Thoughts on “Foreign Aid” and “Mission”
(Note: this was written in response to a note from a pen pal in India.)
Your interest in promoting assistance for your compatriots from foreign sources brought a couple of issued to mind.
When I was a young schoolboy, we used to receive a little publication called the Weekly Reader It was designed to promote an interest in reading, and to help develop reading skills. Among other features, it included articles about current events, and one title that has always stuck in my mind was Trade – Not Aid. This was in the early 1950’s, and the point being made in the article was that people in countries who were receiving “foreign aid,” which was a political issue here at the time, did not want handouts. They wanted assistance in rebuilding their infrastructures and economies so that they would be able to support themselves and determine their own destinies.
Today, the U.S. Government spends a lot of money on various aid programs, although much less than the post WW-II/Cold War era, and what is distributed amounts to just a miniscule fraction of our government’s annual budget. Unfortunately, the largest portion of that aid involves military assistance and the fostering of political self-interest – money spent to buy and retain friends, in other words. The largest benefactor is always Israel (currently excepting Iraq). India is no longer on the list of leading aid recipients.
Mainline Christian denominations are big on “mission,” which is their euphemism for charity. A lot of money is collected and distributed to causes at home, and around the world. Perhaps nobody knows exactly how much. I was unable to find a figure, but I estimate it is somewhere in the area of $800-million (estimated by multiplying total Presbyterian spending by the ratio of PCUSA membership to total mainline church membership). This amounts to only about $6.75 per member. Unfortunately, much of that is wasted on projects that are ineffective, inefficient, or inappropriate. In the case of the Presbyterian church, upwards of 75% of the money is spent on personnel, support and administrative costs – almost exactly the opposite of what is ordinarily considered to be an acceptable program spending ratio by most charitable organizations.
I was brought up in a protestant Christian tradition, in the Presbyterian Church. Like any other religion, Christianity has its moderates and its zealots. Presbyterians have traditionally been on the moderate end of the spectrum, emphasizing mission (good works and charity) and education as an appropriate way of carrying on the work begun by Jesus Christ. Christ’s agenda was to bring hope for a better life, now and in the hereafter, to common people, and He worked to that end in his time by teaching and healing. Hence, Presbyterians have gone out into the world to build schools and hospitals, rather than to preach and proselytize.
Mission is legitimate and effective when it helps people become capable of helping themselves. Otherwise it is often just an easy give-away which permits the more fortunate to justify their affluence without getting their hands dirty, while the rest of the world continues to suffer. Mission done right is not simple or easy. Ineffective and inappropriate projects therefore often result, with the well-intentioned, but misguided rushing in with temporary assistance of some kind, which does nothing to solve systemic problems. Eventually the recipients are left in the same poor condition, while the givers walk away feeling good about themselves.
Several years ago the World Council of Churches got into trouble for providing aid (money, food, and medical supplies) to people in Africa who turned out to be murderous rebels. That is an (admittedly extreme) example of "feel good" mission that has no good result.
A more typical example of wasting mission resources is the annual trip to Mexico that involves teenagers from our local church. Traveling across the country to a small village in Mexico, they reopen and repair a small derelict church building while befriending the local Mexican youth. For the Mexican kids, this has evidently turned into a festival of sorts; a time when they expect the gringos and gringas from America to show up to host parties, play games and pass out gifts. The price they pay is having to listen to American kids witness and preach. The reality is that Mexico is predominately catholic with a much stronger family oriented culture than ours, so Mexican youth could probably better be teaching the American kids about things that matter. After the American’s leave, the Mexican’s close up the building, permitting it to fall into a state of neglect again in preparation for next year’s event, and life in their little village returns to normal. Our kids come back home clucking to the congregation about all the wonderful things that happened in Mexico, while the congregation pats itself on the back for yet another contribution to mission. As a cultural exchange or encounter, this activity probably has merit, and it should probably be billed as such, rather than thought of as a mission project.
On the other hand, our local church helps support a man who felt he was called to go to Haiti to help the poor. His first project was to teach rural peasants how to build simple concrete water filters. That cost very little, and had a big impact upon disease. More recently he came up with a program where a $40 donation enables a peasant boy to establish his own small plantation, which will provide enough income over the years to pay for twelve years of schooling. This may not be a big deal in a global sense, but it is a big deal to the people of this small mountain region in Haiti. This man paid a significant personal price for the privilege of helping others. He devoted his own money and material to what began as his personal project. He gave up all the opportunities he would have had in his own country. He gave up the safety and security of his American home to take up his work in a risky, politically unsettled and relatively lawless place. He contracted a chronic form malaria, which evidently never really goes away. On the plus side, he also eventually met, fell in love with and married a fine Haitian woman.
Our church is small; only about 1200 members, all of whom are fortunate enough to have $40 to contribute to mission. If each small affluent group were to support a similarly small but effective mission, the world would soon become a better place for many.
***
As a footnote, I hasten to add this:
I am not trying to promote Christianity or the Presbyterian Church. I am not a student of religion, but am intelligent enough to understand that all religions have good and bad aspects, and that we are what we are mainly by virtue of the culture we are born into. My ancestors came to America as immigrants from Norway and Germany, and were therefore of the Christian tradition. Not surprisingly, our family was originally part of the German Evangelical Lutheran persuasion. My father was in the U.S. Coast Guard, a military service. After World War II, he was reassigned to a life saving station in Grand Haven, a small town on Lake Michigan that was originally founded by a Presbyterian missionary. As has been the Presbyterian tradition, the missionary quickly built a one-room schoolhouse, recruiting his sister-in-law as the volunteer teacher. In this town therefore, the Presbyterian Church was understandably prominent, and that is how we happened to become involved with that particular church.
We remain Presbyterians mainly because:
The denomination is liberal enough to recognize the equal legitimacy of other denominations and other faiths. That is unusual, most other traditions think that they must believe in the exclusive validity of whatever it is that they believe, and must therefore believe that everyone else is wrong. Today we are rediscovering scientifically and philosophically what wise people of old easily knew as a matter of common sense - that human minds are imperfect and our thinking on any subject is therefore fallible. Zealotry in any matter is therefore the mark of an ignorant person. Presbyterian doctrine is the only one I know of among the god-fearing faiths that acknowledges this fact of life. The alternative, which is to claim infallibility and insist that everyone else accept whatever such zealots claim to be "the truth" has a long history of destructiveness.
The other reason we are Presbyterian is that the denomination is governed democratically, rather than by a hierarchy of ordained clergy. Governing bodies include both lay members and ministers. A Book of Order, which is essentially a constitution, guarantees the rights of individuals, thereby limiting the power of any other individuals or factions, and assuring everyone of fair treatment, and a voice in the affairs of the church.
-=glw=-
Your interest in promoting assistance for your compatriots from foreign sources brought a couple of issued to mind.
When I was a young schoolboy, we used to receive a little publication called the Weekly Reader It was designed to promote an interest in reading, and to help develop reading skills. Among other features, it included articles about current events, and one title that has always stuck in my mind was Trade – Not Aid. This was in the early 1950’s, and the point being made in the article was that people in countries who were receiving “foreign aid,” which was a political issue here at the time, did not want handouts. They wanted assistance in rebuilding their infrastructures and economies so that they would be able to support themselves and determine their own destinies.
Today, the U.S. Government spends a lot of money on various aid programs, although much less than the post WW-II/Cold War era, and what is distributed amounts to just a miniscule fraction of our government’s annual budget. Unfortunately, the largest portion of that aid involves military assistance and the fostering of political self-interest – money spent to buy and retain friends, in other words. The largest benefactor is always Israel (currently excepting Iraq). India is no longer on the list of leading aid recipients.
Mainline Christian denominations are big on “mission,” which is their euphemism for charity. A lot of money is collected and distributed to causes at home, and around the world. Perhaps nobody knows exactly how much. I was unable to find a figure, but I estimate it is somewhere in the area of $800-million (estimated by multiplying total Presbyterian spending by the ratio of PCUSA membership to total mainline church membership). This amounts to only about $6.75 per member. Unfortunately, much of that is wasted on projects that are ineffective, inefficient, or inappropriate. In the case of the Presbyterian church, upwards of 75% of the money is spent on personnel, support and administrative costs – almost exactly the opposite of what is ordinarily considered to be an acceptable program spending ratio by most charitable organizations.
I was brought up in a protestant Christian tradition, in the Presbyterian Church. Like any other religion, Christianity has its moderates and its zealots. Presbyterians have traditionally been on the moderate end of the spectrum, emphasizing mission (good works and charity) and education as an appropriate way of carrying on the work begun by Jesus Christ. Christ’s agenda was to bring hope for a better life, now and in the hereafter, to common people, and He worked to that end in his time by teaching and healing. Hence, Presbyterians have gone out into the world to build schools and hospitals, rather than to preach and proselytize.
Mission is legitimate and effective when it helps people become capable of helping themselves. Otherwise it is often just an easy give-away which permits the more fortunate to justify their affluence without getting their hands dirty, while the rest of the world continues to suffer. Mission done right is not simple or easy. Ineffective and inappropriate projects therefore often result, with the well-intentioned, but misguided rushing in with temporary assistance of some kind, which does nothing to solve systemic problems. Eventually the recipients are left in the same poor condition, while the givers walk away feeling good about themselves.
Several years ago the World Council of Churches got into trouble for providing aid (money, food, and medical supplies) to people in Africa who turned out to be murderous rebels. That is an (admittedly extreme) example of "feel good" mission that has no good result.
A more typical example of wasting mission resources is the annual trip to Mexico that involves teenagers from our local church. Traveling across the country to a small village in Mexico, they reopen and repair a small derelict church building while befriending the local Mexican youth. For the Mexican kids, this has evidently turned into a festival of sorts; a time when they expect the gringos and gringas from America to show up to host parties, play games and pass out gifts. The price they pay is having to listen to American kids witness and preach. The reality is that Mexico is predominately catholic with a much stronger family oriented culture than ours, so Mexican youth could probably better be teaching the American kids about things that matter. After the American’s leave, the Mexican’s close up the building, permitting it to fall into a state of neglect again in preparation for next year’s event, and life in their little village returns to normal. Our kids come back home clucking to the congregation about all the wonderful things that happened in Mexico, while the congregation pats itself on the back for yet another contribution to mission. As a cultural exchange or encounter, this activity probably has merit, and it should probably be billed as such, rather than thought of as a mission project.
On the other hand, our local church helps support a man who felt he was called to go to Haiti to help the poor. His first project was to teach rural peasants how to build simple concrete water filters. That cost very little, and had a big impact upon disease. More recently he came up with a program where a $40 donation enables a peasant boy to establish his own small plantation, which will provide enough income over the years to pay for twelve years of schooling. This may not be a big deal in a global sense, but it is a big deal to the people of this small mountain region in Haiti. This man paid a significant personal price for the privilege of helping others. He devoted his own money and material to what began as his personal project. He gave up all the opportunities he would have had in his own country. He gave up the safety and security of his American home to take up his work in a risky, politically unsettled and relatively lawless place. He contracted a chronic form malaria, which evidently never really goes away. On the plus side, he also eventually met, fell in love with and married a fine Haitian woman.
Our church is small; only about 1200 members, all of whom are fortunate enough to have $40 to contribute to mission. If each small affluent group were to support a similarly small but effective mission, the world would soon become a better place for many.
As a footnote, I hasten to add this:
I am not trying to promote Christianity or the Presbyterian Church. I am not a student of religion, but am intelligent enough to understand that all religions have good and bad aspects, and that we are what we are mainly by virtue of the culture we are born into. My ancestors came to America as immigrants from Norway and Germany, and were therefore of the Christian tradition. Not surprisingly, our family was originally part of the German Evangelical Lutheran persuasion. My father was in the U.S. Coast Guard, a military service. After World War II, he was reassigned to a life saving station in Grand Haven, a small town on Lake Michigan that was originally founded by a Presbyterian missionary. As has been the Presbyterian tradition, the missionary quickly built a one-room schoolhouse, recruiting his sister-in-law as the volunteer teacher. In this town therefore, the Presbyterian Church was understandably prominent, and that is how we happened to become involved with that particular church.
We remain Presbyterians mainly because:
The denomination is liberal enough to recognize the equal legitimacy of other denominations and other faiths. That is unusual, most other traditions think that they must believe in the exclusive validity of whatever it is that they believe, and must therefore believe that everyone else is wrong. Today we are rediscovering scientifically and philosophically what wise people of old easily knew as a matter of common sense - that human minds are imperfect and our thinking on any subject is therefore fallible. Zealotry in any matter is therefore the mark of an ignorant person. Presbyterian doctrine is the only one I know of among the god-fearing faiths that acknowledges this fact of life. The alternative, which is to claim infallibility and insist that everyone else accept whatever such zealots claim to be "the truth" has a long history of destructiveness.
The other reason we are Presbyterian is that the denomination is governed democratically, rather than by a hierarchy of ordained clergy. Governing bodies include both lay members and ministers. A Book of Order, which is essentially a constitution, guarantees the rights of individuals, thereby limiting the power of any other individuals or factions, and assuring everyone of fair treatment, and a voice in the affairs of the church.
-=glw=-
posted by BoysMind at
2:35 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home