Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
Faith-based aid conversion
FAITH IN ACTION
By Katherine Marshall
Whether it's rebuilding Haiti or debating about America's health care or immigration reform, it's just plain silly to leave out the religious actors. They are advocates, doers and thinkers who have vast knowledge and experience. But plenty of thoughtful citizens prefer to relegate religion to the margins.
A leading reason is the nagging worry about proselytizing and conversion. Nowhere does this have more immediate, day-to-day significance than for what is called "aid conversion." The topic of proselytizing comes up whenever there's a discussion about religion and international development. It stymies many a sensible effort to build creative partnerships because of the argument that religious groups cannot exercise the kind of neutrality that today's plural communities demand.
"Aid conversion," crudely, means linking charity and development aid to a religious message and, at its most intense, insisting that the recipients convert in order to receive the aid. There's a broad consensus that this is legally, morally, religiously and intellectually wrong. That applies especially to humanitarian crises (like the Haiti earthquake) where any kind of strings on help are regarded as abhorrent. Geneva accords and other international agreements make that clear. Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, Hindus and Christians, as well as others, can readily agree.
That does not change the wide perception that much religious aid comes with strings, even in crises. And in every crisis there are horror stories about groups that link their humanitarian aid to a religious message. But the reality is that only a tiny fringe steps over the line.
But when development work comes into the picture, the story gets more complex. Ideas about missionary work have changed drastically over the past decades, and today people are still debating what is right and wrong. Those working to help the poor all over the world are at the forefront of the debates.
The "mainstream" view is that any kind of manipulation or enticement to win over others to one's own faith is immoral and irreligious. The huge faith-inspired organizations like Catholic Relief Services, World Vision, Islamic Relief, Jewish World Service, and the Adventist Relief and Development Agency are crystal clear on this. More specifically, they see the "spreading the good news" work that is indeed part of many religious mandates as separate, carried out by the church itself, and never by the development arm. That's true also for the Church of Latter Day Saints.
But in hundreds of conversations with those who work to end poverty, I've probed motives and asked about guidelines. Most argue with deep sincerity that what motivates them is a passion for social justice and caring for those who suffer. They stress that while their own faith motivates and inspires them, their service is in no way tied to a desire to bring converts to their church. But, they say, "When someone asks why I'm here, I will answer honestly that it's because of my faith." Codes of conduct essentially follow a path that could be described as St. Francis's rule: preach always but rarely with words.
But there are some organizations that believe it is not possible to separate material and spiritual help, and that religious support is as important as food and medical care. These organizations are the ones that wrestle with government rules, debating whether to seek or accept government funds. Compassion International, a marvelous organization that has supported over a million children worldwide, is in this camp.
When the critics rail against insensitive proselytizing that aggravates religious tensions and tramples the human right to free choice, it's worth remembering that the offenders constitute a small minority of religious groups, not the mainstream. And while most faith-inspired work is remarkable for its dedication to helping people and creating a better world, the questions about what that better world should look like are truly important. The lines separating saintly support from religiously motivated action are not always as precise as they may seem. Transparency and honest discussion are what we need as much as laws and codes of conduct.
Katherine Marshall is a senior fellow at Georgetown's Berkley Center for Religion, Peace and World Affairs, a Visiting Professor, and a senior advisor for the World Bank.
By Katherine Marshall |
February 22, 2010; 12:06 AM ET
| Category:
Faith in Action
Save & Share:
Previous: Jobs, Jobs, Jobs |
Next: Religious, not spiritual
Posted by: gimpi | February 24, 2010 8:42 AM
Report Offensive Comment
From the Department of Commerce:
What are the rules for the use of Federal funding by faith-based organizations?
Answer:
Grant funds may not be used for inherently religious activities such as worship, prayer, proselytizing, or devotional Bible study. The funds are to be used to further the objectives established by Congress such as creating the conditions for economic growth and prosperity.
A faith-based organization should take steps to ensure that its inherently religious activities, such as religious worship or instruction are separate–in time or location–from the government-funded services that it offers. However, you may use space in your church, synagogue, mosque, or other place of worship to provide Federally-funded services.
In addition, there is no need to remove religious symbols from these rooms. You may also keep your organization's name even if it includes religious words, and you may include religious references in your organization's mission statements. If you have any questions or doubts, you should check with the official who administers your Federal funds."
1. Is there money set aside for Faith-Based Organizations?
Answer:
No. The Federal government does not set aside a separate funding stream specifically for faith-based groups.
Rather, they are eligible to apply for government grants on an equal basis with other similar non-governmental organizations."
Posted by: YEAL9 | February 22, 2010 3:48 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"When the critics rail against insensitive proselytizing that aggravates religious tensions and tramples the human right to free choice, it's worth remembering that the offenders constitute a small minority of religious groups, not the mainstream.”
When the central message of a certain religion with which you are very familiar is that it is the only one accepted by the Creator, and everyone else must belong to it OR pay an inordinate head tax and be humiliated and treated as a third class citizen or be put to the sword. Do you consider this as a minority group within that religion? Or better yet do you call that a religion?
Posted by: abhab1 | February 22, 2010 1:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
"The lines separating saintly support from religiously motivated action are not always as precise as they may seem. Transparency and honest discussion are what we need as much as laws and codes of conduct."
Ms Marshall, while I agree with you regarding the need for transparency and debate, I think firm rules regarding conduct have their place, especially when tax dollars are involved. If you are spending tax money to offer aid to disaster victims, you have an obligation to live up to standards regarding respect of the people you are trying to aid. If, for whatever reason, you can't do that, you need to refuse all governmental aid, including legal aid or military rescue, if your attempts to convert people get you in trouble in the country you have chosen to work in.
On an aside, I have looked into some of the statements made about the Christian aid organization World Vision misbehaving, (pressuring for conversions in exchange for aid) and haven't found any substance to them. However, I'm concerned, since I have done some volunteer work for them, and I would not want to continue if they were engaging in such malfeasance. Does anyone have anything substantiated? I'm really a bit concerned about this.