View Full Version : A Crisis of Fellowship?
I'm wondering if anyone else is encountering an issue that has recently come up here. It has been our practice, each year, to seek to match those in our church who don't have or aren't able to spend holidays with their own family with families that are willing to open their holiday celebrations, whether it be Passover, Thanksgiving or Christmas, to other members of our community. This year, for the first time anyone could remember, we've had difficulties making all the connections we need to make. Some of those who we could count on in the past have passed on, have moved into assisted living centers, or otherwise can no longer contribute, and we haven't been successful back-filling this year.
This disturbed me quite a lot, because a wonderful older, single woman was unfortunately left outside our community's embrace for Christmas this year. I would have like to invite her to join with us, but we're vegetarians and due to a misunderstanding the assumption was made that we would not be at least a good "last resort" for making such connections.
I know that this could just be an aberration, but it does seem like we're passing into a time of crisis of fellowship. We are still the same loving, accepting, compassionate and wonderful community we have always been, but it does seem, in many cases, we are having difficulty scaring up enough volunteers for many of what have been regular fellowship activities.
I wonder if others are experiencing or have experienced situations like this in their communities. Is it a trend in society overall? A reflection of something we need to now start doing differently? Or is it just natural and common for religious communities to have lean years when so many people are so stretched to just keep their own lives above water that they don't have much bandwidth left over to devote to fostering fellowship within the community?
SteveinMN
12-30-12, 8:25am
First, welcome, Bicker! (Even if you've been here a while and haven't posted, we still haven't met.)
DW and I are not active in a faith community, but both of us have seen similar behavior at work and in other groups which depend on volunteers. I think what you're seeing is a natural progression of things, though the causes themselves are engineered by (the general) us.
For years, companies and non-profits (I'll include government employees here) have been adding workload but no workers. A 50-hour week is not at all unusual, and many people are still "on call" away from work. That's like working an extra day/day-and-a-half a week, leaving people with less non-work time and, often, less energy for other interests. Organizational cultures have changed, too.
As an example, for six years, I coordinated a monthly volunteer event at work. Employees were given an afternoon (paid) to work at a food shelf. My almost 200 volunteers dwindled to around 60 due to retirements, layoffs, people leaving the department, people who felt too stretched to take the time, and a diminishing endorsement by management. I ended up closing down the project, both for lack of participants and the food shelf's dependence on having a certain number of us show up each month.
In addition, the last few years in particular have been tough on many financially -- no raises or COLAs despite rising prices, even more jobs shed or hours reduced, savings and investments "disappearing", and a lousy job market that made tolerating that one of very few options. Besides the energy this takes from people, there is the matter of their feeling financially comfortable stretching to accommodate others.
I suspect we're also seeing a rising lack of commitment among people as institutions treat them as more dispensable or just ask too much. An example here: after the Haiti earthquake, I donated a very modest sum to a global reputable medical aid organization. I am absolutely certain they have spent that many times over since then to solicit more donations from me. That disappoints me and, honestly, makes me less likely to give to them in the future. I understand asking once in a great while or asking a few times and drawing the obvious conclusion. But both DW and I have been part of volunteer efforts which continually asked for more and more commitment -- the old "elephant's trunk in the tent" metaphor -- to the point at which we're very selective about where we put our time and money. That, unfortunately, puts the bar very high for new organizations looking for help. I'm not saying this is the case with your church, but I think "donation fatigue" is very real.
As for what can be done about it? The problem is resolvable, but it will not be quick and it will not come without a significant societal shift in perspective, IMHO.
Thanks for your insights. It makes a lot of sense, for sure.
In future I would not worry two seconds about inviting a non-vegetarian to your home for the holiday. I wouldn't even mention the fact to the organizers because to be honest, that shouldn't even register as a problem on someone's radar.
If I had been that woman and I had preferred to spend the holidays with someone, I would have been very disappointed not to have been asked because the people who organized it thought that a vegetarian family was a "last resort" and not preferable to me spending the day alone. It's quite ludicrous that someone would imply something like that. And it's probably a result that the organizer didn't really think about the implications of the decision they were making.
Just put your name on the list, accept the name of your invitee and serve your meal (without explanation.) If I were invited to a home where my hosts had an interesting and different diet, I'd consider the experience an adventure.
Some of this community is being done organically outside of church walls. Example - we invited about a dozen friends and acquaintences for thanksgiving, as my husband and I were far from our kids and parents this year. 2 friends came over and we had a lot of fun. This wasn't organized by anyone, there's no promise it will happen next year, and it didn't feel like volunteering. Its my opinion that organic community is springing up outside of organized religious and social structures, gradually taking their place in our society.
My husband was a pastor for 20 years. We watched huge changes occur in the church in the 80s and 90s, and continue to observe change from the outside now. People are increasingly disinterested in organized group activities, and increasingly searching for a handful of friends who will be like family to each other.
Sad Eyed Lady
12-30-12, 9:51am
All good answers above, and I just want to add one observation I have made: growing up, holidays were always big deals in our house with huge meals for whatever occasion with all the extended family present. Lots of cooking and even though it was never formal, (rural Kentucky - think the Waltons less sanitized), it was warm and inviting. In my adult life this continued even as the family dwindled through deaths of the older ones and even when it was just DH, my mother & stepfather and me, we continued on with our traditions. Knowing that some restaurants served meals on Thanksgiving I would remark that I thought that was so sad, to go out and eat on Thanksgiving and not be at home with family. As the years went by and there finally was just DH and myself, it became difficult to know what to do, so for the past three years we have gotten together with a single male friend who essentially has no family, and we go out to a big Thanksgiving buffet for the meal then spend hours afterword talking and laughing. This has worked out great for us. We go to the same location which is a state resort park and we have plenty of room after the meal to find a spot in the lobby or in an unused meeting room to do our visiting. This year, at the same place, we were all three astounded at the sheer number of people there for the meal! We had to wait a very long time, which was okay, but the amazement at so many people coming out to eat struck us all. Then a couple of days before Christmas DH and I went on a short overnight trip and when we stopped at a chain restaurant for breakfast they had a sign saying for families to join them for Christmas Eve and Christmas Day! Even more so, I was shocked! We used to travel on Christmas Day and would always joke that we had to find a Waffle House because they were the ONLY places open on Christmas Day! Apparently that is no longer true. My take on it is this: families that prepared and hosted large family holiday meals were mainly done by the older members, and as that generation is dying out the younger ones are not as interested in keeping the tradition alive, doing the work and having the whole family in. It is easier to go out and eat. I am generalizing here, but from what I see in my area, I do feel this is at least partly the case. Too much work, too much time, too much clean up after, when there is a restaurant that will do all that for you. I see this also happening in other gatherings like family reunions. DH's family has held one each May for the past several years, and as the older family members have passed others are not making the effort to get together. The number has gone done until each year we wonder if there will be one next year. There is one older lady who mainly holds it all together and I think when she is gone this too will go by the wayside. Not as much dedication or interest from the younger ones. Just my take.
Oh, and Bicker, I would love to be invited to your home to share a vegetarian meal! I eat no red meat anyway, and very little meat of any kind is eaten in my house at all, so I would be happy with veggies! On the other hand when I am invited to someone's home for a meal, and I get there and they have a huge roast on the table and then they find out I can't eat it, I just always reassure them "I love veggies - as long as you have these wonderful veggies here and good bread, I'm fine!". It doesn't stress me that their meal isn't tailored to my needs, I can eat around it.
I wonder how much of our societal changes are due to what I call "pay per view" experience.
When I grew up, there were 3 networks. You found something you liked on one of those 3 (my parents), or you turned the television off (me). Fast forward to today, people are accustomed to watching what they want to watch, when they want to watch it. It started with pay per view, and is now on demand.
People are way more likely to eat out these days, and again, they are used to eating what they want when they want it. This attitude of "what I want when I want it" pervades everything. People are less likely to deal with the community at large because there might be people they don't like as much. People are less likely to embrace religion as a whole package, and just pick the parts they like. People are more vocal about making their food preferences known for dinner parties instead of just graciously accepting what is offered. There is less compromise, or putting up with something that is perhaps sub-optimal. That, and the time crunch and you have another factor for people just picking out the parts of life they like and less likely to do things for the greater good, if it isn't also good for them in this moment.
awakenedsoul
12-30-12, 10:16am
I agree with the above posts. I don't think as many people cook large holiday meals. anymore. Now that both parents work in most households, there isn't as much time available for domestic activities. I spent Christmas with my parents. We stayed at a hotel and went out to eat. It was really nice. My mom and I used to cook at huge meal at home. Now that my parents are older, I was doing all the work ten people, and it was too much for me. My friends say the same thing. It's also tiring to drive a long way before and after the meal. We used to invite older relatives over on holidays. After they passed away, that stopped.
I've never been comfortable in large groups. I prefer to be with a small group of friends, one on one with a close friend, or on my own. People have less tolerance now. I think they are also overtired and underpaid. Many are strained, financially.
I stopped volunteering at our local grammar school for a few reasons. The kids were out of control and undisciplined. The teachers were angry and burnt out. (understandably.) The principal was a workaholic and kept pressuring me to give more time, energy and work. She expected way too much, and drove herself just as hard. ( I still see her there on Sundays, working.) She would call me at the last minute and want me to show up. She was always stressed and behind. I didn't enjoy it. Now I help new people learn to knit and crochet at our Fiber Arts group at the library. It's quiet, stress free, and just once a month for three hours.
Another factor is smaller families. We had 60-100 people at my grandmas' holidays, so going out to eat would cost a fortune. The same number of generations today only totals 21 people in my family. Projecting ahead, when I'm in the oldest generation in a few more decades,its looking like the total will be maybe 12, with a few great grand children perhaps being born.
Also, we live scattered all over usa and Canada. Those 60-100 people of my childhood lived in about 4-5 neighboring counties.
Miss Cellane
12-30-12, 11:12am
Agreeing with what everyone else has said. There's also volunteer burnout. I've noticed that volunteer coordinators tend to call on the same group of volunteers over and over and over. It's not hard to understand why--there's a tested pool of volunteers they know and trust and who usually say "yes." Saves the coordinator tons of time and energy to make 12 phone calls and get 10 volunteers, than to call 25 new people and maybe get 6 or 7 people. But it does two things--the old volunteers get burned out and new people, who'd like to volunteer and take part in things never get the chance.
There's also the fact that organizations change over time. As new people enter a group and others leave, the focus can change. What was once a primary volunteer activity is no longer. When an organization can't get volunteers to work on something that has always had a lot of volunteers in the past, then the activity needs to be examined. Is this a one-time shortage of volunteers, or are people "voting with their feet" and telling the organizers that this activity no longer meets their needs? Maybe the activity needs to be restructured somehow--a large group dinner instead of inviting people to private homes, to use the example in the OP. Or maybe the activity needs to be dropped completely and something else found that is more interesting to the current organization.
At a single organization level, there will always be lean years or not. It also has a lot to do with individual dynamics - the one or two people with that ability to engage people, get them motivated, or just make it fun can change a group so much.
I do think the concept of giving (as in giving for the sake of giving) has gotten a bit tarnished, though. Another issue especially for the type of activity you describe, is people, I think, are much less able to successfully socially interact with strangers, people outside their immediate circle.
In future I would not worry two seconds about inviting a non-vegetarian to your home for the holiday.I assure you, I was not. It was the folks who coordinate these connections that were concerned.
If I had been that woman and I had preferred to spend the holidays with someone, I would have been very disappointed not to have been asked because the people who organized it thought that a vegetarian family was a "last resort" and not preferable to me spending the day alone. It's quite ludicrous that someone would imply something like that. And it's probably a result that the organizer didn't really think about the implications of the decision they were making. Yes, I agree, though I prefer to think of it just as a bit of miscommunication.
Agreeing with what everyone else has said. There's also volunteer burnout. I've noticed that volunteer coordinators tend to call on the same group of volunteers over and over and over. It's not hard to understand why--there's a tested pool of volunteers they know and trust and who usually say "yes." Saves the coordinator tons of time and energy to make 12 phone calls and get 10 volunteers, than to call 25 new people and maybe get 6 or 7 people. But it does two things--the old volunteers get burned out and new people, who'd like to volunteer and take part in things never get the chance. Just to provide case in point... we're resting from a busy morning at church. My spouse and I served as ushers for the first service, and then I assisted the intern minister leading the second service, while my spouse helped coordinate the coffee hour. We didn't mind, but sometimes we do find ourselves drawn into simply too many volunteer situations.
Is this a one-time shortage of volunteers, or are people "voting with their feet" and telling the organizers that this activity no longer meets their needs?I think neither: I fear there's just a bit too much "someone else will handle it" going on.
Yes, I agree, though I prefer to think of it just as a bit of miscommunication.
Maybe it was, Bicker. It's hard to imagine they thought there was anything wrong with assigning the woman to veggies. Vegetarians are so much more common now than they used to be even a decade ago.
I'm very interested in the topics of volunteering and nurturing a sense of community in groups, whether it's at church, or in a family, or with a charity or some other group. I agree with everything that has been stated above, and I'll eagerly read what others have to say in addition.
I've been a volunteer with various groups over the years, from childhood though adulthood, and in 2012 my involvement with volunteer jobs has increased a lot. Well, that's not really true because my time commitment is about the same, but what has increased is my FULFILLMENT as a volunteer.
I absolutely love one volunteer job in particular, at a food pantry, and every time I work at the job, I come home believing that *I* gained more from the experience than the people I'm there to help.
Feeding the poor comes with many heartbreaking challenges and I'm pushed beyond my comfort level, but I see *myself* growing and changing. Of the three leaders of the charity, two are older people, and one is a young adult. I see them as role models and I watch how they run the program. I see that they consider not only the needs of the hungry people we serve, but also the needs of the volunteers. They deliberately and quietly nurture a sense of community, not assume it.
I now see the food pantry as a service not only to the poor, but to the volunteers who are hungry for community and hungry for doing work that matters. While we are doing serious work, we also have a good time together and have lots of laughs. Sometimes we share a few tears together. I show up to volunteer not only because the hungry people need the food but because I want to spend time with all the group. Fostering an eagerness and a commitment in volunteers takes a generous and mature (not necessary mature in years but mature in attitude) leader.
I can't put my finger on what makes a successful fellowship at church. My church congregation has a strong desire to working together as a faith community, while at the same time we have little time in our personal schedules to make it happen. This is really a key element in Simple Living: Are we spending our time, emotions, energy nurturing what is important to us as individuals and to us as a group?
As Simple Living people who want to nurture fellowship and community, perhaps we accept the responsibilities to lead, support, and set the example. I've definitely noticed that people really are too pressured in their lives to be able to give anything more to community spirit. One way to fight that trend is to make sure *I* am not too busy and pressured.
Thank you for this conversation. These topics are definitely on my mind lately.
Just to provide case in point... we're resting from a busy morning at church. My spouse and I served as ushers for the first service, and then I assisted the intern minister leading the second service, while my spouse helped coordinate the coffee hour. We didn't mind, but sometimes we do find ourselves drawn into simply too many volunteer situations..
We were very short on volunteers at our church service this morning. I noticed one member, who was volunteering as Assistant Minister, quietly go around and ask individuals to pitch in. He made it so easy for them to volunteer by explaining exactly what needed to be done in an easy-going way. I was so impressed with how he handled the lack of volunteers and I made a mental note to follow his lead if needed in the future. (And, yes, I had a volunteer job myself today.)
fidgiegirl
12-30-12, 4:29pm
Bootsie, I am also hungry for exactly what you describe - a place where I can serve others and have a sense of fulfillment in the process. So happy that you have found it. I hope you will share more stories moving forward . . .
sweetana3
12-30-12, 5:05pm
My husband had a hard time getting used to retirement. He found Habitat for Humanity in our area had a great group of retirees called the Tiger Team. He worked hard and got accepted mostly because he was humble and just willing to help and learn. Then he found a group called SAWS, Servants at Work, which is a church based group of guys who build wheelchair ramps for those in need. Again he was humble and worked quietly at what was needed. He is now considered a great helper and a self starter. He has learned so much about building and those who need the help.
One woman had not been out of her house for years. Another had hurt herself trying to get out on a poorly built ramp.
He loves the work and mostly the people he works with.
Bootsie, I am also hungry for exactly what you describe - a place where I can serve others and have a sense of fulfillment in the process. So happy that you have found it. I hope you will share more stories moving forward . . .
Fidgie: You are doing that with your teaching. You are a public SERVANT. You've made a career of serving. Don't forget it.
fidgiegirl
12-30-12, 6:19pm
bunnys, sadly, sometimes I do. I don't work directly with kids anymore, and I miss it some days . . . but then I have to remind myself that the sometimes seemingly overwhelming red tape, negotiating, and politicking is to open doors for many MORE kids than I could have impacted directly, so they can use learning the tools they are engaged with and will use in their futures . . .
My husband was a pastor for 20 years. We watched huge changes occur in the church in the 80s and 90s, and continue to observe change from the outside now. People are increasingly disinterested in organized group activities, and increasingly searching for a handful of friends who will be like family to each other.
While I would say that this is true in part, I would note that a lot of younger families (my age and younger) are increasingly disinterested in church because church is disinterested in us. As such, we seek our own communities.
I find that the process of belonging to a church is not acceptance but assimilation -- and I don't assimilate easily. Which then leads to 'tolerance' from them.
And I don't deserve to be merely "tolerated" -- like everyone, I deserve to be celebrated. Fellowship is that.
And that is part of the origin of the crisis of fellowship.
As a very regular churchgoer myself, I've noticed that there are people who do NOT want the community. Period. They come to church right when the service starts and leave immediately after. They don't ever come to coffee hour or any events. They may even scowl if you dare say hello or good morning. They want to be considered "members" but don't actually want to participate in anything. They even shy away from talking with our priest. We've got a small parish of about 200, so it's not a huge anonymous congregation where you can hide.
I'm in the process of revising our simple parish directory and there were about 10 new families/households. I knew 2 of them. Mind you, I'm there all the time. When I was discussing the revision with our priest, I had to ask him who these other new people are.
I would also say that volunteer opportunities in most communities *abound* and I have been able to find several that fit how I function. Part of the issue of volunteering at DS's school is that what they want from me doesn't suit my interests or skill set,so it's just an exercise in frustration, even though I know they need people to do certain roles. Likewise, since I work more than full time, the main position that I would be good at is basically a full time job on it's own, better suited to the woman who does it -- a stay at home mom of one child in the school, and a role she took from a woman in the same position before her, and on back as far as I know. At the main school, there are mostly stay at home mothers running a lot of jobs, but when my husband said he would volunteer, they didn't know what to do with him. He doesn't have the skill sets they expect him to have (building, web page coding, etc), and the skills that he does have they don't have use for. So right now, he's basically been benched. Which is fine, too. He'll spend that time working on his own projects.
We have done really well though in other areas: our community gardening is fun; we are working with our little suburb to get some things sorted for a sort-of community center. We are helping them formulate how to utilize the space and make it sustainable and profitable, and also how to get some grants from the city council and national government to do the improvements that they need to do, as well as relying on local community resources to get some work done for a lower rate than normal (ie, an interior architect managing how the building might be redesigned for the community's use).
we're good at this sort of organizational work, and since the main people in charge are good at executing the admin side of it, we simply assert what could be done, work with the planning committee to create a plan (it's still in the early phases where we will then open it up to community comment before pursuing resources), and then they'll do the grant writing, etc, manage the renovation, etc. We are just helping to set things in motion.
This has really set us up as "local community leaders" even though that wasn't our intention, and we might have the opportunity to renovate three buildings in our neighborhood on this one action -- the building that we're talking about now, and the two old scouting hall buildings (one of which is mostly burned from fire) which could be used for differnt community activities.
Another friend of mine is an artist, and she and three other artist friends creaetd the "arts trail" of our neighborhood, which is a little walking map of all of the arts in this peninsula, and galleries and so on. This has been included in the city council's "summer city" program guide, as well as available to the people who come on the cruise ships, and in our various other tourism offices where people can see what is what. They are working on a "wellington" one, which will include them as well. I think it's a great idea.
So, you know, we are doing a lot of things that we are good at -- and we're hoping that the community center can have seasonal events as well, which will bring people together (most people are really just focused around the kindy/school -- so if your kid doesn't go there, you aren't involved). My friend who owns a shamanic-based arts center is also doing community theater work as part of the equation, and would be able to be hosted at the community center if we get it up and running. so a lot of great pollination.
Have seen a lot of what others describe. A few strategies that might help for the specific situation:
1) Think about having a whole church Valentine's dinner for families. Serve something favorite for your area and comforting for your food such as *spaghetti(with veg option)/salad/bread/dessert
*Soup and homemade bread
*Shrimp boil dinner
Have a group singing event after dinner
2) Start now to line up families to host the other holidays this year. Also look for some older widows/couples who might be on a tight budget, but who have a good sized dining room plus kitchen table and still have a large collection of dishes. See if they will host an organized potluck for some of the people without family in the area. Check to see if they might like some volunteers to come a day or two before to help with cleaning/ decorating/sidewalk shoveling if needed.
3) If there is a vegetarian/meat mismatch, let organizers know that you are happy to host nonvegetarians as long as the guest is alerted that it will be a vegetarian meal. It's good for the organizers to know what a household is offering in case there are guests who would prefer a vegetarian meal as they would have an easier time at your house.
I think that's great forward thinking, ANM.
Tradd, I know those sorts too. I think people do church for different reasons -- some want the ritual and to raise their kids with the ritual and practices, whereas others want the whole communal thing.
I was going seeking community. Having rarely found it, we eventually opted out. The quakers were great, but in our situation, it was what Steve said. We were just too busy. It was sad really. We could do services on sunday, but not much else.
I find that the process of belonging to a church is not acceptance but assimilation -- and I don't assimilate easily. Which then leads to 'tolerance' from them. And I don't deserve to be merely "tolerated" -- like everyone, I deserve to be celebrated.
This is very important to us. When new members join our church, part of the charge to the congregation, beyond welcoming them, etc., is to acknowledge and honor "the change that these new members will bring".
Miss Cellane
12-31-12, 7:53am
Also, don't overlook the impact of other things that require volunteers. People only have so much time and energy to volunteer, and it seems like more and more things require volunteers.
If you have a kid who does sports--good grief, the amount of time that takes can be incredible. My brother and SIL were so relived when my niece decided to quit swim team. A parent had to volunteer at every meet, which basically meant giving up one day every weekend. Plus, my brother ran the team's website, which took hours every week to post the results, but it got them out of volunteering at some meets--and they only wrangled that because the coaches really wanted my niece on the team and her parents flat out told them that she couldn't compete, because they simply could not handle the volunteer demands made on the parents. Plus driving Niece to practices and swim club pretty much daily. And fundraising. My brother was happy Niece decided to quit while she was still in middle school.
There are a lot of different organizations out there that need or require volunteers. What I've seen is that most families have the time and energy to volunteer at one organization. Maybe two. But if you are seriously involved in an organization, that one thing sucks up all your volunteer time. I've noticed that entire families seem to volunteer at the same thing--they are all involved with their church, or the swim team or the football team or the cancer walk or the [insert charity here]. It's easier and it saves time, because everyone is going to the same place at the same time, instead of volunteering at several different places at different times during the family's limited available volunteer time. If all members of the family volunteered at different things, they'd have less time to see and do things with each other.
My parents were very active in their church. At a time when they reached old age and were no longer able to attend church services or participate in church activities, their church fellowships pretty much dropped out of the picture. At a time when they could really have used some friends and support. It was sort of a mystery to me why this would happen, but it diminished my attitude on church fellowship.
I think neither: I fear there's just a bit too much "someone else will handle it" going on.
Of all of the ills of our current society (in the U.S.) I think this saddens me the most. It seems so common. Maybe it's just an illusion.
Someone else will take care of "those people."
Someone else will volunteer to help.
Someone else will pick up my trash (cigarette butts, dog poop, toxic waste, whatever)
Someone else -- some nameless, faceless somebody I don't know -- will do it, so I can go back to playing Wii.
How we became this way, I'm not sure. But I see it all around and it sure does make me sad sometimes.
The converse makes me very happy. We had too many volunteers sign up to give Christmas gifts to our local families under the poverty line, for example - more people volunteered than had signed up to get help. Imagine a society where there is always more help and hands than a situation requires.
While I would say that this is true in part, I would note that a lot of younger families (my age and younger) are increasingly disinterested in church because church is disinterested in us. As such, we seek our own communities.
I find that the process of belonging to a church is not acceptance but assimilation -- and I don't assimilate easily. Which then leads to 'tolerance' from them.
And I don't deserve to be merely "tolerated" -- like everyone, I deserve to be celebrated. Fellowship is that.
And that is part of the origin of the crisis of fellowship. This is one reason I have chosen to volunteer at my local VA hospital rather then thru a church. Not only am I a veteran who uses the VA services myself so want to do what I can for other veterans (the shared brotherhood/sisterhood thing) but there is no religious component to it. As a non-religious person I have also felt that I was required to share the faith of any organisation I volunteered with (even the food pantry which was a christian-based pantry). I like this secular arena much better.
Of all of the ills of our current society (in the U.S.) ...
The converse makes me very happy. We had too many volunteers sign up to give Christmas gifts to our local families under the poverty line, for example - more people volunteered than had signed up to get help. Imagine a society where there is always more help and hands than a situation requires.
But that's the easy thing, buying cheap plastic crap from China for kids. There are always tons of toys and Stuff to distribute at holiday time. Stuff is all over.
The ongoing things that families need: the rent paid, the gas bill paid, a working auto--those are much harder to obtain. And the intangibles: sober parents, a family with money management skills, etc are impossible to buy.
Raining on your parade, I am. But I really mean to say that I'm not certain that the outpouring of inexpensive physical objects for holiday time is a real indicator of thoughtful charitable giving. Yet another reason why I dislike holidays, they seem faux in many ways to me.
Am agreeing with you, Iris Lily. Along those same lines, check out this photo of toys donated to Newton, CT:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/newtown-asks-people-to-stop-sending-gifts
It's so overwhelming the town is asking people to stop sending stuff.
Count me as another one who doesn't understand the response to a community that had to bury 20 children is to send teddy bears?
Count me as another one who doesn't understand the response to a community that had to bury 20 children is to send teddy bears?
Sending a teddy bear costs a few bucks, but that is a dollar amount perceived as less than what it would cost to provide usable mental-health care to people like Adam Lanza. And once you've sent the teddy bear, you can tell yourself you've done something and you can let yourself off the mental hook of feeling obligated to do something deeper -- like reconsider the state of American mental-health care or the availability of guns or respond to the ongoing losses endured by the victims' families -- about such a tragedy. Those things are much more work than most people want to take on. Sending a teddy bear? Lots easier. :(
awakenedsoul
1-5-13, 11:25pm
I'm going to start donating to the energy assistance funds again. I really like how they help low income people by giving them a break on their utility bills. They even put in new hot water heaters and gas heaters for those who qualify. They gave me a fabulous new gas heater, and it's awesome!
Sending a teddy bear costs a few bucks, but that is a dollar amount perceived as less than what it would cost to provide usable mental-health care to people like Adam Lanza. . (
So true.
And is the crux of my puzzlement with extreme conservatism. I have co-workers who I'd describe as far-right, and who are involved in small one-on-one charitable things at Christmastime - donating some new clothing, toys or money for new shoes for needy kids. They are pleased and happy to do this.
But, asking them to pay a few more dollars in taxes so those same kids might get some eyeglasses, or dental work, or subsidized housing to get out of the shelter or anything else that might have a lasting impact?
H*&L NO.
I'm going to start donating to the energy assistance funds again. I really like how they help low income people by giving them a break on their utility bills. They even put in new hot water heaters and gas heaters for those who qualify. They gave me a fabulous new gas heater, and it's awesome!
I agree, awakenedsoul. I add an extra dollar automatically to both my utility bill and city water/trash bill for that reason. It's used to help those who need it and seems to be distributed fairly. It's a small amount, but I figured if every household that could donate did the same, we'd have a lot less households getting their water or electricity cut off for inability to pay a relatively small amount.
So true.
And is the crux of my puzzlement with extreme conservatism. I have co-workers who I'd describe as far-right, and who are involved in small one-on-one charitable things at Christmastime - donating some new clothing, toys or money for new shoes for needy kids. They are pleased and happy to do this.
But, asking them to pay a few more dollars in taxes so those same kids might get some eyeglasses, or dental work, or subsidized housing to get out of the shelter or anything else that might have a lasting impact?
H*&L NO.
That's easy enough to explain (at least in my mind). The donations are voluntary. The taxes are not.
I am also very picky about my small donations. I agree with my church to keep the beautiful old building going. Plus they do loads of feeding the homeless and hungry. I volunteer with the meditation service on Sunday evenings as that is my thing.
My dad has had a long tradition of donating to Heifer International in the kids' names. This year we got a heifer actually. My kids have always understood this and never had a problem with it. I can see it is a good organization and that it also helps my children get that giving tools of self sufficiency is very worthwhile. For charities, I wouldn't buy anything that I would not buy for my own kids. Sometimes I have had access to a giving tree and there are specific requests for a size of clothing or a toy suitable for a certain age. That is nice, but loads of unrequested teddy bears could be a huge waste.
The donations are voluntary. The taxes are not.
Exactly. In donating, you don't have to associate at all with people who may not look like you, think like you, believe what you do,... You control the transaction, typically even selecting the organization administering your contribution. You don't like what's going on? You pull the plug. Even if it's not the moral thing to do.
But I really mean to say that I'm not certain that the outpouring of inexpensive physical objects for holiday time is a real indicator of thoughtful charitable giving. Yet another reason why I dislike holidays, they seem faux in many ways to me.
I think there's nothing more satisfying than giving, and Christmas brings out the giver in us. BUT in my mind, the best giving would be directly to the parents so that they have the joy of choosing what to give their children. Too often, we give with strings attached and we give to make US feel good.
I remember members at our church collecting a bunch of stuff that they wrapped and then they descended en masse to the "needy family" to give them the gifts. All I recall is how upset they were that the family didn't say thank you. And I was thinking, there may be tons of reasons they didn't express gratitude, but that shouldn't be the point of giving.
That's easy enough to explain (at least in my mind). The donations are voluntary. The taxes are not.
Then you can't be surprised when unrelieved poverty begets more poverty. And all the toys in the world don't change that situation.
That's a good point Lainey. It is easy to do the easy things, the things that pay yourself back in dividends of satisfaction and pride. It is hard to do the things that are necessary; the things that get to the root of the problems; when those things don't provide comparable rewards. The image of a child playing with a toy is an advertisement for charity. What image can we use to promote treatment of that child's mother for cancer? We have crafted a society where the deepest ills are kept hidden from public eye, and where those least fortunate are viewed with derision rather than with compassion.
With regard to the fellowship issue I mentioned, one thing we have been advised is to stop trying to do the little things - save the watershed - raise food awareness - and instead galvanize the entire congregation toward a single, weighty need. Perhaps trying to get our society to change its attitudes toward safeguarding the basic needs of those living in poverty is a way to bring us all back together, activate us as a group, rekindle the willingness of those who have stepped back to put themselves out for something important.
We have crafted a society where the deepest ills are kept hidden from public eye, and where those least fortunate are viewed with derision rather than with compassion.
I'm no fan at all of American Exceptionalism, but I don't think that kind of society is an American invention at all. You can see it all around the world. The hubbub over Putin's making Russian orphans off-limits to American adoptive families ... my DW the social worker works in a county with many people who have emigrated from Russia and many who have adopted Russian kids; they definitely have gotten the short end of the stick. Similarly, homogeneous cultures like Japan's take a dimmer view of those who are not Japanese, and even the Germans look down on their Turkish Gastarbeiter. But the U.S. has done an excellent job over the last 30 years or so of fostering xenophobia and an odd duality of Marlboro Men who are governors of big complex states.
I think there's nothing more satisfying than giving, and Christmas brings out the giver in us. BUT in my mind, the best giving would be directly to the parents so that they have the joy of choosing what to give their children. Too often, we give with strings attached and we give to make US feel good.
I remember members at our church collecting a bunch of stuff that they wrapped and then they descended en masse to the "needy family" to give them the gifts. All I recall is how upset they were that the family didn't say thank you. And I was thinking, there may be tons of reasons they didn't express gratitude, but that shouldn't be the point of giving.
I can understand. It has taken many years to get my mom to give gifts within my comfort level to my kids. One year we lived in a small apartment and after the 3rd large box arrived and sat in the living room I had to call and confess that we may not be able to keep it all, or we would have to seriously purge what we owned. I made peace many years ago that my mom will always give way more than I will be able ( or want) to, however it was a big struggle for some time. I think what made the difference was my brother telling her the same thing and then seeing my brother's in-laws over-give to a whole new level that is extreme.
I'm no fan at all of American Exceptionalism, but I don't think that kind of society is an American invention at all. You can see it all around the world.I'm not sure it matters, but seeing it all of the world could just indicate that we exported it.
Then you can't be surprised when unrelieved poverty begets more poverty. And all the toys in the world don't change that situation.With donations you know exactly what your money is going towards. With taxes you don't. Your tax dollars may be going towards supporting military actions and/or foreign wars and defense build up, and/or higher pay and viagra for the members of Congress - and not towards the needy. I think if more people knew that their tax dollars went to help the impoverished, they would more readily pay more in taxes. Until then, donating goods, services or money directly to an organization that supports a cause one believes in seem a good way for most people to go.
It is a good, self-focused way for people to go. We live in society together. Society doesn't operate based on everyone getting their own way.
I think if more people knew that their tax dollars went to help the impoverished, they would more readily pay more in taxes.
I'd love to see that, but I'm not so sure about it.
First, there are people who are absolutely certain beyond doubt or reason that, if the government is involved, the process will be bloated and inefficient. Yes, there's government waste. But there's also business waste and fraud -- and lots of it. I'm guessing most of the people who think government should run more like a business have never seen the waste and inefficiency at large American companies (which have taken inefficiency to an art form). And I see that the dirty jobs (clean-up, regulations for safety or against abuse, etc.) pretty much are ignored until someone (typically the government) has to take care of it or force some other connected party to take care of it.
Second, there still seems to be plenty of people who believe that the poor don't know how to save or spend money, so any money or services you give "those people" is wasted. Again, there is some waste and fraud here, too, and maybe a mindset of spending money on what you can because you don't know if you'll have any money tomorrow. But it's not to the level of the Cadillac-driving welfare queen or any of the other "scandalous" stories that seem to make their way around quickly without attribution or facts. Tied in with this is the idea of giving money and services to people with whose lifestyles taxpayers do not agree -- taxpayers who don't want to fund birth control or benefits for unmarried or gay couples, etc. regardless of the law.
And a lot of it is ignorance of exactly what constitutes a benefit, whether it's money given or loaned outright or a break in fees or taxes owed. A niece of mine is in the Army and posts on Facebook all the time about how wasteful government is. (Hello! You are employed by that government!) Her mom fosters kids and doesn't see a connection between the money the county/state pay her and her husband for taking care of these kids and "government waste". Kind of sad, really.
I agree, Spartana, about the concern whether the money would go to the issue you'd like to see corrected. Here in AZ we have had a number of ballot referendums which require our legislature to use some monies in a certain way, e.g., some lottery money is to be dedicated for our park budget. The state legislators hate this, complaining that we are "tying their hands", when in fact it is voter backlash against the stupidity and waste of how tax monies were previously used.
The latest tactic is for the state legislators to simply ignore the voters wishes, and then force it to go to the courts. It's mind-boggling, especially in what is supposed to be a representative democracy.
Even with that, I believe in this quote: "When I feed the poor, I'm called a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, I'm called a communist." (Archbishop Camara)
I like to get to the root cause of a societal dysfunction, whether it's climate change, deregulated banksters, poisons in our environment, etc. I'd rather focus on that then buy a toy for a kid whose family home was lost due to a super storm, a fraudulent loan, or toxic sludge. And then buy another one for the next kid in the next event. And so on.
ApatheticNoMore
1-8-13, 9:31pm
Count me as another one who doesn't understand the response to a community that had to bury 20 children is to send teddy bears?
Because it's something they *can* do, bringing back 20 dead children isn't. It's nothing I'm particularly inclined to do, but ...
Sending a teddy bear costs a few bucks, but that is a dollar amount perceived as less than what it would cost to provide usable mental-health care to people like Adam Lanza. And once you've sent the teddy bear, you can tell yourself you've done something and you can let yourself off the mental hook of feeling obligated to do something deeper -- like reconsider the state of American mental-health care or the availability of guns or respond to the ongoing losses endured by the victims' families -- about such a tragedy. Those things are much more work than most people want to take on. Sending a teddy bear? Lots easier.
So they should be sending donations to fund mental health care rather than teddy bears? Again sending a teddy bear or probably making a mental health donation is something they can do and changing the political system is not always something they can do (it depends, sure they can crank out a letter to the congressperson, and how often are those ignored? maybe they've already done that anyway, and then sent a teddy bear). I'm not even sure what anyone is suggesting they even should do. March in the streets? (p.s. all truly threatening protest movements are seen as such). At this point the government tosses bones like better mental healthcare and then threatens to take something else away to pay for it, so if it's the popular thing to fund today it might get funding, but an actual safety net is a broad thing not just a few dollars tossed to today's topic du jour while something else maybe even more critical gets defunded.
ApatheticNoMore
1-8-13, 9:36pm
I agree, Spartana, about the concern whether the money would go to the issue you'd like to see corrected. Here in AZ we have had a number of ballot referendums which require our legislature to use some monies in a certain way, e.g., some lottery money is to be dedicated for our park budget. The state legislators hate this, complaining that we are "tying their hands", when in fact it is voter backlash against the stupidity and waste of how tax monies were previously used.
Yes well, they are right about the tying their hands, and voter backlashes don't always make good policy. I'm a Californian so don't ask me how I know about such things :) The entire state budget here is a collection of mandated locked up spending, so if x% must be spent on schools then x% must be spent on schools even if it means closing all the hospitals. Ok this is not even kind of on topic of this thread anymore.
Wow. I am so sorry I checked back in on this thread.
So they should be sending donations to fund mental health care rather than teddy bears? Again sending a teddy bear or probably making a mental health donation is something they can do and changing the political system is not always something they can do (it depends, sure they can crank out a letter to the congressperson, and how often are those ignored? maybe they've already done that anyway, and then sent a teddy bear).
Newtown is not the first city with a disaster that received tons of items they could not use appropriately (for instance, the same thing happened in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina). And the problem is not with teddy bears per se, but that it is a largely-impersonal response that substitutes for purposefully addressing the issues. Already I hear much less about gun control and mental-health care than I did a couple of weeks ago.
I really find myself at a bit of a crossroads here. I honestly think that American politics has been thoroughly corrupted by money, so I can agree that a lot of public opinion is being ignored in favor of those with much deeper pockets. On the other hand, in my lifetime I have seen Americans who smoke cigarettes turned into pariahs and I've seen gay marriage become an almost-non issue. When people decide they've finally had enough of something, things change. So I can conclude only at this point that either the system is broken beyond redemption at this point or that people are willing to accept the occasional mental break and resulting carnage because changing that isn't important compared to other collective priorities. Those changes will not be easy. But the work is worth it if the change is worth making.
Already I hear much less about gun control and mental-health care than I did a couple of weeks ago.
This is a really big concern of mine. At last night's Worship team meeting, our minister asked us whether to preach about non-violence this Sunday ("Martin Luther King, Jr. Sunday") or has there been too much talk about guns and gun violence recently. The consensus was that while it is true that we've had enough expressions of grief, we are now honor-bound to convert that energy into action. Our minister is preaching against violence this weekend, about what we as a covenanted people should do to work against violence in society.
I agree, Spartana, about the concern whether the money would go to the issue you'd like to see corrected. Here in AZ we have had a number of ballot referendums which require our legislature to use some monies in a certain way, e.g., some lottery money is to be dedicated for our park budget. The state legislators hate this, complaining that we are "tying their hands", when in fact it is voter backlash against the stupidity and waste of how tax monies were previously used.
The latest tactic is for the state legislators to simply ignore the voters wishes, and then force it to go to the courts. It's mind-boggling, especially in what is supposed to be a representative democracy.
.This is exactly what happened in Calif too. Several inititives on the ballot to increase several different kinds of taxes, etc.. for specific things like education. They were approved by the voters but the state has decided to put that extra money into a general fund (which can be used for anything) instead of directing it towards the designated programs the voters approved. It will probably go to funding the prison system or our current multi-billion dollar boondoggal project - the high speed rail to nowhere (at least nowhere that anyone wants to go).
This is a really big concern of mine. At last night's Worship team meeting, our minister asked us whether to preach about non-violence this Sunday ("Martin Luther King, Jr. Sunday") or has there been too much talk about guns and gun violence recently. The consensus was that while it is true that we've had enough expressions of grief, we are now honor-bound to convert that energy into action. Our minister is preaching against violence this weekend, about what we as a covenanted people should do to work against violence in society.
Thanks, bicker, I think you brought this thread full circle. Converting energy into action is what it's all about.
I was thinking about this today and the example of Candy Lightner who founded Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) in 1980 after her daughter was killed by a drunk driver. She could have buried her daughter and turned away from the world in her grief, and no one would have blamed her. But she channeled her grief into something that saved others. Very inspiring.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.