Helping those that help themselves

Should we help those that help themselves or rescue those who are struggling? You can make an argument for either course, no doubt depending on the situation, but let us consider two cases.

A funding body, let us call it Lottery, only likes to pay for a proportion of a project: let us say 50%. They also have a rule that 'work done so far cannot be counted as match-funding in your bid'. This is understandable otherwise all those in possession of a picture by Leonardo da Vinci would never have to provide any match funding since the 'value' of the work done so far would be so transcendent.

What are the consequences of this rule?

An enthusiast finds a box of pictures in his attic and settles down to catalogue these, working many hours as a volunteer. At the end of the project, it appears that the collection is unique and there would be benefit in the collection and the catalogue being more widely available. He approaches Lottery for financial support to get them on line. But Lottery's rules kick in and it asks for match-funding which our enthusiast cannot afford. All his meticulous cataloguing work does not count. The project cannot go ahead.

In the attic next door is a canny individual who discovers another box of pictures. He opens the box, casts an eye over them, judges them to be worthy of publication and applies, immediately, to Lottery for financial support both to catalogue the pictures and to put them on line. 'Fine in principle', says Lottery, 'where is the match-funding?' 'Oh', says Canny, 'I shall catalogue them myself and that is the match funding.' 'OK' says Lottery, 'we will pay for them to be put on line.' The project goes ahead.

Which, as the prophet might ask, is the better case? Should Lottery be supporting those who have already shown effort and contributed volunteer effort, or should it be encouraging a dependency culture where no one does anything without putting in a bid?

It is galling for those of us who have shown effort and contributed voluntary time to be seeing neighbours who haven't, being fully funded for similar work. Talk about rewarding historic failure. They may need help but it does not do much for our morale or encourage us to put in more voluntary effort.

Christmas spirit

We do, occasionally, enjoy the wry. A recent email gave us much joy. It related to a 'Living Nativity' which was planned for our town. Contrary to expectations, this was not to be the sight of an under-age unmarried mother giving birth in a stable, but was a procession through the town with various 'stations' much like the stations of the cross.

'Can you help us?' started the email, 'the rabbits that were to appear in the Living Nativity are unwell and we need to replace them. Can anyone help?'

Now forgive me, it is is some time since we read the four gospels and our knowledge of the Christmas story is largely based on the words of various carols which we know are not original material, but we cannot, just at the moment, recall that rabbits featured in any significant way in the Bible story. That is not to say that there were no rabbits there, after all the Romans introduced rabbits to Britain and there is no reason to believe that rabbits were not domesticated and living in Palestine in the year 0 AD.

This email was followed a day or two later by another one with the programme. The sixth stage of the journey was to involve the 3 Wise Women and their horses ...

Well, in a modern world of equality, why should they not be Wise Women, despite the images of the stoning in the Life of Brian that come flooding to the mind.

Challenged after the event, the organiser admitted that the camels had actually been Alpacas. Well, at least he had got a camelid but not even our flexible approach to history could quite encompass the idea of a South American mammal having attended the Nativity.

We can't wait to hear the reaction to our Earnest Cleric's question at the next Sunday School: 'Now Johnny, who appeared at the Nativity?'

'Of course there is a lobster. Dnh!' You know the film.