JIM MORGAN

President of Meet the Need
Guest Contributor

 

Listen to this article:

 

The Greatest of All identified Himself with the “least of these.” Jesus’ economy flips ours on its head – rich is poor, and poor is rich. He modeled healing and feeding to open ears before disclosing who He is (i.e., the Gospel). His parables of the Good Samaritan, Sheep and Goats, and Rich Man and Lazarus could even be misread to infer our eternal fate hinges on our response to poverty. Of course, we’re saved by God’s grace alone, but the implication is clear – no authentic Christ-follower will ignore the materially poor. 

For roughly 1,900 years, churches took those warnings seriously. Local churches were the food bank and homeless shelter – the first place the destitute turned to for help. The Church was the spiritual, social, and charitable “center of town” across the globe – integral and integrated. Even the word “charity,” derived from Old English, means “Christian love of one’s fellows.” Few disputed our right to speak up on issues of importance to a community or culture – in their eyes, we had earned the right to do so. Yet over the past century, churches gradually abdicated the front lines of poverty alleviation in America. The failed Social Gospel Movement and New Deal era sparked that transition, but another movement emerging over the past few decades accelerated the separation of compassion from evangelism – an insatiable appetite for church growth.

Prevailing ideas about church growth are incompatible with Jesus’ model for Kingdom growth. They encourage the attraction and retention of churchgoers, not the development and deployment of disciples. They treat congregations as “customers” rather than Kingdom employees (and my decade of Customer Relationship Management consulting taught me the value of properly defining and serving the right customer). They direct attention and resource allocation inward, not out, toward the real “customer” that every Christian should be pursuing – those in dire need of help and hope. Consequently, performance expectations have shifted, with members church hopping and shopping to find the best “experience.” Church has become centralized around a place and pastors, simply asking attendees to encourage friends to come next Sunday to hear the Gospel from a “professional.” Investing energy in the church is now our focus, not sending workers out to reach the lost. Churches can no longer demand “consumers” take personal responsibility for discipleship, compassion, and evangelism. However, if churches still viewed congregants as Kingdom “workers,” we would imitate companies and train them to be effective in their “mission fields.” 

The only way the Church in America can stem its decline in growth, impact, influence, and public perception is to abandon current church growth principles. No organization that targets the wrong customer or ignores its intended customer can succeed. The “safety net” in America for hundreds of years was not government programs but generous churches and Christians. Yet today, cynicism mounts each time we run seasonal “outreach” events that double as church advertising – then retreat back into our four walls, seemingly forgetting that those we served are still hungry and hurting after the holidays. As Christians, we won’t regain our voice in the marketplace of ideas until we resume sharing and demonstrating Jesus’ deep love for the poor – year-round. 

Assuming a church is its members, members are its Kingdom “employees,” and the unchurched are its biblical “customer,” here are 7 non-negotiables for church engagement in compassion:

 

1: Pray for the Lord to reveal the ideal opportunities, not just what’s expedient.

Prayer precedes Care and Share in Jesus’ model because the options and outcomes of our compassion and evangelism are in the Father’s hands. Too often, churches default to what’s most convenient – a service day at a popular local ministry or meal-packing event on the church campus. An externally focused church would assess pressing issues in its community and develop plans to address them collaboratively with other leaders. It would surrender its priorities and goals to the Lord’s revealed will for reaching the city.  Surrender entails risking members gaining exposure to ministries where they may feel called to devote time and resources. Surrender means seeking to maximize impact, even though that involves getting our hands dirty – walking alongside individuals and families as they plot and implement their own paths to a brighter future.

 

2: Treat those we’re helping as equals, not as the “rich helping the poor.”

Every human being suffers some form of poverty, whether it’s spiritual, psychological, relational, or financial. Maintaining awareness of our own shortcomings keeps us dependent on the grace of God. However, emphasis on church growth papers over some of our Christian duties by imagining the central focus of the church is to meet our personal needs. Once those needs are met, we’re conditioned to feel anything we do to serve deserves “extra credit.” This amplifies a sense of moral superiority to those we serve. On the contrary, the Bible teaches that poverty alleviation is a mandate, not a favor. Failure to do so is an expression of our own depravity. Learning to imitate Jesus in His humility as a servant and in how He treated everyone with dignity will require a level of personalized, intensive discipleship rarely found in American churches today.

 

3: Train members to share the Gospel powerfully and proactively.

Evangelistic responsibilities of churchgoers have essentially been reduced to testimonies and invitations. For the same reason companies lack the leverage to push customers too hard for referrals, churches no longer feel at liberty to ask members to do something most find extremely uncomfortable. Invitations to church absolve us of our personal responsibility for the Great Commission. Testimonies emphasize what Jesus did for “me” and associate the first part of my story (“who I was”) with the unredeemed listener. Greater church engagement in compassion would put more Christians in a position to share our faith, but we will repeat the mistakes of the Social Gospel Movement if we continue catering to the whims of churchgoers rather than challenging them to become disciples.

 

4: Build ongoing relationships because that’s the answer to poverty in all its forms.

The Chalmers Center and True Charity teach that material poverty originates through broken relationships (with God, His creation, ourselves, and others), and poverty ends when they’re repaired. The strength of relationships determines the effectiveness of interventions.  However, the success of church growth models depends on members and visitors coming back next Sunday. So most churches conduct occasional “outreach” events that require little time and few volunteers. Unfortunately, transactional compassion does more harm than good, building dependence and humiliating those in need of “handouts” to make it through the day. That’s why Meet the Need’s new Link2Hope platform builds sustainable circles of support around families, providing comfort in the knowledge they’re not alone and in the hope that is found only in Jesus. 

 

5: Deal with the underlying issues, not surface-level symptoms.

Only churches can address and restore all four broken relationships at the root of material poverty. Arms-length, sporadic events fail to take advantage of the unique position churches are in to heal the whole person – body, mind, affections, and will. For example, a new job fully leveraging our strengths and capabilities positively impacts our physical, mental, and emotional state. A pastor may counter that his church deals with the whole person and all four key relationships after people join the congregation, but that reflects a failure to recognize those outside the church as the true “customers” in need of healing.  

  

6: Test intentions to make sure compassion isn’t advertising or “checking the box.”

If members are treated as “customers,” then local mission activities are likely for them, not for the (materially) poor. Growth-oriented churches hijacked the words “outreach” and “ministry” due to the tremendous manpower needed to sustain operations. “Outreach” now implies advertising, and “ministry” refers primarily to internal “church chores.” The design of initiatives reveals the heart behind them – their proximity, duration, budget, and metrics indicate the sincerity of a church’s commitment to poverty alleviation. Significant expenditures aimed at moving the needle over a long period in unity with partners without announcing it to the world likely means the church is more about Kingdom growth than organizational growth.

 

7: Mobilize members into personal ministry in their neighborhoods and workplaces.

Waiting for the next church-sponsored event to serve or inviting people to church to hear the Gospel won’t reach the many coworkers, neighbors, family, and friends within each member’s circles of influence unwilling to be part of a church body. That’s why no one is exempt from GC3 – the Great Commandment, Great Commission, and Great Calling. Our lack of focus on personal discipleship, compassion, and evangelism was exposed during COVID-19. Even long-time, faithful churchgoers were unprepared to be “pastors” of their neighborhoods, missing countless opportunities to be the personification of the Church when the building’s doors were closed.

All flourishing organizations evaluate employee performance based on customer satisfaction, but dominant narratives of church growth measure the performance of the wrong “employees” and the satisfaction of the wrong “customers.” We’ve asked too much of the church “professionals” and too little of the members. In the end, refocusing our efforts on discipling members to reach the hurting in our communities is a better strategy to expand the Kingdom of God. Compassion evangelism done well is how the Church took the ancient world by storm, and it’s the blueprint for revival today.

 

As a former Investment Banker on Wall Street and as a Management Consultant to Fortune 500 companies, Jim felt like he needed to be spending more time serving God and helping others. Jim realized that the same solutions he was helping companies implement could be used to help others find opportunities to reach out to those in need.  Meet The Need was founded (and incorporated, as a non-profit) in 2001 and is the realization of Jim’s vision, providing a unique and innovative way to leverage leading-edge business technology to enable churches, ministries and individuals to reach out to those in need in their local communities or anywhere in the world.

 

FROM THE TRUE CHARITY TEAM: We appreciate the perspective of our knowledgeable guest contributors. However, their opinions are their own, and do not necessarily represent positions of True Charity in all respects.


This article is just the tip of the iceberg for the practical resources available through the True Charity Network. Check out all of the ways the network can help you learn, connect, and influence here.

Already a member? Access your resources in the member portal.


 

 

DEBBIE WELLS
Guest Contributor

 

Listen to this article:

“Well done, good and faithful servant.”

Those are the words we all long to hear from the Father at the end of our journey here on earth. I know it is a huge motivation in my life.

I also know that a very real challenge for many of us in church and nonprofit ministry is becoming weary in our well-doing.

My husband and I have been serving on our church’s staff and directing our nonprofit organization for over 20 years, so we are well acquainted with the struggle.

Let’s take a look together at the parable containing those inspirational words to see if we can gain some insight on how to achieve the goal of the former without the burden of the latter.

Read the entirety of Matthew 25:14-43 for the full parable of the talents. It’s a fascinating look into God’s economy.  The master gives the first servant five talents, the second servant two, and the third servant one, “each according to their ability” (v. 15). After a long time of the master being away, he returns expecting an account of the return on his investments.

Unlike the third servant, who foolishly buried his investment and received a harsh rebuke from the master, the first two servants are able to come boldly showing they were able to double their initial investments. The master tells them both the exact same thing: “Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share in your master’s happiness.” (v. 21, 23).

As Jesus goes further with this parable, he explains that when the Son of Man returns, he will separate the sheep from the goats. A huge indicator of the difference between the two will be how they treated the poor among us: 

“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you are blessed by my Father, take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty, and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothing, and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’” (vs. 34-36)

What is the key to all of this, and how does the message here work to prevent our weariness?

Listen again to the reply of the master when he commends the servants who used what they had been given wisely: “Well done, good and faithful servant.”

He doesn’t say, “Well done, good and highly successful servant,” or “Well done, good and super connected and influential servant.” He highlights faithfulness. Webster’s definition of “faithful” describes someone who is “steadfast in affection or allegiance. First in adherence to promises or in observance of duty.”

In my not-so-distant past, I struggled with the false belief that I needed to rescue those around me who were hurting—if I didn’t, who else would? That feels silly to even type out and see in print, but it was a very real false belief I carried for years. I don’t think that’s too uncommon for those of us in compassion-related ministries. But there is no better way for the enemy to weigh us down and keep us from thriving than to fool us into picking up heavy burdens we weren’t designed to carry.

So, let’s together choose to cast off any and all false beliefs that don’t line up with what God’s word has laid out for us. Paul speaks to this in Philippians 3 when he talks about the futility of putting any confidence in our flesh. He argues if any could do that, he could have because of his stellar religious credentials. However, he realized how ridiculous and counter-productive that thinking is. Instead, he points us to something much greater: 

“I want to know Christ—yes, to know the power of his resurrection and participation in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, and so, somehow, attaining to the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already obtained this, or have already arrived at my goal, but I press on to take hold of that which Christ Jesus took hold of me. Brothers and sisters, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, I press on toward the goal to win the prize which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus.” (Phil. 3:10-14)  

That, friends, is what biblical faithfulness is all about. God rewards us according to our faithfulness. Let’s begin defining success the way the Lord does.

Success = faithfulness.

At times when we begin to grow weary, let’s consider what our real real goal is. If it’s anything other than the faithfulness of loving God and others, we are picking up burdens not created for us to carry. On the other hand, laying those aside and running the race with understanding will bring a lightness in our spirit and a joy in the journey.

Then, I have full confidence each of us will one day hear, “Well done, good and faithful servant.” Until then, God be with you and those you are serving.


About this Guest Contributor:

Debbie Wells and her husband, Scott, have served as leaders at The Gate Church in  Hammond, Indiana, for over 20 years. Debbie also serves as a case manager for True Charity Network Member organization, InnerMission. Following the True Charity Summit 2023, Debbie made the commitment to become a True Charity Ambassador, whereby she can share her passion for people and encourage other organizations in the Hammond area to become better equipped to improve their charitable efforts.

FROM THE TRUE CHARITY TEAM: We appreciate the perspective of our knowledgeable guest contributors. However, their opinions are their own, and do not necessarily represent positions of True Charity in all respects.

 

This article is just the tip of the iceberg for the practical resources available through the True Charity Network. Check out all of the ways the network can help you learn, connect, and influence here.

Already a member? Access your resources in the member portal.

 

 


BETHANY HERRON
Instructional Designer
Read more from Bethany

 

Listen to this article:

I wasn’t sure when I would be ready to write this article, if ever. You see, in October of 2021, I sat beside my mother and watched as machines kept her broken body alive. In tears, I sat for days, repenting of all the years I pushed her away in the name of leaving and cleaving, begging her to wake up so she could move closer to us like she always wanted. After a month on life support, she went to be with the Lord at 67, never having met her 4-month-old grandson, Hank, in person. 

Though God is the one who numbers our days, I can’t help but wonder how an understanding of True Charity principles could have changed my story. And I show up to work every day because I believe that by the grace of God, it can change the stories of those you serve. 

Let’s rewind ten years to high school. Years of family trauma had hardened my heart and dampened my relationships with my parents. As a teenager, I lived with my mom while my dad fought hard against his addiction to drugs and alcohol. Meanwhile, I watched my mom fight her own battles against government dependency and poor financial choices. I had a deep love for my family mixed with a desire to escape and live differently. 

I married my amazing, godly husband the week after graduating college – a sigh of relief entered my heart as I thought, “You’re doing it. You’re choosing a different path.” 

Quickly, I realized that my mother would try her hardest to follow me on that path. So, I kept her at arm’s distance. She tried on and off for eight years to move closer to my family, and for eight years, I said, “Not yet.” 

I convinced myself we weren’t financially ready to handle her lack of responsibility, and she didn’t need us yet, all while ignoring the whisper of Scripture, “But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”

I didn’t realize that she wanted a different path too, and after years of me dampening the flame of hope, she had all but given up on living a different life. I didn’t realize that my mother was living in poverty – physically and relationally – and she no longer trusted me enough to admit she was struggling. 

During my first few months on the True Charity team, I sat quietly in shame as the Lord deepened my understanding of our call to care for the least of these – especially those within my own family. 

I fully believe our story could’ve been different. Here are three things that I believe can change the narrative of not only those you serve but of their entire families: 

 

1.  Encourage natural affiliations whenever possible. 

Broken relationships are painful, and it’s easy to run instead of restore. 

Broken relationships are prevalent throughout all of creation. You have an amazing opportunity to encourage the restoration of family relationships – if and when it is possible for those relationships to be healthy. Not only are individuals hurting, but their family likely is as well. Consequently, many family members do not recognize their biblical responsibility to care for those within their families (1 Timothy 5:8).

Get used to asking, “Where is your family?” and be prepared to dive into the messiness 

the comes with family relationships. 

 

2.  Restore hope through achievable goals. 

Many individuals can’t think past their current situation. They are defeated and don’t know that a flourishing life is possible. In short, hope is lost. Their poverty reaches far beyond a material need. 

Creating achievable goals can restore hope in the lives of those we serve. As 

created beings, made in the Image of God, we were made for a purpose. Work and 

productivity were given as a blessing before the fall of man. Therefore, work tends 

to awaken worth in an individual. 

Create goals. Empower them to reach them. Encourage dependency on Christ. Surround them with family support. Restore hope. 

 

3.  Help restored families establish boundaries.

Trust has been broken in many of these families. Families are afraid to be taken advantage of. They may also fear creating unhealthy dependency instead of empowering support. 

Working with restored families to create solid boundaries can help ensure healthy connections. Boundaries exist for the good of both parties involved, as family demonstrates trust in an individual, and that individual is held to high expectations. Boundaries work to restore healthy bonds for both parties. 

 

I encourage you to continue practicing True Charity principles. Together, we can work to change the stories of those we serve through the restoration of relationships. 

 

For more information on effective charity and how your organization can implement programs that deliver long-term results to those being served, visit truecharity.us/join.

Already a member? Access your resources in the member portal.

 

 

Scott Centorino
Senior Fellow, FGA
Read more from Scott

 

Listen to this article:

Policy is why welfare enrollment is up and labor force participation is the lowest it’s been since Jimmy Carter was president. Policy is why fewer Americans are reaching their God-given potential. Policy can make escaping dependency harder. 

Policy matters. 

I work on policy. I draft legislation, compare state plans, and brief state legislators on their options under federal law. But those of you who work on the front lines of poverty-fighting see and live the results of policy every day. That’s why we, in the policy realm, need your help. 

The organization I work with, the Foundation for Government Accountability—a non-partisan, non-profit think tank founded to lead pro-work welfare reform efforts across the country—has established a partnership to promote the perspectives of True Charity and many of its Network members. 

I was honored to speak to a group of members at the recent True Charity Summit in Springfield, Missouri. Here was my primary takeaway: the members of this network are every bit as worthy of legislators’ attention as anyone else I have seen testify in capitol buildings across America. 

And it’s time we all step up. For organizations that aspire to a truly comprehensive anti-poverty, pro-work mission, playing a role in shaping public policy must be part of that mission. 

The Secret Weapon: Testimony

As Woody Allen said, 80 percent of life is showing up. It might be closer to 100 percent in public policy debates. 

If you care about how policy affects poverty, show up. Policy changes through legislation. And legislation usually requires public hearings where folks show up to say they either support or oppose a bill and why. It’s not just window dressing—it really matters what happens in the hearings.

You don’t need to be a great orator to make a difference. And you don’t need to understand every policy nuance or legal citation in a bill. 

But legislators care who shows up. Just being there makes a huge difference! 

And, unlike what we see in Washington, D.C., a culture defined by soundbites, state legislators often go into legislative debates with open minds. In other words, plenty of state legislators show up to hearings on welfare reform bills that can increase or decrease work, self-sufficiency, and purpose but don’t know how they’re going to vote yet.

They want to hear from you. They need to hear from you. 

But, right now, in almost every welfare reform debate, a legion from the welfare industrial complex arrives to oppose pro-work efforts. And our view—that humans cannot reach their full potential languishing in government dependency—has only one person showing up to give it voice. 

I know—I’m usually that person. So I’m asking for your help. 

How it Works

True Charity members are able to testify in state legislative hearings right now as they read this. Here’s how.

To know when there is an opportunity to testify in a state capital, there are two options. First, you can read news about a welfare bill up for debate. 

Second, if you ask us to keep you in the loop (our contact information is below), we’ll be sure to let you know if there are welfare reform debates happening in your state that you might want to know about. 

In either case, when you decide to testify, you usually need to register beforehand. You can do so by going online to the relevant committee’s webpage. Each state is different. But the relevant committees usually have names like the “Health and Human Services Committee” or the “Children and Families Committee.” 

To register, states will usually post the relevant legislation under a banner for an upcoming hearing and give the public an opportunity to register by clicking a button. 

When you testify, you will usually speak for less than five minutes (or less if you’d like). You don’t need to know everything—you just need to share your perspective. 

Four more quick tips:

Don’t be afraid to be yourself and go in without a detailed plan. Don’t feel the need to wear a power suit if that’s not your style. And don’t feel the need to write out every word you’ll say. The best testimony comes from people who are speaking about their own experiences and speaking from the heart.

Tell stories—including your own. The pro-work side usually focuses on data and results. That’s what I do. But emotion usually beats data. And the pro-government welfare view usually has a monopoly on emotional narratives. If you show up and tell positive stories about the power of work and the bankruptcy of welfare dependency, you will break that monopoly. And you might just turn the tide. 

Share your faith. Many legislators run for office driven by faith and those who aren’t motivated that way will still usually respect sincerity. Don’t ever feel the need to hide your faith-based mission.  

Don’t be afraid of questions you can’t answer. You are not expected to know everything about everything. This is especially true because you will not be presenting yourself as a policy expert. You are simply sharing your own experiences. Admit what you don’t know–but look for an opportunity to pivot to something or someone you can tell the committee about. 

Trust me. I’ve seen hundreds of testimonies across the country. And I’ve spoken with many members of the True Charity Network. You have more power than you know. And you can use that power to make a difference. 

How to Make it Happen

If you give us your contact information in the form below, we will share information about legislative action and when and how members can lend their voice. We will also provide training for how to effectively use your voice to make change that lifts more Americans out of despair and dependency and into lives of self-sufficiency and purpose.

So, if you’re ready to kick your organization’s impact up a notch, join us. Reach out and ask us to notify you when an important welfare bill is up in your state capital. 

For specific questions, contact Scott Centorino at scott@thefga.org or Gregg Pfister, FGA State Affairs Director, at gregg@thefga.org.

Learn About Opportunities to Testify

Showing up makes a big difference! If you’re interested in learning about opportunities to testify before legislators in your state or at the national level, submit your information below, and we’ll contact you as specific opportunities arise.

 

FROM THE TRUE CHARITY TEAM: We appreciate the perspective of our knowledgeable guest contributors. However, their opinions are their own, and do not necessarily represent positions of True Charity in all respects.

 


Guest Contributor:
Jeremie Bridges

Pastor of The Canopy Church & Board Member of Hope Kitchen 

Listen to this article:

“Sir, give me this water, so I will not be thirsty nor come all the way here to draw…”

These words are found in one of the most quoted encounters of Jesus’ ministry. His encounter with the “woman at the well” has been a go-to passage for many a preacher and Sunday school teacher. Found in Chapter 4 of the Gospel of John, this beautiful story of redemption demonstrates the lengths to which Jesus will go to reach those around us living in this broken world. This woman and Jesus’ response and engagement with her prove to be a tremendous example of the discernment required to effectively minister to those in need. Not just “anything helps,” as many signs of those on street corners read; there is an actual underlying need that must ultimately be addressed.

John the Apostle tells of Jesus’ encounter with this woman from Samaria at Jacob’s well. The early parts of the account give us some insight into the mental, societal, and emotional status of this unnamed Samaritan woman. It simply says, “It was about the sixth hour. There came a woman of Samaria to draw water.  Jesus said to her, ‘Give me a drink.’” 

In Jewish thought, the day began at 6:00 a.m., and the 6th hour would be noon to us. This woman had chosen to come and draw water at the primary water source in the middle of the hottest part of the day. One can assume that either she had terrible timing or (more likely) she was doing what every “normal” person would have done early in the morning at a time when she would be alone, hidden from the expectations and judgments of others. We will find out later that this woman was not living a life of honor but of unchastity, shame, and guilt.

Her meeting Jesus in the middle of the day was the last thing she was expecting—as in the same way God has shown up for so many of us. We encounter Him in the middle of our shameful life when we least expect it. How Jesus interacts with her becomes a beautiful picture of God’s grace and reveals the Father’s desire for true and spiritual worshipers. But for those of us “doing” ministry on a day-to-day basis, it can also be a blueprint for how we handle the everyday encounters with those in need.

As Jesus asks this woman for a drink, it sets into motion a discussion that will touch on everything from societal prejudice, religious customs, eschatological expectations, true and false worship, living conditions, and ultimately the promise of a spiritual relationship with the True God.  She approaches Jesus with a “natural” mindset and a fixation on her perceived need, primarily resulting in a myopic obsession with solving the “everyday” issues of her life. She immediately sees 

  1. He’s not supposed to talk to me: “You being a Jew…and I am a Samaritan woman” (v. 9)
  2. He has “nothing to draw with and the well is deep” (v. 11)  
  3. He is just a man and “not greater than our father Jacob…who gave us the well” (v. 12)

Everything about her perception is earthly and steeped in the natural. Jesus engages her spiritually and says, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, ‘Give me a drink’ you would have asked Him and He would have given you living water” (v. 10).  Here He begins speaking to her and interacting at a completely different level than she is likely used to. This is seen clearly when her response is all about her natural, superficial needs. The woman said to Him, “Sir give me this water, so I will not be thirsty nor come all the way here to draw” (v. 15). She wanted her circumstances to change! She wanted the burden of life to be eased and her responsibilities to be lifted. Her hopes were that this man could make her life easier. Her perceived need was for a better or easier existence, and this man sounded like a possible way of receiving her perceived need.  

This becomes the exact moment where Jesus models a better way of helping: He shifts the entire conversation away from her perceived need and exposes her actual need. He says to her, “Go, call your husband” (v. 17), and this simple charge unlocks the reality of a life lived in disobedience to God’s commands and exposes a pattern of shame and brokenness that has plagued the Samaritan woman for years. His prophetic insight brings this woman into a place of humility and lays bare the truth that her perceived need was not her greatest need. She was in need of something greater.  In fact, she was in need of Someone greater. She needed Jesus.  

During this encounter, the woman does what most of us do. She deflects, waxes theological, and begins debating and excusing away her culture, life, and existence in it. But Jesus avoids following the rabbit trail. He loves her enough to continually reveal her true needShe needed Him. Later in the account, the woman says to Him, “I know that Messiah is coming, he who is called Christ; when that One comes, He will declare all things to us.” Jesus responds to her, “I who speak to you am He.” 

Many of us spend our lives serving and ministering to people. They are often distraught, hurting, financially ruined, and emotionally broken. They come from every kind of experience and from every walk of life and always carry with them a sense of perceived need. We have to approach conversations with this mindset so that those to whom we’re ministering can come to this realization. Let’s pray for the Holy Spirit to lead us with discernment and help us reveal to those we serve their actual need: Jesus!

For all those faithfully serving Jesus and others, my prayer for you today is Galatians 6:9: Let us not lose heart in doing good, for in due time we will reap if we do not grow weary.

In a world filled with people who have great needs, let’s never forget that their greatest need is Jesus.

 

FROM THE TRUE CHARITY TEAM: We appreciate the perspective of our knowledgeable guest contributors. However, their opinions are their own, and do not necessarily represent positions of True Charity in all respects.

 

 

Nathan Mayo
Network Director
Read more from Nathan

 

 

People in poverty alleviation work tend to be very sensitive about word choice. Pick any word in the field, and you’ll find a practitioner who has objections to its use. “Poor people,” “mentor,” “nonprofit,” “charity,” and even the phrase “poverty alleviation”—everyone has some reason for not using one of them. While there are understandable reasons for language sensitivity, being overly divided on language creates the risk that we won’t be able to partner effectively with other organizations simply because their buzzwords are different from ours. By unpacking the language differences’ root causes, we can separate the substantive from the semantic and overcome artificial barriers to collaboration.

 

Cross-cultural challenges

Very few anti-poverty programs are run exclusively by people currently in poverty. Consequently, we are constantly building bridges to people of different socio-economic classes, who are often of different races or nationalities as well. Since different groups use different words, a term like “ghetto” might be used by middle-class people as a neutral description of a rough part of town, but might be perceived by residents as an intentional insult. Making matters more tense, many people in poverty have been judged unfairly (people might have wrongly assumed they were drug users, dirty, or violent), resulting in their becoming more sensitive potentially judgemental language. 

We should take care not to cause unnecessary offense to those we serve, but we shouldn’t simply assume which terms cause offense and which don’t. After healthy relationships with people whom you serve have been built, ask questions about what terms do or do not cause offense. The answers you get may be surprising.

 

The “euphemism treadmill” 

When a concept is inherently unpleasant in some way, it is often referred to by a euphemism—a softening of negative language to make it seem less harsh. However, that softened language inevitably becomes tainted by the thing it describes, and eventually a new euphemism is needed. This is why terms for mental illness evolve so quickly. At one point in history, words like “imbecile” and “moron” weren’t insults; they were polite or technical terms that eventually became distasteful due to their association with mental illness. If you were reading this article in the year 2040, it is likely that the term “mentally ill” could be out of fashion. The “chronically homeless” were once referred to as vagrants and more recently referred to as “unhoused people.”

While turns of phrase may evolve, one thing is constant, we should endeavor to reserve judgment against people who still use terms that are falling out of favor. Even if someone uses the most cutting-edge terms, get ready, those terms will fall off of the treadmill someday as well.

 

Separation from circumstantial identifiers

This impulse attempts to separate individuals’ identities from their situations. On this view, language becomes “person centered.” For example, a homeless individual is referred to as an “individual experiencing homelessness,” and a criminal becomes a “criminalized person” or a “justice-involved person.” This view ultimately comes from the philosophy of “expressive individualism,” or the belief that nothing should define a person but his or her inner psychological core (i.e., “who you are on the inside”).

While there are numerous issues with the philosophy of expressive individualism, suffice it to say that this view does not agree with ancient wisdom. The Bible routinely refers to “the rich,” “the poor,” and even “the unrighteous.” While external circumstances can sometimes be changed, they are a self-evident factor in our identity. A child can one day become an adult, but for the time being, he is largely defined by his childhood. He is not merely a “person experiencing youth.” Where we can err in the other direction is to assume that we know exactly who a person is because of only one factor—for example, to assume too much because a person is addicted to drugs. Human identities are multi-faceted and are never just one thing.

This doesn’t mean person-centered language should always be avoided. The differences in the way people groups speak, even within a single community, should be a catalyst for conversation rather than judgment. There’s no problem with saying “people in poverty,” but don’t judge the church down the street for saying “the poor,” because, after all, they’re only using the language that Jesus used.

 

Personal preference

People have preferences—this is true in arguably every area of life. We often try to justify our preferences and provide some universal reason as to “why” pistachio ice cream is better than mint chocolate chip or “flourishing” is better than “thriving.” But moralizing about preference is a waste of time. This is not to say that everything is a matter of relativistic preference; we can certainly have substantial debates about morals and facts. But some debates are matters of amoral preference, and debates about the definitions of words often fall into this category. Most dictionaries offer more than one definition for a word, there is more than one dictionary to choose from, and the origin of the word often suggests a different definition entirely. Many Christians add the complication of modifying the meanings of English words based on biblical Greek or Hebrew words that have an entirely different etymology and range of meanings. 

Consequently we, as communicators, have a lot of flexibility in which words we choose and how we choose to define them (e.g. do people need “justice” or “Shalom?”). We dress our preferences up in high-sounding reasons, but it’s better to just acknowledge that there is often no universal justification. So what do you do when two people use the same word to mean two different things? Set the disputed word aside and pick a different word or phrase that is clear to both parties. Don’t discuss what words mean, discuss what you mean. Don’t let preferential word choice put a damper on your ability to work with others.

There are numerous causes of language sensitivity. Some are legitimate, but sometimes they provoke pointless conflict. There’s no problem with using your in-house language, but try not to make it more restrictive than needed. Take a tip from Jesus, who used multiple parables and phrases to communicate the same basic ideas. The broader we keep our language, the easier it is to get along with others. And when working with people whose terminology differs from yours, exude humility and extend genuine curiosity. Most importantly, avoid jumping to conclusions. Words matter, but meaning matters far more.

 

 

 

Guest Contributor: Eric Cochling
Chief Program Officer & General Counsel, Georgia Center for Opportunity

 

The working poor face a variety of challenges in attempting to escape poverty, but none is quite as mind boggling or discouraging as the disincentives to work that are ingrained in our country’s poverty relief programs.

At our organization, we call these “benefits cliffs,” points where minimal pay increases can lead to the loss of thousands of dollars in benefits. Our modeling of the problem in a dozen states – representing more than a third of the US population – shows us that the problem exists in many of the largest welfare programs and is made worse when a family is enrolled in multiple programs.

To make matters worse, for those receiving benefits, it’s not an easy thing to determine when they are likely to fall off a benefits cliff. Instead, it’s a bit of a guessing game that results in many recipients giving up working hours, pay increases, or promotions simply to avoid the possibility of a catastrophic loss in benefits.

If, like us, you counsel clients who are receiving benefits (or are eligible to receive them) and trying to earn enough to escape poverty, you probably wonder if there is anything you can do to help them better deal with the disincentives in the system. While there is no single solution or approach that works, what follows are some things you can do to equip your clients to make an informed decision and, hopefully, set the stage for reforming the system.

 

1: Knowledge is power

If your state is in our platform, you can use it to help your clients figure out when they are likely to hit cliffs and plan accordingly as they earn more money. To sign up, visit benefitscliffs.org/sign-up.

 

2: Find Alternatives

If you’re working with clients not already receiving welfare benefits, now is the time to see if there are other ways to provide help. In many communities, there are charities that can help with short- and long-term needs but without the negative incentives of the government system. Remember, once someone is receiving welfare benefits, it becomes very difficult financially – though not impossible – for them to leave the system.

 

3: Work First at Every Turn

For clients who are work-capable (and most are), promoting and helping them to find work is the most loving thing you can do. Work not only provides income, it offers dignity that comes from self-sufficiency—and much more. Work allows all of us to express our creative nature as God’s image-bearers. It allows us to serve the needs of others, can give us purpose, and helps us build social networks that make us resilient. If your organization serves emergency needs, consider partnering with an organization that can help your clients find employment. GCO’s Better Work team has helpful tips for doing this well. 

 

4: Plan for Raises and Negotiate

For working clients receiving benefits, the benefits cliffs model can help you see when the client will hit one or more cliffs as they earn more money through work. Depending on your client’s situation (family structure, etc.), the cliffs they face may be dramatic and costly, but not all are. Some cliffs are small enough that receiving a slightly higher raise can help a client leapfrog a particular cliff. If armed with this knowledge, it could provide clients with the information and incentive they need to ask their employer for more. For most employers, a slightly higher raise is far better than the costs associated with losing a good employee.

 

5: Benefits Can Make a Difference

Interested in privately funded options for meeting the childcare needs in your community? Check out our Childcare Solutions Model Action Plan.  True Charity Network Members can access the MAP on the members portal. Not a Network member?  Learn more.

The loss of childcare (CCAPs) and Medicaid benefits are two of the programs most commonly lost by welfare recipients as they earn additional income. Given the cost and importance of childcare and healthcare, it’s no surprise they are also the most difficult welfare benefits to give up. 

For clients with the looming loss of these welfare benefits, a strategy that points clients to employers offering childcare or healthcare benefits (or both) can help eliminate the impact of the client losing these welfare programs and allow them to continue moving up the pay scale. In the case of childcare benefits, it is also important to note that federal tax credits (and similar credits in many states) may exist to offset the cost of employer-provided childcare assistance.

 

6: Escape the System

There are numerous private and public options that provide workforce development  designed to help workers obtain training and certifications for high-demand industries. Right now, those jobs include many good-paying positions in healthcare, IT, logistics, and construction among others. Many programs will pay for the certifications and training needed to enter these fields and many of the certifications can be achieved in weeks or a few months. The best news is that most of these positions pay starting wages that make welfare unnecessary.

 

7: Become an Advocate for Reform

While the suggestions above can help your clients minimize the negative effects of the benefits cliffs, none solve the problem entirely. For that to happen, we need our state and federal leaders to understand the scope of the problem and hear our collective demands for reform. Some reforms can begin at the state level, but some must come from the federal government. If you want to learn more about our state and federal reform ideas, email me at ericc@foropportunity.org or download a summary of our suggestions here.

 

Eric Cochling is the Chief Program Officer and General Counsel for the Georgia Center for Opportunity, a True Charity member organization.

 

FROM THE TRUE CHARITY TEAM: We appreciate the perspective of our knowledgeable guest contributors. However, their opinions are their own, and do not necessarily represent positions of True Charity in all respects.

 

 


Bethany Herron
Instructional Designer
Read more from Bethany

 


Scott Centorino
Senior Fellow, FGA
Read more from Scott

 


 This article was originally published in The Joplin Globe on November 14, 2022.


 

I (Bethany Herron) became familiar with the brokenness of the child care system as an instructional designer for True Charity Initiative. Through my work, I have heard many stories of hardworking parents who have faced the prospect of having their kids placed into foster care due to an inability to find safe and affordable child care options while they are away at work.

In a recent conversation, Jennifer Johnson, a former lawyer turned child care cooperative director, told me, “Many of the women (she) represented were good mothers. They loved and desired to parent their children. However, they just couldn’t figure out how to work and pay for child care.” Jennifer’s story represents similar conversations that I have had with pregnancy care center directors, child care centers and nonprofit leaders.

Recently, I (Scott Centorino) have seen that same brokenness from a new and life-changing angle — parenthood. I used to see child care access and affordability as distant reasons to write op-eds on broken public policies. But as a father, sitting on a waiting list to get my newborn into the only child care center in our rural county that serves infants, the child care crisis has become personal.

We, along with countless parents across the nation, agree it’s time to introduce solutions that increase access to safe, affordable and flexible child care that help ease the burden for parents who just want to provide for their families.

Over the past three years, more parental rights and less unilateral bureaucratic control have become popular solutions for access to quality education in public schools. It’s time we take the same approach to child care.

Throughout the pandemic, communities banded together to lift up their own. Child care cooperatives, nanny shares and outdoor learning pods — also known as microschools — popped up across the nation. This was made possible through temporary suspensions of child care regulations in areas ranging from staff-to-child ratios and group size limits to physical space restrictions and educational requirements for workers. These changes were made to drive down the cost and drive up the supply of child care.

Predictably, the free market worked. Communities used their creativity and ingenuity to develop solutions to a crisis that allowed qualified individuals to care for more children while keeping kids safe.

Continuation of these model community solutions, unimpeded by bureaucratic interference, could help young single mothers form child care co-ops so they can attend school or work. Driven couples striving to transition from government assistance could share the child care burden between families. Yet, in many states, this kind of community-driven effort is illegal under restrictive child care licensure laws.

Even before the pandemic, the average family with children under 5 spent 13% of their income on child care, 5% more than the upper limit of what is considered “affordable.” This number is only going to climb as we face record inflation.

The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis has released a new study showing that more flexibility in staff-to-child ratios could help keep costs down for families. This mirrors a report by the Mercatus Center published seven years ago.

If, during the pandemic, policymakers understood that simply letting parents choose from a greater number of less restricted child care providers would help families, why shouldn’t the government do the same now? Reducing staff-to-child ratios will expand access to affordable care that allows parents to work and better avoid the pitfalls of government dependency.

With this new inflation crisis and worker shortages, the last thing we need is higher child care costs and more parents leaving the workforce.

 


Want to learn about solutions for your community to help ease the burden of child care for those in poverty? The Childcare Solutions Model Action Plan (MAP) provides ideas and practical steps to do just that. (Learn more about MAPs.)

MAPs are just the tip of the iceberg for the practical resources available through the True Charity Network. Check out all of the ways the network can help you learn, connect, and influence here.

Already a member? Get access to all of your benefits through the member portal, including the Childcare Solutions MAP.

 

FROM THE TRUE CHARITY TEAM: We appreciate the perspective of our knowledgeable guest contributors. However, their opinions are their own, and do not necessarily represent positions of True Charity in all respects.

 

AVERY WEST
Member Engagement Director
Read more from Avery

 

When Good Samaritan Health Centers of Gwinnett went bankrupt in 2005, they knew they’d have to make some changes to their free clinic model. 

Dr. Greg Lang, Executive Director, explains, “As a healthcare center, we have to use highly-educated, licensed providers. We can’t rely on volunteers, like many other nonprofits are able to do. Charging for services became a financial necessity.”

What began as a pragmatic decision soon became a philosophical one. “We started to believe that what we were doing was not just good business sense, but that it had Biblical underpinnings. The first book that we came across that helped us clarify our thinking was When Helping Hurts.

Today, Dr. Lang and his team at “Good Sam,” as the center is affectionately called, know that asking customers to pay a small rate for services is the best way to affirm dignity, maintain quality, and spread the gospel. 

Pricing

“If we are the church, our doors need to be as wide open as possible,” Dr. Lang shares, “So we got rid of all the criteria, except for one: you have to be uninsured.” Unlike other clinics who have income, residency, citizenship, or wait time requirements, Good Sam provides care to any uninsured person. They use a unique model with clear cost structures, wellness incentives, opportunities for pastoral care, and of course, radical generosity when necessary.

The staff explain to customers that there’s a real value here that they get to help fund. “Sometimes they get it immediately, Dr. Greg says, “and sometimes they’ll leave and come back 6 weeks later saying, “I earn too much money, or I live in the wrong county, or they won’t see me for 6 weeks at all the other places.””

The center charges flat rates, which are about 25% of the market price, for each type of medical or dental visit. The first appointment is always the most expensive at $110, but if the patient is cooperative with their plan of care (quitting smoking, taking medicines, correctly, etc.), their fees will go down, and subsequent appointments range from $40-$85. This “incentive to wellness” plan speaks to the reality that Good Sam is interested in treating the whole person—body, mind, and spirit—not just the medical condition at hand.

Customers pay their fee at the beginning of the visit, and then the staff at Good Sam does everything they can during their appointment, even if certain procedures weren’t factored into the original cost. Every patient knows exactly what they’ll pay going in to the appointment.

“All of our front line staff are empowered to exercise generosity when necessary,” Dr. Lang explains. Employees can discount or waive it if they perceive a real reason and need. They always encourage patients to pay even a small amount, if they can, per the Good Samaritan Fund guidelines. 

Good Sam, though, doesn’t pretend that the cost simply goes away. They make clear to their patients that nothing is free. Staff are taught to offer a card, saying, “A donor has given money that we are going to use to pay your fee. We would like for you to take this postcard and write a thank you note so that we can send it to the donor. We don’t just make the fee disappear. An advocate is going to come in and pay your debt.” 

Funding

Of course, not every charitable healthcare center operates with this model. Free health clinics do exist, and most of them are only able to keep up with medical regulations and staff salaries by receiving government funding. For Dr. Lang, that was never an option. “We don’t accept any money that would tell us to shut our mouth about our religious foundations,” he shares. 

Their loyalty to their convictions has not only allowed Good Sam to continue spreading the gospel, but also to provide more services to more people. Since asking customers to contribute to their care, Dr. Lang explains, “We’ve just exploded. We went from being open two days a week with four staff, to five and a half days a week, 56 employees, and two buildings.” Unlike many other nonprofits who have grown over time, it wasn’t the donors, but the customers, who made that change possible. 

Good Sam funds more than 50% of their operational costs with patient fees. Because of these changes, Good Sam doesn’t feel like a free clinic in a basement or a commercial office park. They are able to give their customers a dignified experience with beautiful rooms and brand new equipment. “When people walk in,” Dr. Greg says, “they say, “I get to go to a place like this?””

Pastoral Care

The health center employs 56 people, including physicians,, dentists, nurse practitioners, phlebotomists , pharmacy-techs, and a pastoral care associate. They also welcome volunteers and interns from partner universities, tech schools, and medical schools. Dr. Lang sees these partnerships as an opportunity to influence the larger medical field. “We are demonstrating to them that it’s not just caring about the body or the mind, but there’s also a spiritual component. We are treating the whole person.” 

Good Sam has a full-time staff member with a degree in pastoral care. As long as patients don’t need medication, they can have a one-hour appointment with the pastoral care clinician for just $20. They provide traditional marriage and family, parent/child, and grief counseling, but also pray with patients who are have had a miscarriage, received a bad diagnosis, or are just overwhelmed. 

Customers from every faith are welcome at Good Sam, and if they would prefer not to pray or talk about God, the staff respects their wishes. “We’ll just pray for them later!” Dr. Lang says.

Sharing the Vision

In order to maintain this holistic vision of helping, the Good Sam staff begins every morning with a 15 minute staff devotion. They pray together and talk about why they do things this particular way. 

Additionally, new employees are assigned a mentor, a staff member who has been around for a while. The conversations between mentors and mentees helps maintain the culture of the organization.

Unity is key. For those interested in making a similar change to their ministry, Dr. Lang emphasizes that every board member must be supportive of the empowering model. Otherwise, there will be conflict every step of the way.

Care Coordination

Good Sam knows they can’t meet every need for every customer. They have a full time employee that maintains cordial relationships with hospitals, surgery centers, private practices, and the public health department. The Good Sam staff doesn’t just make a referral— they make the introduction, help the customer fill out the paperwork, help them navigate financial need processes, and do a follow up appointment.

“The Good Samaritan didn’t just point to a hotel down the street. He went all the way. We want to do the same thing,” Dr. Lang explains.

Consultation

“We know we can’t multiply everywhere. Other people need to be in this space. If we can make that path any shorter for them, we want to help,” Dr. Lang says. The Good Samaritan staff generously share their expertise and experience with anyone who is interested in learning more. 

“We will give you everything we have except for the names and addresses of our donors,” Dr. Lang jokes. The Good Sam staff will give tours, documents, and personal consultation to other organizations who are interested in the model. They have seen great impact in the Atlanta area, and with the model spreading, they hope to see more around the country.  

Conclusion

A couple of years after making the switch to welcoming customers into ownership, Dr. Lang remembers, a conversation with one of his employees confirmed that this was undoubtedly the right decision. 

Dr. Lang had given a raise to one of his staff members—a single mom with four children who received no child support. He was surprised when she came into his office, asking him to take it back. With the extra money, she no longer qualified for food stamps. 

“When that happened,” Dr. Lang says, “I realized, we do not want to oppress our patients. We do not want to have a policy that requires people to minimize their earning capacity. We want them to earn as much as they can so they can feed and clothe their children.” 

Good Sam does just the opposite. They help unleash the capacity of people in need, and empower them with the confidence, knowledge, and love of Christ that they need to flourish. 

 


 

 


Nathan Mayo
Network Director
Read more from Nathan

 

 


This article was originally published in WORLD Magazine on September 22, 2022.


 

Imagine a game of musical chairs, with one of the contestants on crutches. As 10 people scramble for nine chairs, the player on crutches will doubtless be left standing. That vulnerability, however, isn’t the “root cause” of the player’s chairlessness, because if the room had 10 chairs, his crutches would be irrelevant.

Housing scholar Gregg Colburn and data journalist Clayton Aldern use this metaphor in their trailblazing new book Homelessness Is a Housing Problem (University of California Press, 2022) to illustrate their main argument. They write that in discussions about homelessness, vulnerabilities like addiction and domestic abuse are a distraction from the fact that there simply isn’t enough affordable housing to go around.

The argument that homelessness is merely a side effect of expensive rent is alluring. Unfortunately, the authors, though good at crunching numbers, are bad at drawing conclusions.

Colburn and Aldern do not reject the idea that poverty, divorce, mental health, and substance abuse precipitate many instances of homelessness. However, they argue that regional ­variations in homelessness are most strongly associated with regional ­variations in housing prices.

For example, San Francisco and Chicago are both Democrat-governed cities with comparable rates of mental health and addiction issues. San Francisco, however, has five times the level of homelessness. The main difference is housing prices. Colburn and Aldern claim that while individual vulnerabilities matter, high housing prices are a requirement for homelessness.

While their data certainly adds to the conversation, their conclusion overreaches on two levels.

First, they conflate variation in homelessness with absolute amounts of homelessness, overlooking the fact that even places with low home prices retain significant homelessness. In my own state of Missouri, rental prices are the second lowest in the nation—44 percent less than the national average. Yet, homelessness still exists, and at the 28th-highest level by state.

Second, they define the problem in a way that is so reductionist that it becomes misleading. The word homeless is functionally a euphemism for a person who not only lacks a home but also has myriad other problems. This is often the case with euphemism; the label only refers to a small element of the implied concept. If a contractor gives you a bid to build a “bathroom,” you will expect that he plans to install a toilet as a part of the package. If Colburn and Aldern have a solution to “homelessness,” the inference is that they will provide the formerly homeless with an improved life.

But among the chronically homeless, 60 percent have mental health problems, 80 percent are addicted, and up to 75 percent have health problems. Colburn and Aldern sidestep these associated issues and provide no reason to believe housing will fix them.

“Jimmy,” a man at my local shelter, is a typical example of a “homeless” person. Beginning at 3 years old, he was a victim of prolonged sexual abuse. He started using meth to make his nightmares go away, but it soon took everything else away as well. Jimmy was not just homeless; he was also jobless, friendless, addicted, and suicidal.

Jimmy needs more than a house. He needs a physical, psychological, social, and spiritual intervention, led by people who genuinely care about him.

Colburn and Aldern are right that Jimmy needs to live in a society where necessities like housing are within reach if he works full time. The special interest policies that prevent the building of new housing in order to elevate home prices for existing owners are repugnant, and the authors deserve credit for drawing attention to this fact.

But the authors fail to realize that homelessness is a problem with a wide variety of causes. Thus, a magical cure-all for homelessness will continue to elude the brightest minds of our era.

 


To learn more about implementing personalized, effective charity in your community, check out the True Charity Network.