Religious Faith and International Humanitarian Action Conference
March 27-28, 2003
Washington, D.C.

[Return to Summary]

Module 2

“Proselytizing” facilitated by Margaret Ziegler, Deputy Director of the Congressional Hunger Center

Participants began this discussion by identifying the term “proselytizing” as a secular term applied to describe evangelism with pejorative connotations. While proselytizing is not a common policy, it tends to happen on an informal level in the field. It was established that respect for local customs and laws is crucial to the success of an aid program, and that evangelistic carelessness could jeopardize that success. Participants recommended various means of addressing the abuse of proselytization, starting with an open dialogue on proselytizing and words of caution from within the faith. In the end, all agreed that respect for and freedom of all religions is key.


“Trends in Faith Based Humanitarian Organizational Development” facilitated by Ranya Ghuma, International Development Program Officer at Catholic Relief Services

Faith-based organizations (FBOs) face various challenges in the current process of professionalizing the humanitarian assistance community. Participants expressed concerns about hiring national staff, competing for government funding, managing rapid growth in new areas, and balancing the faith’s identity with humanitarian realities. A central issue discussed was the role of national staff. Most agreed that national staff better understand local customs and realities, but voiced concern for their safety in complex emergencies vis-à-vis domestic forces. There were mixed opinions on the policy of hiring staff only from the same faith. People of the same faith share the same networks, knowledge and core values. However, policies that discriminate based on faith may hamper cooperation among different FBOs. In addition, many participants noted the recent shift among many FBOs from primarily relief and development programs to include advocacy work. This shift will have uncertain implications on funding, as will the current focus on faith-based initiatives by the administration and Congress.


“Relations With Donors (Private, Public, Foundations)” facilitated by Mark Engman, Senior Representative for Christian Children’s Fund

This discussion revolved around the benefits and challenges FBOs face when dealing with public and private donors. The primary benefit noted by all participants was the built-in core of private funding (from their members). The key to relations with donors agreed upon by all participants was transparency. All donors want to know where the money goes, but public donors like government agencies require much more oversight than private, smaller donors. Many FBOs expressed concern over their capacity to perform the extensive accounting procedures required by government donors. Some expressed their frustration with being dually alienated for being a FBO; some donors said they were “too religious” while other said they “weren’t religious enough”. Suggestions while soliciting funding included: stressing technical achievements, professionalism and past successes; playing down the faith when approaching government agencies while playing up the faith when dealing with private donors.


“Challenging the Status Quo: Advocacy on the Ground” facilitated by Tom Getman, Director of Humanitarian Affairs and International Relations at World Vision International

This group discussed the advantages and disadvantages of FBOs in terms of access, strategy, credibility and ability to address the root causes of crises. It was generally accepted that FBOs have increased access and credibility in many regions than do secular humanitarian aid agencies. FBOs can work in regions beyond government control and disseminate information across boundaries via distinct unrestricted channels. They benefit from already established networks and relationships that facilitate the transition from relief and development work toward advocacy. They have access to multiple levels of society, from local churches to the Conference of Bishops and beyond, for example. The need to monitor all advocacy was expressed in order to ensure neutrality and to avoid being identified with an exterior agenda.

[Return to Summary]