One day this year I was at the Sally Ann lunch with friends. The man in charge of the operation came around to the tables to say hi to everybody, mostly by name, smiling, warm, laughing.
After he'd left our table, one person muttered to me, "I don't like him. He reminds me of..." and the name she mentioned shocked me.
The person in question, who I'll call PCA (Perpetrator of Charitable Acts), is a person who commits good deeds in full view of the public, whether we want to see it or not. They have enough church background to make a really good first (and ongoing) impression with church-people who continue to be fooled by the veneer for some time. This is reinforced by the handing out of occasional $20 bills to deserving ministries. In front of a carefully chosen audience.
PCA is seen by many as a caring person, victimized by their own compassionate nature and urge to give and give and give. And, of course, to tell us all at length about the broadness of their own generosity and the unfair treatment they receive in spite of it.
PCA will ask for prayer in a group setting for the needs of people going through terrible times, but not without giving painful details of this person's private life and dropping huge boulders of blame on the victim's head.
Problem is, PCA is in a position of some power in the lives of our friends. They have to not only tolerate this behaviour, smiling while PCA tells people in the grocery store how this poor soul needed a ride to town and how PCA came to the rescue and gave of their time and resources because otherwise, this poor soul might have walked to the beer store and spent the money there instead... Not only that, but they have to often, out of the sight of the good citizens of town, take the brunt of PCA's temper which is horrific. PCA will call them things no one should call another person, threaten them with whatever is in PCA's power to threaten and leave them shaking and angry and scared.
Apologies often follow, but in private, only to be heard about second and third hand.
Like I said, PCA is admired by some church-people, but if you mention their name to folks who know, they'll shake their heads and say, you can't believe anything PCA says. It's all lies. PCA isn't what they pretend to be.
That's why it shocked me to hear the man I mentioned above compared to PCA. So I thought about it for a while.
I suppose it's possible that he has me fooled the way PCA has many fooled. That idea really bothers me. But I don't have any reason to think so. I haven't heard any criticisms of him like I have of PCA.
But one thing that makes sense to me is the question of perception.
In the post before this one, I talked a bit about the traditional relationship between giver and recipient.
What the givers don't seem to see is how they're perceived by the receivers. Receivers, often unfairly, project a certain attitude of superiority onto the givers.
We can (and our group does) debate whether this pride is really there, and whether it might be an unconscious attitude, and whether you can be unconsciously proud, or whether it's just good intentions misperceived. But the fact of the matter is that it exists in the minds of those being 'helped'. They see it and hear it and feel it.
We're on this side of the table, and you're on that side. You're dressed that way, we're dressed this way. You've got the big serving spoon, we've got the styrofoam plates.
When a relationship is built on that kind of positioning, no matter how good the intentions and hearts of the spoon-holders, there is a barrier.
And even if you're universes of attitude apart from PCA, you can still be lumped in with the 'superior race', guilty by association.
I can't presume to offer advice to the man in charge of the Sally Ann lunch. All I can do is say what I see, and what I see is that for him, and for many 'workers', there is a gap that they're not bridging between themselves and other human beings. A gap they may not even be aware of.
After he'd left our table, one person muttered to me, "I don't like him. He reminds me of..." and the name she mentioned shocked me.
The person in question, who I'll call PCA (Perpetrator of Charitable Acts), is a person who commits good deeds in full view of the public, whether we want to see it or not. They have enough church background to make a really good first (and ongoing) impression with church-people who continue to be fooled by the veneer for some time. This is reinforced by the handing out of occasional $20 bills to deserving ministries. In front of a carefully chosen audience.
PCA is seen by many as a caring person, victimized by their own compassionate nature and urge to give and give and give. And, of course, to tell us all at length about the broadness of their own generosity and the unfair treatment they receive in spite of it.
PCA will ask for prayer in a group setting for the needs of people going through terrible times, but not without giving painful details of this person's private life and dropping huge boulders of blame on the victim's head.
Problem is, PCA is in a position of some power in the lives of our friends. They have to not only tolerate this behaviour, smiling while PCA tells people in the grocery store how this poor soul needed a ride to town and how PCA came to the rescue and gave of their time and resources because otherwise, this poor soul might have walked to the beer store and spent the money there instead... Not only that, but they have to often, out of the sight of the good citizens of town, take the brunt of PCA's temper which is horrific. PCA will call them things no one should call another person, threaten them with whatever is in PCA's power to threaten and leave them shaking and angry and scared.
Apologies often follow, but in private, only to be heard about second and third hand.
Like I said, PCA is admired by some church-people, but if you mention their name to folks who know, they'll shake their heads and say, you can't believe anything PCA says. It's all lies. PCA isn't what they pretend to be.
That's why it shocked me to hear the man I mentioned above compared to PCA. So I thought about it for a while.
I suppose it's possible that he has me fooled the way PCA has many fooled. That idea really bothers me. But I don't have any reason to think so. I haven't heard any criticisms of him like I have of PCA.
But one thing that makes sense to me is the question of perception.
In the post before this one, I talked a bit about the traditional relationship between giver and recipient.
What the givers don't seem to see is how they're perceived by the receivers. Receivers, often unfairly, project a certain attitude of superiority onto the givers.
We can (and our group does) debate whether this pride is really there, and whether it might be an unconscious attitude, and whether you can be unconsciously proud, or whether it's just good intentions misperceived. But the fact of the matter is that it exists in the minds of those being 'helped'. They see it and hear it and feel it.
We're on this side of the table, and you're on that side. You're dressed that way, we're dressed this way. You've got the big serving spoon, we've got the styrofoam plates.
When a relationship is built on that kind of positioning, no matter how good the intentions and hearts of the spoon-holders, there is a barrier.
And even if you're universes of attitude apart from PCA, you can still be lumped in with the 'superior race', guilty by association.
I can't presume to offer advice to the man in charge of the Sally Ann lunch. All I can do is say what I see, and what I see is that for him, and for many 'workers', there is a gap that they're not bridging between themselves and other human beings. A gap they may not even be aware of.
Comments