Feeding the poor

John Carlisle, columnist for the Detroit Free Press, wrote a much needed 8 page article for last Sunday’s edition.

I have strong disagreements with the Salvation Army because of their work lobbying against LGBT people. Even so, they do important work. Carlisle highlighted one of their projects. Every day SA sends out a fleet of trucks across Detroit, bringing meals to poor people. They serve about 4,000 meals a day.

Carlisle wrote the article to sound like the story of one day in one of the trucks. In a separate article he explains that he rode with the truck for several weeks, talking to the people who came to the truck for food, then selecting a few to highlight their stories in more detail. That meant going to their homes for lengthy interviews and then fact-checking what they said. Carlisle wrote:

There’s no single lesson to be drawn here, no grand conclusion or policy prescription. The story's simply a look at some people's real lives, and real life is complicated. There’s something to confirm everyone’s biases in this story. For those who believe the poor are lazy or undeserving of help, some of the people interviewed will fuel those convictions with every word they say. And for those who think society doesn’t do enough to help those who need it, there are some characters who provide telling proof of just how hard it is for the desperately poor to improve their lives, no matter how hard they try.

An example of that last sentence is Michael:

He has no job, no car, no money, no phone, no prospects and no real employment history beyond part-time work. For someone like him, there are few options to make life better.

Michael says a big reason for no job is a mental problem. But he isn’t taking medication for that problem because he can’t afford it, because he doesn’t have a job.

And Felicia:

She has no job, no transportation to get to work if she finds a job, no family … and thus nobody to watch the kids and no money for child care. She’s caught in a loop of inertia with no clear way out.

Back to Salvation Army for a moment. I’m delighted they are doing this work. This food makes a big difference in perhaps 4000 people every day. Some would have no food without these trucks. I am pleased to hear the staff on the truck feeds everyone, regardless of why they come to the truck.

But Salvation Army is a highly ranked organization. The members of the church are awarded ranks similar to the military. They are also highly conservative (see note above about LGBT people). The strong belief in raking extends beyond their church. They are feeding the poor. But they are not advocating for the poor to help change policies that would help Michael and Felicia, policies that would perhaps allow Michael and Felicia to disrupt the ranking in society.

Alas, not very many churches (including my own), of any denomination, seem to do much advocating for the poor.

Choices in helping the poor

My current view of the Salvation Army was formed back in 2001. That's when Bush II proposed funding faith-based charities. The Salvation Army asked that religious charities be exempt from local laws that bar anti-gay discrimination. I haven't dropped any money into the red kettles since.

Since then the SA view of gays may have softened somewhat. As news stories circulate about the gay community declaring a boycott of SA, Timothy Kincaid of Box Turtle Bulletin takes a closer look.

Back in 2001 the concern was not that the SA wanted to discriminate against gay people, but that they would be required to provide domestic partner benefits to their gay employees.

Yeah, I said they don't want to discriminate… In contrast to the Fundies, they don't deny gays exist. They don't force gays into harmful ex-gay ministries. They don't deny membership to gays. They don't deny leadership positions to gays. They don't deny their charitable services to gays. In some ways they do better than my own United Methodist Church.

However, they do require gay members to be celibate. They won't provide partner benefits to gay employees. And there are stories that to get charitable services gay couples must split up (and I don't mean just separate bedrooms for the duration).

The SA do better than many (perhaps most) other Christian denominations in living out the "love your neighbor" commandment of Jesus. There is a lot of need out there and the SA works to meet as much of that need as they can. Your money in that kettle will help a lot. The SA is convenient -- donating to other charities requires more effort and thought than passing the kettle and dropping in the few dollars you haven't yet stuffed back in your wallet.

But, Kincaid says, there are lots of other charities that do the same work that don't have restrictions on their gay members, employees, and clients and don't follow up the soup and the soap with preaching about salvation. If the SA policies are troublesome there are lots of other places that will put your donations to work.

Kincaid's posting prompted a huge number of comments. A good number of them state their refusal to donate to the SA. Many cite the preaching aspect as much as the attitude for gays.

I won't change my position.