If the cap fits, Boaz...

>>given that I'm apparently the only major critic of Tims salary after your timely post quantifiying it, I assume you are calling me an 'evangelical dog'<<

The exact phrase was "let loose the dogs of evangelical Christianity", so it was a little more metaphorical ("cry havoc, and let loose the dogs of war" Shakespeare: Julius Caesar) than purely canine.

Aren't you getting a touch paranoid, too?

>>I notice also you now declare World Vision a 'business' and not a charity? Why so? Could it be that this gives you yet another quasi legitimate opportunity to simply criticize me?<<

My first post made absolutely no observations on Tim's Christianity. It was you alone who decided that this aspect was offensive.

My point was entirely secular: World Vision is a business, pure and simple. Even their P&L statement clearly shows "cost of sale" separate from back-office administration, and I would imagine the entire organization is managed along the same lines as any other company that has 400 staff and $200m revenues.

Which is fair enough. But when its Chief Executive chooses to lecture me from his $200k p.a. comfort zone on the privations of living in third world countries, I feel that he has crossed a boundary.

I also think it is entirely reasonable for you to unearth further evidence indicating hypocrisy, as you have done. But it was your choice to add religion to the mix; hypocrisy exists outside religion too, you know.

It would be interesting to find out whether Tim Costello would prefer to defend his position on religious or secular grounds. I doubt he would attempt to do so here, of course, so we may never find out.

The difference is simple (to me, anyway).

I object to the leader of any charity wagging his finger at me to extract charity dollars from my pocket, while at the same time trousering a very fine remuneration, commensurate entirely with a business, but totally inappropriate to a "charity".

So Boaz, you can tuck away your paranoia until it is really needed.

Pericles - agree that bringing in The Great Christianity Debate again is a little tedious. However - you might like to check the provenance of your "Cry havoc!" quote. Shakespere it is. But Julius it most certainly isn't.

Pericles.

No I will call them dogs if you like.- suites me- and as someone said -if the cap fits.

Just wondering how you can be a animal lover and support the church in general.

Any idea how they can look public in the eye and say Gods creatures are nothing to do with them. Or How They Can Look The creatures in the eye for God Sake. Any idea why the no speaking - after they five seperate 60 Miniutes reports?

Any idea why no guidleness for their flock regarding animal welfare on Sunday services or Sunday Schools.?

Or perhaps you think its ok for Salvation Army Red Cross and a half a dozen others to collect money from the trusting public for farmers and not give one cent to animal dieing of Starvation.?

Oh But we are helping farmers they cry!. Well we are still farmers and we talk to many farmers and " Heres news" farmers need Feed water for Stock!
So why collect money for farmers when they understand NOTHING about farming!
I know how they do it legally of course- they blame Costelllo, poor chap- But what about morally?
They are a bloody discrace.
Hey Tim Costello I will let you in on a little secret. Unless we look after the earth and the animals it doesnt work.
You lot reckon the Lord never mentioned animals much .
Well ok but it sure is funny he is choosing our treatment of them to eventually wipe out our species.
Every Disease that is to come such as bird flue starts by the mistreament of Gods creatures. I like it. Almost as if God has a sense of humour really.
Hes even managed to ensure it travels from one end of the earth to the others. Thats class. Thats justice.
WE have turned our backs on suffering creatures that God put on this earth to share with us.

Pericles and team.
The point I'm pushing here is based on the following:

{Dr. Bob Pierce began World Vision to help children orphaned in the Korean War. .... and strategic Christian leadership activities.}

Notice the last sentence ? "Christian" leadership.

From the Same World Vision document:

{World Vision is a Christian relief and development organization dedicated to helping children and their communities worldwide reach their full potential by tackling the causes of poverty.}

What kind of relief organization is WV claiming to be ? that's right 'CHRISTIAN'.

Now..lets put those 2 things together.

1/ Christian.
2/ Leadership.

Now.. lets ask "What is the biblical pattern of 'Christian' leadersip"?

Mark 10:42 Jesus said, "You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 43Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 44and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all."

John 13:4
so he (Jesus) got up from the meal, ...and began to wash his disciples' feet...

Based on it's foundation documents, WV is 'Christian' and to act in a secular way, corporatized, paying extremely high salaries to those in leadership does nothing to amplify the principles on which it was founded or exists today.

We have no basis to complain about criticism of "the Church" when the Church itself acts like the world does. When a pope has mistresses, we rightly condemn his behavior. When a Pastor raids the offering for a new sports car, he is also rightly condemned.

I thought the "boss" of a Christian organization is Christ ?

Perhaps World Vision should adopt a financial policy of 'Relief Fund' (where 100% of the donation is used for relief) and 'Admin Fund' (where salaries are taken from)and donors can choose which to give to. Then, they can simply pool the 'admin' fund and divide it among the workers. Thats how we did it, and sometimes the 'personal' was pretty meagre but at least we had clear conciences in regard to our supporters.

David Good One.

The thing is "we dont know" what Jesus Said David because "we were not there."
You cant expect the public to trust some Church bloke many years ago as to what took place. That doesnt wash well with the public in general.
Why dont we just start something new. Follow those old rules of yours. Call it something like.

The Gods Messages Organisation. Or do The Right Thing Church
God will make it work if you ask.

You wont ever change those people David. So there is no point trying.
Look at all the real estate purchased with donations for the needy .
stuff them
Nor will you stop suffering until to enforce birth control and give Animal Welfare a top prioity either.
By The way we have a reward fund we use each year to support a outstanding person.
Its often hard to pick a winner.
We think your posts over all carry the real true message.
So congradulations on first prize for this year. We need to arrange to deliver fridge if you could email address to.
www.livexports.com

Thanks Romany. It is annoying when a perfectly straightforward concept is hijacked into yet another diatribe from the evangelicals.

However, the quote was Mark Antony's, in his speech following Caesar's assassination that began "O pardon me thou bleeding piece of earth, that I am meek and gentle with these butchers".

Stirring stuff.

Thanks for the original "mission statement", Boaz, very illuminating

Given the original idea for World Vision was "World Vision is a Christian relief and development organization dedicated to helping children and their communities worldwide reach their full potential by tackling the causes of poverty", how is this reflected in today's activities?

From last year's annual report we can see that nearly $50m went towards Tsunami relief. A perfectly respectable charitable allocation, but only by a semantical stretch could it be called "tackling the causes of poverty". Sure, the tsunami "caused" poverty, but I doubt that they would have allocated $50m to R&D on how to eliminate earthquakes.

On the other hand, it would have been a disastrous marketing gaffe if World Vision had refused to send money for tsunami relief. Their name would have been mud (sorry!) in the community, as people would not understand that their mission lay elsewhere, i.e. in the promotion of Christianity.

Donations (revenue) would have dried up, and the CEO fired for incompetence, just as in any business venture.

So they are doing exactly the right thing as a business. They just shouldn't call themselves a charity - and on this I totally agree with Boaz - because charities are staffed by volunteers, and have no "overheads" that involve employees, paid executive directors or other for-profit activities.

I am sure World Vision does good work. But it does so because it makes good business sense to do so.