Posted by Hemant Mehta in One question that atheists often get asked is: Why don’t you support Christian missionaries who help so many people in poverty-stricken countries?
It’s certainly wonderful that they have the ability and generosity to do the good work — I wish atheists had more of both — but there’s a reason we don’t like the way some churches do it.
Case in point, Pastor Frank Amedia of Touch Heaven Ministries, who has been distributing food in Haiti:
“We would give food to the needy in the short term but if they refused to give up Voodoo, I’m not sure we would continue to support them in the long term because we wouldn’t want to perpetuate that practice. We equate it with witchcraft, which is contrary to the Gospel.”
To paraphrase: We want to help them… but only if they convert to Christianity.
Amedia has been receiving some well-deserved criticism for this cold-hearted remarks. How has he responded?
I responded to a direct question from [AP reporter] Paisley [Dodds] which asked: “What would I do if I knew the person in need was a voodoo worshipper?” I responded that we would help them, but that everything we do is for the Glory of God and that we are committed to share our hearts. She then expanded her question to ask “Would I continue to help them knowing they were still practicing Voodoo?” I responded that I would show them our love by helping them and that I would hope to become their friend, and then as their friend, that our compassion and love might be the difference to lead them to Christ. She then asked “How long would we continue to supply them?” To that I answered that “I am not sure we could continue to support them in the long term because we would not want to perpetuate that process. We equate [voodoo] with witchcraft, which is contrary to the Gospel.”
So… he takes none of it back.
If I were a Christian public relations expert (and I *fully* claim to be one), here’s what I would tell other Christians in Amedia’s position to say:
We will continue giving food to Haitians who need it because that’s what our faith commands us to do. I would love it if, through our actions, those who received the food thought about why our faith compels us to act this way, but even if they don’t change their minds, we will still help our fellow brothers and sisters.
That is much more difficult position for atheists to attack.
Amedia represents the side of Christianity that drives people away from the church. Good. Let him keep talking; let him keep digging that hole for himself.
Those who give aid to victims of a tragedy with no expectations in return are far more generous than Christians like Amedia who want something in exchange for it. People like him are despicable.
Ted Olsen at Christianity Today asks an interesting hypothetical question to his readers:
If you aided someone for years and years and they never became a Christian, would you consider your efforts wasted?
(Thanks to Char for the link)
Or with a bit more humility:
“We accept our understandings of truth as incomplete and have faith that new perceptions of truth will continue to be revealed both to us and to others. ”
American Friends Service Committee
Or from a group, Swiss Interchurch Aid (HEKS), that AFSC is working with in Haiti:
“HEKS’ Christian values command respect for people of all cultures and religions. HEKS helps individuals in need, irrespective of their race or religion.”
and
“Are donations to HEKS predominantly used to benefit Christians?
It is precisely because HEKS is a Christian aid organisation that it gives aid to needy people irrespective of their religious affiliation and ethnic origin. HEKS gears the support to the indigenous skills and the needs of the local population.”
Admittedly they don’t want to continue the aid forever but not because the people don’t convert.
“HEKS collaborates with its operational partner organisations to support local initiatives. The objective is to eliminate dependence on all foreign aid and bring the projects to a successful conclusion.”
that’s exactly why i don’t give money to Christian organizations…because i don’t want a portion of my money spent on food, clothing, whatever they’re offering and another portion being spent on bibles and sending priests and what not to other countries..
Amedia said,
Giving to the needy “glorifies God” BY THE GIVING. The recipient’s response in return has nothing to do with it.
Amedia’s giving is unabashedly conditional. He’s not glorifying God, he’s selling God.
His charity should come with a written disclaimer:
“This offer of food and shelter is for promotional purposes only. Further aid will require purchase of our products and services.”
@Richard Wade
You are awesome.
This, in a nutshell, is why I won’t accept Christian charity. I admit that would be a harder call to make if I were in the unfortunate shoes of the Haitians but I’ve accepted Christian charity in the past and have always lived to regret it.
Christian charity comes with a price tag and the price is your soul. Yes, I know we don’t have one. But they don’t. And I fear what they deem the soul is what I deem my independent mind. In other words, they expect you to cede your mind (soul in Godspeak) to the service and glory of their imaginary friend in the sky.
The price is too high for some canned food or used clothes. (Hell, it’s too high for a mansion, a new wardrobe and the finest steak.) Therefore, thanks but no thanks.
Charity from individual Christians given out of the kindness of their heart, indivdual Christians who I know and know to be good, trustworthy people and who they and I are there for each other as in next time they might need the help and will accept it in turn from me, sure. That’s what friends are for. To be there for each other in times of need.
But Christian organizations. No how, no way, thanks but no thanks. I’m not willing to pay the cost you’re asking. I’ve already pissed off enough of you when the crisis passed and I refused to accept Christ as my savior. I don’t intend to ever again be called an ingrate because I don’t let you dictate the rest of my life and make myself a slave to your organization. Take your “kind” offer and shove it.
Do you think that the twisting of genuine charity work towards proselytising is a barrier to giving? If I have to research the charity that I am giving to in order to ensure that they don’t waste money or restrict their work to some based on religious bias then I’m unlikely to give money on the spur of the moment. Even if a charity is religious and does a fantastic job I am unlikely to give to them because I simply don’t know if they waste money of bibles, churches or prayer schemes and don’t want to take the risk.
To be fair, giving up vodou and adopting Christianity aren’t synonymous.
Anyway, help in the short term is (theoretically) all they need. Charity is good in the short term. But if the people in a country need help getting food over a long period of time, they either need more science and technology or a revolution. Probably both in the case of Haiti.
The goofy thing about it is that Haiti is almost entirely Christian. They don’t seem to understand this.
Only about half of Hatians practice Voodoo. Voodoo runs contrary to several tenets of Christianity, however, most Voodoo practitioners are also Christian.
But at the topic at hand, there is no command that Christian charity be only to Christians. Charity isn’t about return on investment. It’s supposed to be about giving generously and unconditionally as they believe their God gave to them generously and unconditionally.
But when it comes down to it, there is a very strong correlation about strongly held religious beliefs and poverty. The more strongly the beliefs are held in a country, the more pervasive the poverty is. The US is the the only country that exists outside that correlation.
What Amedia is doing is not charity; it is blackmail.
Hemant, maybe you missed your calling. PR might be your thing. I could not possibly criticize the alternative comment you provided.
Even then, churches use charitable activity as a form of marketing. They want to get their brand out there. I even know of cases where church groups were participating in charitable activity using government money, and the first thing they did was pass out T-shirts to their volunteers so everyone would know their church was behind it.
“Why should God reward you if you love only the people who love you back? Even the tax collectors do that! And if you speak only to your friends, have you done anything out of the ordinary? Even the pagans do that!”
–The Bible
Did anyone ask him “What if they stopped practicing voodoo, but instead of just switching one nonsense belief for another, they decided to think for themselves and became atheist?”
I would *love* to their answer to that one.
Thanks for pointing this out, but it’s their money, and they can do whatever they want with it.
This phenomenon is why I refuse to support Samaritan’s Purse. While Samaritan’s Purse does a LOT of positive aid work for disaster victims, refugees, and people living in poverty, they do use charity as an opportunity to proselytize. For example, one of SP’s most popular programs is “Operation Christmas Child”, in which donors can put together shoe boxes filled with toys and toilletries for disadvanted children worldwide. Sounds noble, right? The problem is that SP distributes Christian gospel booklets to the young recipients when they give out the boxes. I think proselytizing to children is unethical to begin with, but proselytizing to emotionally vulnerable children who have been traumatized by war, natural disasters, or poverty is repugnant.
To see what I’m talking about, visit http://www.samaritanspurse.org/index.php/OCC/OCC_Impact/
If you want to help people in need, there are plenty of non-religious charities to whom you can send donations. That’s what I do to make sure that my funds are not going toward unethical proselytizing efforts.
TIM D — Great Bible quote!
MUGGLE — I’m sorry to hear that you had bad experiences with Christian “charity”. No one should be expected to submit to indoctrination just because they accepted help during a difficult time. Kudos for standing your ground.
“Christian charity” is a big oxymoron. I mean seriously, are you truly being charitable if you’re trying to score points with some “God” or hoping that you’re winning your way into some glorious afterlife?
“True charity” is in my mind a lot like “unconditional love.” Both are wonderful concepts and goals that people should strive to attain. However, truly achieving them is quite difficult in practice.
Ron in Houston wrote:
Exactly.
Can’t people leave their ideology at the door for ONCE when something horrific like this happens and just HELP people….simply because it’s the right thing to do?
It’s like John Travolta flying his plane down there with supplies, etc (that’s wonderful John, it really is) ~ but why did he have to taint the whole thing by bringing Scientology ‘minsters’ with him?
(sigh)
At least they’re not burning alive those they believe are practising witchcraft. I guess it’s a small improvement.
Can it really be considered charity if there are strings and conditions attached?
Hemant, your suggestion is in line with what contemporary Catholic missionaries do; they are sometimes less straightforwardly obnoxious than their Protestant counterparts; On the other hand, the whole anti-condom thing facilitating the spread of AIDS in Africa is unforgivable, so I suppose I should say that they find a different, more round about way to be obnoxious dicks than their Protestant counterparts.