What if the entire United States canceled Christianity because of its long list of scandals and abuses? Imagine a centralized authority, able to exert control over the church’s institutions, empowering a small group of inexperienced contractors to remove church officials while unleashing a shake-down of church programs and assets.
Envision people with names like Paul and Kennedy defending this cancellation by flooding the airwaves with stories of a church gone wrong. Stories like Kanakuk Kamp’s cover-ups of child sexual abuse, Ravi Zacharias’s predatory manipulation, Mark Driscoll’s toxic leadership, Carl Lentz’s moral failures, Mike Bickle’s sexual misconduct allegations, and the widespread abuse scandals within the Southern Baptist Convention. With a quiver of outrage in their voice, they’d tell us that this was just the tip of the iceberg as they declared the entire faith irredeemable.
There’d be no need for a Maximus Decimus Meridius’s “unleash hell” type of command. The outroar from the church would be instantaneous, passionate, and perhaps even violent.
You’d likely hear, “How dare you? Silencing the faithful because of the failures of a few!” You’d see the streets swell with furious protests, sermons would turn into rallying cries, and social media would erupt in a firestorm of indignation. You’d find churches defying orders, with parishioners linking arms in defiant solidarity, and the cries of persecution echoing from pulpits to primetime news. Many would feel that their very identity was under siege, that the erasure of their faith was an erasure of who they were. The outrage wouldn’t just be loud—it would be relentless, a tidal wave of fury crashing against the very notion that their faith deserved to be canceled.
I know what some of you are thinking – and you wouldn’t be wrong. You think I’m making a flawed comparison with the recent takedown of the USAID program. You’d say that USAID was rife with misconduct and political bias, a “viper’s nest of radical-left Marxists who hate America.” Or that its demise would streamline foreign aid while cutting bureaucratic waste. Or that benevolence should start at home.
Yet the Venn diagrams between USAID and the Christian faith overlap substantially. Substantial amounts of the aid go to Christian charities who are doing “the Lord’s business.” Read the agency’s mission statement, “to promote a free, peaceful, and prosperous world by ending extreme poverty and supporting democratic societies,” and then read Jesus’ Nazareth Manifesto of Luke 4 and tell where I’m wrong.
The Case For This Executive Order
The Executive Order asserts that USAID “has been unaccountable to taxpayers as it funnels massive sums of money to the ridiculous — and, in many cases, malicious — pet projects of entrenched bureaucrats, with next-to-no oversight.” As examples of the “waste and abuse,” they cite $1.5 million to “advance diversity equity and inclusion in Serbia’s workplaces and business communities,” $70,000 for production of a “DEI musical” in Ireland, $2.5 million for electric vehicles for Vietnam, $47,000 for a “transgender opera” in Colombia, $32,000 for a “transgender comic book” in Peru, and $2 million for sex changes and “LGBT activism” in Guatemala.
With the U.S. already spending $51 billion annually on foreign aid, supporters of this Order further contend that taxpayer dollars should prioritize domestic needs. They advocate for reform, calling for aid to be redirected from a bloated bureaucracy to transparent, faith-based, and private organizations.
The Case Against This Executive Order
The consequences of this sudden halt in U.S. government funding for humanitarian aid are undeniable. Heart-wrenching stories have flooded our news feeds, painting a grim picture of what’s to come. The Vatican’s global charity arm, Caritas, has predicted that should this continue, millions will die, and hundreds of millions more will be pushed deeper into poverty. To some, this might seem like an exaggeration—but the loss of nearly half (47%) of all humanitarian aid provided by the United States will have immediate and lasting consequences. Catholic Relief Services (CRS), the largest USAID recipient, has already warned staff to prepare for workforce reductions of up to 50% due to the drastic cuts in U.S. foreign aid.
World Vision, an evangelical charity we’ve supported for over 40 years, is facing devastating losses. Ranked #11 among USAID recipients, it stands to lose a sizable chunk of its humanitarian funding this year. Critical programs—feeding and protecting children, providing clean water, ensuring access to healthcare, and supporting farmers—have come to a grinding halt. A friend’s father, who recently retired after 30 years leading World Vision’s relief efforts in West Africa, confirmed that in Mali and Senegal, food, vaccines, and medical aid have already been cut off, leaving many lives at risk.
Other evangelical humanitarian organizations are also on the chopping block. World Relief, the humanitarian arm of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), has been forced to halt relief efforts in multiple countries—including a critical program in South Sudan that treated severely malnourished children under age five. Mercy Ships, another organization we have personal ties to, brings life-changing medical care and surgeries to those in need. With 26% of its funding coming from USAID, the organization has begun to cut staff in response to the funding freeze.
Although the Executive Order included waivers for certain “core lifesaving” activities, as of February 18, funding remains stalled for many organizations like World Vision, leaving critical programs shuttered. You can’t dismantle an agency and expect it to restart at the drop of a hat. I saw this firsthand in my previous role when NOAA leadership completely broke the HR side of the house. It took years for it to be repaired, leaving concrete and lasting mission impacts.
The Question
Let’s assume you’ve been appointed Christ’s Ambassador, tasked to represent Christ’s interests throughout the public square. Scripture provides your marching orders, especially the red-letter words of Christ. The Sermon on the Mount and His two great commandments set the standard. And your job is to ensure that every word and action you take has a clear and direct connection to those teachings.
Are you willing to accept this 2 Corinthians 5:20 calling? If so, how do you then respond as Christ’s Ambassador?
As Ambassador, would you Approve the Order, Arguing that American Needs Come First?
Two paths await you, each bearing a different perspective. On one side are those friends who urge you to prioritize America first. They say, “I’m a Christian. I want my tax dollars to help my fellow Americans first.” Or, “You sure are generous with other people’s money. How about you just spend yours? America needs to focus on the needs of Americans – not Burmese.”
But then you remember Jesus’ teachings. You open the Bible, turn to Luke 25-28, and read the passage where a legal expert asked Jesus how to inherit eternal life. Jesus pointed to the Law: love God fully and love your neighbor as yourself. When asked, “Who is my neighbor?” Jesus then told a parable of a man attacked by robbers, ignored by a priest and Levite, but rescued by a Samaritan who showed mercy. When Jesus asked, “Who was the true neighbor,” the expert replied, “The one who had mercy.”
Samaritans and Jews were enemies, separated by geography, customs, and beliefs. By connecting a Samarian’s action to the most central teaching of His Kingdom, He destroyed a me-first worldview and made an us vs. them worldview unchristian.
As Ambassador, would you Approve the Order, Arguing that Only Private Donations Rather than Tax Dollars Be Used for Such Charity?
Again, you are faced with a decision. On the one side are friends who see this as a compelling argument. They say, “I’m pretty sure Jesus didn’t endorse stealing from one person to give to another. Shut it all down.” Or, “I’m a Christian, I’ll speak out; it’s not the government’s place to fund all of this stuff. This is to be done by the church, by the people, by organizations or charities. Not the government!”
Like Adam Smith, they may believe private charity outperforms government-mandated redistribution since individuals are better equipped to handle their own resources. They may believe it’s morally wrong to violate property rights and personal liberty by forcing wealth transfers instead of allowing voluntary charity. Like John Locke, they see personal liberty as an enduring virtue sustained by limited government. For many, those arguments seem compelling: it’s what you have been taught to believe and what you’ve always known.
But then you read Matthew 25, where Jesus equates service to the needy—feeding the hungry, welcoming the stranger, caring for the sick—as service to Himself. You read in Mark 9 about the one-to-one connection between ministering to children and ministering to Jesus. You know that loving your neighbor is interconnected with loving your God, the two inseparable Commandments that Jesus taught. You also know that Jesus came so that everyone could have life and life more abundantly, with “abundantly” not just restricted to the spiritual.
You realize that your Ambassadorial calling isn’t limited to just helping people “go to heaven.” It’s also to be, in the words of the late pastor Tim Keller, “radically committed to the good of the city as a whole,” where “while awaiting the return of the King, we become part of God’s work of reconciliation, which is a state of the fullest, flourishing in every dimension – physical, emotional, social, and spiritual.”
Then, as Christ’s Ambassador, you wonder why people are so ideologically eager to limit the flourishing of people made in the image of God. Given that many of our laws are written for moral ends, you ask, “Why should His teachings be taken off the table on an issue so important to Him?” Especially given his extraordinary concern for children, which is a focus in a significant portion of the USAID assistance. Is this something Jesus would do? Would He say, “Nah, I’m going to choose limited government over the prospect of additional resources that will give water and food to children?”
As Ambassador, would you Approve the Order Because of the Allegations of Waste and Fraud?
As someone seasoned by experience, you might argue that Ben Franklin’s famous statement should be amended: “In this world, nothing can be said to be certain except death, taxes, and government waste.” Allegations of waste at USAID don’t shock you—they’re expected. The real question isn’t whether waste exists but how to address it.
On the one hand, are your friends who support the USAID shutdown and urge you to join their cause. They’ve reposted the widely circulated list of 12 wasteful projects used to justify the Order. Any complaints about what Elon is doing, they say, “is like getting mad at the person naming the bank robber instead of the actual bank robber.”
Your initial response might be yes—but only if there were clear, compelling, and indisputable evidence that the good being accomplished was entirely dependent on and inseparable from waste, fraud, and corruption.
Otherwise, your answer would be no. You would reject the USAID shutdown and adopt a different approach that preserves and protects the life-saving and transformative aid while rooting out inefficiency and misconduct. You know that every dollar lost to waste and corruption is a dollar that could have provided food, medicine, or shelter to those in desperate need. Hence, good stewardship requires constant vigilance, and USAID, with its humanitarian mission, should be the last to get a pass.
After reviewing all the evidence, you find that the test of being “entirely dependent on and inseparable from waste, fraud, and corruption” unmet. Moreover, you find that the audit is incomplete, producing a patchwork of “waste and fraud” claims—some valid, others overstated or demonstrably false. Hence, the shutdown is equivalent, in colloquial language, to throwing out the baby with the bathwater. An action that is neither wise, justified, nor becoming of a Christ Ambassador.
As Christ’s ambassador, your calling is not to blindly follow the loudest voices but to pursue “Whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure … think on these things.” Your duty is to be unswayed by partisan outrage as you investigate the allegations, remembering that “The Lord detests a false witness who pours out lies and a person who stirs up conflict.” Then, given the unreliability of the claims, your responsibility is to ask, “How can waste be reformed without dismantling the good?”— and then reject any action that sacrifices life-saving aid on the altar of this outrage inflamed by a measure of misinformation.
Who Am I
Many of the issues we face in life offer no simple answers. We find ourselves saying on the one hand versus the other hand as we struggle to make a decision. But every so often, an issue arises that lays bare our core values. It acts as a mirror, reflecting our true priorities and exposing the foundation of our convictions. It distinguishes between what we profess and what we actually believe. It exposes our identity.
This is one of those moments.
Is our identity truly rooted in Jesus so that when situations like this arise, we respond as Ambassadors of His teachings and values? Or is it anchored in our ideological tribe, where we respond in lockstep to their beliefs?
If our identity is truly found in Jesus, then our first instinct is to ask, “What would Jesus do?” rather than “What does my side believe?” It makes our decisions shaped by His words rather than the talking points of our preferred side.
So, who are we? Are we followers of Christ first, Ambassadors of His Kingdom in every square inch of our lives? Or is our identity rooted in partisanship, where we filter moral questions through the lens of party allegiance, defending or condemning actions based on their prepackaged narratives?
Because, at the end of the day, the answer to the question “Who am I?” determines everything.