With one bewildering move–the decision to remove the word “Christian” from the Christian Children’s Fund’s–the charity simultaneously alienated the largest audience segment AND the most-generous. Needy children everywhere should be outraged.
Take a look at these statistics. The data on giving is from the 2000 Social Capital community Benchmark Survey conducted by Roper Center for Publich Opinion Research. I can’t imagine a better target for a charity than Christians.
–Christian Americans are the single largest audience segment in the country.
- 231 million Americans say they are Christians and 144 million attend worship services every week.
- There are more Christian Americans than female or male Americans.
- There are more Christian Americans than white Americans.
–Christians give more to charity than secularists.
- In the year 2000 “religious” people (those who attend church weekly) were 25 percentage points more likely to give charitably than “secularists.”*
- They were also 23 percentage points more likely to volunteer*
- When considering average dollar amounts the disparity is even wider. Religious people gave four times more dollars per year, on average than secularists ($2,210 vs. $642)*
- The churchgoer is 21 percentage points more likely to make a charitable gift of money during the year than the non-churchgoer.
Rather than distancing themselves from Christianity, the organization should embrace its faith connection as a distinctive that allows it to better connect to the Christian church, raise more money, and provide more help to needy children. GS
I’m curious why they adopted the name Christian when they changed from China Children’s Fund years ago. I’ve never thought of CCF as having a spiritual focus to their work, although they do great things for children. Neither WorldVision or Compassion International have Christian in their name and they do quite well in the Christian fund-raising arena.
Do you see this as anti-Christian, or are they trying to align themselves with the larger ChildFund global picture?
Jim,
I think many Christians will interpret dropping the word “Christian” from the CCF name as a conscious attempt to distance themselves from Christanity which will cause many believers to give their money to child relief organizations that are not ashamed by the association with faith.
While it is true that there may be market repercussions of this decision, it would seem that it is market-driven to begin with, as there were elements of CCF that either just plain ignored a faith element, or were anti-thetical to it.
To be clear, this was probably a solid branding move on their part so as to remove any confusion to their organization for a faith when they wanted to incorporate no element of it in their work. If they claimed to be “Christian”, then went against the core beliefs many have, wouldn’t this market then give an even greater backlash? I’m sure of it – and experiencing a taste of it probably drove this decision.
I personally believe they changed the name because they do not want to be tied into the scandals within the Christian faith which have been in the media eye over the past years (which probably made the catholics feel a little better about their past situations). Let’s face it, (and I am a Christian by faith, not by church) religion has taken advantage of the system for many years, Roger Mahoney (the devil in disguise) was a great example of that, paying off molested children to sweep the real problem under the rug, Jerry Falwell (he’s a joke), Oral Roberts and his 900 foot tall savior. Christians, among other religions, should be more true to their faith and themselves as well, and not look for manipulative or deceiving ways to get ahead in life. That last line was for all the Deacons, Pastors and Preachers who drive Jaguars and such. God is good, but I’m a realist, and do not need to be attached to a church to have faith in the lord. I’m sure this will get deleted by the brainwashing bunch.
Interesting opinion, Bret and that’s exactly what that is, an opinion. It truly is tough being a person of faith in this country in today’s world. As Christians, if we make one wrong step it’s a monumental infraction and the media spins it like we aren’t sinners by nature. How ridiculous is that? On the other hand, I can paint my face & be publicly drunk at a football game, be a media mogul and have numerous affairs or get paid an exhorbitant compensation pkg and no one deems these as morally or ethically offensive? I don’t see the word Christian as offensive at all. Perhaps we should be praying for the strength to be proud of our values and beliefs?
Bill, have you noticed? It’s been two whole months since you posted your comment and yet no one has deleted it. If you were wrong about that, then which of your other assumptions may also be misplaced?
A few observations related to your comment. Since all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, it is impossible to be associated any people–even yourself–without being associated with a sinner. So, associating with a new group of people provides no protection from scandal.
The question isn’t whether you can avoid being associated with sinners. You can’t. The question is: With which group of sinners would you rather associate?
Do you prefer those who acknowledge their sin, repent from it, and receive forgiveness from a merciful God through Christ Jesus? Or, do you prefer those who won’t event acknowledge their sin?
Do you prefer those who strive toward holiness and fail, or those who strive for evil and succeed?
By the way, did you know that when Jerry Falwell was in college, he sought and received permission from college administrators to use an empty classroom for four hours each day just to pray? If that qualifies as being a “joke,” then may God make jokes of us all.