Compassionate Conservatives Looking to Rebrand and Expand Their Mission

by Dave Donaldson 04-06-2009

I’ve been asked to comment on churches that are more conservative, predominantly evangelical, and how they are coalescing around poverty reduction. A little background: Convoy of Hope is a pretty sizable network. We serve as the relief agency for the Assemblies of God, which totals 380,000 churches globally.

Jesus called upon us to care for the least of these. Admittedly, many of our evangelical churches have cared the least and now there is a sea change. I’m seeing compassionate conservatives like myself that are looking to rebrand and expand the pro-life image to not only protect the child in the womb but the child fighting to survive in the slums. We are seeing churches becoming what I am calling Wal-Mart churches, one stop shops where people can go to receive help spiritually, physically, and emotionally. Over the past 15 years since the inception of Convoy of Hope, we have watched this sector return to its roots of compassion.

We have now mobilized close to 20,000 churches, a constellation of churches and organizations, now 250,000 volunteers to reach out to close to 30 million people. From our citywide outreach to our relief efforts for disasters overseas I have been encouraged by young people who want to swim against the tide of consumption. Young people around the country have raised enough funds to purchase 15 refrigerated tractor trailers which we use to provide emergency relief, and I could give you example after example of the volunteerism that expands across our nation.

But because of the economic downturn, we are seeing new faces of people being pushed into poverty. An example: At RFK stadium where we had over 10,000 people for one of our citywide outreaches, a woman who was a volunteer at the previous outreach was there now as the one looking for help. We have seen between a 15 to 20 percent increase; many are working poor. People are arriving earlier, staying longer, and our job fair area alone just in the area of preparing resumes has grown as fast as the groceries area. And we are also seeing the positive side of corporate America becoming more and more involved. This is one of the greatest ways to leverage private funds for public dollars.

I have also been asked to comment on this current administration. We have been encouraged by what we are hearing from President Obama. During his campaign he said that change comes not from the top down but from the bottom up. Few are closer to the people than our churches, and we are grateful for the welcome mat that has been thrown out for even evangelical churches. We are hopeful that the budget will reflect that sentiment because as he knows as a community organizer, when the church is the same zip code as those in need, we can leverage private resources with public ones in order to provide a continuum of care. We have seen this partnership manifest itself in the states. Yesterday I was the chaplain of the day in the Pennsylvania State Senate. I met with many of the senators for Pennsylvania afterwards and they are looking for new models and ways to partner with the faith community.

Lastly, I just want to mention why Convoy of Hope is participating in this anti-poverty movement. We have been asked to do a lot of things by many people. But first of all, we support this effort because we support the leader. We believe in Jim Wallis. He is a genuine advocate for the poor. He is someone whom we believe has vision and integrity to rally the church and groups like those who are on the phone here, and he is someone whom I believe is going to make sure that we target achievable goals to combat poverty. And secondly, as compassionate conservatives, we are looking for venues and partnerships that will access what we are for instead of venues that are just anti-this and anti-that.

And let me conclude with a quote from a teacher whom I’ve met. She said, “I am told that all my kids need is education. But how can I teach a child when he is collapsing from his desk from hunger?”

Dave Donaldson is co-founder of Convoy of Hope, an international compassion organization that specializes in disaster relief, local outreach events, and long-term empowerment programs. This post is adapted from remarks he made recently during a media conference call announcing the Mobilization to End Poverty. Click here to listen to audio of the call.

Categories: Ministry, Poverty

brgulker

Conservative, Liberal, and Progressive certainly have their explanatory function, but I think most would agree the terms are lacking.

I describe myself as a progressive evangelical, which puts me somewhere just right of center. Sometimes the messages of the right resonate with me, and sometimes messages from the left hit home.

But frankly, I like to think of the terms conservative and liberal in different terms than what is usually meant (at least from my perspective).

I tend to qualify conservative as meaning conserving the teachings of Jesus -- sometimes over and against the traditions of the church and values of society.

I tend to think if liberal not as left-wing politics but as the liberating power of the Spirit that shatters cultural, ethnic, gender, and racial boundaries.

jmndodge

Well stated. We should be in the habit of asking people, what do you want to conserve?, what do you want to share? What direction are you moving? These would help us better understand if we can travel together on the journey. There often are several ways to reach a destination, you may take the highway, or the back-roads, the freeway or the historic river route, but when we go beyond theory to the practical, when I live in Western MN, I have to travel east to reach the Twin Cities. I worry, that some of the conservative political blend with evangelical doctrines will not reform easily. Indeed a course correction might not meet the goal, but real repentance is needed. Turn around, you're goin the wrong way. This is more than a course correction.

Your comments however, give me hope that there are very positive changes happening. Keep talking and sharing that message.

SisterMarie

By responding to Christ's call "to care for the least of these", the Convoy of Hope is worthy of our prayers, our volunteer efforts, and our financial support.

Lord_Voldemort

I think the headline on this piece may be confusing. Donaldson refers to his church as "conservative", but from this I can't tell whether he means politically conservative or theologically conservative. His comments on Barack Obama certainly don't sound conservative. (And by that I don't mean to say that he isn't nasty enough about Obama -- but the conservative case for Obama isn't based on the budget and his past as a "community organizer".)

By contrast, "compassionate conservative" has almost always been a political term. Please understand, I'm not criticizing Donaldson (who probably didn't have any input on the title anyway) but he doesn't strike me as a compassionate conservative.

BlueDeacon

I think this phrase that Donaldson used should be a clue: "During [Obama's] campaign he said that change comes not from the top down but from the bottom up. Few are closer to the people than our churches, and we are grateful for the welcome mat that has been thrown out for even evangelical churches." That's an ideologically conservative sentiment if there ever was one.

Lord_Voldemort

So are you saying that the liberal position is that change comes from the top down? Would this mean that the churches have little to contribute?

LV

BlueDeacon

That's what conservatives insinuate the liberal position to be, which is how and why they come against "big government." (Except that they themselves actually have practiced "top-down" authority whenever they got it.)

My concern about "compassionate conservatism" is that, by accepting federal money, churches and ministries who service the poor will forfeit their duty to speak truth to power. My own church, which does a lot of work in the inner city, wouldn't take those funds for that same reason.

Lord_Voldemort

I'll take that as a "no" to both questions, which means that Donaldson's position on top-down versus bottom-up change is not exclusively a conservative one.

I also see that your concern about "compassionate conservatism" and its implications for participating churches is very similar to those expressed by a lot of conservatives (myself among them) though perhaps we would not have used those exact words.

I remain unconvinced that Donaldson is conservative on political issues. But on the plus side, we seem to have stumbled across some common ground.

LV

BlueDeacon

I was saying only that conservatives were publicly anti-government because they didn't want anyone else making decisions and taking the money they believed was rightfully "theirs" to help those in need.

As for my concern about "compassionate conservatism," it was actually more sinister than is obvious. First, black pastors of inner-city churches were often the most vocal opponents of conservative Republicanism, which was a major embarrassment to ideologically conservative Christians. See, the original goal of "compassionate conservatism" was to get people in the 'hood "saved" and discipled so that we wouldn't have to worry about them anymore and the money was designed, really, to get those pastors on their side. (This was evidenced by the fact that Marvin Olasky, the former Bush adviser who came up with it in the first place; and Jerry Falwell opposed the bill that Bush actually signed because they wanted only churches -- no mosques or secular agencies -- to get that cash.) The problem was that it deliberately ignored the pervasive poverty, often perpetrated by policies they support, that exists there and which has a hand in perpetrating the dysfunction.

I take Donaldson at his word that he's politically conservative; that doesn't mean, however, that he's inflexible and unwilling to work with people from across the aisle. Indeed, I think that was his point -- remember, his group is part of the Assemblies of God, which certainly isn't ideologically liberal.

Lord_Voldemort

I think conservatism has a lot of different meanings in a lot of different contexts, and sometimes honest people get those contexts confused. I think there are people who are conservative on theological issues but progressive on politics, and Donaldson's article looks like something out of that line. And that's okay.

If Donaldson wants to chime in himself I'd be interested in hearing what he has to say. Otherwise we've gotten to the point where there isn't much to be added without the danger of putting words in his mouth. I've made my caveat. You can have the last word on this thread.

LV

BlueDeacon

I don't understand why we just can't take Donaldson at his word -- if he says he's a conservative we should just accept it and leave it at that. Part of the problem I've always had with conservatism is just what you brought up -- in that view everything has to be so well-defined that it almost necessarily leads to conflict due to thinking "who is and who isn't." (I'm Reformed by theological persuasion, and that's our biggest problem -- we focus so much on the minors that some of the majors get completely lost. Some people have even doubted that I am Reformed.)

SisterMarie

"Donaldson refers to his church as "conservative", but from this I can't tell whether he means politically conservative or theologically conservative."

Does it matter? Is his message less credible because he allied himself with Jim Wallis is combating hunger? Should the Assemblies of God kick him out of their fellowship because he has joined with Wallis in a venture that cannot be described as liberal or conservative? I suspect that the those who are fed as a result of their combined efforts have little concern whether the food came from liberals or conservatives.

Lord_Voldemort

Does it matter? In some ways yes and in other ways no. I never argued that Donaldson's own message wasn't credible. And kicking him out of the Assemblies of God was entirely your spin -- I never came close to suggesting such a thing.

The problem is that Sojo is presenting Donaldson as a "Compassionate Conservative" and this is a source of confusion. "Compassionate Conservatism" was the name given to a specific set of programs established by the Bush administration. But I see little here to indicate that Donaldson was a supporter of that initiative, or that he is a conservative politically.

It isn't my intention to accuse anyone of anything. Bush's "Compassionate Conservatism" was the subject of a lot of debates among conservatives themselves, and I don't necessarily expect Sojo to be on top of all the intramural arguments that go on among those of us on the right. I just wanted to get it on the record that this whole realm is more complicated than Sojo is letting on, and that Donaldson is not necessarily a conservative spokesman. That doesn't make him a bad guy.

LV

SisterMarie

"That doesn't make him a bad guy."

I'm sure that Mr. Donaldson will be greatly relieved by your endorsement.

But I'm really curious. What is there about his original post that would cause you to doubt his conservative credentials? Is the sole reason for his failing the conservative mantra test the fact that he has joined with Wallis in a project that feed the poor?

Elsewhere on this site there are posts that describe what the Assemblies of God fellowship believes. They are described as a theologically and politically conservative group, and I saw no evidence in Donaldson's post that he has rejected any of the A/G core beliefs. In the absence of any concrete evidence that Donaldson has been tainted by liberalism, I'm left with the impression that merely joining in this project to feed the poor has damned him in your eyes.

Oh, and Sojo doesn't have "to be on top of all the intramural arguments" of the right. Sojo didn't write the post; Donaldson did.

Lord_Voldemort

"I'm sure that Mr. Donaldson will be greatly relieved by your endorsement."

Okay, well, now that that's settled...

"But I'm really curious. What is there about his original post that would cause you to doubt his conservative credentials? Is the sole reason for his failing the conservative mantra test the fact that he has joined with Wallis in a project that feed the poor?"

Uh, no. If you'll scroll up to my back and forth with Blue Deacon, you'll see that what jumped out at me was his very blase attitude towards Obama's budget and his citing Barack Obama's work as a community organizer. Even among those conservatives who like Obama (such as David Brooks) the budget is a source of alarm and the value of his "community organizer" work is dubious.

Conservatives caring for the poor is hardly novel. Bush spent millions of dollars (quite effectively I might add) on AIDS relief in Africa. Hardly anyone on the right griped about that, most of us considered it praiseworthy.

And much as I disagree with Jim Wallis, I don't think he'st the Antichrist (no doubt he'll be greatly relieved to hear that too) and I think it's entirely possible for people to work with him on different things and not get the ideological equivalent of cooties.

"I saw no evidence in Donaldson's post that he has rejected any of the A/G core beliefs."

Neither did I.

"Oh, and Sojo doesn't have "to be on top of all the intramural arguments" of the right."

I think that's what I said. We are agreeing furiously.

LV

SisterMarie

"...you'll see that what jumped out at me was his very blase attitude towards Obama's budget and his citing Barack Obama's work as a community organizer."

Donaldson's "blase attitude" may have "jumped out" at you, but it certainly is not obvious by actually reading the text of his comments. Here's the portion where he refers to Obama:

"I have also been asked to comment on this current administration. We have been encouraged by what we are hearing from President Obama. During his campaign he said that change comes not from the top down but from the bottom up. Few are closer to the people than our churches, and we are grateful for the welcome mat that has been thrown out for even evangelical churches. We are hopeful that the budget will reflect that sentiment because as he knows as a community organizer, when the church is the same zip code as those in need, we can leverage private resources with public ones in order to provide a continuum of care."

Now, this concept of local churches partnering with the government did not originate with President Obama. It was conceived by Senator Rick Santorum and George W. Bush and I have seen no evidence of them losing their conservative credentials.

Finally, I don't understand how Donaldson's reference to Obama as a "community organizer" implies either approval or disapproval of his policies. (Palin also used the term.)

There is absolutely nothing in the post by Donaldson that indicates that he agrees with Obama on homosexuality, same-sex marriage, abortion, the war in Iraq, defense spending, deficit spending, taxes, fiscal policies, race relations, foreign policy, or the whole litany of issues that separate conservatives and liberals. It appears that Donaldson's single unpardonable sin is his alliance with Wallis to feed the poor. And you resent that?

brgulker

I'm willing to chime in about the "conservativeness" of the Assemblies of God.

I grew up in a church that was loosely affiliated wit the AG, and I've known a lot of AG congregants and church leaders over the years.

They are a Pentecostal church, as many of you know I'm sure, and they are very conservative theologically. Because of their concern for "conserving" Jesus' teaching (or at least their understanding of them), there is an inherent concern for ministering to the poor -- or at least that's in their official doctrine. I am familiar with their teaching, and I can attest that this teaching is valued. I cannot attest as to how this is lived out in churches across the country.

They also tend to be very "conservative" politically, in that they tend to align with Republicans. Like many Evangelicals who do, this alignment is more about abortion than anything else -- even financial matters and the oppression and/or neglect of the poor.

If you recall, Sarah Palin has AG roots, and I think it's fair to say she embodies the political perspective of many AG churches -- though certainly not all of them.

I don't think it's fair to characterize the entire denomination that way, so I'll qualify my earlier statements by saying so, but it certainly is the trend in the AG to be aligned with Republicans.

WaveTossed

Actually, I get quite confused by church labels i.e. "conservative" and "liberal." I belong to the Episcopal Church and in so many ways, we are about as "conservative" and "traditional" as can be. We read the Nicene Creed every week, we have Confession, we read from the Old Testament, the Psalms, the Epistles and finally the Gospels. We have a very specific liturgy that we use each week. We don't use jazz or rock-n-roll for our church music; we use a church organ and sing traditional hymns from our hymnal.

And yet, the Episcopal Church has been described by many as being "radical" and "liberal" and "progressive" and "not traditional." We've been told that we are "not truly Christian," and that we "don't believe in the Bible" (even though Scripture is an integral part of each service).

Perhaps is it because we practice social justice, emphasize our inclusiveness for ALL of God's people. Is that what makes us "radical" and "not Bible-believing traditional" or "conservative?"

xfree9

Episcopals often are baffled by the labels thrown about because, my observation is, they are often consumed with doing God's work instead of figuring out how to make life work (e.g. finding out what system is best—I'm guilty of that myself). I've often heard Bishop N.T. Wright say that some debates going on in Evangelicalism seem puzzling, with his response normally being, "What's all the fuss about?" I like Anglicans a lot for this reason.

BlueDeacon

Well, the Episcopal diocese in my city split last year, with most of the churches aligning with a more "conservative" province in South America.