Tags
Related Posts
Share This
Is Our Charity Toxic?: Insights from Robert Lupton
I love people who are bold enough to tell the truth especially when the truth will mean rocking the boat. Robert Lupton is a bold truth teller in his book “Toxic Charity: How Churches and Charities Hurt Those They Help (And How to Reverse It.”
Below are just a few excerpts from Lupton’s book that capture the heart of what he sees as the problem with our current approaches to poverty alleviation:
When we do for those in need what they have the capacity to do for themselves, we disempower them.
For all our efforts to eliminate poverty—our entitlements, our programs, our charities—we have succeeded only in creating a permanent underclass, dismantling their family structures, and eroding their ethic of work. And our poor continue to become poorer.
And religiously motivated charity is often the most irresponsible. Our free food and clothing distribution encourages ever-growing handout lines, diminishing the dignity of the poor while increasing their dependency.
Giving to those in need what they could be gaining from their own initiative may well be the kindest way to destroy people.
Why do we miss this crucial aspect in evaluating our charitable work? Because,as compassionate people, we have been evaluating our charity by the rewards we receive through service, rather than the benefits received by the served. We have failed to adequately calculate the effects of our service on the lives of those reduced to objects of our pity and patronage.
We respond with immediacy to desperate circumstances but often are unable to shift from crisis relief to the more complex work of long-term development. When relief does not transition to development in a timely way, compassion becomes toxic.
Most work done by volunteers could be better done by locals in less time and with better results.
As a country, we understand that welfare creates unhealthy dependency, that it erodes the work ethic, that it cannot elevate people out of poverty.
Again and again we are finding that when it comes to global needs in organizational development and human development, the granting of money creates dependence and conflict, not independence and respect.
Wherever there was sustained one-way giving, unwholesome dynamics and pathologies festered under the cover of kindheartedness.
Doing “for” rather than doing “with” those in need is the norm. Add to it the combination of patronizing pity and unintended superiority, and charity becomes toxic.
The challenge for those of us in service work is to redirect traditional methods of charity into systems of genuine exchange.
Mercy without justice degenerates into dependency and entitlement, preserving the power of the giver over the recipient. Justice without mercy is cold and impersonal, more concerned about rights than relationships. Relationships built on need are seldom healthy.
When a church makes decisions about serving others, are the ones being served the urban poor or the church?
Someone needs to raise the question, Is the church enabling missionaries to minister, or are the missionaries serving the needs of the church?
Top-down charity seldom works.
Lupton gives these suggestions to those seeking to empower people and not create dependence:
Don’t subsidize poverty.
• Reinforce productive work.
• Create producers, not beggars.
• Invest in self-sufficiency.
Lupton acknowledges that, ” The hard part is rethinking the entrenched giveaway mentality and restructuring an established one-way charity system.” He suggests churches and non-profits ask these questions:
Are recipients assuming greater levels of control over their own lives or do they show up, year after year, with their hands out?
• Is leadership emerging among the served?
• Are their aspirations on the rise?
• Is there a positive trajectory?
This is by far one of the best books I have ever read on the subject of ending poverty. I highly recommend anyone who is working with individuals who are experiencing material poverty read this book. I also think it is a great book for anyone interested in getting our country back on track without hurting the poor and vulnerable in the process. Irregardless of your political leanings, Lupton’s approach should appeal to individuals on both sides of the aisle.
So what stood out to you from Lupton’s insights?
How do you feel about the idea that one-way giving is actually hurting people?
Why do you think it is important for the church to evaluate its charitable giving programs?
I think he’s right, but the trick is implementing a new plan. There is a diverse set of needs within the community. What “works” for one, may not “work” for others. Relationships, systems…everything needs to be evaluated continually.
I do particularly like his questions about rising leadership and aspirations. If things aren’t getting better, then it is time to make a change. However, even our best efforts will always be partial and provisional in their effectiveness.
Michael,
I agree with you that everything has to be contextualized. I also think that “one size fits all” type programs are the least effective. We have found that small group based or one on one mentoring type approaches are far more effective. It does reduce your numbers but the depth of work you can do is so much greater. It also allows for continual feedback and the ability to stay flexible.
I also like his emphasis on the trajectory. This kind of work is not for the faint at heart. It can take years to see real evidence of change, that is why it is important to celebrate even small moves in the right direction.
Thank you for you consistently insightful comments!
OK–I agree we should be teaching folks to fish not just giving them a fish, but don’t you think his view is just a tad myopic? If someone is starving don’t you feed that person first then start to help him? Also, I haven’t read his book, but he seems oblivious to the greatest economic meltdown in over 80 years. Over half the population is below the poverty line–does he really think charity enslaves people in poverty irrespective of the current state of our economy? And Ill add one more: entitlements. Who is getting more entitlements–the very rich or the very poor and is this fact interrelated?
Hi Mich,
I think the short fall is my write up not Lupton’s book. He does talk about the need for “emergency” assistance but warns that what was intended for emergencies can become toxic if it becomes a way of life.
This is part 1 in what will be a 2 part post. Lupton gives a better solution to handouts – jobs. As Christian we are not to sit back and let folks starve, but the long-term solution is to create jobs and he gives some great suggestions to help churches build responses that actually develop people and add dignity.
There is no way to accurately represent Lupton’s entire book in two short posts. The book is well worth the read and I think if your read the excerpts above in context, you would understand a bit better where he is coming from.
Thanks for your comment. I hope this adds a bit more clarity.