Note # 2: This posting is quite late. Some other commitments, unfortunately, had to take priority. Apologies. I hope to get back on track this Friday with Part 5 of this series.
To this point in the essay series Some Proposals for a Christian Response to Poverty, I have established why I believe that it is imperative for the church to have a response for poverty. In my last essay, I suggested that the church’s response should have two aspects and considered why almsgiving is one of these aspects. I would now like to address the second aspect of the church’s response:
Development work by the church must be alongside the oppressed to create transformative justice.
Giving is a good and necessary response to poverty. On its own, however, giving is insufficient. Almsgiving cannot address social structures that allow poverty to exist in the first place. The next step is for wealthy Christians in wealthy countries to take political action. Justice is impossible without structural change. [1] In my last essay, I suggested a way to address poverty when it exists already. Now, I want to suggest that we help prevent poverty from happening in the first place.
John Calvin taught that meeting
people’s immediate needs should be paired with addressing situations that create
immediate needs. Immediate needs are
different in different times and places, so the causes of such needs will also
be different. This means that the way
the church responds to these causes will be context specific.[2] Regardless of context however, structural
problems exist because someone with power has the opportunity to exploit
someone without power (not that they necessarily will do so). When the church witnesses such exploitation,
the church must rebuke the person or group causing harm.[3]
Structural exploitation is possible
because structures are fallen. They
operate apart from the will of God. The
purpose social structure is to allow people to live full lives. Fallen structures actually prevent people
from living full lives as God intended. Part
of the church’s mission is to reflect the will of God on Earth. This means addressing structures that allow
injustice with the goal of allowing these structures to reflect God’s intended
purpose for them.[4]
Broadly speaking, there are two ways
for the church to address structural evil: development and transformative
justice. I hope to demonstrate how
development can be problematic if we do not expand it to include transformative
justice. Development is problematic if
it is ineffective, if it does not address sin, and if it does not take God’s
role in history into account.
Development is ineffective if it
does not start with an even playing field.
Development would benefit some countries, but as these countries make
progress so do wealthier countries. This
prevents poorer countries from moving forward.
When two countries attempt to move forward, the country that has more
resources will have more opportunity to step ahead. This creates a situation where the poor
country continues to stay relatively undeveloped or actually regresses.[5]
It is impossible to combat structural
evil if we ignore the reality of sin. Scripture
presents pre-fallen people as creative stewards, but this role was abandoned in
an attempt to become God’s equal. Sin is
now a reality and it prevents people from being the sort of stewards that God
intended. This means that development won’t
go as planned.[6] Repairing social structures must involve
repairing the personal state of sin.
Without addressing sin, progress is impossible.[7]
God must be acknowledged as active
in history. If not, development is seen
as entirely the responsibility of people.
This focus reduces human activity to physicality and ignores the
spiritual, creative, and communal aspects of humanity. This worldview will make development nothing
more than continued growth. At its best
then, development cannot do anything more than initiate new members in the
social elite. This does not address the
larger issues that cause injustice.[8]
I prefer transformative justice to development because it allows a role for both God and people. Robert Moffitt redefines “development,” while maintaining use of the word. In its ideal form, development will reflect transformative justice. Development will then be found in
every
biblically based activity of the body of Christ, his church, that assists in
bringing human beings toward the place of complete reconciliation with God and
complete reconciliation with their fellows and their environment.[9]
Transformative justice therefore acknowledges
and addresses the role of sin in structural oppression and addresses sin in
personal, relational, and societal spheres.
Transformative justice is not a process.
It is the result of a God-human partnership in history.[10] Transformative justice does not simply switch
structures, but changes the very character of these structures. Transformative justice is closely connected
to evangelism and cannot exist without it.[11]
It is tempting to use “God” as
justification for any social action.
What standard does the church use to evaluate whether God was actually
involved in a situation, though? How do
we stop ourselves from labelling our motivations as “God?” Vinay Samuel and Chris Sugden suggest that
God is involved in history and this involvement shows what will characterize the
fulfilled Kingdom of God. When we see
fairness, equality, and hope, we see the involvement of God. Where we see people repentant of oppression,
we see the involvement of God.[12]
Structural injustice is problematic
because God created people to be in His image.
People should reflect God in the world. Looting and plunder do not reflect God’s image. Stewardship does. Social injustice makes it impossible for both the oppressed and the oppressor to reflect the image of God. Transformative justice changes these
structures so that justice, peace, and community are possible for
everybody. Transformative justice
provides the opportunity for God’s purpose – the Kingdom of God and shalom – to
be met. When this occurs, social
structures will replace oppression with peace, health, and prosperity.[13]
A final note is crucial. Transformative justice is impossible without the
effort of oppressed people. The wealthy
church and wealthy countries cannot impose justice. The wealthy pockets of the church should stand
in solidarity with the poor. It is
undeniable that some people victimize others.
Where we see victimization, we see sin.
Acknowledging this is to stand with the oppressed to confront oppressors.[14]
For the wealthy church to stand with the
poor, it will have to acknowledge that some of its own spending habits have led
to oppression while also using much of its money to support justice. This demonstrates the role of repentance in
transformation. The church should
support people who use their own voice, rather than trying to be that voice.[15]
[6] Maurice Sinclair, “Development and
Eschatology,” in The Church in Response
to Human Need, ed.Vinay Samuel and Christopher Sugden, 163.
[7] Wayne G. Bragg, “From Development to
Transformation,” in The Church in
Response to Human Need, ed.Vinay Samuel and Christopher Sugden, 47.
[8] Tom Sine, “Development: Its Secular
Past and Its Uncertain Future” in The
Church in Response to Human Need, ed.Vinay Samuel and Christopher Sugden, 5-7.
[9] Robert Moffitt, “The Local Church and
Development,” in The Church in Response
to Human Need, ed.Vinay Samuel and Christopher Sugden, 236.
[10] Wayne G. Bragg, “From Development to
Transformation,” in The Church in
Response to Human Need, ed.Vinay Samuel and Christopher Sugden, 39-40.
[11] David J. Bosch, “Toward Evangelism in
Context,” in The Church in Response to
Human Need, ed.Vinay Samuel and Christopher Sugden, 180.
[12] Vinay Samuel and Chris Sugden, “God’s
Intention for the World,” in The Church
in Response to Human Need, ed.Vinay Samuel and Christopher Sugden, 149.
[13] Wayne G. Bragg, “From Development to
Transformation,” in The Church in
Response to Human Need, ed.Vinay Samuel and Christopher Sugden, 39.
No comments:
Post a Comment