6 ms·

The thing is, charities and churches are rarely "run well". Many charities have become a cash cow for their executives and office staff (“Hey, look, we can dire

The thing is, charities and churches are rarely "run well". Many charities have become a cash cow for their executives and office staff (“Hey, look, we can direct a lot of these donations to paying us extremely generous salaries”), with actual generosity to those in need almost seeming an afterthought. I saw this firsthand when I volunteered in the central office of a charity, and it rather shattered my idealism. Churches have been notorious for either stipulating that recipients act in a certain church-approved way to get aid, or giving charity in the hope that recipients will convert. Either way, it hardly strikes most people outside that religion as "generous". It is worth pointing to the Nordic countries, where private charitable endeavours have largely faded away with the rise of the welfare state, and even the local churches are happy to let the state take care of the feeding, clothing and housing business because the state enjoys economy of scale far beyond any church’s ability. In spite of the dwindling of private charity, those countries have less wealth disparity than countries fond of charitable activity. Consequently, some feel that charity is a just an awkward substitute for a functional state, not a good thing in itself.

rhizome 8y ago
I can't find it now, but in the last few years there was a "well but what about churches?" story as public services for street problems were being cut, and they themselves said that they'd prefer not to have to take up the slack, certainly aren't prepared to take up all the slack, and that they aren't pros like the people who had just got their funding cut.
- humanrebar 8y ago
  > ...they'd prefer not to have to take up the slack, certainly aren't prepared to take up all the slack, and that they aren't pros like the people who had just got their funding cut. Churches literally aren't able to address "street problems" like violence and mental health problems. Governments are the best place to deal with problems where push actually has come to shove. There might be some creative way to make sure charity-oriented churches are better supported by social service organizations, police departments, etc., but if that sort of setup exists now, it isn't routine or well publicized.
TimTheTinker 8y ago
> The thing is, charities and churches are rarely "run well". Do you have any data or personal experience (not just one example) to back that up? The truth is, the vast majority of churches and local faith-based charities just quietly do their thing and usually aren’t big enough to garner any recognition or attention at scale. Actually, it’s the big operations with money flowing to a central hub that are usually the most suspect - when those at the top have less accountability and more temptation to not put all that money where it ought to go. The American Red Cross comes to mind. The only exception is large charities with a “100% of donations go to help people” policy (i.e. employees and leaders have to raise their own support to work there).
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  > The truth is, the vast majority of churches and local faith-based charities just quietly do their thing and usually aren’t big enough to garner any recognition or attention at scale. Your original comment said: > When run well, those do far more good than even government programs. Can you prove this? Because Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and food stamps do more good for 100+ million Americans than your local charities and churches, nor do faith based organizations have anywhere near the resources available to them government does.
  - freshm087 8y ago
    Because Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and food stamps do more good for 100+ million Do more good because their have much bigger budgets? - Maybe. More good per every dollar spent? I doubt it.
    - toomuchtodo 8y ago
      I prefer my country’s social services delivered by professionals, inefficiencies and all, over church volunteers. Inefficiencies are okay, expected even, when operating at scale. Sometimes universal availability and coverage take priority (know what you’re optimizing for). Also, when discriminated against by faith based services, you have no recourse. This is unacceptable, and can be monitored and governed more effectively when government provides services.
freshm087 8y ago
The thing is, charities and churches are rarely "run well". It's good that gov't agencies, and programs are so well known to to be run well, don't have problems with inefficiency, and corruption. Oh... wait
panarky 8y ago
When churches help people, they have an ulterior motive -- to convert the people they help to the church. Why should people who need help have to contend with this? Why can't we just help them without a competing agenda?
- TimTheTinker 8y ago
  > When churches help people, they have an ulterior motive -- to convert the people they help to the church. You might as well say God has an ulterior motive for providing for our needs - that we would come to know and love him. The two statements are analogous. It’s true, churches that truly love people and believe the Bible will want people to be saved through belief in Jesus. Hell is so bad, nothing could be more unloving than to not care about people’s souls and offer them the gospel. To be clear, the assumption that non-Christians are going to hell is not because of any moral superiority. All deserve hell, including Christians, because all have sinned. But free forgiveness is offered. It’s like a flag being waved over a well in the desert by a once-thirsty man who has found water. The statement “I’ve found water” or the assumption that we’re all in a desert carries no overtone of personal superiority. At the same time, if people need help but don’t want to hear anything, fine. That is no reason to turn them away or treat them less favorably in charity/outreach.
- humanrebar 8y ago
  I don't think it's an ulterior motive that churches want to help people be more spiritually healthy... it's part of the core function of the organizations. > Why can't we just help them without a competing agenda? It's only a competing agenda if you assume they're wrong. If better spiritual health complements the other efforts, it would be foolish not to promote it. Your perspective is that proselytizing is undesirable is valid, but it does take quite a bit as granted.

rhizome 8y ago

I can't find it now, but in the last few years there was a "well but what about churches?" story as public services for street problems were being cut, and they themselves said that they'd prefer not to have to take up the slack, certainly aren't prepared to take up all the slack, and that they aren't pros like the people who had just got their funding cut.

humanrebar 8y ago
> ...they'd prefer not to have to take up the slack, certainly aren't prepared to take up all the slack, and that they aren't pros like the people who had just got their funding cut. Churches literally aren't able to address "street problems" like violence and mental health problems. Governments are the best place to deal with problems where push actually has come to shove. There might be some creative way to make sure charity-oriented churches are better supported by social service organizations, police departments, etc., but if that sort of setup exists now, it isn't routine or well publicized.

TimTheTinker 8y ago

> The thing is, charities and churches are rarely "run well". Do you have any data or personal experience (not just one example) to back that up? The truth is, the vast majority of churches and local faith-based charities just quietly do their thing and usually aren’t big enough to garner any recognition or attention at scale. Actually, it’s the big operations with money flowing to a central hub that are usually the most suspect - when those at the top have less accountability and more temptation to not put all that money where it ought to go. The American Red Cross comes to mind. The only exception is large charities with a “100% of donations go to help people” policy (i.e. employees and leaders have to raise their own support to work there).

toomuchtodo 8y ago
> The truth is, the vast majority of churches and local faith-based charities just quietly do their thing and usually aren’t big enough to garner any recognition or attention at scale. Your original comment said: > When run well, those do far more good than even government programs. Can you prove this? Because Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and food stamps do more good for 100+ million Americans than your local charities and churches, nor do faith based organizations have anywhere near the resources available to them government does.
- freshm087 8y ago
  Because Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and food stamps do more good for 100+ million Do more good because their have much bigger budgets? - Maybe. More good per every dollar spent? I doubt it.
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    I prefer my country’s social services delivered by professionals, inefficiencies and all, over church volunteers. Inefficiencies are okay, expected even, when operating at scale. Sometimes universal availability and coverage take priority (know what you’re optimizing for). Also, when discriminated against by faith based services, you have no recourse. This is unacceptable, and can be monitored and governed more effectively when government provides services.

freshm087 8y ago

The thing is, charities and churches are rarely "run well". It's good that gov't agencies, and programs are so well known to to be run well, don't have problems with inefficiency, and corruption. Oh... wait

panarky 8y ago

When churches help people, they have an ulterior motive -- to convert the people they help to the church. Why should people who need help have to contend with this? Why can't we just help them without a competing agenda?

TimTheTinker 8y ago
> When churches help people, they have an ulterior motive -- to convert the people they help to the church. You might as well say God has an ulterior motive for providing for our needs - that we would come to know and love him. The two statements are analogous. It’s true, churches that truly love people and believe the Bible will want people to be saved through belief in Jesus. Hell is so bad, nothing could be more unloving than to not care about people’s souls and offer them the gospel. To be clear, the assumption that non-Christians are going to hell is not because of any moral superiority. All deserve hell, including Christians, because all have sinned. But free forgiveness is offered. It’s like a flag being waved over a well in the desert by a once-thirsty man who has found water. The statement “I’ve found water” or the assumption that we’re all in a desert carries no overtone of personal superiority. At the same time, if people need help but don’t want to hear anything, fine. That is no reason to turn them away or treat them less favorably in charity/outreach.
humanrebar 8y ago
I don't think it's an ulterior motive that churches want to help people be more spiritually healthy... it's part of the core function of the organizations. > Why can't we just help them without a competing agenda? It's only a competing agenda if you assume they're wrong. If better spiritual health complements the other efforts, it would be foolish not to promote it. Your perspective is that proselytizing is undesirable is valid, but it does take quite a bit as granted.