Charity and Giving

A President of the United States proposed that the government, perceived as secular (to comfort the citizens offended or disapproving of spiritual interpretation of life) enter into agreements to work with faith-based groups to assist the nation in serving the welfare programs to other nations.  Some co-op was proposed because it was felt missionaries might be in best position to assure the government programs would serve the purpose for which they were given – to reach the truly needy people of the country served.  In the current system nations sometimes diverted the gifts to power persons or their choices with reduced volume going to the masses in need.  The programs would not be used in any direct way to benefit the mission administrations involved, but would certainly provide greater efficiency to much of the aid distribution to the people in greatest need.  There might be a fallout to respect generated for the mission program, an inevitable part of the service enhancement of government programming.  One wonders why there would be any objection to the ancillary benefit, a free factor that may accrue without cost, even as it may give additional impact for missionary presence.  That presence is, as the charity of nations is meant to be, for the affirmative benefit of the countries in which missionaries serve.  The missionary is dedicated to serving the people and goes out of his or her way to avoid any offense to the reigning government, from whose permission the missionary is present.  For the missionary to opt out of a secular program of care for the people would violate the scriptural injunctions to care for the needs of persons both spiritual and physical.

Denominations known well to me engage in fundraising both for the purpose of charitable aid to needy peoples and the church objective for spiritual ministry.  The funds are kept separate so not to contradict the first purpose of the missionary as a professional person advancing the objectives of the church, and not to violate donors who wish to dedicate their gifts to this or that objective.  The charitable arm serves any person in need and the spiritual those who identify in some way with the ministry of the missionary and the local congregation.  It is an excellent order that is likely, if adopted, the most efficient program available for the physical needs of the people.  Not to use the missionary organization for physical good in the world seems to be deliberate folly.  The mass of mailings requesting support for many world causes does serve mankind, but the programs of denominations I know deserve my first attention when related even to charity to needy people.  It is at lowest cost for the larger good than any other I know.

At this writing even Christian organizations are achieving excellent results in getting aid to the points of great need.  In this context the Gospel of Christ is also identified.  Any mission program might well be separated from the general program of government even if monitored by the same personnel.  There are sufficient controls both by government and the serving groups from the volunteering nation to assure the identity of gifts and purpose.  This safeguard is commonly followed between nations, so that the recipients know if the carton of relief goods/services arrives from this nation or that.  The identity or crediting tradition assures the recipients of the source of the largess.  Foundations use the procedure well.  In many nations the missionary is highly regarded for the contribution made to the people accenting altruism.  It is likely that the political differentials between nations are more troublesome than any differences between missionaries and the nations in which they serve.  Missionaries may be threatened by other religions, much more than governments.  Some governments, with a dominant competing faith, are negative for Christian mission.  Some secular plan of donors can serve.  Gaining separation of religion from the state would be enhanced by friendly cooperation in achieving the parallel interests of both church and state.  The plan might relate to the assistance of secular foundations found in the donor nation. There is a friendly mutuality that can function between secular (affirming neutral context) governments and religion (affirming value context).  Where they touch they ought to cooperate.  They are meant to be friends of good-will, not of suspicion or evasion or self-serving  There are variant governments and religions.  They can not only survive together, but contribute to one another in mutual interests, and find through freedom how to function together affirmatively leaving ultimate evaluation of performance to God.