toldailytopic: "Soup kitchens": Do they help or hurt the homeless?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Krsto
Well-known member
There is a difference between "won't work" and "can't work."
A lot of alcoholics can't work either because no one will hire them or they just can't or both.
Perhaps churches can take a few under their wing and give them something productive to do, like picking up trash like the DOC crews do, in exchange for food and shelter, if the gov. could help out with alcohol rehab expenses. Joint church/state initiatives can and do work out quite well for the "clients." I used to work at a Christian boy's home for juvenile delinquents in which the state funded most of the costs. In my not-so-humble opinion we did a lot better than the state run boy's homes. Way better results.
In Michigan we have this place called The Yipsalanti State Mental Hospital.
I did a couple months of construction work there back in the 90s.
Imagine a college campus with dorms and assosiated buildings capable of housing 20,000 people.
Abandoned.
They cut the funding and keep only the 1,500 or so most violent crazy people there.
The rest they put out on the street.
Most of the homeless people I have interacted with seemed a little off.
I don't think that soup kitchens cause homeless people anymore than overpasses do.
Some people live off the land and sleep under the stars.
In Michigan when it gets to zero degrees the churches and shelters and whatnot try to round them up and keep them from freezing to death.
Some would rather freeze than sleep in a room packed with people.
I did a couple months of construction work there back in the 90s.
Imagine a college campus with dorms and assosiated buildings capable of housing 20,000 people.
Abandoned.
They cut the funding and keep only the 1,500 or so most violent crazy people there.
The rest they put out on the street.
Most of the homeless people I have interacted with seemed a little off.
I don't think that soup kitchens cause homeless people anymore than overpasses do.
Some people live off the land and sleep under the stars.
In Michigan when it gets to zero degrees the churches and shelters and whatnot try to round them up and keep them from freezing to death.
Some would rather freeze than sleep in a room packed with people.
And I don't blame them. "Many can't go there, and many would rather die" comes to mind, along with Scrooge's infamous rejoinder...
It's inaccurate to write off the people who go to these places as shiftless drunks looking for a handout. They are the damaged and unprivileged of society. The least of us, in other words.
Absolutely.
:thumb:
I know someone who runs the Methodist mission work in Mobile. He left a legal career to do it and part of what he does is feed the homeless. I believe he'd take exception to your point. Many newly impoverished or homeless families make their way through his kitchens. Many mentally unstable (released as part of a tragic government purge) are also found among them, as are alcoholics deeply enslaved to their addiction.
And addicts will pursue their addiction to the exclusion of food and sex and shelter. They'll lie and steal and beg to feed it until they receive help in restoring their sanity and balance or until they die. Feeding them does not preclude offering that help. And an act of kindness might make a difference to them or provide another day to stumble back toward life and away from their addiction.
My understanding is that Paul is chastising lazy Christians, not proscribing a distinction at odds with Ps 41:1-3; Prov. 14:21; 19:17, 22:9, 14:31, 28:27; Isaiah 58:6-10.
And if God would spare a wicked city for the sake of a handful of good men, then how can we justify ending the means by which even that handful might be spared and treated justly for fear of the misuse of the wicked?
PyramidHead
Active member
o.k. what should we do?
i.e. please note the only persons to say we should let the homeless starve have been Christians
is that a teaching of Jesus?
lightbringer
TOL Subscriber
? So a person that makes the conscious decision to serve the Lord but not hold down a paying job should be fed, but not someone that has met with difficult and trying times or has some mental disability?
I don't ever remember being drunk when I had to use a soup kitchen nor my family.
When we do not attempt to help the lesser of our fold, we become less than they are by our own volition.
Last edited:
I have to take issue with the second part of your post Knight: "A sure-fire way to create a homeless problem in your city is build a soup kitchen."
It's due to the "value system" of atheisim/secular humanism that these people have become street people to begin with (I refuse to refer to them as "homeless", because the true "homeless" are those that are victims beyond their own circumstances, i.e. lost their home due to a fire, flooding, hurricane, etc.).
Keep in mind Knight, due to atheist/secular humanism "values", our country has an over abundance of alcoholics and junkies wandering the streets, looking for a handout or a way to get their next "fix".
Places like the Union Gospel Mission do what they can to combat the harm that atheism/secular humanism has done to our society; their Mission Statement says it all:
"To serve, rescue, and transform those in greatest need through the grace of Jesus Christ."
http://www.ugm.org/site/PageServer?pagename=video_MissionOverview
PyramidHead
Active member
o
me too
what about the mentally diseased? the schizophrenics, the split personalities, etc. that can make it impossible to get a job, or even recognize the difference between reality and hallucinations? there are far more reasons than you want to believe.
ok, blame it on the atheists, great. how are atheists making this happen?
in fact, what do you know about drug use? why do you think it is 'homelessness results in drug usage'? many people sink into these holes, coming from perfectly respectable places, sometimes with words like "i'll IV this dope, but JUST ONCE!"
glad they're trying to help. are you involved with them at all?
yeshuaslavejeff
New member
sodom and gomorrah did not have a soup kitchen for the poor.
.
every ekklesia synagogue did. (was commanded to by Yhvh's Word anyway).
.
.
every ekklesia synagogue did. (was commanded to by Yhvh's Word anyway).
.
PlastikBuddha
New member
I'm floored that the question even has to be asked.
This is a topic that I'm a little torn on. Like lightbringer, soup kitchens kept me fed throughout a good portion of my childhood. My mom was on welfare most of my childhood and usually used that money to go out with her boyfriends or to travel without her three daughters (youngest was 6 and I, oldest, was 10 when it started). She would pay the rent and then buy a ten-pound bag of potatoes, a two-pound bag of beans, two boxes of cereal, and a gallon of milk. That was all she would buy us for a month before she'd take the rest of her money and go stay down the road at her boyfriend's house. If it hadn't been for the mission and free lunches at school, my sisters and I would have starved.
I do understand your point, Knight, about enabling those who don't want to work. I've worked in a soup kitchen and have seen some who refused to work. The one I worked in started requiring people who ate there to help out with the cooking, clean-up, setting tables because of it. Personally, instead of sending someone to a soup kitchen, I would rather bring them to my home and have them do a little yard work or house work and provide them with a hot meal. Whenever someone asks me for a handout, I offer them a short-term job and enough food to fill them while they work for me. Or, I will give them a loaf of bread and a pack of lunchmeat (I've done this when someone asked me for money outside the grocery store).
ApologeticJedi
New member
Soup kitchens are a decidedly Christian creation and at their heart it's a good idea. The problem is that today they've become impersonal things. There become a whole host of problems when you make charity impersonal.
Soup kitchens probably are not very effective and Knight's criticism is not unfounded, but we should fix the process rather than nix everything.
- The giver loses touch with the people he is helping.
- The receiver is tempted to take advantage of the system.
- A system is less able to make judgement on who it is helping and who it is hindering.
- The criticality of the "thank you" is lost in the process.
- An impersonal process keeps relationships from forming - food may not be all that is needed*
Soup kitchens probably are not very effective and Knight's criticism is not unfounded, but we should fix the process rather than nix everything.
ApologeticJedi
New member
How many that are "appalled at the question" have actually volunteered in a soup kitchen? Everyone thinks charity is a good idea, but it's hard to find people to volunteer for these sorts of things.
It should exist so long as someone else is doing it?
If you support welfare, why do we need soup kitchens?
It should exist so long as someone else is doing it?
If you support welfare, why do we need soup kitchens?
I agree, at the margin soup kitchens make the homeless life just easy enough for some people to remain so, who would otherwise get back on track.
...And of course they would attract homeless people to the area, and create a bigger burden/problem.
I have a hard time condemning them outright though. I'd be interested to hear the opinion of that "Step 13" guy I've heard on Denver radio (Mike Rosen) several times. He seems to have a very good understanding of this stuff. I'm thinking he might have been on Bob Enyarts show also?
I also think a lot of homeless people have mental issues and no family to help, I'm good with helping those especially.
For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat.
-2 Thessalonians 3:10
When they told you you built your own room at the asylum this isn't what they meant.
Who said we should let them starve?
No, we should shut them down because they don't help anyone. When a system reaches the point of brokenness that many of these places have it is best to destroy and start over with a new system.
With this I agree. We should not just let them starve. But we should not just feed them and then let them go. As Nori mentioned, we should put them to work. And help them find jobs and an education if necessary, etc. There is a place here in Anderson that gives food and shelter to those in need, in exchange for services rendered. They also help them find jobs. I've eaten there myself on a couple of occasions, when with a friend who had no money at a time when I also had none. Both of us had jobs though. He just hadn't yet received his first paycheck, and I was working part time for pretty much minimum wage. I also ate at another one years ago when I was starving and had lost my job because I had a cold and could not get a doctor's note. I got hired at a McDonald's and ate at the soup kitchen down the road because I had not yet been paid at my new job. They did not ask any questions, nor did they seek the help of those they fed in any way. They offered them no work in exchange. They are no longer open.
I also think this verse can get misused. One interpretation of this verse I've heard is that some people in that church were getting lazy due to the passages in 1 Thess. about the end coming. Paul was admonishing those leeching Christians to work for their share. You can try to broaden that verse to political spheres but I don't think you should.
Interesting analogy.
You can't put all homeless people in the same pigeon hole. It depends on the person. Do some people abuse the system? I don't doubt it. Are there many people who genuinely need it? I don't doubt it. Which is the majority? I don't know. And until I do know, I'm willing to support the system.
And by support the system I mean in spirit only since I'm bad at putting actions behind my words. :sigh: So, ApologeticJedi, no, I have not personally worked at one, though I know I should.
Suggesting that all soup kitchens are "established routines" is nonsense.
So, let more people go wanting? :idunno:
You can't guarantee that. Just like I can't guarantee the opposite.
- Status