Shaun Groves
From The Christian Post:
One of the world’s largest child development organizations found supporters of presidential candidates Sen. John McCain and Sen. Barack Obama have “very different priorities” when it comes to ending global poverty and fighting the war on terror.
The survey commissioned by Compassion International and conducted by Barna Research Group found that 80 percent of those surveyed who identified themselves as strong McCain supporters believe fighting the war on terror should be a higher priority for the next president than to end extreme poverty.
Only about a tenth of the Arizona senator’s strongest backers prioritized the fight against global poverty over the fight against terror.
In contrast, only 30 percent of Obama’s strongest supporters place a greater emphasis on fighting terrorism than on ending global poverty, while 45 percent of this group placed ending global poverty above efforts to stop terror.
Among undecided voters, 40 percent of this group placed fighting terror over ending global poverty.
But Compassion’s senior vice president, Mark Hanlon, cautioned against concluding that Americans in general, as well as supporters of either presidential candidates, do not care about global poverty.
keith says:
Were they asking if the supporters thought that the government should end extreme poverty or if they were against extreme poverty in general? The responses seem to indicate the former.
Shaun Groves says:
I haven’t made the time to check out the survey on Barna’s site. He usually posts the methodology there.
Kent Kingery says:
From the link…
Shaun Groves says:
Great suggestion, Kent.
pat says:
I believe the difference suggests that more Obama supporters exhibit core biblical/Christian values than those who support McCain.
Jesus told us the greatest commandment is to love God and to love our neighbor and explained the meaning of neighbor thru the good samaritan parable.
The churches will not make ending global poverty a priority. I doubt they could do so in a comprehensive way unless denominations worked together. Can’t see that happening.
I’ll continue to support my church which does spend a portion of its budget on alleviating poverty.
I prefer my tax dollars be spent on helping those in poverty rather than on war, especially wars based on deception like the one we’re now fighting.
Katie Hart says:
I’d be curious to know what the candidates themselves done to help end global poverty.
keith says:
If everyone here could give me a third of your income, I would make sure it is used well, in accordance with your wishes and Jesus’. I am able to please everyone all the time, and when I can’t, I’ll make sure I do what you really need. Thank you. May God bless you, and may God bless America.
I’m keith, and I approve this message.
Veretax says:
I too am curious about the questions asked, but let’s be honest here. Christ in the Gospels made an excellent point. Remember when Mary came and broke that expensive bottle of perfume over jesus feet, and then wiped it with her hair…
Ah Found it, John 12:3-8: “ 3 Then Mary took a pound of very costly oil of spikenard, anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped His feet with her hair. And the house was filled with the fragrance of the oil. 4 But one of His disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, who would betray Him, said, 5 “Why was this fragrant oil not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor?” 6 This he said, not that he cared for the poor, but because he was a thief, and had the money box; and he used to take what was put in it.7 But Jesus said, “Let her alone; she has kept this for the day of My burial.
8 For the poor you have with you always, but Me you do not have always.””
Aside: Thank yoU Ebible!
I wish I knew the classical greek and could look at the tenses here, but If I remember a sermon our pastor spoke on this correctly just a few weeks ago, it seems to me that when Christ said the poor you will have always, he said it as an ever present fact. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t help the poor where we can, sure we should, but I don’t think the government is really equipped to fight global poverty. How much money would be wasted in bureaucracy?
pat says:
“That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t help the poor where we can, sure we should, but I don’t think the government is really equipped to fight global poverty. How much money would be wasted in bureaucracy?”
My answer:
Some undeserving people, including some you would never suspect, will always benefit from any government, private charity or church-related program. Remember “don’t throw out the baby with the bath water”.
How much money is “wasted” by churches?
Do you think Jesus likes our building fancy buildings better than feeding the poor?
President George W. Bush said:
“We got plenty of money in Washington. What we need is more priority.”—Washington, D.C., June 2, 2008
Veretax says:
I agree with you on the government issue. I’m a conservative politically and I find that we don’t have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem in washington. The problem is while I understand why some Christians detest war, and wish we didn’t have an armed force at all, that just isn’t a realistic expectation of any government.
National defense is one of the cheif responsibilities of every national government regardless of how their leaders are selected. You can even trace it back into the Old Testament and look at what happened with Saul, etc.
I also think that while you may be right about Church building programs getting out of hand, I would argue that some of the churches that are being fingered here are perhaps not teaching the full gospel like they should either. Here in West Virginia, nearly every church, except for the tiny country one we live in now, has devoted a large quantity of its budget towards missions, and have since I began to pay attention to such things after getting saved.
Unfortunately, my current church can’t give as much as we’d like due to declining membership mostly due to economic issues in the community, and through the death and illnesses of the precious older generation who one by one see their time to be called home come. I know our pastor has a heart for missions, and he’d love to see more done, but the reality is their budget has contracted in recent years with the losses, mostly due to death or folks moving away to new opportunities.
I disagree however, on any notion that it is the responsibility of Government to lift up the poor. I am not in favor of the Welfare state, domestic or foreign. Or have forgotten what is written: “For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat. 2 Thessalonians 3:10” Let us not forget that. Its one thing to help those who are poor, its another to give handouts to those who are too lazy to use what God has given them to go into the harvest, for lack of a better way to put it.
Grovesfan says:
While I don’t agree with the “welfare state” mentality either, and America isn’t the only country rampant with it, I don’t think that’s really what’s being discussed here.
I feel absolutely certain that the three children our family sponsors through Compassion are not in need of our support because their parents are “too lazy to use what God has given them.” They’d love nothing more than to be able to provide a meal for each of their family members each and every day. The grim reality is that the jobs aren’t there; when they are, they don’t pay enough; and when they do, there’s no food to buy.
Most westerners have no clue as to what real, physical poverty is actually like at all. We can hardly fathom it and the hope that it robs millions of each and every day.
Our government isn’t the answer to global poverty. They do have a responsibility to help, but the Church is the answer and until the Church pays more than lip service to the situation, we’ll still look to the governments to do our jobs for us.
Beth
Veretax says:
That’s a good and fair point Beth. There truly are people who
need help, that have no way to sustain themselves, and not for
lack of trying.
However, Again, I object to the US Government being the prime
mover in these situations, and for another reason. How much
money have we poured into those downtrodden African States like
Sudan for example? I’m convinced that the US Government is ill
equipped to handle such a mission. How many times does the
money, the little that does make it out of the bureaucracy, end
up in some corrupt bureaucrat’s pocket in said country? I’d
rather give the money to an organization that is more likely to
get the money to those who need it, and not finance the dictators
and despots that have caused these conditions in Africa for as
long as I can remember. Hence I disagree that our government has
the responsibility to help. If we’ve learned anything in the
last few weeks its that when it comes to matters of money, the
government does a lousy job running it. No I think it would be
better if Private enterprise, churches, or civic groups were
making this push rather than mandating it on behalf of the US
Government.
I understand that there is a problem, but the government is not
the answer to the problem, nevermind that constitutionally I
don’t think it falls in the US Gov’t’s jurisdiction to send any
such money over seas. If you look through the powers that the
federal and state gov’t is granted, I don’t think you will find
this in there either.
Scott says:
Pat said – I believe the difference suggests that more Obama supporters exhibit core biblical/Christian values than those who support McCain.
My response – that statement is WAY over-reaching. What the survey tells me is that McCain supporters view national security as a higher GOVERNMENTAL priority than ending global poverty. That’s a big distinction.
I’m all for fighting global poverty, but I’d prefer to do that through other avenues besides the federal government. The ONLY entity that is charged with the protection of our country is the Federal government. I don’t think because I’m a McCain supporter that I am somehow exhibit less of a biblical worldview than you.
pat says:
I agree that ending global poverty is the church’s responsibility. How do we do that?
Grovesfan says:
Pat,
Sorry if I made it seem like we SHOULD look to our governments to aid in the fight against poverty. We shouldn’t. The Church is tasked with this responsibility without a doubt. What I failed to express earlier was that as a nation, we continue to look to our government to provide the welfare and social justices that we as a Church are failing to pay more than lip service to.
To answer your question above, Compassion International is just one way the Church is responding to global poverty. My family certainly won’t end it, but the three members of our extended family (our precious sponsored children), are getting food, medicine, clothing and the HOPE of Christ. They are richer than many that’s for sure.
Shaun Groves says:
I think the government plays a role in fighting global poverty because it helps create it. A few bullets on this:
1. America has not canceled third world debts as other countries have. Those other countries are places like Great Britain, pressured by the Church there to enact Jubilee legislation on behalf of countries in debt and being charged interest. American Christians did not apply the same pressure to their government. A question I’d like to ask both candidates at the moment: Will you cancel third world debts or, at the very least, stop charging them interest?
2. When America wages wars she has a pattern of not sticking around after victory/defeat to clean the mess she took part in creating. More children are orphaned, for example, than soldiers are killed. That creates a generation of poor.
3. A child released form poverty by anyone(s) from the West is less likely, I think, to grow up and fly a plane into one of our buildings. Self-preservation is not the primary motive I have for combatting poverty but it is a motivation I think even non-Christians and governments can adopt as their own. Governments truly seeking peace and self-preservation should at least get out of the way of those of us who are aiming to help the poor and could, at most, get involved themselves in ways that do not violate the will of their people or their constitution.
4. The war in Iraq has pushed the Church out of that country. Agree or disagree with the war, it banished God’s people from a dark place. And according to some folks it hasn’t come returned. So the people who have given the assignment by God to care for orphans and the impoverished are not even present. Something the government could do, is the rebuild churches (mostly homes) we destroyed, not just the schools and oil pipe lines.
Veretax says:
“2. When America wages wars she has a pattern of not sticking around after victory/defeat to clean the mess she took part in creating. More children are orphaned, for example, than soldiers are killed. That creates a generation of poor. “ What wars in particular are you citing here. I’d like to know where you think we’ve miscarried before I jump and say I agree or disagree.
and
“4. The war in Iraq has pushed the Church out of that country. Agree or disagree with the war, it banished God’s people from a dark place. And according to some folks it hasn’t come returned. So the people who have given the assignment by God to care for orphans and the impoverished are not even present. Something the government could do, is the rebuild churches (mostly homes) we destroyed, not just the schools and oil pipe lines. “
Where have you seen this? I’ve not heard anything like this at all. In fact, I’ve heard stories from soldiers who’ve come home about helping out at what I thought were described as local churches. Can you cite me something that says that’s wrong?
Shaun Groves says:
Yep. Maybe I’ll do a post on that with more backing someday soon. Maybe. Might bore most readers to tears.
For now, as to #4, you can go to persecution.org and persecution.com (two difference organizations) and get updates on the Church around the world and witness,as it happens, the impact of war and American policies on Christians worldwide. I’ve read accounts at both sites of the Church dwindling and then being completely non-existent (as far as can be seen) in Iraq. These updates are generally, but not always, first hand accounts. Also read foreign news, not American news, and you’ll see from time to time evidence that the blowback of our actions – just or not, I’m not arguing that right now – not only on us but on innocent populations. On quick example: Deregulation of American industry operating abroad. We won’t trade with countries with severe human rights violations but we will allow companies headquartered in the US and paying US taxes to enslave Haitians who harvest our sugar. Those slaves have children. This is happening in a country we have good relations with. By allowing this we, citizens and not just government, are creating and sustaining poverty. In time will there be an uprising? Will American soldiers someday be sent in to keep the peace in a place where we are feeding the injustice? If your children were starving and you had been stripped of citizenship and made to work for next to nothing would you revolt? Would you hate the country protecting your master?
As to #2, the founding of Compassion International took place in large part because of what American pastor Everett Swanson saw of the mess during and after the Korean War. He witnessed orphans left created and then left behind and started orphanages which eventually evolved into Compassion International.
pat says:
Grovesfan,
I applaud your and others support of Compassion International – Compassion is apparently an excellent organization.
My thoughts were actually focused on churches spending large portions of their budgets on providing food, safe housing and care for people in poverty both internationally and locally.
Until the churches, as a body, step up I fully support government financed care of those in need.
Also, Shaun made good points regarding our government’s post-war responsibilities and human rights violations by US corporations operating aabroad.
Jenn says:
I just wanted to add a comment in regards to the Jesus not liking our church buildings – it depends on what you do with them, when they are used for a daily lunch program to the under employed and a shelter at night during the winter season, both run by volunteers in the church then I think it’s being utilized properly.
As to global poverty, I would love to see my country (Canada) and other larger countries focus on poverty in their backyards too, churches and governments like to focus on more of the socially glamorous areas and ignore the direct needs around them
The shelter/lunch program is in this link to give you an idea that it’s not so easy to do, but is necessary for the Church
http://www.canadianchristianity.com/nationalupdates/080403mayor.html
MamasBoy says:
Democrats and Republicans approach fighting poverty very differently. Democrats tend to give far less their income to fight poverty preferring anonymous big government solutions, while Republicans both give more of their personal income and tend to prefer more personal involvement and direct control over their giving. Arthur C. Brooks of Syracuse University (an independent) documented these trends in his book “Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism.” The rabidly GOP Chronicle of Philanthropy has a short article summarizing the book.
http://philanthropy.com/free/articles/v19/i04/04001101.htm
Another way to approach the candidates personal commitment to alleviating poverty is to look at their own personal giving to charity. This is easy to do, since they release their personal tax returns for major elections, going back as many as 10 years.
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/09/biden-releases.html
Can you really believe that a candidate is committed to alleviating poverty when they have made several hundred thousand dollars a year for the last ten years and their charitable giving has varied between $120 and $995 per year (between .06% and .31%). I personally find such a suggestion rather tenuous. I would find a candidates claims about being committed to fighting poverty to be much more believable if they had done something personally to fight poverty. Volunteered overseas or at home, sponsored a kid, adopted a kid, etc. Personal involvement brings empathy and greater understanding, both of which help ensure the right solutions are proposed to effectively end poverty.
MB
Also, I think it is unrealistic to assume that ending global poverty would end the war on terror. Most of the 9/11 hijackers came from relatively wealthy Saudi families and could never be classified as the world’s poor.
Misty says:
I clicked on the link to read the rest of the article and as I was scrolling back up the page after reading the article, I got an odd pop-up window…it said please select a child, and it was an ad from Children International, another organization that sponsors kids. I closed it, but thought how bizare that an article that talks about Compassion International would generate a pop up for a different program!
God bless
Shaun Groves says:
I never said it would end the war on terror. But ending poverty for one individual makes it, I believe, less likely for that individual to take up arms against someone else.
MamasBoy says:
“I never said it would end the war on terror. But ending poverty for one individual makes it, I believe, less likely for that individual to take up arms against someone else. “
Shaun,
I’m glad you clarified what you meant. The quote below does seem to indicate that you do believe ending poverty would have made 9/11 less likely to happen. I was merely questioning that idea based on the economic backgrounds of the hijackers (not to mention the ideology that motivates them). I don’t think ending poverty would have made a wit of difference in preventing 9/11.
MB
“3. A child released form poverty by anyone(s) from the West is less likely, I think, to grow up and fly a plane into one of our buildings. Self-preservation is not the primary motive I have for combatting poverty but it is a motivation I think even non-Christians and governments can adopt as their own.” -SG
Shaun Groves says:
Gotcha, MB. Totally understand. I wasn’t very clear. Sorry about that.
I don’t know the background of those hijackers – admittedly – but I’ve read stuff about the link between poverty and terrorism (and warring in general) and talked to two FBI guys, one who worked a terrorist bombing investigation once upon a time. “Blowback” was a part of both conversations. Part of blowback is the poverty we’ve either helped create or acerbated with our policies and actions. “Usury” is cited, for example, by Osama as one of many motivations for his hatred of the West – loaning to the poor and then charging them interest, something he reminds us is forbidden by every major world religion. Ouch. Hurts when a terrorist murderer nutjob is reminding our government of its moral obligations and the Church is not.
Veretax says:
I am just going to have to disagree on that. I do not believe it is possible to totally eliminate poverty. Even in our own country we tried back when LBJ was president. Only now, being poor is not being able to by an ipod or get all that “bling”. So I’m not sold that poverty is the answer. We live in a fallen, sinful world and even if these folks were not impoverished. I still think they’d hate us. THere is something about the middle east and countries similar to it, and I wish I could recall from my world regions class in College, but their way of thinking has a lot to do with why they are in poverty and not success.
Shaun Groves says:
NO, it’s not possible to eliminate poverty totally. We will always have the poor. But poverty does contribute to violence, hopelessness, disease, death, etc etc. Regardless of whether curbing poverty would shorten our list of enemies, it is something we are commanded hundreds of times in the bible to combat as Christians/enemies of falleness.
Please, go see poverty, Veretax. Seeing it is the greatest education I’ve ever received about it.
Veretax says:
Shaun,
I understand what you are saying. Poverty does cause a number of problems many of which you’ve listed. However, I will not assume that even if it were possible to eliminate poverty that Violence, Hoplessness, Disease, death, terrorism, etc. Would vanish. To presume that it would is to deny the fundamental sinful nature of man. Now, I believe that education, particularly literacy also plays a role in these things.
Now, does that mean we as Christians shouldn’t do what we can? Certainly not, but I would not be doing it because of potential enemies foreign or domestic, I’d do it because I felt its what God was asking me to do.
As far as going to see it, I see plenty of it here in Rural West Virginia, maybe not on the scope in say the Dominican Republic, or a hundred other countries, but I do have an idea of what it could be like. As far as going to see it that, unfortunately takes money. I doubt I could afford a one way boarding pass to visit any such country even if I felt the Lord was Compelling me to do so. I told Bev the other day that some day I would like to visit a foreign country perhaps on a mission visit or a mission trip of some kind. Right now its just not in our finances to take any trips, save to occasionally see my family. It is what it is.
Should we want to help those who are impoverished, if we are able? Sure we should, but we should do so with the Goal of being like Christ, and to draw folks to him. However, no matter how much we might give to help these other nations, it won’t change that some people are sinful and are going to tend towards violence and/or terrorism. Might there number be smaller if we could in theory eliminate it? Maybe, but I doubt that there is anything short of the Lord’s return that can truly bring the cure to all of these ailments of man. I give what I can, that’s all I can do unfortunately. Perhaps in a year or two once I’ve gotten my own Financial house back in order the Lord will guide me to where to spend the increase that will be the fruit of paying off most of our debt.
MamasBoy says:
Shaun,
First off, I totally agree that charging interest in our foreign aid to the poorest of countries is a bad idea and arguably sinful, but I think the chances of my idea gaining traction are about nil. Partly this is because the Bible only prevents the charging of interest to non-Jews (at least that’s my understanding) and what constitutes usury isn’t always obvious. For instance, most people laud Kiva as an
awesome charity (myself included), yet not only does Kiva ask for a 10% donation to fund their operations, but their average lender charges over 20% interest. MercyCorp (a very reputable organization) charges 33% interest. Even Compassion International only spends 76% on actual child program development with 24% going toward sponsor/donor ministries, fundraising and administration.
This isn’t to say that the US is a good lender or that the charities mentioned aren’t fantastic (I think they are and have donated to all of them regularly) just that the more I’ve learned about charities and their finances, the more I’ve had to lower my standards. It would surprise me if the same didn’t hold true for government bureaucracies
as well.
Honestly, since the Pope declared 2000 to be a Great Jubilee year and people started pushing for debt cancellations corresponding with the OT idea of a Jubilee year, I haven’t done much research on foreign aid and interest rates charged, etc. If you have any sources for learning about usurous interst rates being charged, by the US in our foreign aid I would be interested in reading about it. After 8/9 years, maybe its time I took up this cause again and wrote to my congressman about
it.
Regarding poverty and terrorism, I would encourage you to read about the Bali, London, Madrid and 9/11 hijackers. I’ve yet to read that a single one was poor. Most of the 9/11 hijackers were the sons of middle class Saudi’s (hardly a poor country) and many were very well
educated with college educations in Europe and other western countries. Here are quotes from papers written by a few profs at Harvard and Princeton which look at the relation between poverty and
terrorism.
“Using biographical data of 129 Hizbollah members killed in aramilitary actions in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, they found that both having a standard of living above the poverty line and having a secondary-school education or higher are positively associated with participation in Hizbollah. Their paper clearly puts into doubt the supposed benefit of investing
in the eradication of poverty or in educational attainment as a means
of directly fighting terrorism.”
from http://www.irs.princeton.edu/pubs/pdfs/477.pdf
“Instead of viewing terrorism as a direct response to low market opportunities or ignorance, we suggest it is more accurately viewed as a response to political conditions and long-standing feelings of indignity and frustration that have little to do with economics.”
from http://www.krueger.princeton dot edu/terrorism2.pdf
Here’s another paper you might find interesting.
ksghome.harvard dot edu/~aabadie/povterr.pdf
MB