Which is the better investment?
Here is a follow-up to the trickery post from yesterday which many of you gave great feedback on.
This is another complaint that came from the SatanHatesLife.com billboard campaign:
“your attempts to get people to come to church with your expensive billboards are pathetic you know you could be helping so many people out in this world with that money. Do you know how many people are sick and need help like families that make just a tiny bit over the state limit to get on welfare for those that really need it. Your billboards have made a lot of people mad not all of them are god fearers most of them i talked to are cristians but some of them even go to church and you are on tv”
Now…this piece of feedback brings up a couple of more interesting questions:
1. Â Is there a way for us to add a grammer and spell check on our web feedback form? :)
2. Which is the better investment? Spending money on marketing to get more people to come to your church or using the same money to feed the hungry or help those with a financial need?
What do you think?
Visit 
1) Even if there is a way to add the spell and grammar check doesn’t mean everyone will actually use them…
2) This is a difficult question. One that I don’t think a knee jerk response can give any sort of adequate resolution to. In my opinion there has to be some sort of balance between the two, sort of a both/and answer. I think to say the church is going to do either marketing or benevolence is like saying the church is either going to be strictly missional or attractional. A really healthy church is a mix of both, inviting those who may be seeking to come; and to those who will not or can not come out of their own volition we go to them…
I totally agree, Robert. I think having a mix of both marketing and benevolence will change more lives. It’s probably safe to say that all of us believe that there is great value to benevolence. The church helping those in financial need can lead to many changed lives.
However, we can’t ignore the fact that people with money may not all be followers of Christ. I know, that’s not exactly new info there. But if were putting every cent of our money into helping those with financial pain, we would probably never put ourselves in a position to change the lives of those with different struggles. Certain kinds of marketing may trigger a decision for people to check out church. We’ve seen that result in changed lives, which is why it is very difficult to argue against marketing as a whole.
My response is based on business. I’m not a minister, vocationally, so keep in mind that I’m viewing this issue from my prism of business experience.
As a home builder, I’m sometimes ask “Why don’t you just include this amenity, or that upgrade, as a standard feature?”
Sometimes, too much can never be enough depending on whom you ask. But the business sense behind my approach is that if I know the sweet spot of what is the right combination of price for the combination of amenities I offer collectively, then I can better understand, and thereby influence, control, and ideally increase my profit.
The more profit I make, the more I have to place towards marketing. The more I market effectively, the more homes I sell. The more homes I sell, the more I can leverage my buying power. The better leveraged I am, the more I can buy for the same amount of money, thereby protecting my profit while being able to eventually provide “this amenity, or that upgrade, as a standard feature.”
So short story, long, some analysis in the numbers behind this billboard campaign may support MORE billboards while at the same time actually achieving what the complaint was attempting to challenge.
Take for instance some arbitrary numbers that will hopefully demonstrate this concept at work in regard to the billboards vs. feed the poor approach: (Again, arbitrary numbers for example’s sake.)
Say a SatanHatesLife.tv billboard placed in a high-exposure location drives 50 people in a given month to a LifeChurch.tv campus that otherwise wouldn’t have come. Of those 50, 20 become regular attendies/members. Of those 20 members, 5 of them become faithful tithers, with one of them giving above and beyond in the form of an offering.
Assuming that those 5 new people are average or above-average earners, the sum of their giving would likely more than pay for the billboard that month that led them to church. The surplus of their giving would then resulted in a positive return on the investment of the billboard for that month. Beyond just that month, if the 5 new attendees continue their giving, with a few of the 5 serving at the church at some capacity, and maybe 1 of them serving in a mission capacity to feed the poor…
I’d say mission(s) accomplished.
(Scanned by the Official SatanHatesLife.tv Spell-Checkerâ„¢)
Bobby,
(1) I don’t know if you can add spell/grammar check to all of this, BUT — I think Robert is correct in saying not everyone would use it.
(2) Robert is also correct to say that there should be a balance between marketing and benevolence, and that a healthy church would be a mix of both missional and attractional approaches.
But I would like to add something else, in light of the quote that you shared originally… dealing with how the church should assist the poor. In John 12, when Mary of Magdelene came to anoint Jesus with oil, the disciples scoffed and said, “Why was the perfume not sold for 300 denarii, and the proceeds given to the poor?” Jesus responded, “You will always have the poor with you, but you will not always have me.” I believe this story is also told in some of the other Gospels, and Bobby, you can correct me if I’m wrong about that. But the point here is that we should not scoff God’s people’s for not taking care of the poor. We really should incorporate a both/and approach to our churches. God does not expect congregations to be poor themselves, and not be good stewards of finances. Many small churches that do not have the financial resources for marketing close down every year, and then no one is there to tithe and give of their own finances, so that such a church can assist the poor. Further, you cannot give what you do not have. If you do not have a congregational base to supply your needs as a church, then forget about benevolence, because you cannot afford that. So — I think marketing is a much better investment — however, there is a more serious issue — HOW does one market a congregation? That’s a whole different question.
Blessings,
Jonathan
In my experience, the type of people who complain about these kind of things and say “oh, that money should go to the poor” have never even step foot in a homeless shelter or actually helped the “poor” out.
Keep up the creative advertising and if your church doesn’t help the poor in some way, it probably should. Although, the reasoning in helping the poor should be not not just help them survive, but to save their soul from eternal damnation and torment.
Jesus was asked the same question when someone “wasted” an expensive bottle of ointment on his head. He simply said “The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me.” The context of this is the gospel. You are not wasting money when its on the gospel. Keep putting up billboards.
Matt 26:6-10
While Jesus was in Bethany in the home of a man known as Simon the Leper, a woman came to him with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, which she poured on his head as he was reclining at the table.
When the disciples saw this, they were indignant. “Why this waste?” they asked. “This perfume could have been sold at a high price and the money given to the poor.”
(NIV)
Jesus had the same critics.
Gut check question? How would money better be spent? On feeding the hungry or marketing. I think some of the above responses are good thoughts and well worth the “think about it.”
I think we could probably step back and get an answer from Jesus himself. In Luke 8 we find out how Jesus’ ministry was paid for. People in the company who were “blessed”, supported the mission. How did Jesus use this money? Wonder if he did any “marketing?” From what I can read, it appears he avoided popularity when he could. He ran big crowds off with “hard” messages.
On the other hand, he spent his energy and time “feeding the crowds” who did stick around. He spent his energy healing the sick and seeking out those he could touch that His Father led him to.
I am not against church “marketing,” but I really wonder if this is what Jesus would pour his resources into?
Here is a thought I have been pondering:
When people drive by our “campuses” and see our “buildings” or run across our signs/commercials/great internet sites, and see us spend our “millions”, do they say, “Wow, those people really love Jesus, or do they say, “there is another church.” On the other hand, if we quietly went about feeding the hungry, building houses for the homeless, meeting the needs of the fatherless/widows, wouldn’t people “hear” about it from the mouths of those whose lives had been touched and say, “Wow, those people are doing something real! They must really love people! Wonder what it is that drives them to do that? What do they have that makes them different?”
I don’t know, that is just my thoughts!
All good feedback.
In response to Charlie’s comment…we do help the poor in all of the communities we are in and also have many of our LifeGroups that do the same as group projects.
[...] I ran across this post over at Swerve.tv and thought the question was well put. Bobby asked: [...]
1) I agree with all that most people would use it.
2) One of the major things that brought me to LifeChurch was the fact that during the offering Miles (edmond campus pastor) said that if you needed money and have prayed about it, go ahead and take from the offering, that it was Gods money and that He would use it to His will, what church says that, not any that i grew up in. And i agree that most people who complain about giving money to the homeless dont infact do it themselves
This reminds me of the old “Teach a man to fish” agument. I do believe that the in the long run you will impact more lives with longer term benefit with this type of campaign. Its actually easy and somewhat selfish to just throw money at an apparent need. It only helps the symptoms, it doesn’t cure the disease.
Thanks for being creative!
The topic of church marketing vs. outreach to poor brings up a lot of questions in my mind. Is it the church’s duty to give money to the poor (in a direct way)? Or does that sort of outreach belong to believers? If a believer tithes every Sunday, does that mean that he/she is no longer responsible to give money or time to the poor? Is money really what the under-privalaged need?
There is a balance that needs to be achieved - I’m glad I am not in the position of having to decide where the money should go! Marketing is a modern method of reaching people. I think the billboards are a perfectly valid expense as long as the intent is to reach people with the Gospel.
Bobby,
It’s quite simple…if JUST ONE person sees the billboard & ends up coming to Lifechurch and accepting Christ…then it was worth it! And if someone doesn’t agree with that…and they are a Christian…then they can spend all of eternity telling the guy who made it to heaven how he actually wound up there because your church wasted money! :-)
To answer the question the question posed, I would have to ask, how does the billboard campaign “Lead people to become fully devoted followers of Christ”? Is the campaign being used to “Bring In, Build Up, Train, and Send Out”. I am not questioning the billboards personally, I am just saying as an organization the question has to be asked.
Bobby, how do you see the billboards fitting in to the purpose of LifeChurch.tv?
My personal opinion is that you can’t just look at one single expenditure and judge it on it’s own. You have to look at the entire budget to effectively use your provision to fulfill your purpose.
It is also my opinion that LifeChurch.tv would be just as effective, with as many lives being changed, if we met in dumpy brown building with one toilet that does not flush, with a train that goes roaring by during the service, an overhead projector, the lights on, and one guy leading worship with just a keyboard.
God is Good!
I THINK THERES A RIGHT TIME FOR MARKETING & RIGHT TIME FOR FEEDING THE POOR, THE 2 SHOULDN’T REALLY CONTRAST
I’m always interested in Perry’s perspective on just about everything…if you don’t already read his blog…you should.
Ryan,
I’m sure you know the answer to this, but just want me to write it out. We hope with any outside communication/marketing efforts that we ultimately “bring in” more people who need Christ and that those people become fully devoted followers of Christ.
Sometimes it is a direct result of the effort…people see an ad and come.
Often, it is indirect…people see the ad talk about it with a friend or coworker that goes to LifeChurch.tv and it opens the door for them to invite them or tell them more. Other times people visit our website as a result and watch one or fifty messages over time and then decide to attend a campus one week.
Within 2 days of the first shl billboard going up…my wife had that type of conversation with an unchurched coworker who saw it and brought up the billboard campaign knowing my wife attended LifeChurch.tv.
The rest of the purpose statement happens in so many different ways at our church, but this campaign is focused on the “bring in” piece. Thanks for the perspective Ryan.
I love Perry’s comment. Also I think that this is an amazing campaign. People are talking. There is an absolute buzz going around. I love that all of this is being used to bring people in. And if they give Him a chance, God will absolutely change them. We’re talking about people and their eternity here. I love the fact that when people get involved in this church and ministry that they are more than willing to help out the hungry and needy and go on mission trips to foreign countries to do the same. At least that is the case in my experience. Keep up the great work Lifechurch.tv. I think that if people really looked they would see that Jesus is at work at lifechurch. God bless.
I agree with the previous comments about there needing to be a balance between marketing and benevolence. It’s so easy to look at the church and judge them for not solving all the world’s problems but then we leave out our responsibilities as the church body to serve others. Eternal change is what we should seek not just an immediate bandaid. I would be concerned if a church was focused only on numbers and not leading and encouraging their members to reach out to the community and those in need. But that doesn’t seem to be the case here.
Bobby, PLEASE don’t put a spell check! That’s totally part of the intrigue…trying to figure out if these are serious comments!
On the more important question…I know enough of your team to know that EVERYTHING you’re doing is about missions. EVERYTHING. My days at Fellowship of The Woodlands taught me that the most important thing we can do is everything we can to reach people who are far from God. When we focus on that, God does some really amazing things. And when God takes care of the cause, lot’s of the effects get taken care of too!
” …I must be about my Father’s business.”
” …Go into all the world and preach the good news.”
” …No one has seen the Father …”
” …The coming of the Lord draweth nigh …”
Hmmm … a business that has a limited time to reach the entire planet with a product that’s never been seen.
Ummm … do u think u r doing enough on the marketing side?
Bono will find a way to feed the hungry.
Nuff said.
This may be beating a dead horse at this point, but I thought I might throw in my two cents.
I have been living in Jakarta, Indonesia for nearly a year now, and I see more homeless street beggers on the side of the road in one day than ever saw in Tulsa, OK in one year. Talking about this with a friend of mine here, he mentioned a good point:
When well-intentioned organizations come in to a village with clean water pumps/filters, healthy food, and healthcare, you see a quick change in life expectancy, etc. Why wouldn’t you? Better food, and access to a doctor means less deaths in childbirth, and more children that live to see adulthood. As a result, the village grows, but all on the handouts of this one organization. They may have come in to spread the gospel, but ultimately, they have created a cycle of dependance. If the organization were to go belly-up, the village would quickly suffer and starve - because they no longer harvest their own food.
So regarding the comments about giving to the poor: sure. Let’s do it. Let’s bring them to Christ so they no longer see their kids as a source of income (begging). Let’s create jobs for the homeless and communities where the kids don’t have to decide between begging at carside or going to school. Stop throwing money at a problem. Let’s make a lasting impact on their lives so as we give them Christ, they have an opportunity to let the “old man pass away” and make “all things new.”
Well if a church is spending more money on billboard campaigns than helping their community than i think it may be a bit off, however I think it all depends on what the church’s mission is. Is it to “help the poor” or “lead people to Jesus”. Obviously both of those missions accomplish both things at the same time. I think that it is more of priority issue than anything. The mission statement should be the driving force behind any campaign and should help prioritize where the money is spent first. I once went to a church were less than 1% of the budget went to missions and helping the poor. The crazy thing was, the mission statement for that church was to “impact the community through acts of service”, I wasnt very pleased to say the least. As long as Lifechurch is helping the poor and needy then keep throwing up those billboards.
I also think its interesting that he said that “most of them are christians” When did the church’s target audience become “christians”. I thought we trying to reach the lost?
Some great comments,
Ryan, I really appreciate your comments - those questions need to be asked, and answered properly. Which they were.
As a professional advertising strategist, When spending thousands of dollars the questions I ask is:
- why will that media channel work, where others won’t?
- what will be the minimum acceptable return on investment?
- can we even measure it our R.O.I. (return on investment)
So in lifechurch.tv’s case:
- why will that media channel work, where others won’t?
- Is the billboard the best way of getting our message across?
- what will be the minimum acceptable return on investment?
- Normally this would be about money spent in response by the consumer, but what is eternity of one person worth? what is two worth? etc
- can we even measure it our R.O.I. (return on investment)
- Do you measure your results by:
- people committing their lives to Christ;
- or perhaps people showing up - where perhaps they never normally would of
- changed perceptions of church
- page impressions on the mini website
In response to another post about ‘turning people off church’. Advertising always turns people on or off about a product. It will never be different in a churches case, whether its a clever billboard, or a badly designed church bulletin - they all say something about the church they are from.
Hope this helps.
What do others think about these questions?
(PS I love spill chackers LOL)
If someone needs help getting from Oklahoma to Texas and you build a highway from Oklahoma to Texas you never got that person to Texas but you helped show them, and many others, the way.
It would be interesting to know what church of the person who sent that complaint is doing to help the poor. I wouldn’t be surprised if he/she was in some dying old-line denominational church with 90 members that doesn’t do anything for the poor because they then need every dime in the offering to keep the doors open.
My experience is that people who oppose marketing think of finances as a zero sum game. They think if you spend money on marketing, that means less money for something else. The reality, however, is that if your marketing is effective, the end result should be more people, giving more, which results in more money availble for other areas of ministry including helping the poor.
Bobby,
Perhaps you or Craig to talk more about what you’re doing to help the local communities.
All we (and your detractors) hear about is the marketing side of things. Just hearing about that makes LifeChurch.tv seem a bit off, which you’re not really off, you just aren’t ‘marketing’ the other things which aren’t so innovative or unusual.
Perhaps that makes sense…perhaps not…
First, I think we have to acknowledge that we can’t help everyone who needs it. We have a finite amount of money to work with. So I think we need to strike a balance between marketing and benevolence, keeping in mind the more marketing we do, the more people we have, the more poor we can help.
Here’s a thought on top of all the great comments that have been given. When someone else is judging what another is doing in the ministry you might just check out what Paul wrote to some friends…
“It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. The latter do so in love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains. But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice”
He didn’t get upset at them or their motives just that the word was getting out. To many Christian do more judging than spreading the Good News & Christ Love.
By the way have have worked in inner city ministry for a large organization and have found that while it is a needed ministry it can be very expensive and numbers reached per dollar spent may not always be the most effective use of dollars. Just saying we all need to do what we are called to do.
All great points - When I give money to my “church” I expect the leaders to use it to lead people to become Christ followers. But just because I give money to my church doesn’t mean I am done serving. Just because I write a check, My job is not done. I think that’s where some people miss the boat. They think it’s the “church’s” responsibility to help the poor….And what does it mean to “help the poor”….do we just send money to the local shelters, fill up their food banks, enable them to keep depending on that (someone mentioned that earlier…great point!)
I also think that the comment from this particular “non-liker-of-the-billboards” goes back to an earlier blog post (That’s Not Real, Feb) that talked about understanding a certain situation before we “judge” it or decide it’s useless or wrong. (this person thinks LC is on “tv” so they are obviously unfamiliar with LC) A lot of our negative thoughts towards something come from either not “getting” it or not wanting to understand. There are a LOT of closed minds out there….
Lifechurch definitely pushes the envelope more so than “most” churches - but don’t you think that God “pushed the envelope” back in the day - burning bush, floating axhead, five loaves-two fishes, raising up dead people…..that may have been God’s version of marketing himself…..maybe I’m wrong….
I think it is crazy that people naturally assume that because you do A) you don’t do B). I think many Christians 1. have bad grammar 2. Spend to much time criticizing out of jealousy. How do they know you aren’t helping the poor. Maybe their church would grow if they focused on what Jesus cared about Lost people and followed Job’s example and pray for their friends instead of pointing fingers at people who are supposed to share the same Saviour.
Oh another sign idea based on this guys quote.
It’s Fun Accusing Lifechurch.tv
Satan
Ok, so I managed to dodge the desire to post on yesterday’s comments, but here we are again today. Two thoughts:
1) One way to feed ALL those poor is to bring the light of Jesus to every heart possible and through their giving.
God frequently uses multiplication to take care of his tasks - can you say 5 loaves and 2 fish - feeds 5000? - lots left over?
You might think this totally ridiculous, but I serve a God for whom nothing is impossible - What if Bill Gates were converted as a result of one of the signs leading him to Christ and decided his mission was to feed the poor? Where would that leave the argument??
And I may be going out on a limb here, but I’m willing to bet that the ‘newly saved’ are much more ready to be on fire for Christ and give up their full tithe and get enrolled in mission outreach to the destitute, homeless, etc. than are the entrenched, got my space in my favorite pew every Sunday types.
2) While we are arguing about proper stewardship, doesn’t it happen that by posting his or her original dissent, the original poster has now caused all kind of discussion and time to be consumed that might have been better spent in God’s word? What if this were just taken to the Lord in prayer instead? Food for thought.
In John 6, Jesus said “I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty.”
If you’re church is effectively pointing people to Christ, is there anything else that has to be said?
The signs are certainly serving they’re purpose aren’t they? Love them or hate them, you’ll remember them!
I think if Jesus would have worn a shirt that said “I heal on the Sabbath� people would have had similar reactions…only it might have involved large rocks hurled at high velocities.
The bottom line is salvation. How many people are talking about these billboards? Getting people involved in church drives the resource engine of the church, which in turn, releases more funds, more volunteer power, and more Jesus. To market or not to market isn’t the point, the point is to lead people into growing relationships with Jesus Christ in whatever way possible so that we can release the power of salvation working itself out into the world.
I can’t wait to get to Heaven and see who is there and who is not. I’m sure it will be a surprise on both ends, but I’d love to get there and listen to the salvation stories. I’m sure there’s a couple like “I got a text from a friend that said dude, check out http://www.satanhateslife.com , to I clicked on the link on and thought it looked pretty cool. So I downloaded the message and started listening to it on my phone…on the way home and the message kind of hit me right where I was at. The rest is history.�
Getting someone who has needs to visit your church is a huge step in the right direction. Then the church can help, plus the person can plug into the church family, serve, be ministered to, grow etc etc.
Don’t we all have needs? Sometimes it food or shelter or electricity, but other times its Spiritual or emotional needs.
Keep up the good work!
guys…sorry about the delay in posting your comments. We had a bit of network trouble here at the office today.
Nate…good points. I am the one that bears the responsibility for wasted time on your 2nd point since I was the one that turned it into a discussion. Sorry :)
Bobby:
I could be wrong here, but I think you are making Satan very angry with your marketing campaign. We shouldn’t be suprised. My advice is simple: Ignore the evil one and keep listening to your heart.
Agape,
steve
I have to say I loved all the comments. There are some very interesting perspectives and reasoning behind the answers. But I have to admit I was really drawn to James Mathews comments…succinct and to the point…shame on me but I laughed out loud at the Bono comment. :D
I admit, I agree with the “marketing vs. benevolence” comments. I’ve long believed that the people at LifeChurch.tv are prayerful about their decisions regarding marketing AND benevolence, and I haven’t been proven wrong yet. My apologies if this next comment is out of line, but, I’ve taken the 3 Month Tithe Challenge and haven’t once seen something (like the billboards) and thought Oh Great!! That’s where my tithe is going?!? What a waste!!
I think Gabriel’s comments about well intentioned organizations, was right on the money. Please forgive me if I misquote this but does this ring any bells? “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach him how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime” (sic). It wouldn’t bother me in the least if LifeChurch spent it’s entire budget on campaigns like this if it lead ONE person to give his/her life to Christ.
LifeChurch.tv spends too much money on these billboards! Satan
Okay, this is admittedly a drive-by post. I didn’t have time to read all the comments, but I couldn’t help posting.
Has anyone yet mentioned that Judas brought this same argument to Jesus when one of the Marys poured expensive perfume on his feet? Whom did Jesus rebuke?
I get really irritated when people exploit the poor to justify a complaining spirit. Bobby, I’ve told you before how much I appreciate that you don’t take any criticism lightly. I don’t know how you put up with it. I’d have become WAY jaded by now. But you never miss an opportunity for introspection. That is a the very definition of humility, my friend.
For others who may be reading this, I live in OKC. I have been committed to a church that is struggling since before LifeChurch.tv came into existence. Our church is less than two miles from where the new NWOKC campus will be opening soon. I have plenty of opportunity to hear complaints about LifeChurch.tv. In my experience they fall into 2 categories: Jealousy and misinformation. (I can’t believe the number of Christians in this town who are jealous of LifeChurch.tv’s success!)
Where in the Bible are Christians called to complain about each other? One of the wisest comments in the New Testament came from Paul’s old teacher, Gamaliel. He opposed persecution of Christians by the Jewish leaders by saying, “If this is of God, we can’t stop it. If it isn’t, it will fade away anyway.” Perhaps complainers should take this to heart. They who complain about how others spend their money should be just as careful about how they spend their words and their time. Wouldn’t it be better stewardship to expend that energy on growing your own church than on moaning about LifeChurch.tv?
When I was in Israel several years ago, I had much the same response looking at the 24 kt Gold pictures in some of the Catholic Churches. Hundreds of thousands of dollars (and more) “wasted” on pictures adorning cathedrals. As already referenced in this thread, the picture of Mary and the oil popped into my head.
The question is not what do we think you should do with the money God has entrusted to you, but what do you think, after prayerful consideration, is the best thing you should do with that money.
Would I “waste” money on a gold depiction of the crucifixion? No
Would I “waste” money on a billboard instead of feeding the poor? maybe.
Should you? That is between you and God. He will hold you accountable.
A little off of the topic of this post but you guys should do a “Your Mom goes to lifechurch.tv” billboard
It seems to me that most of the scenarios that have imaginarily been played out in this discussion exist in the pro-sign mindset and center around some person that sees the billboard and eventually finds their way to lifechurch.tv.
Although these scenarios involving lifechurch.tv campus experiences, salvations, tithes, and other extremely powerful results directly related to the marketing are quite swell to think about and imagine. I am more concerned with another, more realistic, scenario.
What about the person who sees the billboard and does nothing? This person simply saw the sign, chuckles a bit, and keeps on driving. What about this experience? For every one (1) person who has some radical response the billboard, one would have to assume that thousands more fall into the chuckling driver category.
All this said, I still think there is power to be found in the chuckling driver scenario. The scenario doesn’t include a great tale to tell through the ages, but it does contain hope.
The answer to the question, by the way, is that you can’t seperate the two: people vs. people. How could one say that spending money on people is better than spending money on people?
Hope this helps…
Chuck
Who says money is the only way to help the poor? Throwing money at some company or mission to help the poor, just might actually help the poor. But we must ask ourselves, what is it to be “poor”? Who is “poor”? Is it the people that hold signs begging for money outside busy street corners and at night get picked up by someone just to retreat to their nice comfy home? How much more effective and moving would it be to spend your TIME, yes time folks, to help serve food for those homeless, to volunteer down at a Goodwill, to get to know these people as individuals, not as a stereotypical minority.