Whether it's rebuilding Haiti or debating about America's health care or immigration reform, it's just plain silly to leave out the religious actors. They are advocates, doers and thinkers who have vast knowledge and experience. But plenty of thoughtful citizens prefer to relegate religion to the margins.
A leading reason is the nagging worry about proselytizing and conversion. Nowhere does this have more immediate, day-to-day significance than for what is called "aid conversion." The topic of proselytizing comes up whenever there's a discussion about religion and international development. It stymies many a sensible effort to build creative partnerships because of the argument that religious groups cannot exercise the kind of neutrality that today's plural communities demand.
"Aid conversion," crudely, means linking charity and development aid to a religious message and, at its most intense, insisting that the recipients convert in order to receive the aid. There's a broad consensus that this is legally, morally, religiously and intellectually wrong. That applies especially to humanitarian crises (like the Haiti earthquake) where any kind of strings on help are regarded as abhorrent. Geneva accords and other international agreements make that clear. Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, Hindus and Christians, as well as others, can readily agree.
That does not change the wide perception that much religious aid comes with strings, even in crises. And in every crisis there are horror stories about groups that link their humanitarian aid to a religious message. But the reality is that only a tiny fringe steps over the line.
But when development work comes into the picture, the story gets more complex. Ideas about missionary work have changed drastically over the past decades, and today people are still debating what is right and wrong. Those working to help the poor all over the world are at the forefront of the debates.
The "mainstream" view is that any kind of manipulation or enticement to win over others to one's own faith is immoral and irreligious. The huge faith-inspired organizations like Catholic Relief Services, World Vision, Islamic Relief, Jewish World Service, and the Adventist Relief and Development Agency are crystal clear on this. More specifically, they see the "spreading the good news" work that is indeed part of many religious mandates as separate, carried out by the church itself, and never by the development arm. That's true also for the Church of Latter Day Saints.
But in
hundreds of conversations with those who work to end poverty, I've probed motives and asked about guidelines. Most argue with deep sincerity that what motivates them is a passion for social justice and caring for those who suffer. They stress that while their own faith motivates and inspires them, their service is in no way tied to a desire to bring converts to their church. But, they say, "When someone asks why I'm here, I will answer honestly that it's because of my faith." Codes of conduct essentially follow a path that could be described as St. Francis's rule: preach always but rarely with words.
But there are some organizations that believe it is not possible to separate material and spiritual help, and that religious support is as important as food and medical care. These organizations are the ones that wrestle with government rules, debating whether to seek or accept government funds.
Compassion International, a marvelous organization that has supported over a million children worldwide, is in this camp.
When the critics rail against insensitive proselytizing that aggravates religious tensions and tramples the human right to free choice, it's worth remembering that the offenders constitute a small minority of religious groups, not the mainstream. And while most faith-inspired work is remarkable for its dedication to helping people and creating a better world, the questions about what that better world should look like are truly important. The lines separating saintly support from religiously motivated action are not always as precise as they may seem. Transparency and honest discussion are what we need as much as laws and codes of conduct.
