Open table?
Last week we worked with a Christian soup kitchen in Dayton. Bill, the director, described to us the two most common ways Christian soup kitchens are run. One way is basically the same as a secular soup kitchen. Anyone can come in to eat and there are absolutely no requirements to fulfill before you get your food. The only piece that separates these soup kitchens from secular ones tends to be the signs and sayings on the walls and the beliefs of the people who run them.
The other method is a bit more complicated. Many Christian soup kitchens require people to sit through a sermon or, at the very least, a prayer before they are allowed to get their food.
As we have worked with several of both types of these soup kitchens, Bill asked us which method we found to be most effective. So I’ve been thinking about this question. I can see benefits to both… On one hand, the first type extends the grace of Jesus Christ through the open table. On the other hand, the second type ensures that people hear that it is because of the grace of Jesus Christ that they are being fed. Both have benefits but I think I’ve decided which type I would prefer to work with… But instead of me sharing my opinion (it’s a miracle, I know), I thought I’d open this blog up for comments. I’m curious to hear people’s opinions. If the ultimate goal is truly to share the gospel of Jesus Christ in hopes that people will place their faith in Him, which type of soup kitchen do you believe to be most effective?
Kelly
1 Comments:
I think this circumstance is emblematic of a larger question about evangelism and sharing ones faith. i myself prefer that no religious element / experience / activity be required for the reception of food for the hungry, and I want to comment on what types of "faith experiences" will be born out of the two circumstances.
i think that the moment of vulnerability (hunger in this case) is a very special and unique one. i think that an individual's emotional and, perhaps to a lesser extent, spiritual connection to a particular dogma is often born out of such experiences (some explicitly physical like hunger, some more psychological or emotional in their nature). i think that it is more often a good strategy to let the connection between that moment of need and a religion be one that is initiated by the individual in need.
i think that a more pressure-oriented presentation of theology (sermon before soup) may produce a greater number of people who will willingly communicate some sort of conversion. that is to say that if you don't give them their soup until they pray, not only will you get some additional fakers for the soup, but you'll also get more people who are honestly expressing spiritual feelings and ideas.
my concern isn't so much about their sincerity in the moment, it's about their retrospective feelings in the future about that process. i think that one must feel that one's acceptance of a faith was/is very much their own in order to carry out that faith in a genuine way. i think that there is a parallel to what many people experience in having a faith given to them by their parents. at some moment in time (perhaps more pronounced for some than others), one has to take it on as his/her own.
but as a practical matter, perhaps there is not always time enough to wait for such a person to have such an experience. is it possible that having the dogma in one's life, having it as an explanatory tool for questions about why life is, why pain is, what we are, etc., is the first step in growing attached to a faith and to God? perhaps.
i just think that it is terribly difficult to communicate that one is FORCING someone to hear a sermon out of a concern for that person (if that is in fact why one forces another to hear such a sermon). i think it appears to the person in need much more like a disciplinary measure, at best, and, at worst, an expression of insecurity by the person doing the forcing - that need for others to agree in order to validate one's own views.
but i personally am terribly concerned about autonomy and thinking through things for myself. i'd like to think that for a person to have a healthy and genuine spiritual life they would have to think and feel on their own b/c they want to, not b/c they had to in order to eat. i think simply letting it be known that one is acting in a Christlike way b/c one is a Chrisian is more difficult, requires more patience, but, in the end, produces a better long-term effect... produces a relationship w/ Christ that isn't based unevenly upon the wrong sort of dependency. my weakness / dependency makes me realize my need for God, but it doesn't mean that it should be intentionally exploited by another in order to bring about that realization.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
posted by <$BlogBacklinkAuthor$> @ <$BlogBacklinkDateTime$>
<$BlogItemBacklinkCreate$>
<< Home