|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Food Banks, Paintings and Church Bells
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Many people living in Britain will have heard of the priest whose £400 painting has turned out to be a genuine Van Dyck worth many hundreds of thousands of pounds. The owner has said that he will use the sale proceeds to fund a new set of church bells which will mark the centenary of WW1.
A correspondent to yesterday's "i" newspaper suggests that the proposed use of the sale money is wrong and that it should be used to fund Food Banks for the needy (I can't give you a link as the letter is not available online).
Disregarding the view which says that an owner can use the proceeds in any way they wish, are Shipmates' sympathies with the letter-writer or with the Priest/owner? Is there any relevance in Jesus' comment about the value of the perfume that had been poured over him?
[ 31. December 2013, 14:16: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
I can think of a much better use for the money - give it to me. I will spend it on important things, like . . . myself.
If the priest has come by a kismet and wants to do something for a cause about which he cares it is no one else's business. Deciding that it is OK to criticize someone for doing what they want with their stuff, especially when they aren't hurting anyone, is pretty darn co-dependent.
Would I give the money to a WWI memorial? No. I have other priorities. Who knows though. A memorial to a war that was fought for no justifiable reasons might make future generations question the need to start a new war somewhere, savings countless more lives than a temporary funding of a food bank.
Or, maybe not.
It just isn't any of my, or the letter writer's, business.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
geroff
Shipmate
# 3882
|
Posted
For further info see this.
--------------------
"The first principle in science is to invent something nice to look at and then decide what it can do." Rowland Emett 1906-1990
Posts: 1172 | From: Montgomeryshire, Wales | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
A correspondent to yesterday's "i" newspaper suggests that the proposed use of the sale money is wrong and that it should be used to fund Food Banks for the needy.
I don't know the letter writer, but I'd be willing to make a bet that he's never given £1 to the food bank. That type usually feels entitled to tell others how to spend their own money.
(I'm starting another thread about the painting and art values.)
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
You could raise that argument against any private spending on art or heritage whatsoever - in particular, why doesn't the guy who wants to spend £400,000 on a Van Dyck spend it on food banks instead?
OK, as a bellringer I may be biased, but IME bells aren't just installed on a whim. If there is currently already a desire, either in the church or the ringing community, for bells at that particular church, then almost certainly a fundraising process is already underway, and so the rector's generous donation of £400,000 will allow the other potential donors to spread their gifts elsewhere - on food banks if they wish.
If the bells aren't wanted by anyone other than the rector, then yes there is a problem, on the grounds that new and unwanted rings of bells are IMV a Bad Thing for all sorts of reasons.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
What would Jesus do with the money?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
If the reporter doesn't live in one room, make his clothes out of old potato sacks, and amuse himself only with old magazines he found in a dumpster, thus freeing up money he could give to the poor, he's really in no position to criticize someone not adhering to strict utilitarian ethics either.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
Yup, it's pretty much the perfume-over-feet scenario which I've always thought reflects a bit of what Pigwigeon was saying
quote:
I don't know the letter writer, but I'd be willing to make a bet that he's never given £1 to the food bank. That type usually feels entitled to tell others how to spend their own money.
It's typically the mean-minded rather than the charitable who complain.
I've seen some very haunting and beautiful church art commemorating WW1, so more power to the priest.
If the letter writer really cared about food banks he might perhaps be more concerned about tackling the causes of them - the deliberate policies of the Coalition.
This is an artificially-made hunger crisis, where the sudden sharp rise in the need for food banks is driven to a great extent by attacks on the sick, working poor, and unemployed which have been dressed up as welfare 'reform'. The recession was used as an excuse to attack those least able to fight back in the name of highly dubious austerity policies. Meanwhile privatisation has also made things worse. People often have to choose between food or heat thanks to expensive privatised utilities. Winter leads to more hungry people. For the first time since WW2, the Red Cross has had to ask for donations to pass out food parcels in Britain.
So if people want to help the hungry they can (1) give to the food banks but (2) they most of all need to act politically.
It's not individual charity which will stop this, but political action to remove the Conservatives and their fellow travellers, and most of all to push the Overton Window of 'thinkable' political policies towards rejecting attacks on minimum social welfare provision - the latter must be done otherwise voting Labour will create the same problems on a lesser scale as they currently offer little better than 'Tory Lite' policies.
The priest's windfall ultimately isn't going to solve this, and we still need a world with art, music, the sacred and material for reflection and contemplation in it.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
One of my fellow-teachers commented on the existence of "Employment Insurance":
"Be thankful you pay into EI, because, otherwise, the poor will be rioting in the streets"
This could also apply to the various supports that the working poor* should receive. Meanness will eventually get meanness in return.
In relation to the OP: there are simply not enough donations being made for the churches to cover the expenses of the needy. With over half a million foodbank users, how much difference will one lump of $400,000 pounds make?
The Tories have actually been successful in their aim to punish the poor.
*Working poor= actually have employment, but between not enough hours and low rates of pay, not making enough to cover basic expenses.
WalMart in the US famously relies on food stamps to allow their employees to make ends meet. What happens when the Food Stamp program is cut? Naturally, the employees go on strike and demand the right to unionise, something that employers dislike.
But if employers push the workers to the wall, the employers get what they asked for.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chamois
Shipmate
# 16204
|
Posted
Small businesses are also getting hammered by current government policies. So if the vicar commissions one of the two UK foundries (both small businesses, one family-run) to cast and hang the new bells he will in my view be doing A Good Work.
Of course, I'm a ringer too, so maybe I'm biased. But the number of small businesses and sole traders going OUT of business around here is truly alarming, especially given that the majority of the working population is either self-employed or working for a small or medium-sized enterprise.
--------------------
The steadfast love of the Lord never ceases
Posts: 978 | From: Hill of roses | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chamois
Shipmate
# 16204
|
Posted
Apologies for the double post
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
--------------------
The steadfast love of the Lord never ceases
Posts: 978 | From: Hill of roses | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
If the reporter doesn't live in one room, make his clothes out of old potato sacks, and amuse himself only with old magazines he found in a dumpster, thus freeing up money he could give to the poor, he's really in no position to criticize someone not adhering to strict utilitarian ethics either.
I'm not quite convinced. If a literary critic points out flaws in a novel should we ignore her because she couldn't have written the novel?
Obviously we can criticise the letter writer for not having the same standards, but I still think they are entitled to be critical. Is anyone here really saying they never criticise vice unless they are sure they are more virtuous? I wish I could say I managed it.
[ 31. December 2013, 17:07: Message edited by: que sais-je ]
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
If the reporter doesn't live in one room, make his clothes out of old potato sacks, and amuse himself only with old magazines he found in a dumpster, thus freeing up money he could give to the poor, he's really in no position to criticize someone not adhering to strict utilitarian ethics either.
I'm not quite convinced. If a literary critic points out flaws in a novel should we ignore her because she couldn't have written the novel?
Obviously we can criticise the letter writer for not having the same standards, but I still think they are entitled to be critical. Is anyone here really saying they never criticise vice unless they are sure they are more virtuous? I wish I could say I managed it.
If the journalist doesn't realize he's obliged to do all that, then he has no awareness of the principles he's holding other people to.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
If the reporter doesn't live in one room, make his clothes out of old potato sacks, and amuse himself only with old magazines he found in a dumpster, thus freeing up money he could give to the poor, he's really in no position to criticize someone not adhering to strict utilitarian ethics either.
I'm not quite convinced. If a literary critic points out flaws in a novel should we ignore her because she couldn't have written the novel?
Obviously we can criticise the letter writer for not having the same standards, but I still think they are entitled to be critical. Is anyone here really saying they never criticise vice unless they are sure they are more virtuous? I wish I could say I managed it.
It depends. If the letter-writer sincerely believes that no-one should spend money on non-essentials while there are food banks to fill, but is unhappily unable to live up to that standard themself, that's one thing.
But if actually they believe spending on non-essentials is perfectly licit, but are going to criticise the priest for doing so anyway, then they're just trolling / being a dick.
In any case, paying for the bells' installation isn't spending on a luxury item. It's more like being a patron of the arts. It may still be non-essential spending but it's not as though it's for the priest's personal benefit.
[ 31. December 2013, 17:51: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Undercover Christian
Apprentice
# 17875
|
Posted
I've got a lot of time for Sandy Millar, who was posed with the following question (copy-pasting from my blog post on whether $9000 is too much for a toilet. Yes, really):
quote:
But it’s good to be mindful of the point made by Sandy Millar on HTB’s Godpod programme, when he was asked how a Christian could wear a watch worth £500 when people die daily of preventable diseases. “If their income is £5m,” he said, “and they give away £4m, and they have a £500 watch, I don’t feel honestly able to be very critical of them.”
Sandy steered commendably clear of one of our great hypocrisies in the Church – to criticise the rich, rather than recognise that on a global level that’s exactly who we are. If you earn the UK minimum wage, you’re already amongst the top 7% richest people in the world. Even my modest £50 throne from B&Q represents comparatively luxurious bottom-servicing… shockingly, most people on the planet do not have access to a flushing toilet.
I find it hard to see how Jesus would spend the money on the memorial rather than a more pressing social need, but (a) we don't know the whole story and (b) I'm not convinced that in this instance the public sphere - be it print or online - is the place to challenge it. As I currently consume more money myself than I give to the church or charity, I don't feel I have any right to criticise others.
Maybe those of us who feel indignant by the priest's intentions should consider giving more to pressing social needs ourselves. If everybody who is enraged by this matter did that, then we would no doubt eclipse the money the priest has.
TUC.
--------------------
http://www.theundercoverchristian.com
Posts: 26 | Registered: Oct 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Undercover Christian:
I find it hard to see how Jesus would spend the money on the memorial rather than a more pressing social need...
"There came unto him a woman having an alabaster box of very precious ointment, and poured it on his head, as he sat at meat.
But when his disciples saw it, they had indignation, saying, To what purpose is this waste? For this ointment might have been sold for much, and given to the poor.
When Jesus understood it, he said unto them, Why trouble ye the woman? for she hath wrought a good work upon me. For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always. For in that she hath poured this ointment on my body, she did it for my burial.
Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, there shall also this, that this woman hath done, be told for a memorial of her." Matt. 26:7-13
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Is the connection really that distant? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
At the risk of tangenting, one of the things that irks me most about these "bought old junk at a yard sale for $5, turned out to be priceless" stories is this:
The buyer profited from some seller's ignorance. Isn't that at least as bad as using those profits in ways (some of) the rest of us disapprove of?
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starbug
Shipmate
# 15917
|
Posted
I'd also like to ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) Louise's post.
We had a debate at our church discussion group before Christmas. The group leader (a lay preacher) said that he plays Grand Theft Auto and had just bought the latest game. Someone else then said vehemently that it was immoral to spend £40 on a computer game (in a 'I am right and you can't disagree with me' tone of voice). This had the effect of shutting down any further discussion on the subject. She then went on to make us all feel guilty for giving/getting Christmas presents because she and her family weren't giving any.
Afterwards, I reflected on this, wondering if I should feel guilty for buying the latest Professor Layton game. I decided not to feel bad about it, as if everyone stopped buying these games it would put a lot of people out of work. I just wish I'd been brave enough to say that during the group.
As Chamois says, commissioning a bell may create work for crafts workers, so it wouldn't be all bad even if the money doesn't go to foodbanks.
--------------------
“Oh the pointing again. They're screwdrivers! What are you going to do? Assemble a cabinet at them?” ― The Day of the Doctor
Posts: 1189 | From: West of the New Forest | Registered: Sep 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Undercover Christian
Apprentice
# 17875
|
Posted
quote:
Is the connection really that distant?
Kinda, old chap... given that the way that Jesus asks us to show our love for him now is how we treat others, as he does only a couple of lines before the story you quote(i.e Matt 25:31-46). Most scholars I've read tend not to argue that the anointing story is a justification for spending on stone rather than people, nouns rather than names.
So I'm not sure I'm following how your passage justifies this spending.
Genuinely interested to hear more.
--------------------
http://www.theundercoverchristian.com
Posts: 26 | Registered: Oct 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
It's not distant at all.
Disciples: You can't spend money on luxuries when there are more pressing social needs.
Jesus: Yes you can.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
A few years ago, we all worked together to raise money to increase our ring by two more bells. It involved a lot of hard work and sacrificial giving. But we got there in time for the new Millennium.
What this vicar has done, by selling the painting, is freeing his parishioners from having to work really hard to raise money for bells. Instead, they can put all that marvellous effort and sacrificial giving to another cause eg. setting up a foodbank or outreach centre. One definitely does not preclude the other.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Undercover Christian:
quote:
Is the connection really that distant?
Kinda, old chap... given that the way that Jesus asks us to show our love for him now is how we treat others, as he does only a couple of lines before the story you quote(i.e Matt 25:31-46). Most scholars I've read tend not to argue that the anointing story is a justification for spending on stone rather than people, nouns rather than names.
So I'm not sure I'm following how your passage justifies this spending.
Genuinely interested to hear more.
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
It's not distant at all.
Disciples: You can't spend money on luxuries when there are more pressing social needs.
Jesus: Yes you can.
I'm with undercover Christian in finding that to be a stretch. But I do suspect a similarity between the pharisee's false piety/ hypocrasy and the journalist's.
[ 31. December 2013, 19:41: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
It was asserted that Jesus would never condone spending money on luxuries when there are more pressing social needs. He condones just that. It is objectively not a stretch.
Why, what contortions do you put the text through to make it say otherwise?
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
I'm with Zach, although possibly not for the same reason. I wouldn't say that either the precious oil or the bells are 'luxuries' - one is a fitting tribute to Jesus' kingship (at least that's what I think the passage is suggesting) and the other is a form of art. Now I believe art is a worthy end in itself, but if you don't, the bells are also a worship of God and a memorial to the people who died in the Great War.
Whatever they are, however, they're certainly not essential spending. In other words, the story of the oil shows a clear Scriptural precedent for non-essential spending at a time when there are pressing social needs.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I do suspect a similarity between the pharisee's false piety/ hypocrasy and the journalist's.
From memory, it's not the pharisees, it's the disciples. And, according to the OP, it's not a journalist, it's a correspondent.
And I have to say, I think the passage has always been a bit of an embarrassment for the church! Which is perhaps why it's always dismissed as being about hypocrisy...
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
In other words, the story of the oil shows a clear Scriptural precedent for non-essential spending at a time when there are pressing social needs.
[/i]Someone[/i] gets it.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I do suspect a similarity between the pharisee's false piety/ hypocrasy and the journalist's.
From memory, it's not the pharisees, it's the disciples. And, according to the OP, it's not a journalist, it's a correspondent.
Yes, I was conflating the Matthean/Lukean accounts with Mark 14. My bad.
Isn't a correspondant a type of journalist? Does the term have a different meaning cross-pond?
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
It was asserted that Jesus would never condone spending money on luxuries when there are more pressing social needs. He condones just that. It is objectively not a stretch.
Why, what contortions do you put the text through to make it say otherwise?
Wow. An interesting variant on the proverbial "have you stopped beating your wife?" question.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Coming a bit late to this exchange to add Slacktivist's view:
quote:
A few times a week I get an e-mail or a drive-by comment from someone very upset that I'm defending or advocating for a position they regard as contrary to the Bible. This happens often. Regularly. Constantly.
Yet as often as it happens, none of my accusers has ever been angry that I seem to be "glibly dismissive" of the clear biblical teaching of Luke 3:11. No one has ever suggested on the basis of this Bible verse that I am a fraudulent sham and an enemy of the true faith. Nor have they ever suggested that my failure to heed and revere it's clear instruction constitutes an attack against the sacred "authority of the scriptures."
And that's odd, because I would seem to be vulnerable on this point.
"Whoever has two coats must share with anyone who has none," the Bible says in Luke 3:11. And I have a lot more than just two coats. I have a closet full of coats, jackets, suits, shirts, dress pants, jeans, sweaters and nearly a dozen different pairs of shoes. My wardrobe would seem to be a sinful extravagance that's biblically indefensible
and going on through this: quote:
This is a unified, unambiguous, relentlessly repeated commandment not just of John but of Moses, Isaiah, Amos, Jeremiah, Jesus, Paul, Peter … of everybody, really.
We're not talking about just a handful of scattered verses — not just a few obscure texts plucked from the lists of Leviticus and one or two Pauline tangents. This is a major, dominant theme of the entire Bible: Whoever has more than they need must give to whoever has less than they need.
So much for "conservative values" that claim to be Christian.
All three parts of that essay are excellent, BTW.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bostonman
Shipmate
# 17108
|
Posted
Isn't this just a classic both/and? It's not "you can't honor Christ by building bells with which to better worship him, you can only honor Christ through the least among you."
St. John Chrysostom is one of the best expositors of Matthew 25:34-46, which The Undercover Christian has pointed out precedes this one.
quote:
by St. Chrysostom
Give him the honour prescribed in his law by giving your riches to the poor. For God does not want golden vessels but golden hearts.
Now, in saying this I am not forbidding you to make such gifts; I am only demanding that along with such gifts and before them you give alms. He accepts the former, but he is much more pleased with the latter. In the former, only the giver profits; in the latter, the recipient does too. A gift to the church may be taken as a form of ostentation, but an alms is pure kindness. Of what use is it to weigh down Christ’s table with golden cups, when he himself is dying of hunger? First, fill him when he is hungry; then use the means you have left to adorn his table. Will you have a golden cup made but not give a cup of water? What is the use of providing the table with cloths woven of gold thread, and not providing Christ himself with the clothes he needs? What profit is there in that? Tell me: If you were to see him lacking the necessary food but were to leave him in that state and merely surround his table with gold would he be grateful to you or rather would he not be angry? What if you were to see him clad in worn-out rags and stiff from the cold, and were to forget about clothing him and instead were to set up golden columns for him, saying that you were doing it in his honour? Would he not think he was being mocked and greatly insulted?
Posts: 424 | From: USA | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Maybe the answer is not to give money to the 'Build them and they'll come' food banks, but to actually challenge the way the benefit system is administered - which has nothing to do with government policy but, in my professional experience, has an awful lot to do with the attitudes and actions of local jobsworth benefit agency and JobCentrePlus staff and managers.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Maybe the answer is not to give money to the 'Build them and they'll come' food banks, but to actually challenge the way the benefit system is administered - which has nothing to do with government policy but, in my professional experience, has an awful lot to do with the attitudes and actions of local jobsworth benefit agency and JobCentrePlus staff and managers.
Really? What are they doing wrong? (genuine question)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
I have cut and paste below some of my recent comments on Facebook:
quote:
As if to confirm my view on the benefit system, today i delivered some toys to a woman whose daughter is disabled. She is 16 and for some reason that changes her entitlement to benefit so what does the benefit agency do? They stop her benefits while she's assessed for further benefits and the mother has to apply to us for toys. Why do they have to stop the money?? Why can't they estimate or give an average and then adjust it when the proper amount is decided upon? Can they not see the hardship? THIS is why people go to food banks.
quote:
It seems such a stupid thing to do. Why cancel everything if the clients are just being reassessed?? It reinforces my view that the increase in the use of food banks and other charitable provision is a mixture of their well-publicised availability and cash flow problems caused by BA administrative procedures rather than simple 'poverty'.
quote:
I believe it's easier for a clerk at the Jobcentre to issue a referral paper and send their client to the local foodbank for three days' food than to actually press a button on the computer and release a payment into the client's post office account! I repeat what i've asked on numerous occasions: Does no one else see the irony of a Jobcentre sending someone to a food bank because they have no money when it's the same Jobcentre that stopped the money in the first place!
quote:
I took someone into the Jobcentre because they had unexpectedly stopped his benefits and he didn't understand why. The reason was simple - he had moved house and while he had told one office his new address he had overlooked the requirement to tell the other. When he was called forward to the desk this was explained to him and it was repeated that because he had not told someone else his new address his money was now stopped. The Jobcentre knew his address was changed because they had written to him at that new address telling him his money was to be stopped because they hadn't been informed of his new address!!!!!!! Anyway, my friend was told he was getting no money. As soon as I heard this I stepped up to the desk in my uniform and asked why he was being sent away with no money and no food in the house and bills to pay. All the clerk would do was repeat his refusal to do anything to help. At which point a colleague intervened and tried to persuade the unhelpful clerk to help the man. Shall I tell you why she intervened? It was because I was in Salvation Army uniform and the previous year she had volunteered at another SA corps for the toy appeal AND SHE WAS EMBARRASSED. The two clerks then had an argument (very professional!) in front of my friend and me (and anyone else who was listening in the open plan Jobcentre) with the first clerk adamantly refusing to help. So she took the case off him and said, 'I will help'. Literally 3 phone calls later and she arranged the payment to be in my client's post office account by 3pm that very afternoon. This had nothing to do with Ian Duncan Smith, NOTHING to do with Government policy, the cutbacks, the recession, austerity measures or the changes in the benefit system. This was entirely down to the sheer awkwardness of a middle-aged Jobcentre clerk who couldn't give a stuff about the hungry and ill man with not a penny to his name whose only crime was not to know enough English to understand the letter properly. It makes my blood boil and I could tell you other stories that show how people are hungry because of the attitudes of Jobcentre staff. Even I in my uniform have been talked down to by the security 'guard' on the door. There is a culture of patronising unhelpfulness and hostility to the clients - as well as incompetence that would make you as angry as me to hear it - and it is THIS attitude that denies people the money they are entitled to and drives them to the food banks.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thyme
Shipmate
# 12360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Isn't a correspondant a type of journalist? Does the term have a different meaning cross-pond?
Yes, in the context of this thread, correspondent refers to the writer of the letter to the newspaper. Not the journalist who wrote the article about the priest and his windfall.
UK usage tends to favour journalist over correspondent for people who report news. A journalist is a journalist, but a correspondent is also a letter writer (not necessarily to a newspaper)
--------------------
The Church in its own bubble has become, at best the guardian of the value system of the nation’s grandparents, and at worst a den of religious anoraks defined by defensiveness, esoteric logic and discrimination. Bishop of Buckingham's blog
Posts: 600 | From: Cloud Cuckoo Land | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
Actually, I think it depends on which British media you are talking about.
Old fashioned print media talk of people ('the public') who write to them as correspondents. In my view this is almost exclusively used by national newspapers such as The Times which has a long tradition of printing letters from the middle classes. Having read recently a lot of newspapers from the mid 19 century, I think this is just a continued form of usage from that era.
Almost all other media use correspondent to mean journalist - including the BBC, which even has a radio programme called From Our Own Correspondent!
.. but then perhaps even that usage has the emphasis on own..
[ 01. January 2014, 08:46: Message edited by: pydseybare ]
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
I thought 'correspondent' in the sense of journalist meant someone who sends reports from somewhere other than the place where the paper is headquartered, e.g. our correspondent in Vienna or wherever.
In this case we aren't talking about a report but, if anything, an editorial, so it's unlikely that the OP means correspondent in that sense.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
The proof text doesn't show that at all to me. It shows that Jesus was saying don't be critical of someone else's desperately publically yet truly humble sincere appreciation.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I thought 'correspondent' in the sense of journalist meant someone who sends reports from somewhere other than the place where the paper is headquartered, e.g. our correspondent in Vienna or wherever.
In this case we aren't talking about a report but, if anything, an editorial, so it's unlikely that the OP means correspondent in that sense.
It was a published letter from a member of the public.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
You mean to say that the priest will be using the money to provide employment for all those involved in the manufacture, delivery and installation of the bells!
Good on him! A great way to relieve poverty (in fact, the best way).
(But I don't suppose the indignant letter writer is too bothered about something called jobs!)
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
I'm actually sitting here racking my brains to think what Jesus actually did for the poor.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I'm actually sitting here racking my brains to think what Jesus actually did for the poor.
Like (some) journalists, he brought them constantly to the attention of those who would prefer to ignore them.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
Mudfrog - thanks for your examples upthread of how people you know have got into difficulties thanks to local issues and work practices, as opposed to national policy decisions. Shockingly bad practice, from what you've described...
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Maybe the answer is not to give money to the 'Build them and they'll come' food banks, but to actually challenge the way the benefit system is administered - which has nothing to do with government policy but, in my professional experience, has an awful lot to do with the attitudes and actions of local jobsworth benefit agency and JobCentrePlus staff and managers.
I don't think there is a disjunct between policy and delivery. If the policy is punitive and unjust, then no amount of niceness on the part of frontline staff will alter that. Also, they are working for departments which are taking cuts and having to 'make savings' - with all the heartening effects on morale and attitude that brings about. Petty tyranny is best delivered by people who themselves feel ground down by the bastards above them.
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I'm actually sitting here racking my brains to think what Jesus actually did for the poor.
Like (some) journalists, he brought them constantly to the attention of those who would prefer to ignore them.
So, rather than open a food bank to deal with a perceived - and sometimes actual - need, I wonder if what Jesus would do would be more along the lines of telling officials to do their jobs properly rather than telling people not to spend their own money on expensive things.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Maybe the answer is not to give money to the 'Build them and they'll come' food banks, but to actually challenge the way the benefit system is administered - which has nothing to do with government policy but, in my professional experience, has an awful lot to do with the attitudes and actions of local jobsworth benefit agency and JobCentrePlus staff and managers.
I don't think there is a disjunct between policy and delivery. If the policy is punitive and unjust, then no amount of niceness on the part of frontline staff will alter that. Also, they are working for departments which are taking cuts and having to 'make savings' - with all the heartening effects on morale and attitude that brings about. Petty tyranny is best delivered by people who themselves feel ground down by the bastards above them.
That is not borne out by my experience I'm afraid.
Another man was told on Wednesday that he was no longer entitled to Employment Support Allowance and so the clerk cancelled it and told him to report back to the Jobcentre the following day in order to sort out his Jobseeker's Allowance application. The man walked the 4 miles home and walked the 4 miles back to the office the following day (he lives in a neighbouring village) to do as he was told.
When he arrived he was told the clerk the previous day was wrong, that he was not actually entitled to Jobseekers Allowance and would have to reapply for his Employment support Allowance that the Jobcentre had cancelled the day before.
Can you see where this is going?
Logic, common sense and 'the right thing' would have suggested that the course of action for the Jobcentre to follow would be for an apology to be given and for the man's ESA to be simply reinstated.
No. That's not what happened.
He was told, 'Oh you'll need to reapply for your (now-cancelled) ESA.'
'And how long will that take?' asked the man with no food in his cupboards at home.
'2 to 3 weeks.' was the indifferent reply that still echoed in the man's ears as he rang me to ask if I could give him some food.
Why the hell could they not simply un-cancel the cancellation of not quite 24 hours previously?? Is it beyond the wit or will of man to press the enter key after altering his benefit status?
Or what about this one?
A man from a European country waited 3 months to apply for JSA, as is required, and then sent in his form. He was refused.
Why?
Because the clerk read the date wrong and simply wrote him a letter that came days later telling him he was not eligible.
An appeal was made and the process started again - 'Oh, the new application will take 2 weeks.'
2 weeks later and the man still has no money and is about to be thrown out of his doss-house of a hotel for non-payment of the personal portion of his rent (his being in receipt of Housing Benefit). I rang the Jobcentre on his behalf and told the woman that this man is going to be homeless 'this evening' because they hadn't paid the money that was due 'today' into his Post Office account, as promised.
She apologised and kindly said that she would fax the application that was in front of her up to the office that authorised payments and that the money would be in his account that very afternoon or at latest, first thing in the morning.
I accepted that on his behalf, but the money did not appear in his account that afternoon.
My client managed to avoid his rent-collecting landlord first thing the next morning and waited for the cash to appear, as promised, in his account. It never appeared, so in a panic he rang me.
You'll not see this one coming...
I phoned the office to enquire where his money was, to be told that 'Sorry, I faxed his application to the wrong department' (!!!)
'Oh!' I asked. (And I'm not joking here): 'Oh, so what does Mr XYZ have to do now?'
(Are you ready for this?)
'He'll need to fill in a new Jobseekers application form and send it in.'
'And how long will that take?'
'2 to 3 weeks.'!!!!!!
Ladies and gentlemen.
This is not government policy.
This is not due to local departments 'making savings' or having 'low morale.'
This is just bloody incompetence and an unwillingness to actually sort out the problem of a man who is living on biscuits and threatened with homlessness because someone can't dial the correct fax number! Everyone makes mistakes but why the f*** does the poor client suffer when an admin error means he goes to the back of the queue for the third time? Why can't they just press a button and pay the man some money to stop him from starving to death??
Oh no, wait - there's a food bank down the road. It's only open on Monday, we'll tell him to be hungry until then and then he can get 3 days' worth of food that should tie him over for another week until we might just possibly pay £71 into his account which will have to last him for 2 weeks!!!
What would Jesus do?
He'd march into the Jobcentre and turn over the desks of the unhelpful, self-satisfied, patronising Jobcentre clerks and demand that they pay every single claimant what they are due on time without any questions asked!!!!
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
