Outrage Du Jour

Have you heard about Fort Lauderdale arresting a couple of pastors and an absolutely adorable 90 year old man for feeding homeless people?
Of course you have, because the interweb locks on anything that outrageous like a patriot missile.  And I have to admit, it gives me a good case of the same kind of sinking feeling that Ian Mckellan's narrative in The Lord of the Rings does, you know, when he says "the strength of men failed."  Because it's a cultural failure of empathy, this sort of thing, and it's not just happening in dead-red places like Florida either.  How can we call ourselves decent people, let alone Christians, if we make rules that say you can't share food with people who are hungry?  How can we arrest pastors and little old men who just want to do something nice for people who are down and out?  What are we becoming?
These are all good and valid questions, but as Bob Dylan says, "Take the rag away from your face, now ain't the time for your tears."
See, somewhere in the kerfuffulous outrage of all this, someone missed a detail.  Fort Lauderdale, as is the case with many medium to large cities, actually has a fairly well developed social services system to deal with the needs of the homeless.  They work towards feeding, clothing and sheltering the homeless.  As with most government bureaucracies, they probably don't do it perfectly, and there are probably folk that fall through the cracks.  They may not have enough resources and their provisions may be uninspiring (I have personally seen homeless people throw away sandwiches given out by the shelters, because, in their own words, "I can find better food in a dumpster.")  But they are there, and they are doing something that most private do-gooders are not, namely trying to get people to not be homeless in the first place.
Now, this doesn't soothe the outrage away entirely.  Fort Lauderdale is still a corporate jerk wad for arresting little old men who feed people in the park, but as with most situations where red flags are being waved to arouse all sorts of righteous indignation, things are more complicated.
Here's a thumbnail sketch of the reasons why some cities are choosing to make feeding the homeless illegal:
First of all, it's not illegal per se, it just must be regulated.  Fort Lauderdale, being in Florida is a good test case of this need, because like most of Florida, it has the climate of an armpit, meaning warm and humid almost all of the time, and safely serving food in said armpit-like conditions can be tricky.  If you buy a taco from a lunch truck, hopefully you will see a department of health license somewhere within said vehicle, if  you don't, get your taco someplace else.
Second, and this is perhaps less morally tasty, feeding people good food, for which they are not required to do anything, does nothing to remedy the condition of homelessness.  Although it does keep them from starving to death, so from a personal compassion point of view it's good, but from a societal perspective, especially in places like Florida (see flip side of armpit coin) where you're not going to freeze to death on an average February day, if you can get fed and don't mind the minor inconvenience of living the outdoor lifestyle, why would you bother with a job or being a responsible member of society?  I know, it's a bit thin, but it does bear a little truth.
I wondered this morning, as I was stewing about this whole mess, whether this was a problem for Jesus.  Did he ever heal a leper and then have that person decide that begging for alms was just easier than participating in actual life, and so pretend to still have leprosy?  And what about the demoniacs?  Because if you're going to deal with the mental illness aspect of homelessness you should look at those.  Does the Gerasene Demoniac, who was living among the tombs, once he is cured and in his right mind, go get a job?  How well was his community going to accept him, even if he "seems fine now?"  His wild years are always going to be a stigma.
Unfortunately, with the exception of Mary Magdalene, we don't have any long term accountability studies of people that Jesus healed, we don't know if he really did them any favors by his wanton acts of charity.  I'm only being a little sarcastic here, because the grain of truth in what is otherwise a morally reprehensible act of un-charity, is a perpetual burr under the saddle of anyone who really wants to help impoverished people.
Where is the line between helping and enabling?
Because that's an important line, and not one that most kind-hearted folk want to think much about.
I get phone calls all the time from people who want the church to help them with this or that.  They all have hard luck stories, and they all seem to only need a little boost.  These people have learned that most churches have benevolence funds that can dish out $100 or so with little or no accountability required.  The local community action group can do the same thing, but there are going to be hoops and requirements, and they really just need a little help, not to be "in the system."
I try not to harden my heart, but I don't have that much to give out on a yearly basis, and there at least a few times a year where someone we actually know and have a relationship with, needs those funds in a real, unrepeatable sort of way.
I like to consider myself a compassionate person, but I have, mostly through random chance, like the experience with the homeless men despising their "shelter sandwiches," and also in those Philly days, offering to buy several pan-handlers an actual meal rather than give them cash (and then being refused), learned that hunger is much more of a problem for people behind closed doors than it is for the ones who have taken to the streets.
Food pantries and soup kitchens serve people who are not always homeless, but may be hungry.  Food stamp programs likewise, but you have to sign up, you have to do some legwork, you have to take responsibility.
And that's where the grain of truth really rubs a little, because there is help for people who are willing to go and get it, and so it may be the case that these lone rangers who are trying to follow Christ's mandate to feed the hungry are just enabling people to stay in the margins rather than re-entering the mainstream.
I still don't think there should be a law against it.