The World Vision Thing

h/t to the Millennial Pastor for
the great image (& responses)

You heard about this, right?

On Monday, World Vision announced in Christianity Today that it was changing its hiring policy so that gay Christians in legal marriages could be hired. Rich Stearns, president of World Vision, explained the policy change this way:

"It's easy to read a lot more into this decision than is really there," he said. "This is not an endorsement of same-sex marriage. We have decided we are not going to get into that debate. Nor is this a rejection of traditional marriage, which we affirm and support." "We're not caving to some kind of pressure. We're not on some slippery slope. There is no lawsuit threatening us. There is no employee group lobbying us," said Stearns. "This is not us compromising. It is us deferring to the authority of churches and denominations on theological issues. We're an operational arm of the global church, we're not a theological arm of the church."

The shit immediately hit the fan with close to 5,000 people canceling their sponsorships of children. In less than 48 hours, Stearns announced that the board reversed the decision, saying it was a mistake.

"We made certainly in retrospect was a bad decision, but we did it with the right motivations. We weren’t trying to harm, or trying to find revenue, we weren’t doing it for wrong motives. We were trying to find some kind of solution to a divisive issue that would create some space of togetherness around differences within the church. Our regret is that we caused more division instead of finding a place of more unity."

So by Wednesday, I had a fair number of thoughts going through my head. Let me see if I can set them out in any sort of coherent order.

First of all, I'm hugely disappointed by how this whole thing played out. And although I'm upset at those who decided to withdraw their sponsorship of children, I have to admit I understand it. I have not been a financial supporter of World Vision in part because of its conservative Christian background (not the only reason, but one of them). So I'm certainly in the same boat as people who don't want to support an organization that they think represents values counter to their own.

I'm much more disappointed with World Vision, for a few reasons:

• They (apparently) didn't anticipate this. Really? Knowing the political climate we live in, knowing the reactive nature of our current Christian culture, knowing that homosexuality is THE hot button topic...they hadn't thought through the plan? 
• They didn't give this any time. Rachel Held Evans had begun rallying the troops to solicit new donors. I suspect many other church leaders would have done the same. I'd come home on Tuesday, after learning about the reaction, planning to donate to World Vision as a show of support for this change, knowing they were getting a beating. But they reversed the decision so quickly, I hadn't gotten to it yet. 
• It seems tremendously short-sighted. They said they weren't trying to find revenue, and that may be true, but I think they lost a great deal of revenue in the long run by the reversal. Look at these charts, people! Do you see which way these lines are trending? 






It's inconsistent. Of course, if opposition to the marriage of same-sex couples truly were one of the fundamental principles under which World Vision operates, then looking at the approval rates would be irrelevant. However, one post I read this week noted that World Vision Canada has had a non-discriminatory hiring policy for over 15 years. Which leads me to believe
This is a failure of leadership, not a principled decision. Was it based on the financials? It certainly could be. Their latest 990 (financial reporting) shows that expenses were higher than income in 2011 and 2012, at an increasing rate, so there may be serious financial pressures at work. But I am reminded of Friedman's book A Failure of Nerve, which explains that leadership means holding fast in the face of conflict, rather than immediately reacting to loud and negative voices. 

I was appalled at this particular statement in Stearns' retraction: "We’re learning that a number of people are calling back since the reversal to reinstate their sponsorship. They’re forgiving; they’re saying, ‘Hey we stand with you.’” That, sir, is not forgiveness, any more a child stopping a tantrum after you buy him a toy means the child has forgiven you.

I wish them the best, but I continue to believe this was a huge mistake.

***

FWIW, here are some of the international aid organizations to which I contribute, in case you're looking for other organizations to support:

Against Malaria Foundation: www.againstmalaria.com

CA Bikes: cabikes.org

Evidence Action: www.evidenceaction.org

Kiva: www.kiva.org

Partners in Health: www.pih.org

You can't tell who's hungry by looking

On a discussion group I'm part of, one person raised the question of how to teach children at a Vacation Bible School about hunger. One day at VBS, they are having a visiting missionary from an African country who suggested that for snack that day, they offer the children half a glass of water and half a cracker, telling them that in the African country where this person worked, this was considered a good meal. Was this, the person asked, a good idea?

The more I consider this, the more disturbing it feels to me, and the more certain I am that the answer is, no. This is a terrible idea.

What I wrote to the group is that we do not know if the children coming to our VBS programs are, in fact, well-fed. It may be that parents are sending children to VBS to provide them with snacks and child care. I think it's dangerous to presume that "they" are hungry and "we" are well-fed. All I can truly say is that I am well-fed. That's all I can know for sure. To deprive children of food in the name of teaching them a lesson seems morally dubious to me.

Just a few days ago, the Pew Research Center came out with a report that stated

Despite being the richest country in the survey, nearly a quarter of Americans (24%) say they had trouble putting food on the table in the past 12 months. This is up from just 16% who reported such deprivation in 2007, the year before the Great Recession began.

Share our Strength reports that 16 million children in the US experience hunger.

Nearly one in five children in America lives in households that struggle to put food on the table. They may look no different than other children; child hunger in America is often invisible. They are hurting, just the same.

I think we're too used to picture of hunger that are actually pictures of starvation. But the truth is, you cannot tell who is hungry just by looking. Does the child in this photo look hungry? What does "hunger" look like?

All those very useful exercises that show the relative availability of food from one part of the world to another can only make the point if you yourself are not aware of what it is like not to have food. To tell people who struggle to put food on the table, "Feel sorry about those people very far away"...well, I don't think it's a good idea. And since we do not know who is hungry and who is not, I think it is best to feed everyone.

There's a second part of this that disturbs me: what message are we sending about African nations if the only thing people ever hear about them is "for people in this country, a half a cracker is a good meal"? First of all, I am quite certain that there is more than one person in this country that actually has more than half a cracker for lunch. It is just as incomplete a picture to say "Everyone there is starving" as it is to say "Everyone here has plenty."

Finally, is there anything else we can learn about Africa other than "it's full of needy people and we need to help them"? Are there no values there that people can teach us? Is there not a good children's story from this country that could teach something to us about sharing or hospitality or friendship or anything? Is the only thing to know about Africa is that we should help them? Is there no mutuality? Or is it all Radi-Aid for Norway?

Various & Sundry: The cats are unimpressed

I'm kind of tempted to start this week's collection of online tidbits with the Sad Cat Diary.


I hope you are not too depressed to read on.

But if you have made it this far, I hope you will read this terrific article about what we can learn from one of the worst charities in the world. I think it captures some of the key things we need to consider in aid and development work in a way that's really eye-opening. The gist is we need to look at the outcome (what does the charity actually accomplish) rather than focus on the process (how does it go about it -- assuming it is legal and ethical). Take a look and see what you think of the author's arguments.

Meanwhile, over at How Matters (because, yes, this is a both/and kind of a situation), Jennifer Lentfer writes about her recent visit to Haiti and the comments made to her by the recipients of various aid programs. Here's the one that particularly got me: "Is it a political strategy for Americans to come waste their money and weaken us?" Youch.

@pj_blue had a tweet that summed all of this up very neatly:

@intldogooder @pandpvolunteer I think the point being made is that it is easy to be a do-gooder. It's the actual doing good that is tricky.
— Philip Blue (@pj_blue) May 16, 2013

Amen to that.

So...will it do any good to sign this petition to make it easier for musicians to bring their instruments on airplanes? One can always try, and hope. Apparently,

When musicians are travelling by air in the United States, their instruments have no protections under current law. Each air carrier can decide their own rules on how to treat instrumentalists, and this results in arbitrary decisions made down the line.

Here's hoping we can make that a little less crazy.

Congratulations to 18-year-old Jennie Lamere who won a Boston Hackathon (a programming competition) with a code to stop television spoilers in your Twitter feed. Which, if you're a Twitter type, is actually really useful. What's more, she was the only female to present a project, and the only solo competitor. Go, Jennie. Another story on how she got into coding here.

On the other end of the life spectrum, this week I read the fascinating obituary of Marcella Pattyn, 92, who was the last of the Beguines. Yes, I did start humming a little Cole Porter, there, but little did I know that the Beguines were a lay order for women established in the late 12th century.

Beguines took no religious vows. They could leave and marry, if they chose. They could own property and took no alms. Women of all classes were welcomed, and wealthy Beguines often brought their servants with them. They carried on professions, often in the textile industry; they did good works, such as teaching or caring for the sick. They elected women — Grandes Dames — to lead their communities. Each Beguine was expected to support herself and make a contribution to the beguinage, through work or rent payments. They had no motherhouse, no common rule, no general of the order. Every community was run according to its own rules.

Fascinating stuff. Marcella herself, there, was the last surviving member of the order. Do we need something else like it? Or has it simply served its term?

Another who has served his term is Lt. Col. Will Adams, who had been deployed in Afghanistan for 2 years. I dare you to watch this without crying.

Meanwhile, in Malawi...

I thought I would include this story in the Various & Sundry post (coming soon), but then realized it needed a complete post of its own.

I have been completely engrossed this week in the ongoing flap/snarkfest between Madonna and Malawi. It's like junior high only with, you know, an African nation. First Madonna's all, "Hey, girl," (to the President of Malawi Dr. Joyce Banda) "'Sup? Wanna Hang?" And the President is all, uh, no, and Madonna is all, "The President won't meet with me because I fired her sister," and her friends are all like, "oooh," and then the President of Malawi is all like, "Whatevs, like I even care," and her spokeperson is all

1. Neither the President nor any official in her government denied Madonna any attention or courtesy during her recent visit to Malawi because as far as the administration is concerned there is no defined attention and courtesy that must be followed in respect of her.

and goes on for, like, 10 more points. Ooh, snap!

And then, like, Madonna has to go through regular security with, like, regular people to get out of the country. Super snap!

Binyavanga Wainaina posted an open letter to Madonna in the Guardian, sarcastically pointing out that Madonna can bestow her largesse on Kenya, which is much better equipped to deal with tourists.

It's been well over a century since we met your people, and since then Africa's relationship with the western world has gone from strength to strength. Today, bad people, like those from China, Brazil and India are coming to Africa to bring colonialism back by buying our minerals and crops at good market prices and giving us cheapish loans for infrastructure.

But some of us Africans are deeply committed to the values Europe and the west brings to us: like democracy, human rights and lots and lots of cold hard cash for human rights workers and civil society and anything, really, that does things like Sustainability, Empowerment and most of all, Capacity Building – which, as you know is very, very important for Africa's future especially as it is tax free and comes with per diems and conference allowances. Imagine what your money would do in Kenya! We have cannier auditors than the Malawians.

Again, ouch. And a bit of a zing for all of us who want to Help The Africans to note that The Africans despise much of the charitable help we offer.

But aside from all the gossipy and snarky bits, How Matters posted an important reflection:

Beyond the celebrity vs. politician whoo-ha, there is another story to take notice of– the behind-the-scenes persistence, vision, and impact of the local leaders and effective, indigenous organizations who are working to solve their own country’s problems, on their own terms. 

I’ve worked for many years with the leaders of Eye of the Child, Malawi’s leading child rights advocacy organization, which led the civil society charge for an injunction against both of Madonna’s adoptions. Though they were not successful in preventing the adoptions, they have been incredibly successful in forging closer ties with government officials to support them to navigate tricky donor relations with such funders and foundations as Madonna’s, as well as to reform Malawi’s contradictory laws governing adoption and child protection. 

That’s the story I’d rather hear–one of citizens holding their governments to account. Not as sexy, but way more important at the end of the day.

Various & Sundry: There is no marijuana anywhere in this post. But there might be some Coke.

OK! Now that's we've gotten Holy Week and Easter (the first Sunday of) all prepped and posted, it's time to gather up the crumbs under my table. Or at least highlight some of the things I thought were interesting enough to pass along in the endless stream o' content that is Twitter.

For example, haven't you always wanted to watch an MRI of broccoli?

I think that's kind of magical.

It will just keep glowing up there as I move along to other things, such as this slightly related story (in that there are vegetables involved) of a pot bust that goes bust. Turns out that the suspects "had bought hydroponic equipment to grow a small number of tomatoes and squash plants in their basement." It also turns out the suspects had been in employ of the CIA, and did not take kindly to it when Kansas and Missouri law enforcement "armed with assault rifles and wearing bullet proof vests pounded on the door of their home around 7:30 a.m. last April 20." Sorry! Sorry everyone! I just get carried away!

Elsewhere in Missouri, my dad's alma mater, Missouri S&T, is competing in the 2013 Climate Leadership Award for Best in Campus Climate Leadership. Of course, my alma mater, Oberlin, is also competing. Where do my loyalties lie? Hmmmm...

I loved this rant by my favorite Social Media blogger, Mark Schaefer, wrote In praise of the Unremarkable, which has forever added to my lexicon the term rainbow bombs.

Looking for a new exercise program? Trying to avoid the zombie apocalypse? You might want to try a new fitness app called Zombies, Run! "The app casts users as survivors of a global zombie apocalypse. Download it onto your mobile phone, insert earbuds and prepare to be surrounded by a soundscape that transforms your favorite running route into a battle-scarred obstacle course dense with flesh-guzzling ghouls." And Margaret Atwood -- yes, that Margaret Atwood -- has a cameo voiceover.

Remember #Kony2012? Quick update: Uganda has suspended their efforts to look for Joseph Kony, due to the coup in the Central African Republic where it is believe Kony is hiding. However, the US is offering a $5M bounty for his capture as part of the War Crimes Reward Program. Did you know we have a War Crimes Reward Program? Well, now you know.

A very quick summary of the situation in CAR:

A coalition of rebels in the Central African Republic, known as Seleka, toppled President Francois Bozize last month. They swept into the capital, Bangui, in a lightning offensive that triggered days of looting and drew international condemnation.

Just to give you the bare bones of the story.

On the other hand, and on the positive side, I'm really intrigued by what the non-profit ColaLife is doing to transport medical supplies to inaccessible regions by leveraging CocaCola's distribution network.

The result of their efforts so far is the AidPod, a wedge-shaped container that fits between the necks of bottles in a Coca-Cola crate. For the pilot program, they are using the AidPods to distribute an anti-diarrhea kit, called “Kit Yamoyo” (“Kit of Life”). 

The AidPod’s are a clever packaging solution, born of a very particular design problem. Because the vision was to physically piggyback on Coke’s distribution system, they needed to work with the crates used to move the popular soda to retailers. Initial designs experimented with pouches on the side and tubes that could be slotted in place of a bottle. Neither option would have worked, as both would have meant less space for Coke. Then, genius struck. 

“My wife said, ‘Why don’t we make use of the unused space?’” says Berry.

Well, that makes sense! Here's a very short video on how that works.



Isn't that clever?