Living alongside neighbors in Atlanta, Bob started to notice the ways many charity programs were unhelpful at best and at worst downright degrading. At the same time, he knew that everyone coming to his neighborhood to do charity had their hearts in the right place. Many of them truly wanted to help. They simply had no idea what they were doing was harmful.

Since Toxic Charity came out, we’ve learned new ways to make sure our organization is accountable to the neighborhood. It means structuring the organization itself to make sure that the neighborhood can determine its course. #7 Neighbors Contributing is different than Neighbors Leading The author's next book is called Charity Detox: What Charity Would Look Like If We Cared About Results. I'll say one thing for him: He gives pointers--which sets Robert Lupton's books apart from those reviewed in a very discouraging 2010 New Yorker article by Philip Gourevitch, although perhaps they're part of the same genre. Book Genre: Christian, Christianity, Christian Living, Faith, Nonfiction, Poverty, Religion, Social Issues, Social Justice, Social Movements, Theology Here are our top 10 insights in how to avoid Toxic Charity. We’ve learned these lessons in the 10 years since Toxic Charity first came out! Since her first visit to East Africa as a teenager, McNamara says she has undergone a journey of understanding what God’s generosity can and must look like among those living in poverty. Her own dreams of feeding the poor and saving developing countries from poverty slowly fell apart as she encountered people who weren’t looking for food or toys, but rather sustainable employment and the means to utilize their own power and giftedness to support their families. The Samaritan’s Purse project Operation Christmas Child, an effort in which 500,000 volunteers invest each year, is a large-scale expression of generosity that has failed to listen and learn what truly gives life to people in need, she says.

Recommendations

The author gave a presentation on his next book (same topic) during Labor Day weekend 2015 at the Decatur Book Festival--the first I'd heard of him or either of these books. I thought it behooved me to read the first one first. In some ways, Lupton echoes those 19th-century critics of "sentimental charity," who sought to replace random handouts with organized charity based on a relationship between giver and recipient that offered "not alms, but a friend" (the motto of the Charity organization Societies). Those charity reform efforts, which gave rise to the profession of social work, are widely disparaged today, not least by professional social workers. But the problem of how to help those who need help, whether through government programs or private charity, in ways that do not shame, demoralize, sap initiative, and create dependency remains, as Lupton shows, as big a challenge today as ever.

This book should be read by the 90% of Americans who are either personally or financially involved in some sort of “charity,” be it local service projects, short or long-term mission trips, or volunteering at a soup kitchen. At the very least, leaders for ministries, missions, or non-profits engaged in poverty alleviation should immediately put this book at the top of their list as they develop strategies to move their organizations toward practicing charity that fosters freedom, not dependence. 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. Just like Toxic Charity was applicable to everyone making change, HND can transform your development work. Whether you are in an urban neighborhood, a rural county, or a community in the developing world, our team can put these principles and practices to work for you. So what's my problem with the book? All of his examples are Lake Effect examples but he presents them as support for why charity fosters dependency. "85% of funds sent to help Africa don't reach the people, so giving money to help people isn't good." No, 85% of funds don't reach the people b/c they have corrupt governments that steal the funds for themselves, so there are no fish in the lake and we need to find a new solution to work around that.

Reviews

In his decades of work on the front lines of urban ministry Lupton has found “doing for rather than doing with those in need is the norm” and goes on to write, “Add to it the combination of patronizing pity and unintended superiority, and charity becomes toxic.” 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.

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. Over time, we’ve realized that while re-designing programs is great, we must go further if we want to make lasting change. Even the best-designed program can’t reshape systems to be more equitable. We must take a holistic approach and see how our programs fit in with an approach that aims to transform places, not just reform programs! #2 Charity isn’t automatically toxic 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. We talk to Change-Makers who really want to make a difference every day. Here are a few common Toxic Charity mistakes: Only Focusing on Resource Transfer

Subscribe by email

I have to say that I have spent much of my adult life participating in the various forms of charity that Lupton sets his sights on, so admittedly, that may lead me toward a defensive bias. Please take that into consideration as you read my opinions below. In the end, when churches and faith communities reconcile with the fact that engaging poverty will be extremely difficult and possibly not produce any visible results, Weir says, they must finally be willing to leave their bubble, especially the one created by Operation Christmas Child and charity projects like it. If they can leave that bubble, Weir added, they can always find people and organizations that are truly engaging poverty and building relationships that empower communities in need. 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.

It’s been nearly 10 years since Toxic Charity first came out. Its core messages ring as true as ever. Today, we want to share some of the key insights from Toxic Charity and the ways we have continued to grow from its roots. What was Toxic Charity the Book Listen closely to those you seek to help, especially to what is not being said - unspoken feelings may contain essential clues to effetive service. Toxic Charity’s great weakness is that Lupton appears to hold to an incomplete gospel–a social gospel. His is a gospel of love and service and charity, but not a gospel of Christ’s atoning death satisfying the just wrath of God and saving people from the eternal consequences of their rejection of God. He believes “compassionate people desire to see wholeness restored to struggling communities and to the people who reside there.” I agree entirely. However, compassionate people will differ significantly on what they understand by “wholeness.” Lupton’s version may include some vague kind of spirituality, and Christian spirituality even, but he never makes clear how the gospel of Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection makes us spiritually whole. In fact, he never makes the gospel clear at all. He mentions in an off-hand way that he is a Presbyterian married to a Roman Catholic and that they alternate churches week-by-week, one Sunday in her Roman Catholic mass and the next in his Presbyterian service. This does not sound like a sign of spiritual strength or health, and may go a long way to explaining the weakened gospel. Over time, Toxic Charity can be deeply disempowering to neighbors and a neighborhood. As such, it can end up harming the people who are supposed to benefit from the initiative. It can create an antagonistic or condescending relationship between givers and recipients. Because these power differentials persist, Toxic Charity can reinforce deeper biases, like the idea that low-income people don’t know how to manage money or don’t work hard enough. Relationships and Proximity Help Prevent Toxic Charity. This incomplete gospel leads him to propose incomplete solutions–solutions that may save people from hunger and poverty, but still leave them facing an eternity in hell. I do not counter-propose that we offer help to the poor only to create opportunities to preach the gospel to them; however, to help people economically and to offer them no gospel at all is a badly missed opportunity and a woefully incomplete understanding of our calling in this world.One of the most challenging aspects to me of the book was the concept that we should use the same "intelligence" in charity that we would use in business. In business we wouldn't just blindly keep throwing money at a problem if we could't see the problem improve, yet in charity we do that exact thing all the time. In fact, synagogues could be seen as under an additional layer of pressure, with congregations expected to live up to what is good according to the norms of their neighboring churches. 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! We’re made in the image of a Creator, and when we provide someone the opportunity to create a product and a living, it’s so powerful and healing. I’ve seen so many switches go off as these women realize how they were made and that they are meant for more. It may sound insane to say that God’s love is experienced through employment, but it is. Give gifts that provide employment and invest in education — that is what gives power to people.” 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.