Transcript
(unrelated material, not transcribed)
HUFFMAN: Our technician is here, and we can begin. I am John Huffman, I am a pastor in the Presbyterian Church, USA, pastor of St. Andrews Presbyterian Church in Newport Beach, California, but also in my time that the church allows me to be away, serve as the chairman of the board of World Vision, U.S., and on the board of World Vision International on the executive committee. World Vision International,
we really are an international partnership. On our international board of about 24 people, we have 19 nations represented. And it is no longer sending versus receiving nations, the international board is made up of the sectors of the world sending their representatives to the board, and our new international chairman is Valdir Steuernagel, a Lutheran scholar from Brazil.
And so we have a two thirds world representation in terms of the very leadership of World Vision International. But you're not here to hear about me. You're here to hear three persons who are going to share with us this morning. And our theme is faith-based NGOs, what they -- what do they offer that is different? Our first person, our presenter this morning is Kathryn Wolford,
is president of Lutheran World Relief. She holds an MA in Public Policy Studies from the University of Chicago, and an MA in Religious Studies focusing on Christian ethics, and she has that from the Divinity School of the University of Chicago. Gettysburg College granted her an honorary degree, doctor of Public Service. She has many articles on Latin America, landmine issues have been of concern to her and
articles in this regard, which is an issue very, very close to the hearts of those of us involved in World Vision. Her articles on that theme and others have appeared in the "The Christian Century." Kathryn, would you present to us? And then we have two responders, and we want to leave adequate time for some dialog. So I will try to do my job as a convener to sort of keep things going, in terms of giving you an opportunity to address questions and enter into some dialog at the end of the presentation and the respondents.
WOLFORD: Good morning.
AUDIENCE: Good morning.
WOLFORD: I apologize, I'm just getting over a cold, so if I still sound a little nasal, hopefully --
HUFFMAN: I believe this is primarily for recording purposes --
WOLFORD: OK. Good. Good.
HUFFMAN: So you'll have to carry. And some in the back, if you want to come farther forward, if you're having difficulty hearing.
WOLFORD: Yeah, this is always an issue for Lutherans. Everybody sits in the back row. So please feel free to come up if you want to be a little bit closer up, and more in dialog. I'm going to try and address a topic as really as a practitioner, based on what I see out there as I travel, and conversations with other colleague agencies both in this country and in other parts of this world. The question, faith-based NGOs, do we offer something different? A couple of caveats; one, I'm not going to try and speak for every faith group. It would really be presumptuous to speak for Islam, Hinduism.
I'm going to really try and speak out of my own context, and the one that I know most closely, and that is the Christian faith context. And then I found, even describing all Christian NGOs with one broad brushstroke is really fraught with limitations. We are an incredibly diverse group. And I think partly because of the nature of this gathering, I am going to try and focus some of the remarks specifically to the experience of U.S. based Christian NGOs, or U.S. expressions of what are increasingly Global Networks, as we just heard with World Vision,
same with many other organizations, where we're part of Global Networks, or consortia of Christian NGOs. The one thing I think that unites all Christian NGOs, at least I think this is a fair statement, is our motivation; why we do what we do. Freed and empowered by God's grace in Jesus Christ, we really respond out of the sense of vocation, of responding to God's love for us, for all people in the creation. But beyond that starting point, we very quickly diverge on how we interpret
what that faith calls us to be and to do in the world, in very practical ways. When I look at the spectrum of churches, church-based, church-related, parachurch and other assorted NGOs that claim a Christian identity, we are really quite a diverse group. And generally, the diversity comes in our theological foundations, how we really do interpret the gospel message. In our ecclesial roots, if we are rooted in a particular church tradition,
and also by our cultural, political, social and economic analysis, clearly that has to come into play. So I have two questions: What is it that we offer to the world that sets us apart in some way, if anything? And then again, speaking from the U.S. context, what do we offer back to our U.S. society at this point in time that might distinguish us from any other NGO or nonprofit? For laypeople, I think the question generally comes as, so what's really the difference between a well that's dug by Catholic
Relief Services or the Adventists, and one dug by Oxfam? The water tastes the same, the pumps often look the same. And to the uninformed observer, often in the community or from without, it seems like the same project. Or, between a refugee camp managed by Lutheran World Federation or World Vision and one managed by the UNHCR directly, or by the Save the Children Network? And I think many times that tangible expression of service, or -- and I hate to use these words,
but in the NGO world people use them now -- our product often looks pretty much the same, whether it's microcredit or agriculture. But it is often where we really do distinguish ourselves is in how we demonstrate or articulate the underlying values of why we're doing it in the way that we're doing that particular project or activity, or community organizing or advocacy. It's really in those values and in the nature
and quality of the relationships that we establish with our local counterparts, whether it's the local community or their mediating institutions like local churches, local NGOs, or local grassroots organizations. One way that the distinctiveness occurs is in how we define the relationship between proclamation and service, and there we are quite a diverse group. For many, our service is our witness.
It is enough to simply communicate through our actions Christ's love. For others, and kind of going to the other end of the spectrum, service is only valid to the extent that it really opens people to hear the message of the gospel, and to Evangelization. Now, we're pretty much all over the spectrum on that, but I think where some of the most exciting discussions are happening, and this is the context of globalization, is as U.S. and European, and other organizations who have generally
dominated the NGO game for years, are increasingly in conversations with locally-rooted churches and NGOs and other organizations, and particularly with local churches who increasingly speak very easily and fluidly of holistic ministry, of reaching out to both the spiritual and material needs of people, and I think in a very sensitive way. And I think there's a great deal of learning and discussion around that topic, and how
we witness authentically to God's liberating power, without in any way conditioning or using the vulnerability of people as a way to make that entre point. And I think there, we have much to learn from colleagues in places like Africa and Latin America, and to figure out, then, what our role in accompanying them in this process would be. But even in that discussion, I think that at least for many in the north, we still tend to underestimate issues of power relationships between north and south, and the depth of the historical
relationships that have existed in both mission and service work. And I think we also have a real challenge of what does it mean to talk about holistic ministry in an interfaith context, and I hope that might be where some of you would have some thoughts in the discussion. Second point in terms of the distinctiveness of the quality of relationships forum, this is where I think there are some wonderful, wonderful stories out of our experiences, Christian-based NGOs. We are not just there in the heart the emergency, often we are there
long before. We are linked to people out of identity, and also out of a shared vision. And I think especially in the area of development and empowerment work, you're establishing long-term relationships, and we begin to have the possibility to mutually identify vision, to mutually define our expectations, our respective responsibilities, and our accountabilities. I think we've made great headway in that, in the arena of development work
and empowerment efforts and advocacy. I think where we have been less successful, and where I still see some of the worst kind of patters is in the whole area of relief and humanitarian crises, where the relationships that perhaps we have established with local actors are often distorted and undermined by just massive influxes of resources, most of which are external, many of which, even through Christian NGOs or other faith NGOs come from governments --
sometimes political agendas are the issue, sometimes it's just the way those funds are designated, and do not support a more holistic and long-term approach. So -- and I apologize, because that goes off the paper that I gave you all ahead of time. So let me just turn quickly, leave those as a couple of thoughts for how we relate to the world. Probably the area where I struggle with the most today, and I want to share just some of those reflections with you is, what do we as those
who are based in the U.S. context, what is it that we offer to the U.S. society? What is it that the church offers to U.S. society that is different in us as part of that mission? In Micah 6:8, we're called to do acts of mercy and justice, but also to walk humbly with our God. And the more that I am involved in this ministry, and I kind of kiddingly say in this business, the more that I believe walking humbly with God is absolutely essential to saving our NGO souls,
and a real precondition to gospel-rooted acts of mercy and justice. I think walking humbly, being vulnerable ourselves is absolutely countercultural in our context and time, because the real challenge in an age of rather intense competition for public attention, for public funds, for claims to be the biggest, the fastest, the most cutting-edge, or simply the best NGO. And that is the societal context
in which many of our faith-based organizations are operating in an absolute myriad of actors now working internationally. And I think there we're called to struggle with the ways that success can undermine our ability to be faithful, and I think success is different in kind of cultural terms than results. Results and impact are part of being faithful and fruitful in our calling, but success tends to be more the public trappings of these claims sometimes
to always be better, and always to be, I think, more innovative, more cutting-edge. And sometimes I think that's not really what is called for, especially in the long haul work of structural and social change. We are in an incredibly privileged position as U.S.-based NGOs, or U.S. expressions of international networks; there's a link among our churches and constituency in this country, and people around the world who are struggling and who are coming up with alternative visions,
particularly in the areas of social and economic justice. And so I think we have not only an opportunity, but a real responsibility to be part of this multi-directional mission flow, kind of, again, this idea of learning from one another, and really coming to mutually-agreed understandings of expectations and responsibilities, and especially within the context of economic globalization. And I don't say that it's all bad or all good, but clearly we are seeing increasing disparities, not only between rich and poor countries,
but the rich and poor within nations, dramatically so in many cases, and undermining a lot of the headway that was made in intangible and tangible efforts in the places where we're operating. And we are privileged, in that sense, to witness some of the really terrible consequences of human decisions by powerful institutions, whether governments or corporations, or yes, even churches. But we're also, in a sense, privileged to hold that
element of hope that emerges from what we are involved in with communities around the world, in which I think the Holy Spirit continues to rekindle hope out of the ashes of despair, through the people whom we serve and accompany. That is an incredibly powerful message that I think our church deeply needs to hear as well. How do we do that in ways that uplift human dignity, and at the same time I think begin to fundamentally challenge some of our understandings of what it means to be disciples of not only the risen Lord,
, but a crucified and risen Lord. Again, I think the fact how Christ's power was demonstrated to the world is totally countercultural to, again, our societal model. So I struggle a lot with how do we walk the talk of our faith, and how do we, as Christian NGOs, hold ourselves to even higher standards of accountability than what you'd expect with the normal nonprofit sector? How do we reflect Jesus Christ in our actions, not only in the international arena, but also here at home in areas like
marketing, communications, fundraising, and our relationships in this country. And I think when kind of the market-driven success and gospel-inspired competence conflict, we need to be brave enough to err on the side of the latter. So with that, I would like to leave you with kind of some initial thoughts, and turn it over to my colleagues.
HUFFMAN: Our first responder is Wesley Granberg-Michaelson, general secretary of the reform church of America, graduate in 1967 of Hope College, and served for eight years on the staff of U.S. Senator Mark Hatfield. From '76 to '80, Wes served as the managing editor for Sojourners Magazine, and was a member of its fellowship. He graduated from Western Theological Seminary
in 1984, was ordained a minister of the Word and Sacrament in the Reform Church of America, and many of us have been enriched by his articles. He's one of the few I know who publishes in a very wide range of publications, all the way from prospective sojourners, Christianity Today, Christian Century and the Ecumenical Review. I've gotten to know Wes in recent years, as I chair the Presbyterian delegation to the
National Council of Churches, and occasionally we'll have a breakfast or a lunch together. And he also is a model for us in terms of marriage, in a team relationship of not only shared names, but shared equality in relationship. And we appreciate you, Wes, and look forward to your responding from your vantage point as a denominational executive, and one who has done a lot of reflection on these things.
GRANBERG-MICHAELSON: Thanks very much, John, and thank you for getting my name right. One of the few times that someone has. This is a true story. I checked into an airport to get my plane ticket a while back, and the clerk was looking at the name and trying to figure it out. And he finally said the computer is saying, "Too many people!" I wanted to respond briefly to
Kathryn, and to lift up three ways in which faith-based NGOs, I think, are distinctive. The person who is probably the most qualified to respond to this issue is just across the street at Princeton University. His name is John [DeLeo?]. He's a sociologist, and he has probably done
the most enterprising work, looking pragmatically and objectively at this question, not looking at it theoretically, but looking at it very practically. And the first response I would offer is that there is now pragmatic, academic, objective evidence that faith-based NGOs are faith-based works
of compassion and service, have results that are different than non-faith-based groups. And in my mind, this is really changing the discussion, and is a whole development that church-based groups should give fresh attention to, especially within the U.S. context. DeLeo has simply gone and looked at what happens when a faith-based
or a church-based drug rehab or housing or job training group in an inner city is working, as opposed to a secular or simply purely government run. And he finds differences. He finds statistical differences, measurable in academic ways, and terms of results of those who are to be served, results in terms of how they come to put
their lives back together in some sense of coherence. There is a whole now new growing literature, and a very interesting debate about this in academic circles, which churches are only beginning to be aware of. I've encountered this particularly through work with a coalition called Call to Renewal, which was begun by a group of us about three years ago,
and which is now trying to look particularly at the issue of poverty in the wake of Welfare Reform, and to say what is the unique contribution of church-based groups, especially in a climate now, when the roles and expectations of faith-based NGOs are becoming radically different within U.S. society. And this presents, I think, tremendous challenges for the church, as well as very significant dangers.
It puts onto the table now a whole set of church-state constitutional issues, in fresh ways that need to be re-examined, because I think what we're beginning to see is that the storefront church in the inner city that has a ministry with its people on the street is actually able to make a kind of difference in a way in which the secular
social Welfare agency has not been able to. But at the same time, it's a sham and an absolute travesty to suggest that the issue of poverty can be given over to faith-based nonprofit sector, period, because there's no way in the world in which the issue of poverty within the U.S. context can be addressed simply by turning that over to those
organizations. So there has to be a whole new kind of partnership between public resources and faith-based, church-based groups; it's going to raise constitutional questions. That debate is already taking place around the charitable choice provisions of the Welfare Reform legislation. I think it's one of the most important discussions, and it really puts forth the first way in which I would suggest an answer to this question; faith-based NGOs
are different in that their results seem objectively to be different. And why is that so, and what does that mean for public policy within the U.S.? Second, faith-based NGOs are different, or should be different, internationally in particular because of the vision that they offer. At the international scene, when one looks at the dynamics of globalization,
what you see, I think, is the development of essentially a global vision which is purely secular and pragmatic in its outlook. The global, dominant vision developed today, through the commercial symbols that now, as we have all heard, create a new global culture, it's a global
vision that is without religious content. It's a global vision that is purely secular, commercial material, and which is, in fact, uniting people, uniting people not only in terms of commercial symbols, but in terms of music, in terms of media images. It's a dominant, global vision that is emerging. At the same time, religious vision today is more
and more particular and provincial, but religious visions, religious activities, are now being expressed, both in Christian terms as well as in other religious traditions, are being expressed in terms that emphasize often narrow particularities. And many times, this ends up being expressed in ways that are most dangerous and destructive. The challenge
of a faith-based NGO organization is to articulate a global vision that is spiritual, and if it's a Christian-based NGO, it's to articulate a global vision that is Christian in the face of global visions that are secular and unreligious, and in the face of religious visions that are narrow in particular, and limited. So that, I think, becomes -- it will increasingly
become a primary challenge to faith-based NGOs. At that point, I would agree and emphasize entirely what Kathryn said about the climate of spirituality that faith-based NGOs need very much to nurture. I think that any who have been involved in the growing NGO community,
and in the growing, now, kind of global NGO culture, is what I would call it, recognize deeply the need for a spirituality that grounds those who give their lives in this work. And that should be a difference that emerges from a faith-based NGO, the development of spirituality amongst those who work and carry out
ministry in a faith-based NGO. The third and final distinctive way in which I think a faith-based NGO is different is in the witness that it is called upon to provide. There is a great tendency, because of developments both within the United States and internationally, for all NGOs to be focused, as Kathryn said, simply on what
they now call their product. And it is crucial for faith-based NGOs to lift up what their central point of witness is within the U.S. context, the issue is not Welfare Reform. The issue is eliminating poverty. That's the question that should be before the country; not is Welfare Reform working or not, but rather, are we making steps towards
elimination of poverty? Within the global situation as well, faith-based NGOs have to bring forth the witness that speaks to the core of the questions, as Kathryn has already emphasized. Is the gap between the rich and the poor being narrowed, or is it increasing? Are all our efforts aimed towards eliminating the scourge of poverty and empowering
people to be all whom God has created them to be? Or, are we simply captive to pragmatic, and frankly market-driven, considerations of is our product succeeding? Is our organization doing well? So the third area is in witness, in which I think a faith-based NGO is distinguished from a secular NGO. I think the particularity and distinctive witness of faith-based NGOs will increase
in the future, and that faith-based NGOs need, unapologetically, to first recognize there is a difference pragmatically in what they seem to be able to do, to reflect on that, understand why that occurs; second to be clear about a distinctive vision in spirituality that marks them and demarks them differently; and third, to be clear about the witness which they're called to give within the situation
we face today.
HUFFMAN: Thank you, Wesley. I hope you're framing some questions and comments. We have a second responder. He is [Etetakumo Etalakin?]. He is from Nigeria. You have him noted as a PhD student here at Princeton Theological Seminary. He studied at Morehouse in Atlanta, and also has his
Master of Divinity, I believe from Princeton, did you say, and is now doing his PhD here. His emphasis is on public theology, as it pertains to religious dialog, and is probing the whole matter of intercultural exchange. I look forward to hearing what your response to this topic is.
ETALAKIN: Good morning.
AUDIENCE: Good morning.
ETALAKIN: Thank you very much, Mr. Huffman, for the kind introduction. I count it a deep privilege to be part of the conversation here this morning, to participate in this conference on a broader level. I am from Nigeria, from Yoruba extraction in particular. And there's a proverb that comes to mind that says that as a
farmer is going to the farm, and keep in mind that when this problem was developed, the roads were dusty roads, that one ought to put water on the ground ahead of one so that the ground is softened, and it makes one's work easier. So I try to keep that in mind as I do my work,
and especially as I partake in this wonderful, enlightening and engaged conversation about NGOs in Africa. I've found the statement by Ms. Wolford to be very informed and intelligent. I have three particular areas of focus that I kind of want to direct my comments to, and perhaps that would help to generate some conversation. The three areas, first of all, the theological dimension, secondly the ethical, thirdly the social scientific. And then from there, I would
try to perhaps offer some suggestions about how we can begin to ameliorate even further as has already been done better relationships. The theological dimension of Ms. Wolford bears a distinct Lutheran personality. I'm a Baptist preacher, so there are a lot -- I'm free-wheeling Baptist, so that means that I can believe and I can share with anyone. But let me say this. The theological rationale set forth in this document is elastic, yet principled.
It is elastic because its broad-based appeal draws of the love ethic of Jesus Christ in a way that is serviceable to a variety of Christian ethical traditions. It is principled because it poses a task of vocation and discipleship as markers that serve as supervised requisites employed for the development of a practical ethic that informs the social work on the ground. This theological one grounds sound church teachings, while simultaneously
it guides and guards church-based social and cultural projects, and I think this needs to be kept in mind, because as has been said, the distinctive mark that these projects bear is the fact that they emphasize vocation and discipleship, and they're rooted in the gospel. And I think this begins to play out when we talk about other regarding elements, such as caring, commitment and concern, elements that are non-market values
and that serve to, I believe, enhance productive relationships in ways that are not necessarily measurable by social scientific data, but in ways that, as has been said, can be verified. Secondly, the ethical dimension. The statement places a premium on trademarks such as love-informed sacrifice, the proclamation of the word and principle servers direct towards one's neighbor, as well as
wide-ranging missing activities. This ethical posture assumes a countercultural posture. And so when Ms. Wolford talks about the openness and the vulnerability of faith-based NGOs, calling for more, in a sense, cultural exchange, one finds the elasticity there even opened up even more, which I think needs to be, given a lot of things that we've learned here at the conference, needs to be even, I think, highlighted at a deeper and greater level,
in terms of vulnerability and walking humbly as a biblical base for that. Lastly, and this is where I think most of the conversation will take place, is the social scientific dimension. The ethical posture posited here, in a way, is silent about the need for subtle and sophisticated social analysis, the effort to explore the organic
tissues of society in order to lay bare the social, economic, political and cultural forces that give a community, society or nation its distinctive character. It is this third dimension that I believe limits the effectiveness of most foreign missionary work done in Africa. Briefly, I will highlight three major trends. My governing question here is this: How do you enlarge the radius of trust, a term that Fukuyama introduced me to, and many of us are
probably familiar with this, in a way that both fosters and foments substantive justice within society and community, and what I mean by that is, how do we allow the flourishing of moral potential and human creativity to take place on the ground within local communities, for example, in West Africa, Accra, Lagos, East Africa and Nairobi, for example? First and foremost, under this item, lack of sound information -- what I have dubbed
here "cultural naiveté," a lack of resourced information concerning the indigenous cultural practices and social processes of the people often result in empty ethical posturing. Oftentimes, the programs of foreign churches do not address the real material and spiritual needs of indigenous people. Something comes to mind; Dr. Peter Paris, who is a professor here, teaches ethics, and he also teaches at Trinity College in Accra, Ghana. He mentions the fact that there are churches here who insist on bringing state-of-the-art equipment; for example, computer
equipment, to places in Accra. Now, you bring this equipment, and it's well-received. And at the same time, though, perhaps in that particular community there are people there that are not exactly computer-literate. Perhaps what is needed is electricity or plumbing, or better schools. So there is a sense where there is a cleavage between what is needed and what is brought over, you see. And then once has to get into dynamics of inter-culture dialog, why people don't want to challenge such ethical moves
in social projects. So that comes to mind. So what I recommend is perhaps the creation on the ground, in the local communities, of conversational and critical space, whereby visibility studies are done, and you poll the community leaders, such as chiefs, pastors, educators, and find out what are the felt needs of the people on the ground. For example, if you bring computers to a place like Moshi and Lagos, Nigeria, for example, you have a question of electricity because first of all, you have to deal with servers
and electricity might be gone three quarters of the week. And so when those computers are employed, so to speak, one has to wonder about the physical ability of them, and let along questions of access, and so on and so forth. So that's there. Let me move quickly along. Secondly, lack of effective communication among NGOs, more effective communication among various western-based NGOs could be developed. Oftentimes NGOs are repetitive rather than reproductive. They interject
one another, rather than intersect one another. More effective programming, communication and coordination among various NGOs may provide and ensure communicative harmony and inter-group unity, so that people are not overlapping and repeating the same kind of work. So maybe there's more communication that can be done on these -- on this end of the line. Also, what I've found is sometimes theological slippage. This simply is the fact that NGOs,
and I can't emphasize enough, the way in which it was laid out in this statement, and perhaps I know it was received over the tape -- perhaps if we can get a copy of the statement, we can better appreciate the fact that the distinctive marks of witness, vocation and discipleship provide the framework for this kind of work. But oftentimes, however, NGOs on the ground get involved with local and national politics to the extent where we lose our distinctive Christian identity and our
work of witness and proclamation, and we get sidetracked. And then the people that we intend to serve are not really developed along those lines. So that's the third area of theological slippage. In closing, I would just like to say that there is no question, in my view, that the theological and ethical questions are there, and that are broad-based, elastic and principled. However, I would also call more attention to the certain themes that we have mentioned already today
about openness and vulnerability, because as I heard, and my brother is here today, Brother Adrian Backus, who mentioned yesterday that there's a (inaudible) where Westerners go to teach and to develop the people in a sense of carrying over-Colonial and imperialist baggage, rather than at the same time creating equal space whereby we also engage in listening, because there's a lot that I can say, and I don't want to go over that too much, because it's already been said. But I want to just emphasize it because I think it creates
a more productive and harmonious conversation as well as among faith-based NGOs. So, thank you very much.
HUFFMAN: Let's keep going. Etetakumo, thank you for your sharing. As one who has both my master divinity and my doctor of ministry degree from Princeton here, I find it a joy as I travel the world to see Princeton product out there just about every part of the world I go. And it's wonderful to see theological institutions like Princeton and Fuller with its school world missions and others that are really applying themselves
to a global vision, and producing the leadership of the future. In my class here, there were three that I've tracked with through the years; one went on to be the moderator of the Presbyterian Church in East Africa, Bernard Muindi, one went on to be the head of the Bible Society in Egypt and professor of theology at the Coptic Church, [Abdul Estaphanus?], and another, Saphir Athyal, who is doing his doctorate here, went on to be the president of
Union Seminary in India. And we look forward to the contribution you'll make, and Adrian and others of you as you carry on your work for our Lord. I hope you've got some questions. There's always a pregnant pause at this point, so I'm going to ask a question, and then we'll recognize Bob Sippel. And Wesley, you teased me with your one point, there is a measurable,
observable kind of difference between the faith-based NGO and what the secular, or governmental-oriented, and you kept saying that. But you didn't say what is the measurable difference, or what are the measurable differences. You mentioned DeLeo and his study.
GRANBERG-MICHAELSON: Mm-hmm. Yeah, you -- most of this work has been done in looking at particularly NGOs operating in the states and intercity environments, and looking at particular issues, be it rates of recovery from drug addiction, or from job training, or any number of issues. And what is being found is that there is
a measurable difference in those activities that are faith-based, when -- if you say how many people, for instance, make it through drug rehabilitation, or if you say how many people successfully go through a job training program. That's where the study is being done. And it's -- and there's discussions being carried out not by people who have a religious bias one way
or another, but by academics who are trying to understand the dynamics of what's going on within a particularly urban America today. Now, that's not across the board. You, of course, find many examples of sort of secularly run social Welfare agencies, they're doing well in faith-based things that are disasters. But on the whole, that's what their own studies are showing. I mean, I --
HUFFMAN: (inaudible) you're saying the faith-based has --
GRANBERG-MICHAELSON: Yeah.
HUFFMAN: -- a greater product.
GRANBERG-MICHAELSON: Yes. Yeah, exactly. I think DeLeo got into this when he, by accident, he was trying to relate rates of crime to different objective factors. And the first thing he chose was prevalence of liquor stores. Could you make a positive correlation between the rate of crime in a given area and the number of liquor stores that were there? I mean, these are the things, you know, sociologists are always trying to figure out, some numbers here that make sense. And then he found, in
different communities, with about the same number of liquor stores, different crime rates. So we tried to figure out, now, what accounts for this, you know? So he decided to measure the number of churches. And often, these were small, storefront, you know, indigenous churches. He suddenly found that in areas where there were more churches, there was less crime, that there was a positive correlation that he found. And he is kind of a --
he'll describe himself as a "wayward Catholic sociologist at Princeton University," who now has -- he has, and others, are kind of recovering their sense of the importance of what it means when the church is involved in some of these situations, because he's observing that it actually makes a difference in what happens. That's the level of the discussion right now. I think others maybe even here in the room are far better informed
than I, but I've been with DeLeo on two or three occasions and had looked at his data and been in group discussion. And I think it's simply an area we need to begin to give some attention to.
HUFFMAN: I'm going to ask as the questions come forward, or the comments, that you identify yourself for purposes of recording. We'll recognize first Bob Sippel, then Judith.
SIPPEL: Bob Sippel, State Department. Just some comments I'd like to hear on the relationship of theologically-based faith institutions, and these pillars of developmental philosophy; namely, transformation and sustainability. And maybe more specifically, is there something about our faith in its (inaudible) vision that under guards
a different kind of definition of sustainability that is also practically and pragmatically important in difficult places of the world.
HUFFMAN: Are you addressing this to anyone in particular, or the panel on the whole?
SIPPEL: Anyone.
WOLFORD: Well, let me start, and I'll pass it along. I guess one principle that I would say does characterize many faith-based organizations is a sense of -- that our real call is to be faithful, even more than to be effective. And I think that gives us a stick-with-it in terms of the sustainability of long-term commitments in an atmosphere where, as I said, I think we're really pushed to these kind of immediate results where you have
something on the ground that you can show. But that's not usually where the factors of sustainability in terms of -- particularly in terms of community cohesion come about. I think that's much more, again, in the relationships and the values that are nurtured within a community structure, and no matter what the particular activity is, or activities that the community is working on. So in that sense, I think there is a distinct development in which faith-based communities speak of sustainability. And I think we also tend to put a much higher
emphasis on the environmental aspect of sustainability in terms of the integrity of creation, whereas in the secular conversations in which I'm usually involved in sustainability, there seems to be a much heavier emphasis on economic sustainability as the ultimate test. Can a community continue to pay for the services that are provided and not looking more holistic at what does it mean in terms of a community's ability through the whole process to begin to better-identify its own assets and resources, and experiences
that it can build on and use to undertake whatever needs or aspirations that they're trying to address as a community. And I use "community" in kind of a -- for everything from the very local to a much broader sense. So I'll throw that out as a beginning.
GRANBERG-MICHAELSON: I'd agree very much with Kathryn. Sustainability is one of those words that everyone in the NGO community now agrees upon, but which no one has an agreed-upon set of what it means.
WOLFORD: It's elastic.
GRANBERG-MICHAELSON: Yeah, it's very elastic. The --we had discussions at the World Council in which we specifically tried to talk about the sustainable society and sustainable community, and not talk about sustainable development, exactly for the reason that Kathryn said, because there is tendency for definitions of sustainability to be so exclusively economically driven that they became narrow, and I think that most faith-based
or religious community, one of their contributions was to try to broaden the understanding of sustainability in that way.
M: Just a follow-up question I have, maybe sharpen the question. Hope also has to be sustained.
GRANBERG-MICHAELSON: Mm-hmm.
M: And secular psychologists, sociologists and (inaudible) would all say that that is true, it seems to me that a faith-based NGO has a better chance, theologically grounded, to sustain hope.
GRANBERG-MICHAELSON: Mm-hmm.
M: In what might be found in the secular world. I asked the question in the context of an Africa that has had billions of dollars poured into it, and 20, 30, 40 years of sustainable developmental process later, in many respects is repeating itself, with its outbreaks and its wars, and so on. And the concern, of course, if sustainability can't be
created and maintained and developed, defined, [pointed?]. There could be a point in time where the money markets of the world stop and (inaudible) compassion and (inaudible).
HUFFMAN: We have a young man on the campus here went out with our board to Kinshasa, and was there, what, two months, and everything blew up with Kabila and is back here living on campus with his wife and children. And that's disturbing. I mean, do you have any comments on this from your perspective?
ETALAKIN: Well, the question, I think, is well-stated, and it's well-taken. I couldn't agree more with the fact that we do have resources within the Christian tradition to generate faith, hope, and so on and so forth. It would seem to me, just to add to that, that -- there's a gentleman on campus here called Andrew [Walsh?] who is a historian of Christianity of missions in Africa and so on and so forth, he worked there for many years, from England.
And in conversations with him, one of the things that keeps on coming out is that when Christian-based organizations get to African locales, it seems that we do a poor job, and this is really not just missionary projects, these are really churches located within Africa -- we do very poor jobs of locating the deep cultural patterns within local communities, such as
cultural sensibilities, lifestyles, and so on, that have been sustained over generations, which are ready receptacles for Christian phenomena and Christian sensibilities. So when those things can be identified, and we develop long-lasting relationships with those kinds of elements, then it seems to me that the question of eschatology, sustainability can find a more fertile sort, so to speak, to be rooted. But I think we do a poor job of identifying
long-lasting indigenous cultural values. And that can help to curb the ways in which we talk about development on deeper levels, and so on and so forth, over a space in time.
MAYOTTE: Judy Mayotte, and I come at two areas that I'd like to ask about. I served on the executive committee of IRC and as the chair to Women's Commission for Refugee Women and Children, which are both non-sectarian organizations. I also have been working with Johns Hopkins [size?] in creating a center on religion and development. And what I'm -- two things that I am wondering;
number one, I've worked with Lutheran World Relief, for example, in (inaudible) and different places like that, Julie [McDonald?], (inaudible). And I'm wondering in regard to personnel, when you're talking about faith-based organizations, Lutheran World Services is under the auspices of the Lutheran Church, Catholic Relief Services, World Vision. Many of them have been very overt, like (inaudible), and
it's Christianizing people. Their others are much more subtle, and I wonder in faith-based organizations such as Lutheran World Relief, where personnel might not necessarily have the same faith-based values, whereas somebody in IRC might have those values. The second thing that I want to know, and probably address you, Wes, in a way, is that -- and you were talking more
in regard to the study that was done in smaller groups in the United States, more and more today, because of the Welfare and the Charitable Choice clause, and because of the complexity overseas of situations, NGOs are being asked to do more and more than they've ever been -- than they've ever done before. And I wonder how you feel as far -- I think, Kevin, you said something about being faithful more than effective. And yet,
you're being called to be more effective, simply because of the Welfare Reform. What is the charge for people to really be solidly trained, as far as both relief and development is concerned? Because you can't just go out in a storefront church with your good faith and do something. And yet it's being asked, and NGOs far and more both in
development and in relief overseas are being asked to do more. Those are the two areas.
WOLFORD: OK, I'll start. Just on the first question, clearly just because you're in a faith-based NGO, doesn't mean you have a monopoly on the ability to witness to faith. And I think that there are many examples in other organizations where the principals may not state explicitly as Christians, but people of faith, whether Jewish or Christian or Islam, join those organizations as an expression of their own personal faith and ability to communicate that through the work. That is actually an interesting discussion within the Lutheran World Federation family, and a lot of it, I think, relates again to from whence
we come. Many of our members come out of state church traditions, predominantly government-funded. I think there is a difference than some of the other members of the family who has come out of much more of a church-rooted, independent, privately-funded more flexibility. And that is actually reflected some in the hiring as well, in terms of what kinds of people are drawn to those. It's actually, I think, in a number of the organizations, but within the Lutheran family, that is a
question at this point for many of us, of how we do get more coherence than that. Can I just say a word about the second one and then turn it over? I think -- I want to be careful not to say you're either faithful or effective -- I think it really is a mixture of both. I guess where I worry some is that I think the push to be effective in service delivery is where I worry about whether it undermines the commitment to social transformation and structural change. And I think that's one of the dangers that I see overseas,
as governments devolve a lot of the responsibilities for healthcare or education. NGOs were torn between jumping at the bit because we think we can do a good job with it, and because that's where the funds are, and whether or not it actually undermines -- and this is true not only for U.S., but also for indigenous NGOs -- whether it undermines our abilities to be really effective forces for broader transformation in their societies. And I think that's just a real struggle that we all are trying
to figure out where we belong in that mix.
GRANBERG-MICHAELSON: You know, and actually respond briefly to both issues, the question of who you hire to do your work is, in fact, now becoming a very big issue within the U.S. in the working out of the Charitable Choice provisions of the Welfare Reform Act. For instance, if you have situations where federal or
state funds are given over to a religious group, and I mean, this may be a Christian Pentecostal group, or it may be a Lutheran Social Services, or it may be a Black Muslim charitable organization, or whatever. But the question, then, is, well, who can they hire in administrating those programs? And what those faith-based groups will say is that in order to do what we do, I mean, we want to be able to --
you know, we want to have staff who share our common faith. We want to be able to pray together in the morning. We want to be able to have a bible study group. Now, the question of proselytism is very, very clear. And I don't think anyone is disputing that. But you have right now a growing legal question between those who are what I would call "church-state fundamentalists," who will say, you know, any federal money that goes to a private
agency to carry out some federal program, then that agency has to be subject to all the equal opportunity and all the federal requirements with regard to hiring practices, to which the group says, you know, we won't be who we are if that's what you expect us to do. So that, I think, in the next couple of years will become increasingly a constitutional issue that will be debated precisely
because governments are expecting the nonprofit and faith-based community to do more and more. And so I just identified that as an important question, and also say I think it's very important that there be discussion between those NGOs who have had primarily international experience, and those groups now working domestically in the U.S., because what some have observed is that there's been a big
difference in how those laws have been applied by the U.S. government when you look outside the boundaries of the United States, as opposed to when you look inside. And I don't think there's much logical reason for that, but I think in practice, groups like Lutheran World Relief, Lutheran World Federation, Caritas World Vision, Church World Service, have had far more experience in dealing with government agencies in carrying
out their work, experience that needs to be reflected upon. Now that those expectations are put upon -- increasingly are put upon domestic faith-based organizations. So I think there's a whole new important dialog that needs to take place. And finally, the faithfulness and effectiveness dilemma, I think it's important to get the question right. And the question is, are we being effective, in this case are we
being effective in eliminating poverty? What are we being effective about? Where it will be faithful, if we're being faithful to eliminate poverty? We will not be faithful if we're effective in delivering a good product that has a lot of good numbers and results, but doesn't look at the broader challenges before them.
HUFFMAN: I'd like to make a comment in this regard, and that is, seeing it from the international perspective in terms of recruitment of personnel. I see an interesting evolution over the last ten years or so of a movement of between organizations. For example, in Mozambique, our World Vision director came over from Church World Service in Central America. In Tanzania this summer, I saw our national director was Reformed Church of America, and had worked with you in projects
in Africa.
ETALAKIN: In Tanzania?
HUFFMAN: Booy, Dirk Booy.
ETALAKIN: Oh! Yeah.
HUFFMAN: And very bright Canadian married to a Dutch woman trained at, I believe, Calvin -- no, I think he may have been Christian Reform. Christian Reform, I think he was Calvin, if I'm not wrong. But this is an interesting dynamic. But the concern I have is with the rapid turnover at the local level. We work in between 100, 106 countries, World Vision, and we work all the way from employing
locals in Roman Catholic background in Latin America or Evangelical Pentecostals to mainline denominational types in Africa, or independence, or going into Vietnam, where we sit down with Marxist leadership and we have restraint on who we can employ in the area, how to convey a product that conveys our
message. And I would add to not only the numbers, and are moving to eliminate poverty, I would say from the standpoint of there is a Christian witness that is imperative, not that we make [Christ?] Christians, but that we at least make it clear we're doing this in the name of Jesus Christ.
ETALAKIN: Exactly.
HUFFMAN: But that does not mean that what we offer is exclusive to those who accept our message. That is something that we try very hard in World Vision. But I think that you wanted to pursue that a little bit further.
WOLFORD: Well, I just, I think the only comment that I'd like to say is that, you know, when most of us started out in this kind of work, we sort of went out by the seat of our pants and thought we could, you know, change the world. And that is the same way with the Peace Corps, or whatever it was. And technologically, the times have changed. I mean, a water pump is not the same water pump in a certain sense today as it was then. And so I worry, I guess, about the adequate training of people,
and the kind of development work that needs to be done. Do they both, in our own country and overseas, and whether it's people who are indigenous NGOs, or whether it's international NGOs, or whatever it is, that the kind of technical training that's needed today is far more than it ever was. And a preacher in a church can't -- doesn't know economics, for example. And so
it seemed, I mean, a lot of times. But I think that there is a floundering in a certain sense, and I think this is a big issue right now, too, is the technical kind of preparation in order to eliminate poverty. I mean, ask the question, and how do you answer it? And part of the answer has to be in the kind of adequate training that goes beyond the theological or beyond that kind of thing, because if you're going -- if part of
the Christian gospel is to see the elimination of poverty, which it is, then the steps to be taken to do that have to be adequate, too.
HUFFMAN: I'm going to move this on, because I've seen -- I now see eight hands up. Let's go here, here, Marion and there, if we can move quickly -- go ahead.
WAGNER: Doug Wagner. And having worked with two NGOs, I'm concerned about the issue of staff burnout, and wonder if anyone can share wisdom on that. And there's others in this room who had (inaudible).
HUFFMAN: What I'm going to as is that we be real succinct now, since we have so many that want to get into it, and we have 20 minutes maximum left. So let's -- quick responses, not everybody needs to respond.
GRANBERG-MICHAELSON: I want to jump in. I think having worked on a denominational staff, I'm concerned about staff burnout. I think the organizational culture of religious organizations, denominational staff, faith-based NGOs is crucial. And I think we need to recover a spirituality that sustains us in our service. I think we should look at -- to the Catholic orders, I think we should look to those places that have learned how to do that. I
constantly come across, both within my own staff, in any of our wives and in friends in NGOs those who are burning themselves out. And what happens is that their witness becomes diminished because of their own personal incapacities, which is really a result of the failure of the culture of the organization to sustain spirituality.
HUFFMAN: OK.
M: Larry (inaudible) with the (inaudible). Kathryn, you mentioned Oxfam and the water pump illustration. Oxfam, interestingly, is, of course, one of the agencies that has done most with the concept of empowerment, and with policy research design to minimalize the impacts of resistance along the negative lines that you work, you were describing. So I was wondering if you could sharpen
up a little bit the -- how that particular issue plays out in terms of faith-based and non-faith-based, and that some non-faith-based organizations have really set a fast pace in terms of the empowerment and transformation issues. On your second set of issues, what do faith-based organizations offer society? I certainly would concur in what you say about
the different set of relationships across borders, being sort of the focal point or the springboard to a justice and transformation society at home. I was reflecting last night of Bob Sippel's response to a comment in his presentation that he considered his constituency in his new job to be, I think you said, hurting people around the world, where people that need
people whose human rights were abused -- that struck me as perhaps valid of his prior incarnation of World Vision, but perhaps less so in terms of the U.S. government and state department official caught up in institutional power relationships and agendas globally. So I was wondering if you could, again, tease your comments out a little bit about a different set of networking possibilities enables faith-based NGOs to bring something new into American society.
WOLFORD: Yeah, on the first one, you know, to be very blunt, I think sometimes Oxfam, for example, and I use them very specifically, might walk the talk of faith values better than some faith-based organizations, because they're very intentional carrying out -- now, it wouldn't be with an explicit Christian witness, but in terms of some of the underlying humanitarian values that -- I would bet that LWF and Oxfam could sit in two different rooms and probably come up with the same set of values underlying, and one might actually live them out
better than the other. So again, I just -- I really -- I always leave a lot of room for the Holy Spirit. I just don't think that we have kind of a monopoly on the ability to live out values which are very consistent with our faith. I think the question always is, again, in faith-based organizations, how explicit are we about the underlying gospel message in proclaiming liberating truth of God incarnate in Christ? So I think it really varies quite a bit among Christian
organizations, and among so-called secular, because many people drawn to the so-called secular organizations are there out of, again, faith-based principles, at least as individuals. That's why they're drawn to this work, because of personal vocation. And I think that's reflected a lot in what they do. So just kind of quick comment on that. On the networking and changing the nature of relationships, I guess one of the places where I do feel that faith-based organizations distinguish
themselves by and large, I think, is in the arena of trying to have deep conversations with our colleagues in other parts of the world about, for example, the impact of economic globalization, and trying to draw from that up to the level of education within our own countries, challenging structures. Again, it's not just what's going on in Africa, but it's how does that relate back to the countries from which we operate? And that has allowed, I think, some very wonderful partnerships around advocacy issues,
you know, Jubilee, or before in the Apartheid movement where, I think, that again the faith-based organizations have a sense of stick-with-it, and a willingness to begin to look critically at our own structures, and speak truth to the powers that be in our own country. I'm not sure if that's getting it where -- I mean, you'd need to sharpen your question for me to be able to probably answer it more clearly, but I think that's one way where the global movement of faith-based organizations has
taken some major step forward, and again, not exclusively faith-based. You know, Oxfam would be a good example again. There are others who join in for whatever reasons, but with a common vision, a sense of vision about where we want to go with issues around global economic justice, for example. I don't know if that --
HUFFMAN: OK. See, I think Marion.
MCCLURG: Marion [McClurg?], I worked for a secular NGO for as long as I worked for the church. And when I worked for the Ford Foundation, I made grants to both secular and faith-based NGOs. So I found the panel's discussion very interesting. But when I saw the topic if this panel, faith-based NGOs, what they offered is different, it didn't even occur to me that it would be the comparison between the secular and the faith-based NGOs that would be the topic. I thought it was, what do they offer
that's different from the church? From church (inaudible). And so really, if you don't mind, try to frame the question a little bit that way, because briefly, a couple of you have mentioned the church. And church is not a faith-based NGO. It's different. So we need to think a little bit about that, or at least I'd like to challenge us to. When you talk about Catholic orders, for instance, we think of special callings within the Christian vocation.
But within the Catholic Church, somehow they manage to stay in some kind of relationship, sometimes very tense. What are the advantages of staying in a relationship? What difference does it make as we look at the spectrum of faith-based NGOs, that some of them stay church-rooted, or church-related, and others do not. Let me just tease out a few things, because I've been really needing some help thinking about, if we're going to think about comparative advantages, complementarities, feedback loops, you know,
ways that we need to stay in touch between what a church is and what a faith-based NGO is, we need to really put our minds to it. So I've been thinking, what are those main distinctives of a church, and in relationship to what you're saying, just three quick examples, then I'm just going to throw the question out, what difference does it make? One thing that's different about the church is that it's multi-generational in its cradle to grave. We're about nurturing faithful disciples through the life,
for a lifetime. And when Wes talks about correlations with crime rates, he was the first person to mention churches because what made the difference in those areas where there was high crime was that there were churches, churches are different because they raise families. They raise teenagers. They make a difference in families. They hold people accountable. Faith-based NGOs don't do that. So that was a correlation that had to do with churches, not faith-based NGOs,
I think. A second distinctive of churches is the wrong relationships. And we talked about the fact that we were there before the crisis. I suspect that you mean churches are there before the crisis, or at least in the case of a Presbyterian Church, we have relationships that go back decades and decades. And when I was in the Congo, I'm trying (inaudible) over 107 years. So when there's a crisis in the Congo, yeah, we were already there,
we already had partners, we already had people that would even tell us what's needed. Is that distinctive to churches, or faith-based NGOs developing that longevity of relationships? And if not, how can we help each other? And then finally, you talk about vision, the global vision that faith communions, churches, tend to be more particular, and there's this larger ecumenical possibility in a global vision through faith-based NGOs. How does that get looped back into the church?
Because theological development is a task for the church. If you're not affecting pastors, and they're training in seminaries, and seminaries are supported by denominations, then how does that ever get back into a global vision for the whole church? So I'm just throwing out some challenges here, for a topic that apparently wasn't the topic of this (inaudible).
HUFFMAN: In all fairness, I think to -- we don't have the presupposition that the NGO is not church-related. I would assume from the Protestant tradition that in some ways, some of these NGOs are orders. They have --
GRANBERG-MICHAELSON: They should be.
HUFFMAN: They have been raised up --
MCCLURG: That's what I said, they ought to be (inaudible).
HUFFMAN: -- with resources that the church itself is not able to sustain to the extent of emergency funds that are raised and so forth. But I know World Vision works constantly with the local church, recruits from the local church, its national leadership. And they were there before, and they were there afterwards. But Wes, or who wants to -- do you want to take a stab at it? I mean, you've done a lot of work --
ETALAKIN: It's not my area, basically.
HUFFMAN: OK.
ETALAKIN: I'll have to defer.
GRANBERG-MICHAELSON: No, I mean, I think Marion's established the dialog for a whole other session, which is absolutely fascinating, and I'm very, very intrigued. I think that one of the other struggles going on that I see today is what you've identified; namely, how do faith-based NGOs begin to understand their
own relationship to churches in their own identity in light of those relationships, and at the same time, how do the agencies that are directly related to denominations, including the ecumenical agencies, how are they to recover their sense of being church first and agencies second? That latter question is now squarely before the World Council of Churches
in its whole process of trying to re-understand what it is. One of the criticisms is that it has seen to evolve into primarily a big, ecumenical agency, instead of being a Council of Churches. One of the most interesting things in my observation of the work of World Vision over the years is what John has already alluded to, the sense that they have increasingly come to say our
own identity depends upon how we understand our relationship to churches, and what that means, and how that stretches us as a so-called parachurch organization. I would just underscore the fact you've outlined a whole other discussion that really is crucial for us.
HUFFMAN: I mean, World Vision is a real interesting thing to me. In some ways, the ecumenicity of an organization that sometimes there's question about how ecumenical we are, yet we do move into parts of the world where we are working directly with the Roman Catholic church, and other parts where we're working directly with the Pentecostals, in what basically has been a goal of the ecumenical movement to embrace these and also independent Evangelicals, as well as mainline churches. I don't know how we would function without the church, and we don't always do it well. We now
have -- friends, this thing is unbelievable. We've got five people who want to comment. Let's go here, there, real quick, OK? Your name?
CASSIN: Yeah, I'm Donna Cassin, and you had mentioned when you talked about the struggle against Apartheid and the work that the church did to bear witness during those years. The organization that I work with works primarily in South Africa, it's called Shared Interest, and it does work with a great number of faith-based NGOs. And one of the strands of the discussion here, the tension between social transformation and social service is something that is very real in South Africa, as it is in our own communities. The tension within NGOs between -- in South Africa, the case was moving from assistance to reconstruction, as our communities are torn by
cutbacks between building a community, helping communities survive, and working to eliminate the causes of the poverty, not just the consequences. My question is, what can faith-based NGOs specifically offer, and I believe that there are a number of things that they can offer, to really sustain this kind of creative tension between community-building and service provision, and societal transformation.
WOLFORD: I'd be interesting in hearing how your comments on that, since you obviously thought about it. It would be good, just a couple.
HUFFMAN: Do you want to say a word, and then --
CASSIN: I could say. I think one of the things that's important is I think that there is an answer to the question that the (inaudible) is endemic, and that it's critical. And then at the same time, that churches and faith-based NGOs recognize they have to feed people, and they have to make that community real, that they also have to address to keep the witness in mind, to keep the advocacy role alive. I think that faith-based NGOs are very often so well-informed by their work
on the ground, that if they can just crank themselves out of the terrible stressed out, burned out, (inaudible), trying to keep our organizations going, there is the potential to understand issues (inaudible) into communicating (inaudible).
HUFFMAN: Etetakumo?
ETALAKIN: Oh no, that's well-received. Thank you very much. I'm taking notes.
HUFFMAN: You're taking notes? I thought you were ready to go. OK.
M: I think there -- one quick thing. I think on the urban side, you're saying -- you touched upon something you were concerned about. There is a mutation, in my view, from some of the things you were mentioning here (inaudible), and in the sense of the church, faith-based NGOs in the development, or Community Development Corporation. And this is a piece that I've strongly studied, because I used to deal with small businesses, and (inaudible). One of the things that concerned me is with this Welfare piece,
because it's becoming real big in churches, local churches are creating these seeds to receive these funds. And there, the chairman of the board, he sees a [pastor?]. My concern about that, given that you're talking about save monies, or whatever, does that compromise certain theologies in the church in some way? Because who is (inaudible) what they can do, like you do in the contract, and I would ask the question in faith-based NGOs on an international level, when there's a USAID
project, do you receive your funds from USAID? And if so, if it's a population project, CRS went on the ground with that, the issue of contraception in the population, very different from some of the other NGOs that were in certain countries. And my understanding in 1994 when we were talking about Africa is that out of the 120 some-odd bureaus that were closing, the Balkan states and the others moving around, about 50 of those who were bureaus I think were close [advocate constantly?],
because there was a development of the private sector privatization in Africa, which was the whole concept, working on sustainability and credit, this whole thing here. So my piece would be, is, do you see (inaudible) gentleman here relative to this church as you mentioned, faith-based NGO, and this thing in the middle called Community Development Corporation --
HUFFMAN: Good --
M: -- which is being created because some churches don't have endowment monies.
ETALAKIN: As [Celine?] about that.
HUFFMAN: Would you speak to that?
GRANBERG-MICHAELSON: Yeah, you're absolutely right. Is there a tension? Yes. Is the tension the churches has experienced before and dealt with? Yes, particularly in the international sphere. You know, either -- it's like I think the society has two choices, or three choices maybe, either we say a responsibility for dealing and eliminating poverty is to be a solely governmental responsibility, society seems to have rejected that answer. Second answer is that
responsibility of eliminating poverty has to be shared between government, church and the private sector, and if the nonprofit faith-based organizations are to play a key role, all the questions you say are on the table become crucial for us to figure out. And the third response is, well, we're going to have Welfare Reform, but we're really not going to worry about the bottom 15, 20 percent who finally are going to just fall through the cracks.
M: And the reason I said (inaudible) --
HUFFMAN: Ah --
M: -- on the ground.
HUFFMAN: Mm-hmm? One more.
PETERS: Vincent Peters from St. Paul, Minnesota. There was an emphasis made on the importance of the trust that has to exist between the NGOs, faith-based NGOs in the communities. And I also strongly believe that the trust has to exist between faith-based NGOs. Could you please comment on what level of trust that exists? How it exists between faith-based NGOs?
WOLFORD: Is the tape still rolling? I think it depends. I mean, I think, for example, in my own case, there is clearly a strong affinity among a certain group of faith-based agencies, partly because we've taken the time just like we do with overseas communities to test, is there coherence between certain pursuits of identity, vision, and commitment to certain principles and operating principles of work. But I guess I just there are just myriads of Christ NGOs out there,
and there are some with whom we just would not find it as comfortable to work. But I think -- I guess I would give faith-based agencies some credit for trying to not fall prey to all the competitive modes that are out there. I don't think we're totally successful. But I think there has been a growing awareness of the need for cooperation. Sometimes it's simply tactical, and I think it really depends on each agency's experience. And again, most of us are rooted in a particular
church; you have the Church World Service family. There's a natural affinity, for example, within that group, and a long history of working together, ourselves with the Quakers, the Mennonites, Church World Service, Catholic Relief Services I mean, there's definitely some histories where we've tried to cooperate both on the ground, but also on broader advocacy agendas.
GRANBERG-MICHAELSON: I'd just add that I think this is becoming -- I think there are new levels of challenge here, because what has happened in my observation at the World Council is that the more ecumenical faith-based groups and their related agencies in the past have tended to operate separately from the more Evangelical and Pentecostal-oriented, and then
Catholic has been a whole other matter. Now, what I observe happening, I don't know if you would -- if I listened to colleagues, say, in Africa comment on that, the best single comment I ever heard was actually from James (inaudible) Beré, who was, I think became vice president of World Vision in Africa. But we were having a discussion in World Vision World Council, and he finally said, "When two elephants fight, the grass gets trampled."
WOLFORD: Yeah.
GRANBERG-MICHAELSON: And then I think there's been a tendency for the divisions within the north to be superimposed into the south, and to create problems and issues there that are really another form of our own Colonialism. And that, I think, we have to begin to think about freshly.
HUFFMAN: Let's say thank you to our panel, the discussions can continue as you have coffee. And thank you so much!
F: Thank you.
(unrelated material, not transcribed)