Why are churches jumping onto the global aid bandwagon?
Just today I sat through a sermon where the pastor exhorted us to take the government to task about broken promises. The Western nations had apparently promised in 2000 to halve world poverty by 2015 and now that it is 2007. Although we are halfway there, the work is not halfway done. Just a few weeks ago there were articles commenting about this and various welfare groups talking about taking the government to task, and today the church I attend heavily promoted the idea that we should "blow the whistle" and spam the government with letters to "encourage" them to buck up. I drew two major messages in the sermon, which are: 1) Christianity strongly supports helping the weak and 2)The (secular) government has failed and a (christian) government would do much better. I feel that both positions are untenable.
First of all, the pastor quoted the following admonisment to the Jews just after they left egypt:(paraphrased) Just as you were foreigners in egypt and treated well you should treat the widowed and orphans with kindness etc. where the widowed and orphaned represented the weak and the suffering. This is all well and good, except for the fact that after that, the Jews, under the command of God, conquered quite a few cities. And thats not all. The widowed
(i.e. women whose husbands had just been killed in battle) were slaughtered and the orphans (female) were "taken as wives", which is a pretty good euphemism if I say so myself. How about the male orphans? Well, they were killed as well, being of no use to the Jewish men.
Of course, there are Christians who do charitable works and attribute their drive to their religion. The sermon ostentatiously glorifies these people. But, let us not forget that people from other religions, Muslims, Buddhists, do exactly the same thing. Why don't the religious groups get together and co-operate? Clearly there would be greater efficiencies in centralising certain operations. Here comes the catch: active evangelism goes on along with the charitable works, so there is an ulterior motive behind these works. Most of us are well acquainted with the image of a saintly Mother Theresa, and for Christians she acts as a mascot for the benign and beneficial image that Christians want to promote to the rest of the world. Even secular commentators have to acknowledge that Mother Theresa has brought lots of good to the poor in Calcutta, right? Well, maybe. But there is evidence that Mother Theresa isn't as saintly as she seems to be. In spite of the large amount of funds that are donated to her works, the condition of the homes that she runs for the poor has hardly improved. It seems like instead of using the money to help the poor, a large part of it goes towards the establishment of churches and the promotion of Catholicism per se. http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/490/theresa.htm
With that thought in mind, let us consider a reason that the preacher conveniently forgot to mention that could have led to the government failing to meet its goal for the alleviation of poverty. National Interest: In 2000, when the promise was made, the Asian Financial Crisis had more or less ended and people were feeling pretty optimistic about the future. Thus, promises to help other nations and the poor made alot of (political) sense. Afterall, if the people are already pretty happy with their lives, it helps to show that you are caring and all that. Then came September 11, and for UK, the June 6, which just about wrecked the sense of well-being of the people. With the subsequent wars, the ramping up of security procedures and the downturn in the economy, no government was going to be as generous. People who question where the money went can look to this for answers. I'm pretty sure there are many other reasons but thats not the point.
The big question is, why are Churches suddenly promoting this, as well as the environmental agenda? Well, I think that there are quite a few reasons, and they aren't the ones that Christians think they are. I'm pretty sure that when questioned, the leaders of the Churches would go on about how this was a problem that was swept under the rug etc. and how the Bible tells us to do good and all that. The problem with this explanation is that for a pretty long time, prominent Christians like Pat Robertson have been rubbishing these environmental claims, and questions can also be asked about why is it only at the halfway mark that the Church is taking the government to task about the poverty issue.
The answer, I think, comes from the fact that these issues have only come to the publics attention very recently. Afterall, a year ago there was no global concensus on global warming, and there was no well publicized push by activists on the poverty issue. Only recently, when the public are begining to speak out about it, is the Church suddenly jumping out in front, loudly leading the pack and trying to get recognition for doing so. Pat Robertson now heavily pushes the environmental message.
Why the rapid turnabout? Because it can help them attract converts. A green Church that advocates aid to the poor will certainly seem better to those who have fallen away from the Church because it was irrelevant to their lives. If the Church can find verses in the Bible that show that it was what God wanted all along, so much the better. At the same time, the Church can criticize the secular government for its failings and convince adherents that having more christianity in politics is a good thing.
Am I condemning the actions of the Church? Yes and no. I am pretty certain that the Church, being what it is, will be able to mobilize large numbers of adherents to support the two good causes. And this is a good thing. But those who have stars in their eyes about the issue should rub their eyes well and take a second look: The Church is doing this for its own benefit, as it always has.
First of all, the pastor quoted the following admonisment to the Jews just after they left egypt:(paraphrased) Just as you were foreigners in egypt and treated well you should treat the widowed and orphans with kindness etc. where the widowed and orphaned represented the weak and the suffering. This is all well and good, except for the fact that after that, the Jews, under the command of God, conquered quite a few cities. And thats not all. The widowed
(i.e. women whose husbands had just been killed in battle) were slaughtered and the orphans (female) were "taken as wives", which is a pretty good euphemism if I say so myself. How about the male orphans? Well, they were killed as well, being of no use to the Jewish men.
Of course, there are Christians who do charitable works and attribute their drive to their religion. The sermon ostentatiously glorifies these people. But, let us not forget that people from other religions, Muslims, Buddhists, do exactly the same thing. Why don't the religious groups get together and co-operate? Clearly there would be greater efficiencies in centralising certain operations. Here comes the catch: active evangelism goes on along with the charitable works, so there is an ulterior motive behind these works. Most of us are well acquainted with the image of a saintly Mother Theresa, and for Christians she acts as a mascot for the benign and beneficial image that Christians want to promote to the rest of the world. Even secular commentators have to acknowledge that Mother Theresa has brought lots of good to the poor in Calcutta, right? Well, maybe. But there is evidence that Mother Theresa isn't as saintly as she seems to be. In spite of the large amount of funds that are donated to her works, the condition of the homes that she runs for the poor has hardly improved. It seems like instead of using the money to help the poor, a large part of it goes towards the establishment of churches and the promotion of Catholicism per se. http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/490/theresa.htm
With that thought in mind, let us consider a reason that the preacher conveniently forgot to mention that could have led to the government failing to meet its goal for the alleviation of poverty. National Interest: In 2000, when the promise was made, the Asian Financial Crisis had more or less ended and people were feeling pretty optimistic about the future. Thus, promises to help other nations and the poor made alot of (political) sense. Afterall, if the people are already pretty happy with their lives, it helps to show that you are caring and all that. Then came September 11, and for UK, the June 6, which just about wrecked the sense of well-being of the people. With the subsequent wars, the ramping up of security procedures and the downturn in the economy, no government was going to be as generous. People who question where the money went can look to this for answers. I'm pretty sure there are many other reasons but thats not the point.
The big question is, why are Churches suddenly promoting this, as well as the environmental agenda? Well, I think that there are quite a few reasons, and they aren't the ones that Christians think they are. I'm pretty sure that when questioned, the leaders of the Churches would go on about how this was a problem that was swept under the rug etc. and how the Bible tells us to do good and all that. The problem with this explanation is that for a pretty long time, prominent Christians like Pat Robertson have been rubbishing these environmental claims, and questions can also be asked about why is it only at the halfway mark that the Church is taking the government to task about the poverty issue.
The answer, I think, comes from the fact that these issues have only come to the publics attention very recently. Afterall, a year ago there was no global concensus on global warming, and there was no well publicized push by activists on the poverty issue. Only recently, when the public are begining to speak out about it, is the Church suddenly jumping out in front, loudly leading the pack and trying to get recognition for doing so. Pat Robertson now heavily pushes the environmental message.
Why the rapid turnabout? Because it can help them attract converts. A green Church that advocates aid to the poor will certainly seem better to those who have fallen away from the Church because it was irrelevant to their lives. If the Church can find verses in the Bible that show that it was what God wanted all along, so much the better. At the same time, the Church can criticize the secular government for its failings and convince adherents that having more christianity in politics is a good thing.
Am I condemning the actions of the Church? Yes and no. I am pretty certain that the Church, being what it is, will be able to mobilize large numbers of adherents to support the two good causes. And this is a good thing. But those who have stars in their eyes about the issue should rub their eyes well and take a second look: The Church is doing this for its own benefit, as it always has.
posted by edwin at 12:00 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home