Balls and Walnuts
more than you ever wanted to know
Sloppy agape?
Agape, for those of you who forget your classical education, is one of the Greek words translated as “love,” and usually connotes brotherly or parental (as opposed to erotic) love. To quote Wikipedia, “Many have thought that this word represents divine, unconditional, self-sacrificing, active, volitional, and thoughtful love.” In the past, when I’ve heard this word used by people of faith, it usually refers to the love of God or Jesus for humanity.
The wife likes to listen to Catholic radio, probably for the same reason I used to watch televangelists as a kid (and still do, when the mood hits me). Even secondhand, unquestioning faith can be an exhilarating emotion. Exhilarating? Maybe that’s not the right word. Exasperating, perhaps. Anyway, thanks to Karen, we’ve encountered the oxymoronic concept of Sloppy Agape. Here’s one example.
I’m on a crusade to end what I call “sloppy agape.” In 25 years of urban compassionate ministry experience I see churches, ministries, and good people fall into this trap over and over again. In our attempt to be politically correct and because we’re afraid of offending anyone, we give out the goods without the good news. We give out bread without also offering the bread of life. We practice social compassion without offering spiritual solutions.
. . . . If we simply give out the goods without offering the good news, we are no different than all the other social welfare efforts. People will remain hungry and lost.
The author, Church of the Nazarene elder Dean Cowles, goes on to provide scriptural support for his contention that, well, unconditional love is a bad thing. Jesus didn’t just feed the multitudes, he did it after making the multitudes listen to a “marathon preaching session.” So too with the loaves and fishes.
He describes how his “heart aches” when he hears people talk about getting taken by panhandlers who have used their money to buy alcohol, and notes ” . . . the primary problem is unwise compassion — ‘sloppy agape.’ . . . . If we allow people to manipulate us, we become enablers who contribute to their destructive lifestyle. We will miss an opportunity to empower them beyond the con.”
Perhaps the wife and I are misinterpreting this. But to us, “sloppy agape” seems to turn Jesus’ philosophy on its head (yeah, but what do we know?) The speaker who says these words seems to suggest that unconditional love is a destructive force, that we should place strings on our care and compassion. You are entitled to my charity/caring/concern only if you do as I say and believe what I believe.
And I had always thought that teaching by example was the best practice.
D.
“We practice social compassion without offering spiritual solutions.” Hmmm. I’m wondering what the spiritual solutions are for the individual who is hungry because he has lost his job and cannot find a new one, or for the individual who has never been able to hold a decent job because he lacks the basic skills and education most jobs require, or for the individual who is sick without the ability to pay for healthcare, or who is bankrupt from healthcare expenses.
“If we simply give out the goods without offering the good news, we are no different than all the other social welfare efforts. People will remain hungry and lost.” Hmmm. It seems to me that if you simply give out the goods without offering the good news, the people at least won’t be hungry, although they may still be lost.
This preacher is blaming the hungry person for being hungry. He’s trying to scare you into believing that if you don’t believe what he does (and don’t contribute to his ministry), you will end up like the poor miserable soul who is hungry and reduced to accepting charity.
If any of you believe that the hungry children and families in this country and around the world are panhandlers, and that by helping them to eat to survive we are enabling their destructive lifestyles, you can go to hell.
Exactly.
And don’t you think there should be a special bolgia in hell for preachers who twist Jesus’ teachings to support their own sociopolitical views?
I think you’re misinterpreting it. It seems to me that what he is speaking of is more akin to “tough love.” For example, if someone is poor because they spend their money on drugs, you’re not helping them simply by giving them more money. You’re probably keeping them stuck in their own vicious cycle. That’s not compassion.
I don’t think that he’s saying at all that you don’t help people that don’t share your beliefs. He talks about getting to the root of the problem. If someone is poor because they spend all their money on drugs, the root of the problem is the drug use. So, rather than give them money, you help get them off the drugs. If someone is poor because they cannot hold down a job, job training may be what they need to get back on their feet.
Naturally, they may feel that a part of the problem is spiritual in nature, and their assistance may address that perceived need, but I don’t see where the writer is advocating that you only help like-minded people. Only that you think about what you’re doing and provide assistance that gets at the root of the problem rather than addressing the problem only at a superficial level.
dcr – I think you are misinterpreting the preacher. He said nothing about getting to the root of the problem which is poverty. He said nothing about job training, or drug rehabilitation. The preacher said that “In our attempt to be politically correct and because we’re afraid of offending anyone, we give out the goods without the good news. We give out bread without also offering the bread of life. We practice social compassion without offering spiritual solutions.” What this preacher is alluding to is the Charitable Choice provision of the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. I found this link which explains this provision http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Charitable_choice
Churches and ministries can and do receive federal funds for social services that they provide to individuals, but ministries cannot require the recipients to attend services or join their congregation. All legitimate charitable organizations follow this policy. Ministries which do not abide by this rule do not receive federal funds, and are usually not eligible to receive food from local food banks or food rescue organizations, and often are not eligible to receive in-kind contributions from corporations. In my 10 years experience working in the field of hunger relief with both faith based and secular charitable organizations, I have a different perspective. Sure, there are the hard core drug and alcohol additcted people out there, along with the chronically homeless and mentally ill. That group represents just a tiny percentage of the people in the United States who are food insecure. Tennessee (where I live) is one of 11 states where 20% of infants and children are at risk of not getting enough to eat. The vast majority of people receiving food assistance are not drug addicts, alcoholics, panhandlers or heathens who need to be saved, but working people who are impoverished. The root problem is not their lack of faith, but their inability to earn a living wage. How is receiving the “good news” going to change that? People need jobs with living wages.
People who are poor and hungry will resort to criminal measures to feed themselves and their families. Can you blame them? Would you have them starve? Keeping everyone in a society well fed is crucial to maintaining law and order. “Tough Love” is overrated. We need to address root problems, but until we do, we can’t let people starve to death. Preachers like the one quoted just make things workse and hinder progress.
Thank you, Lucie.
I take it all back about Country Western music videos.
Lucie wrote:
Apparently, your browser is loading an entirely different article than mine is.
Dan, I read the article again. Fairly quickly, the author says, ” ‘Sloppy Agape’ happens when we disconnect the methods of compassion from Jesus’ message of hope and salvation.” When he makes the Jesus-feeding-the-masses reference, he talks about Jesus sermonizing first. Not holding a workshop on how to farm and fish. Next,
. . . which is certainly a more encompassing expression of love than a simple donation, but still represents an unconditional love, contradicting the author’s premise.
Most telling, IMO, with regard to the author’s bias:
There’s an implicit, possibly explicit message here that working is morally superior to begging, even if begging pays better. But the beggar has “limited resources” (to use the author’s phrase) too — his time. Why would he choose an option that provides him less income? This makes no sense. The compassionate response would have been, “Okay, come with me, clear my yard [or whatever], and I’ll pay you $11 an hour, including your travel time to and from the work site.” If the man still refuses, then I would agree that he is a hypocrite who is undeserving of our help.
The passage that comes closest to supporting your premise is this, I think:
Here, he indicates that some rehabilitation is involved. But there is always that hook: your ass is gonna be in a pew. “Soup, Soap, Salvation.” We’ll rehabilitate you, but you had better not rebuff our message.
Arguably, John Wesley (the author’s paragon of “compassionate evangelism”) practiced the approach you support, since he championed co-op community banks to loan to the poor. But what the author cites as Wesley’s response to the problem of illiteracy — Sunday school — clearly is a case of help on the one hand, indoctrination on the other.
Wesley was an interesting fellow, based on his Wiki entry. He believed in charity well enough that he died a poor man. How many of today’s evangelists can lay claim to that?
Let’s say that you encounter Joe on the street. Joe is begging for money. For whatever reason, Joe is legitimately unable to work. He has come to begging for money as his last resort. You have $2.00 in change that you are able to spare without a problem. How much would you give Joe and why?
Now, let’s say that you encounter Joe and Jim on the street. Joe’s circumstances are as described. Jim is able to work, but chooses begging because he is able to make more money that way. You have $2.00 in change that you are able to spare without a problem. How much would you give each of them and why?
Now, let’s say that you encounter Joe, Jim and John on the street. Joe’s circumstances are the same as before. John, like Jim, is able to work but can make more money begging. You have $2.00 in change that you are able to spare without a problem. How much would you give each of them and why?
Now, let’s say that you encounter Joe, Jim, John and Jed on the street. As before, Joe is unable to work and begging is his last resort for money. Jim, John and Jed, on the other hand, are fully capable of working but choose begging instead, because they can make more money that way. Again, you have $2.00 in change that you are able to spare without a problem. How much would you give each of them and why?
Does the author anywhere indicate that someone who rebuffs their message of salvation will be tossed out?
Probably none too many. I think many evangelists today, especially the televangelists, tend to be more about ego than spirituality. I’ve seen some that have modest sets that appear as though they were shot in a room or office in their church. Those tend to be the ones there to spread the Word, not make a name for themselves. Then, you’ll see the ones that have elaborate sets and such. I saw one that had a set where the hosts descended from a pair spiral staircases as if descending from the heavens and then came down to their set to interact with us mere mortals. So, sometimes, you can tell their mentality by their appearances.
I’ve met a whole spectrum of them. From the ones that do try to practice what they preach to the ones that made you feel like you needed to run home and take a shower.
My whole reason for commenting on this post was to dispell the myth that people who need help getting enough to eat are somehow to blame for needing help. The examples of beggars on the street don’t help my point. We have a homeless guy who blogs here in Nashville and he estimates that there are about 3000 homeless folks here in Nashville in a city of 1,000,000+ people, or about .3% of our population. In contrast, about 14% of households nationwide have trouble getting enough nutritous food. It’s not just the chronically homeless, alcoholic and drug addicts who have problems. That group will always have problems and most are mentally ill. I’m talking about working families who can’t make ends meet. Sitting here comfortably at your computer in your nice home it may be hard for you to accept or to conceptualize what it means when I say that 14% of households in this country are food insecure. http://www.nasda.org/cms/7197/9060/24948/24967.aspx I just pulled that link off google because I am too lazy to find a better link, but those stats have been pretty consistent over the past 10 years and are no doubt much higher right now.
I can just the person who is going to say “but they have cell phones and nice sneakers!” Yeah, so what. They need cell phones just like you do, and I can guarantee you that they don’t have a land line. How else are they going to communicate? And yes, they need shoes, just like you need shoes. And they take very good care of those shoes and that cell phone, believe me.
I apologize for my tirades, but I am so passionate about this issue. We have a huge underclass in this country made up of decent hard working people who can’t make ends meet. You probably don’t know many folks in that situation because they are a faceless, silent group of folks who don’t beg and don’t get your attention, but who suffer nonetheless. They have done nothing wrong other than not having had the opportunity to receive a good education and and break.
I am glad you are discussing this, but using the example of street beggars won’t help solve the problem. Although they are the most visible examples of poverty, they represent such a small percentage (very, very small)of people living in poverty. In most cases, street beggars are beyond help and cannot be rehabilitated. We just need to keep them off the streets, well fed and leave it at that. But we can do something to help those who really want help, and we should not blame them for needing help.
Here is a novel idea. If you really want to do something about this problem, hire someone who really needs a job. Instead of donating money to a charity, hire someone to work in your home or in your yard. Get to know some real people who struggle to make it. It will change your life.