Should I Give to Starving Kids If the Cash Is Going to Terrorists?
— Monday, November 23rd, 2009 —
Dear Dr. Moore,
As a missionary in a West African country, I’m in a difficult situation. Here poverty is everywhere, and many people sell their young boys to the Taliban leaders at the various mosques. These half naked boys are sent into the streets to beg with a large tomato can and a stick. They are truly hungry and afraid; that was obvious to me. The Christians here have explained that if the boys do not collect enough money, they are not fed and beaten—sometimes worse.
What should I do? Should I give the boys money for the Taliban hoping they will be safe? Should I refuse to support a group that proudly murders knowing that the precious eyes you are refusing could be beaten without my help?
Sincerely,
On Mission
Before I answer, why don’t you help me out. Should this Christian give to the starving boys, knowing the money will go possibly to fund the murder and persecution of other Christians? Or should this Christian refuse to give money, knowing it might mean the children passed by will be beaten for coming back empty?
I have a question,
What is so unusual about Christians being persecuted?
@Robert Hall, This seems like a kneejerk reaction with no thought behind it. Counter question: how usual is it for you to suffer persecution, not counting someone rolling his eyes in response to one of your declarations?
@Robert Hall,
… or perhaps Robert Hall has put thought into it, and you just don’t read his answer closely enough, Jim.
Tough question; I’m hoping someone comes up with a creative third option. Meanwhile, it seems that Scripture would call us to give even if it were the terrorists themselves begging on the streets: “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink” (Rom. 12:20).
@Jordan Buckley, huh imagine the answer found plainly in Scripture
If I give the boys money, even a large amount, they might not be beaten or starved. They will grow up in the Taliban and be trained to become terrorists. If I simply refuse to give them money in order to avoid funding terrorists, the boys will probably be beaten or starved. If they survive this, they will be trained to become terrorists.
My response would be to find a way to take or hide the boys in a safe place where they could be fed, cared for, and told the good news of Jesus Christ. My biblical warrant would come from the mandate in Scripture to care for the oppressed (essentially orphaned in this case), i.e. James 1:27-2:17. A historical precedent would be those who hid black slaves in America or those who hid Jews from the Germans. A modern example would be those “kidnapping” the teenage girls in Asia who are sold into prostitution.
There are obviously many considerations regarding the safety of one’s family and/or the people of the village which would have to be considered, but this seems like a reasonable place to start.
@Ryan, I would add Hebrews 11 as an example for the kind of mindset one would have if taking and providing for these children is a valid option for the missionary.
I agree with Jordan. I would speak with the kids and tell them that you know where the money is going, but that your God commands that you love your enemies just as He did.
When I was in the Bahamas I saw children who had no legs begging for money. Their parents had cut off their limbs in hopes of money from sympathetic Americans.
It did pull at the heart strings and you wanted to give them something, but I think it only encouraged further atrocities.
Jesus said, “For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.” Matt. 25:35-36
He didn’t say “I was hungry and you gave me money.”
I think we need to weigh our desire to provide assistance with the greater good and act accordingly.
I voted no, though I’ll be interested to hear reasons for those who voted yes.
From an ethical standpoint, I wouldn’t consider this person morally culpable for the harm that may befall these children. Their problems go much deeper than not coming home with a full cup of cash one day, and they really need to be rescued out of this situation altogether.
However, I’m guessing that knowingly supporting terrorism is indeed a crime for Americans at home or abroad, meaning it’s definitely wrong. Beyond the illegality, it would also be a wrong act on its own regardless of the plight of the money collectors. A second wrong here wouldn’t make the situation right or have any necessary positive impact on the lives of the children in question.
So, while I couldn’t give them money, I’d still try to pursue more substantive ways to help the boys. Who knows what the circumstances are like… Can you give them food directly? Are there any ministries there supporting these children? Can the legal system be trusted to provide any sort of protection? What can our missions organizations do here?
This seems like an instance where we can be grateful to live in a country with establishment and free exercise clauses.
Obviously, the ideal is to find a third alternative (i.e. sneak the boys out of the area, turn the local population against the Taliban, beat the terrorists with a really big stick until they stop kidnapping children, etc) However, if we have to choose between the options presented, I think the clear choice is not to give them money. Doing so will have two serious results.
First, it tells the terrorists that this is a successful method of obtaining funds, which encourages further kidnapping, extending the cycle. The only possible way that they might stop (and this is obviously speculative) is if the tactic doesn’t work.
Secondly, and more seriously, if these children are successful, they will remain useful. This will only lead the terrorists to keep them around and inculcate them with their evil religion and ideology. From an eternal perspective, this will lead to far worse consequences than any that could be inflicted here on earth.
My heart aches for any child in such a situation, or for any adult confronted with this choice as a non-hypothetical. I hope anyone reading this post takes at least a moment to pray for the innocents involved here. However, my brain tells me that God wants me to excercise wisdom in addition to compassion, and the wise choice seems to be to avoid playing this game and extending the evil involved.
I don’t think there is an easy answer to this question. Social justice is so complex, and filled with a ton of emotion. Do you give the child money to perhaps save him from a beating and/or rape, all the while knowing that if he doesn’t meet his quota for the next day he is in danger of the same fate. Futher, which boy would you choose to spare and give the money to. Can you look in the face of the boy you didn’t give money too, knowing that he would be stripped of human diginity later that night as a result? Wow, this is a tough question. Personally, I don’t think I could look at a hungry child, and walk away. I would see a sad, lonely, scared little boy and give the money. But then again, that is what the Taliban are counting on. Good luck, Dr. Moore figuring this one out!
I’ve seen or read similar stories from West Africa before, but I don’t remember where–60 Minutes or 20/20 or Fox News. I think we sometimes over-analyze giving to panhandlers or beggars. Who knows how our charity might impact these boys? Whose to say they are even the children overseen by these “Taliban” imams? Maybe they’re just hungry.
Without breaking the boundaries of Dr. Moore’s “give or don’t give” situation, I say give… Don’t let the “what ifs” of the future squelch your compassion.
I voted “No” in the poll, and I do so for several reasons. To preface those remarks, however, it is obvious that the missionaries are in a tough situation, and my opinions are just that: opinions, since I am not in that scenario.
First, while we are instructed to love our enemies, we must have a correct definition of “love”. Love is not willy-nilly indiscriminate giving of material goods. Rather, God’s love, the love the Bible describes, can be defined as giving oneself even unto death for the spiritual well-being of another human. With that definition in mind, funneling resources to appease the blood-lusts of terrorists helps no one in anyway. Growing terrorism doesn’t draw the terrorists closer to Jesus Christ. If it did, I’d be all for funding them! Funding terrorism is not showing love, and if we have not love, isn’t it all for nought? So while we may be “caring” (in some strange sense of the word), we are not really loving.
Second, as Americans, we are obligated to loyalty of our nation. The current political situation of our nation aside, we are not to encourage the destruction of our own nation. That would be “aiding and abetting terrorism”, a breach in national loyalty. Provided, we’re not to follow blindly the will of Washington, but that is not what I am suggesting. All I am saying is that as citizens of the United States, we are to love our nation.
Third, we are not doing the kids any favor either. This goes back to the above definition of love. Helping them aid terrorists is not love.
Others have already voiced their wish that the missionaries could simply remove the children from that horrid situation. Would that they could! However, I will assume that such acts are impossible, and could even lead to worse punishment and even death. In some ways, this seems to be out of the missionaries’ hands. If this is international terrorism that they’re dealing with, unfortunately, there is not much that can be done. As just a 15-year-old, I’m utterly unqualified to offer suggestions to the missionaries. Further, I know very little of the situation. Can the US Embassy be contacted? How armed are the terrorists? What kind of stand can the missionaries make? These questions remain wide-open, and, depending on their answers, change my position.
As per the boys, it seems that giving them money helps them not at all. Remember the movies where the bad guys have the hostage? The bad guys always threaten to do something horrific to someone the hostage loves. More often than not, the hostage finally gives in (see Star Trek for just one example), thinking to have done a noble deed. Yet as soon as the bad guys are confident of the information, they proceed to do exactly what they’d threatened. I always groan at such scenarios—I know what the hostage will do, I and I know what the bad guys will do. The point is this: bad guys are bad guys. You can’t bargain with them. They feign sincerity at the parley table one day, and the next day are back to war. In this case, they’ll beat the boys if they don’t bring back money, and if they do, they may very well beat them anyway! And at any rate, there’s precious little chance that they’ll look on at some industrious little kid, be moved with compassion, and release him. The wicked are never satisfied, so why would we assume such in this case?
Just some thoughts. Joshua Owens
Furthermore, how much money are the missionaries to give? If the boys collect $100 from our missionaries, will the terrorists free the boys? Not likely. Let’s take this to its logical conclusion. There will come a point in time at which the missionaries simply cannot give any more money. Then, the boys will go back, penniless (for our purposes we’re ignoring what they raise from others), only to be beaten once more. What favor have we done them? Saved them a couple days, maybe a couple weeks at most, of pain? Ultimately, shoving cash in their buckets isn’t going to help them. It’ll just put off the inevitable.
I would say the best thing the missionaries could do (short of invoking military action, since this is a heinous practice) would be to share the Gospel with these boys, just as they do with others. God is abundantly capable of accomplishing more than we can ask or think. It is safe to assume that if any of the boys accept Christ, he is imminently in danger of his life. But, so too was Paul, Ignatius, and countless other Christians. Of course, where possible, they could also try to remove the boys from the situation, but you must remember that we’re dealing with the Taliban, an organization that’s given the US military, NATO, and the UN multiple headaches for many years! If I understand the scenario more or less correctly, it’s not just as easy as placing someone in a homeless shelter. As heart-rending as it is, the missionaries may only be able to pray.
Josh brings up an excellent point–not funding the practice is the best way to shut it down!
Ryan, your point is well taken, though I think it’s safe to assume that rescuing the boys from the situation is not possible. Our missionaries are very capable and competent, and I have no doubt that if it were within their power to rescue the boys that they would do so.
A sticky situation to be sure, but I find the funding of the Taliban, whatever the situation, to be unsustainable on theological and legal grounds. I could be wrong, and I’d love your feedback.
Joshua Owens
@Joshua O., Though it certainly would be difficult, why do you assume it is impossible? Should the difficulty of the situation impact our responsibility to do it, or should the difficulty impact the intensity of our clinging to the power and universal authority of Christ in this situation? I’m not for “fighting” the Taliban in the name of Christ, but I do think it is a responsible obligation to do what is in our power to remove these boys from the situation.
If your way of standing up for the oppressed is tossing change into a bucket when everyone is watching, you’ve probably never saved anyone. Stand up against their oppressors, spread the knowledge of their plight to others, rescue them, pray for them, adopt them, feed them, clothe them, and don’t be afraid to take their troubles on yourself.
I think the problem here is that we’ve become accustomed to thinking “should I give that guy my change or not?” instead of obeying (or even remembering) the many commandments we have for ministering to the poor. Situations like this show us that our change isn’t enough. Those kids need rescue, and the hand reaching to them ought to be the church.
Is it possible the writer is confused?
Their title talibe doesn’t necessarily mean they’re linked to the Taliban.
Most are just being used by corrupt Imams looking to get wealthy.
I voted “No” in the poll, and I do so for several reasons. To preface those remarks, however, it is obvious that the missionaries are in a tough situation, and my opinions are just that: opinions, since I am not in that scenario.
First, while we are instructed to love our enemies, we must have a correct definition of “love”. Love is not willy-nilly indiscriminate giving of material goods. Rather, God’s love, the love the Bible describes, can be defined as giving oneself even unto death for the spiritual well-being of another human. With that definition in mind, funneling resources to appease the blood-lusts of terrorists helps no one in anyway. Growing terrorism doesn’t draw the terrorists closer to Jesus Christ. If it did, I’d be all for funding them! Funding terrorism is not showing love, and if we have not love, isn’t it all for nought? So while we may be “caring” (in some strange sense of the word), we are not really loving.
Second, as Americans, we are obligated to loyalty of our nation. The current political situation of our nation aside, we are not to encourage the destruction of our own nation. That would be “aiding and abetting terrorism”, a breach in national loyalty. Provided, we’re not to follow blindly the will of Washington, but that is not what I am suggesting. All I am saying is that as citizens of the United States, we are to love our nation.
Third, we are not doing the kids any favor either. This goes back to the above definition of love. Helping them aid terrorists is not love.
Others have already voiced their wish that the missionaries could simply remove the children from that horrid situation. Would that they could! However, I will assume that such acts are impossible, and could even lead to worse punishment and even death. In some ways, this seems to be out of the missionaries’ hands. If this is international terrorism that they’re dealing with, unfortunately, there is not much that can be done. As just a 15-year-old, I’m utterly unqualified to offer suggestions to the missionaries. Further, I know very little of the situation. Can the US Embassy be contacted? How armed are the terrorists? What kind of stand can the missionaries make? These questions remain wide-open, and, depending on their answers, change my position.
As per the boys, it seems that giving them money helps them not at all. Remember the movies where the bad guys have the hostage? The bad guys always threaten to do something horrific to someone the hostage loves. More often than not, the hostage finally gives in (see Star Trek for just one example), thinking to have done a noble deed. Yet as soon as the bad guys are confident of the information, they proceed to do exactly what they’d threatened. I always groan at such scenarios—I know what the hostage will do, I and I know what the bad guys will do. The point is this: bad guys are bad guys. You can’t bargain with them. They feign sincerity at the parley table one day, and the next day are back to war. In this case, they’ll beat the boys if they don’t bring back money, and if they do, they may very well beat them anyway! And at any rate, there’s precious little chance that they’ll look on at some industrious little kid, be moved with compassion, and release him. The wicked are never satisfied, so why would we assume such in this case?
Just some thoughts. Joshua Owens
I also live in a west African country and tallibe is Arabic fir disciple. In fact in our translation of the bible, Jesus’disciples are translated “tallibe”
these boys are given to imams by parents who are promised by the imams they will receive an education but often are simply a means to financing the many mosques.
Another consideration is that with Islam, begging is a legitimate job as you are providing means for people to give alms thus fulfilling one of the pillars. Parents here also will cripple their children at birth so they can bring in money through begging.
We keep cookies in our truck and take chances to share the gospel. Giving the boys money does not, at least here, help the boys.
Why do people think that giving money to evil people will stop evil? The boys are going to be abused if they collect money or not. They ARE being abused just being on the street forced to beg. They are being exploited. Giving them money exploits these children further.
There ARE other options to help these children. I don’t know the situation, but there are always options to help exploited children. Usually the problem is that the ones who can help the children do not want to take the time, energy, money or the risk to their reputations/lives to do it.
Fatherless children are God’s children and if we seek him in prayer, he can show us how to genuinely help them and show them his love.
Giving them money is NOT showing them God’s love.
In scanning through the comments left here I have seen a running trend of fear that if the children are given money and return to the imams they will be raised and trained as terrorists. But just to throw a wrench in this thought, what about the children that return with no money? They then grow up being reminded of how the Christians they begged were able to refuse them knowing their plight. Won’t the imams then use this to fuel a fire of hatred against Christians. Which is worse? A child raised to be a terrorist with memories of compassionate Christians or a child raised to be a terrorist with a reason to hate Christians?
@Will, That’s why I suggested removing the boys from the situation (i.e. kidnapping them). I’m not sure why Josh O. suggests this is an impossible option. Difficult, absolutely, but so is sharing the gospel with a pagan nation. It seems that simply giving them money or not giving them money (or even food) does not do justice to our call to minister to the poor and oppressed.
I think Sean has a good point.
My husband and I are living in India right now and face a similar dilemma. Handlers and/or parents often maim children in an effort to use them to gain money. The church we attend has recommended that we give food instead of money. Giving money only encourages the system. More children will be maimed or tortured if those in charge know they can get money through this avenue. Instead, the church has come up with ways to reach out to the poor on the street. Money from the church helps to feed the lepers/beggars on the street. Through these outreaches, they are also preaching the gospel. Obviously West Africa is different than India, but the premise is the same. Giving money only encourages those who are torturing to take more boys/children for their evil gain.
I voted “No” in the poll, and I do so for several reasons. To preface those remarks, however, it is obvious that the missionaries are in a tough situation, and my opinions are just that: opinions, since I am not in that scenario.
First, while we are instructed to love our enemies, we must have a correct definition of “love”. Love is not willy-nilly indiscriminate giving of material goods. Rather, God’s love, the love the Bible describes, can be defined as giving oneself even unto death for the spiritual well-being of another human. With that definition in mind, funneling resources to appease the blood-lusts of terrorists helps no one in anyway. Growing terrorism doesn’t draw the terrorists closer to Jesus Christ. If it did, I’d be all for funding them! Funding terrorism is not showing love, and if we have not love, isn’t it all for nought? So while we may be “caring” (in some strange sense of the word), we are not really loving.
Second, as Americans, we are obligated to loyalty of our nation. The current political situation of our nation aside, we are not to encourage the destruction of our own nation. That would be “aiding and abetting terrorism”, a breach in national loyalty. Provided, we’re not to follow blindly the will of Washington, but that is not what I am suggesting. All I am saying is that as citizens of the United States, we are to love our nation.
Third, we are not doing the kids any favor either. This goes back to the above definition of love. Helping them aid terrorists is not love.
Others have already voiced their wish that the missionaries could simply remove the children from that horrid situation. Would that they could! However, I will assume that such acts are impossible, and could even lead to worse punishment and even death. In some ways, this seems to be out of the missionaries’ hands. If this is international terrorism that they’re dealing with, unfortunately, there is not much that can be done. As just a 15-year-old, I’m utterly unqualified to offer suggestions to the missionaries. Further, I know very little of the situation. Can the US Embassy be contacted? How armed are the terrorists? What kind of stand can the missionaries make? These questions remain wide-open, and, depending on their answers, change my position.
As per the boys, it seems that giving them money helps them not at all. Remember the movies where the bad guys have the hostage? The bad guys always threaten to do something horrific to someone the hostage loves. More often than not, the hostage finally gives in (see Star Trek for just one example), thinking to have done a noble deed. Yet as soon as the bad guys are confident of the information, they proceed to do exactly what they’d threatened. I always groan at such scenarios—I know what the hostage will do, I and I know what the bad guys will do. The point is this: bad guys are bad guys. You can’t bargain with them. They feign sincerity at the parley table one day, and the next day are back to war. In this case, they’ll beat the boys if they don’t bring back money, and if they do, they may very well beat them anyway! And at any rate, there’s precious little chance that they’ll look on at some industrious little kid, be moved with compassion, and release him. The wicked are never satisfied, so why would we assume such in this case?
Just some thoughts. Joshua Owens