Is It Really Compassion?
Just Because We Say We Care Doesn’t Mean We Really Do
With the recent political firestorm around USAID, there has come a public debate about compassion. In some circles, it is being bluntly stated that Trump, Musk, and DOGE want Christians out of the way and are defunding compassion because they are defunding NGOs that have an ostensible connection to some part of the historic Christian faith. In other circles, the complete contradiction between those NGOs and traditional Christian values are being emphasized, including the almost unimaginable amount of waste of taxpayer dollars that flowed through USAID and “Christian” NGOs.
As long as I can remember, there has been a theological and worldview divide on the topic of compassion. What counts as compassion? If you have one view of compassion, you believe that governments handle compassion the best (or at least better than others), and you vote for politicians who will fund (read: raise taxes) those programs in order to take care of the poor, the immigrant, the hungry, etc. If you have another view, you believe that compassion is best handled by private or religious organizations funded directly by willing donors.
As an example of the first, progressive, view of compassion, Christianity Today recently ran an article by their Editor in Chief, Russell Moore, titled, Tech Broligarchs Want Jesus Out of the Way. The article plays on a manufactured fear that “the richest man in the world” has too much power and wants Christians out of the way. He is called “creepy” more than once. The article concludes:
All of this is easy enough to chalk up to “creepy” people with fringe positions and an endless supply of money. But this ideology is now not only inhabiting an entire technological ecosystem—to which we are all entwined—but also is the driving factor behind decisions about whether children in Africa get the funds allocated to save them from starvation or AIDS, and whether the constitutional checks and balances of power among equal branches dies in front of our eyes.
Notice the assumption that taking government money from gigantic NGOs is immediately anti-Christian and bad for the poor.
Phil Vischer, of Holy Post Podcast, an outspoken critic of Trump and conservative Christians, makes a similar statement:
“If we say we want to help people and then oppose legislation that will do so, maybe we just don't actually want to help people.”
The assumption is some form of the belief that government is basically a force for good, and it funds good organizations run by decent people who do a lot of good around the world. The resulting belief from that assumption is exactly what Vischer said: if you oppose legislation/taxation that “helps the poor,” then you are not a good person.
It is exactly this assumption that has never held water. It does not hold up to reality, but it does provide a lot of personal good vibes for those who propose it. This belief is basically wrong, but people feel good when they believe it.
The real question to ask about legislation, government activity, and taxation that ostensibly goes to the poor is, “but does it actually do that?” Results matter, especially when we are talking about an activity aimed at producing better results for the poor and suffering.
Before DOGE began revealing billions in waste and corruption, the answer was, “not really.” Trillions have been spent on the War on Poverty, for example, and rates of poverty have gone up. Trillions have been spent on health – cancer research, nutrition programs, heart disease, etc. – and the health of the average American has declined. But now, with the revelations coming out of the work done by DOGE, the answer is a clear, “absolutely not.”
It is now a kind of willful ignorance and moral turpitude to behold the colossal waste and fraud in these so-called Christian NGOs, and hold to the belief that defunding them is tantamount to wanting Christian compassion out of the way.
Not only have these so-called Christian NGOs not done a lot of actual poverty relief, some of them have taken an active part in money laundering and the slave trade. Many of them forced LGBTQ+ ideology onto churches in Africa and South America. Christianity Today, The Atlantic, Moore, Vischer, and others, can assert their luxury beliefs all they want, those beliefs cannot account for the waste, fraud, and abuse in those programs.
It is a moral and intellectual abomination for them to lecture Christians who have voluntarily given from their own back pockets to missionaries and relief organizations that do actual work and achieve actual results.
It is simply false that compassion is best expressed through taxpayer-funded programs that, as it turns out, have little to no accountability when it comes to funds spent and results produced.
