Of course, whether the statistics are true or misleading, we could all give more.

I'm sure the numbers would be quite different if all private donations were included, but one thought I had on the gov't side was that because the USA has a strong (and expensive) military, many of the allied countries save millions on their defense budgets.

I just hate statistics.

Obviously, individuals should probably be giving more. And this is not a contest, where we can show ourselves more righteous than others by a greater amount of giving.

Anyway, to the statistics. I'd feel pretty strong guessing that these sort of measurements are biased towards large, frequently secular, NGO's. They leave out smaller, frequently religious, groups that don't report to the UN or anything like that. They also don't include the value of missionary endeavors and the time/money cost involved. We all know doctors who will travel abroad and spend weeks doing charitable work. I have met missionary doctors who do that full-time for our denomination. Such calculations would never include (1) the forfeited income for a doctor (2) the value of his services rendered (3) the money that he spends personally to make the trip.

Call me crazy, but I'm guessing that the thousands of foreign missionary trips by volunteering Americans, young and old, are probably under the UN's radar screen.

And I'm thinking (haven't looked at any numbers) that we in America have a lot more poor people than most European countries. That would have two effects. One, a lot of our "aid" effort and money is spent locally. Two, it drives down our per-capita giving substantially. Our poor people probably give quite a bit as a percentage of their resources, but don't have much to start with.

Was anyone else besides me bothered by the statement "No one whose policies treat the needy (and/or the environment) the way Bush's do could possibly be a disciple of Christ."?

Sorry - not trying to hijack this important thread. But that statement really hit me wrong.

Bill, read that section again. Bono didn't say that. Beth of U2 Sermons didn't really say that. That is her summation of the conclusions reached by the European folks she has informally surveyed.
It's not really a "statement" made by anybody; it's Beth's interpretation of how the Europeans she's interacted with feel.

Doesn't make it right, of course . . .

Faith without works is dead . . .

I know Bono didn't say that (did I say he did? If so, I was writing very sloppily).

I'll accept your interpretation of Beth's statement.

John,

My example in comment #9 was meant to be a ridiculous example of the way we judge eachother.

I totally understood that you weren't saying that yourself, but lots of us (vague generalization for Am. Christians) have said things just like that.

I have very mixed ideas and feelings about this. I think that Americans have a very myopic view of the rest of the world. There is much going on in the world that we never hear about. I think that churches that are very close to missionareis are far more knowledgable than the average US citizen, unless said citizen is from another country and has close ties to family and friends.

There is more going on hear then just governmental policies. What are US corporations doing. I do know that in the late 70's and early 80's many corporations were dumping second rate food products on the third world that wouldn't pass muster here under the FDA. This included baby formula. How many of our corporations are being good neighbors?

I do think that some of us, perhaps many of us could give more, I know that my family could. That is a whole nother thing that is difficult for me.

I can't agree that we have more poor here than Europe does. We have one of the highest per capita incomes in the world. Regular daily needs don't take as much of our income as most of the rest of the world.

I do wonder what all is being considered by Bono is his inconviently incompleat summary. Not to ride on anyone's coat tails, as that can in no way be rationalized, is Bono including anything that has been done by Bill Gates?

I'm not really crazy about Mr. Gates but he has done with his money what no one else and most nations could not do. And his charity is continuing.

A side note that that deserves a separate posting and perhaps consideration by the Thinklings or some other blog. I have no qualms with saying that this nation was founded on Christian Principals. I however do not consider America to be a Christian Nation or necessarily founded by Christians *in terms of government*. The US government was founded and established by Diests. Please, honestly, please correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't Diests Christians in name only?

I've rambled on *way* too long. I'm back to lurking now.

Oh, your #21 answers my #23.

And this is now officially the most convoluted comments thread in Thinklings history! ;-)

Totally there with you, Bill. :)

I've heard those statistics repeated a lot lately, and from what I understand, they do include personal contributions to charities like World Vision, etc. I absolutely could be wrong, but those stats weren't unfamiliar to me.

I don't think it's necessarily the right judgement they're making about Bush, but I think it's worth understanding why they think that. It is a valid question. In Bush's defense, he has raised our aid for Africa significantly, and that should be considered.

Devil's advocate here. I just got through a book called Revolution in Missions by KP Yohannan (a freebie from gfa.org). Dr. Yohannan had an interesting observation about the US (and North America in general). Mind that he grew up in India and the standard of living and culture as far as inter-personal relationships is quite different. He was astounded at what he saw: expensive church buildings, people with lots of clothes that changed with the seasons. He said that in India, there are missionaries who, in order to facilitate spreading the gospel, forego meals for their families. Comments like his really convict me. I grew up comfortably in a third world country. I always thought that, as a family, we were doing our part to help others but in hindsight I realize I passed up many opportunities to make a difference for others. Now, for me, there are just too many things that I consider "necessities" that really are not. Would it really hurt me to do without a latte so I can take that $4.50 and support a missionary in the 10/40 window? One more thing that I liked from that book: he emphasized the importance of the Gospel above that of service. I get the impression that (and I am probably wrong) Bono thinks money will cure the ills of Africa and AIDS. I may sound like a jaded skeptic, but I really doubt that most of the monies given to those countries make it to the people it's intended for. What they need is Jesus' love first, a helping hand second. First provide for the healing of the spirit and then the physical body. Sorry this is so long!

Phisch

Well said, and amen.

I have more than a little anxiety about judgement day . . .

One thing I fear in these sorts of conversations is how heated they become, and how divided along the Repub/Demo-Conserv/Liber lines they become.
I am thankful that at Thinklings, as imperfect as we are, discussions like these occasionally generate as much light as they do heat.
---

what is it about me that makes everyone think I'm disagreeing when I'm agreeing?

Bill, I don't know. You've asked this before, and it concerns me as one who's been on the confused side of things in convos with you.
I wouldn't be so sure the "problem" is with you. It's probably with the others (like me) who have their blog-comment setting on "sensitive." Blogospheric participants are so used to being rebutted, enjoined, argued against, that when someone who agrees in a succinct manner shows up, an overreaction can take place.

Short version: Don't be convinced it's your fault.
---

Phisch:
Thanks for your insightful and awesome comments. I second Bill's Amen.

I think what happens with opposing forces in this ongoing debate in the Western world is that "liberal" Christians often divorce the Jesus ethic from its context of biblical Christology and "conservative" Christians often forsake the ethical obligations intrinsic to biblical Christology.

For the record, I went to the NYT editorial. Bono does not give the source of his statistic. I also thought that the part of the article Beth didn't quote softens what Bono is saying:

[Bono continues:] President Bush should try to help Europeans understand American generosity. He should remind people that the United States has gotten more AIDS drugs to more Africans than anyone else. But he should also underscore that Americans want to ensure that the money is spent responsibly.

To Europeans, this "tough love" approach seems cruel. But there is compassion at its core. Mr. Bush can demonstrate this by putting more financial muscle behind his push for "accountability." If he does, Europeans will follow suit. They will see talking tough on poverty as a perfect rhyme for talking tough on terrorism. If Europe and America work together, a breakthrough for Africa is within reach. Then, other obstacles will fall away - as will the misconceptions that blind us to one another.

First off, it is assured that America gives too little. I always liked C.S. Lewis' theory on giving that one should give enough that it makes one uncomfortable and results in denying ourselves things we otherwise desire. Under that criteria, I think many (most?) Christians and all first-world nations fail.

However, as many have pointed here, statistics are extremely suspect and misleading:
1) Bureacrats count aid given to NGO's, whether or not it reaches the poor or not. I worked in Russia in the early 1990's and the bulk of government foreign aid always ended up in western law and accounting firms pockets who were in charge of aid distribution.
2) Private giving is very difficult to track, and is much more prevalent in the US that any other country in the world. It is assured that the vast bulk of small charaties never get tracked. For example, I am part of a local mission that sends supplies and medical teams to Honduras. In the past 4 years, we have sent over 30 full containers of donated supplies and goods (over 100 tons) to that country. Also, dozens of doctors and nurses donated thousands of hours of time and their travel money to personally administer care. None of this is reported to any government agency, therefore such aid will never be included in any statistics.
3) Such statistics never include things that aren't direct dollars. Therefore all the peacekeeping soldiers and military activities are never included. What is that worth? - tens of billions of dollars annually.

I can respect Bono, but he oversimplifies many things as well. It is not enough to simply rain money down on poor countries. Without hospitals and health care workers to educate and deliver medicines, all the vaccine in the world is worthless. Without roads and supply lines, food rots at the port. Money thrown at problems without careful planning and on-the-ground infastructure fuels corruption and only tiny amounts ever get to the truly needy. We need to do more than just write checks.

Finally, don't even get me started on the environmental thing. Two million people die needlessly every year from malaria. That could be brought down to essentially zero by simple, environmentally safe, and scientifically proven use of DDT in peoples homes. It is so-called environmental organizations that block any use of DDT on the flimsiest of science, and withhold any funds if a third-world country doesn't go along with their deadly environmentalism.

You want citations, you got citations:

$275 Billion in US private giving in 2003=http://www.ephilanthropy.org

US gov gives 40% of all world aid=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6762079/ (cited elsewhere with other qualifiers, but my orginal post unifies them all.)

US-based corporations lead the world in giving=I'm having problems remembering where I saw this, but I believe it was in Forbes magazine last year. Can't find it in their online version of the magazine, but they don't put all their magazine content online.

Private individuals have given more that $1 Billion to tsunami aid=The Wall Street Journal print edition 2/28/05.

Hope this helps.

Is there anything in the Bible that says financial aid is a measure of one's heart? Did Jesus say that the world would know us by our donations?

Who are "these" in "the least of these"?

Did the early church have a significant charity program like what we've been discussing?

Were any of the churches of the first chapters of Revelation criticized for not giving enough to the poor of the world?

I'm not against giving. I'm strongly in favor of it. I'm just saying, neither Bono nor Europeans get to define the criteria by which Christians are judged. Only God judges us. Only He gets to say "Well done".

"the question is related to per-capita giving, in which we apparently trail many other Western nations."

John

In this post I believe nearly everyone has agreed that we should all give more (although to whom and administered by whom is another issue).

However, I am becoming more suspicious of the "America is dead-last" statistic. You're right, based on that stat we apparently trail other Western nations. I just wish I could find out what's behind that number, as it is the lynchpin behind our apparent hypocrisy in the eyes of Europeans and Bono's admonition.

As DLE has demonstrated, private giving alone accounts for $900+/per capita in the U.S. That is a healthy number and I am increasingly doubtful that we truly rank 15th or 22nd. If Bono's stats are not accurate (or if they are misleading) it's not a great sin, but I find it rather irritating.

In googling around it seems that one area where we are considered to fall short is in our giving as a percentage of our GDP. Of course, with a GDP as massive as America's, that's not surprising. But that's not the same as per capita giving.

I haven't been able to find definitive links (I've only spent a few minutes) but one one site a commenter writes:

On governmental aid, the OECD says that the US comes 22nd in a league table of 22 western countries, handing over just 0.14 per cent of its gross national product, compared with Britain's 0.34 per cent, France's 0.41 per cent or Norway's 0.92 per cent."

OECD is a French agency. France hates the U.S. Why should we be surprised that they will publish false information against the U.S.?

You should also read articles like this one:

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=6178

As that article stated, the U.S. provides defense spending for both itself and other nations at a much higher % of GDP than other nations. So we don't have as much to give in foreign aid because we are essentially providing defense to other countries for free.

The figures you quoted also only include *government* aid, and don't include the huge amount of aid given by private American citizens and NGOs.

"But in 2003, charitable giving amounted to 8.6 billion pounds or 0.8 percent of GDP in the U.K., according to the Charities Aid Foundation, compared to $241 billion or 2.2 percent of GDP in the U.S., according to the American Association of Fundraising Counsel."

The UK's private citizens are nearly 3 times as stingy as Americans.

"The United States carries much of the world on its back, providing other nations with security, aid, and much of their investment and income. It also pays for a fourth of all the salaries of UN bureaucrats."

SO I'm afraid your assertions - and those of OECD - just don't fit in with the facts.

Robert, interesting comments. I'd think "these" would maybe be translated as "your neighbor"

I would have a hard time making a solid exegetical case for that. It might be what Bono means, but it is not at all what Jesus said.

Leaving the scriptures aside, on the statistical side of things, I did find some things. Out of a list of 21 countries, we are #1 in per capita income. We are #15 on government aid per capita. But we are #4 on private aid per capita. This is only foreign aid, afaik, and I don't know what all is included or excluded - such as missions work.

If financial assistance is indeed a criteria to judge Christians by, I'd argue that private giving per capita is a better one.

What Bill said and a bit more...

Almost every measure used to portray the US as stingy is based on World Bank figures taken from "on-book" aid specifically labeled as such in our federal budget. The problem is that much of the aid is not listed obviously as "Aid to _____" and is subsequantly not counted in the World Bank tally. Plus, the vast majority of aid is from slush fund accounts and is "off-book."

We forget that many European countries expect their governments to handle charitable funds. In the US, we expect individuals to handle it. This is the reason why the numbers seem out of whack. Only looking at what the government does is no reflection on America as a people. Bono should realize this.

No country can touch the US in corporate and private giving. The military angle is also ALWAYS forgotten. You could open a federal bank and scoop piles of Franklins into an incinerator as fast as possible and it would not approach the thousands of American dollars spent per second as the world's military policemen. Sending part of our fleet to Indonesia for tsunami relief cost untold millions of dollars alone. Meanwhile, it took Canada three weeks to get their "rapid response" DART team to the areas hit by tsunami. And Canada didn't spend a billion doing it, either. And again, we forget the hugely disproportionate amount that the US taxpayer shoulders when it comes to World Bank funds. Every time the world Bank doles out money, the greatest portion of that assistance comes our of your pocket and mine.

We also forget the labor angle-time and manpower. In earthquakes in Russia, Iran, and Turkey, Americans comprised the largest groups of foreign rescue workers. An interview with one Russian man had him questioning why there were no Russian relief workers and so many Americans, it was so lopsided.

One last shot. Bono had us 15th or 22nd in giving. Well, the last time I saw a breakdown of per capita earning rates, American citizens were ranked 16th, I believe, with Iceland at number one. Now I ask, how come no one is sticking it to the Icelanders?

Once you factor in all the sources of giving for the US, there is no contest as to the most generous country.

Anastasia

Kindly . . .

You haven't met the Christians I know, who live their faith. Like the family I know who adopted an HIV positive baby and have given that little boy a wonderful life (he's 11 now). Or the family that adopted children slated for abortion. Or the people who support Compassion International or World Vision children. Or who gave till it hurt in the recent Tsunami disaster. Or the legions of faithful Christians who sacrificially tithe month in, month out to support missions and churches here and abroad. Or the Christians I know who are overseas, working in missions. Or the high school kids who built a poor family a house in mexico (for several years running) or who will be ministering in Honduras this summer, or who blessed the lives of orphans in Puerto Rico last summer and emptied their suitcases for those kids.

Are all Christians like this? No, of course not. But peddling phony statistics and judgement upon people you don't even know is not the best way to "raise awareness" or whatever.

Also, people should care about how their money is being used. If it's being used to enrich the charities themselves, or prop up tinpot dictators, etc then it's doing more harm than good, no matter how good it makes one feel inside to give.

Also - Bono's point is well taken. I am not arguing against the need for us, in our plenty, to give to those who have little. The Lord commanded it.

I just don't see why it gives us the right to pile on (yet again) Americans and that maligned minority the American Christian.