In making his now famous motion to revisit the ADCOM statement on vacccines, Jonathan Zirkle mentioned that ADRA recently found itself on the same side of the “versus” as George Soros’ Open Society Foundation in a case before the U.S. Supreme Court. I was intrigued by this, especially after one of our commenters posted a video showing plainly that ADRA had, in fact, filed an amicus curiae or “friend of the court” brief supporting the position of the Soros-funded organization.
The case was United States Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc. The U.S. Government provides funds for fighting HIV/AIDS to transnational charities, or “non-governmental organizations” (NGOs) on the condition that “no funds be used to assist any group or organization that does not have a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking.”
That seems like a laudable policy—who favors prostitution or sex trafficking? Nevertheless, the Soros-backed “Alliance for Open Society International” sued the U.S. Agency for International Development, and won. The original case was decided in 2013; the U.S. Supreme Court held that the condition requiring explicit opposition to prostitution and sex trafficking was compelled speech in violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Subsequently, the U.S. Government did not try to enforce the provision domestically, but continued to apply the condition internationally, including upon the Open Society’s foreign affiliates. Open Society sued again, seeking permanent injunctive relief from overseas enforcement of the condition. The trial court granted the requested relief against the government, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed.
This was the posture of the controversy when ADRA filed its Amicus brief supporting Open Society. Perusing the front page of the brief, I noticed that ADRA was represented by Eugene Volokh, the founder of The Volokh Conspiracy, one of the most widely read legal blogs in the U.S. Volokh is not a crazed Leftist; just the opposite, he is a generally sensible, libertarian-leaning lawyer and pundit.
In its brief, ADRA noted right off that the requirement to oppose prostitution and sex trafficking agreed with its values, and those of the SDA Church. But it wanted to preserve, for future instances, the principle that there should be no government-compelled speech, even of foreign aid organizations. The bulk of ADRA’s argument was that it is not practical for a U.S.-based NGO, especially a religiously affiliated one, to have one stated policy position domestically, while its foreign affiliate, because of government-compelled speech, has a different and possibly contradictory position.
ADRA’s argument was not unreasonable; they were thinking ahead. It is beyond obvious that the U.S. government, given what it has become and who is running it, will eventually require NGOs to support the whole litany of LGBTQ and Woke issues in order to receive government funding (assuming this hasn’t started already).
As it happened, Open Society lost round two. On May 5, 2020, the Court ruled that the First Amendment protection against government-compelled speech does not apply to foreign persons and entities residing in foreign countries. Hence, the government could enforce the anti-prostitution and trafficking policy on overseas aid organizations.
Again, ADRA’s position was not unreasonable, but I would have suggested waiting to litigate until the government imposes a condition on funding that actually does contravene our beliefs and doctrines. That would have spared ADRA the embarrassment of advocating against the sensible provision that those committing to fight HIV/AIDS, and accepting government money to do so, must be opposed to prostitution and sex trafficking—and also the embarrassment of being aligned with the George Soros galaxy of non-profits, the mission of which, concisely stated, is civilizational degradation and destruction.
It would also place ADRA in the position of appealing directly to religious liberty, which is a very high value at the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court will be sympathetic to an argument such as “We’re not going to pretend to be in favor of same sex marriage in Zambia because that goes against clearly Scriptural Christian beliefs, as well as two thousand years of Christian practice.”
But there is an even more foolproof way of avoiding conditions on government money: don’t take any. For a variety of reasons, ADRA should operate entirely on privately obtained funds. No one is more generous than Seventh-day Adventists. We’ll give to the last farthing if it is for a good cause and will be well spent and not wasted.
Beyond that, I think we’re missing the mark with our social welfare efforts. The NGO way of trying to help people isn’t the best. Big NGOs are notorious for doing more harm than good by a) making people dependent on giveaways instead of learning to produce things themselves, and b) giving away free stuff, thereby driving out of business the locals whose industry is growing, manufacturing, or selling that stuff.
Something I noticed when I was in the graduate economics program at the University of Texas is that foreign aid seldom accomplishes what it is supposed to, and doesn’t make poor societies rich. We know how societies become wealthy—hard work, frugality, investment, and a commitment to the rule of the law and the inviolability of private property rights.
The West became wealthy because of the Protestant work ethic. But observing wealthy eastern societies like Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, and Singapore, maybe there’s a Confucian work ethic, too, one that, in the cases of Hong Kong and Singapore, flowered within a British legal structure that respected work, trade and commerce.
The best way to nurture a society into becoming wealthy is to encourage a Protestant belief system and culture, and yet, ironically, ADRA is forbidden to do this very thing.
The Biblical model for Christian social welfare is the Jerusalem Church, whose social welfare outreach was conducted locally, by the deacons. Today, we think of deacons as taking up the offering and tidying up the sanctuary, but the first deacons were appointed to relieve the disciples from the burden of operating the church's food distribution system, so they could concentrate on teaching and preaching the word. (Acts 6:1-7).
Biblically, the deacons’ job is to take care of people—to minister to the practical needs of the poor, the widowed, the elderly. Women, who are naturally the more nurturing sex, and especially solicitous of the needs of other women, the young, the weak, and the defenseless, are well fitted for this social welfare work. Ellen White believed that there was still a need for a social welfare ministry in the Adventist Church, and that we needed to “branch out” and meet that need. The local church social-welfare ministry is an excellent avenue for women to be in full-time, paid ministry, since the headship offices of the church are biblically closed to them.
“Women who are willing to consecrate some of their time to the service of the Lord should be appointed to visit the sick, look after the young, and minister to the necessities of the poor. They should be set apart to this work by prayer and laying on of hands. In some cases, they will need to counsel with the church officers or the minister, but if they are devoted women, maintaining a vital connection with God, they will be a power for good in the church. This is another means of strengthening and building up the church. We need to branch out more in our methods of labor.” (R&H, July 9, 1895, par. 8).
A social welfare ministry should be an integral part of the ministry of each and every local SDA Church.