The Rants of Issachar

Parts of the blog world are still obsessed with Sarah Palin in a way that I find quite annoying. If I was hoping she'd fade into obscurity after the last US election I was doomed to disappointment. So it's a bit disconcerting that my first blog post in over a year begins with Sarah Palin. Still, I found it interesting that she was apparently flown a private plane to an (apparently) much touted dinner with Billy & Franklin Graham.

Now I find the crass partisanship that pervades the "Official Christian" culture of the United States irritating on a good day and somewhat short of blasphemous on a bad day, but I'd like to leave that issue aside for now. (With thanks to Ezra Levant for giving me the idea for the term.)

The question I want to ask is this: Why does Samaritan's Purse have a private aircraft in the United States?

I sent this to the informal e-mail group I'm in and I got some interesting information back. One of the group actually looked up the Samaritan's Purse financial statements from last year and found out the entries for "Ministry and missionary aircraft" on pages 46 & 47. (Isn't the internet great? Could we have had a discussion like this 20 years ago?) Assuming that that entry includes the aircraft flying Ms. Palin to dinner one might ask"How does flying a polarizing political candidate to a dinner constitute "Ministry?".


But again, I don't want to focus on the politics, but on the question of why Samaritan's Purse owns this plane in the first place. I don't know about anyone else, but the term "ministry and missionary aircraft" conjures up images of missionaries flying into corners of faraway countries unreachable by other means. Alternately I might think about them flying into areas of countries without commercial flights available and paved runways. (You know, like you see in this picture on their website.) I certainly don't think about flying around in the middle of the United States.

So why does a Christian charity dedicated to "providing spiritual and physical aid to hurting people around the world", spend money donated to that cause on a private plane to fly around a country that just might have the best system of commercial flights in the entire world?

Not for any justifiable reason that I can think of.


There's a growing feeling among some people that Christianity is the religion of convenience for the rich and powerful and only gives hypocritical lip service to helping the poor. Of course that's absolutely ridiculous, but when organizations like Samaritan's Purse, (which do good work otherwise), spend money on flying around the US in private planes instead of flying lugguage class like most people it feeds this false perception. The false theology of the so-called "Prosperity Gospel" is growing, and much of "official Christian" culture feeds this false and thoroughly anti-Christian belief that wealth is next to godliness.


I'm sure that this isn't the image that Franklin Graham wants people to have of Samaritan's Purse, but the ease of money is more that a little corrupting. If he and other Samaritan's Purse leaders were to fly coach, they would surely spend a lot more time in airports. They could well be late to at least a few speaking engagements because someone tried to bring a bottle of water onto the plane. More worryingly, donations could even drop because the big stars of the organization might not be able to go to as many meet and greets to drive up pledges.

But they wouldn't be giving off the impression of being the people who get rich from peddling religion which I think is ultimately more dangerous to their mission to help the oppressed.

Posted by:  Anonymous

Just because an airplane is in the USA today does not mean that it is used only to fly around this country. The same Samaritan's Purse plane that brought Palin to Asheville, NC also delivered relief supplies last year to airstrips at villages in remote Alaska where no roads exist, during a food crisis. Any large, international relief agency needs airplanes to be able to respond to crises -- and those planes don't need to only be parked in the African jungle. There are disasters and crises in North America.

Posted by:  issachar

Anonymous,

Quite true, it is possible that the plane is used almost exclusively for accessing the furthest reachest of the third world and it's trip in the United States to take a political figure to dinner with Franklin & Billy Graham was an aberation. I do not, however, find that particularly plausible.

Relief operations in the Alaska aside, (a state in what is arguably the richest nation on earth), the fact remains that Samaritan's Purse is trading on images of helping the destitute in darkest Africa while flying a privately owned jet around the United States.

Even if we assume that relief operations to the citizens of the richest nation on earth consitutes the vast bulk of this planes duties, given the number of private planes available for rental in the United States, I find it exceptionally unlikely to say the least that owning a private plane is the best option available to Samaritan's Purse.

Posted by:  Jonarkle

Well look who showed his face on the internet again

Posted by:  issachar

Yes, I got tired of prowling around the far reaches of the interwebs and decided to hang out here again.

Posted by:  <b>Claire Colvin</b>

I want to agree with you, especially on your first post out in over a year, but I find myself dissenting. In the same way that we like to tell poor people how to spend the money we so *generously* give them, similar thinking is often applied to charities. Anything more than the basics is deemed extravagant.

On the surface, yes a private plane for a private function seems unnecessarily expensive but I'd argue that there are all manner of factors that we're not privy to. Was the original plane donated? Is there a tax benefit to owning rather than renting the plane? Was the plane the only way to get Ms. Palin to the meeting? Was it cheaper than the security needed for her to fly with the regular people? Financial decisions on a corporate level often have a lot of factors in play.

As for whether or not Christians in general and Christian charities in particular should fly private jets, that's another question. I live in a two bedroom apartment with one other person. I could share the space with 6 people and be better off than most of the world. I'd still have a roof and a kitchen and indoor plumbing. But I don't like sharing with that many people, I choose to spend the money I earn on sharing with just one person. Is it inappropriate for me, as a Christ follower to both pursue and value my own comfort?

I know it's not the same, but there is a parallel. If I give money to a charity, I do not gain the right to question every decision they make with it. It's a gift, I give it to them. Yes, they have responsibilities and yes I can choose to take my donation elsewhere if I feel they are being foolhardy or deceptive. But I am not on the board, it's not my call.

Things are not always as they appear. Take a real life example. As you know I work for a large missionary organization. The last two years we have held our staff conference in Whistler. We had staff people up in arms that we would have the conference "somewhere so expensive" the hotels were too nice they said, the food too fancy. But it turned out that because of the way things are set up at Whistler it was actually CHEAPER per person to have the conference there than at the far less desirable location we'd used before. Yes, Whistler is an expensive town, but the conference rate dropped by having it there -- we payed less and got more. It could be that something similar is going on with this private plane.

Posted by:  <b>Claire Colvin</b>

Woah, my comment is TL;DR

Posted by:  issachar

Don't worry about it Claire, you know I thrive on opposition and compliments just make me uncomfortable anyway.

You make excellent points all around. Sarah Palin does have another plane that's flying her around for her book tour, but I really don't know the ins and outs of aquiring planes. I also like your point that giving money doesn't entitle you to question every decision they make spending. (Well, you can ask questions, but once the gift is given, it's theirs to spend.)

The thing is that I really don't mean to suggest that you shouldn't value your own comfort or that charity workers should be poor because they've chosen jobs that don't put profit as the highest goal. I think that it's highly appropriate for people to take care of themselves and this includes Christians, charity workers and everyone else.


It sounds bad to say it this way, but what I'm really saying is that this is bad for appearances. Image isn't everything, but it isn't nothing either.

To take an obviously extreme scenario, consider a charity that projects the image of living the life of the rich and famous and only being into charity as a way to bring money and power to themselves. Even if it's a false perception, that image damages that organizations credibility and even their ability to carry out their mission. To a lesser extent they do similar damage to other related organizations.

And I think it's compounded by the fact that Samaritan's Purse has a rather blatant political bias. You're combining political influence with money and it just gives off a terrible impression. To be completely honest I have to say that this incident is irritating me because I'm really sick of the Christian=Republican mentality.


You remember that old slogan that TWU had? Integrity over Image?

I just worry that we're accidentally doing things to give false impressions of our integrity.

Posted by:  Anonymous

I see you did not report that they gave over $5 million to ADS/HIV victims. Selective reporting to further your agenda is really so 1990's dude.

Posted by:  Issachar

Hello anonymous.

Samaritan's purse does many good things and I did in fact say so in my post. I'm sure they do more good things than I could list in a post.

But that's not my point and I'm sure that the people at Samaritan's purse would be among the last to argue that good works in one area gives you immunity from criticism for your errors in another.

Posted by:  Issachar

Unfortunately it seems that neither Anonymous' post nor my own are showing up immediately. It probably has something to do with the changes I made on the server when I switched to Wordpress for new posts.