Part of this article is used in another upcoming post that contains a few comments on a sermon available online.
It involves a common theme in Christianity: what should we do to help the homeless person on the side of the road who is asking for money?
There is an underlying assumption that Christians will be giving to the poor and needy. And this is a good assumption, as there are biblical commands to take care of those who are legitimately in need. Especially those of the household of faith. And I would agree with that statement that is frequently made by speakers.
44 Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, 45 and [o]sold their possessions and goods, and divided[p] them among all, as anyone had need.
Acts 2:44-45
What I don’t agree with is an Inception-style assumption within the assumption.
So often you hear speakers today talk about the poor and needy and they’re often indirectly or even directly describing the people you might come across in the street or on highways. I have known of some speakers to even make it a point to suggest that you are neglecting a Christain duty if you drive past the panhandler on the highway. They then place some moral judgment on you based on how you view and what you do for those people.
Here’s the problem: these speakers have no idea if those people are actually poor and/or needy.
The assumption within the assumption is that panhandlers are actually poor.
I’m not denying that there are people who are legitimately homeless and who need help with their physical needs.
But as I state frequently, many times those so-called poor and needy are better off financially than most of the members of the congregation that are being shamed for not supporting those allegedly poor, needy people.
Kentucky Beggars Earns $100,000 Yearly by Faking Disability
Panhandlers who work deceptively have a good racket going, and they’re providing value to people who give them money.
This is a point in and of itself and a side note that deserves further elaboration.
I’ve often wondered why panhandlers, loiterers, and the allegedly homeless receive so much money in donations from people who drive by them on the road. I frequently wonder this because my underlying belief has always been that if a person receives money he/she must be providing something of value to society. And what value are panhandlers providing?
This question rolled around in my mind for some time until a potential answer became quite clear.
People aren’t just giving money to the supposedly “homeless” person.
No, people are giving money to purchase the right to feel good about themselves and/or morally superior to others who do not give.
They are purchasing a feeling of altruism.
They are purchasing the freedom from the guilt they feel when they ignore a panhandler.
The allegedly homeless allow donors to lift their spirits and feel morally superior to those who don’t mindlessly donate money.
I’m not arguing that everyone behaves or thinks this way after giving money to a homeless person, but it is a common theme among religious people.
Giving money to the allegedly homeless person provides you with the feeling that you are righteous. And that is what you are after.
And that’s what you’re doing. You’re attempting to purchase righteousness. It’s not about helping another person, it’s about the emotional and spiritual elevation of the self. Whether or not this is done on a conscious level is irrelevant – because this is based on an analysis of human nature.
We are pleasure-seeking and pain-avoiding organisms. We seek to avoid the pain of guilt we feel when we drive by those people and seek the pleasure we feel from giving them money. It is an emotional proposition all the way around.
And even if you aren’t giving money to feel morally superior, I would argue that the next most likely reason is that you are giving money to avoid guilt.
The second way the allegedly homeless person provides value that people will pay for is they alleviate people’s sense of guilt.
Many people simply feel bad for driving by a homeless person. So they give money to them to make themselves feel better.
Again, it is not about giving money, it is not about helping people who have a legitimate need, it is about purchasing the freedom from guilt.
People are always less kind and altruistic than we give them credit for. If I was a betting man, I would always wager on the side of human nature. Human nature seeks pleasure and avoids pain. Many people give money to the homeless to seek the pleasure of moral superiority or avoid the pain of guilt. I would argue that this is the majority of cases.
Cultural Impact
Have you noticed the rate of panhandlers and allegedly homeless in America increase under the Biden administration? It seems to be clear that certain forms of government are soft on crime, weak on rules, and generate the incentive for pseudo-poverty. It is worth noting that even those under the poverty line in America are wealthy relative to underdeveloped countries experiencing true poverty.
At the time of this writing, there are “help wanted signs everywhere. There are more Jobs available than there are workers to fill those jobs.
Yet despite that, homelessness has remained the same or even increased!
Life is not harder. Living environments and situations are not worse. America and the rest of the modern world are in upward trajectories yet there are still high levels of unemployment and homelessness.
So are the allegedly homeless unable to find work? Or perhaps are they unwilling to work because doing so would require them to take a pay cut? I would argue for the latter.
The note about the government is to suggest that people were not in “poverty” and panhandling at the rate they were previously, but have since increased due to governmental incentives.
When you can get paid for doing nothing, you just became incentivized to do nothing. We cannot be shocked when more people do nothing after being incentivized to do so.
This is one of my concerns with Universal Basic Income (UBI). Some think that it will liberate people and allow them to do what they want for work with less concern for the earning potential of the field. With an extra $10,000 yearly coming from the government, a person would have less financial concerns about being a teacher, artist, or some other profession with low or staggered income [except at extreme levels of professional success].
But I believe, as we have seen with the modern welfare state, UBI will encourage people to sit and do nothing. Once people start receiving payouts, they will demand more – it is human nature. $10,000 will not be enough. They will require more. Human nature requires more.
And individual inactivity will lead to crime. Humans do not do well when they do not have work to do. They will create chaos just to have some excitement.
It is unwise to indiscriminately incentive panhandling by mindlessly giving money to the homeless.
Again, lest anyone gets offended [which no doubt they will], I am not suggesting that there are not legitimately homeless people.
I am not suggesting that we shouldn’t help anyone. And I am not suggesting that everyone who gives to the homeless is mindlessly trying to purchase righteousness or avoid personal feelings of guilt.
What I am requesting is that concerning the matter of giving to the poor, we use discretion, as we should be using it in all endeavors.
The solution is discretion-based giving.
If the goal of the Christian is to convert souls, we cannot hope that the simple provision of money will complete that goal. The Goal of Christianity is not to mindlessly give away as much money and food as possible.
Some Christians suggest that “free-giving” [a more politically correct term for “mindless giving”] of food and money is a way to “make connections” and “connect with the community”.
Oftentimes the community is just looking for a handout. And “Connection” is not the final step in the process of salvation.
Discretion-based giving involves discretion.
This is obvious, but it is a favorite pastime of religious people to mindlessly do what they think are good deeds without any rational thought and without any concern for second and third-order consequences of actions. How many good actions have been taken that have negative downstream consequences?
Resources are limited. We cannot mindlessly give without using our minds first.
If a person who panhandles on the side of the road is one of the many fakes who take advantage of people’s guilt, should that person be given money? Again, not all people are like this. But if they are, should we be giving them money? Is mindlessly giving them money good or bad stewardship?
I would argue that this person should not be given money and it would be poor stewardship to do so.
So there must be some form of criteria by which we can determine the legitimacy of panhandlers. There must also be a framework for how to work on converting these individuals as well.
Even the bible has a discretion-based process for taking care of widows based on if they are true widows or not.
3 Honor widows who are really widows. 4 But if any widow has children or grandchildren, let them first learn to show piety at home and to repay their parents; for this is [a]good and acceptable before God. 5 Now she who is really a widow, and left alone, trusts in God and continues in supplications and prayers night and day. 6 But she who lives in [b]pleasure is dead while she lives. 7 And these things command, that they may be blameless. 8 But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
9 Do not let a widow under sixty years old be taken into the number, and not unless she has been the wife of one man, 10 well reported for good works: if she has brought up children, if she has lodged strangers, if she has washed the saints’ feet, if she has relieved the afflicted, if she has diligently followed every good work.
11 But [c]refuse the younger widows; for when they have begun to grow wanton against Christ, they desire to marry, 12 having condemnation because they have cast off their first [d]faith. 13 And besides they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house, and not only idle but also gossips and busybodies, saying things which they ought not. 14 Therefore I desire that the younger widows marry, bear children, manage the house, give no opportunity to the adversary to speak reproachfully
1 Timothy 5:3-14
Imagine that, there is a discretionary outline for how to provide for widowed members of the household of faith!
There was a problem in the church with people who were not true widows leeching off the church and being busybodies. And Paul outlines criteria for true widows and what should be done about the busybody younger widows.
If discretion is involved in taking care of widows, and not worldly widows but Christian widows, how much more so should there be a discretionary thought process when providing physical resources to people who are not actually homeless and who are not Christians?
So to answer the question of the article in a line – should we give money to the homeless? If they are truly homeless, we can consider helping. If they are taking advantage of us, we should not. Discretion is required to determine if people are homeless or not. And discretion is needed when determining if they should be given money or not.
Here is a framework and list of tools that people can use to determine if someone should be given money:
- Are they legitimately homeless? If you do not know, better to err on the side of caution.
- Can you work to convert them? Everyone has a chance at salvation – and this is the goal of giving to people. Are they willing to trade food for Bible study? If they are willing, trade them.
- Will they accept a simple meal or do they demand cash only? If they demand money, do not give.
- Will they accept a gift card that can only be used at a restaurant? If not, do not give.
- Here is a critical question: are they willing to trade some work for food and money? If they answer”no”, you likely know exactly the kind of person they are. What “hungry“, rational person would not trade a little effort for food unless they already knew they could get food in easier ways?
