Feeding, caring for homeless in Myrtle Beach not necessarily ‘Toxic Charity’
As states like Arkansas and Indiana struggle with the “religious right to discriminate” conundrum, the city of Myrtle Beach has the opposite situation in its goal of trying to reverse “Toxic Charity.”
Three years ago, Myrtle Beach city government and many community leaders were convinced that urban activist Robert D. Lupton had the answer for how to better deal with homelessness. After hearing from the author of “Toxic Charity” the city bought into the book’s subtitle: “How Churches and Charities Hurt Those They Help (And How to Reverse It)”
Other local advocates for the homeless feel a Christian calling to care for homeless people, regardless of their willingness to try to break out of their situation. “We just believe it is our right to take care of these people,” George Lorenz says.
He expressed concerns when the city fire marshal told Sun Coast Church it could not have a short-term emergency shelter because the building didn’t have enough entrances and exits. “You are violating our rights to practice our beliefs,” Lorenz said.
Lupton’s theme is that Americans “are very generous in charitable giving, [but] much of that money is either wasted or actually harms the people it is targeted to help.” He terms the situation “a growing scandal that we both refuse to see and actively perpetuate.” Lupton has four decades of experience “in inner-city Atlanta and beyond, trying to develop models of urban renewal that are effective and truly serve the poor.”
In outlining “The Scandal” (Chapter One) Lupton writes that “religiously motivated charity is often the most irresponsible. Our free food and clothing distribution encourages ever-growing handout lines, diminishing the dignity of the poor while increasing their dependency. We converge on inner-city neighborhoods to plant flowers and pick up trash, bruising the pride of residents who have the capacity (and responsibility) to beautify their own environments.”
A steering committee, including a variety of community and church leaders, recommended formation of New Directions, merging Street Reach, the Center for Women and Children, and Lifeline. The latter is the reorganized CASA, which had run into legal difficulties.
But Lupton’s inner-city perspective is one of the problems with a tourism city buying lock-stock-and-barrel into reversing “Toxic Charity.” Myrtle Beach is worlds away from inner-city Atlanta, Boston, Charlotte or Chicago.
Without a doubt, New Directions has had some success. As reported by Issac Bailey in The Sun News (April 19), New Directions saved about $350,000 in its first year of operations. The Street Reach component served 527 people in 2014. Depending on which estimate is used, the city has 800 to 1,000 homeless people. In fiscal year 2014-15, the city supported New Directions with $130,950. In four years, New Directions has received United Way of Horry County allocations totaling $127,600.
The city has stopped funding for Community Kitchen of Myrtle Beach. Deacon Peter Casamento says the cumulative loss is about $75,000. This weekend, the nonprofit’s financial situation is forcing it to stop meals on Saturdays. Swash Park Ministries of First Baptist Church, which has served a Sunday brunch at Community Kitchen, will now serve Saturday and Sunday meals at another location., missionary Carol Stallings says. “I don’t care what they say, we have 900 to 1,000 homeless. We are going to feed them.”
The Sun News report quoted city spokesman Mark Kruea on New Directions: “... more important [than saving significant dollars] it has helped dozens of people escape their homeless condition and recover their lives.” Kruea also noted “the real help that is available to those who are willing to take advantage of it.”
That underscores the fundamental conflict – intellectual, spiritual – between the city’s approach and the Christian’s responsibility to care “for these the least of my brothers and sisters,” in Jesus’ words.
To be fair, the New Directions “mission is to get people out of poverty and homelessness,” executive director Kathy Jenkins says. “What we’re doing in this community is right.”
But the “Toxic Charity” approach boils down to saying to homeless people who cannot or will not change, “We don’t want you in Myrtle Beach.”
Reversing “Toxic Charity” – where it in fact exists – is a good goal, but even Lupton acknowledges, not all charity is toxic.
And what is appropriate for the city of Myrtle Beach is not necessarily so for nonprofits, especially churches, that serve the homeless, including those who don’t have the desire to change. Casamento says “Toxic Charity” has good points – but nowhere does it have the words of Christ.”
This story was originally published May 2, 2015 at 1:37 PM with the headline "Feeding, caring for homeless in Myrtle Beach not necessarily ‘Toxic Charity’."