Thread: Serving the poor and saving the lost Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030213
Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on :
 
My recent desire to volunteer with Christians Against Poverty (CAP) has got me thinking about Christian mission and what our priorities should be when we look to help those in need. I find myself feeling uncomfortable with targeting evangelism at those in need of our help, but I’m conflicted about why I feel that way.

This is not specifically about CAP; they are just my example. This is a general question about our motivation for offering help to others in need and then using that situation as an opportunity for evangelism. Do we have a responsibility to keep our voluntary work separate from explicit evangelism? Or do we have an obligation to God to do the two things hand-in-hand?

So I will use CAP to illustrate my perceive dilemma, but it’s not about that organisation specifically:
CAP’s core values are:
• Serve the poor
• Save the lost
• With the church
• Across the nation

The organisation provides free counselling for those struggling with debt, working with the lenders and the debtors to help people release themselves from the chains of severe indebtedness. The service is recommended by the likes of Moneysaving Expert, so it’s clearly meeting a need and "serving the poor".

Alongside this, the organisation targets their clients for evangelism, using the resources of the local church to attempt to convert them to Christianity. They make no secret of the fact that the value of “saving the lost” is on an equal footing with “serving the poor”.

Now I can see that it’s a good thing to share our faith with others. It’s good to make the case for God and Christ and to want and actively encourage others towards conversion. But when we are showing God’s love by offering our time and skills to people in need, is it right to target those same people in such an explicit way? It makes me feel that our motivation for helping is not pure generosity, but a concern for building church numbers off the back of others’ misfortune.

Does this concern others on the Ship, or am I being overly cautious in nailing my colours to the mast? After all, Christ came to bring good news to the poor. If Christ is good news for me, shouldn’t I be keen to share His gospel with everyone under every circumstance, particularly those with debt problems?
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
But you are sharing the gospel with them by assisting them in a difficult time. Why would you feel like you have to patronise them by explaining why you are doing it?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I've just spent quite a while on the CAP website and I can't find a statement of their values anywhere.

Googling "Christians against poverty" and "values" took me to this page (from 2011) which raises very similar concerns to Humble Servant's (and mentions the now unfindable values).

I suspect that the fact these core values have disappeared from CAP's homepage reflects an ongoing debate in the organisation about this very issue. It would be interesting to find out more. It's a bit alarming that such an organisation would not have its core values displayed prominently.

We had this debate where I am for a citywide social action initiative run by churches a few years ago, and there was a fair bit of disagreement. I insisted on separating what we ended up calling "explicit evangelism" from social action as the only way of gaining credibility with the local council (which we did).

There are plenty of stakeholders in the world of social action. It's stupid to pretend only Christians are doing it. Other stakeholders will be very quick to spot whether you have a hidden agenda of converting people.

My position is that blessing civil society with no strings attached is in and of itself a value of the Kingdom of God. You can say who you are and why you are doing it, and if it results in people starting to follow Christ, great. But that aim should not drive your engagement.

(I apply pretty much the same values in prison chaplaincy, by the way).

[ 03. September 2016, 08:36: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Schroedinger's cat. BRAVO!

As I was calling for an ambulance for an apparently comatose alcoholic and general substance abuser with 'demons' (strong, rapid mood swings: bipolar spectrum), having been homicidally attacked by his mother as I recall, as a child (you can see the rope burn scars on his neck 20 years later, where she HUNG him), making sure he was breathing as he lay with his head at a nearly funny angle against a tree (I checked that he HADN'T hung himself), one of the two nice women who came out of the church after me, where he'd been an hour before sweating copiously without exertion and crying and smiling and laughing, asked if we should pray.

I ignored her.

The world weary ambulance crew AND paramedic were great. One read him strait away as feigning it and he snapped 'awake' with a 'Kurwa!' at her probing, flipping from prone on to his feet, combat crouched, sweeping with his fist. The crew backed off and said to me they weren't going to attend to him, which I effusively endorsed. But one of the crew, who knew him, futilely engaged with him about their repeated historical offers to take him for treatment and I ushered the prayerful ladies to their car, after they'd gone I peeked round the corner at the raised voices and left them to it. I'm amazed he's lasted so long. Years. He's gone through full on, residential, Christian rehab, the lot.

That's how the evening ended. It had begun with my being greeted by an old friend who wanted to recount her Mamba induced fit to me that had happened the day before.

I was their salvation. Along with everyone else.

Anything else is risible hubris.

I don't how He's going to do it, because I cannot imagine resurrection as this world is as acutely, chronically, intensely, concretely, grittily, meaninglessly real as it reasonably, rationally, possibly gets, but if Jesus is, He WILL save ALL and it will have NOTHING to do with our delusions.

[ 03. September 2016, 09:19: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
I was first introduced to this quandary by Shaw's "Major Barbara". It is still instructive.
 
Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on :
 
If I collapsed in the street, and was helped by someone who said they were so doing because they were a Christian, I would feel rather insulted.

I would far rather they helped me because I needed help.

Which is why I subscribe to those agencies and organisations that do just that.

God can do the rest.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
I've been off my usual over-prolific posting this week because I'm at the annual conference of CCDA. The focus here is on "asset based" community development-- i.e. finding what is good and wonderful in impoverished communities and working together to build on that and leverage resources to improve communities and bring holistic healing and restoration. It begins with relocation-- living incarnationally among the poor, and is built on an attitude of respect and appreciation for whatever is good and worthy and beautiful in a community, whatever place it's coming from-- which sadly, is often not the church. Church planting among poor and marginalized groups is one aspect of the ministry, but pretty far down on the list.
 
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :
 
I dunno. Say someone (for example) stuck up for my rights in the workplace. Say this person happens to be a very active trade unionist and committed socialist. Say that this is part of their motivation for helping me, and they are keen for me to join a union and become more politically aware.

I don't think I should necessarily feel used or insulted by this, as long as they're not using excessive "hard sell". It would seem churlish to say that their help was less "pure" because it sprang from their politics. Why wouldn't the same apply to CAP and other faith groups?
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
I don't KNOW how He's going to do it ...

And I lie, it didn't start with Sharon and her Mamba fit, it started round the corner before I even got there with Lou rushing up as usual every month or so and waving a final demand for nearly £400 in rent at me and he had all but twenty quid thanks to some charity and he'd been to all the rest and Citizen's Advice and they couldn't help and if he wasn't in this situation and he had the money in his pocket he'd certainly give it to somebody who was and he didn't know what to do and should he take his home alone son now and go and live in the park or go begging in the city centre?

"Do nothing.", I said. That stopped him in his tracks for an extra breath but then he decided he'd have to "do something else.". Which he did.

This morning in the shower I realized I could have taken a picture of the bill and made some calls. I'll do that next time. Progress from my privileged learned helplessness.

Aye Nicodemia, He will. Because we in our utterly deranged arrogance as Killer God's personal emissaries certainly can't.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Schroedinger's cat. BRAVO!

As I was calling for an ambulance for an apparently comatose alcoholic and general substance abuser with 'demons' (strong, rapid mood swings: bipolar spectrum), having been homicidally attacked by his mother as I recall, as a child (you can see the rope burn scars on his neck 20 years later, where she HUNG him), making sure he was breathing as he lay with his head at a nearly funny angle against a tree (I checked that he HADN'T hung himself), one of the two nice women who came out of the church after me, where he'd been an hour before sweating copiously without exertion and crying and smiling and laughing, asked if we should pray.

I ignored her.

The world weary ambulance crew AND paramedic were great. One read him strait away as feigning it and he snapped 'awake' with a 'Kurwa!' at her probing, flipping from prone on to his feet, combat crouched, sweeping with his fist. The crew backed off and said to me they weren't going to attend to him, which I effusively endorsed. But one of the crew, who knew him, futilely engaged with him about their repeated historical offers to take him for treatment and I ushered the prayerful ladies to their car, after they'd gone I peeked round the corner at the raised voices and left them to it. I'm amazed he's lasted so long. Years. He's gone through full on, residential, Christian rehab, the lot.

That's how the evening ended. It had begun with my being greeted by an old friend who wanted to recount her Mamba induced fit to me that had happened the day before.

I was their salvation. Along with everyone else.

Anything else is risible hubris.
I'm not so quick to discount the efficacy of prayer or the motives of the church ladies.

Are they ignorant? Sure. So am I. That's why we pray.

Hopefully they stayed out of the way of the EMTs and the skilled professionals who DID know what they were doing.

But prayer is a way that we begin to change ourselves-- our ignorance, our complacency, our do-gooderism-- and yes, our hubris. Most of all, our hearts. Prayer is the starting point. It's not the end, but it's a first step.

Let them pray.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
They didn't need my permission, I was busy. Being Christ.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
I strongly believe in the 'no strings attached' model. Our Church runs a soup kitchen 4 evenings a week. No preaching/anything except soup and company, blankets, sleeping bags and tents if needed.

In fact a couple from another Church volunteered, they clearly had 'conversion' as their agenda - they were asked to desist or stop helping out. They stopped helping out.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Humble Servant, perhaps the people in CAP think the greatest gift they can offer those in need is a life changing message that will enable them to change, to live differently or to see life differently. Suppose they think that those who are in ghastly situations might just begin to turn round or rise above their circumstances. Then, over time they might not be so much at the receiving end of the material hardships their current lives have dumped on them.

If that is a substantial part of what motivates those involved, it would be a bit much to expect them not let that drive what they do, just because you don't quite see things the same way.

Or to put it in two different ways:-

If I think something is good news,
a. Should I really be expected to hold back from telling it to someone else, just because you don't think it is good news in quite the same way?
or
b. Should I be expected to recast that message so that it suits what you think, even though it is someone else I'm passing it on to, and not you.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Unfortunately we do both Boogie. Luckily it comes to nothing at all. Especially with the Muslims who are told it's Jesus and nothing. They never come back. There's a God 'Space' at the end. Last night we were invited to contemplate Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac and what it tells us. By then Paul had stopped talking for the second week running about being asked to clean his trousers (not by any of us of course, they didn't reek of pee or worse after all). A fine adventure in wild speculation based on literalism missing the point entirely followed with a remarkably long detour from Tommy about dredging the canal following on from his previous expression of gratitude, going round the circle as we do, for nature in its ability to undermine your house with tree roots.

[ 03. September 2016, 15:16: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Serving the disadvantaged without an evangelistic agenda is honorable and worthwhile, particularly for dedicated charities, like the one in the OP. But the evangelical churches that go down this route should be aware that mainstream congregations and/or denominations (at least in the UK) have already been there and done that, and frequently had difficulties.

It tends not to bring in very many new people; meanwhile, attention is diverted from actual evangelism, so congregations are very busy with 'good works' yet decline because there are few conversions. The work of caring as well as the financial burden end up falling on fewer and fewer people, which may be unsustainable in the long term.

Still, it depends on your social context. Some churches benefit from a good, ongoing level of stability, and are less at risk. For others, the most meaningful approach leans towards self-sacrifice rather than altruism, IMO.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
I think there's a huge difference between helping someone and, if you're asked about your motivation, gently sharing your faith; and deliberately using social action as a "way in" or "bait" for evangelism.

There are times when it is perfectly valid to "evangelise"; and others when it would be unethical or even abusive.

A local Christian project offering help to vulnerable people acknowledges the need for all services for vulnerable people to avoid any ‘hidden agenda’ or ‘strings attached’ to the practical care on offer. It clearly tells its volunteers that some work undertaken by Christian organisations has been coercive. However it also believes that it is not coercive to use naturally-arising opportunities for exploring the Christian faith.

In other words, one must not in any way "press" faith onto people but nor need one shy away from discussing it if the conversation leads in that direction (although always respecting the views of the person with whom one is talking).
 
Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I think there's a huge difference between helping someone and, if you're asked about your motivation, gently sharing your faith; and deliberately using social action as a "way in" or "bait" for evangelism.

There are times when it is perfectly valid to "evangelise"; and others when it would be unethical or even abusive.

A local Christian project offering help to vulnerable people acknowledges the need for all services for vulnerable people to avoid any ‘hidden agenda’ or ‘strings attached’ to the practical care on offer. It clearly tells its volunteers that some work undertaken by Christian organisations has been coercive. However it also believes that it is not coercive to use naturally-arising opportunities for exploring the Christian faith.

In other words, one must not in any way "press" faith onto people but nor need one shy away from discussing it if the conversation leads in that direction (although always respecting the views of the person with whom one is talking).
Yes, this is similar to the tone of the CAP training. There is certainly no suggestion that clients would ever be required to attend a church service or event, so definitely no explicit coercion. But where is the line between being willing to share your motivation, finding opportunities to open up that conversation, and pressing it upon them whenever the opportunity presents itself? Invitations to attend church. Offers of prayer. Having a prepared testimony in case there's an opportunity to share it.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:


If I think something is good news ... Should I really be expected to hold back from telling it to someone else, just because you don't think it is good news in quite the same way?
Yes, if they are not interested, of course you should hold back.

How do you know they are not interested? Because they didn't ask you about your faith or your motivation.

My husband (newly converted) once saw a bunch of street evangelists and muttered under his breath "for God's sake, shut up". He meant it, especially the 'for God's sake' bit - for the one person they might possibly draw in they put another hundred off even asking or enquiring imo.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
Yes, this is similar to the tone of the CAP training. There is (...) definitely no explicit coercion.
This is not what having "save the lost" as a core value suggests. I am not reassured by the absence of core values on the website at present.

quote:
But where is the line between being willing to share your motivation, finding opportunities to open up that conversation, and pressing it upon them whenever the opportunity presents itself?
I'm pretty much where Baptist Trainfan is and indeed would be interested to see the guidelines he mentions.

At the end of the day, I think it's in an individual's conscience. I face this all the time with chaplaincy recruitments and aspiring prison visitors. They've read something in the Bible about visiting those in prison and feel compelled to go and share the Gospel with them (they somehow fail to notice that in the parable, Jesus is already in the prison...).

For some evangelicals, the only valid purpose of any "ministry" engagement at all is to see other people converted to Christ, with everything else being a means to that end.

Somebody with such a conviction might possibly be a good evangelist, but they will not be much good at social action and will probably be frustrated and guilt-ridden while they're doing it, too.

I do lots of evangelising as a chaplain and during the course of social action, but I don't feel I've let God down somehow if I haven't explicitly mentioned the Gospel, or prayed with someone.

A lot is down to whether you leave other people the initiative (inmates frequently complain as I leave a cell "can't we say a prayer together?"!).
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
To my mind Elmer Thiessen's book on "The Ethics of Evangelism" (review here) gets it right.
 
Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I think there's a huge difference between helping someone and, if you're asked about your motivation, gently sharing your faith; and deliberately using social action as a "way in" or "bait" for evangelism.

There are times when it is perfectly valid to "evangelise"; and others when it would be unethical or even abusive.

A local Christian project offering help to vulnerable people acknowledges the need for all services for vulnerable people to avoid any ‘hidden agenda’ or ‘strings attached’ to the practical care on offer. It clearly tells its volunteers that some work undertaken by Christian organisations has been coercive. However it also believes that it is not coercive to use naturally-arising opportunities for exploring the Christian faith.

In other words, one must not in any way "press" faith onto people but nor need one shy away from discussing it if the conversation leads in that direction (although always respecting the views of the person with whom one is talking).
I couldn't agree more.
This is how I have always tried to live wherever I have found myself, be it a Cathedral city in the UK or in rural Kenya.
I do the things I do because I believe they are the right things to do, the things that work towards the common good.
My personal motivation is because "the love of Christ compels me" but I recognise that many of the people I know and with whom I work come from a very different starting point.
I am really uncomfortable with doing something practical in order to garner an opportunity to proselytise.
But if I am asked, and only if I am asked I will attempt as Saint Peter urges "to give an account for the hope I have."
I have had some quite remarkable conversations about faith, instigated by other people.
I even have a few colleagues who continue to press me with questions and observations about faith. The more I try to ensure I don't abuse the relationship the more they seem to press in.
All a bit odd!
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:


If I think something is good news ... Should I really be expected to hold back from telling it to someone else, just because you don't think it is good news in quite the same way?
Yes, if they are not interested, of course you should hold back. ...
Sorry Boogie, I don't think I've made myself clear. Too many pronouns.

I think you've understood me to be saying, 'should one person insist on imposing good news on another if the other doesn't want to hear it?'

What I was actually trying to say, was 'should A be expected to hold back from saying something to B just because C (casual critical bystander) doesn't think it is good news in quite the same way as A does?'

As a matter of technical grammar, that's what I said, but I accept one's got to read rather more carefully than one should have to so as to extract my meaning.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
I wish I'd pointed out the old rope burn scars to the ambulance crew.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I don't understand why churches in the UK are so fixated with Christians Against Poverty and the Trussell Trust - both disgusting organisations with the intention of using poverty as a method for evangelism to their morally bankrupt form of Christianity. The sad thing is how many good people get sucked into this morally reprehensible behaviour.

There are better models of Christian service on debt and food distribution, the sad thing is that nobody really wants to use them.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
It's because the pews are aging out and 'evangelism' is the only lamppost diversion in town.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I don't understand why churches in the UK are so fixated with Christians Against Poverty and the Trussell Trust - both disgusting organisations with the intention of using poverty as a method for evangelism to their morally bankrupt form of Christianity.
In our town there is a long-standing food project which has nothing to do with Trussell (and whose founder was recently awarded the OBE); we have a Night Shelter and now a Homelessness project which are based on two national models (Housing Justice and Hope into Action); a Domestic Abuse project is about to start which is "home grown".

The last three all fall under the "umbrella" of a charitable company set up to facilitate and provide good governance for local Christian charitable (but not evangelistic) projects. One church did run a CAP project but it died a death years ago; there is an ongoing Town (rather than 'Street') Pastors scheme which has been the model for several others; some Christians are involved in the local Credit Union.

And so on. None of these are seen as means for evangelism - although, as it happens, they have given the Church a much improved public profile (and alerted the "powers that be" to social needs which they formerly said didn't exist.

[ 04. September 2016, 12:45: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Missed edit window - I meant to add that, though these projects are "social", it is evangelicals who are providing most of the impetus and personnel. I think this is because (a) the evangelicals are often strongly-motivated to "do stuff" and (b) their churches tend to be both larger and younger than many others.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I wasn't really looking for an advert for your town, Baptist Trainfan. The fact is that the majority of churches who have debt services are associated with Christians Against Poverty and the majority of foodbanks are associated with the Trussell Trust. That's of course not in any way to say that other options are unavailable.

I know, for example, of several non-CAP debt services which offer training to churches, but these generally have very little take-up.

Which drives me nuts, particularly as you say other foodbank systems are available and which could be reproduced.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
No, I realise that ... I just wanted to show what can be/is being done outside the CAP/Trussell framework - as you rightly surmised. [Cool]
 
Posted by sabine (# 3861) on :
 
"let your life speak" has a certain appeal for me without the need to explain. Values can be shown through actions.

That said, there have been occasions when someone has asked about my motivations, and then I tell then.

And, when I worked for a certain social service agency where many of my colleagues spent quite a bit of time at the office assuring each other that they were NOT engaged in the work because of their spiritual leanings, I was one of the few voices in the conversation to say that I was.

Mostly, though, caring for others has enough built-in goodness that over explaining it can detract from desired effects (unless the desired effect is to encourage someone to feel that one's response to their need has more do with a personal belief than with their condition).

sabine

[ 04. September 2016, 13:39: Message edited by: sabine ]
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
We used to have a social gospel where Christian values met the political process. This was attacked by a social Darwinism where Christian values met the political process.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
'strewth mr cheesy, you sound like me! Steady!
 
Posted by Makepiece (# 10454) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
It makes me feel that our motivation for helping is not pure generosity, but a concern for building church numbers off the back of others’ misfortune.

It is very difficult to comment on another individual's motivation as we cannot see inside them but I certainly do not take the view that a connection between social action and evangelism should automatically be taken as evidence of tainted motives. A concern for a person's material needs would naurally go hand in hand with a concern for their spiritual needs. In my experience when people have shown genuine generosity the recipients are naturally interested in discovering the source of that generosity. There are many people today who feel that we live in a dog eat dog society and are surprised when they see selfless service in action. It is this surprise which I believe leads to interest in the source. At any rate people are going to infer that there is some source behind the act of generosity and if they do not attribute it to God's grace they will atrribute to your qualities as a person. It would not be helpful at all for people to misattribute the source of genorosity.
 
Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
It makes me feel that our motivation for helping is not pure generosity, but a concern for building church numbers off the back of others’ misfortune.

It is very difficult to comment on another individual's motivation as we cannot see inside them but I certainly do not take the view that a connection between social action and evangelism should automatically be taken as evidence of tainted motives. A concern for a person's material needs would naurally go hand in hand with a concern for their spiritual needs. In my experience when people have shown genuine generosity the recipients are naturally interested in discovering the source of that generosity. There are many people today who feel that we live in a dog eat dog society and are surprised when they see selfless service in action. It is this surprise which I believe leads to interest in the source. At any rate people are going to infer that there is some source behind the act of generosity and if they do not attribute it to God's grace they will atrribute to your qualities as a person. It would not be helpful at all for people to misattribute the source of genorosity.
Oh, absolutely, I've got no concerns whatsoever about saying that I'm here doing this work (whatever this work might be) because God has called be here to do it. None whatsoever. It's when that conversation turns into "and Jesus could do the same for you if you just pray this prayer and come along to our church service/church picnic". And that invitation is not a spur of the moment "actually, from what you've said to me I think this might interest you"; it's a premeditated looking for the precise moment at which to strike. That's where I find the motives get mixed in my head. But still I know that many of these people could probably do with Jesus in their lives - which is why I still feel conflicted about my uneasiness with this model.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
My late secular dad had a saying that went 'Never refuse an offer'.
So provided the assistance is truly selfless does it matter whether God is behind it or not? My personal theory now is that God is always present in such a situation.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
My late secular dad had a saying that went 'Never refuse an offer'.
So provided the assistance is truly selfless does it matter whether God is behind it or not? My personal theory now is that God is always present in such a situation.
Just to be clear - there is a difference between on the one hand offering a service as a Christian duty and on the other hand doing everything possible to convince those in need that a particular religion is the answer to the problem.

Christians Against Poverty are very clearly looking to encourage those who come to them with debt problems to become Christians and the training for counsellors is (or at least was when I looked at it a few years ago) very much based on bible study with the implicit suggestion that doing a good job at debt counselling would lead to converts.

But would we (polite society in general and the government powers-that-be) be so fast to support non-Christian organisations offering debt support services on the same basis? What if the JWs decided to push their publications along with debt advice materials? What about the Moonies or other sect? Satanists?

The British government is so muddled that it has fallen for this Christian-action-is-the-big-society crap that they've no painted themselves into a corner whereby they're supporting organisations which obliquely are intending to use service of the poorest as a route for evangelism.

It is one thing for a church to be very obvious with everyone about who they are and what the deal is; that we're doing this foodbank and debt thingy as part of our religious profession. Everyone knows what they're getting.

It is quite another thing when there is only one foodbank in a town, when it is being offered as a service to the poorest by a church without strings but where all of the information and expectation behind the scenes is that it will win converts.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Christians Against Poverty are very clearly looking to encourage those who come to them with debt problems to become Christians and the training for counsellors is (or at least was when I looked at it a few years ago) very much based on bible study with the implicit suggestion that doing a good job at debt counselling would lead to converts.
I have no remit to defend CAP - and, again some years ago, I heard a presentation by them which left me with very similar questions and doubts to the ones you raise.

However, and to be fair, they (or at least the speaker I heard) didn't quite put things in the terms of "using debt advice as a means of securing converts". His approach was more along the lines of, "For many people debt is a symptom of a chaotic life which needs to be brought under control. We believe that, if someone comes to faith, God will help them to do this as part of his process of making them 'whole'".

Now you may well disagree with this, but ISTM that this is a rather more holistic - if perhaps naïve - approach to the issues being raised on this thread.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I have no remit to defend CAP - and, again some years ago, I heard a presentation by them which left me with very similar questions and doubts to the ones you raise.

However, and to be fair, they (or at least the speaker I heard) didn't quite put things in the terms of "using debt advice as a means of securing converts". His approach was more along the lines of, "For many people debt is a symptom of a chaotic life which needs to be brought under control. We believe that, if someone comes to faith, God will help them to do this as part of his process of making them 'whole'".

Now you may well disagree with this, but ISTM that this is a rather more holistic - if perhaps naïve - approach to the issues being raised on this thread.
I don't have the training materials I saw to hand, but I invite you to consider the words used by CAP on their own website:

The bumpf for Heather France, Regional Manager - Scotland & North and Evangelism & Discipleship Manager says:

quote:

Heather France - Introduction for a church talk

Today we’re going to be hearing about Christians Against Poverty. CAP was started in 1996 by John Kirkby and is now a national debt counselling charity, which also provides money education courses, and job clubs for the unemployed. They see thousands of lives transformed every year through various ministries including 306 debt centres and 849 CAP Money churches. Just to put that into context, their CAP Money churches alone helped 11,508 people and CAP debt centres helped 16,656 people in 2014!

Today we welcome Heather France (Regional Manager - Scotland & North and Evangelism & Discipleship Manager).

Like us, Heather has a passion to see the local church meet the needs of their community so people can be brought into the fullness of God through the local church.

Heather will explain the work of CAP, and how we as a church and individually can get involved and support the ministry.

Please welcome Heather France.
I don't see much evidence that they're any less explicit than they were.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I don't see much evidence that they're any less explicit than they were.
They appear to be a lot less explicit than they were on their main website, on which I can't find the "core values" Humble Servant refers to - or indeed any values at all.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Well OK maybe they've toned down their outward looking website, but the information they're providing to churches seems to me to be the same as it always was: ie that this is a charismatic Christian group looking to win converts by providing debt counselling.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
That was certainly my suspicion, which has not been allayed by the lack of values on the site. This disingenuousness does not speak in their favour.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
I suppose there's so much evil in the world - if some good is being done, should we worry too much about the motivations people have for doing it?

My motivations for my charity work are pretty selfish - I love the work and get so much out of it.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I suppose there's so much evil in the world - if some good is being done, should we worry too much about the motivations people have for doing it?

My motivations for my charity work are pretty selfish - I love the work and get so much out of it.
Yes. Because good intentions are not enough.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
And openness and integrity are important, especially for Christians.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
My motivations for my charity work are pretty selfish - I love the work and get so much out of it.
Yes, and that love probably makes the work you do better than it would be if you were only doing it out of a sense of duty.

I think it's totally different to evangelists who engage in charity work with a hidden agenda of coercion and conversion (although I don't know how often that actually happens).
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I don't understand why churches in the UK are so fixated with Christians Against Poverty and the Trussell Trust - both disgusting organisations with the intention of using poverty as a method for evangelism to their morally bankrupt form of Christianity.
How is the Trusel Trust overtly evangelistic?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
My motivations for my charity work are pretty selfish - I love the work and get so much out of it.
Recognising the "secondary benefits" one derives from doing this kind of work is a major part of having a mature approach.

As Baptist Trainfan says, being dishonest about the aims you hope to achieve for others is another kettle of fish altogether.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
"By all means save some" That's fine so long as overt evangelism is not involved - or so it seems .....
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Overt evangelism is absolutely fine and to be commended. So is doing "Christian social work" (for want of a better term). It's doing evangelism under the guise of something else which is the problem.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
I looked up the Trussel Trust's website, there is very little mention of their Christian agenda.

Their stated values are -

"values

The Trussell Trust is committed to community built on diversity, tolerance, cooperation, and mutual respect; we want to contribute to society and demonstrate social responsibility. Our values are important to us, and we aim to live them out in all areas of our work.

We are passionate about what we do and the difference it makes in the lives of others

We are compassionate; we give selflessly and put others before ourselves

We hold ourselves accountable: we acknowledge and assume responsibility for actions, decisions, and consequences – as individuals and as an organisation.

We are innovative, with the ambition to pursue new and creative ideas that have the potential to change lives for the better.

We empower and encourage staff, volunteers and clients to take the initiative and achieve their best, in a safe environment where mistakes are viewed as learning opportunities."

Which sound great.


This is the page which mentions their Christian roots.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Paul managed both, in the Areopagus to get ideas being talked about (no altar calls there!) and again in the market place, as a tentmaker.

He worked. He preached with action. He lived a Kingdom life, he lived the good news. With workers and their customers.

CAP and Trussell are fine for those that cannot do anything more with their helpless privilege. The church should THUNDER against debt and materialism, save and serve the poor lost in it and be there as the ULTIMATE social service, picking up some of those that fall through the cracks, which it does. Being Pauline ... it doesn't. Holding ALL things in common ... it doesn't.
 
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Overt evangelism is absolutely fine and to be commended.
I would be most interested to hear why you think this. On what basis do you evangelise? What is it that you say to people to try to achieve, presumably, their conversion to Christian belief?
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
This is a general question about our motivation for offering help to others in need and then using that situation as an opportunity for evangelism. Do we have a responsibility to keep our voluntary work separate from explicit evangelism? Or do we have an obligation to God to do the two things hand-in-hand?

... But when we are showing God’s love by offering our time and skills to people in need, is it right to target those same people in such an explicit way? It makes me feel that our motivation for helping is not pure generosity, but a concern for building church numbers off the back of others’ misfortune.

... After all, Christ came to bring good news to the poor. If Christ is good news for me, shouldn’t I be keen to share His gospel with everyone under every circumstance, particularly those with debt problems?
This dilemma has been central to the last 30 years of my life as we worked with refugees and other immigrants from Asia. We accidentally planted a church (Mr. Lamb had specifically promised me not to do so just then, but woman proposes and God disposes). And most of those who joined came from the ranks of those we helped.

We were concerned from the beginning about the possibility of "rice Christians"--false conversions done to secure some advantage or simply to thank the do-gooder. And so to avoid that, we took several steps.

First, we made sure that all of our human care services were open to people of any or no faith, and we let that be known. There were people who doubted us from the beginning, but as time went on, the community saw that we meant what we said. Nobody received special treatment for converting. Nobody was left out in the cold for not doing so. The conversion rate settled down to what, 1 out of 10 maybe? that we helped. The other nine went away with good memories of us and the church, and a strong tendency to drop back in when they needed more help. Plus, they recommended us to all their friends, Christian or not, indifferently, and so we had even more people coming through the (emergency room) door.

We never made our faith a secret. We never hid the fact that we thought Jesus Christ was the best gift they could have from us (okay, from God), or that we rejoiced when people came to faith. And yet everybody knew that they kept their own agency and adulthood when we were helping them, and that they were free to disagree with us about God or basically anything else. And boy, did they.
[Snigger] We even had some people insult us throughout the community and then show up the next week to ask some major favor. [Roll Eyes] People, meh.
But based on that experience, I'd say that if you are straightforward and open about your faith, AND about the fact that you will serve them regardless of the position they take on Christianity--well, then, things will work out pretty well. Rather like the Salvation Army, I believe. No one takes them for secular activists, and yet plenty of people access their services with or without conversion.

Bottom line: If they know you are there and you care about them, they will come. Whether they come to Christ is between the Holy Spirit and them. You're just providing a meeting point.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Well done thou good and faithful servants.
 
Posted by catnip (# 18638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Missed edit window - I meant to add that, though these projects are "social", it is evangelicals who are providing most of the impetus and personnel. I think this is because (a) the evangelicals are often strongly-motivated to "do stuff" and (b) their churches tend to be both larger and younger than many others.
I'm sorry. I beg to differ. Perhaps it is because those of us who are not so inclined to preach the word overtly don't call attention to our many outreach projects.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Your experience may well be different to mine. All I can say is that, in our local context, the majority (but not all, by any means) of folk helping in the Night Shelter or the new Homeless Project or the Street Pastors seem to come from the more evangelical churches. That could simply be because those churches have more younger, active people in them.

It could well be that lots of Christians from other churches are helping in other projects and scenarios not specifically run by the churches - I wouldn't know. In any case, I suspect that the divisions between "mainline" and "evangelical" may be more pronounced in the US than in England.
 
Posted by sabine (# 3861) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
This is a general question about our motivation for offering help to others in need and then using that situation as an opportunity for evangelism. Do we have a responsibility to keep our voluntary work separate from explicit evangelism? Or do we have an obligation to God to do the two things hand-in-hand?

... But when we are showing God’s love by offering our time and skills to people in need, is it right to target those same people in such an explicit way? It makes me feel that our motivation for helping is not pure generosity, but a concern for building church numbers off the back of others’ misfortune.

... After all, Christ came to bring good news to the poor. If Christ is good news for me, shouldn’t I be keen to share His gospel with everyone under every circumstance, particularly those with debt problems?
This dilemma has been central to the last 30 years of my life as we worked with refugees and other immigrants from Asia. We accidentally planted a church (Mr. Lamb had specifically promised me not to do so just then, but woman proposes and God disposes). And most of those who joined came from the ranks of those we helped.

We were concerned from the beginning about the possibility of "rice Christians"--false conversions done to secure some advantage or simply to thank the do-gooder. And so to avoid that, we took several steps.

First, we made sure that all of our human care services were open to people of any or no faith, and we let that be known. There were people who doubted us from the beginning, but as time went on, the community saw that we meant what we said. Nobody received special treatment for converting. Nobody was left out in the cold for not doing so. The conversion rate settled down to what, 1 out of 10 maybe? that we helped. The other nine went away with good memories of us and the church, and a strong tendency to drop back in when they needed more help. Plus, they recommended us to all their friends, Christian or not, indifferently, and so we had even more people coming through the (emergency room) door.

We never made our faith a secret. We never hid the fact that we thought Jesus Christ was the best gift they could have from us (okay, from God), or that we rejoiced when people came to faith. And yet everybody knew that they kept their own agency and adulthood when we were helping them, and that they were free to disagree with us about God or basically anything else. And boy, did they.
[Snigger] We even had some people insult us throughout the community and then show up the next week to ask some major favor. [Roll Eyes] People, meh.
But based on that experience, I'd say that if you are straightforward and open about your faith, AND about the fact that you will serve them regardless of the position they take on Christianity--well, then, things will work out pretty well. Rather like the Salvation Army, I believe. No one takes them for secular activists, and yet plenty of people access their services with or without conversion.

Bottom line: If they know you are there and you care about them, they will come. Whether they come to Christ is between the Holy Spirit and them. You're just providing a meeting point.
Two extremely excellent posts about this topic! [Overused]

sabine
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Your experience may well be different to mine. All I can say is that, in our local context, the majority (but not all, by any means) of folk helping in the Night Shelter or the new Homeless Project or the Street Pastors seem to come from the more evangelical churches. That could simply be because those churches have more younger, active people in them.

It could well be that lots of Christians from other churches are helping in other projects and scenarios not specifically run by the churches - I wouldn't know. In any case, I suspect that the divisions between "mainline" and "evangelical" may be more pronounced in the US than in England.
Same throughout Leicestershire. Even Pentecostal Gipsies are involved. Bethel ... Baptists. Christadelphians. Not a liberal in sight!
 
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :
 
I think that we should always be open about our faith and ready to share the good news with people, but that is not the same thing as ambushing them when they are at their most vulnerable. It must always come within natural conversation, and show respect and consideration.

CAP is doing good work. There is no compulsion to convert, the service is provided for everyone. Sometimes lifestyles change because people have converted. What's wrong with that?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:

CAP is doing good work. There is no compulsion to convert, the service is provided for everyone. Sometimes lifestyles change because people have converted. What's wrong with that?
It isn't about compulsion, it is about the whole way that the thing is framed - for those who run the debt service, for those looking to run a service and the materials given to people who are on courses.

I dispute that CAP is doing good work. They are very visible, but there are a whole lot of other organisations (particularly secular ones) who are quietly getting on with doing a much better job without foisting unnecessary bible study at every opportunity.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Can the comparison be quantified?
 
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It isn't about compulsion, it is about the whole way that the thing is framed - for those who run the debt service, for those looking to run a service and the materials given to people who are on courses.

I dispute that CAP is doing good work. They are very visible, but there are a whole lot of other organisations (particularly secular ones) who are quietly getting on with doing a much better job without foisting unnecessary bible study at every opportunity.
Their testimonies show that CAP is doing good work. They offer more than the practical debt advice, they offer someone who walks the walk with people until they are free of debt, and they offer help with the spiritual dimension of life too, if the invitation is accepted.

It is honestly framed.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
It is honestly framed.
I dispute this. The OP cites one of its core values as "saving the lost", and yet neither this nor indeed any of its core values, or any values at all, were to be found on its site last time I looked.

What is more, positive testimonies are not the only criterion for evaluating a ministry.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
CAP is recognised by all the major financial organisations in the UK as being a group with integrity which delivers. That is not the case with some of the other groups in this field - some of them sponsored by the Government,

Having worked at Senior level in one of the Financial Institutions I mentioned above, I can tell you that the recognition of a "trusted partner is hard to get and easy to lose. CAP seems to have managed it - so its evangelistic values haven't done it that much harm in the eyes of the (very) hard bitten organisations who deal with it. Believe me, they can spot a group of chancers when they see them and, these days, bail out very quickly.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
So how do you explain the disconnect between the values quoted in the OP and the complete lack of values on their website?

The charity may display financial integrity but still have an ulterior motive of converting people.
 
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :
 
They call themselves Christians Against Poverty. They say on the front page that they want to help people free themselves from debt and to share the good news with them. They are up front about it. They say clearly that they work with churches.

This doesn't indicate an ulterior motive to convert them, but a desire to share the good news with them about Christ as well as helping them with their debt problems. A small percentage of people do come to faith. They still help those who don't, and stay with them until they are free from debt.

I think that what they are doing is good.
 
Posted by The5thMary (# 12953) on :
 
In Atlanta, GA and Seattle, WA and probably other cities in the U.S., there are Union Gospel Missions that help the teeming mobs of homeless folks that are everywhere. They feed people, provide emergency shelter, offer computer training, etc. All well and good, right? It would be if they fed the hungry without strings. In order to get ANY kind of food, the homeless have to attend church services. No church attendance, no food.

This, to me, is completely against what Jesus's life and mission were all about. As far as I know, Jesus didn't require hungry people to jump through hoops to get some bread.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
They call themselves Christians Against Poverty. They say on the front page that they want to help people free themselves from debt and to share the good news with them. They are up front about it. They say clearly that they work with churches.
Saying you work with a church is a long way from saying that one of your core values is to save the lost.

They say "we bring good news", not "we share the good news".

I think that is dog-whistle talk. It suggests to Christians, especially evangelical Christians, that they do evangelism, but to anyone whose primary preoccupation is a mountain of debt it means "we've got some good news for you about your debt". It is ambiguous and in my view deliberately so.

I continue to be disturbed by the complete absence of anything approaching a list of core values anywhere I can find on the site, whereas the OP quotes (from where?) a core value that unambiguously includes "saving the lost".

I don't know anything about CAP beyond what I've read here, but the lack of up-frontness about this value combined with my own experience of evangelistically-inclined Christians in social action adds up to a significant concern on my part.

It is not enough to say "they do good work". Some of the results may well be good, but as discussed on the recent thread on manipulation, transparency of purpose is an important part of integrity.

Having a desire to save the lost is perhaps not a bad thing, but being covert about it is, in my view.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
"By all means save some" That's fine so long as overt evangelism is not involved - or so it seems .....
Sorry, I missed this earlier.

We had a thread discussing this very verse a few years ago that I think has some relevance to this discussion. It's here.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
If I might use an illustration.

Imagine a church decides to set up a first-aid emergency service.

They decide to look for volunteers amongst their congregation and other churches and set up a training course for use by other churches.

Now, if you were to look at this training course and find that random bible verses were peppered throughout the course to more-or-less illustrate things about modern first aid practice, I think you might find that rather odd.

If that church told potential volunteers, and repeated throughout their training materials, that the purpose of the first aid service provision was to encourage conversions - and if there was a virtual/actual blackboard on their wall showing the reports of new Christians coming to the church from the course - then at very least one might be start to wonder how victims would be experiencing the service.

Even if the course did not specifically tell volunteers to use any opportunity to witness to injured road traffic victims, it wouldn't be something that would be out-of-keeping with the tenor and character of the way the church sees the world and how they've written the course and set up the service.

Now imagine that this church is not one promoting a theology that you agree with but instead is one promoting something you think is dangerous. That it is the Moonies, Scientologists, Satanists or whatever.

Then you might begin to see why this is a problem.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The5thMary:

In Atlanta, GA and Seattle, WA and probably other cities in the U.S., there are Union Gospel Missions that help the teeming mobs of homeless folks that are everywhere. They feed people, provide emergency shelter, offer computer training, etc. All well and good, right? It would be if they fed the hungry without strings. In order to get ANY kind of food, the homeless have to attend church services. No church attendance, no food.

This, to me, is completely against what Jesus's life and mission were all about. As far as I know, Jesus didn't require hungry people to jump through hoops to get some bread.
And more than a whiff of Victorian-style moralising as per Orwell's Down and out in London and Paris.

But even this isn't on the same level as a service which is projecting itself as being for the whole community and which (to some extent) receives blessing from local and national government - if not actual funds from them.

One thing to be offering something from within your religious community. An individual can take or leave that. Another thing to be offering something which only those in-the-know are aware is actually seen as an opportunity to sell the church membership.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
You forgot to include every mandatory denominationally distinctive theology and broader ones affecting most including magical thinking, damnationism, all manner of excluding, gnostic, untransferable, esoteric, wooden weirdness.

Debt is a good one. It's part of the evil we create at the micro, personal level that has overwhelming, synergistic power. Debt in business is something else. People DO need deliverance from, saving from, debt. Buying anything on credit apart from a house, a new car (even then); paying interest, is insane.

A generously orthodox, open, inclusive mission for that, involving the use and deconstruction of spiritual language as I have done, would be good news.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:

Debt is a good one. It's part of the evil we create at the micro, personal level that has overwhelming, synergistic power. Debt in business is something else. People DO need deliverance from, saving from, debt. Buying anything on credit apart from a house, a new car (even then); paying interest, is insane.

A generously orthodox, open, inclusive mission for that, involving the use and deconstruction of spiritual language as I have done, would be good news.
Much as I'd like a movement which stood on a platform that debt was bad, that gambling, stock markets, and the lottery were evil and that those who dabbled in them were in need of deliverance, I'm not under any illusions as to the attractiveness of the message..
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
I'd like to go back in time and put ten grand on Leicester to win at every booky chain so that they'd go bankrupt and all become mine. I'd then turn them all in to charitable trusts with counsellors in each booky.

I dabble in most of those evils and owe no man a penny. Had a wonderful night out at Leicester races 7 years ago.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The5thMary:
In Atlanta, GA and Seattle, WA and probably other cities in the U.S., there are Union Gospel Missions that help the teeming mobs of homeless folks that are everywhere. They feed people, provide emergency shelter, offer computer training, etc. All well and good, right? It would be if they fed the hungry without strings. In order to get ANY kind of food, the homeless have to attend church services. No church attendance, no food.

This, to me, is completely against what Jesus's life and mission were all about. As far as I know, Jesus didn't require hungry people to jump through hoops to get some bread.
Didn't he give them a sermon before giving them all those baskets of bread and fish? Didn't he say that we don't live by bread alone but also by the word of God? Didn't he tell us to feed the poor and to go forth and tell everyone about him?

I just don't see the good news of Christ's love for all of us as a string attached or a hoop to jump through. I think that information is actually more important and a greater gift than the food, clothing or financial help that's offered. Those are fleeting things that may not have the lasting benefit of an awareness of God's love for them. Who needs that more than a young man with rope burns on his neck?

My husband volunteers several days a week at the local churches-run, free store and food pantry. This year he did taxes for over a hundred people. His "boss," thinks he should pray with his clients before doing the taxes, but he's totally uncomfortable with that so he doesn't do it. His co-worker is a loving, warm Christian lady who prays openly and talks about Jesus, all the time and with everyone. After one of my husband's tax clients burst into tears because she didn't get the huge refund she expected -- he sat dumb founded, but his co-worker prayed with her and comforted her. I don't see either person as dispensing a more pure charity than the other. They are both giving the gifts they have to offer.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
I dabble in lying too. I dabble in all. Not that I've gambled or bought a lottery ticket for years. And can't see that I ever would again. Unless we had a family day at the races, or one were invited to Escot. One Xmas a SIL bought us a bunch of lottery tickets and we rubbed away and won and kept buying more until we had nowt. It was cathartically funny.

I started saying that if the lottery got to over a hundred and twenty million, I'd buy a ticket. It did so I did. But God didn't want me to buy a brownfield site in inner Leicester for the poor to build a farm-commune. His loss!
 
Posted by catnip (# 18638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Your experience may well be different to mine. All I can say is that, in our local context, the majority (but not all, by any means) of folk helping in the Night Shelter or the new Homeless Project or the Street Pastors seem to come from the more evangelical churches. That could simply be because those churches have more younger, active people in them.

It could well be that lots of Christians from other churches are helping in other projects and scenarios not specifically run by the churches - I wouldn't know. In any case, I suspect that the divisions between "mainline" and "evangelical" may be more pronounced in the US than in England.
It may be that divisions here in the US are different. In the past I have heard that the Evangelicals are not much inclined toward ecumenical outreach, but that may have changed in the past decade. So, there are projects that particular churches organize and then there are projects that are a combined effort of churches in the community--either way, it is of value in assisting those in need in many and various ways. And that is, I think, the Christian calling across the board and no matter how we help others, it is good.
 
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Saying you work with a church is a long way from saying that one of your core values is to save the lost.

They say "we bring good news", not "we share the good news".

I think that is dog-whistle talk. It suggests to Christians, especially evangelical Christians, that they do evangelism, but to anyone whose primary preoccupation is a mountain of debt it means "we've got some good news for you about your debt". It is ambiguous and in my view deliberately so.

I continue to be disturbed by the complete absence of anything approaching a list of core values anywhere I can find on the site, whereas the OP quotes (from where?) a core value that unambiguously includes "saving the lost".

I don't know anything about CAP beyond what I've read here, but the lack of up-frontness about this value combined with my own experience of evangelistically-inclined Christians in social action adds up to a significant concern on my part.

It is not enough to say "they do good work". Some of the results may well be good, but as discussed on the recent thread on manipulation, transparency of purpose is an important part of integrity.

Having a desire to save the lost is perhaps not a bad thing, but being covert about it is, in my view.
I really don't see any covert behaviour. They seem to want to help people both practically and spiritually. Some won't follow the debt advice. Some won't want to hear the good news of Christ. They will do what they can, no strings attached.

Telling people about Christ as well as helping them practically is surely taking the teaching of Jesus seriously, in the same way as he sent out the disciples.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by The5thMary:

In Atlanta, GA and Seattle, WA and probably other cities in the U.S., there are Union Gospel Missions that help the teeming mobs of homeless folks that are everywhere. They feed people, provide emergency shelter, offer computer training, etc. All well and good, right? It would be if they fed the hungry without strings. In order to get ANY kind of food, the homeless have to attend church services. No church attendance, no food.

This, to me, is completely against what Jesus's life and mission were all about. As far as I know, Jesus didn't require hungry people to jump through hoops to get some bread.
And more than a whiff of Victorian-style moralising as per Orwell's Down and out in London and Paris.

But even this isn't on the same level as a service which is projecting itself as being for the whole community and which (to some extent) receives blessing from local and national government - if not actual funds from them.

One thing to be offering something from within your religious community. An individual can take or leave that. Another thing to be offering something which only those in-the-know are aware is actually seen as an opportunity to sell the church membership.
But the recipients of charity aren't stupid, are they? They'll surely discover soon enough whether service providers are using the 'opportunity to sell church membership', covertly or otherwise.

With regard to the Union Gospel Missions, I wonder if they have competitors in the provision of care for the disadvantaged? In these resolutely non-Victorian times more moderate Christian and secular charities are ideally placed to step in and provide care with a completely different ethos - if they can raise the money to do so. It doesn't say much for the other charitable institutions if they've left the field to a group that most of the community only grudgingly accepts.
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
The mission center that I am involved in serves lunch every week day (no preaching), breakfast on Saturday (no preaching), a dinner on Thursday beginning with a Gospel reading, a short explanation of the story, and a compact Eucharist, all the worship part taking fifteen minutes. The Communion table is completely open, no one is pressured to partake. People who know the set-up may come in at 6 PM for food and bypass the service at 5:45. The vicar is completely friendly and welcoming to everyone without strings. But the gist is that most of us are doing this because Jesus taught us to love our neighbors. We may as well own up to that. And giving people the opportunity to hear about his love is part of what we do. Sometimes I get the feeling that some people living in a very secular culture are a bit embarrassed to let others in on their faith.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I really don't see any covert behaviour. They seem to want to help people both practically and spiritually.
[brick wall]

As was pointed out on the thread on manipulation, motivation is not the same thing as transparency of purpose.

They probably do "want to help people", but the stated core value of "saving the lost" as reported by Humble Servant in the OP and referenced elsewhere (by critics) is not present on their main website.

They are not transparent about it.

I keep pointing this out and nobody seems to think that's in the slightest bit odd.

It.Isn't.There.

No.Value.Statements.Are.There.At.All.

Covert means
quote:
not openly acknowledged or displayed
Their behaviour is undeniably covert.

Why won't anybody acknowledge this?

[ 09. September 2016, 20:53: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
At the Charity Commission, CAP's activities are said to be as follows (emphasis mine)
quote:
Christians Against Poverty offers a free debt counselling service to individuals and families releasing them from the pressure of debt through a combination of advice, financial education, budgeting and insolvency services. operating through a network of local centres which are run in partnership with local churches, we aim to help anyone regardless of their religious beliefs
Its most recent Summary Information Return does not mention any "spiritual" activities at all.

If, as Humble Servant seems to be telling us, the charity is still advising its volunteers that one of its core values is to "save the lost", this does not sit well with its claim to help anyone regardless of their religious beliefs and is distinctly absent from the two most accessible documents that give any idea of its values.

Unless anybody can find any more accessible ones that I've missed.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
The mission center that I am involved in serves lunch every week day (no preaching), breakfast on Saturday (no preaching), a dinner on Thursday beginning with a Gospel reading, a short explanation of the story, and a compact Eucharist, all the worship part taking fifteen minutes. The Communion table is completely open, no one is pressured to partake. People who know the set-up may come in at 6 PM for food and bypass the service at 5:45. The vicar is completely friendly and welcoming to everyone without strings. But the gist is that most of us are doing this because Jesus taught us to love our neighbors. We may as well own up to that. And giving people the opportunity to hear about his love is part of what we do. Sometimes I get the feeling that some people living in a very secular culture are a bit embarrassed to let others in on their faith.
Yes, and sometimes I get the feeling they think that talking about Christianity is the same as saying other religions are bad or being bigoted in some way.

And there's the damned if we do damned if we don't (no pun intended,) of "shoving religion down peoples throat" if we talk about it or being covert and sneaky if we don't.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
As stated earlier, I think the litmus test for this on a personal level is whether you feel you have successfully completed your ministry effort even if you have not explicitly mentioned the Gospel; or is any social care you provide ultimately nothing more than a means to "saving the lost". Have you failed if you simply give a cup of water in the name of Jesus?
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Yeah but that's you wildly extrapolating from Jesus saying that if you are minimally kind to a disciple because he's one, you get Brownie points in heaven. So Benny Hinn is the means of billions of brownie points.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
PS see the Kerg thread.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Sometimes I get the feeling that some people living in a very secular culture are a bit embarrassed to let others in on their faith.
Oh yes!

When I look at how the Church deals with the Dead Horse issues I am very embarrassed. I never share the fact that I'm a Christian. If asked I ask what they mean by 'Christian', because I don't identify with what's likely to be their concept at all .
 
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
As stated earlier, I think the litmus test for this on a personal level is whether you feel you have successfully completed your ministry effort even if you have not explicitly mentioned the Gospel; or is any social care you provide ultimately nothing more than a means to "saving the lost". Have you failed if you simply give a cup of water in the name of Jesus?
If it is in the name of Jesus, it can't be wrong to mention the name of Jesus.

This doesn't imply that the prime motivation for the act is to convert the recipient, nor that a cup of water would be refused unless Jesus was acknowledged by the person who needed it.
 
Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :
 
Bedtime, and I don't have time to read to the end.
But
Whatever we are doing in the line of compassion, forget evangelisation, the most important thing we can do is LISTEN.

As an example: One of my two churches – the one where I a on holiday – instigated weekly free dinners. Some of the parish folk pitched in to help. So did an increasing number of townsfolk; donations of food and continued practical help continue to maintain the project.
The minister _–alas, now moved on to other work – would eat with the diners. Some would move to sit with her. She listened to them, and they might ask her for a bible, or ask questions about faith. What she hoped was that parishioners would follow her example. But few did.
So the message is 'This is a place where people are fed. It happens to be a church.'
Which is good. But it could go further without pushing evangelism. If people befriended visitors beyond feeding them.

GG
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
I saw another horrendous example last night. The head of 'Compassion Ministries' telling a sweet alcoholic Somali Muslim that we're going to pray to Jesus now.

Her biker backup tried to dominate me in to joining in with his little chat about Paul's prayer from Ephesians 1:15–23, but I - Jesus - decided to give Assad my full attention.

There are over 60 Somali alcoholics in Leicester who need a dedicated worker. At least the Islamic and Christian communities will unite in doing nothing about that.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Have you been in touch with your MP? It's really the job of local social services to provide trained, professional staff without an agenda.

Yes, religious groups can do a lot of good (or bad) but in a supposedly post-Christian, pluralistic society I don't think they should be relied upon to provide a religiously neutral service.

The problem is exacerbated in places where there's been significant numerical and financial decline in the non-evangelistic churches; no doubt they try to 'serve the community', but without manpower and resources their neutral Christian ethos is unlikely to predominate in the situations where there's hard work to be done. I've seen this issue in my own city.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
... no doubt they try to 'serve the community', but without manpower and resources their neutral Christian ethos is unlikely to predominate in the situations where there's hard work to be done. I've seen this issue in my own city.
It's unlikely to inspire or energise anyone enough to do all the work.

There's another thread running at the moment about the canonisation of Mother Theresa. She certainly neither hid her faith under a bushel nor that it motivated what she was doing. For some, she seems to be a controversial figure, but when one looks at her critics, rather than moaning, which of them are actually doing anything for the sick, poor and homeless?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
If it is in the name of Jesus, it can't be wrong to mention the name of Jesus.

This doesn't imply that the prime motivation for the act is to convert the recipient, nor that a cup of water would be refused unless Jesus was acknowledged by the person who needed it.
Indeed not. But for about the millionth time, we are told that a core value of CAP is "saving the lost", which suggests a whole lot more than that: it suggests that an evangelistic agenda is central - and undeclared to the general public.

There is a world of difference between declaring yourself to be a Christian agency and having an agenda to convert people.

[ 10. September 2016, 10:30: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:


There's another thread running at the moment about the canonisation of Mother Theresa. She certainly neither hid her faith under a bushel nor that it motivated what she was doing.
Mother Theresa's faith didn't motivate her work? That surprises me.

Perhaps what you mean is that the movement she founded wasn't driven by a concern for evangelism. Maybe not. Yet it attracted nuns, volunteers and funding from around the world. Unfortunately, the social venture started by your local non-evangelistic Methodist church is unlikely to have any similar appeal or impact!
 
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 
'The lost' have been mentioned quite a lot in this thread, so I wonder if CAP and members here have a specific definition of this phrase?
 
Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
'The lost' have been mentioned quite a lot in this thread, so I wonder if CAP and members here have a specific definition of this phrase?
Do no send to know whom they mean - they mean you Susan! [Razz]
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:


There's another thread running at the moment about the canonisation of Mother Theresa. She certainly neither hid her faith under a bushel nor that it motivated what she was doing.
Mother Theresa's faith didn't motivate her work? That surprises me.

Perhaps what you mean is that the movement she founded wasn't driven by a concern for evangelism. Maybe not. Yet it attracted nuns, volunteers and funding from around the world. Unfortunately, the social venture started by your local non-evangelistic Methodist church is unlikely to have any similar appeal or impact!
SvitlanaV2, Enoch said it DID.

She certainly neither hid her faith under a bushel nor that it motivated what she was doing.

=

She certainly neither hid that her faith motivated what she was doing nor [hid it] under a bushel.
 
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :
 
I see 'saving the lost' as another way of saying 'sharing the good news of Jesus'. Again, while it may be a core value, it does not imply coercion nor conditionality of service, rather a desire to share.

'The lost' would cover anyone in a spiritual desert due to a lack of knowing which way to turn. Jesus shows us the way.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
There is nothing to share verbally apart from caring discourse. I listened to Assad last night and he loved it. He didn't get Ephesians 1:15–23 being read, despite it being read three times on the trot because it meant so much to the leader. I have to deconstruct it for it to mean anything to me too. How he was supposed to get anything from that written prayer in early Christian Jewish aspic to ancient Greeks I don't know.

There is nothing to sign up to. A weekly DIY concert interrupted by a lecture?

We've got NOTHING anyone wants or needs apart from the ears, hands, eyes, feet, pockets of Jesus.

Unfortunately that doesn't come with community. Islam does. And Hinduism and Sikhism. Here in Britain. We won't hold all things in common. We don't want to serve and save the poor that much. Otherwise we would.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

But the recipients of charity aren't stupid, are they?
Yes, in many cases, they are. I wouldn't use such a harsh word, but failure to recognize that many people in poverty have very low IQ's means failure to serve them as well as we can. It's why my husband does their taxes for them. It's why people who say, "I see job opportunities in the paper all the time, why can't they work at Walmart?" are not being realistic. It's why it's cruel to make people apply for SSDI (social security disability insurance) three times before the application is seriously considered. It's also why a casual poll on the street last Christmas found that a huge number of people didn't know the season had anything to do with Jesus.

I know the dread of being like the patronizing, Victorian Lady Bountiful looms large with charity workers, it's mentioned all the time in conversations like this, but pretending that the average person in poverty only lacks a college scholarship to achieve middle class is naïve. Many of them were born with alcohol or drug problems and many of them failed to get good nutrition while their brains were growing. One in three little West Virginia girls is sexually abused while growing up, that can permanently stunt mental growth.

It's a mistake to believe that because we grew up in stable Christian homes, learning the basics of the religion in Sunday School, that they did, too. We can't just assume anyone is going to think, he gave me free food, he must be a Christian, Christianity must be a good thing.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Er, what does midwinter solstice celebration have to do with Jesus?
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Martin60

Thanks for explaining Enoch's post!

From what I've read, your city has a rapidly changing demographic. This is probably one reason why fairly young mosques haven't been able to sort themselves out to address the problems. Still, the problem of a minority of evangelical Christians ministering to struggling Muslims (if it is a problem) probably can't be left unaddressed for much longer. Various inter-faith and ecumenical organisations will have to get involved at some point.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Earlier this year I was on the phone to someone at Christians Against Poverty (CAP) HQ when a bell started ringing in the background. I thought the phone call was about to be cut short while the building was evacuated. But in fact this wasn’t the fire alarm. It was CAP’s ‘salvation bell’. Every time a client becomes a Christian the bell rings and the staff celebrate.
(Source).

quote:
People at CAP would like others to experience God’s love and enter into a relationship with Jesus because it’s the best life on offer
There is no way people with the churchmanship of CAP can understand "saving the lost" as being possible without a verbal explanation of the Gospel.

The author of that piece argues that it is possible to conduct the rest of the ministry and not work towards such an outcome, but I for one would find it difficult to envisage that kind of mindset with a fricking bell going off in head office every time someone "makes a decision" like a productivity target being met on a Japanese-style assembly line [Projectile]

And I would feel much more comfortable if such a goal was explicitly mentioned on their website.

Why are there no values at all on the website (at least in the UK)?
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Clearly, as the quote came from the Evangelical Alliance magazine (albeit 4 years ago), the writer regarded the ringing bell as a good thing. To be fair, though, the article continues:

quote:
"What struck me is that CAP are not involved in debt counselling so they can then do evangelism. I didn’t get the impression that their social action was a vehicle for their evangelism. At CAP they’re just busy doing the business of God’s kingdom. They want to help people in desperate need and they want to tell people about Jesus. Both are seamlessly intertwined. There’s no sense that evangelism compromises the professional service they offer people. God is not forced on people; they offer the same service level to people regardless of whether they accept CAP’s invitation to pray with them."
Whether you feel that is ingenuous will, I think, depend on where you're coming from. I certainly can't find the evangelistic goal explicitly mentioned on their website. Something may be said in the video (which I haven't watched) or the booklets you can order.

Let me make one thing clear. I heard a CAP speaker about 8 years ago and found his presentation somewhat disquieting, for the reasons we've outlined above. However we cannot deny that many people have found their services extremely helpful and that some have indeed found faith. Thereby lies the dilemma.

[ 10. September 2016, 16:03: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Sometimes I get the feeling that some people living in a very secular culture are a bit embarrassed to let others in on their faith.
Oh yes!

When I look at how the Church deals with the Dead Horse issues I am very embarrassed. I never share the fact that I'm a Christian. If asked I ask what they mean by 'Christian', because I don't identify with what's likely to be their concept at all .
And this is why I always twig to being a Christian. Somebody has to show people that we aren't all asshats. It might as well be me. (Although I am sometimes an asshat, just not a Dead Horse kind. [Hot and Hormonal] )
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Well, didn't St. Paul talk about being a "fool for Christ"? So you're in excellent company!
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
However we cannot deny that many people have found their services extremely helpful and that some have indeed found faith. Thereby lies the dilemma.
No, no, a thousand times no.

All too often, "but look at the good work they're doing" is seen, especially in Christian circles, as a kind of trumps-all argument.

Do you hear anyone going round saying that Volkswagen's wilful cheating on emissions tests is somehow excused by the general reliability of their vehicles or their good reputation?

On the contrary, the scandal wholly undermines their credibility; and to my mind the same applies here.

Any overall good performance does not somehow make bad governance disappear or dispense with the need for it to be addressed.

And the fact that some people benefit in no way makes saints out of the providers.

It seems to me that the absence of a statement of any values on the homepage of a charity of this magnitude is really, decidedly odd, especially as the website's look & feel suggests they are no slackers at good PR.

To me this absence means either that they know what their values are but are reluctant to publicise them, or that there is deep internal disagreement about them.

If they have an evangelistic aim they should say so, and they should say so up front.
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Er, what does midwinter solstice celebration have to do with Jesus?
I don't know. Does a mid-winter festival connected with Jesus get celebrated in any way in your home? Ever go to church on December 24 or 25 and hear something about a baby who was God? Do some of the jingles on the Muzac at the stores mention something about a Holy Night? I know it is getting a bit tenuous but, yeah, Jesus gets a shout out near the winter solstice.
 
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 
My thanks for interesting comments to think about.
quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
'The lost' have been mentioned quite a lot in this thread, so I wonder if CAP and members here have a specific definition of this phrase?
Do no send to know whom they mean - they mean you Susan! [Razz]
I’m afraid Snthetic Dave had a slight problem with the first half of that sentence! [Smile] No problem though.
Seriously howeverh, there is not a moment in my life, and has not been for many a long year, when I have felt in any way spiritually ‘lost’. Not knowing all the facts about something does not ever blur into a belief which requires faith without evidence.
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I see 'saving the lost' as another way of saying 'sharing the good news of Jesus'. Again, while it may be a core value, it does not imply coercion nor conditionality of service, rather a desire to share.
Yes, I do understand that and the more we human beings can do to make others' lives easier in any way, the better.

Regarding the 'good news' about Jesus what is it that you think those with whom you share it will gain, over and above knowing that other people are doing what they can for them?
quote:
'The lost' would cover anyone in a spiritual desert due to a lack of knowing which way to turn. Jesus shows us the way.
Well, when I was young, I was certainly in a position where I did not know which way to turn, but there was only one way to get through it and that was to work through it myself. As I went along, I had practical help from people and sorted things out myself. Took about ten years altogether! I never felt I was in a spiritual desert though.

[ 10. September 2016, 17:27: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Yes I have Lyda*Rose, more than once. Sober each time. Unlike many. I found that most strange, being in church on Xmas day surrounded by drunks who never came any other time.

So only in a folk way. Nobody - a couple or three percent - takes it seriously, takes it as Advent.

[ 10. September 2016, 17:32: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
 
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
[qb] I see 'saving the lost' as another way of saying 'sharing the good news of Jesus'. Again, while it may be a core value, it does not imply coercion nor conditionality of service, rather a desire to share.
Yes, I do understand that and the more we human beings can do to make others' lives easier in any way, the better.

Regarding the 'good news' about Jesus what is it that you think those with whom you share it will gain, over and above knowing that other people are doing what they can for them?
They might gain a conscious connection with the love of God through the living Christ which will continue for the rest of their lives and be transformative.
 
Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Do some of the jingles on the Muzac at the stores mention something about a Holy Night? I know it is getting a bit tenuous but, yeah, Jesus gets a shout out near the winter solstice.
Those jingles on the muzac are being used to sell people stuff they don't need and can't afford. This season is probably where most of the debt problems start. It's also where the retails get into profit. So this "celebration" that's connected with Jesus, so you say, is used by the world as a way transfer wealth from the poorest in our communities to those who can afford to own shares in retail businesses.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
However we cannot deny that many people have found their services extremely helpful and that some have indeed found faith. Thereby lies the dilemma.
To me this absence means either that they know what their values are but are reluctant to publicise them, or that there is deep internal disagreement about them.

If they have an evangelistic aim they should say so, and they should say so up front.
I think this would be a question to ask them.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Very true. You are (on this occasion) the voice of my conscience. I've just sent them this:

quote:
Hello

I recently heard that your ministry has a number of core values:

• Serve the poor
• Save the lost
• With the church
• Across the nation

Wanting to check this, I visited your website and was surprised to find that not only were these values not visible, I couldn’t actually find a link to a statement of your values anywhere.

Have I missed something on your website? Do you have any public documentation that summarizes your core values? Are the ones above correct and current?

I was quite surprised not to find anything like this in view of the size of your charity.

Do you have any explanation as to why your values are not visible on your website?

Thanks in advance,

Yours sincerely
I'll let y'all know if I get a reply.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I was able to see this from the other side today - those who are fully-onboard with the CAP way of thinking believe that there is no difference between spiritual and physical needs and that the deity would not want them to offer to help with the debt issue without also offering the Good News.

So it seems that they believe it is entirely legitimate to - as some might see it - "lure" clients into close proximity with trained advisors, attend meetings (apparently other kinds of courses offered under the CAP banner) with people with various kinds of problems as ultimately the only important issue is the destination of their eternal soul.

And, in a way, the narrative makes some kind of sense and is quite compelling. It isn't so different to Alcoholics Anonymous, just taken a bit further and in a different direction - here are some people with chaotic things happening in their lives that need redemption and we know that God offers redemption so what is needed is for these people to meet God and for them to allow him to become their saviour and heal them.

It has a revivalist or Primitive Methodist feel to it in a lot of ways.

[ 11. September 2016, 20:22: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
those who are fully-onboard with the CAP way of thinking believe that there is no difference between spiritual and physical needs and that the deity would not want them to offer to help with the debt issue without also offering the Good News.
Then they should say so up front.

I don't think "soup-soap-salvation" was a concealed mission statement...
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Then they should say so up front.

I don't think "soup-soap-salvation" was a concealed mission statement...
Yes, I would prefer that they did, but then I can also see that at some level if you believe that your thing is the only true solution available then almost anything is permissible to get punters to access it. And then anyone else suggesting that maybe they ought to change their way of presenting themselves is likely seen as a threat to their holy mission.

[ 12. September 2016, 07:29: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
As already mentioned upthread, we covered this ground in the not too distant past on the By ALL possible means save some? thread.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I doubt they'd agree that they are lying, though. At worst they'd probably think it was just a slight change of emphasis in their publicity in order to avoid putting punters off before they've even attended a meeting.

Another thing I heard at the weekend was that CAP can't help people who have debt issues but are self-employed - I guess because of something to do with the regulator..? Which seems to catapult the thing into a level of farce; we are prepared to do whatever it takes to get people to meet Jesus, but not if they're self-employed..
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
They aren't lying, but if "saving the lost" in an evangelical sense is part of their core values, they are not being transparent about it, quite possibly on the basis of a policy erroneously based on "by all possible means save some" being taken to mean "the ends justify the means".

As I said in my first post in this thread, my guess is that there is in fact some tension within the organisation about this which has been brushed over rather than confronted.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Another thing I heard at the weekend was that CAP can't help people who have debt issues but are self-employed - I guess because of something to do with the regulator..? Which seems to catapult the thing into a level of farce; we are prepared to do whatever it takes to get people to meet Jesus, but not if they're self-employed..
That may be unfair, if they are not permitted to help such folk simply because of external controls or other legal reasons which you and I may not know about.

My suspicion - and it's nothing more - is that they may be legally liable if a self-employed person fails to get out of debt and decides to sue; or else that dealing with such folk is only permitted for Independent Financial Advisors.

[ 12. September 2016, 10:17: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
That may be unfair, if they are not permitted to help such folk simply because of external controls or other legal reasons which you and I may not know about.

My suspicion - and it's nothing more - is that they may be legally liable if a self-employed person fails to get out of debt and decides to sue; or else that dealing with such folk is only permitted for Independent Financial Advisors.
Agreed, as I said this may be nothing to do with them and everything to do with a regulator, but no less farcial!

from the FAQ on their website:

quote:
I am self employed, can you help me?

CAP may not be the best organisation to help you. This is due to the following reasons:

Self employed income is often erratic.
Running a business often means you need to have continued access to credit.
There is a likelihood that your debt problems are connected to business problems.

These reasons make it very difficult to run a CAP Plan in a sustainable way. However, we are able to suggest agencies that can help you tackle the business problems in conjunction with your debt. We would recommend you ring either of the following:

Business Debt Line who offer confidential, independent, free advice on debt and cash flow problems for people who are self employed on 0800 197 6026.
PayPlan, who offer free confidential advice including self employed IVAs. Ring 0800 280 2816 to find out more.

You may also be interested in a CAP Money Course or our Self Help options.


[ 12. September 2016, 10:50: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Actually the CAP FAQ page about their release groups is quite interesting - particularly given that they seem to be modelling them on the 12-step programmes.

There seems to be even less on this page to suggest that they're being run by churches which hold the kind of theology that we've been discussing above, and indeed seems to be being quite insistent that the course is not just for Christians.

That to me underlines the disconnect that worries me here.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
from the FAQ on their website:

quote:
I am self employed, can you help me?

CAP may not be the best organisation to help you. This is due to the following reasons:
On this point, but maybe only this point, they are being honest. Knowing that they're not in the best position to help out in all situations, then it is good of them to point those they can't help to other organisations with more suitable expertise.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
On this point, but maybe only this point, they are being honest. Knowing that they're not in the best position to help out in all situations, then it is good of them to point those they can't help to other organisations with more suitable expertise.
I've not found the actual line of text to prove this, but I think it is a requirement from the Financial Conduct Aucthority for regulated debt advisers to signpost to other services.

More interesting to me might be to find out what would happen if (perhaps hypothetically) a client specifically asked if a CAP debt course was intended to be a form of evangelism - because they were an atheist and disapproved of it. According to the CAP website, the service is designed to help everyone, but would they really refer clients to a non-Christian service (or even... I don't know.. one which is known to be run by the Mormons, for example)?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I also note the CAP annual report 2015 which states that

quote:
We are passionate about releasing people from a life sentence of debt, poverty and its causes.
Our vision is to bring freedom, hope and the good news to people in every UK community through local churches running 1,000 CAP projects by 2021.
We do this through:
a) The relief of poverty for persons in the United Kingdom and elsewhere who are in cond
itions of need, hardship or distress
by reason of their social and/or economic circumstances, by providing and promoting advice and other services.
b) The advancement of education of the public in all matters relating to the management of their personal finances.
c) The advancement of the Christian faith and doctrine.
d) Raising awareness of debt, poverty and its causes in the UK and inspiring churches and individuals to partner with us.
e) Expanding the work internationally where appropriate.
Then the section about advancing the Christian faith says:

quote:
Objective for 2015:
Continue to support local churches, as they reach out into their communities; giving clients the
opportunity to respond to God’s love in action. We also plan to run 14 Discovery Breaks to give 1,000 clients (including children) a break from their normal routine.
As well as physical poverty, our clients face spiritual poverty, isolation and emotional struggles. These are often as a result of
debt, and, in some cases, were contributing factors to debt. We partner with local churches because we care about each person’s complete wellbeing. When visiting clients, a volunteer Befriender accompanies the CAP Debt Coach, offering friendship and support in any
area of life, as needed. We offer prayer for clients and, if they are interested, talk to them more about God. Discovery Breaks are a highlight of the CAP calendar. These 2-4 day holidays offer our clients a break from the day-to-day realities of debt, precious time with their families and, in some cases, their first ever holiday. Discovery Breaks also allow clients the space to consider the reality of a God who loves and cares for them. In 2015, we took 929 people on 14 Discovery Breaks, which saw 254 people respond to the love of God, as part of the 877 people who made this decision throughout the year. This led to us celebrating 5,000 commitments through our work since 1996.
In 2016 we aim to:
Continue developing our relationship with local churchesaround the UK, enabling them to reach out to their communities and giving clients the opportunity to respond to God’s love in action. We also plan to run 14 Discovery Breaks to give 1,000 clients (including children) a break from their normal routine.
Mmm.

[ 12. September 2016, 12:28: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
Is this thread about CAP and evangelism or evangelism per se?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
It's about whether serving the poor and saving the lost are compatible objectives in general, and about how CAP addresses that question in particular.

In all good faith, I went to their website to see what they had to say about it, and discovered a total lack of any values at all (my e-mail to them still awaits a reply).

That to me raises an immediate orange, if not red, flag about their transparency of purpose. Talk of a "salvation bell" in head office which rings every time someone becomes a Christian through their ministry to trigger celebrations (reported in a favourable review!) raises further suspicion that the ultimate motive is evangelism and not disinterested debt support.

ETA: That might be ok in certain circumstances, but to my mind failing to state that is emphatically NOT ok.

I take it you don't have an answer to my question to you here?

[ 13. September 2016, 06:42: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Is this thread about CAP and evangelism or evangelism per se?
Well I did want to discuss my own unease about the missionary style approach to social action, where the church effectively "targets" people who need their help for evangelism. However, I'm thinking this through as a result of recent contact with CAP, which put it into context for me. The discussion has not disappointed me so far. Thanks for all contributions thus far.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Still no reply to my e-mail. Disappointing but not surprising, and not doing them any good in this discussion.

I'm a little busy over the next few days, but if I have the time and energy I'll try contacting their press office (if they have one) and failing that, the trustees.

[ 14. September 2016, 10:20: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0