The Tragedy of Charity

In 2005, I went to Afghanistan with a group of donors, pastors, and development practitioners. Given the insecurity from the Taliban and the very real threat of bandits on the road to the north, we decided to take a Russian-made helicopter to reach small villages that had not been visibly touched by the outside world.

In one remote village, we were paraded around by the elders who showed us all their "needs." They brought us to a community center that had some minor water damage to the roof. Outside this building, an elder with a full beard waved his finger at me saying, "You must fix this!" I am not a handy individual, yet I'm certain I could have repaired this problem with locally available materials and a few hours of sweat. Our group was amazed at the attitude in the village that seemed to shout that foreigners were responsible for meeting the community's needs.

It seemed that the promise of traditional charity had weakened or even paralyzed local initiative and ownership in this community. As we lifted off, my mind was racing as swiftly as the blades swirling above the Cold War relic. I wondered what "relics" would remain of our assistance and could not help wondering if there was an alternative way for followers of Jesus to address the incredible needs in our world.

In a different small village in a different part of the world, I visited the dimly-lit home of Mama Ndugu, a loan client from Urwego, a microfinance institution in Rwanda. Instead of being paraded around her neighborhood to see its "needs," she proudly showed me all that she and her community had accomplished. She showed me her church and the benches she purchased, she showed me the buzz of activity in the local market, and she even instructed her daughter to run out to buy me a cold Coke. During this visit, she told me about her initial loan of $48 that she used to grow her business making embroidered furniture covers. Now that she was enjoying modest success, she was eager to be a gracious hostess to her American guest. Seated in her dirt-floored home, she asked me to look around and figure out what was different. What I failed to notice were her new tin panels on the roof. "For the first time in my life, my family and I don't get wet during the rainy season!" she proudly proclaimed. As we drank the Coke, she asked for nothing other than my time and friendship.

What made the difference between this woman in Rwanda and the man from Afghanistan? I do not believe the change in attitude resulted from differences in geography, gender, history, or family situation. Rather, I believe the difference resulted from one person believing the lie that he was "too poor to do anything" while another saw that she was too poor to stay the way she was. One looked at his hands and saw nothing while another looked down and saw that these hands had the capacity to improve her life. One had the expectation of foreign charity while another had the expectation of future investment in her business.

If the Church in America wants to make a lasting difference on poverty in the most desperate places of the world, we need to reorient our thinking away from traditional charity to economic development: from hand-outs to hand-ups, from dependency to dignity, from short-term to long-term.

And perhaps most importantly, we need to reorient our thinking from us coming in and "solving the problems of the poor." We might be able to provide sustenance for today, but lasting change is only possible when we partner with the poor in addressing physical and spiritual poverty and equip them to become the change they hope to see.

5 Comments »

1. well said.  two thoughts.
   it is the responsibility of the poor to do well.  and by implication those that have wealth need to help by not getting in the way.  we’ve done the exact opposite of that here in the states.  the welfare entitlement mentality is deeply embedded in our american culture.  taking care of the widow and the orphaned is our God ordained directive but in a way that doesn’t further enslave them.

   an older work but worth another look is marvin olaksy’s “the tragedy of american compassion”.  olasky builds a solid case about how charity can be rightly understood as a tool to truly give a person a fish, by directly teaching him how to use their God given talents.  Our Christian inclinations has done more harm to personal freedom than assisted it in many cases.

   http://www.amazon.com/Tragedy-American-Compassion-Marvin-Olasky/dp/089526725X

   Comment by samgamgee - Sep 08, 2008 @ 05:46 AM

2. There is no Tragedy of American Compassion, the Tragedy is we refuse to find a balance between a hand out and a hand up. Christian’s either do nothing or throw money at a problem. I think so much more is required if we are truly going to walk in the compassion Jesus talked about.

   As for Samgamee’s statement (Love the name by the way) I don’t think we have ever cared for the widows and Orphans correctly as a church. They as a people group are the ones least likely to be able to earn a living and actually take care of themselves so in that case, we are to give a hand out and at the same time encourage any family members (if they have them) to take care of them and also encourage them to do what they can to help themselves. Teaching them about the love of Jesus, his strength, wisdom and support, will help them find their call in life. BUT no where in scripture does it ever tell us a point where it’s ok to not take care of them. Jesus is very clear in Matthew 25 how we are to act toward the poor, the hungry, etc.

   I work in the inner city and I can honestly say that I have seen way more entitlement mentality coming from the wealthy then the poor. American’s by in large have failed to be truly compassionate because they are too worried about buying more, staying away from the poor and gaining more power. Yes, some throw money at social problems and yes, that may seem to be compassionate at the time but unless they are actually feeding, visiting, clothing, taking care of Orphans and Widows, they are probably just trying to not touch the people they deem beneath them but appear compassionate at the same time and therefore that is not the compassion Jesus speaks of.

   The bottom line is get to know the poor, the widow the orphan, be a part of all aspects of the solution, spend time with an inner-city at risk youth, bring food and fellowship to a widow. Go live in Africa and teach a skill to a tribe, etc.. and then we will see real change happen because then we will actually BE the hands and feet of Jesus, touching, serving, helping the least of these not just the Wallet of a wealthy nation giving hand outs to ease guilt.

   Comment by Carole Turner - Sep 30, 2008 @ 03:23 PM

3. By the way. I hope I did not give the impression that I think Micro loans are not a wonderful thing, I do think they are and I think they are one of many ways to help empower and help people in poor countries. I think they are brilliant and wonderful and I support Opportunity International.

   Comment by Carole Turner - Sep 30, 2008 @ 04:46 PM

4. Great article! Thanks for posting this. I love Carole’s insights from a domestic perspective and as someone who works closely with the poor in her city. I think it really put some flesh to Peter’s statement that we “need to reorient our thinking away from traditional charity to economic development: from hand-outs to hand-ups, from dependency to dignity, from short-term to long-term.”

   I am becoming more and more convinced that what is needed to alleviate poverty is radical, relational, risk-taking commitment from the church to care for the poor locally and globally as well as creating the economic, social, spiritual and practical capital that the poor need to rise out of poverty. Lord, continue to move us and mobilize your people!

   Comment by jasonkovacs - Oct 01, 2008 @ 11:10 AM

5. Peter,

   Thanks for sharing this article. This empowerment mentality is really imperative to turning the tide against poverty.

   However, I believe that the biggest challenge that we face with this new paradigm of generosity and empowerment is that it does, perhaps, loose some of the emotional appeal that many of the present day relief and development agencies have ‘leveraged’.

   This is not to say that the harsh realities in poor communities do not need to be exposed, because they do. What I’m really trying to communicate here is that, perhaps, we have created a cycle of shallow marketing that is leading to dependency-based (short-lived) change in poor area’s throughout the world. What would happen if development organizations were intentional about moving away from an emotionally driven appeal, while ushering in a new level of depth for the transformation of both the giver and receiver?

   This conversation can quickly become esoteric and that is not at all the purpose. Rather, I think those of us who work on behalf of those served by our various organizations must first commit to transformational change in our program design and implementation. At the same time, we must also evaluate the way the we communicate our cause, such that we aren’t perpetuating the cycle in pursuit of resources. This is hard work on both ends of the spectrum (giving and receiving), but it is necessary.

   The good news is that orphans, vulnerable children and widows can still be cared for under this new paradigm. It is already happening!

   Quickly, I’d also like to recommend the book The Great Omission by Steve Saint for transformational program insights. Further, I’d recommend the Mission Increase Foundation for wisdom and guidance on the donor development/ministry end. Both of these resources have helped shape the way that we engage with our donor base and those interested in our ministry.

   May our compassion bear fruit that will last…

   Comment by Justin_Narducci - Oct 08, 2008 @ 04:29 PM

Sorry, but commenting is no longer available for this post.