What role does charity have in our culture?

After visiting Camden, New Jersey for a week, I have realized that giving money to a charitable organization or church is not enough to assist those in poverty. It is very easy for me to give money to the starving and easy for those starving to accept it for a nice meal. It is easy to take a homeless man to a shelter for night as well. But my life cannot change by seeing a homeless man for a mere moment. I can live in the American society that continues to expand the gap between the rich and poor thinking that my charitable acts please God, but these acts only clear my own conscience away from making real sacrifices. I can feel sorry for the homeless but that feeling subsides in the comfort of my nice warm house. For some God calls them to live in places like Camden, New Jersey with those in poverty feeling their pain and sorrowing and seeking to show them hope in God. For others God calls us to recognize what impact we are actually able to accomplish through our actions. It is tragedy to believe that by going on a mission trip to the most dangerous city in America for a week I will be able to change the lives of those people living there from day to day. Our role was to assist Urban Promise Ministries in janitorial and repair work, so they may be better equipped to assist those living in the poverty stricken areas of Camden when no one else cares to even listen to them. So many times our charitable contributions are more about clearing our own conscience than actually helping those in need. To have a lasting impact on those in need around us, we must make our lives vulnerable to those, which is more difficult than writing a check. When we suffer as they suffer in the turmoil of our society, then we are able to show God's love to the world.
dr

Dogma and Praxis

As people lean towards a post-modern mindset, is there any room for dogma? It seems that people would rather believe in one extreme or the other, but must they be mutually exclusive? I derive my understanding of praxis first from my understanding of dogma, but then you may claim that the only way to express our dogma is through our praxis. So, our praxis must be first before our dogma. I wonder if we want to claim that praxis is more important than dogma, how do we know what the correct praxis is? Well you may claim that we live it out, but it seems best that dogma would be the most fitted to guide our praxis. In Mere Christianity, Lewis describes the Christian doctrine as a map of the ocean. Yes, the experience as we sit on the beach and hear the waves is more real and inspiring than reading a map, but we need the map to navigate ourselves through the ocean. Also, the map is a collection of people's own experiences of the ocean throughout time. As more people traveled the ocean, they outlined the land masses of the different continents. One would need a map (and compass) to travel from England to the Africa, or this person may end up in America as the ocean seems like a vast endless collection of water. We may be traveling around within the praxis of the world, but we also need dogma to help us get through it. Praxis and dogma is not mutually exclusive; our dogma is derived from the praxis of those before us; therefore, we cannot claim that our praxis is separate from the dogma of time that is before us. We cannot even claim that is is better but only a better continuation of the truth that has be given to us throughout history. I am not trying to replace the emphasis of our understanding of truth only through dogma instead of praxis, i am merely showing both must be a vital aspect as we seek to understand the world that is before us.
dr