Toxic Charity: How Churches and Charities Hurt Those They Help (And How to Reverse It)

Product Information

In the book Toxic Charity: How Churches and Charities Hurt Those They Help, Robert D. Lupton details how he feels that many aspects of modern forms of charity do more harm than good. It is his opinion that mission trips, food pantries, weekend service projects, and many other forms of charitable giving and volunteerism are ineffective, do not take into consideration the emotional well being of those being served, and in general do not accomplish the goals that they set out to achieve. Of course, we know that inequity is much more complex than an imbalance of resources. It’s a symptom of something larger. Toxic Charity often ignores that complexity. As a result, it can end up making the recipients of charity objects of pity. It can mean that well-meaning people and organizations stifle local economies or local initiatives by coming in with overwhelming amounts of resources, connections, or power. More often than not, Toxic Charity conserves power with the giver. In Toxic Charity, Lupton urges individuals, churches, and organizations to step away from these spontaneous, often destructive acts of compassion toward thoughtful paths to community development. He delivers proven strategies for moving from toxic charity to transformative charity.

One of the things I found most fascinating was that there seems to be two categories of people that pose difficulties toward effective mercy ministry. Also, as a caveat, it should be noted that I'm just an observer so what I say should be taken with a grain--no, a spoonful--of salt. Proximity, or being emotionally, physically, and geographically integrated with the neighborhood where you want to work is absolutely essential. Change moves at the speed of trust. Trust is impossible without building neighborhood relationships. Relationships are shallow without time spent listening, learning, and seeking to understand. Yes, it can feel slow, and we know it can be tempting at times to change the systemic realities of a place without investing in relationships. Unfortunately, working on a systemic level without collaborating with neighbors can look like doing development to people without their consent. Building new roads or businesses can be great, but if they’re completed without community buy-in, they will rarely make a difference and can even cause harm. Locating Toxicity in Neighbors If migrating from toxic charities like OCC means exploring economic development work in adjacent cities and neighborhoods, the church is almost guaranteed to find just and sustainable mission partnerships right around the corner, says Stephen Weir, executive director of Church Hill Activities and Tutoring. Since 2007, CHAT has invested in the youth in the East End of Richmond, Va., and equipped them with the education, support and relationships to emerge from poverty and destructive environments.When/if possible, invest with the poor to grow local assets and create wealth-generating opportunities. Subordinate self-interests to the needs of those being served. • Listen closely to those you seek to help, especially to what is not being said—unspoken feelings may contain essential clues to effective service. A lot of what Robert Lupton advocates is helping the poor participate in the economy instead of handing them out largess from the economy. So since Jews historically are longtime participants in the economy, maybe they in fact do better along those lines, helping the poor to participate in the economy instead of offering handouts. From my admittedly limited perspective, no, not in congregations, at least. We believe the same as the larger community.

The author has such a narrow view of poverty, and it frustrated me at every turn. Yet my classmates found the entire book eye-opening, and now they have become even more indoctrinated with the idea that all American poor are lazy. (This was stated in various ways during the class.) One guy even mentioned how men who come to his church for handouts always want to do some kind of work in exchange for assistance. But telling that didn't seem to make it register with them that that shows that plenty of poor Americans want work. The stereotype persisted.While the work of engaging children and families living in poverty may often sound romantic and even highly productive, Weir says, the church’s most vital task is to reconcile with the fact that engaging poverty will neither feel good nor produce big results. In East Africa, McNamara witnessed firsthand the ineffective and often toxic charity performed by many Western churches and aid organizations, including OCC. She subsequently founded Badala as a means for women across the world to sell their own handmade jewelry and housewares to support their families. If the church desires to help those living in poverty and share God’s love, she says, it must recognize a deeper “yes” as it says “no” to problematic and unjust forms of generosity like OCC. Toxic Charity taught us the importance of keeping impact on neighbors front and center. When we work with clients, we tell them right off the bat that we will evaluate all of their endeavors by the way it affects neighbors’ lives. Toxic Charity rightfully recognized that people with the right intentions can still do harm. We need to pay attention to the fruit we see for real people, and the people who are most affected. Lupton’s Principles of Community Development (to measure the effectiveness of community development service projects):

Yet as those same congregations begin to explore and understand the fundamental flaws in even the most big-hearted giving of time and resources, they increasingly arrive at nuanced questions and conflicts about the nature of mission in the local church. In the first section of the book, Lupton asserts that most charitable organizations do not evaluate their charity based on the long-term benefits received by the recipient. More often, organizations focus on the benefits to the giver or the organization itself. The multiple examples of “charitable” efforts being destructive rather than helpful are compelling. However, Lupton gives the reader hope that changing the direction of charity in America is possible, giving specific examples of effective charity in the remainder of the book. Sometimes it can be tempting to try to transfer resources, only in a slightly more dignifying way. For example, we’ve encountered Change-Makers who realized that handing out Christmas presents to children can be really embarrassing for parents — it’s toxic charity. The next step they take is hosting a Christmas store where parents can come and select toys for their kids, wrap them, and give them to their children. This is an absolutely improved model, and it’s one we use ourselves every year for Pride for Parents! What’s key is that we know the toy store won’t solve material needs. Resource transfer can be a healthy ecosystem and a way for organizations to engage, but it is not in itself the solution we are pursuing. This toy store isn’t the only way we come alongside a neighborhood here in Historic South Atlanta. Shifting to Development without RelationshipsOne of the biggest pivots we’ve seen is in turning over power to neighbors and local stakeholders. Even if we focus on place, revamp our programming, and build relationships – we may still not be sharing power. Toxic Charity is one of the most challenging books I've read in a long time. Much of the book for me was one of those "yes!" moments. Lupton was describing things that I knew were a problem, but had never managed to nail down the details. Last but not least: the lessons of Toxic Charity convinced us that proximity is the single greatest factor when doing neighborhood development work. Getting close to the place where you work, knowing your neighbors, fundamentally shifts the way you understand what’s happening there. You begin to see the complex systems at work. You see the innate dignity and strength of the people. You learn the history of the place. Toxic Charity taught us that relationships can steer Change-Makers away from a lot of common pitfalls. Lessons Learned in 10 Years of Toxic Charity We all have biases. Interrogating them is critical to being a trustworthy partner. One common error we’ve seen is change-makers trying to change their models without changing their own hearts. We have seen some people try to make change while still viewing their neighbors or neighborhoods as deficient. We’ve had tough conversations with some people who come to the conclusion that Toxic Charity is toxic because recipients are greedy or lazy. These biases will get in the way of trust and true partnership. Beliefs like these also tend to ignore local history and the realities of systemic injustice. We encourage everyone to examine their internal biases and to examine the histories of systemic injustice. We’re all part of systems that oppress some and give others an advantage. We’re all also un-learning prejudices and assumptions we have. It’s a journey! Ways Toxic Charity has changed us

This was a tough read, and I'm still not positive it was worth my time. I'm sure there are better places than this book to learn about running and serving in charities. One option is Melinda Gates, "Moment of Lift", which was a fascinating, educational read. Without these practical safeguards, Lupton warns of 5 downward steps to dependency: Appreciation, Anticipation, Expectation, Entitlement, and Dependency. Knowing the danger of repetitive, one-way giving assists charity workers to understand that they are often part of keeping individuals trapped in poverty and dependent on systems. The book is full of illustrative stores from both urban settings and third world settings, of both constructive charity and toxic charity. My problem is I needed a third area, rural. While I walked away from this book that our Churches (and government) are doing so much wrong and encouraging poverty with the very tools created to alleviate it, I didn't walk away with anything clear (yet) as to how it could be applied in small town USA. Because that is declining as well, sinking into poverty in many instances as the poor grow in number and the middle class disappears. I recently had the opportunity to hear Bob Lupton, author of Toxic Charity: How Churches and Charities Hurt Those They Help (And How to Reverse It), speak at the co-lab conference in Chicago.Starting with the incredible amounts of waste top-down charities generate, mostly by giving white people "help the poor" vacations or hiring white people to work within the charity, Lupton goes over comprehensive approaches to soliciting community involvement and the sorts of businesses they can develop. Food co-ops, thrift stores, microloans, and other activities that involve a lot more time and energy but also produce longer lasting results. He is intensely critical of programs that directly give to the poor without asking anything in return, often quoting members of those communities themselves. In case you didn’t notice, we’ve learned a lot of toxic charity lessons over the past 10 years! The last thing we’ve learned since Toxic Charity came out is that we’ll probably never stop learning. Our neighborhoods change. The fabric of our society changes. We change, too. That means that we must constantly adapt to change. We stay humble and keep learning together. Who knows what other toxic charity lessons we will glean in the next 10 years! As Brooks ( Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism ) has shown, giving by religious Americans, both to church-based charities and secular agencies like the Red Cross, is extraordinarily generous by any measure, in time, treasure, and talent, compared with that of secular Americans and citizens of other affluent countries. Lupton does not disparage these efforts or their (mostly) good intentions, but argues that most of this activity does more harm than good. Given the author's own commitment and credentials in the field, anyone engaged in this work will want to pay attention to his critique.