Defining helping....

[Salty]

A few weeks ago a man in our church saw a need of a family and wanted the church to help out.

Specifically, there was a mulitude of junk and trash in the familys front yard. About 4 folks from our church went over and piled up two pickup trucks of trash and took it to the dump.

I understand the yard looked much better. ( I did not participate as I was working.) Yesterday in SS, the teacher ( the many who organized the clean up) stated that he was at that house a couple of days ago and noticed that trash and junk was piling up again.
However, he stated there is no way he would go back and cleanup again.

Here lies my question: Do we really help by taking one quick action - or should we assist people by finding the root of the cause and attempt to find a proper way to inprove the situation.

I think the principal can apply to any challange. For example; A family does not have enough money for food - by checking their budge - a deacon can show the family that by cutting cable - there will be sufficent funds for food

Another example - a couple have an out of control child. A deacon can sit down with the parents and explan how proper disciplilne works - and that it may take time. OR just tell the family never to bring that brat back to church. I vote for the former.

So, do we only do short term assiatace (putting on a band-aid) or do we take the long term approach ( surgery) for a lasting effect?

Thoughts

 

[HAMel]

On the side of the road the other day I witnessed a man holding a sign asking for food. All the while talking on his cell phone.

You can only help those who want to help themselves.

I wonder if any capable adults from said household joined in the clean up?

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

On the side of the road the other day I witnessed a man holding a sign asking for food. All the while talking on his cell phone.

You can only help those who want to help themselves.

I wonder if any capable adults from said household joined in the clean up?

A guy I see regularly, holding up a similar sign at the end of an exit ramp in downtown KC is always dressed in rumpled, sometimes even dirty clothes, and iss most appreciative of those who stop to offer him a buck or two.

I also saw him about a year ago, in an entirely different context, driving a two-year-old Ford Fusion and making a large cash deposit at a branch of my bank several miles from downtown.

He didn't need the help. In fact, his "job," apparently, is collecting money at that exit ramp. It seems to pay quite well.

That said, my first thought upon seeing Salty's questions was of some of my clients. Many come to me for help because the court has ordered them to do so. Others come to me because friends, family, spouse, etc., has asked them to do so. Still others realize they are creating problems for themselves at work or at home, and believe it would be a good idea to stop, so they come to me. Who do you think has the greater success rate?

Surprise (maybe). They're all about the same, less than 15%.

The people who succeed in getting past their addictive behaviors are the ones who are doing it for themselves. They aren't doing it for boss, wife, parents, friends, pastor. They are doing it for themselves, to get well, to stop creating havoc in their own lives, to stop being stupid.

That may not sound to you like a great deal of difference, but the reality is, it's a world of difference. The motivation to stop self-destructing has to come from the view that one is self-destructive. No one else can tell you that. You have to know and believe it yourself.

I think it's the same for those who need our help in other areas of their lives. Do they seek help because they are convinced it is the best thing for them? Or because someone else has told them it is the "best thing for them." The answer determines the outcome.