Last night Jobina and I went to a Harvest Dinner at our church. Seeing as it is an annual event, and we've missed it the past few years I guess it was time we go. The banquet is a fundraiser for Union Gospel Mission, a Winnipeg ministry that reaches out to the Point Douglas area of the city, one of the top 3 disadvantaged urban areas in Canada. They do awesome work.
Anyway, before we got to eat, we had a powerpoint presentation by one of their leaders. The leader narrated as they showed pictures of all the things they do. UGM has many ministries including a men's shelter/addiction treatment center, women's center, private school, kids ministries, vacation Bible School, local evangelism, adult education, counseling, drop in center, Bible camp sponsorships, as well as providing food and clothing to those in need. They do a lot! When I was a youth pastor, we brought a group of students out and volunteered in their men's center where we helped sort clothes and feed over a hundred people. Good memories.
Anyway, while listening/watching the presentation last night the presenter mentioned that when people come to get meals at the drop in center, they first must attend a short evangelism service. Spiritual food first. He said they make no apologies for this, they didn't think those entering hell would care too much about the food they got at UGM, thus the primacy of preaching the Gospel. Ironically, the presentation (although good) meant that we were eating over an hour later then I usually do and I felt distracted by my hunger! It brought back memories too of our visit with our students: when the speaker finishes speaking at those evangelism services, the people practically run out to the eating area. I've spoken to a couple speakers (mostly youth pastors) who feel like choosing to feed the people after the service severely detracts from the message. I lean toward their opinion myself. Something just doesn't feel right about it . . . like it's not a loving act (causing people to wait until after they've heard the message) because of the control issues involved. Am I treating them how I would want to be treated (the golden rule)? It's a tough decision - mission organizations wrestle with it all the time: food or evangelism first? What do you think?
Church service at Holy Church near Rescue 1
4 weeks ago
22 comments:
I think this is the first time I've ever commented on here, but reading this brought back many memories of volunteering at different soup kitchens in Winnipeg. I lean towards food first, evangelism during or after. UGM is a wonderful ministry, but having been involved in a fair share of their services before they served the food... hm... how many of those people actually heard the message? They slept, heckled, some listened... but is it an effective tool? A conundrum for me... or perhaps it's because it's late and I need to get to bed. Thanks for the food for thought (pardon the pun).
Hey Melanie, thanks for stopping in! Wow, you got heckling - that's brutal. It seems to me maybe that its an outdated ministry model - the gospel before food thing seems, well, mean. I like the strong emphasis on the Gospel though. I've seen what happens to aid organizations when they lose this focus . . . and it's sad.
Hey Mark, very interesting question and I'm not sure if I have an opinion (I see both sides doing good and harm).
But I am surprised at the fact that even though you were distracted by your hunger, you nailed all of his powerpoint points... I didn't think I was distracted but I guess I must have been because I forgot some of his slides ;)
You could almost say that even though all you thought about was how wonderful that food smelt during his presentation, once you were full, your mind came back to what he said and got you thinking... wouldn't that be the same with a sermon before feeding them? To get them thinking.
Keith, excellent points! Perhaps I wasn't as much distracted by my hunger as I was made uncomfortable with it. My discomfort (hunger) reminded me of the discomfort I felt for all the patrons waiting through our youth service all those years ago. Of course, being uncomfortable won't kill you and I guess you could argue that some levels of discomfort (1/2 an hours worth) is acceptable in order to make sure people hear the Gospel. I wonder if Jesus would have done that?
It still kind of feels like we are using our power (the club of food) to bully people listening to a message that they aren't choosing to hear. Does the end (they might be saved) justify the means (captive audience, blackmail)? That's what I struggle with.
Good thoughts - you're stretching me!
Hmmm...
Some might say that meeting a physical need is evangelizing. What did St. Francis (or was it Augustine) say? "Preach the Gospel, and if you have to, use words". In a sense, meeting physical needs is also meeting spiritual needs.
This is particularly true if the Gospel isn't reduced to simply getting into heaven/staying out of hell.
Well, what is the purpose of UGM, to save lives thru salvation.
Now you can say feeding them shows them the love of Christ through us.
The sermon gives them an opportunity to hear there choice (don't know how to phrase that but you know what I mean).
So UGM does both, but the question is what order.
What about the person who hasn't heard the gospel before and doesn't know they have to make a choice, would they choose to stay at the sermon after the meal?
What about the person who stays after the meal because it is cold outside and distrupts the sermon anyways.
In Alpha we eat first, granted no one is starving in the true meaning of the word. It gives us a chance to build relationship with these people, to build community, give them a place where people care about them and then we do the teaching. Many times we've had teens from the innercity just come for the meal, where honestly, it could have been their first meal of the day, and then left before we started the teaching, for that matter some were kicked out for raunchy behavior...but you know what, a year later one of those kids who didn't even hear the messages became a Christian and is now a helper at our current Alpha...all he did was eat with us, and get scolded occassionally :o).
Just thought I'd add this to the pot.
Jacquie
As I say, I find this a tough issue, but in a way it feels like the meal is just a ruse to get them into whatever place to listen to our message.
From that angle, I don't think it's right. We should feed those who are hungry because they are hungry and help those in need because they're in need. Why? Because that's what Jesus would have us do. I don't think Jesus taught us to take care of those in need as a marketing strategy.
Just thinking out loud... :)
Let me say I agree with you Marc,
But what if we assume that UGM is not doing this as a marketing strategy, but are really concern for these people, the lost, the hurt. And yes, sure food will help them out in the short term, but the knowledge, the saving grace and the acceptance of sin from our Lord is long term.
I think we have been stung too much in the past with mankind always out with a motive (look at our last election for an example ;)
With that said, I can't argue the fact that Jesus healed, fed, and comforted many people without a need for a sermon. So there is something to be said about that.
What about the fact that since the meal is after the service, it gives people a chance to stick around, talk to someone and ask questions about what they heard in a comfortable setting?
That's true---but it's still making the meal simply a venue for the message.
What I'm suggesting is that perhaps the meal could itself be the message.
I know that in my belief it is important to satisfy a person's physical needs before you can address their spiritual ones. If someone gives me something with no strings attached I am going to ask them why they do it. This would provide the opportunity to talk about God, the gospel and how He can fill your spiritual hunger. When you are hungry, all you can think of is your hunger. I thought of the quote that Marc mentioned as well. Just my two cents...
Although I think both meal is the message and no strings attached might prompt them to ask why they did it are good points.
I don't think it applies to UGM.
I think there are other shelters that feed the homeless that are not tied to any Church or Christan mission. Shouldn't we stand out a bit and at least tell them what we believe in?
I know actions speak louder than words, but sometimes you just have to come out and say it, no reading into it, no hidden motive, just the gospel truth.
It seems to me UGM first priority is to save the lost in the inner city. One of the ways they do that is to preach the good news, feed the hungry and cloth the poor. Might not be the best way to do it, but it is being done. I like that and pray to God that He uses that to save lives ;)
Good points everyone! I am impressed by the thoughts presented (on both sides). The difficulty I think is balancing two great needs (evangelism and meeting people's physical needs). They are both important. As Keith said, perhaps UGM is not doing this balancing perfectly, but they are making an attempt, kudos to them. Would I do things differently? Probably (OK, definitely), but I'm not sure exactly what that would like. Any ideas (ways to better balance both of these needs)? Also, is it blackmail to offer food if you listen to an evangelistic presentation first? These are my questions. . .
What if they did the message while people were eating? Then you can feed both needs at the same time?
That's funny Michelle, that's what I was going say!
Doing both at the same time would solve the problem in many ways. The only downfalls I could see would be the possibility of people being distracted from the message by the food (instead of their own hunger)and the inability to socialize over the meal. But it does address the blackmail issue better. I like to eat and read/watch/listen to stuff!
I wonder if any missions already do it this way . . .
I think we so often separate the two. Helping people (in this case feeding them) and the message. I think that is our grave error. The Message and the help are not separate, the message is about saving people (I think including saving them from hunger), the message is about healing (which includes salvation, and help). I think the problem with many of our missions (Christian ones) is that we are too afraid to sit down and share a meal AND our faith with people, so we have to program it in. A big part of the problem is that there are not enough people to sit down and visit with them, that is not UGM's fault, that is ours. So it has to be programmed in...I am off to preach at UGM at lunch time today! I have always been uneasy with it, but take the opportunity to visit with some of the people there as well, that's my way of handling it.
I suppose a compromise might be to serve the meal, do the sermon, then serve coffee and dessert afterwards?
I'm of the opinion it would be better to serve a meal first. Why? I've heard of at least a few schools in Manitoba that are moving to the "balanced school day" model; my dad is the principal at one of these schools (though I first heard about this through my job as a Recreation Director). The balanced school day actually has two meal times; a "nutrition break"/exercise break in the morning and then a lunch break later (I think around 1:00). The teachers are finding that the kids are paying more attention in class since they aren't hungry, and with only two longer breaks instead of three (one long and two short) they are actually gaining a lot more class time; with the system of a 10-15 minute break in the morning and afternoon a lot of time is lost when kids are getting settled back in to the classroom/putting away their outdoor clothes.
If you think about it, how many of us as kids would get home from school and go straight to the fridge for a snack before dinner? When we're hungry we are more easily distracted, so I would lean towards serving a meal first rather than afterwards.
The mission here in my city serves food first and makes sure everyone knows that all are welcome to stay for the chapel afterwards. I think that is more respectful, with 'no strings' attached to the meal. Of course, I can see the reasoning behind chapel first, but that is a bit manipulative. What would Jesus do? :)
Jesus fed 5,000 without any strings attached. Granted they were 'following' Jesus around already, so he fed them. He could have given them a message, maybe something to do with what was distressing him (John's beheading), but he didn't. I don't feel I can give my opinion on the work UGM is doing, as I haven't been involved enough with the poor myself. Just reading this post reminded me of the 5,000.
This is a hard one. I have worked with shelters for a while now and I always think about this question. I mean I don't want to enable people to live on the street by making it easy on them, but I also don't want to make it any harder than it already is. This seems to be the way it is across the board at all shelters, listen to the preacher first then you can eat.
Have we taken the time to ask why they do it this way? I wonder what they would say?
Post a Comment