A while back a friend asked me about how Christians should feel about supporting charitable organisations who don't explicitly evangelise in their aid work. This was may reply.
A few thoughts.
1. Under the Overseas Aid Gift Deduction Scheme (OAGDS), you cannot use tax deductible money for the purpose of evangelistic/missionary activities. One of the disheartening things we hear is the sledging coming from other organisations that 'Unlike WV, we share the gospel'. Aside from the disappointing nature of such sledges, it is actually illegal to claim tax deductibility for proselytism.
This doesn't mean that organisations who DO engage in evangelistic activities can't be eligible for OAGDS status, but it does mean that they need to demonstrate that the activities for which they seek tax deductibility DON'T include any evangelistic components. It'd be wise if you did both to have separate funds allocated to your different activities.
2. WV actually worked quite hard with AusAID when they were reviewing this OAGDS policy to shift the language used from that which was very resistant to any Christian activity. Now AusAID recognise that Christianity is actually very important to holistic development practice - what the above ineligibility clause prevents is linking aid and development with proselytism. i.e. 'You get the goodies if you come to church'. Which is CRITICAL.
3. In what ways isn't WV an overtly Christian organisation? I'd challenge the girls to consider that WV are an AID AND DEVELOPMENT organisation; not a MISSION organisation. Both are important; but they are different. WV specialises in the former, and they do it well, motivated by a desire to be the hands and feet of Jesus.
4. Considering that WV receives donations from thousands of non-Christians, it is important to honour them, and use the money in a way that is consistent with their expectations.
5. That said, on the ground, many of the countries in which WV work (i.e. Kenya) are already overwhelmingly Christian. The Economic Empowerment Meetings I went to in the Wema ADP in rural Kenya were held in the local church, bracketed by songs of praise to God, and prayer was integral to every stage of the meetings. WV is explicitly Christian, in their conduct and in their approach. That there isn't a concerted, coordinated Gospel ministry does by no means mean that the gospel isn't involved; if you are a Christian, working in the slum of Kibera in Nairobi, the gospel cannot help but affect the work you do.
Most of the workers at WV are Christians. They have an inclusive employment policy. They employ mostly Christians, but say they're looking for someone to do a job in Jakarta, where the population is overwhelmingly Muslim, they will choose a competent Muslim over an incompetent Christian, as long as the Muslim is on board with the Christian ethos of the organisation.
6. I think you need to ask your girls to reconsider their standpoint. Refer them to http://www.ausaid.gov.au/ngos/pdfs/oagds_guidelines.pdf so that they can read the eligibility requirements. I'd suggest to them that they are asking the wrong question.
I think they need to recognise that you can't be both a large and efficient aid and development like WV AND a mission organisation, and do both tasks effectively and on the scale that WV does.
Organisations like TEAR do both - but they do so on no where near anything like the scale and impact that WV does. And different issues arise: the smaller the organisation, the greater the proportion of donations goes to admin costs, reducing the per dollar impact... etc
I'd ask them what was behind their question. Is it genuine concern? If they feel the Spirit moving their heart to do something about unreached people groups, then dig deeper into the pockets of their North Shore comfort and give generously to other organisations who do a damn good job at that (i.e. 'Leading the Way'). It's not an either/or. We are called to do both.
Hope some of that is helpful.
(also look at this: http://worldvision.com.au/OurWork/FaithInAction.aspx)
---
Hm. I think I may have been a little fired up. Haha.
But, still. The point remains.
1 comment:
very helpful steph. a friend and i have recently been wondering about this... i know of a few christian couples who have stopped sponsoring children through world vision and have instead chosen to support children through compassion international because their approach is er... more explicitly christian and they are assured that their sponsor child is hearing the gospel. these are very good points to consider... ah, blast that dichotomy. why did we have to start distinguishing between works and evangelism? actually thats a question id like to know the answer to.
Post a Comment