Money Vs. Morality -- Essay's Conclusions About Church Were Naive

Editor, The Times:

Morality versus money? It's time for a reality check. I read, with interest, Paul Zaleski's essay in the June 4 Scene section outlining the deficiency of individuals and the church to meet the needs of the indigent. Though Mr. Zaleski is obviously a man of compassion, I felt his conclusions, specifically about the church, were naive. Having been employed in a church where one of my basic responsibilities was to deal with those who came in primarily to request food or money, I'd like to offer a different perspective.

In the beginning I was full of liberal compassion for the unfortunate. I honestly believed taking care of people's physical needs would demonstrate we were people of God. A good dose of cynicism quickly replaced those feelings. Requests for help are more often abusive demands. Requests for money come from men who reek of alcohol.

They refuse offers of food or coffee. There are tragic stories of dying relatives hospitalized in distant states, and it takes money to rush to the bedside of the dying.

However, the relative and state change when the individual makes his next weekly request for $40 or $50. People receive generous food supplies and are caught trying to steal from the church a few days later. Others work the I-5 corridor in vans and pickups doing their monthly shopping out of church food cupboards, quitting for the day only when their vehicles are full. Invitations to worship and the mention of Jesus Christ are met with disinterest or actual disdain.

Churches often get targeted for malicious action. Vandalism is a heavy part of society, necessitating locked doors during off-hours. Offerings get stolen. Sunday school rooms and restrooms alike get trashed. It's necessary to paint over foul graffiti almost weekly.

This is an ugly, sinful world and the church is required to exist in it. Secular society's exaggerated perception of the church as a positive or negative influence is often extreme either way. Expectations are incredible. Churches, just like every other institution, consist of fallible human beings who try their best but sometimes fail. Suburban churches find it unbelievably difficult to respond to the increasing needs of a self-destructive society, so they do have to rely on and support effective organizations like the Union Gospel Mission.

I do agree with Zaleski that personal responsibility for the poor is necessary, and individually we often fail to help those truly in need. Individuals should bear the burden of failure, not the churches. Almost all requests I received as a church worker came from people who were repeaters over a very long period of time. I came to question how much life-changing help or even hope we were actually dispensing. Christian charity, like love, sometimes must be tough in order to be of any real help. Our job is to offer a leg up, not just a handout. We need to learn to be wise and discerning enough to differentiate between the two.

Janet V. Miller Seattle