Nick Kristof extends an olive branch to evangelicals

Kristof’s most recent column is refreshing. He notes with disarming candor that evangelicals are the new internationalists (evangelicalism, historically speaking, has always been internationalist: see Mark Noll’s historical presentation in The New Shape of World Christianity). He emphasizes that evangelical organizations like World Vision, with a massive donor base that extends beyond the evangelical world, are among the largest international relief and development organizations in the world.

Kristof’s excerpts from Richard Stearns’ book The Hole in Our Gospel: What does God expect of us? are designed to impress his fellow liberals. Richard Stearns is the president of World Vision. For a great interview with Stearns, go here. Liberals should be impressed. Kristof might also have noted that Stearns has made no bones about the humanitarian necessity to distribute condoms to people like sex workers at a high risk of contracting HIV/ AIDS. Go here. 

Still, Kristof’s column and blog post contain a number of debatable statements. A short list.

(1) “For most of the last century, save-the-worlders were primarily Democrats and liberals. In contrast, many Republicans and religious conservatives denounced government aid programs, with Senator Jesse Helms calling them “money down a rat hole.”

Hooey, except for the statement by Helms, which is just the truth: government-to-government aid is by and large money down a rat hole. That’s why the US government and the United Nations subcontract aid work to non-governmental organizations with proven track records of working efficiently. For example, a great deal of US- and UN-funded relief work in Bosnia and Herzegovina was carried out by UMCOR, the relief wing of the United Methodist Church. The funds would have gone to waste if they had been dispersed by (sometimes corrupt) UN agencies in cahoots with local political oligarchies.

Kristof fails to note that bleeding heart save-the-worlders since forever – the prohibitionist movement is a prime example - have tended to be social conservative in outlook. Democrat and Republican save-the-worlders until the late 1960s were by and large social conservatives. Democrats sometimes more so than Republicans.

Furthermore, there is a long tradition of internationalism among conservatives and neo-conservatives. Think Theodore Roosevelt, Mark Hatfield, Ronald Reagan, Dick Lugar, and Paul Wolfowitz. That tradition has had its share of colossal failures, spectacular successes, and pyrrhic victories. But that is no different than the liberal internationalist tradition. Think Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, and Richard Holbrooke.

(2) “Many evangelicals are blacks, for example, and black evangelicals tend to be liberals.” No, black (and Hispanic) evangelicals tend to be social conservatives on issues like abortion and same-sex marriage. For independent reasons, they tend to vote Democrat.  

(3) “White evangelicals are (Jim Wallis excepted) overwhelmingly Republican and conservative.” No, white evangelicals tend to be social conservatives on issues like abortion and same-sex marriage. That puts them at odds with many Democrats but also with libertarian-style Republicans.

At the same time, as Kristof notes, it is not unusual for activist evangelicals to stand behind efforts like Pepfar and PMI which have saved untold lives in Africa, and to be in favor of more justice and compassion for those who immigrate to the US.  

Kristof seems to assume a trite binary scheme: liberal=good, conservative=bad. You would think that at least bleeding-heart Dems like Kristof would be beyond this. Unfortunately, they are not.

It’s not about being conservative or liberal. It’s about living and thinking like the Roman Catholic nun – undoubtedly, a social conservative – of whom Kristof writes with admiration:

One of the most inspiring figures I’ve met while covering Congo’s brutal civil war is a determined Polish nun in the terrifying hinterland, feeding orphans, standing up to drunken soldiers and comforting survivors — all in a war zone. I came back and decided: I want to grow up and become a Polish nun.

That is vintage Kristof. The moral clarity, the sense of priorities, is firm. If only he would draw the obvious consequences and stop banging away at social conservatives for being social conservatives. 

It might be helpful, for those with little or no first-hand knowledge of World Vision, to give some idea of the sort of Christian matrix which sustains it. Its Board of Directors includes a wide cross-section of evangelicals with membership in denominations and churches as various as Pentecostal, 7^th Day Adventist, mainline Presbyterian, Willow Creek Community Church, and Grace Chapel. In terms of political allegiances, some of them are undoubtedly Republican, others Democrat, and others Independent; in terms of hot button issues like abortion and same-sex marriage, they are likely to hold relatively conservative views; with respect to the ordination of women, some are members of churches which forbid it, others, of churches which embrace it; with respect to gender roles in the family, some attend churches which make use of resources by complementarians like Emerson Eggerichs, others, by egalitarians like Stuart and Jill Briscoe.  

 

Comments

[Edward T. Babinski]

I suspect there's social and psychological reasons why people act the way they do, including Polish nuns.

Not to mention atheist physicians who join Doctors Without Borders, and atheist/agnostic multi-billionaire philanthropists like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, and Cancer Society supporters like the atheist cyclist Lance Armstrong.

Universalists, and gays, have also contributed greatly to charitable causes and organizations. From Andre Dunant (founder of the International Red Cross -- and apparently gay, judging by the letters his family burned after his death), Clara Barton (universalist and founder of the American Red Cross), Florence Nightingale (universalist who revolutionized nursing and hospital care -- and who revealed her passion for a woman in some private correspondence), Jane Addams (founder of Hull House, who is believed to have carried on a gay relationship with a woman she loved and with whom she lived).

[Edward T. Babinski]

2007 World Vision ends its 57th year with 26,000 employees and a budget of $2.6 billion. Richard E. Stearns President of World Vision, salary, $376,799.

World Vision is the worlds largest Christian church mission agency and has been closely linked with successive American governments. (Governments and rulers love being associated with noteworthy causes and wind up giving more to them in return.)

The former US Ambassador for International Religious Freedoms, Dr Robert Seiple, was World Vision chief for 11 years till 1998 when he was picked by former president, Bill Clinton, to head the office of International Religious Freedoms.

World Vision obtains monies from people, corporations and also governments. That, coupled with World Vision's Christian evangelization activities has angered people of other major world religions, Hindus notably:

http://www.haindavakeralam.com/HkPage.aspx?PAGEID=7902&SKIN=C

http://www.forum.ivarta.com/Exposed-World-Vision-Christian-Charity/440417.htm

In a report on famine in Ethiopia, reporter Andrew Geoghegan visited his 14 year old sponsor child. The girl has "been part of a World Vision program all her life" yet says (in translated subtitle) "Until recently, I didn't know I had a sponsor." and when asked about her knowledge of World Vision sponsorship says "Last time they gave me this jacket and a pen." Geoghegan was disconcerted to find that despite being "told by World Vision that [the girl] was learning English at school, and was improving...she speaks no English at all."[15]

In their response, World Vision states "World Vision unapologetically takes a community-based approach to development – a fact we publicly promote at every opportunity. Providing money directly to the families of sponsored children simply does not work, no matter how dire the circumstances. A ‘direct benefit' approach creates jealousy among community members that do not have sponsored children and fosters an ethos of dependency. So while sponsored children may receive some direct benefits – like school materials or a jacket for warmth – this in no way represents the entirety of our work in a community, and it was disingenuous for the Foreign Correspondent story to imply this."

It is clearly stated on the World Vision website:

"When you make a gift, your contributions are pooled with that of other sponsors of children in the community where your child lives. Your child receives health care, education, nutritious food, and the entire community benefits from access to clean water, agricultural assistance, medical care, and more."

The journalist and producer were offered the chance to view the full breadth of work World Vision is undertaking in the community, in health, education and food security, but this offer was not accepted."[16]

Foreign Correspondent replied to World Vision. In part, that response reads: "Foreign Correspondent sought answers from World Vision representatives on why the organisation's literature creates the impression that donated money goes directly to the sponsor child. The World Vision representative failed to adequately respond to the questions and instead outlined the community projects where sponsor money is spent. Foreign Correspondent does not dispute the integrity of World Vision projects but questions the way sponsorship is promoted to the public. In its response, World Vision has ignored the reporter's surprise at finding his sponsor child speaks no English, yet he has been receiving regular reports from the organisation that she's learning English at school and has a good command of the language..., Andrew Geoghegan has sponsored Tsehaynesh Delago for a decade and yet she claims she was unaware, until recently, that she had a sponsor and says the only benefit she has ever received directly from World Vision is a pen and the denim jacket she wore on the day of filming."[17]

[JohnFH]

My goodness, Edward.

Am I supposed to be surprised that people who don't believe in God or with whom I may sharply disagree on any number of theoretical and practical issues are, all things considered, morally superior to me?

It's called "common grace" in the Christian tradition I adhere to. I am immensely thankful that God has so ordered the world.

Your desire to throw stink bombs in the direction of World Vision reflects poorly on you, not on that organization. Like any huge organization, it has its share of problems. In its category, World Vision has a sterling reputation and I think you know it. Do a point-by-point comparison with the Red Cross or Save the Children if you don't believe me.

It's also natural that there be a sense of rivalry at some level between believing Christians, believing Hindu, believing Muslims, and true believing atheists like you.

You have discovered hot water, Edward.