what may well be gibberish but which fell on our ears as God-inspired gibberish!
*sigh*
The weaker side, the side in need, should receive. Just a thought. And since we are all sinners, ultimately we are all on the weaker side of eternity.