Turmoil in the Adventist Development and Relief Agency (ADRA)
by AT News Team
Updated June 24, 2012
Correction added (at the end of the story) June 28, 2012
Dr. Rudi Maier was fired as president of the Adventist Development and Relief Agency (ADRA) during a special meeting of the governing board on Sunday, June 24. The Adventist Review immediately reported that he had been given an opportunity to address the board and participate in a question-and-answer period. The vote to dismiss him was "overwhelming," but not unanimous. The board also formed a search committee to look for a successor and asked Robert L. Rawson, who retired as treasurer of the General Conference in 2002, to serve as interim chief executive.
According to the story published by the Review immediately after the board ended its meeting, Maier's problems were due to "a suprise March 2011 reduction-in-force … terminating 16 employees out of a workforce of 88 [and] another 14 employees [who] have resigned or found other employment in the last 16 months." There was no mention of the issue of the competitive pay scale which has been repeatedly proposed by ADRA administrators and blocked each time by GC officers on the board.
"It is certainly disappointing any time you have tomake a change in the leadership of a dynamic organization," the Review quoted Pastor Geoffrey Mbwana, chairman of the board. It also reported that he said that it is ADRA board policy not to publicly discuss reasons for employee terminations.
On June 5, Pastor Ted Wilson, GC president, asked Dr. Rudi Maier, president of ADRA, to resign. The next day Mbwana sent an Email to Maier with the same request. “Counseled to resign” is a favorite mechanism among employers in the denomination, its institutions and agencies, because it limits the amount of severance pay due under policy and is thought to be a defense against subsequent litigation in improper terminations. It appears this mechanism was used in this situation, but Adventist Today has been told that it is not likely to go smoothly.
At some point in recent weeks, Robyn Mordeno, ADRA’s vice president for finance, wrote a letter to Mbwana describing problems that she saw with Maier’s leadership. Mbwana discussed the letter with Maier, who disagreed with the criticisms. Mbwana then met with all three of the vice presidents and the other two seemed to agree with Mordeno’s observations.
On June 6, Dr. Ella Simmons, vice chair of ADRA’s governing board, met with a group of about a dozen ADRA employees in the GC office to compose a list of complaints against Maier. She suggested that all of those present sign a memo documenting their concerns, but half the group left the meeting and refused to sign the document. It appears that at least some of them feel that Maier was being unfairly criticized.
On June 14, Mbwana informed Maier by Email that he should “suspend any involvement with ADRA matters and take unpaid leave with immediate effect,” asking that he “leave the office when you receive this Email.” Later in the day it was clarified that the demand was paid leave. The same day Mbwana informed the ADRA staff that Maier was not in the office they should deal with the organization's vice presidents. He also told ADRA employees that a special meeting of the board had been called for June 24 and “the purpose of the meeting is to review the current direction of the organization and to review the leadership of ADRA.”
Adventist Today has confirmed these details with multiple sources. None were willing to speak on the record and several refused to be unidentified sources. In fact, one of the Adventist Today reporters resorted to an old technique from All the Presidents Men, the movie about the Watergate episode, telling one individual, “You don’t have to say anything. I just want to know that we are not mistaken. I am going to wait one minute to hang up. If you are still on the line that means we are headed in the right direction with this story.”
This episode raises many issues for the denomination’s primary humanitarian agency. Of immediate concern is the ethics of board members meeting with employees to hear complaints about the agency’s administration. There may be some situations under which this would be ethical, but no allegations have been made about moral misbehavior. It is generally believed by experts on organizational dynamics that it is dysfunctional for this kind of communication to go on.
Many of the rumors refer to “lack of direction” and Maier’s leadership style. Some complain that he is “too German” and that he was disliked by students at Andrews University where he was a professor for several years before being appointed president of ADRA in the fall of 2010. Those complaints seem petty and even racist.
Maier’s ideas about the direction of ADRA are well documented in a number of papers that he has shared with the governing board and at many meetings with ADRA personnel. “Establishing Effective Leadership Systems and Structures” introduces a process for strategic evaluation in each country where ADRA has projects or a branch. “ADRA Professional Leadership Institute” sets goals for a program that has existed for some years designed to upgrade the capacity of the organization and the professionalism of key personnel. “Vision for a Changing World” specifically addresses how to advance the agency with excellence.
Wilson wanted a change in leadership at ADRA when he was elected president of the denomination in the summer of 2010. He quickly asked for the resignation of Pastor Charles Sandefur, the previous ADRA president, and evidently had a hand in the selection of Maier. With a PhD in international development from a secular university, Maier had been an ADRA worker and overseas missionary before he joined the faculty at Andrews University where he taught for two decades. In fact, he served as director of program evaluation at ADRA’s headquarters from 1981 to 1988. He is probably the most qualified individual among the four who have served as chief executive officer of the agency.
Adventist Today has obtained a copy of a letter from Maier to Mbwana, and evidently each board member has a copy, in which Maier poses five important questions about the allegations made against him and the process by which they have been handled. It is unclear the extent to which these questions were discussed during the June 24 meeting.
The board has 37 members, according to the most recent annual report. Of these, only eight are Americans; 24 are people of color and nine are women. It is an exceptionally cosmopolitan group and it is not all clear there will be immediate consensus on firing Maier. Five are GC officers, 12 are division presidents and another four are division officers. Those 21 board members constitute a majority and are all part of the administrative inner circle of the denomination. Of the other 15, eight are not employed by the denomination, four are administrators at Adventist health and education institutions, two are union conference officers and one is an ADRA regional director.
The board’s transparent independence in this situation is probably more important to the future of ADRA than whether or not Maier is an effective leader. If donor organizations were to decide that the board operates at the whim of Church leaders, it could cost ADRA much of its funding base.
At least three different explanations for all this turmoil have been suggested by former ADRA workers in off-the-record conversations with Adventist Today reporters. One, which has been suggested in material published by Spectrum, the journal of the Association of Adventist Forums, the largest organization of Adventist academics, focuses on Maier’s leadership style and inter-personal politics. Another focuses on the long-standing differences between the way ADRA’s work is approached by European Adventists and the way it is approached in the United States. The third points out that there have been massive changes in the politics surrounding foreign aid in the U.S. and the role of the largest donor to ADRA, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).
ADRA is actually not one organization, but a loose coalition of national organizations in 89 countries. ADRA International is an American organization and gets almost all of its funding from American sources. As the political climate has changed USAID has become more demanding in its grants, requiring greater alignment with current foreign policy goals of the U.S. and more cost efficient operations. This has reduced the amount of money that ADRA can invest in developing church institutions overseas.
Institutional development and humanitarian relief have been the two poles of tension in ADRA from its beginning. It was created in 1984 from a merger of Seventh-day Adventist World Service (SAWS), a humanitarian relief agency, and institutional development grantsmanship activities conducted by some overseas division treasury personnel. The two goals have “lived together, but never really got married,” says one former ADRA worker. Conflicts surface regularly among ADRA staff and the current situation may simply be another battle in the same old war exacerbated by the financial and political pressures of the current situation in America.
Adventist Today obtained a copy of ADRA’s most recent Form 990 report to the Internal Revenue Service, the annual statement required of all tax-exempt public charities in the U.S. It is for the calendar year 2010, the most recent period on record. It includes only money raised in the U.S., not the grants from the European Union or governments in Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, etc.
ADRA took in a total of $74.7 million during the year: $34.5 million from U.S. government grants, $22 million from other donors and $16.1 million in gifts-in-kind (school books, medicines and medical equipment, clothing, etc.). It spent a total of $69.5 million, of which $55.4 million was the direct cost of projects, $6 million was for payroll for its employees, and the remainder for fund raising, program evaluation, training of staff and volunteers, etc.
“I am praying this does not become a disaster,” one veteran ADRA worker told Adventist Today. He pointed out that ADRA affects the lives of more than 20 million of the poorest people on the globe living in the most desperate conditions. Its 6,500 employees in more than a thousand projects are the face of the Adventist Church to more people than all of the evangelism and media ministries combined. Its witness is one of the most important values of the denomination, a view widely held by the people in the pews.
The major issues that led to this internal conflict still face ADRA. Adventist Today will publish an in-depth analysis of the future of the organization in its print edition.
Correction
Adventist Today previously reported that Pastor Orville Parchment, assistant to the GC president, and Karnik Doukmetzian, head of the GC's in-house law firm, evidently had Maier escorted from the building on June 14 and took away his keys. Both Parchment and Maier have told Adventist Today that this did not happen on that date or at any other time. Clearly, the imaginations of some observers have been fueled by the events reported above.
I am still wondering what Ted Wilson wanted to change in ADRA. The moment an NGO takes grants from the US government, it will have to abide within certain boudaries. There is no room for give and take.
So what was Teddy trying to do by removing Sandefur and appointing Maier.
Does anyone know if Maier had any experience in leading a multi-million dollar NGO like ADRA before taking on the position?
Perhaps a stupid question following from that, was Pres Ted trying to make ADRA more international, with more money and projects spent overseas, but that was too difficult given the strings attached from the US Government?
As the story points out, ADRA already operates internationally, and the US ADRA has very little control over the other regions. ADRA in Europe and Australia (as examples) receive very little from the US government, so are unlikely to be affected directly by US govt policies. I thought the issue was more over the direction ADRA should take, and how closely tied it should be to church evangelism.
Yes, I was just a little confused what that meant exactly.
I am sure Teddy is very well capable of managing all branches of a big corporation as the SDAC. He doesn't need capable people around him, especially those who want to go forward and make progress.
May be he wants ADRA to distribute "The Great Hope"* with each bag of food…
————————————–
*Author unknown. As far as I am concerned EGW never wrote such a book. Using her name on it is just a literary fraud and deceit. It's also acknowledging that "the other part" left out is either inappropriate, just inconvenient, or mere junk.
Praise God for honest reporting. Thank you so much. May God bless you for speaking the truth.
Being the executive director of a small humanitarian aid NGO (Amistad International) working in several countries and one which has never and would never accept USAID funding, I have been impressed by how few Adventists have realized the source of the majority of ADRA's funding: USAID, the agency which is considered the face of American foreign aid and which seeks to make friends and influence opinion abroad. It has always seemed paradoxical to me that the Adventist church is willing, through ADRA, to so generously mix church and state business. As an aside, some good news is that USAID has many international NGOs they work with under deep scrutiny, they aren't just picking on ADRA's accountability and programming. I have heard that several organizations last year had their USAID funding put on hold while USAID was doing (and is likely continuing to do) current reviews.
The Adventist Today has done a faily good job in its reporting here, but there is one major inaccuracy. "On June 6, Dr. Ella Simmons, vice chair of ADRA’s governing board, met with a group of about a dozen ADRA employees in the GC office to compose a list of complaints against Maier. She suggested that all of those present sign a memo documenting their concerns, but half the group left the meeting and refused to sign the document. It appears that at least some of them feel that Maier was being unfairly criticized."
That didn't happen. Dr. Ella Simmons met with the HR director of ADRA, Sisi Cruz, who had approached Dr. Simmons and had complained that too many staff were leaving. Dr. Simmons asked Cruz to call the directors together and send a letter to the board. So this was actually led by ADRA's head of HR, which is not really surprising as she is known for lack of confidentiality and stirring many pots. A couple of the group did leave, and they were Maier appointees. It should be noted that this is part of a long-term plan to oust Maier (and not without good cause) led by current and former employees, including the involvement of one of the vice presidents mentioned in the AT article.
"evidently had" This is Atoday's reference with respect to Ted Wilson's alleged influence regarding the selection of Maier as President of ADRA. It seems to me that such an allegation is akin to gossip rather than fact. If you have proof that Wilson made the selection please produce it.
In the past I had some private contacts with Sandefur and was not disappointed that he was asked to resign.
"It has always seemed paradoxical to me that the Adventist church is willing, through ADRA, to so generously mix church and state business."
I fully agree with that statement.
Working in an organisation where the CEO was finally driven to resign after many years of complaints, many senior and general resignations (high staff turnover), and eventually complaints via local media (against company policy), it is totally appropriate for the board to listen to employees to hear concerns about the agency’s administration. It is not unethical. It would save a lot of the heartache that occurred in the organisation I work in, and my organisation’s board has been told by a consultant that they should have picked up on the problem a lot earlier if they would have listened to people.
Truth Seeker, they were right to ask Sandefur to leave, and Ted putting Maier in office is not gossip. It is fact. How does one produce evidence of conversations behind closed doors? As for mixing church and business, the church does it all the time. It accepts tax breaks for its educational institutions and church institutions. By not paying its own way, it is beholden to its master.
I have never been comfortable with the fact that ADRA accepts government money. It ties their hands, and as a church we should be free to evangelize while providing humanitarian help.
But I'm puzzled as to why AT felt the need to insert the subject of the ethnicity, national origin or gender of the governing board. It's irrelevant, and smacks of political correctness. The board (or any board) should be composed of competent people, regardless of their national origin, ethnicity, or gender.
Jean, is it not ADRA's mission to evangelize. In fact, they must declare that they will not do any gospel outreach to get US government funding, and ADRA does declare that or else they will not receive the funding. They do not use any of their funding for evangelism, even the money that comes from the church members.
I am also puzzled about the board make up and it seems to suggest that some will vote for or against firing Maier based on their ethnicity. The board is correct in stepping in to stabilize the organization nd if it has reached the level of a special meeting, then what we are reading is just the tip of the iceberg.
I think part of the problem is that while most in ADRA are clear about their role as an aid agency and the need not to evangelise, many members – and some administrators – do not see things that way. Every regional ADRA works mainly with government money. I suspect it varies a bit, but here in Australia ADRA usually receives $2 from the government for every $1 it raises. ADRA is very well respected in most parts of the world, and can go where many other agencies can't precisely because it maintains a clear boundary between its aid work and the church's evangelism. It is known that ADRA helps because help is needed, not in order to persuade others to become SDAs, and that is what makes it effetive. That doesn't mean that the church does not benefit indirectly from its association with ADRA. But both the aid work and our evangelism would suffer – and in many cases both would become impossible – if we don't maintain a clear disctinction.
That's quite a board with 37 members. How many Secretaries does the executive branch of the US government have?
Ok, it is still unclear to me. I really need an explanation on this. WHY DID TEDDY REMOVE SANDEFUR and replace him with Maier? Maier should be bringing something to the table that Sandefur did not. The question is….what was/is that?
Jake Wilbur said, "Jean, is it not ADRA's mission to evangelize. In fact, they must declare that they will not do any gospel outreach to get US government funding, and ADRA does declare that or else they will not receive the funding. They do not use any of their funding for evangelism, even the money that comes from the church members."
If that is the case, and, from what ADRA employees have told me, that is only partially true, then they have failed in their mission and should either be eliminated or reorganized so that they accept only charitable donations; with the understanding that their mission is to use humanitarian aid as an entering wedge to spread the gospel. If they are unwilling to do that, they have no purpose as an entity of the SDA Church.
We have one major goal as a church: fulfilling the gospel commission by preaching the 3 angels' messages. All of our other activities must be in that context and have that goal in mind. Feed the hungry, heal the sick, cloth the naked, etc.; but if those activities aren't a means to an end, as mentioned above; if they are only an end in themselves, then we might as well join forces with the Salvation Army. They're already doing those things.
Jesus healed many, and few converted. He fed many, and most did not follow him. God sends the sun and rain to all, but few worship him. Perhaps doing good is simply following God (being (re)created in his image), and the results do not really change our call to do good. Being SDAs gives us an extra task, but does not also excuse us from also being Christians.
"Jesus healed many, and few converted. He fed many, and most did not follow him."
Very true, but one of His motives in doing so was to win them to the kingdom. The fact that so many did not follow Him was not due to His lack of evangelistic effort. Sure He did these things because He loved everyone and wanted to relieve the suffering that so many experienced. But that was not the end in itself; it was a means to an end. It should be the same way with us.
I run a business. It's a business that is designed to help people live more healthfully. I do it to make a living and to help people. But it is also an evangelistic tool, even though it is subtle much of the time. If my only purpose was to help people or to make living my life has been wasted.
Jean,
So you run a "health" business where you can make money and evangelize? The former is fine. Why do you mix religion and business? Sounds like a mix ripe for conflict of interest. My father always told me when it came to business if an "SDA brother/sister" said "I am doing the lords work with my business" then close your checkbook and head for the door.
Jean,
The first result of every miracle performed by Jesus was an immediate improvement in the recipient's life. By doing it He demonstrated the magnificent love of an all-powerful God who cared for them individually. His actions are the model we should be following. While ADRA's use of government-provided funds has improved the lives of many in various parts of the world, I question whether a church agency should be doing anything where they are not able to use the benefit delivered to direct the attention of recipients to God.
Jean & William,
"The first result of every miracle performed by Jesus was an immediate improvement in the recipient's life," including his first–turning water into wine. They praised it as being better than the first which was served. "People generally serve the best wine first, and keep the cheaper sort till the guest have had plenty to drink; but you have kept the best wine till now." Wine connoisseurs?
William,
Catholic charities do the same thing which is bundle their charity work with their religious outreach. How are SDA's different? It seems to me I should be doing good where ever people are placed in front of me. Are you suggesting that without the evangelistic component we should cut back on our charitable work?
The concept that Adventist institutions and individuals only "do good to advance their denominational interests" certainly lives on in the sectarian minds of some dear church members. Those who claim to "simply do good for good's sake" by contrast may be seen as somehow incomplete in their ethical goals—as unable, too lazy, unwilling, or insufficiently loyal to "close the sale" in favor of the Adventist Cause. I well remember a game my sisters and I played as preschool kids (on our own, no adult help) called "Catholics and Adventists" in which the point was to carry on a conversation decrying as many points as possible against the Catholics, and we would be very "liberal" in ascribing to them unspeakable behavior we made up entirely from our own fetid little imaginations. The game was entirely verbal, but suggests that the Adventist culture of our early years emphasized the need to make the denominational sale in whatever good deeds we did, to shield the souls of the world from the entrapment of fallen religions that would carry them to perdition. Those holding exclusively to that point of view will certainly believe that ADRA should be duty-bound not only to do physical good, but should take an overt role in proclamation too.
We found in our work as medical missionaries in South America, however, that simply doing good in a medical context provided a "mingling mechanism" next to none in promoting the name and reputation of Adventism in the vast region we served. Evangelism generally happens in stages, and desiring the good of the people and mingling among them generally must occur as preliminary steps to even the earliest overtures to membership. We found in South America that often it took a full generation (20 years or so) of ministry before the people were really prepared to sit down and discuss the possibility of actually changing religions. Yet, that conversation might never have occurred at all, had there not been the long-term factor of "disinterested benevolence" preceding it. I, for one, am persuaded that ADRA-like work is absolutely pivotal to the mission of the church. Those known for doing good simply because it's the right thing to do will be miles ahead in the longer haul of Gospel persuasion.
How do you *know* that Jesus healed many but converted few/ Proof, please. And I agree with the writer who states the church should get out of the business of accepting government money. If we really accept the Gospel Commission to go into all the world our God can overcome any obstacles to allow ADRA, as an agency not beholden to any government, ingress to any area.
Oh ye of little faith.
Jean, on ADRA as an entering wedge:
"If that is the case, and, from what ADRA employees have told me, that is only partially true, then they have failed in their mission and should either be eliminated or reorganized so that they accept only charitable donations; with the understanding that their mission is to use humanitarian aid as an entering wedge to spread the gospel. If they are unwilling to do that, they have no purpose as an entity of the SDA Church."
What I said earlier, that no funds are used to evangelize is true. I am a former long-term ADRA worker (real name withheld for peace of mind). Sometimes, a country director may go against the mission of the agency and use some funds for entering wedge type activity, and that has put ADRA and its workers in difficult and dangerous situations. The fact is that ADRA is NOT an entering wedge, and it wasn't formed as such. There are many inside the church that do not like this, and there are just as many who understand the value of helping "just because" that is what Christ would do, and regardless the outcome.
I think that many people who are helped by the Salvation Army and other organizations will make it to heaven because they have chosen to follow Christ because His example was set by His followers when they were most in need. Where church members often go wrong is in believing that it is 'their" job to convert when, in fact, that's the work of the Holy Spirit. Present sufficient opportunity and let God do the rest. In other words, put your faith in God.
Where ADRA, I think, fails is in not securing sufficient alternative types of donations in addition to its government funding because we all know there will come a day when government funding will dry up. Now is the time for ADRA to either seek all manner of alternative funding, or, to learn how to live without government funding. How will it look for the church when that day comes that governments no longer give to specific faith-based organizations and ADRA's needy go without? That will be very harmful to the church, but make no mistake about it, the church is also culpable in this. The church wants a big humanitarian presence and it also turns a blind eye to the government funding issues.
The problem with Schwisow's statement is that as an NGO taking government funds ADRA cannot legitimately do any work related to the saving Gospel. No followup IOW.
The church must cease to turn "a blind eye to the governement funding issues" and return to its task of spreading the Gospel. Sure, it may take time to gain confidence and obviously a Bible study is not in order necessarily early in the relationship. Check out the work of Adventist Frontier Missions where it often takes years for results. The Holy Spirit is responsible for results.
I think you are not seeing the obvious: ADRA, doing good deeds simply because that is what God calls us to do, prepares the soil for evangelism in a way few other things can. It is not ADRAs job to provide follow-up. But there is nothing stopping local SDAs, or foreign missionaries, finding ways to work in areas where the SDA church has a good reputation because of ADRA. We often use the text about one sowing and another reaping to say that it is not necessarily the work of one person to do everything. Why should that not apply to ADRA? Perhaps God wants ADRA to work as it does. If there is no follow-up, perhaps that is the fault of others? We don't criticise public evangelists for converting people and then abandoning them to the care of the local church, but recognise the part each plays. Perhaps ADRA also has only one part to play.
Mormons, SDA's, Catholics etc all "do good deeds" to "prepare the soil for evangelism." So this is a competition? If those that do good also are able to sell their religion then where are we? If a Mormon mission outreach feeds and heals the sick and conversion is the result, are we as SDA's required to go in and talk the converts out of Mormonism and into Adventism? What happens when the Catholic evangelical team comes in after the Adventists? If the motive of good deeds is only to prepare the potential convert for accepting the message then we are using one to "sell" the other. My goodness. I think I will stick to the principle of helping those in need and let the religion chips fall where they may.
Evangelism – Humanitarian aid
My remarks are only cencerned with the instututional and not the individual/personal level of engagement. Evangelism is not a task of ADRA but of the church. Adventist hospitals don't evangelise either. ADRA as the relief and development organisation of the SDA Church is obliged to help vulnerable people independant of their religious belief, political or sexual orientation, gender or race etc. Its only goal is to help! No hidden agenda like direct or indirect evangelisation. If people are being helped with the intention that they might become Adventists makes our help unpure and conditional. ADRA's help, as I have understood it, is unconditional. It does not exploit the hardship of the vulnerable people that they might become Adventists. The church and ADRA have to be clear in regards to the role each agent plays and we should explain it to our members.
Religious Liberty
This implies also an aspect of religious liberty: We don't gently push or pull vulnerable people into our church. We help them in their unfavourable situation. That's all. If they are interested in the faith that drives us, we are free to give a testimony. To use the dependency of vulnerable people for evangelistic means contrasts our dearly defended idea of religious liberty.
This unconditional help is one reason why ADRA country offices in Europe have a strong support by church members if they have understood the idea behind it. In our very secular societies over here we would lose every credibility in the public if we would mingle humanitarian aid with religious endeavours. ADRA "speaks" with actions of the love of God. In secularised societies where churches are not being heard because of what they preach but of what they do for society and humanity and what they stand for (social engagement / rigths of migrants / non-combattancy etc.) it is crucial for a church to have a humanitarian aid agency such as ADRA. In most cases we don't reach the public by our preaching any more. Nobody is interested in religious speeches. In the times of EGW this has been obviously different but nowadays we face entirely other conditions. Actions of love are the "language" that is still being heard and understood.
Donor base
By the way: The biggest donor in the world for relief and development projects is not USAID but the European Union. As long as ADRA country offices have different strong sources of funding there is no problem with state funding because you will not be dependent of one donor. This implies that ADRA needs more support from church members and the church itself. This investment for ADRA pays off in a good public reputation for the church.
"Evangelism is not a task of ADRA but of the church. Adventist hospitals don't evangelise either. ADRA as the relief and development organisation of the SDA Church is obliged to help vulnerable people independant of their religious belief, political or sexual orientation, gender or race etc. Its only goal is to help! No hidden agenda like direct or indirect evangelisation."
Well, I respectfully disagree. If our ultimate goal is not to win people Christ, then our motives are wrong, and we will be among those of whom Jesus said that He never knew us, in spite of all our "good" works–which were not good works if done for the wrong reasons. Humanitarian aid is good; it is essential; but for the Christian it cannot be an end in itself. It may be only a seed planting endeavor, but it still must be a means to an end, not the end in itself.
The whole picture has to be considered: The Adventist church has many agents, – ADRA is just one of them. There are hospitals, printing houses, schools etc. each has its specific task. To evangelise is the task of the "religious" part of the church and not of the medical or humanitarian part, although they play a crucial role in showing Gods love in a "non-evangelistic" way. If a christian humanitarian agency helps vulnerable people it is always an expression of God's love. And to show God's love is definetely an end in itself. It was the core motivation of Jesus' mission of incarnation to this world.- It is then up to the individual to decide.
It is interesting that in the parable of the last judgement (Matthew 25) the crucial point is not evangelistic success but the expression of incarnate, unconditional love. To display Gods love to fellow human beings in despreate need of help is in my view an end in itself. It was the central mission of Jesus.
Jean said, "Well, I respectfully disagree. If our ultimate goal is not to win people Christ, then our motives are wrong, and we will be among those of whom Jesus said that He never knew us, in spite of all our "good" works–which were not good works if done for the wrong reasons. Humanitarian aid is good; it is essential; but for the Christian it cannot be an end in itself. It may be only a seed planting endeavor, but it still must be a means to an end, not the end in itself."
Perhaps it's good to consider the motives of individual ADRA workers when considering your statement. Herbert is a former ADRA worker, and so am I. What motivated each of us, and the thousands of other ADRA workers out there today, to feed the hungry, provide healing to he sick, and clothing to those who are naked? It is the spirit of Christ Who lives in our hearts. We want to show the world through our actions of unconditional love that Jesus cares enough to provide help for them; through His agents on earth. Is that not the right motive, Jean? When Christians (and I now include others not of SDA faith, too) do Christ's work by helping those less fortunate, are their motives wrong?
If Jesus were to judge motives then he would have very few hands on this earth, I'm afraid. Instead, He uses anyone who is willing (perhaps even not willing) to carry out His will and to show His love on earth. The bigger picture, the greater plan…is His. Not ours. Let's not focus on motive, but focus on the power of His love and what He can do through a pair of willing hands and, more powerfully, a willing heart.
Let's be careful not to judge motive, because nobody can judge another's heart. And perhaps this is yet another reason for ADRA to exist; so that we may put our trust in Him and learn that, though His children, we are also one way that He touches those who need his love the most. Sometimes, that love is in the form of food, etc.
"If Jesus were to judge motives then he would have very few hands on this earth, I'm afraid."
That's just it; He does judge motives. Otherwise anyone who did good works would be in the kingdom. Many do good to their fellow man from selfish motives. God wants us to minister to those in need, of course. But if we do it for reasons that do not stem from faith in Him, He will profess to have never known us. There are plenty of atheists and agnostics who are engaged in humanitarian work. But it's not a ticket to heaven. The converse is true, of course. Those who claim faith in God but fail to produce the works that go along with it (which includes ministering to those in need) are in the same boat as those who do good for the wrong reasons.
There will always be some tension, some acrimony, between those who zealously favor proclamation and those who are more inclined to invest in the "social gospel" concepts of ministry. Come right down to it, we undoubtedly need them both.
Ché Guevara, the famous Communist physician who attempted to subdue sections of South America by guerilla force, admitted as much in his diaries, lamenting that it was very hard to lead the people to Communism in areas where the Adventists had established medical missionary work. Now, my father was the only Adventist physician in that area at the time Guevara wrote those words, and we assume that he had Dad in mind as he lamented the tremendous goodwill that Adventist medical work was achieving in the hearts and minds of the people. Dad gave at most 10 sermons during his years as a missionary and rarely if ever led out in a Bible study other than at home worship, but his work inspired hundreds if not thousands to "spread the word" of the fairness and goodness of faith and freedom. It set the stage for church growth, as well as providing a near ironclad buffer against the real threat of bloody insurrection by an invasive and fanatical idealogy.
Dad passed away a few years back at age 83, but he considered his 13 years of medical service in South America as the most rewarding of his career. A superficial evaluation might suggest he was incompetent as a missionary; a more comprehensive study might determine that his self-effacing dedication to the good of the people was "just the right prescription" for that place and era. Dad thought so, but there were those who nearly constantly "rode" him to get out and give Bible studies and sermons—and, yes, he did some of that, but always encouraged others to assume that function, so he could get back to the bedsides and the operating and emergency rooms.
Does the church want to gain converts that are "rice Christians"? Those who must first be baptized before getting rice to feed their hungry stomachs? What happens when either the rice is gone, or some other group (maybe Communism?) also offers them rice?
All of us require a little "rice" to make it through in life, and a faith that urges its followers to be generous with others will undoubtedly be held in higher esteem than those who say, "Well, you need to earn your own way and provide for yourself, but I will pray for you." The Apostle James has a Bible study for such individuals, last I checked.
There is a serious difference between a solid and generous Christian culture of cooperation and caring, and a culture that simply buys baptisms with offers of free benefits. Dad always charged for his services, though the amount was very small but enough to pay for the operation of the hospital; he gave away medication "samples" for the destitute and needy, and helped all regardless of ability to pay. It seemed to me that the mission hospital was an ideal example of an outreach that captured the happy midpoint between requiring each and every patient to pay every cent of his or her way, on the one hand, and those who gave away free services willy-nilly, to buy conversions and clientelle. Our patients never felt they got a "better deal" by going to a government hospital where the services might be cheaper.
http://www.adventistreview.org/article/5482/archives/issue-2012-1517/17-cn-adra-board-votes-leadership-change
Looking back. Some thoughts from one who has been there.
I worked a total of 12 years with SAWS/ADRA–five in Chile and seven in Washington. As the second executive director of SAWS, I was responsible for what was until that time the largest matching grant ever negotiated by the agency. During my years in Washington I pushed for a complete separation of SAWS from the church. It had been a part of the Lay Activities Department.
In the years since, I have rethought my decision, because little by little the agency began to operate from the perspective that it couldn't work for church members but only for members of the community. My question looking back now is, since when are members of the church not members of the community? The issue is, will we exact a spiritual price for the aid we provide? It has always troubled me that, as has been stated, ADRA has been largely an arm of American foreign policy.
The local church can be one of the most cost-effective delievery systems for the delievery of development programs. Last year ADRA Inter-America delievered 1 millon food packets in one day. And, what better place to teach literacy than the local church.? I believe that regionalizing ADRA should be seriously considered. The church is regionalized and is administrated so. To administer projects from Washington is not consistent with the Adventist organzation model. The direction that was being taken before Dr Maier was tightening the grip of Washington on the local organizations to the point of requiring a contract between the local region and the head office.
The agency has come a long way and needs to continue to move ahead, but in the right direction!
Mr. O'Fill, your dedication to ADRA is well known and my comments aren't meant to criticise; only to enlighten and create much needed dialogue. Can you provide evidence of any instance where ADRA has refused aid to Adventists where those Adventists have been members of the communities where ADRA is providing assistance? To deny a person in need would go against their mission, which is to provide help regardless of religious (etc.) affiliation. When operating from a government grant, ADRA is assigned catchment areas that often don't include any Adventists, that's true. But here's the interesting thing: those areas include children, women, and men who were created by the very same God that you (and ADRA workers) worship. And perhaps, let's imagine for a moment, that God also creates those opportunities, through government grants, for ADRA to provide His tangible love through His very cherished church. Just a thought worth pondering, no? Some thoughts from one who has also been there:-)
Hi Jake, I'm certainly quite young (in my twenties) and very inexperienced as compared to both you and Mr. O'Fill but I hope to be able to answer your question adequately. It appears to me that Mr. O'Fill's concern probably falls in line with what Jesus prayed for in John 17 as He had finished his earthly work (verse 4) and He started to prepare for the crucifixion. Jesus states, "I pray that… all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you… so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me." Let's remember that Jesus Christ said he gave us a new command which is that we love one another. There is an important principle worth noting here. It is what Stephen Covey calls "First Things First" principle in the book 7 Habits of Highly Effective People.
In the verse above, Jesus clearly states/prays that the world will know that Jesus is the true Christ through the church's unity. If our agencies have their hands tied to the point that they cannot engage in the first work of helping their own then we have an big problem on our hands. Why do I say so? Because our efforts are failing to be in line with Jesus prayer and the example of the early apostolic church. The unity, the love, the one accord, the sharing, the breaking of bread and taking care of less privileged individuals began within the house of God before it went elsewhere. Jesus prayer in John 17 leaves me with the impression that the way the church takes care of each other is the ultimate proof to the world that Jesus is the Messiah. I will repeat again for emphasis that John 17 says this unity and love among us as believers will prove Jesus to be the Christ to the world. Due to my young age and inexperince I will cautiously say I feel our efforts are bound for failure until we correct this element. Would I be overextending myself to propose that this is one of the key traits to which the Angel of Revelation refers when he tells the Ephesus Church to "return to your first love?"
I hope I didn't give the impression that I'm not dedicated to the humanitarian work for non-Adventists. My friends and I have launched a international non-profit organization that will partner and even become a donor to organizations such as ADRA. We are dedicated to the humanitarian work as defined in Isaiah 58 and Matthew 25 (with a heavy leaning towards the Spirit of Prophecy comments on these passages). Unlike others who commented earlier, we believe in the unity of humanitarian work (such as medical missionary work) and the gospel for the sake of the spreading of the 3 Angels Messages. If the the 3 Angels Messages are truly the last message of God's mercy, the last opportunity to share the "everlasting gospel" "to every nation, kindred, tongue and people, would it not be the highest form of love that every Adventist (and Adventist institution/agency) needs to be engaged in during every activity we do? During Nazi Germany would I really be expressing true love if I visited a poor Jewish family and gave them plenty of food and but left without warning them that the Nazi officers are coming to capture their family in the evening? Aren't we shortselling ourselves by failing to incorporate the gospel work in every aspect of our work?
While everyone can't be a "evangelist" in the traditional sense, my group believes there needs to be a strategic effort to ensure that every humanitarian effort also tries to address the more important spiritual/eternal needs and with the related risks that are coming through the earth's final crisis. Remember that the greatest expression of love ever done was the dying of a person's sins to save him/her from the condemnation of the coming Judgement (Rev. 14:7). The greatest expression of love was not the feeding of the 5000 or the healing of the sick which were means to fulfilling bring people to know that the kingdom of God was at hand. These two expressions of love need to be blended at all times but we think the superior of the two is quite obvious.
We are a group of young people who have heard many older people say that in the Western world or in modern times one cannot be effective if one combines humanitarian work and the gospel together because of the challenges of grant rules, suspicion, and prejudice from unbelievers and governments, etc. We think that even though it may seem hard, there has to be a way to blend these two. We hope to try this out and test the truthfulness of the claim that the direct sharing of the gospel (as defined by Adventists) is incompatible with humanitarian work in our modern day. We are willing to be honest and concede if we fail but we fell strongly impressed by God to undertake this calling.
Is there a separation between humanitarian/evangelistic efforts and the ADRA charter? If the ADRA charter specifically addresses that no proselytizing must be done, they must abide by those rules. Can someone clarify?
Hi Elaine (and Jake), let's remember that a charter is susceptible to be amended. I say this to highlight that if the church (that includes you and me) feel that it is necessary for ADRA to conduct evangelistic work then the issue of what the charter says is not an issue! The charter can be amended any time. Isn't that right? Obviously, we have to consider if this would be a wise decision first but let's not feel that the charter ties our hands forever.
Elaine, yes ADRA's charter is clear. It provides pure humanitarian services, not evangelistic services.
RodneyM, I love your spirit and energy. And I understand where you're coming from. I think the gospel is enacted through benevolent giving, i.e. providing help "just because" Jesus would have done the same. Yes, His was the presence of God, but we're not God. We represent God. I've witnessed, in developing countries, some of the worst conditions in humanity in war zones, famine regions, poverty-stricken lands, and so on. There, I've met people who are so hungry, scared, and sick that they can barely hear the words you speak, let alone absorb concepts and teachings of a God they haven't heard of. Their future is something they live minute by minute, because nothing is assured and they know that on a very conscious level. To them, ADRA workers demonstrate a love they have never seen before and one that many question. "Why are you doing this?" It's the question on many minds and lips. Hard to imaging an ADRA worker not telling of his or her own personal conviction, if asked. I agree, the feeding of the five thousand met physical and tangible need while providing evidence of the hope of God's kingdom. That was "their" testimony. It was right for their time. Perhaps the same testimony can be enacted through the aid that ADRA provides? They deal with people who have never known unconditional love, and they feel it for the first time when an ADRA worker walks into their village and asks, "what can we do to give you an opportunity for life?" When life is stabilized, when the hungry are strong enough to ask questions…when a mother no longer fears for the lives of her children…when a father has regained dignity…that's when questions are asked. To expect that kind of curiosity when people are at their most vulnerable is unrealistic. Someone mentioned rice Christians. I've seen that, even today. I've seen so-called Christian aid agencies "only" provide food and medical for those who follow, or choose to follow, a certain doctrine or faith. It's heart-wrenching. Trust me, a mother with starving children will say anything you want to hear to feed her children. To me, taking advantage of a person when they're at their most vulnerable is akin to an army relying on information giving through torture. I'll stop here, but I could go on for days on this topic:-) Again, I love your energy and spirit.
Hi Jake, Thanks for your fair and very thorough response. I appreciate your background during which you worked with the less privileged. However, I am an individual who is one of those individuals from poverty stricken lands. Miraculously God funded my education from one of those countries and gave me a world-class education. I grew up as one of those people living on one meal a day and spent my high school years in the early 2000s living on less than half a dollar a day (this was very recent since I'm only in my twenties). There is no doubt in my mind that a lot of my Adventist brothers and sisters have good intentions when they decide to focus on "planting the seed" using humanitarian work (and separating this from evangelizism work) which, as they say, could germinate in later years. Nonetheless, I'm concerned when such efforts do not have a corresponding strategic approach to come back and directly address those spiritual needs.Unfortunately, such efforts that postpone addressing people's salvation ignore the sad statistics which show that in many cases we don't have any time to spare. Lives are lost daily. In developing countries similar to mine, many die daily because of many diseases and disasters. Why can't we try to provide an avenue to salvation now? Many of my friends, family members and colleagues have died of diseases such as HIV/AIDS, cholera, malaria, hunger and drug abuse. Would it be wise to continue to just address their physical needs for years while many of them die on a daily basis without salvation? One website states that about 20,000 die of hunger daily. Why can't we decide to give those people a plate of food and an opportunity for them to choose salvation. I think most hesitate on this issue because they confuse the spreading of the 3 Angels Messages to proselytizing. These two are not necessarily the same. The 3 Angels Messages are basically for preparing all people to make well-informed decisions (in the spirit of religious liberty) about their eternity such as intelligently choosing between the mark of disobedience and the Seal of allegiance to God. Remember that Matthew 24:14 clearly states that the gospel will be preached to all the world as a witness to all nations and the end will come. To me, the sooner everyone worldwide is given a basis to intelligently make a personal decision of which side they willingly want to be part of for eternity the better. In my view, the greatest humanitarian work that can happen is the quickening of the coming of Christ to create the world anew. I feel that any delay in this respect is unwise since each extra day allows for the prophetic "birth pains" to worsen, disasters to continue happening, hunger and disease to continue. In my humble opinion (and that of Ellen White – see books Welfare Ministry or Ministry to the Cities), all of our institutions need to embrace the strategic intent to end the global humanitarian crisis and I think Matthew 24:14 tells us how this can be done. Again, I'm very much for humanitarian work and I'm running a non-profit which is doing this. However, I believe there is a terrible strategic weakness in an Adventist humanitarian work that fails to embrace the only method to end all global humanitarian crises. As I stated in a comment above, even the issue of charters and bylaws is not an excuse because its easier to change non-profit bylaws and charters (if necessary) than to amend government constitutions; even the US Constitution has had amendments done to it.
Jake, I agree with you and that if ADRA doesn't go by the rules of the charter, then there may not be another opportunity that it offers.
Rodney,
Yes, a charter can be amended, but it takes at least two to make changes: the church and ADRA and the limitations under which it presently operates of non-proselytizing. Non-profit organizations have strict guidelines under which they operate. Are you fully familiar with all the rules for ADRA? If you wish to make changes do you know who to approach and how it could best be done? Are you in such a position to do so?
When people are hungry and given food are they not vulnerable to accept what the giver tells them? And how quickly can such a message about how their future in eternity depends on intelligently choosing between the mark of disobedience and the seal of God? That's a whole load of information to be dumped on someone when they are hungry and expected to make a well-informed decision. How has that been working? Or, is it merely a suggestion without having been tried?
If you truly believe that "any delay lengthens the time of the second coming," then man, not God is in charge of Jesus' return. How does that compare with "no man knows the day nor hour"? Do you seriously believe that everyone must hear and make a decision to reject or obey before that can happen–with millions being born everyday? That is a mathematical impossibility. You are still quite young and have the idealism and exuberance that can make changes. But there are still paths that have been traced by those who have gone before you that were built for a reason: It is called experience; and experience cannot be given, but must be attained by each individual and we do not learn by our successes but by our failures.
Hi Elaine,
I'm sorry for the length of my post and I hope and believe you will still feel that my lengthy post has valuable content.
Elaine, it pains me to read of what I feel are "artificial" limitations to our work as a church (please note this is not in any way meant to be disrespectul). First, let me be clear that I'm not asking that ADRA amend it's charter. That's for ADRA and the GC leaders to decide. What I'm trying to argue is that our present charter does not limit ADRA's future if it decides to change course. I'm only highlighting that a charter can be amended; it's not an impossibility. My humble graduate education in business and related courses gives me the confidence to state that. Again, an amendment to the US Constitution requires the approval of at least about 535 members of Congress and then the ratification of 38 states (about 27 amendments have been ratified in such a political heated organization). Compare trying to vote in something among 535 U.S. Congress members to a similar process among the 37 members of the ADRA board. Amending ADRA's charter appears like a "piece of cake" compared to the US Constitution. I don't mean to make it sound easy but, again, it is not impossible and therefore not a limitation.
You stated that, "When people are hungry and given food are they not vulnerable to accept what the giver tells them?" I strongly plead that we look at the method used by Jesus for an answer. What would Jesus Do? Would we argue that Jesus needed to separate his humanitarian work from his evangelistic work because feeding the hungry 5000, healing the demoniacs, and those with leprosy created a position in which those people became "vulnerable to accept what the giver (Jesus) tells them?" It is possible to separate the two but I'm arguing that we can blend the two just like Jesus did. It's not like I'm advocating methods that are strange, foreign and new. Shall we not take Jesus' methods as our own? Here is what pains me the most about this argument. Adventist pioneers came to my country during colonization and imperialism years and clearly shared the salvation principles to my great grandparents when they were technically slaves and could not even read the Bible. These blessing of receiving the gospel is still with my family four generations later. My family is a testament of how the gospel can be shared effectively to vulnerable groups without coercion and deceit. It is deeply saddening that the vulnerability and poverty of families like mine is now limiting our access to the gospel because God's people are being too cautious.
My dear Elaine, I think in the following statement you stretched yourself a little much: "If you truly believe that "any delay lengthens the time of the second coming," then man, not God is in charge of Jesus' return. How does that compare with "no man knows the day nor hour"?" By us being the agents to quicken Jesus' return it does not equate to us knowing when he comes and us being in charge instead of God. Here is a biological example to clarify this point. An enzyme quickens the digestion process but in doing so it does not mean the enzyme knows the exact minute when the digestion process will end. It's just an agent to quicken the process. When I wrote my statement before, I assumed that everyone agreed that we are the agents to preach the gospel. It appears that my assumption was wrong. To me, Matthew 24:14 clearly backs the logical conclusion that it is the preaching of the gospel to the world to be a witness to all nations that's waiting to happen in order for the world to end. And I would think that we all know that humans are the agents for the preaching of this gospel (Matthew 28:18-20), not rocks or Angels.
By the way, while you believe that preaching to every individual in the world in a "mathematical impossibility" I strongly disagree! This is because of two reasons: the mathematics of it issue and the provision of the Holy Spirit. Ok let's do the mathematics to see. Our church claims to have 17 million members while the world will have 7.2 billion people in 2015 according to the US Census Bureau (see link below). Divide those two numbers together and you will see that each Adventist can be tasked with 424 individuals if we want to preach the gospel to every soul by 2015. Note that I have even assumed that the Adventist membership will not grow between now and 2015. Compare 424 people to the 3,000 people that Peter converted in one day at the day of pentecost. If you want to adjust those numbers to be even conservative use 10 million Adventist and assume 7 million are either falsified members or kids (though we know God uses kids also). Divide the 7.2 billion people by 10 million and you get 720 people for each Adventist. That is still lower than the 3,000 converted in one day at Pentecost. Remember that my calculation here is for the work each Adventist would need to do from now till 2015 (917 days to evangelize from today). If you are a believer in Ellen White's gift (I accept that some are not), she even states that the Latter Rain will do greater work than it did on Pentecost. Add the power of the Holy Spirit to the above equation and then you may realize that what you feel is a "mathematical impossibility" is not as challenging as people think. I hope one day people will have faith in the plain word of God that says that "With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible."
I respect the experience of my adults but I think some of our adults are too cautious and not catching the simple vision of the possibility that lies before us. People always talk about the mathematical impossibility but I doubt if many had really done the calculation themselves. Folks, this is doable especially since we have been promised the Holy Spirit. I hope that our church and institutions do not run the same problem of secular institutions that experience stagnation because the experienced professionals sometimes fail to continue innovating. As young people, we hope for a possibility to partner with our experienced adults in our Church. We hope the Lord will not have to bring fresh younger blood to start new things because our adults fail to see the obvious and fail to have faith in his word. Let's catch the vision! Thanks Elaine.
Rodney M.
You have expressed it well and your experience has taught you some things others will likely not accept. Opportunity to learn about the gospel is critical and to meet physical needs without even an indication where or how spiritual needs can be met is unconscionable.
Thanks for the constructive post.
Rodney, I'm so happy for you! You are indeed a blessed individual. I hear what you're saying. But cannot…should not the spiritual needs of people in developing and developed countries be the responsibility of the church's ministries that are created to do just that? Could there not be a place for an organization such as ADRA to meet physical needs and do just that…and do it "just because Jesus would have (does) do the same?" Isn't that also a true expression of His love? I think the worst thing we can do in this day and age is to try to make everything hard core evanglism. Why? Because there is so much hurt in this world and we, as believers — especially those who "have" — are privileged to have His love. Why not share that in a very real and tangible way?
There are many countries and regions that ADRA operates in where the church isn't welcome, because it provides the love of Christ through humanitarian work only. Let's just supposed that ADRA decides that it is going to do the opposite — ONLY provide humanitarian help if it can also evangelize to those who are destitute. Can you imagine the headlines? Can you imagine the confusion? And what about countries where Christians aren't welcome? Why remove the only presence of the church because the gospel must be an "either" "or?"
I believe there will be many who will enter heaven without having even "heard" his name; people who have made the best of the hand they've been dealt; people who have loved and worshiped the God they came to know. Shocking for some, perhaps. Possible?
RodneyM, congratulations on your opportunity to grow and I understand your sense of urgency given your background. And thank you for an open and healthy dialogue.
Jake, thanks as well for taking time to share your thoughts with me.
You are correct that humanitarian work may certainly be an expression of His love but it still falls short compared to the greatest expression of love. "Greater love has no man that this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." John 15:13. Jesus and the apostles expressed this love by dying to redeem the souls of others.
Our education institutions in other countries do both humanitarian work and spiritual work, some of our health institutions do both so I believe all other institutions should help out too. We have 7 billion people to reach so everyone could use everyone else's help. I think the reverse applies to purely evangelistic institutions too; they need to participate in the humanitarian work as well. ADRA doesn't even have to create anything new but it can form alliances with evangelistic institutions who then do the work. Since ADRA is planting the seed in many places, there just needs to be some type of strategic effort to water the seed directly using the gospel to give those people access to eternal life if they so choose to receive it. I don't have a proper blue print for ADRA but I think someone just needs to consider this issue carefully.
To address your second paragraph, Humanitarian work is never to be an "only if" work. We should not put a condition to our help and say we will help a person "only if" they accept our gospel. That's not what I mean. Just as Jesus healed 10 lepers but only 1 returned to thank him we are also to be willing to help everyone. However, there are those who are like the crippled man who was lowered from the roof who need to be told that their sins are forgiven more than they need hear "take up your bed and walk." I just ask that all Adventist people and institutions be ready to give both types of help just as Jesus was always ready to provide both. As you mentioned, it is not always possible to give both the gospel and humanitarian work but is it asking too much for our institutions to be molded in a way that they are at least ready, willing and prepared to give both forms of help in all cases just like Jesus? If our work is genuine we have no need to worry about any headlines and confusion because our help will not be conditional. As I wrote in my embarrassing lengthy reply to Elaine above, I'm just asking that people consider following the methods used by Jesus and the strategy used by the apostolic church.
Jake, I'm not sure why you feel that I mean we should "remove the only presence of the church because the gospel must be an 'either' 'or'?" I'm not sure how what I wrote made you think that I suggested "removing" the work from such countries. I'm suggesting a modification of future methods not a removal/termination of the current work. In some countries it's necessary to start by doing humanitarion work only but in most it's not necessary to have such a separation. The U.S. presence globally (for better or for worse) is making it easier to engage in both even in 'formerly' communist countries like China.
You are absolutely correct that they may "be many who will enter heaven without having 'heard' his name." Praise God for those. No need to worry too much about those. However, flip your statement around and then think about the other side of the coin. There are many who will be lost because they never heard His name because we were negligent in our efforts and so we failed to share the gospel with them. Those are the ones we are to worry about because God holds us accountable for their souls (Ezekiel 3:18).
In all my previous posts, I endured to provide the Biblical basis for blending the humanitarian and evangelistic work just as Jesus did. Here are quotations from Ellen White for those who still consider her writings useful in some way.
"I want to tell you that when the gospel ministers and the [humanitarian] missionary workers are not united, there is placed on our church the worst evil that can be placed there. Our [humanitarian] missionaries ought to be interested in the work of our conferences, and our conference workers ought to be as much interested in the work of our [humanitarian] missionaries."— Medical Ministry, p. 241
"No line is to be drawn between the genuine [humanitarian] missionary work and the gospel ministry. These two must blend. They are not to stand apart as separate lines of work. They are to be joined in an inseparable union, even as the hand is joined to the body." —Medical Ministry, p. 250.
Since the following quotation shows that Ellen White considered Isaiah 58 as medical missionary work, I have replaced the word "medical" with "humanitarian" in the quotations above to reflect the full import of Isaiah 58 which includes work for the hungry, naked, homeless and oppressed.
“The 58th chapter of Isaiah contains present truth for the people of God. Here we see how medical missionary work and the gospel ministry are to be bound together as the message is given to the world.” Evangelism, p. 516.
As we considered our annual charitable gift giving last November-December, I decided to do a quick check of ADRA's ratings compared with other NGO organizations.
Charity Navigator dropped ADRA's rating from 4 stars to 2 stars over the last couple of years, comparable with a couple of other Charity ratings. Any clues as to why this happened?
In some church environments, the point is frequently repeated that we as Adventists must "all" give Bible studies, or "all" travel abroad and support short-term mission ventures, or "all" learn how to preach, or "all" learn to give medical fomentations and heat treatments, or "all" spend at least an hour a day contemplating the final hours of Jesus in his passion, or "all" attend self-supporting schools for better understanding and practics of historic Adventism the way it was originally designed.
I hear this theory of "allness" or "uniformity" creeping into our discussion here. Right now, one of my middle-aged cousins serves as a country-wide director for ADRA in a Far Eastern nation. He is an engineer, also a gifted musician, and a capable public speaker and, of course, a manager. He's relatively young and as yet unmarried, and my impression is that he devotes tremendous hours of his time primarily to his work of leading development projects in that country. He's a practicing fourth-generation Adventist Christian and to my knowledge attends church and participates in services in the local languages, which he has learned. But he primarily deals with the physical world, while surrounded by local ministers, Bible workers, and elders who really "live with the people" in common community and may be more skilled in the local and colloquial language than the American director of ADRA and his staff. It seems that in such a large and complex organization as ADRA, the concept of "spiritual gifts" and "callings" comes into play. Should the ADRA folk who specialize in various development and relief functions, be expected to segment their complicated lives further and become deeply involved in the interpersonal study of Scripture with the local people? In some special cases, perhaps yes. But should not the local Adventist people (who will remain in the community long after the ADRA folks have moved on with their well-drilling equipment) employ their association with ADRA to add credibility to their work and carry the responsibility (and receive the primary joy) of this localized personal evangelism?
I speak here as a "missionary's kid" whose father, whom I have referred to earlier, enjoyed a rewarding professional experience operating as physician/administrator of a small hospital in South America. He became somewhat well-known in the region for his surgical and diagnostic success, but his abilities with the local languages were "something else" and a source of avid roastings in good humor by the local population. As might be imagined, Dad rarely gave a sermon or Bible study, though with his presence he supported the local church and its program. When called to sit in a chair of honor on the platform during church, it was not uncommon for him to fall asleep, during the sermon itself, often after a busy evening of surgery the night before. Dad was not a gifted public person, but within his sphere he was unusually capable, and practical enough to try to stay very close to his area of greater ability. In ADRA it appears that we have a prime example of various organizations needing to cooperate and interact, all working for the same goal, but doing so according to their various mission statements and charters. Sometimes the best sermon we can give is simply rubbing shoulders respectfully and willingingly with people who, except for the Gospel, we would never otherwise meet and serve. This is what ADRA does, and I think most balanced personalities involved recognize the rational and indeed sacred nature of their unique calling to serve in this special order as international "deacons" (if you will) of Adventism. To discuss these things zealously is helpful, especially as we face the reality that Christianity is not a faith of uniformity, but of diversity of personality, talent and calling.
Hi Edwin,
Do you know if your cousin has written any books or if he blogs about his experiences? I would love to learn from him. If he hasn't please encourage him to put his information together for a blog or book or something.
If ADRA pursues those strategic alliances with local churches in all (or most) of their endeavors that is certainly great news! Such team work between ADRA and local churches would answer my request for a strategic plan to address the spiritual needs of the people that ADRA works with. If ADRA doesn't yet use such strategic alliances with local churches in most countries it operates, I hope someone can take on that blessed task of implementing such a program on behalf of ADRA. Regardless of who does it (whether ADRA or other Adventist evangelism branches/churches partnering with ADRA), it's important that ADRA's beneficiaries also get a chance to receive the gospel. For individuals, not all need to do everything. I think all institutions need to be able to have a way to have individuals with diverse skills or to create various programs to address various aspects of people's needs whether spiritual or physical. Partnering with other organizations is the easiest way to achieve this combined work.
I would just like to point out that church members are often beneficiaries. One current example from Haiti are the 100 classrooms ADRA is currently building in partnership with Maranatha, 80 of which are SDA schools. For public funds, if an SDA member is in the community where ADRA works and they meet the beneficiary selection criteria set for that project, they are helped as well. The argument that ADRA excludes church members as beneficiaries is unfounded.
Elaine,
I ran across your comment suggesting that some religious based charities offer the charity only if the receipient accepts the religious doctrine. My immediate reaction is how disgusting. I made a comment above that I think its better to help those in need and let the religious chips fall where they may.
I would say the only righteous discriminator might be need.
Wait, now I'm confused.
Todd R, are you saying that ADRA is now using donations to build Adventist schools? How does it do that and maintain USAID funding? One prohibits the other.
Jake,
One does not prohibit the other. The government does not place restrictions on ADRAs private donations.
Matthew 25:
[34] Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
[35] For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
[36] Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
[37] Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
[38] When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
[39] Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
[40] And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
Those are the words of Jesus telling his followers that helping anyone in need is akin to helping Him in person.
ADRA was the first to get aid into Burma when there was a disaster simply because it was trusted NOT to be political or proselytizing. When someone needs a tent for cover from the elements or a blanket so as not to freeze or a meal so as not to starve, they do NOT care from whence it came.
And one cannot begin to estimate how many went home after being assisted by Jesus and determined in their hearts to be more like Him even though they didn't sail to foreign lands and convert thousands. They might have converted their family, or neighbors which would greatly multiply the number that Jesus reached by "second hand" methods.
ADRA was developed as a means to reach those in need. By its platform it does NOT evangelize, it provides aid. Accepting money from any government does not make it beholden to do that governments bidding. ADRA could simply state it does not operate according to the new mandates of that government and cease accepting its funds. That would put a halt to the political nature any government sought to impose.
ADRA was the first to get into Burma simply because it did NOT get involved with politics. When will SDA's learn not to let politics enter into the work they should be doing? Oh silly me, I forgot, SDA's are human so they come forward with imperfections and attempt to do Gods' work with their flawed mentalities.
SIGH!