There is a church in Indiana which requires people taking advantage of the food kitchen and homeless shelter to also participate in the life of the church.  In short hand – no religion, no food. Just to be clear, the church has allowed that the people do not have to worship at their church – it can be at another church or even AA.  But they have to at some level engage in a spiritual practice if they are going to take advantage of the church’s material largess. 

 

Of course, this strikes many of us as draconian and the worst kind of religious bribery.  The mandate to help those who are in need has no strings attached.  You do not feed the hungry, house the homeless, and clothe the naked so they will believe what you believe.  Rather you do it because, one, it is the right thing to do; and two, because it has its own spiritual rewards.  So, the idea that you give with one hand while giving a head lock with the other is repugnant. 

 

But there is another way to look at this.  I have often seen churches which are heavily involved in social services to the poor, but on Sunday morning in the pristine sanctuary there is not one person who was there during the week in search of food or other help.  This divide between who is welcome to come to the soup kitchen and who is welcome to the Sunday service is just as disgusting. Of course, it is never made explicit, but it is felt.  The invisible rope of class often can be just as forbidding as the velvet rope in front of any other exclusive club. 

 

Part of the reason this church in Indiana caused a ruckus was the question of federally funding for their programs.  Of course, they shouldn’t receive funds for social services if they are using those programs to force people to attend their churches.  But if you believe as I do (and from my own experience) that religion can help the individual to overcome many of life’s challenges, then encouraging participation in religious activities is part of providing efficacious services.  It is about being effective.  I believe a church should have the right to invite (not force) people to services.  A simple sign in the soup kitchen would be enough – “We welcome you here through the week, and we welcome you on Sunday too.” 

 

Ultimately it gets so complicated, and legally fraught that it is probably better to keep worship and social services separate.  But this strict separation can foster a very patronizing dynamic which signals to those who come to our churches in times of desperate need – “you are good enough for me to feed you across the counter, but not good enough for me to kneel with you before the Lord.”

More from Beliefnet and our partners
previous posts

Thank you for visiting Progressive Revival. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here are some other blogs you may also enjoy: Faith, Media and Culture Prayer, Plain and Simple Happy Blogging!!!  

Originally appeared on Tikkun Daily Blog Ever since the victory over the dictator of Tunisia and the subsequent uprising in Egypt, my email has been flooded with messages from Jews around the world hoping and praying for the victory of the Egyptian people over their cruel Mubarak regime.              Though a small segment of Jews have responded […]

The attempted assassination of Congresswoman Giffords and the murder of so many others in Arizona has elicited a number of policy suggestions, from gun control to private protection for elected officials, to banning incitement to violence on websites either directly or more subtly (e.g., Sarah Palin’s putting a bull’s-eye target on Giffords’ congressional district to […]

Christmas and Chanukah share a spiritual message: that it is possible to bring light and hope in a world of darkness, oppression and despair. But whereas Christmas focuses on the birth of a single individual whose life and mission was itself supposed to bring liberation, Chanukah is about a national liberation struggle involving an entire […]

error: Content is protected !!