Red Letters

For a fascinating and entertaining look at aristocratic life, look no further than the PBS show, Downton Abbey. Set in the early part of the twentieth century when the old European aristocratic life was on the decline, Downton offers a look into how true aristocrats and “noble” families lived.

Watching Downton, it is hard to believe that the noble Grantham family actually wants to live this way. They are dressed by servants who do everything but cut the food and put it in their mouths. But to the nobles it’s just their normal way of life.

“What is a ‘week end?’”

In one of the early episodes, Maggie Smith’s matriarchal character asks that question to a distant relative, a lawyer who works for a living but by chance is poised to inherit the entire family estate and title.

Her clueless question is a killer laugh line. But that laughter quickly turns uncomfortable.

Could you imagine the global poor asking us questions like:

What is dry cleaning? or What do you mean by “vacation clothes?” or You have parks made of water that you play in?

Are we the NEW aristocrats?

The other fascinating part about Downton is how easily you can see why we turn to simple, money-based solutions like aid. Not only is it the easy option, we are positively drowning in money (globally speaking). Our relative wealth and position in the world make money-only solutions to poverty so darn attractive.

If we just throw some money at it, they’ll use it the way we would (or the way we think they should).

Take a moment to read this blog post from one of the richest people in the world. She’s a “ten talent” servant. Take a moment to consider her words, and what sort of servant you would like to be in the kingdom of God.

Apologies are never easy because they unmask our failings. I am not above recognizing my mistakes–and my organization’s mistakes–while trying to help lift people out of poverty.

Sometimes our “help” has turned into hurt. Unintentional, perhaps prideful, mistakes have been made. And for those mistakes, I apologize.

I think it is important to approach new solutions with the humility that comes from failure–from the recognition that our unintended consequences have hurt those we’ve tried to help. We’re not just picking new strategies, we’re embracing new philosophies as well. Philosophies that put the role of local community leadership at the center, with us Westerners invited in as partners–not anti-poverty colonizers.

Because of our relative wealth, strength, and competency, it is dreadfully tempting to think we’ve got it all figured out and if developing nations would just listen better, or “get it,” we could really do some good.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

How can we say, “We know what is best,” when all we have done is take a few trips or read a few books or heard a sermon or went to a conference?

Right now there is a convergence of ideas that I think are forming a simple equation:

+ Community-to-Community Partnerships
+ Local Leadership Leading First
+ Compassionate Short-Term Intervention
+ Economic Development Activity
= End of Poverty

While many have pursued pieces or parts of this equation, I am seeing a great convergence of thinkers, practitioners, ministries, NGOs, and governments espousing this basic framework.

We’ll keep unpacking the specifics of this through this series of articles. Your feedback is welcome always.

Muhammad Yunus–one of the earlier pioneers of microfinance in the developing world–gets right to the heart of the matter in less than two minutes.

The current framework is completely broken …

It focuses too much on money…

We need businesses that exist to solve human problems…

It is people that cause change, not money. If you look at a microfinance model, it is heavily dependent on the role of people to create change by creating businesses that create revenue. It relies on the role of community, accountability, economic incentives, and ownership.

Aid typically does not create community, accountability, economic incentives, or ownership. But we are still so in love with aid. Why?

Peter Greer, President of the microfinance organization HOPE International, offers some excellent conclusions in this post. Greer concludes the aid model prevails…

“Because it’s easy.”

“We can go in and solve problems.  It’s fast.  It makes us feel good.  And we get to see results.  But anyone who looks at macroeconomic data recognizes it’s not a quick fix.  Long term, it’s a poverty trap.”

Anyone who looks at the macroeconomic data WOULD agree that aid is not working as well. But most of us DON’T look at that data.

Instead we look at the faces and bodies of  hungry children who are being robbed of a childhood in a vicious and systematically cruel way. Our parental instincts go into overdrive when we see children trapped by slavery or dying from malnutrition. These issues hit us in the gut like a cannonball.

But as Greer states in his post, “We need to get beyond pity, and move to real partnership.”

That happens when we focus on the potential those hungry children represent. Each is uniquely created and possesses skills, talents, abilities, and interests that if properly nutured and supported will be all they ever need to release themselves from the grip of poverty.

Pity is what happens when we want to scrub that image of a hungry child out of our memory and replace it with a happy picture of kids eating for a day.

Partnership happens when complementary strengths are aligned between Western communities and African communities. When common goals are pursued that result in a long-term strategy to feed, educate, and care for children–all the while training them for self-sufficiency and independence from aid as adults.

What causes change?  People releasing potential through partnership.

According to Dambisa Moyo, the answer is, “Yes.”

The Zambian economist who has worked at Goldman Sachs favors a complete cut-off of foreign aid to African nations over a five-year timeframe.  Her primary complaints are that aid has fostered dependence, promoted government corruption, and choked local economic growth.

Robert Calderisi, who spent over 30 years working on development issues with the World Bank, has a similar, yet more measured approach to aid. He favors only cutting aid in half because “most African governments are using aid corruptly, ineffectively, and wastefully.”

The remaining half should be strategically invested in those countries that are fighting corruption, creating new revenue, and making strong efforts to build local economies.

Cutting aid would come in part at the expense of the world’s poor orphans and children. They would bear the results of such a decision in their very bodies.  Already there are too many children trapped by extreme poverty. And while evidence suggests the global poverty numbers are getting better, is it because of aid, or in spite of it?

The focus on foreign aid must shift from “how much are we giving” to “does the aid we are giving work?”

For aid to work, it must promote independence that leads to physical and spiritual wholeness.Wholeness is not dependency, but rather, independence. To me that seems the most reasonable and Gospel-driven way to determine if aid is working.

The Gospel is filled with promises to restore broken people–both physically and spiritually. As “the church,” when we become involved in this work we are expressing Gospel values. Our intent is to restore to wholeness. That journey is longer and more difficult than poking a hole in the ground for fresh water, or delivering so many tons of food to hungry children. While those bring needed relief, it is temporary. True aid and development walks the difficult, perilous, and uphill path of providing the poor with not only relief–but partnering with them in their own development. Working together–and with us as the junior partner in the endeavor–we can reach independence and wholeness.

We cannot stop short of that goal if eliminating poverty is our goal. Development should involve transformation…a resurrection from the circumstances of poverty into thriving independence and wholeness. Is this not what Christ has done for us and calls us to do?

 

Keeping these values at the center of our aid decisions and strategies is often easier said than done…