Compassion or Co-Dependence?

An examination of compassionate Christian ministry in the 21st Century from the perspection of a Salvation Army Officer [1] by the late Captain John Walter

I

n 1865 William Booth felt the call of God upon his life to preach to the lost of East London. The people were some of the poorest of the poor. While the primacy of the mission was evangelism, there soon developed a wide variety of practical acts of compassion, feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, clothing the naked, caring for prisoners, and helping drunkards break their addiction.

This development was a natural outgrowth of the nature of Booth and those who laboured alongside him. As historian Edward McKinley suggests, it was inevitable that an organization of practical zealots propagating a gospel of universal love to large numbers of mostly indifferent, often needy, sometimes hostile people would be drawn to recognize one supreme fact: there is no true religion that is not acted out in compassion for the real problems of real people.

Booth’s officers and soldiers recognised that it was not enough just to preach to the poor, but they must reach out in practical ways to alleviate poverty.

A hallmark of this practical, caring ministry is Booth’s command, “No coddling, mind you!” He believed that even people who were in destitute poverty deserved to be treated with dignity, and dignity was maintained by not treating people as “charity cases.” Handouts were avoided and an emphasis placed on providing assistance in ways that allowed the recipients to participate, even if only in minor ways.

A hallmark of this practical, caring ministry is Booth’s command, “No coddling, mind you!”

More than 140 years later, The Salvation Army continues its dual mission of evangelistic preaching and compassionate ministry. The environment in which we operate in 21st century North America seems a world apart. The contrast can be best illustrated by some recent responses of clients at our food bank.

On more than one occasion, able-bodied clients have become agitated and yelled at us because we would not take an order over the telephone and deliver the groceries at a convenient time. One of the clients that we deliver to (because she is an invalid and unable to get out of her apartment) was unable to receive her groceries when our volunteer arrived as she was out getting her hair done. Another client came in to see us with her pregnant 17-year-old daughter, introducing her to the ‘place where you come to get your groceries.’ A growing percentage of our clients are under the age of 30 and capable of working, yet they have no intention of looking for work.

We have moved from a time where receiving charity was considered shameful and people would do anything to avoid, to a time where there is no shame, but where the receipt of support from government and charities is viewed as a right. This change has created many questions and challenges for those of us who reach out in Christ’s name.

The call for God’s people to show compassion permeates Scripture. In the Old Testament God calls his people to show the same level of concern for the poor and oppressed that he does. Laws for Israelite society ensured that ‘widows and orphans’ were cared for and that no one went hungry. Acts of charity and compassion are seen as virtuous. In the later writings the psalmists and prophets admonish the people to turn away from their selfish ways and fulfil their God-given responsibility to care for the poor.

Laws for Israelite society ensured that ‘widows and orphans’ were cared for and that no one went hungry. Acts of charity and compassion are seen as virtuous.

The New Testament continues this call for compassion.[2] In Luke 4.18,19, Jesus lays the foundation for his ministry of alleviating oppression, including the oppression of poverty. His story of the sheep and the goats (Matthew 25) is an explicit call to care for those less fortunate. And Paul, James and other New Testament writers expand on the use of our material possessions to help alleviate the poverty and suffering of others (2 Corinthians 9.9; James 2).

The biblical calling for the individual Christians and the church is clear—we must care for those who cannot care for themselves. From our material wealth we should ensure that others do not go without. Equally clear is the call to personal responsibility. None of the scriptural calls to alleviate poverty apply to those who are able to care for themselves.

None of the scriptural calls to alleviate poverty apply to those who are able to care for themselves

The Old Testament gleaning laws, for example, did not call for handouts for “the poor and the foreigners living among you” (Leviticus 23.22)[2] but rather that some crops would be left to provide for those who owned no land. The expectation is not that they will be given a handout but rather have the opportunity to feed themselves through gleaning someone else’s land.

Similarily manner, the concepts of personal responsibility and working when able,underpin the New Testament teaching on caring for the poor. Perhaps the clearest expression of this is in 2 Thessalonians 3.6-15. Paul’s powerful words are instructive for the church.

The juxtaposition of compassion and individual responsibility found in Scripture reflects the situation in which William Booth and the early Salvationists found themselves ministering. The Army reached out in love to help people who truly wanted to work and felt a sense of shame that they were unable to provide for themselves and their families. In his book In Darkest England and The Way Out, Booth shares numerous personal stories of the poor they were ministering to. Tragically, some felt the shame so severely that they committed suicide rather than face the knowledge that they had to seek handouts just to survive.

This has changed dramatically in the last 30 years in particular. The understanding of compassion from both the perspective of the giver and the receiver has changed. This change has created a challenging new environment in which to minister.

The English word compassion comes from two Latin words, ‘com’ (with) and ‘pati’ (to suffer) .It literally meant to come alongside and suffer with someone else. To show compassion meant that you would see a brother or sister suffering and personally work to help alleviate their suffering. This is consistent with the Biblical perspective.

The English word compassion comes from two Latin words, ‘com’ (with) and ‘pati’ (to suffer) .It literally meant to come alongside and suffer with someone else.

We have moved from suffering together, to pity, to a deep feeling, to sympathy that might include a desire to help. The impact on the church, assuming that it follows the general cultural trend, is huge. Scripture’s call is for individual believers and the church generally to personally get involved to help alleviate suffering and poverty. Our new societal understanding of compassion means we no longer get personally involved.

Scripture’s call is for individual believers and the church generally to personally get involved to help alleviate suffering and poverty. Our new societal understanding of compassion means we no longer get personally involved.

I can be compassionate just by having sympathy for the poor. If I do have a desire to help, I need not really get involved. I can simply hire someone to care for me (e.g. write a cheque to my favourite charity or hire someone on church staff.) In this way I feel good about meeting my obligation to God and people with minimal disruption to my life.

This new form of compassion has more to do with me feeling good about myself than it does about coming alongside and suffering with the needy. It is difficult to help someone if you do not know their name and have never talked to them, yet that is what happens when compassion becomes donating a few dollars to a worthy cause. This shift has moved the responsibility away from the individual to the government or charities. And the programs developed in this institutional model of compassion have contributed greatly to the change in attitude among those who are the beneficiaries of the compassion.

In Booth’s day, there were people who lived, as he described it, by vice, meaning they were quite happy to take advantage of the aid that was in place while feeling no compunction about never seeking to change their circumstances. But this was a relatively small group of people. Society placed a stigma on receiving handouts and most poor people did everything they could to avoid becoming dependent on any form of assistance. In addition, the assistance available was minimal by today’s standards.

Today that has changed. In our societal desire to help, we have created a tremendous problem. Myron Magnet in The Dream and The Nightmare: The Sixties’ Legacy to the Underclass and Marvin Olasky in The Tragedy of American Compassion both ably document the tragic consequences of the last forty years of ‘organised’ compassion. Our desire as a society to alleviate poverty was noble. The means chosen, however, have had the unintended effect of creating a permanent underclass through two main changes in how we view and respond to poverty.

In seeking to treat all people humanely, our desire was to remove the stigma of poverty. It is a positive thing to break down barriers that would cause poor people to be considered second-class citizens and treated badly. Unfortunately, in the process of reclaiming a level of respect for all our citizens, we have removed the desire to escape poverty.

…in the process of reclaiming a level of respect for all our citizens, we have removed the desire to escape poverty.

This view is bolstered by treating poverty as a societal ill caused by capitalism, greed, world trade or government policy. While this may to boost the self-esteem of the poor, it removes any sense of personal responsibility. If I am on social assistance, it is because someone else caused it, not because of choices or decisions I have made or will make, any incentive to make positive changes to move out of poverty is eliminated. If it is not my fault there is no reason for me to change anything.

The second change in how we view poverty and the poor is that we have attempted to make sure that no one in our society goes hungry. It is good to ensure benefits large enough so that people can buy enough food to eat, but if it makes for a reasonably comfortable living, again the incentive to make any changes has been removed. Many poverty activists argue that current social assistance is completely inadequate, but as I work with clients I see their lives tell a different story. Most generally have more disposable income then the working poor who are trying support themselves. Most rarely lack money for entertainment, the latest technology, and alcohol and tobacco.

With these changes we are left with a difficult situation. We have created a very unhealthy co-dependent relationship rather than a truly compassionate Christian mission.

We have created a very unhealthy co-dependent relationship rather than a truly compassionate Christian mission.

The church and society at large feel guilty that amidst all the wealth in our society there are people who go hungry and do not have adequate housing or clothing. Because our modern understanding of compassion has been so watered down from its original meaning, we support assistance programs with our taxes and donations. This allows us to feel good without personal involvement with the poor.

The so-called compassionate programs are creating a dependency in the people we are seeking to help. Our handout programs actually keep people trapped in a world of poverty by taking away incentive to better oneself.

Our handout programs actually keep people trapped in a world of poverty by taking away incentive to better oneself.

And so the cycle continues. We continue to feel good giving to charity and the people trapped in poverty continue to be dependent and need us. If we were actually involved in people’s lives (being truly compassionate—suffering alongside) we would develop very different strategies for helping people alleviate poverty.

Identifying the challenge is comparatively easy. Many have gone before to lay the groundwork for us. We need to rediscover a compassionate model of holistic ministry for today, where we become involved in others’ lives, working alongside them rather than just paying to have someone else ‘take care of the problem.’ The real question is how (or whether) we can move from where we are today to a true model of Christian compassion.

We need to rediscover a compassionate model of holistic ministry for today, where we become involved in others’ lives, working alongside them rather than just paying to have someone else ‘take care of the problem.’

Change is never easy, and when you seek to change a deeply rooted system there is much resistance. An additional challenge is seeking to change our practical support ministry. To a casual observer, the changes could be seem as quite ‘un-Christian’ if you seek to reduce the immediate benefits. In our instantaneous, drive-through world, it is difficult to convince people that short-term pain will indeed yield long-term gain.

There are two key areas that I believe can yield much fruit in seeking to move towards a truly compassionate, holistic model of caring for the poor and less fortunate.

The Salvation Army needs to rediscover its roots. I have spent much time with William Booth’s In Darkest England and the Way Out published in 1890. While some of the aspects of his great Scheme to alleviate poverty were ultimately unsuccessful (though most were successful), his analysis of poverty in the first part of the book is brilliant. The statistics and language need updating but the lessons he draws from his first-hand exposure to 25 years of working among the poor are unparalleled.

In particular, in a short chapter entitled “The Essentials To Success” he identifies seven keys that will determine whether his scheme is successful. We would be wise to study these essentials and apply them to the programs we seek to launch today. If we had done so, we might have avoided some of the problems we find ourselves in. For example, his sixth key states, “The indirect features of the scheme must not be such as to produce injury to the persons whom we seek to benefit.” [3] This wisdom could have helped avoid creating the situation we now have, where giving handouts creates dependency rather than helping people better themselves.

The reality of our 21st century North American environment is that most people we seek to help lack the will or desire to escape the poverty they (and quite likely their parents, grandparents, etc.) find themselves in. All of our programs designed to provide escape simply reinforce the dependency they already feel. This will continue to be part of the problem rather than becoming part of the solution.

The reality of our 21st century North American environment is that most people we seek to help lack the will or desire to escape the poverty they (and quite likely their parents, grandparents, etc.) find themselves in.

The way ahead will not be easy. But if we are to be faithful to our calling as God’s people, honouring him by caring for the poor, we must be willing to do the hard work required to move towards a truly compassionate, holistic model of caring.

At the time of his death in September 2005, John Walter had been contemplating taking a PhD in Theology and Ethics, on this very subject of compassion and co-dependence. Growing up in Toronto John’s home church was the Scarborough Corps. While his first two degrees (from the University of Toronto–a BA in Commerce and an MBA) prepared him for a decade in the computer industry, he and his wife Kim would be commissioned as officers in the same year they celebrated their 10th wedding anniversary, 1995. They would pastor for the next decade, first in rural Saskatchewan and then Mississauga, raising their children Erin, Stuart and Nathan. John was deeply committed to the idea of being transformed by the renewing of the mind, as Paul instructed;his preaching and teaching were thoroughly grounded in Scripture and guided by serious theological reflection; he was committed to making The Salvation Army the best it could be by ensuring everything that he did on its behalf was supported by Biblical teaching.

NOTES

[1] This paper was written to fufill course requirements for a Master of Theological Studies from McMaster University.

[2] NLT is the translation used here and throughout.

[3] Booth, 95.

7 Comments to Compassion or Co-Dependence?

1. Hi All!

   It was a sorrowful pleasure to post this article to the website because I believe that Captain John Walter was called to speak wisdom to those of us who minister to the downtrodden. What follows here will be a discussion that honours his memory by moving us forward in our thinking about the ways we serve the poor.

   [Now when I say "us" or "we" I'm being a bit presumptuous because, unlike Captain Walter I'm a layperson. The most I can do is care, pray and/or give supportive referrals.]

   It would be a wonderful to link this analysis of co-dependence to the literature on Learned Helplessness. This literature suggests that if one’s life is regulated too long by the perverse disincentives of social assistance, that a depression that distorts one’s sense of economic and social efficacy will result and that permanent, painful dependence will set in.

   Personally I worry less about children growing up as intergenerational social assistance recipients thanthe fact that from a very early age the only educated adults these children will know are health and social service professionals. And when they enter the education system it is likely to be more of a trial than the joy it ought to be. Those who do “make it” are overrepresented in the helping professions, seek parenthood far too early, precisely because those are the only authority figures they’ve ever known.

   Captain Walter was onto something. To “help” people without allowing them to be productive denies them a huge part of their humanity, the chance to contribute. There is much pain in feeling useless. It is isolating.
Andrea on July 5th, 2006

2. This issue of co-dependence is something that I’ve been thinking about a great deal over the last year or so. Here in Latvia a lot of our corps-based social work is in the field of humanitarian aid. There are some families who receive food parcels week in, week out and I worry about the dependency they have formed on us.

   The need for Army programmes to make an impact on the real issues that are causing co-dependence is equally as important as our treatment of the symptoms.

   Andrea, I remember hearing that the level of deprivation in any area stays fairly level until the number of professionals living in that area dips below a certain level. The problem for many areas of our inner-cities is that the ‘professional classes’ have abandonded them for either suburbian bliss or the new ‘trendy’ inner city areas. Until this is reversed I worry that nothing much will change!

   Finally your reference to “Learned Helplessness” is interesting to me and any links you might be able to post would be greatly appreciated!
Graeme Smith on July 6th, 2006

3. Graeme:

   A good start for links: ishttp://salmon.psy.plym.ac.uk/year2/psy221depression/psy221depression.htm

   Because the very name “Learned Helplessness” rings true many people who use it would be unlikely to know that it came out of lab research on animal behaviour. And in addition to the formative literature it’s out there in common use. Malcolm Gladwell and commentators have written good pieces that show it’s not just for poor people any more http://www.gladwell.com/2004/2004_01_12_a_suv.html and http://blogs.salon.com/0002007/2005/10/31.html

   There is, of course, healthy dependence. As humans we have a primal need to be part of community, but it’s the mode of that interaction that makes a big difference for the individual and community. If it’s whiny and self-pitying, people will be isolated from those on whom they need to depend.

   Andrea
Andrea on July 6th, 2006

4. Great article!!! I think I’ll print it out and pin it to my bedroom wall.

   While I don’t have much experience in this area, I come from a town that would provide an excellent case study for anyone who wished to observe the damaging effects of compassion. My hometown has a high unempoyment rate (over 10%) and what I would call a culture of co-dependence. People grow up with the attitude that when they finish high school, they will go onto welfare payments because that is their right, and what their parents and grandparents did. To get their payments, they are required to look for four jobs per fortnight, but that is all to easy to fake, and when the chances of finding work are so low, and life on the dole (unemployment payments) is so comfortable, what is the point of trying.

   In the case of my home town, however, I believe the problem is, at least in part, spiritual. I noticed it the most when I left for a year and then came back. There is a heaviness in the town that seems to sap you of motivation, and if you can somehow muster even the inclination to change, this Spirit of despondency has such a strong hold and makes the hopelessness of your situation seem overwhelming. Escape does not look like a viable option, and contentment with your current situation is the only choice left to you. I am not excusing these people, only saying that there are many factors contributing to the problem, and they need to be considered in each case.

   I have had the opportunity to observe our Corps’ welfare department, and have seen how ingrained co-dependence has become as a lifestyle option. People come in every six weeks like clockwork for their food voucher. (If they had a budget, it would come under ‘income’). When offered assistance with budgeting their income, they turn it down. When told that they will not receive another handout unless they accept help in improving their circumstances, they invariably reply with, ‘Fine! I’ll just starve then!’

   We make budgetting assistance available for those who want to escape their socio-economic status, but I think that the problem with that is that those who want to change are also the ones who are too ashamed to seek assistance in the first place. Catch-22. the ones that we have the potential to help in the long term (the ones who have the desire to change) are the ones who see asking for a handout as a bad thing, and try not to seek assistance (which is, ironically) the attitude that we like to see).

   I am of the view that we need to show tough love to those who are capable of supporting themselves but do not. Less handouts and more coming alongside and assisting in financial planning, job seeking, basic life skills if that is what is necessary. I would even go so far as to call it bad stewardship when we use our resources to feed someone for a week when we could use those resources to make their quality of life better.

   God Bless

   Mel

   Australia.
Mel Cotton on July 9th, 2006

5. In spite of my previous article, a word from William might be appropriate here. (Although I’m not sure I’ve transcribed it all correctly). The copy is below, listen to it here:

   http://vvl.lib.msu.edu/showfindingaid.cfm?findaidid=BoothW

   “I am glad you are enjoying yourselves. The Salvationist is a friend of happiness. Making heaven on earth is our business. Serve the Lord with gladness is one of our favourite mottos. So I am pleased that you are pleased! But amidst all your joys don’t forget the sons and daughters of misery. Do you ever visit them? Come away and let us make a call or two. Here is a home, six in family, they eat and drink and sleep and sick and die in the same chamber. Here is a drunkard’s hovel, void of furniture, wife a skeleton, children in rags; father maltreating the victims of his neglect.
   Here are the unemployed, wandering about, seeking work and finding none. Yonder are the wretched criminals cradled in crime passing in and out of the prisons all the time.
   There are the daughters of shame deceived and wronged and ruined. Travelling down the darking blind to an early grave. There are the children, fighting in the gutter, going hungry to school.
   Growing up to fill their parents places. Brought it all on themselves, you say? Perhaps so. But that does not excuse our assisting them.
   You don’t demand a certificate of virtue before you drag some drowning creature out of the water. Nor the assurance that a man is saved by grace (?) before you deliver him from the burning building.
   But what shall we do? Content ourselves by singing a hymn? Offering a prayer? Or giving a little good advice? NO! Ten thousand times no! We will forgive them. Feed them! Reclaim them. Employ them!
   Perhaps we shall fail with many. Quite likely. But our business is to help them all the same. And that in the most practical, economical and Christlike manner.
   So let us hasten to the rescue for the sake of our own peace, the poor wretches themselves, (?) of these children, and the Saviour of us all. But you must help with the means.
   And as there is nothing like the present. Who in this company will lend a hand by taking up the challenge?”
Grant on July 10th, 2006

6. Andrea, thanks for the links! I’ve been reading up and trying to get my head around the subject.

   Mel, I agree with quite a bit of what you say. We do need tough love and we need to come alongside people more in the situations they find themselves.

   Grant, after everything you said you quote William Booth! Seriously though it seems that the Founder understood the problems way ahead of his time! Whilst we should do everything in God’s power to help people out of their “misery” there will always be people who are unwilling to change their circumstances. The problem though is that so many have come to rely on the things that we provide for them, which was never the aim of what we do, its simply circumstances and the failure on our part to constantly evaluate!
Graeme Smith on July 13th, 2006

7. What comes to me is that in order to suffer alongside, we need to experience the same poverty - or perhaps in the case of the corps giving handouts, an even more radical poverty.

   If the Corps HAD nothing to give, all it would have to give was Christ - and his compassion. It would mean getting out of the food-handouts business and instead living a demonstration of working in exchange for food or fuel.

   The radical surrendering of ownership of anything takes you to a wholly different place of trusting in God, and gives you an entirely different perspective on work. Francis expected his friars not to accept money for work,but only a meal, and possibly shelter for the night.
   A whole different approach. Difficult with buildings, staff, programmes….
Eleanor Burne-Jones n/TSSF on July 13th, 2006

Leave a comment