The Conditional Donation and the Church Orphanage
A church-run orphanage in Bamenda cares for 38 children and runs a monthly deficit of 250,000 CFA. A brewery offers 3,000,000 CFA a year for three years - exactly 250,000 CFA a month - on condition that its logo appears on the orphanage van and that the orphanage display the slogan 'Drink responsibly'. Three of the seven board members are pastors who teach abstinence; two laywomen argue that children must eat and go to school; the doctor fears alcohol advertising near minors; the teacher fears scandal. The board must vote at a 90-minute meeting. The church's constitution says the orphanage must avoid 'appearance of evil', but also that it must 'seek the welfare of the poor'. No other donor has been found after eight months of appeals. The question is whether accepting the money is prudent stewardship, a compromise of witness, or both.
1. Assess the brewery proposal using utilitarian and deontological reasoning, showing where they converge and conflict.
Read the worked answer
Utilitarian reasoning asks what produces the greatest net welfare. The orphanage has 38 children and a 250,000 CFA monthly deficit; the brewery offers exactly that for three years, so the immediate benefit is food, school fees, staff and stability. Against that, the logo on the van and the slogan 'Drink responsibly' create a marketing association between the church's care for children and alcohol. The likely harms include normalising drinking among minors, damaging the church's witness, and deterring other donors. An act-utilitarian might accept with safeguards if the net benefit is still positive; a rule-utilitarian would ask what happens if churches generally sell their reputation to alcohol marketers, and would probably reject the branding because it erodes trust in all church welfare.
Deontological reasoning asks about duties and treating people as ends. Kant's humanity formula forbids using the children as a means to the brewery's marketing. The church also has a duty of integrity and a duty not to cause scandal - not merely unpopularity, but leading weaker members into sin (1 Cor 8:9–13). That duty may forbid the logo and slogan even if the money is useful. But deontology also includes beneficence: the board has a duty to feed and educate the children. The conflict is real, so the board must distinguish the donation from the branding. Unbranded money may be permissible; branded money is harder to justify.
The two theories converge on rejecting alcohol branding attached to children and on seeking safeguards. They conflict on whether the money can be accepted at all: utilitarianism may accept a tainted donor for a good outcome; deontology may refuse cooperation with wrongdoing. The board should not pretend the conflict disappears.
2. As a board member, what decision would you defend, and what conditions or alternatives would you attach? Include the role of conscience and scandal.
Read the worked answer
I would defend conditional acceptance only if the brewery drops the logo on the children's van, removes the slogan from any area used by minors, and allows the donation to be anonymised or channelled through a separate foundation. The church should issue a clear statement that it still teaches abstinence and that the donation does not imply endorsement. The board should also set up a three-year review, an independent audit, and a parallel appeal for other donors. If the brewery refuses those conditions, I would decline and launch a public appeal; the 250,000 CFA gap is serious, but it is not a reason to make children a vehicle for alcohol advertising.
The reasoning is not that money is dirty in itself. It is that the branding changes the meaning of the gift: it turns the orphanage into a marketing asset and risks scandal in the technical sense of leading others astray. Conscience matters here. The three pastors cannot be forced to act against a settled conscience, but conscience must be formed by Scripture, tradition and the community, not by personal taste. The laywomen's conscience also counts: they are weighing the concrete harm of hungry children. The board should record the dissent and seek wider church counsel if it is divided.
A good decision distinguishes the gift from the condition. Unbranded support can be received with gratitude; branded support should be refused or renegotiated. That is prudent stewardship, not self-righteousness.