A few months after I got married, my wife and I went to a Third World country to teach at a university and to share the Gospel as the Lord opened doors. We went there under the auspices of a Christian organization that required us to raise financial and prayer support; that was truly a faith-building exercise as we watched God’s people provide the funds that we needed.

When we returned to the U.S. three years later, with a toddler in tow, we were eager to “give back.” We did this through a church that we had joined as well as through a few parachurch organizations. Our starting point was Christian organizations whose goal was to share the Gospel in various ways. We looked at their finances (not as easy then as it is now; see https://www.charitynavigator.org/ for a quick way to examine an organization’s finances as well as other information, like leadership and results) and decided if an organization that we liked spent no more than ~15% of its funds on administration and fund-raising, we would give to them; in some cases, even if that figure was more than 15%, we would still give, but less.

One of the organizations that we gave to specialized in child sponsorship, which was something both of us had a strong desire to do. We chose a boy who was our son’s age, and then a couple years later, a girl who was our daughter’s age. That way, our kids could “grow up with” their sponsored counterparts, and indeed, they would sometimes write a note or send them a small toy. About ten years ago, this organization announced that they would lift their ban on hiring gay and lesbian married “Christians;” two days later, they (thankfully) reversed that decision. However, the damage had been done; it didn’t take long for news to spread on social media, and a significant number of evangelical Christians canceled their child sponsorships. In large part because of the quick reversal by the organization, my wife and I decided to continue sponsoring “our kids,” but the organization was definitely more on our radar.

About five years ago, the organization’s leader retired, and a new man took over the helm. In their communiques with donors, we noticed a continuing shift, including in theology. For example, here’s a quote from early 2022: “Imagine if we expanded our vision of community to encompass all God’s children around the globe.” The context implied that the leader views every person as one of God’s children, which is simply not true; you can read more about that view in something I wrote a while back if you’re interested: https://keithpetersenblog.com/2020/12/03/are-we-all-children-of-god/ Then recently, two of our sponsored children and their communities became independent, which is a good thing. The organization sent us picture cards and information about two new kids that they suggested we sponsor. On the cover of the pamphlet, under each child’s picture, it said, “Thank you for believing in me!” Also, on each child’s fridge magnet, it said, “I believe [name of child] is full of potential!”

My wife and I had the same reaction to these sentences; we especially objected to “Thank you for believing in me!” because although we would love these children, we would not “believe in” them; our belief, and hence our trust, is in the Lord God. I would have been more than happy to call the organization, but my wife had an even stronger desire. She told the representative about our objection to the above sentences, and thankfully, the rep listened! It was obvious that she hadn’t really thought about those sentences before. She even asked what we would suggest instead, so my wife suggested “I am unique. I am loved. I am fearfully and wonderfully made.” (Any or all of the above.) A few days later, we received a short survey in the mail, and in the comments section, I wrote about our conversation with the rep as well as the “children of God” comment. We haven’t heard anything more since, but we have decided to continue our sponsorship of our remaining child until she and her community become independent. In the meantime, we are researching other organizations to sponsor children through instead.

A second organization that we had been giving to is one that trained native missionaries to share the Gospel. In other words, instead of training and sending North American missionaries, for example, to the Third World, they focused on raising up people in their own communities to be missionaries. We first heard about this organization through friends of ours; the husband was going to work for them and needed to raise money to do so. My wife and I strongly appreciated the concept of native missionaries compared with North American missionaries because of the cost-effectiveness of such a paradigm, so we started to support our friends as well as two native missionaries in India.

Some time later, we received a letter from an administrator at the organization saying that our friend was being let go; the letter suggested that it was because of some kind of moral failing. We were rather shocked, so we spoke with our friend. He said that he had actually been let go because of issues related to his work; he had made some of the changes that they had suggested, but not to their satisfaction. As time went on, the atmosphere in the office had changed in ways that negatively affected him as well. We also spoke with the person who had written the letter about our friend and explained to him that his wording suggested something very different from what he had apparently meant; he seemed to accept that, so we continued our support of our two native missionaries. However, we stopped that support a couple years later because they no longer needed it, for whatever reason.

Several years after that, this same organization became embroiled in a series of financial scandals related to misuse of donor funds. For example, they were accused of redirecting specifically designated funds into other areas; it would be like a church redirecting funds designated for the deacons’ fund into the general fund. Directly connected with this redirection, or misappropriation, of funds, this organization had essentially been “hoarding” millions of dollars. It settled a large lawsuit just a few years ago, although I’m sorry to say, the leadership admitted no wrongdoing. One would hope that a purportedly Christian organization would be able to say, like King David after being confronted over his adultery with Bathsheba, “I have sinned against the Lord.” (2 Samuel 12:13)

One principle that we have strived to live by is not to react very quickly to emotional pleas for money from charitable organizations. On 9/11, for example, along with the rest of the nation, I watched the news with disbelief as they showed, again and again, the planes crashing into the Twin Towers. Our church gave the congregation the opportunity to give, especially to the families of the firefighters who had died; the church would funnel funds to them through a charity. My wife asked what I thought about giving in that way, and I said I didn’t want to. My reasoning was that there would be an economic downturn, which would cause charitable giving to drop off; I thought we should continue giving as we had been, or possibly increase it, because “our” organizations would need the money even more. I also thought that there would be plenty of giving to the firefighters’ families, as there should be. My predictions aren’t always right, but for the next couple years, there was an economic downturn, and charitable organizations suffered along with the rest of the country. Interestingly, a large, well-known organization that had collected a very significant amount of money designated for firefighters’ families was discovered to have redirected some of those funds to other areas; they quickly made it right, at least mostly, by diverting the money back to those families.

Please don’t misunderstand me; if you gave to firefighters’ families in the aftermath of 9/11, I think that’s great! They certainly needed it, deserved it, and received it. However, for my wife and myself, we decided to continue giving as we had been; for us, that was the right decision, but that doesn’t mean it would have been the right one for you. Regarding the second organization that I wrote about: I would guess that most potential donors would look at the financial scandal engulfing it and at the very least wait for some time before giving to them. In regard to the first organization that I wrote about, maybe you have no concern over the initial lifting of the ban on hiring gay and lesbian married “Christians,” the “children of God” comment, or even “Thank you for believing in me!” If so, then so be it; some of these issues are matters of conscience. That’s why in both the first and second case, my wife and I talked to people in the organizations to express our concerns. The good news is that there is an abundance of other charitable organizations to choose from, and Charity Navigator makes it easy to research them.

One thing I would not suggest is blindly giving to parachurch and other charitable organizations. We always need to be wise as stewards of the funds the Lord has given us, including when there are signs that something is changing negatively in an organization that we support.