Serving Up Sermons

Abstract

The authors use participant observation and interviews with homeless individuals to investigate two questions: How are religious elements that occur in congregation-based food programs integrated into service delivery? How are those elements, especially sermons, perceived by those who eat there? The authors find that regardless of their religious beliefs, two thirds of the homeless respondents reacted negatively to the sermons they heard at congregation-based food programs, characterizing them as coercive, hypocritical, condescending, and conflicting with their own beliefs. Observations at these programs shed light on the source of these negative reactions: The sermons tend to ignore the local knowledge and experience of clients, and they assume that the homeless individuals are responsible for their own troubles.

Untitled

“…At worst, charity functions to discipline the poor (Möller, 2021). Many religious food charities have traditionally forced beneficiaries to pray to the god of the benefactor or listen to a condescending sermon as a condition for being fed (Dachner & Tarasuk, 2002;Sager & Stephens, 2005). Poppendieck calls the proliferation of soup kitchens and food pantries a "retreat from rights to gifts" (1998, p. 12).…”

Christianity, Helping People in Poverty, and Embodied Relationships

“…The change through relationship building is often about bringing people who are poor into Christianity. Sager and Stephens (2005) found evidence for this in chartable care provided to people who are homeless where the provision of food and goods was conditional on people participating in sermons. Providing material support was structured for the purposes of proselytizing.…”

Advancing Discussion of Federal Faith-based Social Service Policies through Overview and Application of Established Health Services Research Models

“…Conceptual work toward defining the widely varying sources and gradations of religiosity inherent in FBO services is progressing (Ebaugh, et al, 2003;Jeavons, 2004;Smith & Sosin, 2001). There are initial literatures about characteristics of service-providing FBO organizations (e.g., Chaves & Tsitsos, 2001;Cnaan, Sinha, & McGrew, 2004;Ebaugh et al, 2003;Hodge & Pittman, 2003;Sung et al, 2009;Tangenberg, 2005) and service recipients (Heslin, Andersen, & Gelberg, 2003;Sager & Stephens, 2005;Wuthnow, Hackett, & Hsu, 2004). It appears from empirical evaluation that those using FBO services have different characteristics or needs than those seeking services elsewhere (Heslin et al, 2003;Reingold, Pirog, & Brady, 2007;Wuthnow et al, 2004).…”

“…In part, this may be due to FBO providers formally or functionally barring service access to some people based on their characteristics, such as criminal histories or lifestyle choices (e.g., Cnaan et al, 2004;Reingold et al, 2007). Even some of those who do use FBO services do not like the religious aspects (Kissane, 2008;Sager & Stephens, 2005). Limited access to, dissatisfaction with, or avoidance of FBO services are all differences in realized access (utilization and customer satisfaction) across groups that also have equity implications.…”

“…In those that do, by what standard are alternative service providers deemed acceptably equivalent (program outcomes; accessibility of location, operation hours, out-of-pocket costs; comprehensiveness of services offered; monetary value of services; etc)? Research indicating that some potential patrons find religious aspects of religiously-based programs distasteful (poor consumer satisfaction, e.g., Kissane, 2008;Sager & Stephens, 2005) suggest that at least some people will request an alternative provider.…”