Christian Charities Need Christian Truth

By Rebecca Oas, Ph.D. | September 16, 2014

The UK-based organization Christian Aid released a briefing paper dated September 2014 detailing its position on the post-2015 development agenda currently under discussion at the UN.

Under their “Gender Justice” recommendations, Christian Aid calls for:

“Mainstreaming of gender into other areas including health, education, natural-resource management, energy access, peacebuilding, accountable governance and access to justice. This should include specific targets on maternal mortality and on sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR).”

The term “sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR)” is highly controversial language that has never been formally defined and is being promoted as a way to promote abortion and homosexuality.  No country that does not support abortion and homosexuality in the UN context supports the term SRHR.

This isn’t the first time Christian Aid has promoted it, either.  Last year, another report they published on the post-2015 development agenda included this:

“The mainstreaming of sexual education into school curriculums is another important issue – and the integration of all SRHR services, to make sure they are all under one roof, would also encourage women to seek and utilise these services that could save their lives. […] We all need to increase our advocacy in these areas, especially on SRHR, and greater involvement of faith-based actors would be particularly positive.”

That reference to integrated, one-stop SRHR services might as well have come from International Planned Parenthood Federation’s advocacy materials.  Needless to say, it would not only include abortion, but ensure that it is delivered as part of a comprehensive package of services and thus more difficult to isolate and stigmatize.

So does Christian Aid promote abortion?  This might be problematic, given that they claim the Greek, Russian, and Oriental Orthodox Churches among their official church sponsors, as well as over 30 other (Protestant) bodies that may individually take issue with such a stance.

For instance, the Holy Orthodox Church, which includes the major Orthodox groups in the United States, expressed the following in a 1988 submission to the US Supreme Court:

“The Holy Orthodox Church was founded by Jesus Christ and the Apostles, and bears witness to that continuous and unbroken faith.  The precepts of the Orthodox Christian faith mandate the protection of innocent human life, especially that of unborn children. The Church regards abortion as murder, and as such, takes a very active role in opposing legalized abortion.”

No ambiguity there – very forthrightly stated.  What if one were to ask Christian Aid about its stance on this issue?

In their Winter 2011 newsletter, Matt Gibbs did just that when he wrote, “Your International Director Paul Valentin says: ‘Part of the answer is improving reproductive health services.’ Can you tell me if this includes abortion?”

Mr. Valentin responded:

“To clarify, we are talking about giving poor men and women choice about how many children to have and when.  This starts with providing basic health services to ensure safer childbirth and better mother and child survival.  It also includes giving information about sexual health and the provision of safe, effective contraception without coercion.  Christian Aid does not consider abortion to be a desirable form of contraception.”

Anytime a simple yes-or-no question receives a paragraph in response, there’s likely to be some obfuscation in play.  First it should be clarified that abortion is not a form of “contraception” at all, since it does not block conception.  The kindest term one could use would be “birth control,” but I’ll concur with the Orthodox statement above and go with “murder.”

Second, whether abortion is deemed to be “desirable” or not, that is not the question Mr. Gibbs asked.  The relevant matter is whether Christian Aid is promoting abortion through their advocacy work (which their position papers on the development agenda would seem to indicate) or funding it either directly or indirectly.  Mr. Valentin’s response did not address those points.

While Christian Aid may be reluctant to take a clear position on the abortion issue, they published a report in 2011 updating the status of a health project in Sierra Leone.  In it, they cited the importance of developing “strong links with a range of local stakeholders” including “other international organizations working on complementary projects. […] Particularly relevant is a link with Marie Stopes…”

Relevant, indeed.  Marie Stopes is an organization that performs abortions and actively advocates for abortion, including in Sierra Leone.  The Marie Stopes clinics in Sierra Leone do not explicitly offer abortion among their available services , but claim to “provide a full range of high quality, affordable and client-focused sexual and reproductive health services to women, men and young people.”

Marie Stopes was previously directed to suspend their operations in Zambia after disclosing that it was performing illegal abortions there.   They have also admitted to performing illegal abortions in Kenya and, in a video clip recorded in London in 2007, their Programme Director in South Africa admitted to doing illegal abortions all around the world.

All of this raises some very important questions.  First, why is Christian Aid so hesitant to own its own position on abortion?  If they think it is valid health care and good for women, they should be bold in saying so, and if they think it is the needless killing of innocent children, they should be equally forthright – and refuse to partner with organizations that actively commit abortions with no regard for national laws, much less the lives of the unborn.  Second, given Christian Aid’s dubious track record thus far, why do the Orthodox Churches whichever other sponsoring churches claim a pro-life position continue to lend credibility and support to this organization?

All international aid organizations have a weighty responsibility to be good stewards, for the sake of both their donors and their beneficiaries, and that includes transparency about their work and the values that guide it.  Those organizations that bear the name of Christ have an even greater duty in this regard, as they are explicitly sent to serve the least among us, in His name, not to destroy them.

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter