Last post we looked at Affiliation and Belonging as the authors first 2 marks of real compassion.... "no brainers" when it comes to expressions of compassion to our neighbors.  It makes sense that keeping people at arms length doesn't allow for the full blossom of compassion.

Now the author suggests the next two marks of compassion: Categorization and Discernment.

By the time I got to this point in the book I found myself falling in line without question.  Yes we need to categorize and we need more discernment in how and who we help.  But I started to ask that question....what does God say about this?

The author says categorization is a mark of health compassion because this is how it was employed in the 19th century.  "Charities did not treat everyone equally....Instead, charity organization societies considered "worthy of relief" only those who were poor through no fault of their own and unable to change their situation quickly."   Orphans, the aged, the incurably...etc.

All two of you who have been following this dialogue (maybe more of a monologue), the book is making a shift.....enough critique now time to layout some practical thoughts for moving forward.

The next couple blog posts will go through the Seven Marks of Compassion two or three at a time.  The author lists the seven qualities as:

1. Affiliation
2. Bonding
3. Categorization
4. Discernment
5. Employment
6. Freedom
7. God

Kit Burn's Rat Pit......sounds like a great family friendly establishment...right?  Probably not at the top of your list of weekend activities...especially in the late 1800s.  The
Rat Pit was a center gathering place for the Water Street district in New York.  A district which was known as the epicenter of addicts, prostitution, and crime.  It was the worst of the worst when it came to rough neighborhoods.

The Rat Pit is not named for some kind of creative metaphor...it was a Rat Pit.  People came to bet for or against dogs who would fight rats.  As I mentioned earlier it wasn't a family friendly event. 

Kit was a typical American business man....money talks.  So when some bold clergymen approached him in 1868 to rent his stage to they could preach to the sinful masses.  Kit gladly allowed them their one hour each month for $150 and quickly rushed them out when their time was up...so that business could continue as normal.

If you look into the history books there is something called a "Water Street Revival"  Do you think that the revival had anything to do with those preachers who rented out the space and preached at the crowds?

In the late 1800s a sad and awfully logical sounding philosophy was taking center stage in the realm of compassion: Social Darwinism.

Wikipedia: ideologies whose main ideal is social evolution through artificial selection or deliberate conflict between individuals, groups, nations, and ideas.

Basically people started looking to the bigger mechanistic picture as opposed to the individuals.  Suddenly the poor were socially unadaptable...and therefore "survivial of the fittest" demanded that they be left alone to wallow in their lesser evolved state.

It is an incredibly demeaning theory that even led to the creation of "Planned Parenthood" (see Margaret Sanger "eugenics and euthanasia")

Nevertheless....how did it come to be?  Why would it grow and even thrive in the United States (for the most part a morally centered country)? 

In 1854 there was legislation being pushed in Congress by a passionate leader, Dorothea Dix.  It would initiate a government run system to build and manage hospitals for the mentally insane. 

It seems like an honorable cause....right?  The bill passed both houses....then it reached the President's desk.  Mr. Pierce, the 14th President of the U.S., took his pen and vetoed the bill.  It died there on his desk.

I've discovered a cutting edge leader in the fight against poverty in New York in 1850's.  His name was Charles Loring Brace.  He was the founder of Childrens Aid Society.  I thought I would stretch google a little bit on old obscure social justice workers...and wouldn't you know I was suprised to find out the Childrens Aid Society is thriving and well today! (minus the seemingly missing Christ-centered piece...but that is another blog post to come)

Brace was cutting edge in terms of fighting against government campaigns to just hand out resources and create numbers out of people with their large bureacratic systems. He suggested that instead of big government they look for big hearts:  families in the countryside who could take in troubled youth to teach them skills, discipline, bible, and love.  It was the "Orphan Train Movement."  

So I must admit...and I hope many others can admit..."There is nothing new under the sun"

I have been part of a movement in Portland to help churches get outside their doors and truly engage our neighbors who have been left without dignity and basic necessities.  In the process we have discovered a problem:  That programs usually pop up because needs are so huge, and when that happens relationships are often dilutted.  So we wrestle with creative ways to get people engaged on a heart level so that Christ compelled acts of service don't become cold social services.

This is an exerpt from 1844 Mcguffey's Reader ( a text book for school children) It is a pretend dialogue between Mr. Fantom and Mr. Goodman.

Mr. Fantom: I despise a narrow field. O for the reign of universal benevelonce! I want to make all mankind good and happy.

Mr. Goodman: Dear me! Sure that must be a wholesale sort of a job: had you note better try your hand at a town or neighborhood first?

Mr. Fantom: Sir, I have a plant in my head for relieving the miseries of the whole world....

Mr. Goodman: The utmost extent of my ambition at present is, to redress the wrongs of a poor apprentice, who has been cruelly used by his master....

Mr. Fantom: You must not apply to me for the redress of such petty greivances...It is provinces, empires, continents, that the beneveolence of the philosopher embraces; every one can do a little paltry good to his neighbor.

Mr. Goodman: Every one CAN but I do not see that everyone DOES...You have such a noble zeal for the millions, yet feel so little compassion for the units.

In the context of the book "the trajedy of american compassion" this primary document is used to help argue against large scale governmental welfare, but for me I find it hiting upon a much more important cord.

Everyone can do something but not everyone does.  How true is this?  We hear statements like "I'm just doing my part" or "If everyone would just do their part this world would be...."

Quote from Book:
"A pre-1800 poverty fighting principle was an emphasis on family relationships."
"Those immediate family members who wouldn't offer support were fined heavily"

I read this section and thought well that is "nice" but that is "old school"  I mean really how much can we hope to hold families accountable?

The family structure has broken down astronomically over the last two hundred years.  This is especially true in the demographics of poverty.  Anyhone who has spent time with people in distressed areas immediately recognize that a "happy home" is an oddity.  The most hopeless part of this observation is when you realize that it is generational....that the person I'm talking to right now struggling with drugs and has their children taken by DHS....was born into a situation that led her on that path...and her parents parents were the same.

Here is the deal...I just started reading a book that I think will do an excellent job sparking some debate.  As you can tell from the title this is a historical look at "compassion" and its evolution over time in America.  You should also note that my copy has a little marketing sticker that says "Recommended by Newt Gingrich"

I thought it would be fun to throw out some qoutes and ideas from the book every so often just to get some thoughts going on compassion.  Is there a line? or not?

Here are the first two quotes:

1. "Cultures build systems of charity in the image of the god they worship. Whether distant diest, bumbling bon vivant, or "whatever goes" gopher."
   
   
2. I will utter an exhortation that you may not abbuse your charity by missapplying it.  Let us try to do good with as much application of mind as wicked men employ in doing evil."   -Cotton Mather 1698 (famous preacher in colonies)
   

The first quote is of particular intrigue.  I wonder what sort of system of charity we have built and how it is a reflection of the God we seek to worship.  In the 21st century portland culture we are far from a distant deist, and I doubt we are bumbling.  We could be accused of a "whatever goes" kind of approach. 

But I wonder really what kind of God are we building this model of charity from.  Is it a God who desires that all would come to repent and believe?  A question that naggs at me is how great is that desire....really how strong is that desire?  Is the desire of God that all would come to know Him great enough to pour out grace in extraordinary ways that would seem to demolish our "enablement" fears.    

It makes you wonder.  What if our model of charity were mysterious and spirit led...wouldn't that resemble the God I know as Christ Jesus.  maybe thats just a cop out?