Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Lauren Smith has a post at the Americans United blog about a case in South Carolina they're involved with. AU sent a letter to two school districts there who were allowing a Christian group called Laces 4 Love come in and distribute new shoes to needy kids. No problem there, of course, but they would only give the shoes to the kids if they agreed to undergo a traditional foot washing.
According to program director Mark Owens, Laces 4 Love volunteers wash the children's feet "like Jesus did his disciples." He asserts that foot-washing is "a distinctly religious ritual and bears particular significance in Christianity."
AU points out the obvious:
"Providing poor children with new shoes is a worthy endeavor," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. "But the manner in which the church is doing so is blatantly unconstitutional. School officials must ensure that needy children are not coerced into religious activities."
Laces 4 Love makes no bones about their goal of proselytizing the kids:
In the letters to superintendents and other school officials, Americans United notes that the director of the Laces4Love ministry told North Augusta Today, "We just feel like God's called us to reach as many children as we can with the Gospel of Christ and a pair of shoes."
The reply from the religious right is predictably dishonest. The ADF's press release says:
"It is unconscionable to deny needy schoolchildren new shoes simply because the group sponsoring the program is a religious one," said ADF Senior Legal Counsel David Cortman. "Instead of honoring acts of human kindness through this program, Americans United has once again used its bully tactics to try to prohibit a very worthwhile effort."
But AU is not trying to stop them from distributing the shoes. In fact, they've applauded those efforts. What they are objecting to is the requirement that the kids participate in a religious ritual in order to receive them. That is clearly unconstitutional under the circumstances. By insisting on requiring that religious ritual, it is Laces 4 Love who will be denying shoes to needy schoolchildren.
Comments
Let me be the first to say that their insistence on washing the children's feet creeps me out. Even if it weren't religious in nature, I'd still view it with some suspicion.
Posted by: Wes | December 31, 2007 9:29 AM
It's a slippery slope: next step is a group led by Christian Mark Foley buying the kids underwear, one by Rick Sanatorum involving bathing and dogs, and finally John Cornyn plans to marry off an entire 6th grade Texas class to box turtles.
Posted by: QrazyQat | December 31, 2007 9:40 AM
If Laces 4 Love really wanted to do good works, they would provide the shoes with no strings attached. Otherwise, all they are doing is trying to buy converts.
Posted by: mark | December 31, 2007 10:11 AM
"...they would provide the shoes with no strings attached."
No pun intended, I'm sure. After all, this program is on a shoestring budget.
It's creepy that some folks try to smuggle religion into schools in the guise of charity. It's not unlike a terrorist group using human shields; anyone who opposes them causes a loss to innocents.
Posted by: Rob Ryan | December 31, 2007 10:31 AM
Anybody want to take a bet on how the Laces 4 Love folks view the installation of foot-washing basins to accommodate Muslim prayers?
Posted by: Squiddhartha | December 31, 2007 10:32 AM
I didn't know foot-washing was a Christian thing. I have only seen it as part of salah. I guess I need to get out more.
Yes, it is decidedly creepy that someone wants to wash children's feet.
Interestingly, (to me at least) is that World Nut Daily went spastic over foot baths for Muslims at Kansas City International back in May of this year. The implication in the article was that allowing Muslims to wash their feet before prayer presented a security threat.
Posted by: Preston | December 31, 2007 10:38 AM
"We just feel like God's called us to reach as many children as we can with the Gospel of Christ and a pair of shoes."
This is the weird thing to me, that they say things like this and have no concept that it might be an objectionable intrusion into someone's life.
I used to work in a grocery store. Right after the California case on "under God" in the pledge, a woman said "I don't understand what the big deal is; everybody has a god. Even Hindus and Buddhists have a god."
I almost asked her if she had ever heard of atheists, but she probably would have screamed and run out of the store.
Posted by: BaldApe | December 31, 2007 10:53 AM
1 John 4:7-8: "Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love."
...unless you don't wash their feet first, in which case it's not love, and it's not God, apparently.
Posted by: Gretchen | December 31, 2007 11:03 AM
Forget about the religious aspect of the group for a second. If a secular group came in to give the poor kids shoes only if they would submit to a de-lousing shower?
It could easily humiliating for the kids, let alone for their parents... The act itself is going to feel demeaning to some of those kids whose parents sign them up for it, and religious element aside, I'd still see this as a bad idea.
Posted by: Richard | December 31, 2007 11:10 AM
Foot-fetishist pedophiles permitted to fondle children? Are they out of their tiny little minds?
What's next, Dunking 4 Doughnuts, which will give children pastries if they can baptize them?
Why not Marking 4 Mittens, which is a satanic cult offering to give children free mittens if they can put the mark of the beast on them?
Let's open the floor to all manner of religious crazies and let every one of them have a crack at the kids.
Posted by: WTFWJD | December 31, 2007 11:11 AM
Just to play devil's advocate:
Don't we need more information? Suppose they only said "Before we give you the laces, we want to wash your feet." Wouldn't the absence of an explicit reference make it OK (ie, "only" weird but not unconstitutional)?
There seems to be an implicit assumption that the children would recognize the act as a Christian ritual rather than as hygiene. I'm not sure that association would have occurred to me, never mind to a young child. (OTOH, an association with pedophilia might very well have.)
And yes, I noted that they were explicit in their intent, but that doesn't seem like quite enough. Don't you need some action (like teaching ID or even applying stickers that call evolution into question) that could be reasonably expected to alter the child's mental state?
- Charles
Posted by: ctw | December 31, 2007 11:20 AM
The Muslim accommodation thing has been a big thing in technical colleges around here in Minneapolis. They've spent a fair amount installing special sinks and converted their only racquetball court into a prayer room. My theory is that questions like this should be solved with the "Scientology test": if it were Scientologists that wanted to do it, would you accommodate them? Because they're equally creditable.
Posted by: jeffk | December 31, 2007 11:23 AM
I heard NAMBLA got wind of this and is implementing a similar distribution plan with condoms.
Posted by: mg | December 31, 2007 11:34 AM
There's no dispute that the foot-washing of children receiving the Laces4Love shoes has Christian objectives. Rev. Mark Owens, the Southern Baptist minister who started the program, said: Before the Passover, Jesus washed the disciples' feet. In two weeks, nearly 300 volunteers [in the shoe give-away program] will follow his example and kneel before school children to wash their feet." Owens also said: "We go in and actually remove their shoes and wash their feet like Jesus did his disciples."
Any argument that this ritualistic foot-washing is simply a hygenic protection against Christian shoe-givers being infected with toe-jam germs is simply bullshit. My guess is that children are being told that "I'm washing your feet because Jesus washed his disciples' feet."
This case reminds me of the current "Praying Parents" case from Wilson County, Tennessee (another Southern Baptist Bible-belt stronghold) in which school officials allowed members of a Christian group to use school facilities and instructional time to go into classrooms and hand children cards that said, "You have been prayed for." Testimony and arguments have recently concluded in this case, but I'm pretty sure the federal judge will rule this proselytizing unconstitutional.
But it's not surprising to me that fundamentalist Christian groups can persuade Bible-belt school officials to give them access to school facilities for such religious activities. Groups like Americans United and the ACLU take a lot of bigoted heat for standing up against these breaches of Jefferson's "wall of separation" between church and state. That's why they need our support.
Posted by: peter irons | December 31, 2007 12:05 PM
Creepy. Creepy. Creepy. Anyway you look at it -- creepy. And, no, Charles, it wouldn't. I agree with Richard. This would be bad even if a secular group were doing it and making their charity likewise conditional in the name of hygiene or something.
The biggest pity, however, is that this charity is obviously not coming from the heart. But then again, this isn't about the kids (who, if anything, they'll probably alienate). It's a purely political move.
Posted by: Donna | December 31, 2007 12:26 PM
It's also extra creepy because the original significance for the ritual is long gone. The point of the story with Jesus is that he was performing a daily, routine ritual that was normally performed by a servant or other lowest ranking member of the house. But the thing is, no one does that anymore. People simply aren't used to having their feet washed by underlings. Therefore, the ritual changes from having the shock value of someone of high status performing a menial task to having the shock value of "WTF do you think you're doing???", which kind of takes all of the meaning out of it. I was in a church once that tried to do a foot-washing ritual, and after it was done everyone agreed that it was far, far more uncomfortable and humiliating to be the one having their feet washed than to be the washer. Trying to do that exact same thing today simply does not get the message across, aside from the fact that it's blatantly inappropriate and unconstitutional to do in school.
Posted by: Carlie | December 31, 2007 1:31 PM
OMG - this is just gross. Pure and simple. All constitutional arguments aside, Laces 4 Love's director Mark Owens should be on a pedophile watch list. Speaking of which, has anybody checked to see if he already is on one? Laces should also be on the short list of "charity" organizations to get stripped of their tax-exempt status.
Posted by: scott r | December 31, 2007 1:42 PM
Well, I thought "devil's advocate" was a fool-proof clue, but apparently not. I am asking a legal question, so "I'd still see this as a bad idea", "This would be bad", and especially "... is bullshit" are non-responsive. And to assert that there was intent ignores what I explicitly stated.
Anyone inferring more from my query than ignorance on the legal point on which I'm seeking guidance will almost surely be dramatically wrong.
- Charles
Posted by: ctw | December 31, 2007 1:45 PM
Carlie has it correct. This ritualistic washing was performed by Jesus on the night of his betrayal-before he and the disciples celebrated the Last Supper. If any of you have ever worn sandals before on a dusty road, you know what your feet look like at the end of the day. Servants would wash the feet of guests so that their feet would be clean upon entering a house. Jesus took the role of servant to show his disciples how they should serve others.
I have experienced some very powerful footwashing ceremonies in my time. At my church, I choose three representative people whose feet I wash on Maundy Thursday (the day we celebrate the Last Supper). I make sure that these people are completely comfortable with what is going on--and no I do not have a foot fetish;-) I have also been on a few mission trips with teens where the last night ends with the teens washing one anothers' feet. Once again there's a comfort level there before the ceremony happens--and there's a time of explaining the significance behind the ritual.
I would find this completely inappropriate with young children-even if it were happening at a church. Young kids just don't understand what is going on. And then to say "You MUST do this to receive your new shoes"--that is humiliating and wrong. This is not what Jesus would do!
Posted by: Rev. AJB | December 31, 2007 1:53 PM
Charles wrote- "Just to play devil's advocate:
Don't we need more information? Suppose they only said "Before we give you the laces, we want to wash your feet." Wouldn't the absence of an explicit reference make it OK (ie, "only" weird but not unconstitutional)?
There seems to be an implicit assumption that the children would recognize the act as a Christian ritual rather than as hygiene. I'm not sure that association would have occurred to me, never mind to a young child. (OTOH, an association with pedophilia might very well have.)
And yes, I noted that they were explicit in their intent, but that doesn't seem like quite enough. Don't you need some action (like teaching ID or even applying stickers that call evolution into question) that could be reasonably expected to alter the child's mental state?
- Charles"
Charles,
This was discussed pretty thoroughly over at AU's blog. Religious ritual questions aside, there are many reasons to object to this 'charity' and the way it was carried out.
1) The school singled out the 'poor and needy' kids who would receive new shoes. They publicly 'outed' them to their apparently not-so-poor classmates.
2) If hygiene was the issue, they should have worried about washing the SHOES first instead of the kids feet. Unless it's a de facto assumption that poor kids feet are just.....well......dirty.
3) If these 'called by God' people really cared about the kids, why not just send a note home to their parents saying the charity would like to donate shoes, and would they be interested in the gift?
This is the problem with these fundie Christians pushing their crap into inappropriate places on political grounds- it makes the wider world every bit as cynical about Christianity as it is about politics.
Posted by: Rick R | December 31, 2007 2:33 PM
As others have pointed out foot washing was a service, much like serving food, and is also a traditional christian ritual usually performed on the Thursday before Easter by a high ranking person (pope, bishop, king) to their subordinates or even a group of poor people (who would also be given a meal and some money). Children were not the recipients (except possibly if the performer was him or herself a child [e.g., a child king]). Note in the ritual all are aware of the significance of the ceremony and all are members of the church.
Note this church is still perfectly free to give the shoes to school children with the foot washing ritual just not with the support of the local public schools or government. They should do it on their own premises and do their own advertising (local newspapers might be willing to advertise it for free or at low cost).
Posted by: Erp | December 31, 2007 2:45 PM
I wonder what it is about the religiously inclined among us cannot bring themselves to spell out the word four. Everywhere you look they're going on about 4 this, 4that, or 4 the other. Their christian music scene seems to be especially given to this practice for album titles and the like.This group will, of course, scream religious discrimination bloody murder if denied this access.
Posted by: donquijotesrocket | December 31, 2007 3:01 PM
Interesting! Now I understand why, several years ago, while driving through the mountains of north Georgia, I saw a crudely-lettered sign that read "FOOT WASHIN SATERDAY" with an arrow pointing down towards a creek. So that's what that was about.
Posted by: abigjanefondafan | December 31, 2007 3:42 PM
Protestant soup much?
Posted by: Jacob | December 31, 2007 8:23 PM
I know that Foot Washing is a regular ritual practiced by many of the Baptist (Free Will, Old Regular, etc) churches in Appalachia.
Posted by: joshuachayne | December 31, 2007 8:50 PM
One other (rather ridiculous) possibility: maybe they want to make sure that the kids' feet are clean before they try on the shoes.
Posted by: raj | January 1, 2008 12:42 AM
Your point would make a lot more sense, raj, if any shoe store in the country required the washing of feet prior to selling people a pair of shoes.
Still, I could see the possibility that the wet-towlette idea came first as a hygine thing (mostly because I assume that they have to try on several pairs to see if they fit, and they don't want to spread stuff from one kid to another), and the group realized the association with Jesus later. It's not likely, because the entire religious charity idea seems built around the foot theme, but its possible.
Posted by: Bad | January 1, 2008 2:00 AM
Charles wrote:
If anything, the children's supposed inability to understand the act only makes it more objectionable. The intent is to coerce them into participating in a ritual that they may or may not understand. While in a public school. Your point seems to be that as long as they don't know their rights were being violated, then it's ok to violate them.
I'm guessing that would be the reason your comment didn't get treated with the respect you seem to think it deserves.
There was an action. The attempted coercion of students to participate in a religious ritual on school property.
The point isn't that they were or were not successful in changing the kid's minds (or altering their mental states, whatever that means), it's that they attempted to use the school to proselytize to needy children. The unconstitutional act occurred regardless of the effect it had or might have had. Which is also why you can still be charged with attempted murder even if your intended victim never noticed that you pushed a 5000 lb. anvil off a cliff as they strolled unknowingly by below. It still counts that you tried.
Further, I think that intent actually is enough. It's one of the prongs of Lemon and so far as I know only one needs to fail. I could be wrong about that, and if I am I assume someone will correct me.
Posted by: Leni | January 1, 2008 4:13 AM
This is just bizarre. I have participated in the ritual, which is intended to remind Christians of the need to follow Jesus in servanthood, cast off ego and social position, and care tenderly for each other. Its primary value for me has been as a reminder that we should gratefully and graciously RECEIVE the gift of loving service (most of us react as did Peter, by clinging to our notions of "socially appropriate service"). It's easier to DO service than to receive it, oddly enough. Yes, it makes us uncomfortable, but within our community, it is a sacred and powerful gesture.
I can't imagine why any Christian would prostitute the service to "sell" shoes to children in a public school setting. As a form of proselytization, that's about as far from a meaningful sharing of the Gospel as I can think of. So it's just dumb, in addition to being illegal and highly inappropriate.
Posted by: Leigh | January 1, 2008 5:00 AM
Our church has a monthly picnic in a local park. It is open to all comers, but we do distribute an announcement at the local homeless shelter, and it is well-attended. We try to provide a tasty, fresh and high-quality meal, and also give away pre-packed food boxes. We don't have the resources to provide shelter or daily meals, so our objective is to give one really good meal.
From the beginning, we decided that people who are homeless and in need of services have been preached at until they are deaf. I know I would bitterly resent being told that I have to hear a sermon before I can sit down and eat. Instead, we have a short Grace before serving, and try to make it clear that there are no pre-requisites to being served. After all, the service is our own duty to fulfill, not theirs. The sermon is on the plate.
Our "Picnic in the Park" is well-loved by the participants, and we have been able to offer foot washing as a separate event on the Saturday before Easter. While not as heavily attended, we still have had many come to sit and be served. Last year, we overheard two women talking while we washed feet:
First woman: "What are they doing?"
Second woman: "They're washing feet."
First woman: "Why?"
Second woman: "They're crazy!"
Strangely, I can't think of a better endorsement.
Posted by: Daniel Kim | January 1, 2008 9:17 AM
"The sermon is on the plate."
That's truly great.
Posted by: Rick R | January 1, 2008 10:20 AM
Your point would make a lot more sense, raj, if any shoe store in the country required the washing of feet prior to selling people a pair of shoes
`sigh` I would have believed that it would have been obvious that my comment was meant as a joke.
Posted by: raj | January 1, 2008 4:23 PM
"After all, the service is our own duty to fulfill, not theirs. The sermon is on the plate."
Exactly, Daniel. Your church is doing a good job of sharing the Gospel. It's about showing, not telling.
Posted by: Leigh | January 1, 2008 7:02 PM
Daniel: that is an excellent story; you've done a good job in reducing Christianity as it should be to its barest bones;
"After all, the service is our own duty to fulfill, not theirs. The sermon is on the plate."
That's the kind of immediate intervention that this jaded atheist can appreciate. I think I'll even have to pass your sock project's web site off to friends who knit.
Posted by: Richard | January 1, 2008 7:42 PM
How hard is it to just give the kids shoes and leave a stack of pamphlets? If a kids curious he grabs it, if he isn't he doesn't. Moreover why are they even doing this at a school period? To humiliate poverty stricken children by having them accept a handout in front of all their friends and then be made to wash in front of them as if they were intrinsically dirty? "Hey kid, could you step over here. Yeah Hey everyone Johnny here is poor so I'm giving him shoes. And now I'm going to bath his dirty little feet like Jesus would!" Yeah thats GREAT for their self esteem.
Posted by: Troy | January 1, 2008 7:46 PM
Umm...why can't the kids wash thier own feet?
As for 'sermon on a plate' while I agree it's a laudable project shouldn't a 'no strings' meal be just that? Why do I have to listen to your prayers? To wait patiently while you rub it in that you are rich & I am poor? If you want to thank your god, go right ahead but don't involve me. BTW didn't your prophet have a story about a rich man who prayed loudly (ie publicly) & ostenatatiously being of less value to your god than a poor man who preys simply & silently (ie privately)? And wasn't this prophet the son (or possibly the clone) of your god? wouldn't he know what your god likes or dislikes?
Posted by: DingoJack | January 1, 2008 10:03 PM
Maybe you missed the metaphor behind that statement, DingoJack...
Posted by: Richard | January 2, 2008 9:47 AM
Ok I admit it I'm stoopid. You explain it to me, but type slooowly. ;)
Posted by: DingoJack | January 2, 2008 9:57 PM
Daniel Kim said : "we have a short Grace before serving, and try to make it clear that there are no pre-requisites to being served."
As I said : "If you want to thank your god, go right ahead but don't involve me."
The general feeling here seems to be that foot washing is creeepy and adds an uneeded relgious meaning to an act of charity. If shoes should have 'no strings' why not food?
PS: I am still waiting on info about that parable. I'm serious.
Posted by: DingoJack | January 3, 2008 1:07 AM
I want to respond to what Dingo Jack said, namely:
[Quote]
Why do I have to listen to your prayers? To wait patiently while you rub it in that you are rich & I am poor? If you want to thank your god, go right ahead but don't involve me. BTW didn't your prophet have a story about a rich man who prayed loudly (ie publicly) & ostenatatiously being of less value to your god than a poor man who preys simply & silently (ie privately)? And wasn't this prophet the son (or possibly the clone) of your god? wouldn't he know what your god likes or dislikes?
[End Quote]
- Disclosure Statement -
I am Daniel's wife, Barbara, the other "fearless leader" of this picnic group.
- Nobody is greatly offended when we pray -
We have been doing this for 3 years, and have yet to have complaints about the short grace we say, although we have had Muslims, Hindus, and people of many different faiths, including atheists at the picnics. No one is expected to hold hands, bow their heads, kneel, or do anything else while we briefly say "God, thanks for the food, thanks for these wonderful people to share it with, and bless the people and the food" in English and in Spanish. And, trust me when I say that no one has ever accused us of being rich!
- Nobody is required to hear us pray -
If people object to the grace, they can come stand far enough away not to hear it, because it is a large park and no one has to be nearby. Since we are in a park, we can't close the doors to exclude those who forego the first few minutes, and we don't run out of food, so latecomers get a full plate, and seconds, thirds, fourths, etc if they want them.
- The parables -
As for explaining the parable, I will be glad to give it a shot. I think that you may possibly be referring to one or two separate verses in the gospels, so let me know if I quote the one to which you are referring.
- Do not pray publicly and ostentatiously -
If you are referring to Matthew 6:5-6
"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."
It is a fairly clear text - that we should pray to be seen and heard by God, and not by other people. It is the motive of our heart that God cares about. This does not mean that Jesus was prohibiting all public prayers, as his previous and subsequent words and actions showed that he himself continued to pray in public, say grace before meals, and so on. However, he was saying we should not pray ostentatiously, or with the motive of making people think we are something special - it is God's opinion of us that counts, not men's.
If you need a confirmation of this principle that it is motive that matters, you can look in Matthew 5. Jesus says to his disciples,
"You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven." Matthew 5:14-16
So in this verse the motive of the good works is to glorify God, not to receive the praise of men, even though the good works are done in public. Again, it is the motives of the heart that concern God. If we do "good works" to earn the praise and admiration of our fellow man, there will be no heavenly reward.
This is perhaps the reason my husband and I got such a kick out of the people that we overheard saying we were crazy when we were washing feet. We already knew we weren't getting any praise from people for doing it, but that was just a funny confirmation that any reward for what we do will have to come from God! We have been doing this for 3 years, and I can tell you that even though the picnics are held in a public park, there is hardly ever anyone there except our guests. We chose a park where the poor and homeless hang out - because it is in walking distance from the local shelter and the soup kitchen, and a place where our guests feel comfortable. We don't get any recognition in the community for what we do, and more than a few have told us we are nuts to do it, but we don't care that much about what other people think, we will keep on doing it.
- The Rich Man vs The Poor Man -
[Addendum by Daniel Kim]
If you are referring to Luke 18:9-14 (The Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector)
9To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable: 10"Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11The Pharisee stood up and prayed about[a] himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men--robbers, evildoers, adulterers--or even like this tax collector. 12I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.'
13"But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.'
14"I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."
This is a contrast between those who are "confident of their own righteousness" and those who are aware of their own fallen state, and depend heavily on the undeserved mercy of God. To thank God for the meal is to give Him the credit, rather than praising ourselves for being such great people. Some of us are acutely aware of how thin the barrier is between our current lives and homelessness.
Some time ago, I addressed some of this at Neatorama.
If DingoJack is offended by the act of saying Grace at the beginning of the picnic, I would reiterate that we do not require anyone to stay and listen. If he feels that my (this is still Daniel) earlier post was intended as self-aggrandizement, I hope he was the only one to misinterpret my intentions. I had hoped to offer a counterpoint to the report of apparent generosity by a Christian group who attach a humiliating condition to the "gift".
[Back to Barbara]
- Foot Washing -
On the previous subject of foot washing and shoe give aways . . . I think it is wrong to force kids who need shoes to have their feet washed first. It violates the separation of church and state, and violates the act of love and charity that the gift of shoes was meant to be.
I would like to share my own experience washing the feet of the homeless and poor here in my town. We have offered it, and those who accepted it were very blessed by it. It may be because this is a largely Catholic town that people are more familiar with the practice. There is nothing sexual about it or perverted. The feet of the homeless are in bad shape - calloused, with bunions, and in pain most of the time. Their feet are, in general, in the worst shape of anyone I have known. We bring warm water to soak in, soap, brushes, nail clippers, callous files, disinfectant, gloves, and lotion. We wash and clean their feet, trim their nails, file down their callouses, and put lotion on them. The diabetics get a gentle foot massage to help their circulation. We give them socks and foam insoles if we have them. We give away socks and insoles to anyone who wants them, whether or not they get their feet washed. We ask if they would like prayer, and if they say yes, we pray with them.
It is an act of love and caring for people who very much need some TLC. Because they usually do not have cars, they must walk or ride the bus everywhere. Because they cannot afford quality shoes, their feet suffer terribly. Because they walk so much, the shoes they do have wear out quickly and their feet are in pain a lot.
It is just a simple act of caring for someone who wants and needs it - and the people who allow us to wash their feet do understand that it is a Christian thing, that it is about us valuing them, and serving them. It is about loving them the way a mother loves her child - she doesn't care about it if they are dirty or smelly, she just washes them up and puts them in something clean and soft.
Anyhow, sorry for such a long post, but I am hoping this clarifies a few things for people.
Feel free to come to Las Cruces the last Sunday of any month if you want to come to the picnic!
Barbara
Posted by: Barbara Kim | January 3, 2008 11:50 PM
I concur with DingoJack. Daniel, your sermon on a plate does indeed come with a sermon. Just because you disguise it as a prayer doesn't change the fact that you're preaching while clutching for straws in the form of desperate souls you're hoping to bring to your church (and perhaps make it richer in the process via free advertising and 10% tithes from whatever meager incomes or possible future incomes once on the feet -- why I'll bet you'll even help them get on their feet, what a small investment that's sure to reap years of future profits). Your free meal is anything but free. And, frankly, it pisses me off that you do this in a public park. You want to offer a free meal to people in need, go into your closet and pray as Jesus suggested. Meaning go ahead and advertise but give the meals at your church.
Hmm, I just wonder why you don't take that route instead of making an unseemingly show to the public trying to enjoy the park their tax dollars are paying for. How dare you? And, then to add insult to injury, you come on here and make holier than thou to the creepy foot washers. Well, I'll give you that but only slightly. At least you're not doing this to a group of captive children. And I'll bet you'll say you're not even doing this to a captive audience. Because if my innocent atheist ass was trying to take a pleasant walk in the park, I don't have to subject myself to your nonsense. I'm free to leave the park that's paid for by my taxes supposedly for my enjoyment.
Posted by: Donna | January 4, 2008 7:18 AM
Oh Donna marry me!
Sorry just watched "four weddings and a funeral on TV & got swept up in the emotion. Still I've got to agree wholeheartly with the above. I didn't think of the public park angle .. hmm.. seems dodgier by the minute.
Still I approve of the motives of these CHristians who want to help the poor and hungry, just without the prayers.
Posted by: DingoJack | January 4, 2008 7:29 AM
First woman: "What are they doing?"
Second woman: "They're washing feet."
First woman: "Why?"
Second woman: "They're crazy!"
Strangely, I can't think of a better endorsement.
Hmmm, I can think of better endorsements than that. Okay thanks though!
Do you guys do the foot kissing and the wiping the feet with your hair after the foot washing like they do in Luke 7? Jesus likes that a lot you know!!
Posted by: 386sx | January 4, 2008 7:43 AM
In response to Donna:
"Daniel, your sermon on a plate does indeed come with a sermon."
Saying Grace for two minutes is the least we can do. It is being done as a church ministry, after all. If anyone asks us to pack a takeout box, so they don't have to endure our company (this has happened), they are cheerfully given as much as they can carry. We also offer them a bag of groceries. Nobody is compelled to be polluted by our profession of belief, except to see a group of people engaging in an otherwise-inexplicable act of service.
"clutching for straws in the form of desperate souls you're hoping to bring to your church (and perhaps make it richer in the process via free advertising and 10% tithes from whatever meager incomes or possible future incomes once on the feet"
We don't expect anyone to come to our church, although some have. We give people directions to our church when they ask, but otherwise only give the name.
As for tithes . . . you must be joking! Do you seriously believe that we will give a desperately poor family living in their car a box of groceries, and then demand back a pack of ramen and a handful of beans and rice?
"small investment that's sure to reap years of future profits"
Perhaps you are not too familiar with people who are homeless. A good portion of them are in their situation because they are unemployable. Many are severely mentally ill, self-medicated or brain damaged. At the last picnic one particular table with 6 men had 3 who had disabling epilepsy with grand mal seizures. They cannot work. A lot are children. Many of the homeless men who you may see appear to be 'able-bodied', and I am sure they can work two or three days a week. The trouble is, it's never the same two or three days. Our society and work structure does not have accommodation for such people, and we'll be waiting a loooonnngg time for tithes from the kids. Our church has no expectation of recompense. It is, after all, directly counter to the exhortation in Luke 14:12-14:
"Then Jesus said to his host, "When you give a luncheon or dinner, do not invite your friends, your brothers or relatives, or your rich neighbors; if you do, they may invite you back and so you will be repaid. But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous."
So, being repaid by guests is something to avoid!
"give the meals at your church"
Hmmm . . . our church is rather small. We used to give meals at our church, but we didn't have a room large enough. The church has about 300 members, and is split into two Sunday services because we lack space. The picnic is regularly attended by about 120 people. If we packed them into the sanctuary, the only large room, they would be crowded together without tables. Instead, we bring tables, food, packed boxes, clothing, toiletries and other items to the park in three pickups and several cars. It's like the circus coming to town. The vehicles belong to the team members, who receive no recompense for gas and mileage. The food is prepared in their own kitchens, since our church has no real kitchen of its own. In November, families prepared a dozen turkeys, twenty pies, potatoes, etc for the picnic, only days after preparing Thanksgiving meals for their own families. We don't have the institutional resources to keep it within the church building.
In addition, a large number of the guests have had terrible experiences in churches. They won't step into a church for anything, even food. Many others are uncomfortable in closed spaces and crowds. They have had too much trouble in their lives to risk being in a place without many exits. Taking the picnic to this public place became a necessity when we got to know more of our guests personally, and had a better understanding of what they felt comfortable with. Also, because of disability, age, and lack of transportation, many can not get to the church, which is 2 miles from the park.
". . . making an unseemingly show to the public trying to enjoy the park their tax dollars are paying for."
"I'm free to leave the park that's paid for by my taxes supposedly for my enjoyment."
The park isn't some kind of Timeshare. It is a commons for all, whether they pay taxes or not. Certainly, members of the church pay taxes. Don't they get a slice of the park one day a month? As for the guests; they already use the park as a hangout. We serve at that park because it was recommended to us by people living at the local shelter.
-- -- --
I apologize to the readers of Dispatches for inciting such controversy. I had intended to give an instance of actions that run counter to the many acts of religious hypocrisy that are reported here. I hope I have been able to address any misunderstanding that my previous post may have created.
Posted by: Daniel Kim | January 4, 2008 9:12 AM
Could you not say something like: "We are going to silently give thanks to our god. If you you want to thank your god(s) silently please feel free. Otherwise eat and enjoy."?
I not saying that foot washing is creepy per se, but that the general tenor of the comments is that is creepy in this case. I mean no offense to those who do it from care and with informed consent. However to do it to children seperated out as being poor could be construed as being discrimatory. Why not run a free podiatary clinic that anyone can attend (or not)? -DJ
PS Again I applaud your efforts in feeding the poor, I have never said it is immoral or illegal, just that is should have 'no strings'. Thanks for the extensive bible passages. A useful source to refute the RRC's (rabid right-wing Christians) who want to enforce thier ideas on others, or else! [Moderates in religion are generally moral people who want to help others in my experience]
Posted by: DingoJack | January 5, 2008 12:37 AM
RE: DingoJack 01/05
Thank you for your considerate reply. My wife and I tried to be thorough, but got a bit long-winded, and I appreciate that you took the time to read the posts. While we may disagree on some issues, and have very different styles of dialog (short and punchy vs long-winded and rambling), I am convinced that communication was the overall objective of this exchange.
Posted by: Daniel Kim | January 5, 2008 8:52 AM