Guest Contributor: Doug Gamble
Director of Social Enterprise at Watered Gardens Ministries, Joplin, MO

 

It is foundational to our faith that we care for those who are hurting and in need. Isaiah 58:11 is clear that when we shelter the homeless and feed the hungry, we are like a “watered garden.”

We are called to help, and we are blessed when we do.

So often, though, our help can cross an invisible boundary that was established by God. With the best of intentions, we can seek to help someone but end up taking responsibility for them.

We are responsibleーthere is no questioning thatーbut how we are responsible to help must be considered.

Galatians 6:2-5 sheds some light on this:

 

‘Carry one another’s burdens; in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ. For if anyone considers himself to be something when he is nothing, he deceives himself. Let each person examine his own work, and then he can take pride in himself alone, and not compare himself with someone else. For each person will have to carry his own load.‘ 

 

Paul in this passage exhorts believers to be responsible. He uses two interesting phrases to describe the two sides of the responsibility coin: “carry one another’s burdens” and “each person will have to carry his own load.”

The use of two different words to describe how we are responsible is important. First, Paul says we must “carry one another’s burdens.” The word translated as “burden” indicates something too big for one person to carryーthe idea is that Christians help one another with the things in life that are weighing them down beyond their ability. These are the big events of life where we cannot and indeed are not meant to go it alone. This could be helping a family after their house burns down. It could be walking with someone through a challenging season of his life by being a good listener and offering biblical wisdom. And it certainly can mean helping someone get out of an addictive cycle. It means being an advocate for those not listened to. It means creating pathways to meaningful employment for those being released from prison. The list goes on.

Now, contrast that with Paul’s use of the word “load” as the other thing we are supposed to carry. The word translated as “load” refers to the normal responsibilities of our lives. This indicates the things in our life that are accepted as normal parts of a functioning adult, like getting a job and earning a wage in order to pay for living expenses, keeping ourselves in good health, and even brushing our teeth.

Both words indicate responsibility, but not the same kind of responsibility. Perhaps the way to distinguish the main idea in this passage is to say we are responsible to one another but not responsible for one another.

So what does this look like in real life? In my role with Watered Gardens, a rescue mission in Joplin, Missouri, I wrestle with this every day as I minister to the homeless and impoverished. There is a real tension in determining how to help someone carry a burden but not carry their load for them.

This passage in Galatians teaches us that good discernment starts with humility. As Paul writes, “For if anyone considers himself to be something when he is nothing, he deceives himself.” It takes humility to realize you don’t have all the answers. It takes humility to accept that you don’t know what’s best for someone else’s life in all the particulars. Yes, you may have some wisdom and good counsel. Yes, you may have some experience to share. Yes, you may even have a proven program, but their lives are their own.

I think this is why Paul says “Let each person examine his own work, and then he can take pride in himself alone, and not compare himself with someone else.” Our life is unique to us. We cannot compare our life to someone else’s and think we know what is best in a prideful way for someone else. Some call this type of attitude a “god-complex”ーin effect, playing God in someone else’s life.

Paul is telling us to consider our motivation. Our motives for helping someone can be a mixed bag of self-sacrifice and a filling of a kind of prideful desire to be needed or have someone follow “our” way. A good test of our motives is our willingness to say no to someone when saying yes is not in his best interest. A refusal to take responsibility for someone reveals that we are practicing good discernment. Sometimes there’s more love in saying “no” than saying “yes.”

None of this happens, though, if we don’t do what Paul wrote in the verse preceding this passage.

 

If we live by the Spirit, let us also keep in step with the Spirit. Galatians 5:25

 

We must wholeheartedly depend on the Holy Spirit to guide us. If we listen, the Spirit will guide us to discern how we should help. Nothing has stood out to me more in working with people in desperate situations than the need to be led by the Spirit. Only He can guide us in ways that will really help. Only He can help us be responsible to but not take responsibility for someone else.

 

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: Kevin Peyton
Executive Director of Joshua’s Place & Senior Pastor of The Village Church

 

 

I love pastors. Of course, I have to say that because I am one—but this time, I mean it. I really love pastors. Before I became a pastor, I led a Christian non-profit ministry that I still lead today. In serving in both roles, I’ve come to realize that there are tensions between these two that I wasn’t aware of until I wore both hats. 

Leading a Christian non-profit, I’ve had the opportunity to spend time with other Executive Directors: women and men who believe in the mission of the Church and look for the support of local churches to help them in their mission. I found that there was consistent frustration that was not talked about openly. It wasn’t gossip or criticism but a painful recognition that churches—pastors, really—do not easily partner with outside Christian ministries. Before becoming a pastor, I assumed this was a one-sided issue. I assumed that pastors lacked concern or maybe didn’t understand the biblical mandate for serving the marginalized. At best, I just assumed they were too busy to listen.

Of course, becoming a pastor has changed that perspective. I now realize that pastors do not have the luxury of just focusing on the problem my non-profit is trying to solve. They are responsible for the “whole counsel of scripture” including the things that my charity is not built to support. This is true for the church planter that has 30 congregants or the Outreach Director at a church of 3000. Realizing this makes me more loving and patient in those relationships and has helped our team foster healthier church partnerships. 

While my experience in the clergy has given me a more empathetic view of pastors it has also shown me what pastors can do better. In fact, in my years of church alliances and pastoral relationships, I’ve come to find that many pastors have three unhelpful tendencies. And because I’m a pastor and believe there is no better communication friend than alliteration, I call these issues “The 3 C’s”. These are the three things I look out for when I work with churches and pastors that may prove to be stumbling blocks for our relationship. 

 

1st C: Control

The first “C” I encounter is usually the issue of control. What I mean by control is the insistence that, despite the subject matter expertise of the non-profit leader, a pastor may not be willing to be pliable in how the ministry gets done.

As a pastor, I understand that church leaders have a responsibility to arrange ministry partnerships in a way that protects their church from harm. As a pastor, I have a considerable responsibility for the ministry relationship, resources, and reputation of our church. I answer to a board of elders that asks me questions about how the activities of the church align with our mission and holds me accountable to those decisions.

As a non-profit leader, I’ve learned to take my time and never lead with a request for financial resources. The opposite of control is trust in these partnerships and both parties, the church and non-profit, need to commit to a process of listening and learning. The pastor will eventually see the heart and competency of the charity, and the non-profit leader will find a way to arrange the relationship that is workable for everyone—including the families we serve.

 

2nd C: Convenience

The second “C” I’ve experienced is the expectation of convenience. American culture highly values convenience, and we have come to expect that, if there is an easier way, we’ll find it. We like quick, easy, and simple.

As a pastor, I’ve found that the expectations consumers have for service companies easily spill over into the church, so I’m tempted by solutions that are quick, easy, and simple.

As a non-profit leader, I know that the deep physical, emotional, and spiritual problems we face do not have convenient solutions. This means you can’t reduce an outreach to families experiencing poverty to a two-hour event on Saturday mornings once a quarter. Transformation takes time, relationships, and trust. Oversimplifying complex problems can yield help that hurts. These Instagram-able outreaches may make the giver feel good while leaving the receiver feeling ashamed and embarrassed.

 

3rd C: Credit

This leads us to the final “C”, credit. When serving families in the shadows of society, the way we serve them is very important. What I mean is that the end does not justify the means, and just because they showed up to get whatever we’re giving away, does not mean that they don’t leave feeling patronized or exploited.

As a pastor, I understand the benefit of communicating to my congregation and community about the work our church does. However, as a non-profit leader, I know the impact of sharing these stories may build our brand at the expense of someone else’s dignity. In the Tik-Tok time that we live in there is tremendous pressure to share imagery that “tells a story.” But “the story” belongs to the single mother sitting in her car for 30 minutes getting the courage to come and get her children’s Christmas gifts only to be met by a well-intentioned pastor doing a Facebook live post with her in the foreground. These are not our stories to tell or take credit. It’s her story and the story God is building in her through the way she interacts with your church—a testimony for her to give about God’s goodness and not about my brand. Let’s not tell the story in a way that costs her; instead, let’s exchange today’s credit for tomorrow’s Godly reward.

“So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. (Matthew 6:3-4)

 

My point in laying out the issues of control, convenience, and credit is not to heap hot coals on the heads of my fellow pastors. It’s the opposite. I want to help you build better, longer-lasting, more impactful relationships with Christian non-profits already in your community. What I’ve experienced is that, when pastors and non-profit leaders take the time and energy to build ministries that last, our communities benefit and the name of Jesus is made famous.

 

Kevin Peyton is senior pastor of The Village Church and the executive director of Joshua’s Place, both located in South Lebanon, Ohio. You can find contact info for Joshua’s Place in the Member’s Directory.

 

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.


 

 


Amanda Fisher
Joplin Area True Charity Director & Foundations Workshop Coordinator
Read more from Amanda

 

“You don’t know what you don’t know.” Although I have years of experience serving people in poverty, this perennial saying describes my recent effective charity awakening. My old view of charity grew out of my experience working in government-based programs, including mental health and in-home-based care. The majority of the clients I “helped” in my former roles were either at or below the poverty level. I unknowingly did some unhelpful things. 

Let’s take a look at a few of my uncovered blind spots and you can be on the lookout for them in your own work.

 

Confession #1 – I often asked disempowering questions.

The questions asked of individuals living in poverty often point toward problems, deficits, and flaws, unintentionally ignoring both the inherent worth of every human created in God’s image and the capacity they have to be a part of their own solutions. I routinely asked what people’s problems were, which can be fine, but I failed to ask what capabilities they had. Notice the disempowering dynamic in my typical communication: 

  • You don’t have health insurance? OK, let’s see if your income is low enough for Medicaid. 
  • You are short on food? OK, let’s get you signed up for SNAP or send you to get free food at the food pantry.
  • You don’t have a place to live? OK, let’s see if you qualify for HUD. 
  • You don’t have a job? OK, let’s see if you qualify for unemployment benefits. 
  • You aren’t able to work? OK, let’s see if you qualify for disability income. 
  • You can’t clean your own home? OK, let’s see if you qualify for state-based in-home care.

These types of “What’s-wrong-with-you” questions and “how-can-I-fix-it” answers are harmful both to the person in poverty and those attempting to help alleviate it.

 

Confession #2 – I assumed that all needs required emergency relief.

Most people have the capacity to meet their own material needs by using their own abilities and relationships. When people are in poverty, it could be a result of a short-term crisis, which requires emergency relief, or it could be that their capacity to provide for themselves is impaired. In that case, they need development of their capacity, not mere temporary provision. On other occasions, people have the capacity to provide for themselves, but request emergency relief anyway. A system that assumes everyone needs relief all the time is ripe for abuse and poor results. Here are a few examples of assumptions and the results I have experienced:

  • A man reported needing help cleaning his bathroom and kitchen due to his disabilities. Caseworkers worked to get these services authorized through a government-funded program. Once authorized for the program, the caregiver noted that he was always in a hurry for her to finish the work so he could leave to tend to his extensive vegetable garden and work as a roofer for cash “under the table.” A developmental solution would address the root cause, be it lack of self discipline or skills training. Partnering with him (addressing chronicity) rather than doing for him (addressing crisis) to address the immediate need would encourage self-sufficiency over dependency.
  • A woman reported that she needed food, so workers assumed that her need was dire rather than attempting to determine the exact extent. After signing up for several programs, she had so much government-subsidized and donated food that she had to buy an additional freezer and pantry. Even then, she had so much food that there was no way she could consume it before it spoiled. Because her need was addressed as if it was a crisis, workers missed the opportunity to help her develop by addressing her underlying fear of running out of food.  
  • A man lost his ability to work and stayed on disability and other government assistance for several years. Caseworkers assumed that he was forever unable to work, when in fact he had delayed scheduling his surgery. After someone finally dug a little deeper and encouraged him to get his surgeries scheduled and complete physical therapy, he was able to get back to the work he loved.
  • Soup kitchen workers assumed a man who came daily for lunch did not have any other way to get a meal. The soup kitchen changed policy due to the pandemic and instead of hot meals they gave sandwich sack-lunches out the door. When asked why the man stopped coming for food, he said he was, “sick and tired of sandwiches,” and would rather eat his own food at home.
  • A woman put her name on the list in need of yard work at each bi-annual community clean-up day. Volunteers showed up to complete the work while her capable adult son sat inside playing video games. Volunteers stepping in when the son was capable took away the opportunity to strengthen the bond between mother and son. A developmental approach would have been for volunteers to work alongside the son, teaching him skills so that he would be able to do future maintenance himself.

Had workers dropped their assumption that all needs are relief needs and investigated further, they could have found much better solutions. If the need is determined to not be relief (i.e., crisis) but is instead developmental (i.e., chronic), throwing money or other material goods at the problem is not the answer. Developmental needs can only be met by opportunities that expand capacity such as relationship building, budget counseling, work readiness training, goal setting, and spiritual growth.

 

Confession #3 – I focused on our activity, not our results.

Most nonprofits and churches will agree that looking at the statistics related to our services is important to determine success. In many churches and nonprofits, success is defined in terms of the number of individuals in our programs, how many meals served, and other similar outputs. While there is nothing wrong with tracking these outputs, I was rarely attending to outcomes – long-run results.

The importance of HOW we define success and WHAT we measure cannot be overstated. I measured:

  • The number of budgeting classes offered and how many attended them. 
  • The number of completed home visits.
  • The number of support groups offered and how many participated.
  • The number of job skills classes offered and how many attended.
  • The dollars billed and received from Medicaid.

Better measurements would be:

  • The number of people able to complete a personal budget and amount of debt paid off as a result of budgeting classes.
  • Measurements of improved health among those who no longer need home visits.
  • Changes in social capital among those who participated in a support group.
  • The number of people who developed a resume and got a job as a result of job skills classes.
  • The number of people who no longer rely on Medicaid after gaining employment with health insurance benefits.

 

While we liked to tell ourselves our goal was to “work ourselves out of a job,” our actions did not reflect that aspiration. A more honest message was “we need to get more people on the program so we can bill more Medicaid dollars to be able to continue to pay our staff.” Private donors tend to reward nonprofits who can prove the program is changing lives. Thus, privately funded organizations have at least some pressure to show that people are graduating from their programs if at all possible. Government reimbursement structures compensate for the number of people remaining in the program. It made us feel good to say we wanted to work ourselves out of a job, but when our compensation grew with the quantity of the disabled who receive Medicaid and stayed in poverty, there was an underlying demand for people to remain in these conditions.

I didn’t know what I didn’t know. 

Thanks in large part to a True Charity Foundations Workshop in my community, I started to see what I had missed before. Once I saw the problem with disempowering questions, assuming that all needs were relief needs, and defining success inaccurately, I found myself asking, “Where do I go from here?” 

The good news is that there are effective alternatives. If you’re a part of a church or nonprofit that wants to move past these blind spots, our membership network offers tools and training to amplify your impact. If you’re already a member, check out our member’s portal to keep up to date with all of the tools we offer. And if you’d like us to bring a True Charity Foundations Workshop to your city, please reach out to me. There may be a leader in your community like me who doesn’t know what she doesn’t know. 

 

 


Avery West
Director of Community Initiatives

 

 


This article was originally published on WashingtonExaminer.com on January 4, 2021.


 

“Human touch is so important,” says Jocelyn Brisson, shelter manager at Watered Gardens Rescue Mission in southwest Missouri.

While many of us sorely feel the lack of human contact during the pandemic, most homeless individuals have experienced this relational loss for years. Human relationship, a look in the eye, a smile, a “How’ve you been?” is what those living on the streets care about most, Brisson says.

And she should know.

“I was a criminal, a 38-year meth addict, and I’ve been homeless most of my adult life,” she says. “My son and I lived in a cardboard box, and I fed him out of trash cans.”

Brisson learned about the power of human relationships at Watered Gardens. “I went there ‘cause I had to do 400 hours of community service. James and Marsha, who ran the place, they just loved me,” she says. “My hands would be all swollen from shooting dope, and they would just love me no matter what. I kept coming back because I craved that love so much.”

On the streets, Brisson formed the kind of relationships that stem from desperation. “You grasp at anything you can that is accepting because you feel all alone.”

Brisson paused. “But human touch is a healing thing. Marsha and I developed such a good friendship. She took the time to know who I really was when I didn’t even know who I was.”

Unfortunately, not all charity workers are so relational. “I’ve been in other agencies where it’s just ‘OK, get in line. Pass the buck. Here ya go. See ya later. Have a great day.’”

At the heart of this error is relief organizations’ misunderstanding of the nature of homelessness.

“There’s not having a place to live, and there’s homeless,” Brisson says. “My mom kicked me out when I was 18, and that was just not having a place to live. When I was deep in my addiction and had burned all my bridges, that’s when I became homeless, because I didn’t have anyone.”

Brisson isn’t alone in holding this view. A study by the Baylor Institute for Studies of Religion cited a Portland, Oregon, nonprofit organization leader saying, “People don’t become homeless when they run out of money. … They become homeless when they run out of relationships.”

A U.K. study by The Rock Trust found that relational programs (mentorship, befriending, etc.) made homeless youth more willing to ask for help, confident in practical tasks, likely to rebuild family ties, and able to support themselves.

Homelessness is less about a lack of money than a lack of relationships. In fact, Brisson’s “rock bottom” wasn’t when she had nothing to turn to, but no one.

When she turned to relationships rather than stuff, good begat good. “Marsha taught me how to balance a checkbook, basic hygiene, how to register my car. You have no idea how scared I was to register my car! But she believed in me.”

Today, Brisson works alongside people who live the life she left behind. She now passes on the gift she was given: vulnerable, messy, human relationships.

Those relationships sometimes require hard conversations. Back when she was on the streets, Brisson explains, “I was always giving in to my son because I didn’t wanna be bothered — I was getting high at the time. One time he said, ‘Do you not love me? You never discipline me.’”

“That’s always stuck with me. So when I’m with my residents, sometimes I get on them and tell them what they need to do to improve.” At the end of the day, they are always thankful for her tough love.

Of course, giveaways are invariably easier, but Brisson insists that mere material gifts just don’t work. “With handouts,” she says, “it’s all about survival mode.”

Today, with a master’s in social work, a fulfilling job, and real relationships, Brisson is no longer just surviving. “Now,” she says, “I’m in living mode.”

This year, let’s not sacrifice relationships for the sake of efficiency. In so doing, we risk robbing that human touch from those who need it most.

 

TCI’s Savannah Aleckson and Nathan Mayo discuss the “what and why” of the True Charity Initiative with Katrina Hine of KNEO Radio in Neosho, Missouri.

 


James Whitford
Executive Director

 

 


This article was originally published on JoplinGlobe.com on December 14, 2020.


 

The origin of the word “panhandler” is a mystery.

Some have suggested it was originally used as a reference to people who lived in the geographic panhandle of a state. Others suggest it derived from the Spanish “pan,” meaning bread, and still others simply tie it to the tin pan extended by a beggar on a sidewalk. One outdated dictionary defined panhandler by distinguishing the person as “able-bodied” in contrast to other beggars who aren’t.

More interesting is that panhandlers don’t use the term. They don’t “panhandle.” They “fly a sign.” This refers to a piece of cardboard or other simple material with a short message written on it, such as, “Anything helps,” or, “Will work for food,” to grab the attention of a passerby.

The fact that the giver and the recipient use different terminology is itself a sign that reads into the deeper cause of the problem: The ones who give to the need aren’t close enough to really understand it. If they did, they would do something more meaningful and less harmful than hand cash out a window.

Harmful?

Yes.

Consider these words of a man, Brett, who used to fly a sign on the streets of Joplin before he came into our ministry. From a recorded interview, “I’d go out there and do the ol’ flying the sign trick. I found that I can go out there and look really rough and fly a sign and get money off of people — that I could get me a little cash in my pocket. Through my addiction I was manipulating people — ‘will work for food’ — but my main thing was to get money in my pocket so I could get a drink. They didn’t know me from Adam and Eve. If they’d have just pulled over, sat down and talked with me, they would have known better why I was doing it. You’ve just got to get to know a person. Am I really helping him, or am I enabling him to stay in his addiction?”

Brett’s not alone. In a recent article on the subject published by Real Clear Policy, True Charity Initiative’s Nathan Mayo points out city surveys show about 90% of panhandlers are substance abusers. Furthermore, he reports that “panhandlers are only a fraction of the homeless and are predominately the chronically homeless,” whom the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration notes are more than twice as likely to be addicted to drugs or alcohol than non-chronically homeless people.

For most of us, we become acutely aware of our blessings at the holiday season. Consequently, we also become more aware of those who have less. That’s important. More important, though, is that once compassion is awakened, it’s stewarded beyond thoughtless charity based in shallow pity. God has given us compassion to do just what Brett suggested: pull over, sit down and talk, and know better. Then, we’ll learn a few things: It’s not called panhandling; there’s a person behind the sign made in the image of God who has a name; and most importantly, we’ll learn some way to really help without hurting.

 


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.


 

 

Missed the webinar? Watch below!

Compassion & Calamity Webinar

Dr. James Whitford

Dr. James Whitford

Dr. Marvin Olasky

For the first time in history, a single US president has declared a state of disaster for all 50 states. As our country reels from COVID-19 and the economic ramifications of stay-at-home orders, shuttered businesses, and lost jobs, it is likely that our communities will experience increasing need. As we navigate these unique challenges, you may find yourself wondering:

“How do principles of True Charity apply in the midst of a crisis?”

On Thursday, April 30th, Dr. Marvin Olasky, best-selling author of The Tragedy of American Compassion, and True Charity Initiative Executive Director James Whitford joined us for a compelling discussion to offer their expertise on what effective charity looks like in an unprecedented national crisis.

If you missed, you can watch it on-demand above!

 

True Charity University ‘7 Marks’ Courses

The 7 Marks of Effective Charity are major aspects of “true charity,” and these are adapted from Dr. Olasky’s book The Tragedy of American Compassion, and these are discussed quite a bit during the webinar.  Continue your learning by taking the 7 Marks courses at True Charity University – the first two courses are available at no cost!

 


This article was originally published in Watered Gardens Ministries’ Rain Newsletter in Spring 2019.


 

As a student moves into the latter phases of the Forge program, a men’s recovery program operated by Watered Gardens Ministries in Joplin, Missouri, he is assigned a mentor – a Christian leader from the community who agrees to meet with him once a week until graduation.

It’s a relationship designed to last for about 6 months, and Forge Director Jamie Myers believes it’s a crucial component to student success.

“The opportunity for these students to have the input, influence, and wisdom of a godly Christian man who is willing to invest in their life is a rare and generous gift,” she said.

When Arlan Campbell agreed to become a Forge mentor, he got a lot more than he bargained for. And he couldn’t be happier about that. Arlan was paired up with Rick, and even though Rick graduated last fall, the two still get together every week. Arlan doesn’t see that ending anytime soon.

“Monday evenings with Rick are a highlight of my week,” Arlan said. “I’ve seen him grow, and then graduate, and now I continue walking with him in these ‘post-Forge’ phases of his life.”

Rick said, “[The Forge program] can teach us a lot about Bible study and Bible ethics, integrity, and how to be a good man but, with somebody like Arlan as a mentor, it gives you an example, in practice, of what that looks like.”

Arlan has tried to focus on a long-range vision both for Rick and for their mentor relationship, and he believes that vision has given their meetings together great meaning.

“I think a good mentor has to have a vision for the student’s potential that far exceeds what the student can see in himself at that moment,” Arlan said.

Sometimes for Arlan that’s meant holding Rick accountable in difficult times at work, or offering a listening ear and an encouraging word as Rick transitioned out of Forge upon graduation. And now it includes helping Rick see the ways he can begin to invest in other Forge students now that he serves as the live-in assistant for the Forge residence.

“I knew I was agreeing to enter into a relationship where I would provide encouragement, counsel, and accountability,” Arlan said, “but I didn’t know I’d also receive so much of that as well. Rick has such a heart for other people, and I’m glad to call him my friend.”

 


Interested in starting a mentoring program in your organization?  True Charity Network members have exclusive access to the Mentoring Program Model Action Plan (MAP), which provides a detailed how-to guide on planning and implementing effective and life-changing mentoring. 

You don’t need to be an organization, though, to start mentoring!  If you’re an individual wanting to begin a mentoring relationship but don’t know where to start, check out Life Deck, a faith-based mentorship tool that provides a framework that will walk you and a friend through a joint exploration of 20 life-categories over a period of forty weeks.

 

 


Travis Hurley
Director of Advancement

 

“Will work for food.” That’s a common cardboard sign you’ll see from someone in need. And the response at Watered Gardens is, “You’ve got a deal.”

If someone wants to work for their food, they can earn what they need: work for an hour in the Watered Gardens Worth Shop and get a week’s worth of food.

Instead of a handout, this exchange preserves dignity and awakens worth in people, while also making a small break in the cycle of dependency that traps so many. It’s really a beautiful thing. And it happens more than 300 times every month.

But for those holding the keys to the majority of food donation storehouses, this exchange is problematic. In order to access food donations made to the large food bank in Southwest Missouri, Watered Gardens has been told to first remove any exchange aspect and simply give the food away.

Even if someone wants to work for it.

If the food banks only distributed federal food subsidies, this wouldn’t be an issue. Watered Gardens wouldn’t accept those anyway because a core principle for the mission is the belief that authentic charity is private and voluntary. Thus, the mission is 100 percent privately funded and resourced.

But the food bank doesn’t just distribute federally subsidized food. It also gets donations from private grocers such as Walmart. Watered Gardens would love to access those food donations, and local Joplin stores have even expressed an openness to partner, but a corporationwide contract with Feeding America prevents this.

Feeding America is a national network of food banks that includes the food bank in our region. Its compliance department’s effort to honor federal tax credit guidelines results in strict “no strings attached to food” language in its agreements with local charities.

The end result is that a mission such as Watered Gardens is faced with a choice. Agree to give the food away and have access to large stores of donated food or keep the work exchange in place and find the private food donations in other ways. Because of the mission’s philosophy and principles, it’s an easy choice to make. We’ll find private food donations in other ways.

That’s why in the month of May Watered Gardens is doing a “Feed the Need” food drive. With drop off locations at Food 4 Less, Christ’s Church of Oronogo, the 105.3 New Life radio station, and of course at the Watered Gardens Outreach Center located at 531 S. Kentucky, folks can donate food such as peanut butter, canned fruit, canned meats, pastas, etc.

The mission’s pantry is low. And so many people struggling with poverty and homelessness are willing to work for food. We need help from the community to ensure that the food they earn matches and even exceeds the quality of what they could get from a handout.[/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.5.6″ _module_preset=”default” hover_enabled=”0″]


Travis Hurley is Director of Advancement for True Charity Initiative.

This article was originally published in the Joplin Globe on May 14th, 2018.