Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Christian and Theologically Protestant? Or, sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community. You'll first need to register in order to join our community. Create or respond to threads on your favorite topics and subjects. Registration takes less than a minute, it's simple, fast, and free! Enjoy the fellowship! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Fenced Community

Christforums is a Protestant Christian forum, open to Bible-believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene- derived Christian Church. We do not solicit cultists of any kind, including Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Eastern Lightning, Falun Gong, Unification Church, Aum Shinrikyo, Christian Scientists or any other non-Nicene, non-Biblical heresy.
Register now

Christian Fellowship

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
Sign in to follow this  
marknoo

I have a question about Panhandling (the society category seems to be close to that)

Recommended Posts

My hometown Portland OR has 1800 homeless people (they did some kind of census to count them). How do I know if I should give or not give to these people? I am thinking 2 Thessalonians 3:10. Some of these guys can work, some cannot. I do not know how to tell which is which. Luke 6:30 says give to anyone.

 

I don't like the panhandling because not all the people are really in need of food, because some will spend the money on things which make their situation worse, and because they create safety concerns when they stand at every freeway entrance. Additionally, some are very aggressive and hassle the elderly, some to the point of cornering our elderly at ATMs and demanding money; others need much more help and instead of panhandling they should be availing themselves of our countries social service programs (like preganant women, etc)

 

Anyway, is it good enough to just give to the food bank and walk past them? This makes Christians look bad. The lack of charity and compassion in some followers of Christ, who are told to be like him, is a horrible thing to watch. 1 John 2:6 Non-Christians use this as a way to attack us. Frankly, prior to my conversion I used the Church's seeming lack of agape or sacrificial love to condemn them. (I sort of still do, downtown I have watched people walk into their church, right past the homeless, and have their service and sing songs, and walk right past them on the way out to their BMWs. God has written his rules on my heart, and this seems very wrong to me, even post conversion. Romans 2:15)

 

Unfortunately, I am confronted by the panhandler situation nearly every day. I never know what to do. Sometimes I give them money, sometimes I put my head down and pretend I don't see them. Not a good situation for me, or them, or anyone.

 

Is there more biblical teaching on this subject? I know what I think and feel but I want to know what God says in the Bible. I think I exist to bring God glory, so I need to know what he says. If what I do brings him glory than that is the most profitable use of my time and money, but God forbid if this seeming lack of love does our Lord's good name harm, because his child (me or the Church) doesn't know what is right.1 Corinthians 10:23 (there is so much on Gods good name, I don't know where to start the cite)

 

NASB 1 Corinthians 10:23

All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things edify.

NASB Romans 2:15

in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,

NASB 1 John 2:6

the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked.

NASB Luke 6:30

"Give to everyone who asks of you, and whoever takes away what is yours, do not demand it back.

NASB 2 Thessalonians 3:10

For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either.

 

(you have built in cites, that is way cool)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Staff

I haven't really anything to add. Though, there is an older thread on this subject that you may find some insight: https://www.christforums.org/forum/lounge/5353-don%E2%80%99t-give-money-to-panhandlers

 

God bless,

William

Share this post


Link to post

It is difficult to decide to give to these people, which is why it may be wiser to give to organization within your city that help homeless people.

 

There are people who do panhandle for a living. There was an experiment done a while ago in the LA area that highlighted that not everyone who panhandled were actually homeless, and that many people who do panhandle actually make a pretty decent amount of money.

 

That is not to say there aren't people who are legitimately in need, but there are places you can donate that are designed to help those people directly.

Share this post


Link to post

I am looking for stuff like this Peter 3

2 And a man who had been lame from his mother’s womb was being carried along, whom they used to set down every day at the gate of the temple which is called Beautiful, in order to beg [b]alms of those who were entering the temple. 3 When he saw Peter and John about to go into the temple, he began asking to receive alms.

 

He was there everyday, presumably Peter walked past him while going in and out of their temple. Why didn't he give before, why then? Is it because he was not a Christian?

I don't get it. Peter helps him but not until he is good and ready? Or he never noticed him before. Or Peter did not use that gate until that day. Or. Or ??

 

What does the Bible want us to do with beggars?

 

If I can find even preponderance of evidence I am willing to put that with God knowing my intentions and let it rest, but I don't have any good scriptural support for any decision yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
I don't get it. Peter helps him but not until he is good and ready? Or he never noticed him before. Or Peter did not use that gate until that day. Or. Or ??

 

I'm not going to touch this as though Peter is an example to follow, but rather turn to Scripture for instruction.

 

What does the Bible want us to do with beggars?

 

If I can find even preponderance of evidence I am willing to put that with God knowing my intentions and let it rest, but I don't have any good scriptural support for any decision yet.

 

Consider James 1:27

  • Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.

1 Timothy 5:3-6

 

3 Honor widows who are truly widows. 4 But if a widow has children or grandchildren, let them first learn eto show godliness to their own household and to make some return to their parents, for fthis is pleasing in the sight of God. 5 She gwho is truly a widow, left all alone, has set her hope on God and hcontinues in supplications and prayers night and day, 6 but ishe who is self-indulgent is jdead even while she lives. 7 kCommand these things as well, so that they may be without reproach. 8 But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for lmembers of his household, he has mdenied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

 

9 Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years of age, having been nthe wife of one husband,1 10 and having a reputation for good works: if she has brought up children, has nshown hospitality, ohas washed the feet of the saints, has pcared for the afflicted, and has qdevoted herself to every good work. 11 But refuse to enroll younger widows, for when rtheir passions draw them away from Christ, they desire to marry 12 and so incur condemnation for having abandoned their former faith. 13 Besides that, they learn to be idlers, going about from house to house, and not only idlers, but also sgossips and tbusybodies, saying what they should not. 14 So I would have uyounger widows marry, bear children, vmanage their households, and wgive the adversary no occasion for slander. 15 xFor some have already strayed after Satan. 16 If any believing woman has relatives who are widows, let her care for them. Let the church not be burdened, so that it may care for those ywho are truly widows.

 

Consider the above verses which seemingly states to care for those that are in need of help. But not naively so, let them help themselves first, that is, the widows family should help first. This, to me is showing discernment, for example, if you yourself give all you have to charity and then can't provide for your own are you not worse than an infidel?

 

We are to exercise wisdom and discernment. God does not call us to blindly give to every need, but to seek His will on the matter. We are to be good stewards and do our best to ensure that the time, money and talents we give to charity are being used properly. Paul gave Timothy detailed instructions for caring for widows in the church, complete with what type of women should be included on the list and warnings about what could happen if charity was given improperly.

 

If panhandlers are asking for money and you instead give a nutrition bar and a bottle of water then you are following 1 Timothy 6:8

  • But if we have food and clothing, with these we will be content.

If you want to give money that's your preference, but from a Scriptural standpoint we are obligated to see that our fellow man's basic needs are met. Anything else is pure luxury. If there is a food distribution shelter or soup kitchen nearby pan handlers, I personally think I am not obligated to give anymore to them (my volunteer work or funding). It is difficult finding people in pure poverty in the U.S. Society has attempted to redefine poverty. People think if they don't have a cellphone, a car, a house or apartment then they are in poverty. See someone in need of warmth in rain and cold, offer them a rain proof coat or even a poncho which are really inexpensive. Want to buy them an apartment? That's your preference.

 

Even in the OT land owners left a certain amount of crops available for those wishing to help themselves to charity. These things are consistent throughout Scripture, unfortunately, our society no longer (in general) considers Scripture proper, but wants to redefine what poverty is and what people are entitled to.

 

Here's some context, it works both ways, there is application for both you and the panhandler:

 

6 But godliness with contentment is great gain, 7 for we brought nothing into the world, and[c] we cannot take anything out of the world. 8 But if we have food and clothing, with these we will be content. 9 But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. 10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs.

 

God bless,

William

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Very good. This is helpful. I still have to resolve that God requires me to do my best for him, not the least I can do. And to treat people the way I want to be treated. If I were them I would want more than survival. I would also want a means to lift myself up. And I have to figure out how to discern who is really in need.

 

But those are secondary issues on this matter. Or they seem to be.

 

I think the food bank is fine, indeed, I think it is preferable. I think my "panhandling" question is resolved.

 

Thank you.

................

 

I give to Abolition Now, It is an anti-trafficking organization that works in my community.

 

The number one reasons people have sex with someone they do not want to is because they need shelter. They are afraid to sleep on the streets, so they perform services in exchange for housing and food.

 

Abolition Now is, however, secular. So it is a government task force. I am thinking a "bad tree cannot bear good fruit". Should i be looking for Christian groups who do the same thing. They do exist, but they do not help the people in my town, they have no outreach here.

 

So the point is, better to give to Christians or better to give to worldly organizations.

 

 

I still give to the church, but I have outside interests too. Also, I am far more interested in local matters than I am in problems thousands of miles away. Some of the people I know use their giving in Africa as an excuse to do nothing in their own backyards. It is like they want to keep their hands clean. Anyway, they are good people but we just have different priorities on this matter. (my brother is a lot like this)

 

Sorry this reply is not well documented. I am in a hurry. I will edit it later if needed. this stuff is important to me so I am probably over eager.

Edited by marknoo
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
I still have to resolve that God requires me to do my best for him, not the least I can do.... I have to figure out how to discern who is really in need.

 

G'day Marknoo,

 

Just sharing some thoughts and ideas, casually...

 

Giving to the food bank is a great idea. Really, if my conscience was that convicted, because I worked and needed to walk a few blocks where I was approached by panhandlers, then I might set aside some money each month to buy nutrition bars and bottled water. If you're approached by 3 people on avg carry a sack with nutrition bars and water to hand out when approached. In this way you're not turning anyone away. You'll probably if known in the area observe certain panhandlers no longer approaching you if that's all you give. But I'm just emphasizing that there are many issues and decisions which are a person's preference. Are you required to give money instead of food and clothing? In my opinion money is often a lazy way of giving to charity rather than taking the time to gather food and water and distribute it to those that approach you. People do these kinda things instead of taking time out of their life to visit the widows and orphans, and give to those on the street. To me it is no wonder that panhandlers take advantage of people's laziness.

 

As for charity organizations, I'd look into Compassion and then World Vision. Find out what your church does with your tithe, do they give to the local community, if so in which way, do they need help? But this isn't going to resolve the issue of those around you or that approach you on the street. Set aside x-amount of money to buy some necessities from Costco, and just carry a back pack with some nutrition bars and water, or volunteer your time once or twice a month at a soup kitchen. There you'll discover all kinds of things. People receive state benefits and SS, because they can't handle money or have dependency problems they usually are not at the food distribution shelters at the beginning of each month, but rather at the end of each month after they spend the money. Of course this is a generalization, but definitely something that occurs. I live in a very warm climate, so shelter really isn't a problem. Personally, I don't know why homeless don't go buy a tent with their state or SS benefits, and just be more responsible for themselves....

 

Just some ideas I thought to pass to you and what I observe. A lot of people on the streets are dependent and abuse substances. I believe God gave us instructions that if kept help us and do not cause additional problems. For example, giving in abundance funds substance abuse, pouring money into the drug dealers, which in turn hurts society, costing tax payers to fund additional police force and facilities to incarcerate people. It is a vicious cycle that occurs because we have forgotten what true poverty vs luxury is or we don't have the time to be bothered ourselves.

 

God bless,

William

Share this post


Link to post

Seems like our welfare system is not working(pun). My advice would be if you can spare it, then give it, if not I would not worry about it. If you are concerned that it would go to something different than what you would like, I would offer to buy them a meal, if they take you up on it then you know that your money was well spent, if they do not want a meal, then you may know that their intentions are for something else. Have a blessed day.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

A few miles from me across the border in SC panhandling is illegal as is being homeless and I don't think its right, many of those people lost their homes due to the economic downturn in 08 and as of 2014 any homeless in SC are shipped to jail then the new fema camps, look on youtube for Columbia SC homeless but be warned its scary because were next.

 

In Charlotte 60 miles from me if I were to give a homeless guy a sandwich I go to jail because it makes him not want to better himself instead hell keep begging and apparently I am responsible for that.

 

Nowadays if Christ would do it its taboo, wrong, and a jailable offense which they don't scare me.

 

As far as how you would know, you wont you would have to give in faith and let God take care of the rest.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
As far as how you would know, you wont you would have to give in faith and let God take care of the rest.

 

I agree with you JSB, and welcome back, you were missed!

 

God bless,

William

 

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Topics

    • Poll Question: The Rich man and Lazarus Parable or Not?

      Is the story of the Rich man and Lazarus a parable and does it really make a difference?  Wouldn't the story still teach the same truths even if is a parable?   John Calvin held the view that it is not a parable but he also states "But that is of little consequence, provided that the reader comprehends the doctrine which it contains."

      in Bible Study

    • Least Masculine Society In Human History Decides Masculinity Is A Growing Threat

      U.S.—As society becomes increasingly dominated by nerds, hipsters, and computer programmers, people have fixated on what they think is our biggest problem: masculinity. The post Least Masculine Society In Human History Decides Masculinity Is A Growing Threat appeared first on The Babylon Bee. View the original full article

      in Christian Satire

    • Federal Judge Orders Removal Of Citizenship Question From 2020 Census

      By Kevin Daley - A federal judge in New York barred the Trump administration from including a citizenship question on the 2020 census questionnaire. The decision appears to have significant implications for a related matter the Supreme Court is poised to decide in the spring. “The attempts by the Trump administration to mandate a question about citizenship were not rooted in a desire to strengthen the census process and would only undermine our immigrant communities,” New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a statement. “Inciting fear in our residents is not only immoral, but also ill-conceived.” The Constitution mandates a census every ten years to apportion seats in the House of Representatives among the states. Population is also used as a basis for rewarding federal aid. A coalition of Democratic cities, states, and interest groups challenged the addition of a citizenship question to the census questionnaire in April 2018, warning it would discourage minority participation. An incomplete survey of minority populations, the plaintiffs feared, would result in diminished federal funds and congressional representation for urban areas. The plaintiffs charged that the addition of the citizenship question violated the Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), a federal law establishing protocols for the issuance of regulations. In his Tuesday decision, U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman accepted the plaintiffs’ APA claims while rejecting their constitutional arguments. “[Ross] failed to consider several important aspects of the problem; alternately ignored, cherry-picked, or badly misconstrued the evidence in the record before him; acted irrationally both in light of that evidence and his own stated decisional criteria; and failed to justify significant departures from past policies and practices — a veritable smorgasbord of classic, clear-cut APA violations,” Furman wrote. Elsewhere in the decision, Furman said Ross was not truthful about his motives for adding a citizenship question. Though the secretary initially said publicly that the question was added at the request of the Department of Justice, subsequent evidence showed Ross discussed the matter with White House aides far earlier than initially understood. “Finally, and perhaps most egregiously, the evidence is clear that Secretary Ross’s rationale was pretextual — that is, that the real reason for his decision was something other than the sole reason he put forward in his memorandum,” Furman wrote. Former President Barack Obama elevated Furman to the federal bench in 2012. The plaintiffs sought a deposition from Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross at a previous phase of the litigation. The Department of Commerce oversees the Census Bureau, and Ross himself authorized the addition of the citizenship question. Though Furman authorized the Ross deposition, the Supreme Court intervened to stop it in October 2018. Shortly thereafter in November 2018, the high court agreed to decide what evidence Furman could rely upon when making his decision. When plaintiffs challenge agency action in court, the agency itself generally turns over the body of documents and evidence it relied upon to make its decision. Those writings are called the administrative record. In most cases of this nature, the court will make its decision based only on the administrative record. However, Furman allowed the plaintiffs to gather evidence beyond the administrative record to challenge the citizenship question. The Supreme Court agreed to decide whether that decision was correct. The Justice Department may appeal Furman’s decision. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected] Federal Judge Orders Removal Of Citizenship Question From 2020 Census is original content from Conservative Daily News - Where Americans go for news, current events and commentary they can trust - Conservative News Website for U.S. News, Political Cartoons and more. View the original full article

      in Political Conservative News

    • Electrical Question

      This is for the electrical engineers of the group, or at those who fancy themselves in that group.  I have a couple of motion sensor switches I want to install in my bathrooms.  The problem is that nearly nothing in this house is grounded, as it was built in the 50's.  My question is, is it possible, or simply inadvisable, to connect the ground wire of the switch to the neutral wire, which should ultimately be connected to the main ground out at the power pole?  Is this stupidly dangerous, or actually quite doable?

      in Computers & Technology

    • David Hogg Avoids CNN’s Simple Question About Gun Control

      By Nick Givas - Parkland school shooting survivor David Hogg ignored a simple question about gun control and background checks on CNN’s “New Day” Tuesday and refused to answer directly. Host Alisyn Camerota asked Hogg if universal background checks would have prevented the tragedy at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School and he failed to come up with a clear answer. “I think there’s many instances and instances of gun violence that could have stopped further acts of gun violence. There’s 40,000 people that die of gun violence every year and a very small minority of them end up being in school shootings,” he replied. “When we’re talking about hardening our schools and different things, what we’re not talking about is how we’re going to make our communities safer. When we’re talking about school safety we’re neglecting the thousands of students that die either coming to school or coming back from school every day or simply just outside their house.” “Our congressmen and our elected officials have said that they don’t care about them or their violence because of the zip code they live in or the number of figures in their bank account,” Hogg continued. “And if we really want to start talking about a national emergency like the president likes to talk about, 40,000 Americans dying annually from gun violence is a pretty damn good one to start out with.” Hogg then claimed the Parkland shooting could have been prevented but didn’t provide details on what could have stopped it. He also blamed the NRA for the violence and accused them of trying to “benefit” from mass shootings. “It is an issue that is non-partisan. At least, I would hope so, considering the fact that both Democrats and Republicans die from gun violence. Bullets don’t discriminate and neither should our legislators. No legislator should look at these laws and say to themselves, oh I can’t vote on that because I’ve taken campaign contributions from the NRA. That’s what they’re thinking,” he said. “The American people need to wake up and realize again and again, the reason these laws are not getting passed — the reason why — for example, disarming people like the shooter at our high school could have happened through an extreme risk protection but didn’t is because that law was actively advocated against by the National Rifle Association. That uses due process to disarm people like terrorists and domestic abusers, but they actively try to stop because it stops these things from happening in the first place, which they benefit from. [sic] Because after every single mass shooting, gun sales go up significantly and the NRA benefits from that.” Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected] David Hogg Avoids CNN’s Simple Question About Gun Control is original content from Conservative Daily News - Where Americans go for news, current events and commentary they can trust - Conservative News Website for U.S. News, Political Cartoons and more. View the original full article

      in Political Conservative News

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.