Ministering to the Hunger Belt

Many Christians are being sensitized to their responsibility to engage in compassionate ministries, but no evangelical agency has taken on the task more ambitiously than World Vision. The staff ofCHRISTIANITY TODAYrecently interviewed Dr. W. Stanley Mooneyham, president of World Vision, with a view to giving its readers a larger perspective on how the world is hurting and what Christians can and should do to relieve the hurt. Here is an edited distillation of that interview:

Question. Are there enough food resources to feed all the hungry people?

Answer. A recent International Labor Organization report from Geneva says no; there’s not enough land on which to grow food. My own research and experience cause me to question that. I have seen scrub land, almost desert, blossom like a rose when water was put on it. Millions of acres of such land are available for food production if we would invest the money to utilize them. While not overlooking the problems of production, including the present cultivation of most of America’s arable land, I believe the greatest problem is distribution, not production.

Q. To what extent are political problems an obstacle in relief work?

A. From the standpoint of agencies such as ours, there are two problems. Although we are international in program, staff, and policies, we are sometimes viewed as an American organization with ties to American foreign policy and the CIA because our headquarters is in the United States. I don’t know that this has ever really kept us out of a country, but we are sensitive to the feeling. We are just waiting to see if we will be permitted to stay in Laos under the new coalition government.

Secondly, our evangelical Christian orientation makes it difficult or impossible to work in some countries. We would like to work in North Viet Nam but were rebuffed in our attempts to explore this with the Communist government.

On the other side, inter-country problems may present insurmountable obstacles for outside relief agencies. In the tribal conflicts in Burundi the ruling group wants to hide from the outside world the mass killings of minorities. Sometimes national pride causes a country to refuse to admit its problems until they become catastrophic; Ethiopia is a case in point.

Q. Where will the next major disaster come? Could we have anticipated the drought in Africa?

A. We should have known of the African situation before we did because it was building toward a crisis for five or six years, but it would be impossible to anticipate all the world’s disasters.

However, having recently made an eight-week trip around the “hunger belt,” I think I can safely make some predictions. India is on the edge of an enormous human calamity. Bangladesh is even closer. At least 210 million people—the population of the United States—are severely affected. Drought and the sky-rocketing price of fertilizer have broken the back of the Indian farmer’s hope. I talked to people who confidently expect to be dead before next year’s crop, if there is a crop.

Africa’s Sahel is still a long way from recovery, although rains this year have given some a temporary reprieve. But 25 million people in that area are borderline survivors. Knowing these facts, you would think that world organizations and governments would set in motion massive disaster plans to save human lives, but the past record doesn’t give me much room to hope.

Q. What do you see as the crisis of our day?

A. Some have called it the crisis of the four “f’s”: food, fuel, fertilizer, and famine. Some might like to add “fertility” to that list, but the recent Bucharest conference on population indicates that the world is not agreed on that. We do agree on one thing—worldwide inflation is pushing the marginal countries over the brink. We used to talk about the “third world.” There is now a “fourth world,” and it is the world of absolute poverty. In this world the people cannot attain even minimal survival needs.

Today 40 per cent of the people in the less developed countries are living at the absolute poverty level, which is defined by the United Nations as an income of thirty cents (or less) a day per person. Several years ago the United Nations urged the developed countries to set aside 3 per cent of their Gross National Product for the developing countries. The response was indifference. The request was scaled down to 1 per cent and later to 7 per cent, but only a few have attained even that low figure.

Q. This widening gap increases the tension between the haves and the have-nots, doesn’t it?

A. Absolutely. If something isn’t done to right the injustice and balance the inequity, we could have a violent explosion in the not too distant future. Just look at the hatred and violence that erupted in gasoline lines in this country when we had the inconvenience of an energy shortage. We cannot expect the third and fourth worlds to quietly and patiently starve to death while the rest of the world enjoys its affluence.

Q. Do these people still regard all Americans as wealthy?

A. Yes. And, relatively speaking, we are! A person may have a minus bank balance today but still be making payments on a very comfortable home. The average person in a lesser developed country has only a small shack. His per-capita income is less than $200 per year; in North America it is well over $4,000. In my work I have not found any bitter people, though some may envy us. But I think that bitterness will inevitably develop, especially when they become more acutely aware that the resources and raw materials of their countries fuel the furnaces of the industrialized West.

Q. Do you find a conflict between evangelism and social action?

A. Not when it is understood that one is not synonymous with the other. They are the twin mandates of the New Testament, and to neglect one is not only to cripple the Church and make its message less credible but to do violence to the New Testament teachings.

In our work we put evangelism first and last. This doesn’t mean that everything we do has a direct evangelistic connection. We don’t stamp “Jesus Saves” on every vitamin pill. We simply try to demonstrate Christian love in tangible ways. I feel it would be phony and manipulative to provide help to suffering people only because they are potential evangelistic statistics. However, because most of our relief and development programs are tied to local church or mission agencies, there are usually abundant opportunities for sharing Jesus Christ.

One pastor in the Philippines told me, “You have helped a poor church to help a poor people,” and as a result his church now has over 300 people in weekly Bible studies whereas just a year ago without the community-assistance program he had only about 40 or 50 people involved in Bible study.

Q. Is there still a problem with “rice” Christians?

A. I think it’s far less than it used to be. In many countries it is so unpopular to be a Christian or to embrace the evangelical faith that the possibility of food and shelter is not enough to cause people to break with their traditional religions.

Q. Do you work with mission boards or agencies?

A. Yes, and also with national churches. We are not a traditional missionary sending society. We are a service agency or, as some people call us, a para-church organization. We work with all evangelical Christian groups in a country, though primarily through national churches for we want to strengthen them as they serve Christ through their communities and countries.

Q. How do you feel about being called a “social action” agency? And does World Vision ever try to change a country’s social or economic structure?

A. Let me answer the last part first. No matter what my personal feelings may be regarding a political regime or economic system, I do not feel that we are called to undermine and overthrow governments. We may protest repressive measures, as in the case of Afghanistan a couple of years ago, but we don’t try to organize a coup. As an outside agency, we are usually in a country by permission of the government, so it would be hypocrisy on our part to work directly against that government.

On the other hand, frequently people who embrace the Gospel of Jesus Christ begin to work actively to correct social wrongs and political injustices in their countries. That is their decision, not one which we push on them.

Now about being termed a “social action” agency. Personally, I don’t use the term much, not because it is bad but because it has acquired certain negative connotations. I prefer to talk about Christian caring and the demonstration of Christian love. For us that’s really what it is.

Q. Relief operations have been a very fertile field for frauds. What is the amount of World Vision’s overhead and how much money goes to the field?

A. First, I would have to explain that World Vision is more than just a relief agency. That is one of several ministries we perform. Others include leadership training of nationals, evangelism, and support for national church projects. In relief and development we do such things as give emergency aid, take care of children, provide vocational training, and operate hospitals.

Last year our administrative costs were 20.6 per cent. The year before they were just over 18 per cent. We tried to get them down to 15 per cent, but inflation really clobbered that goal.

Q. What do you include in administrative overhead?

A. Certain things are obviously administrative; others are ministry. All fund-raising is overhead, and a good part of my own time is administration. Almost everything relating to the home office is administrative.

Q. Your salary, then, is divided between ministry and administration. Are there some whose entire salary would be considered non-overhead?

A. Only those nationals in the field who, for example, run orphanages, or schools, or relief distribution programs, or are engaged in evangelism. Salaries of those in the home office, except those of us who carry dual administrative/ministry responsibilities, are completely in the overhead category.

Q. If you were a donor how would you check out an agency to make sure that your money is responsibly spent?

A. I would look at the names and backgrounds of the administrative officers. I would want to know who serves on the board of directors, and I would look for the names of people I know or whose integrity I trust. I would also ask for a copy of the audited financial statement, and I would want to know if the agency held membership in some kind of “accrediting” association such as the Evangelical Foreign Missions Association (EFMA) or Interdenominational Foreign Mission Association (IFMA). I would ask as many questions as necessary to satisfy myself as to the integrity of the organization.

Q. We were told by another administrator of a humanitarian program that his group uses a sort of “policing” program to check for fraud. What is World Vision’s policy?

A. All our field offices are regularly audited by a highly recognized international firm. We exercise tight budget control and careful field supervision to ensure that as much of the donor dollar as possible is used for direct aid. That is more difficult when you are dealing with emergencies and disasters because of the speed with which things must be done, which is another reason why we look for trustworthy Christian counterparts in all the countries where we work.

Q. Does World Vision order, for example, midnight bed checks in some of its orphanages?

A. Not in that way, to my knowledge, but we do have surprise spot checks not only of the institutions but also of the school records.

Q. What are some of the trends in overseas child care?

A. One trend is away from institutional care as much as possible. Of course, in some emergency situations, such as war, where thousands of orphans are created, institutions must be set up to care for them.

A growing problem with us called the “Family-to-Family” program is working very successfully in the Philippines and Cambodia. Our school programs in South Viet Nam and Indonesia are also very successful. In these programs the family is kept together. Through child sponsorship the entire family is benefitted by education, vocational training, health care and the teaching of personal hygiene, some clothing, and food whenever possible.

Each program is related to a local church and is under the supervision of a trained social worker. I have seen these programs at work and am very excited about them. We are committed to a program of excellence.

Q. How many nations does World Vision serve?

A. Presently we have child-care programs in twenty-six countries and relief and leadership-training programs in probably half again that number.

Q. What is your great obstacle in raising funds? Is it communicating the need in a dramatic way? What do you think the churches could do to sensitize people to the plight of the developing nations?

A. We find it difficult to tell people what it means to have absolutely nothing. After all, most of us can only truly relate with what is in our known frame of reference. How can we know what it is like to be terribly hungry? Most of us have never felt hunger as anything more than a temporary inconvenience. I have real trouble communicating the desperate, hopeless plight of most of the world’s people.

We have just announced 1975 as World Vision’s “Year for a Hungry World.” Senator Mark Hatfield is chairman of this emphasis, in which we hope thousands of churches, youth groups, civic clubs, women’s societies, and so on will be involved. We announced this at a press luncheon (non-luncheon might be more accurate) in Washington at which we served what I have actually seen families in India trying to live on—a small grain cake, a cup of weak tea with no cream or sugar, and half a potato. That is their diet for one day, containing far fewer calories than the minimum needed for survival.

We want to ask groups to have “planned famines” where people will go on a liquid diet for at least twenty-four hours and get people to sponsor their fast, with the money going to feed hungry people. Another program we offer to churches is the “Love Loaf” in which each family is given a plastic “loaf” bank to collect funds for hunger programs. Hundreds of churches are using these with good response.

During the year World Vision will also sponsor hunger telethons on many stations across the country. These are some of the ways in which we are trying to dramatize the hunger program and sensitize the conscience of Christian America.

Q. To what extent is non-giving the result of feeling that money should really come from the wealthy?

A. In our experience most rich people support humanitarian programs in a very limited way. I could name two or three beautiful exceptions, but for the most part our funds come from middle or lower economic families, people on fixed incomes, and young people. You can understand that when I tell you that our average gift is under $15.

Q. How do you answer the person who says he’s already giving to a lot of organizations and can’t afford any more?

A. I’m very sympathetic because I probably get as many appeals as the next person—maybe more. There is no human way I can respond to all of them, so my wife and I have to establish priorities for giving. One thing we want to be sure is that some portion of our giving goes to relieve human suffering, as well as sharing the message of eternal life.

Q. Do you take such a person’s name off the mailing list?

A. If requested. I get letters from some older people on Social Security who say they just can’t continue giving but want to receive our material so they can pray for our needs. And we have gotten thousands of letters from children and young people with ten cents or a dollar in the envelope. Some will give birthday or Christmas money. That really touches me, and we don’t deduct a penny for overhead from such gifts. We don’t expect them to give, but we keep them informed so they can pray.

Q. Have you had any problems shipping certain foods overseas? For example, what really happened when you tried to give starving people Metrecal and Slender, which our government ordered off the market?

A. That situation really upset me. The Food and Drug Administration took those two products off the market because they contained cyclamates. Those diet foods were extremely rich in protein, and we had been using them for years in our feeding programs through the generosity of the manufacturers. Incidentally, American and Canadian corporations give us millions of dollars of marketable foodstuffs. In this case, of course, they could no longer sell the diet foods, and rather than destroy huge inventories they offered their entire stock to us.

We first went to the governments of the recipient countries, and they said the cyclamate issue was no problem to them: tests showed that an average Laotian weighing about 120 pounds would have to drink eighty-four cans a day over a period of months to get enough cyclamate to be even potentially harmful. We accepted the food and were ready to ship it. It would have been very helpful in our nutrition centers. The U. S. government provides port-to-port shipping funds for recognized volunteer agencies providing relief supplies, and USAID had agreed to give us the funds.

But then a television commentator in San Francisco got a call from somebody who saw the food on a dock ready to load, and the station “exposed” what it thought was a great story. Senator Cranston picked it up and publicly castigated AID for sending those “deadly drugs” overseas. Suddenly it was a full-blown scandal. AID withdrew the shipping funds, which was the only thing it could do, and ordered us not to ship the food at all, even with private shipping funds.

Q. How could it do that?

A. The FDA said the cases of diet foods had to be destroyed. They could not leave the country, even though other governments were willing to accept them. I presume that our “national image” was the overriding criterion. As a result we had to bulldoze the stuff; the cans were flattened and the liquid run down sewers. The companies reimbursed us for the cost of destroying it, but I wanted to cry.

A radio station in San Francisco called me up and put me on its telephone “hot line.” When I took the call I had no idea I was on the air. People accused me of wanting to send a “death-dealing drug” to poor, innocent people overseas. Funny, I never heard anybody complain about government tobacco subsidies that help make it possible for millions of cigarettes, proven to be harmful to health, to go to overseas markets. I wonder if the difference could be that cigarette exports help equalize our balance of payments.

Q. What kind of an impression did this make on the governments who wanted the food?

A. We didn’t get any repercussions. I suppose they are accustomed to bureaucratic bungling.

Q. What was the total income for World Vision last year?

A. Just under $15 million. Of that amount, a little over $11 million came from the United States, $2 million from Australia and New Zealand, $1.5 million from Canada, and $250,000 from South Africa.

Q. Is the United States really a generous country? A few years ago a drive in Switzerland collected six million francs in just a few days for Biafra. A comparable figure for America would be, say $50 million. Would we have done as well? How do we compare with other Western countries?

A. Per capita, some countries do better than we do, but there are many generous American people who are willing not only to share but to sacrifice when they know their money is being wisely used.

I don’t think that as a nation we are really generous. So much of our so-called foreign aid is really self-serving. It is not really “aid” in the truest meaning of the word, but money that must be spent in this country to buy things we manufacture to be sent to developing countries, things that contribute little to their total development. A large percentage is military hardware. All of the investments and gifts, both from the public and private sectors, which we have put into the third world in the past decade amount to fifty cents per person per year on the receiving end! I don’t think we would say that is particularly generous.

Q. Do you think we’re living in a time of world-wide spiritual awakening? What are some of the spiritual hot spots?

A. We could be on the verge of a spiritual breakthrough. There are some encouraging signs, but they are scattered and must be put together and seen as a whole. Africa continues to be a bright spot. I am very excited about what I see God doing in Southeast Asia. The evangelical church in Brazil is growing much faster than the population. Korea and Indonesia offer hope, as do segments of India’s population, particularly the high-caste Hindus. In various “people movements” scattered around the globe we are seeing high percentages of whole tribes or ethnic groups turning to the Gospel. Only God knows what he is getting ready to do in China, but I tingle with expectation.

I believe the sense of uncertainty, futility, of hopelessness that grips so much of the world offers the Church its greatest hour to proclaim Jesus Christ.

Q. Do you see an awakening in the Sahel region of Africa as a result of relief efforts?

A. Not really. In spite of decades of mission work, the Sahel is still largely Muslim or animistic. But I believe that as we respond to human needs, we will begin to see a spiritual response. Love talked about is easily turned aside, but love demonstrated is irresistible.

Q. Are you ever asked why God allows suffering?

A. I can’t recall ever having been asked that question except maybe on an American college campus. In most of the third world, suffering is a way of life. Religion, culture, and experience have conditioned the people. This does not make suffering any less real or acute, but it seems to keep them from philosophizing about it.

Q. Would you encourage young people to become politicians and change structures or would you encourage them to be scientists and technicians to make more food available to hungry people?

A. My answer is yes, and that isn’t meant to sound facetious. Both are needed. Political structures need to be changed; they need to be given a conscience. The answer to that need is redeemed, involved people.

We don’t need industrial technicians in the third world as much as we need agricultural technicians. Governments that want to industrialize their nations quickly might argue with that statement, but those that are more interested in developing their people than their economies will see it the other way around, I believe. In most of the developing countries, from 70 to 90 per cent of the economy is still agricultural. The development of industries in these countries should be, for the maximum good, related to production, processing, and distribution of agricultural goods. Then a majority of the people will benefit instead of the rich investors and a few skilled workers.

We need such workers as agriculturists, water conservationists, veterinarians, public health experts, machinists, and food processors. I believe our Christian witness will be far more credible if we go with such skills. Then the people will know we are interested in them as human beings, and not just as evangelistic statistics.

Q. Do you see a need for communications specialists—mass-media people—who can take film or radio to the developing nations?

A. Yes, if they are willing to forget the sophistication they have learned in the West and use their training to help build nations that are starting at square one. One Christian group in the Philippines is using radio to teach new farming techniques. Others are teaching personal hygiene and public health. Sure, they preach the Gospel, too.

If we have communications specialists on the field, they should learn who it is they are communicating to (not just identify the target group, but know them in the fullest sense of that word) and how these people can best receive the subject matter being communicated. I am afraid we start with too many Western assumptions.

We are working with some Presbyterian missionaries in southwestern Ethiopia who are trying to help a very primitive tribe. The tribe already has the Gospel, but it needs instruction in Christian growth, in hygiene, in agriculture. The missionaries are working very slowly, very carefully to make sure they are communicating the right things, at the right time, in the right way. This requires an unusual degree of sensitivity, but I am convinced it will pay off in the long run.

Q. There seems to be increasing hostility or tension between Christian schools and local churches on the one hand, and the so-called “para-church” organizations such as World Vision. What is your perspective on this?

A. First of all, I accept the term “para-church” only as a descriptive, rather than as a definitive, designation. While there is some tension, I am not sure it is increasing. It may be declining as we develop a more mature view of what constitutes the Church. Jesus never defined what he meant by the “Church”—he only gave pictures and analogies. To me the Church means “the people of God.” The various ministries may come through what we call the “institutional church” or through what we call the “para-church” agencies.

Para-church organizations as we know them are not new. Paul’s evangelistic team would today be considered a para-church organization. He represented not one but many churches. There should be no tension between church and para-church if we’re all doing the work of God. We’re all God’s people.

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.