The Spiritual Roots of American Arrogance

The pitifully small amount of US foreign aid being pledged in response to this week's tsunami disaster continues to heat up as an important issue.  In light of this, I offer the following post:

It is commonly known that around the globe, we Americans are regarded as rather arrogant.  In part, our subtle (or not so subtle) sense of superiority flows from the belief (espoused in our schools, churches, and service organizations, and reinforced by our politicians) that we are citizens of the best and most powerful nation on earth.  Most of the planet, however, doesn't quite see it that way.

In their recently released book, Terrorism and the War in Iraq: A Christian Word from Latin America (published by Kairos in Argentina), C. Rene Padilla and Lindy Scott present a disturbing yet compelling argument that behind the self-serving and oppressive policies of the U.S. government, lies the twin idolatries of materialism and ethnocentric patriotism.

The Church in America, rather than recognizing and condeming these idolatrous values, has in fact embraced them.  For example, Brazilian Assembly of God pastor Ricardo Gondim claims that "North American Christians have become worldly and have been molded into the image of their culture" -- for many evangelicals in the United States, "the 'American way of life' and the gospel are Siamese twins.  It is almost impossible to separate them" (Padilla, 108).

Evangelicals outside of the United States are not, however, the only ones drawing attention to the spiritual woes of the U.S.

Padilla and Scott poinantly draw attention to this reality:

On May 28, 2004, Pope John Paul II warned Catholic bishops in the American heartland not to let the flock stray amid the lure of materialism.  The Pontiff evaluated America and Americans as having a "soulless vision of the world," one characterized by an excessive materialism and a drift away from their spiritual roots.  The Pope's comments were not new, for he had already stated his argument on many occasions.  Back in 1991, the Pope lamented that American Catholic Christians were being molded by the capitalistic, materialistic culture of the United States.  This had resulted in their individualistic self-love.  After his five-day visit to the United States in 1995, the Pope again pointed out the deadly materialism of the North American culture.  Then in his final World Peace Day message of the 20th century, Pope John Paul II branded capitalism' child -- materialistic consumerism -- as an evil of the same stature as Marxism, Nazism and fascism (Padilla,119).

Although Illinois Congressman Henry Hyde (a practicing Roman Catholic) took issue with the Pontiff, saying he was "absolutely wrong" and then defended the oft-cited "fact" of America's surpasing generosity among the nations of the world, Padilla and Scott challenged this, quoting from World Bank's World Development Report of 1995, and presented the following table detailing the estimated official development assistance from industrialized countries as percentages of their GNP (notice how the United States compares):

When it comes to the generosity of individual Christians in the U.S., the picture certainly doesn't improve drastically. "North American Christians give only 3% of their income to their churches and to other charities" (Padilla, 126).

Padilla and Scott would have us wake up to the fact that it is this self-absorbed lifestyle that desensitizes North American Christians to the need for justice around the world, and at the same time, leads them to blindly pledge allegiance to a government which is more interested in furthering its own interests and agendas around the world than assisting other nations with theirs.

As the first three chapters in their book amply point out, Latin America has good reason for distrusting the United States, based on their dealings with the U.S. throughout the 20th century.

There are perhaps many reasons why the centre of Christianity is shifting from the Northern to the Southern hemisphere.  As a comparitively affluent, white, American, evangelical Christian, I want to make certain (to the best of my ability) that I am not blind to the truth -- wherever it may be found -- even if critical of my "tribe."  I believe in the universal body of Christ, and seek to learn from the wisdom of my brothers and sisters to the south of me.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but this material is tough to deal with.  I've blogged before about how intertwined much of American evangelicalism is with American patriotism.  I feel the need to get a better handle on all this.  I accept the likelihood that I'm probably pretty blind to some of this.  Your thoughts, as always, are both sought and appreciated.

Comments

[Patmos]

We have become a fat and lazy faith here in America. We are not a "blessed" nation at all.

[john]

Although I have some skepticism over the numbers and the role the US plays in international aid (thoughts below), your central point - that we have hitched the evangelical wagon to patriotism – is well worth our consideration. I'm not sure that either is bad by itself (said with a smile by a non-evangelical Christian), but together they can blind us to seeing the world in a clearer light as Christians. I think we need to divorce our “Christian” worldview from a national worldview.

As stated, I confess to a little skepticism on the application of the numbers presented. I have not, however, read the book - so maybe my questions are addressed. Charitable giving by country is a really murky subject that gets even more difficult in the determination of international aid. Many countries only give through governmental and quasi-governmental organizations, others include NGO's (non-governmental organizations), others include aid in kind and non-monetary assistance, others include religious and charitable organizations. To make it even more difficult, it becomes almost impossible to add in the factor of organizations like the World Bank or the IMF that receive funding and use it in discretionary ways. All that, just to say that it's not at all clear who gives more - despite the widely published World Bank chart which, to my understanding, only counts direct governmental monetary spending.

[john]

"We have become a fat and lazy faith here in America. We are not a "blessed" nation at all."

I believe we see real faith waning throughout the first world - through arrogance in our blessing, through arrogance in our understanding, and through arrogance in our governments. We no longer see God as provider, but rather as a "slightly off" friend who we allow to hang around with us. I'm not sure we were ever "blessed" more than any other country - the thought that we are is probably a real source of arrogance and condescension.

[DLE]

In 2004, the United States gave $2.4 billion in official government assistance worldwide covering food, shelter, and medical aid. This accounts for 40% of ALL governmental assistnce given by all the governments of the world. It does not includes assistance outside of those three areas, either, making the official dollar amount even higher.

Also not included in those numbers is the cost of using the United States military to protect nations that do not have adequate defense. The second most generous nation is Japan, who incidentally uses our military to protect itself. What is the cost of defending a nation? Should it not be included when we figure benevolence? I believe it should. We should also remember that because Japan pays little for its military protection, it has more money to give in areas not covered by the military. Fair is fair, right? This should also be considered we when talk about the UN and worldwide defense. The US military is the bulk of the UN peacekeepers.

No people is as generous individually as Americans are on the world stage. Most of the world's hospitals, refugee centers, and food distribution points were built with money provided by private individuals in the United States. Many of those same operations are staffed by Americans overseas. We Americans rise to almost every disaster abroad, but it is not always the case for other countries helping us. The true number of countries represented in the 9/11 cleanup was small. But almost no world disaster goes unseen by America and its citizens. Amazon.com alone has raised millions for tsunami relief.

People in other parts of the world see this, too. In recent Russian and Turkish earthquakes, the locals were amazed at the fact that a large number of rescuers were Americans come to their country rather than their own countrymen. This prompted many, especially in Russia, to label America the most generous and caring nation in the world.

The standard of living in the world has never been higher across all countries than it is today. This is in large part due to American largesse, not only financially, but also in time and effort spent through education and other non-traditional means. One can also claim that our wealth is raising up other countries. Witness what is happening in China for instance. No political system can outstrip what capitalism can do in raising all boats. Even the Chinese communists understand this.

Beyond even financial matters, the world is largely evangelized thanks to American efforts. Millions have escaped Hell and found peace in Christ thanks to American evangelization efforts. We too easily forget this and dwell on the negative and nihilistic.

America is not "The Great Satan" that so many want to paint it. There is democracy, free elections, voting rights and education for women in Afghanistan thanks to the United States. Millions in the world are free thanks to the American democratic experiment. The world is not under a Nazi or communist dictatorship because of America. (Is anyone figuring the human toll that was spared due to this fact?) Millions want to live in this country because they understand its benefits and opportunities. And just as many millions want to denigrate this country because they cannot stand the fact that they do not have what we do. That used to be called sour grapes or jealousy but now we try to make it noble--but it is not.

I am really sick of all the rocks hurled at the US this year. Everyone on the Left sucked up to Europe and now you have countries like The Netherlands realizing they goofed and should have seen what we did. Now it may be too late to undo.

Apply the same standard universally. If we want to stop idolizing the United States, then we have to stop idolizing other countries, too. Be fair if you are calling for fairness. And don't forget all the good things the United States has birthed worlwide by having the most generous people on the planet.

[Chris]

Dan, I rarely disagree with you... but this time I must. Your rebuttal represents the kind of rhetoric so often heard from Americans, which I believe to be one of the reasons why we're so blind to the runaway consumerism, materialism, and individualism that plagues us (and is so obvious to those outside). We commonly point to "this" or "that" to appease our personal and corporate consciences.

That said, I conceded that there are generous Americans, generous American businesses (didn't one such business pledge more itself than our entire nation has to the tsunami disaster?), and generous religious relief organizations -- thank God. But this must not be allowed to cover up the economic stinginess that characterize the masses.

My own congregation is not unlike any other -- people would rather spend on themselves than on the poor when given the chance.

And as far as your statement about "idolizing other countries" -- who is doing that???

[PM]

I do not think that giving an equal amount of our GNP would be the answer to anything. Just as a person attending a small church who won the lottery might not be wise to give 10% if 700 million dollars to a small church - the same consideration must be given to charitable destinations. If there are not organizations in place to wisely use monies, and the necesssary accountability in place to monitor the spending - we end up with countries paying off evil governments (like France and the UN with oil for food), in order to get kickbacks of their own. Wise spending does not mean paying off countries cause you want something back- even though I am sure we have done the same thing. All I am saying, is this is a far more complex situation then can be easily summed up as "American Imperialism is bad," and we are self righteous. Although, I know that is true as well. We are self centered folks, not wanting to get our nose into other people's business, unless of course someone shoots it off - and then we start taking notice.

Either way- we should have been much more concerned with other countries then we are with missions, aid, love, the truth of the gospel, etc. But it is way to early to judge as in the case of the 350 million pledge that may only be the beginning.

[Chris]

PM -
I appreciate your perspective. Thanks. You're probably right about it being too early to judge the US on their level of pledged aid (via the gov't, that is) for tsunami relief.

Not unlike life in general, it's important to learn from one's critics. U.S. Christians need to listen to what believers in Latin America are saying. Their sentiment may be jaded, but that doesn't mean it's void of truth. As the center of Christianity moves into the southern hemisphere, I see this wilingness to listen to the Church in the South as becoming even more important.

[DLE]

The US contribution of aid to tsunami victims now tops $350 million. All contributions from all countries were totaled at $500 million before this additional funding from the United States (and that includes $35 million already pledged by the United States and $250 million from the largely American taxpayer-funded World Bank.)

And Americans are stingy?

Again, the facts and numbers are right there and are indisputable. The United States and its people carry the world burden far more than any ten countries combined.

Chris, I know we don't disagree on much and I appreciate your standing by many of the less popular things I've written here, but we will have to disagree on this issue. In every measurable sense, the United States is the world's benefactor and has been for more than a hundred years; we would live in a far more impoverished and diminished world if the United States had never existed.

In response to "idolizing other countries," there is this wild love affair right now between more left-leaning folks in this country and Europe. The materialistic and largely godless Europeans can do no wrong and are far more enlightened than the rube farmer in Iowa, or so goes the common sentiment among the left-leaning. How many million times did we hear that during this last election cycle? I lost track. Truth be told, there is a large anti-American sentiment among some Americans that I find absolutely incomprehensible. They are torturing bloggers in Iran even as we speak, but somehow it's America that is evil.

This one thing is true: there are too many people in the United States who are ingrates. If you want to talk about a complete lack of thankfulness in this country, it is easy to know where to start. The stingy ingrates largely populate the states that went for Kerry, as a well-known correlative chart showed that in terms of personal giving and largess, the so-called "Red States" dominated the top twenty spots among states. If anything, there appears to be a correlation between not being a Christian and being stingy, since self-identified born-again Christians reported in higher numbers in those same red states.

I don't want to turn this into a political polemic, but I want to see real numbers charted against real facts. Three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. And statistics that are not correlated against all the facts are the worst lies of all. Again, I would highly doubt the book you cited made any correlation between military expenditures by the United States and our involvement as the world's peacekeeper. I would suspect in the minds of the authors that this counts for nothing since they probably believe we should have no military period--some of us live in the real world, though. So we foot the bill and then everyone complains against us at the same time. Too darned convenient if you ask me.

I just wonder why we have become so critical of every move we make as a country. Bush pledges $80 million to combat AIDS in Africa--something no president before him had done--and yet he's criticized for it not being enough. I think that if most people saw how many billions of dollars this country spends on aiding other countries in ways that are not scrupulously tracked they would be shocked. Again, 40% of all government aid distributed worldwide is spent by the United States. How can anyone argue against that?

(I would recommend two books by P.J. O'Rourke as counters to much of the sentiment expressed here, _Eat the Rich_ and _All the Trouble in the World_. The latter book is especially helpful in understanding that we simply don't get the whole story behind all the problems in the world. O'Rourke's firsthand observations of all the things he writes about deflate much of the manic speculation we engage in when discussing powderkeg world issues. His commentary on driving for sixteen straight hours through endless Somali wheat fields during the height of the Somali famine should be a lesson to everyone, for instance.)

[PM]

I heard PJ being interviewed on his book,
Peace Kills, (I think it was him),
and he mad an amazing case about,
how our isolationism,
and people's "idea" of "old-Europe" peace ideas,
is actually what helped people like
Mussolini and Hitler flourish,
and I must admit I was impressed by the facts.

Jesus preached peace one earth and
brought seemingly the opposite,
death, destruction, etc
The God who is doing things in the spiritual realm,
is also doing things in the physical realm,
and they often look like opposites.

In the same way, America ignores countries in need,
and people think we are being great,
when in reality we are neglecting things.

Then when we step in to help financially, spiritually, or in political ways,
people think we are the great Satan,
when in reality we are probably being used by God.

War never stopped anything,
except slavery, facism, nazism, Goliath and communism.

[Benjy (groovythpstr)]

I disagree often with Dan, and will again on this one. Chris is not disagreeing with you about how much we give, or that the USA doesn't give more than anyone else. We are talking about percentages.

I was really convicted reading this. Yeah, we may have given over 350 million for the tsunami, but how many people are really giving? I haven't, nor do I know anyone that has. But how much have we spent on ourselves since this disaster happenned?

I once heard someone say that America has become the rich man in the gospel story while Lazarus is outside our gate. I would agree. Besides this Chris, your post has left me speechless and ashamed.

[Benjy (groovythpstr)]

Will God judge us only by what we have done, or what we could have done? In Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis addresses the topic of how much christians should give. He answers the question by saying not a set amount, but to give until it hurts. I don't think many of us are.

[Chris]

Tracking with you, Benjy.
When we avoid "percentages," it's a lot easier to pat ourselves on the back. The idea you mentioned from C.S. Lewis is a powerful one -- giving until it hurts. Such a notion definitely rubs we American "consumers" the wrong way, I fear.

[Chris]

Benjy -- continuing to think about giving 'til it hurts...

Here's a suggestion from Justin at Radical Congruency:

Tsunami Relief Giving Guide
1. Determine the replacement value of your computer*
2. Go to Amazon.com
3. Use your existing Amazon account (you know you have one) to donate the amount of money your computer is worth to the Red Cross.
4. If it doesn’t hurt yet, donate some more.
5. If you don’t have the cash, use your credit card. We use credit cards for computers and vacations, so we can certainly use them to save lives when it really counts.

*If you are about to buy a new computer, use the amount you’re going to spend on it for this calculation.

[DLE]

I want to respond to a few comments and replies to me made here, but before I do, I want to set something straight.

I am as horrified as everyone else at the aftermath of this tsunami. The human toll is hard to comprehend. We will be seeing the repercussions of this for years. I weep for the people affected by this terrible tragedy.

What I say in response here is by no means a way of mitigating suffering. My comments are only meant to discuss some of the comments made here and to reply to comments others made about what I wrote. Nothing is intended to demean the people hurt in this tragedy.

That said, here are my comments:

1. "Giving till it hurts." We simply cannot give till it hurts on EVERY tragic world event. No one can live that way. We were not designed as individuals by God to be able to process the entire world's misery--according to The Red Cross, a world disaster occurs every eight minutes. Several hurricanes this year killed untold people and left many thousands homeless. Do we so easily forget about them? What if we gave until it hurt on that, but then another disaster (like this one) eclipsed it? Last year at this time, 30,000 people died in Iran in a magnitude 6.6 quake. Anyone remember that one? About three years ago, 20,000 people died in a quake in India. Anyone here remember that one, either? Do we also forget about the more than 11 million people worldwide listed in 2003 as refugees? Is it only the numbers of people dead that matter here? Did we all give until it not quite (but almost) hurt for the 30,000 in Iran, but chose to give until we bled for five times that much in SE Asia? Is it simply a magnitude of misery that makes us give more or less? Is there any biblical precedent for such an idea?

2. Again, we forget how much it costs to deploy two entire naval fleets to SE Asia. I don't get how people can ignore that cost. No other nation has done anything like this and the United States gets no credit at all from the naysayers. And we continue to ignore my comments about the cost the US bears for the defending the entire world at the behest of the UN, a truth that ultimately affects everything we do in terms of money spent on other countries and our supposed stinginess according to our GDP. (And what about the ridiculous bill we get stuck with for hosting the UN?)

3. We continue to forget contributions from private individuals in this total mix of aid. In 2003, private individuals alone in the United States GAVE $275 BILLION DOLLARS to charitable organizations worldwide--that's nearly $1000 for every man, woman, and child in this nation. No country comes even close to that per person giving. Also, are we ignoring the fact that the majority of the money in the World Bank that is being used to help out tsunami victims also came from the US?

4. "Percentages of GDP" only takes into account specifically targeted money as labeled in the US budget. But as I noted several times, this money is only a small part of all that is given by the combined US government, corporate, and individual contributions. Nor are we discussing the fact that the United States government gives 40% of all world government aid. If the United States' GDP comprises 40% of the entire world's GDP (and I cannot either support or refute that figure, though 40% sounds high for our GDP vs. the entire rest of the world), then it would seem that we are actually right there in giving our fair share.

5. "Other countries say we are stingy." How many hospitals in Africa are run solely by South Americans? Precious few compared with those run by various US-based/funded organizations, I can guarantee. And those same kinds of comparisons can be made in hundreds of charitable categories.

6. Pomos HATE trying to tie the government into Church-related activities, and yet here we are being told by pomos how our government must act like the Church in the way it gives money to tsunami victims. Nice double standard there. C'mon! Let's make up our minds. Either you want our government to act like a theocracy or you don't. You can't have it both ways.

I don't think I will post on this anymore, since no one seems to be processing anything I say, even though I have the figures to back up my comments and have made a compelling case that the United States is the most generous country in the world.

[Chris]

Dan -- for the record, I do appreciate your perspective. And you have made me think in some different ways over all of this.

Regarding your last post:

#1 - Of course there have been and will continue to be a multitude of horrific needs around the globe. My only response is that there are always special ones which touch the conscious of the global community in profound ways -- and when that happens I believe we have a special ethical responsibility to respond (that doesn't mean ignoring the other needs).

#2 - The cost of deployed Naval vessels is significant. Have no other countries done this or something similar?

#3 - Personal giving is indeed huge. But I continue to encounter statistics (over past 20 years) which point out the embarrassing low percentage that US Christians give to everyone combined! Throwing a big number out there doesn't translate (for me) into responsible/ethical giving on the part of most individual believers in the US. Sorry.

#4 - How does individual and institutional giving from other nations (like those high on the chart I posted) compare with the US? It's an important question that I admittedly do not know the answer to.

#5 - Part of what Padilla and Scott's book is drawing attention to are the US policies in Latin America that have been rather subversive and empire-like. I suppose that money given "with strings attached" should be considered somewhat differently in this conversation than money which is given free and clear.

#6 - I honestly don't have a clue where you're coming from with these remarks. What in the heck are you talking about?

[tammy]

two things should be noted.

one - i like Dan's first point, about not being able to give until it hurts all of the time. i'd like to clarify a few things, where i think we're talking past each other. we need to define 'giving until it hurts'. if that means we give money away that we had planned to spend on a new computer, a vacation, a night out with friends - then yes i agree. we can give until it hurts, meaning that we feel the impact because we gave up something that we wanted.

however, if that means we give money away instead of paying our house payment, or we charge the gift on our credit card with no plan to pay off the bill -- then i disagree. i think that's just stupid. we'll end up in huge debt and perhaps in bankruptcy if we live like that.

now if you want to sell your house, buy a cheaper one, and give the leftover money to SE Asia -- then that's giving until it hurts, and in a smart way.

we want it all. we want to 'give until it hurts', but we don't want to decide how to practically do that -- in other words, what will we NOT buy in order to give?

secondly --

i do lots of giving to places that are not tax deductible. individuals, and places like theOOZE. this is never reflected on my tax return, nor does it show up in the miriad of stats about american giving rates. it's frustrating for me to hear people fuss about the stats when i know, in my life at least, the stats are a big lie.

[DLE]

More comments. Sorry, I can't stop on this issue!

Chris, you wrote: "#3 - Personal giving is indeed huge. But I continue to encounter statistics (over past 20 years) which point out the embarrassing low percentage that US Christians give to everyone combined! Throwing a big number out there doesn't translate (for me) into responsible/ethical giving on the part of most individual believers in the US. Sorry.

#4 - How does individual and institutional giving from other nations (like those high on the chart I posted) compare with the US? It's an important question that I admittedly do not know the answer to."

I saw the statistics a couple years ago and was floored by the discrepency between the US and other countries in individual giving versus giving via governmental entities.

In the chart you posted it should be noted that the countries that gave the most via their government as charted against GDP are largely socialistic in their makeup. They tend to believe that it is the government's responsibility to handle charitable giving on a worldwide basis. But in the United States, we Americans still believe that individual rights mean something, therefore we tend to look at charitable giving as an indiviudal prerogative rather than a governmental one.

I noted that individual giving in this country amounts to almost a thousand dollars per person. I remember reading (and will try to find) statistics that show that in some European countries, individual charitable giving is as low as $20 a person a year. That is fifty times less than the United States average, but should not be surprising given that socialistic countries expect their governments to shoulder the load and not individuals. This drastically warps the numbers quoted in your initial post. Again, statistics show nothing unless you unpack them. The authors you cited did shoddy work in order to support their agenda, failing to take into account what I am sharing here.

Your quote: "#6 - I honestly don't have a clue where you're coming from with these remarks. What in the heck are you talking about?"

In my discussions on TheOoze, I routinely get arguments from pomos that the United States needs a firmer separation of Church and State. Whenever the US government seems to be moralizing in any way, there is outrage from pomos. They do not want anything barely resembling a theocracy in this country. But this becomes disingenuous when the same people are outraged that the government does not function like a church in how it views charitable giving (and other social policies.) All through this tsunami issue I have heard outraged pomos complaining that the US government is not doling out its "tithe." I hear how the government has no compassion. I hear how the government does not follow the dictates of Jesus.

Well, which US government do pomos want? A theocracy or not? If they don't want a theocracy, then don't criticize the government when it does not act like a church should. If they do want the government to act like a church, then stop arguing when the government promotes sweeping moral agendas you don't like.

That hypocrisy drives me nuts and pomos just don't see it. They want it both ways and it simply does not work that way.

[Chris]

Tammy, I agree with your definition of "giving until it hurts." It did, however, get me thinking about how frequently people choose to "downsize" their lifestyle (e.g. cheaper car, cheaper house). Culturally, this is probably a lot more difficult than we realize. It definitely cuts across the grain of how most of us were raised and educated.

[Chris]

John,

I was rereading everyone's posts, and wanted to pursue something you had said:

"I'm not sure that either is bad by itself (said with a smile by a non-evangelical Christian), but together they can blind us to seeing the world in a clearer light as Christians. I think we need to divorce our “Christian” worldview from a national worldview. "

When those then, with a "Christian" worldview are elected into the national government, shouldn't they bring their worldview to the table? Can we hope that our goverment be affected by the Christian worldview of its officers while at the same time resisting the effects of a secular, national worldview upon our Christian worldview?

I'd enjoy hearing you talk a bit more about this.

[Benjy (groovythpstr)]

I didn't mean giving until it hurts in every single tragedy. But shouldn't we learn to do this as a lifestyle? I was simply referring to this event b/c it has raised our awareness in so many issues.

[DLE]

It's not just me. Here's a Canadian who gets it (Peter Worthington of the Toronto Star):

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/Toronto/Peter_Worthington/2005/01/03/806494.html

[DLE]

Mark Steyn, another Canadian, also understands. He has a great point in noting that the United States is one of only four countries who are actually contacting and getting supplies to the people impacted by the tsunami. Some countries can only wave checks, but the United States actually can get food, clothes, and shelter to people.

You can read more here:
http://tinyurl.com/58zg2

[DLE]

And still more proof of America's overwhelming largess when compared with other nations:

http://www.techcentralstation.com/010405G.html

(The only problem here is that it does not make any effort to correlate the data against the actual number of people in each country who have Internet access. So take it for what it is worth.)

[DLE]

And now "stingy" American families are looking to adopt children left orphaned or abandoned after the tsunami:

http://tinyurl.com/6r7y8

Again, I marvel at how selfish Americans are (not.)

[Chris]

Dan,
Maybe we should celebrate our generosity AND repent of our materialistic, consumeristic, self-centeredness -- and not compare ourselves to any other nations; plenty of internal evidence to substantiate both.

Perhaps here is an instance when both are needed?

That said, my hopes for this blog post was that more conversation would develop over the unique perspective that Latin American believers hold concerning US policy and the subsequent attitudes of the American church. I'm especially interested in this since that's where the center of Christianity is moving (see Phillip Jenkins' The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity).