When Helping Hurts: Part 6 Theology with Feet

In this final post of this exploration of the brilliant book "When Helping Hurts", I'll be connecting to content of the book that has been discussed here with an example of how we are attempting to live these truths out in Jacksonville with 2nd Mile Ministries.

Upon reading this book with our team a few months ago, we were somewhat encouraged and greatly concerned. Encouraged at the ways we saw our ministry fitting this model, but concerned at the many ways we saw ourselves committing the errors described in the book and convicted that the book was dead on--but that living out those truths was going to be really, really hard.

The authors make it clear that in their decades of experience in poverty alleviation they know about mistakes because they've made them all, and they write from the humble point of view of flawed individuals who are still in the process of answering these questions, so at 2nd Mile, we too, hope to be in process, and that our process would take us closer and closer to a Biblical, loving, and effective response to the brokenness of this world.

So how does 2nd Mile seek to help without hurting in the inner city of JAX. Its starts with the view of poverty. We've ditched the material view of poverty and choose to enter into a story where we're all broken and all in need of redemption. Rather than looking to material poverty we take a relational view.

As a part of a relational view, all of our staff are required to live in the neighborhood alongside the people we are seeking to minister to (and hopefully, letting them minister to us). Ideally we come to share life with our neighbors. Their problems become our problems, their joy becomes our joy, and the Gospel permeates all of our lives with a belief that "I'm not OK, and you're not OK, but Jesus can fix us both."

So it starts with relationships.

From these relationships we seek to learn what the community really needs. This is not based on an assessment of middle class values, but is based on the very words of our neighbors and Scripture. If the community doesn't desire something, why waste everybody's time pursuing it?

From these relationships we also seek to discover the natural gifts and abilities of our neighbors and invite them to come along on the journey of restoration in our streets. We don't start from scratch but find out what's already going on and existing in our neighborhood and seek to propel it further.

Finally, from these relationships, we are dealing with people. We don't want to fix people or change them or help them. You fix a car. You change your cell phone contract. You help those "below" you. Instead we would seek to love people, to develop people, and to empower people (plus, if you watch LOST, you know that trying to fix everything never works! Right Jack?!).

We deal in development and empowerment. Specifically, we would love to see young people from our neighborhood be developed into leaders and role models who follow Christ boldly in our neighborhood and are empowered to bring the message of reconciliation with their lives. That's the goal.

I could go on for awhile, probably far too long, so I'll wrap this up here. Seriously, "When Helping Hurts" brilliant, convicting, Scriptural, well-written, and illuminating, go pick it up.

When Helping Hurts Part 5: Crisis?

What is the proper response to each of these situations?

1. An inner city American neighborhood. High crime. Poor nutrition. Few jobs. Overall feeling of being trapped.

2. Small island nation suffers devastating earthquake. Much of the little infrastructure that did exist is destroyed. General stability is mostly restored, but damage is ubiquitous.

3. American city hit by historic hurricane. Extensive wind and flood damage. Waters are yet to recede and thousands are without access to clean drinking water, health supplies, and stable supply of food.

For many of us, each of these situations would elicit the same response, to provide aid in the form of relief. A relief response is one that seeks to directly meet the basic needs of the affected population. So if food is needed, we send food. If water, send water. If medical help, send doctors. The vast majority of poverty alleviation efforts pursued by North Americans are ones of relief.

And while sometimes necessary and most-certainly they can be great acts of self sacrifice, I would argue that relief is very rarely the best response to poverty. Further, Americans are particularly quick to jump to the relief option because of our material definition of poverty (see post 2).

There are basically three ways all poverty alleviation can be classified: relief, rehabilitation, and development.

However, don't take these as hard and fast rules, if someone downtown asks you for some change, I'm quite confident you won't get to Heaven and find God confronting you for "giving too much money to crackheads" (to borrow a line from Shane Claiborne). On that note, remember we're people who have been given grace that we in no way (by definition) deserve and often fail to be grateful for AND often misuse. But anyways . . .

So relief, rehabilitation, and development.

In brief, relief is ideally a seldom, immediate, and temporary response to a crisis at hand. In my above scenarios, only the hurricane recovery would be an appropriate time for relief efforts. Relief is intended to provide for immediate needs in what could become a life-or-death situation. That's it. And once the immediate threat is gone, relief efforts should be transitioned into . . .

Rehabilitation is what comes after relief. It seeks to return an area to what it was before a disaster struck. The earthquake situation from above would be an appropriate context for rehabilitation.

These two options will almost exclusively be used to counteract some sort of natural, social, or political disaster. But all of them should lead to the third type, which is development.

Development is the best goal of poverty alleviation efforts. It takes longer. Its more complicated. Its more difficult. And its a heck of a lot harder to raise funds to do. But it works!

Development is "a process of ongoing change that moves all the people involved--both the "helpers" and the "helped"--closer to being in right relationship with God, self, others, and the rest of creation."

Prepositions are important. Development is not done to someone, nor is it done for them, but rather it happens with them. Development requires considering the best, long-term option for all parties involved and not just for their physical or economic well being, but also for their humanness, for their dignity, and for what it would take to truly love them.

Development also works best when it is asset based, basically meaning, poverty alleviation efforts work best when the skills, gifts, and abilities that already exist in the neighborhood, town, or village are considered rather than bringing in extensive outside supports.

I won't get any further into the nitty-gritty of how this works, but the book does, so please go read it if you're interested. But on the practical level, I would say this, if you or your church is involved in relief or rehabilitation efforts don't pull back from them, but rather ask, "How can we do these in a developmental way?"

Do you serve meals to the homeless? Great, now what would it look like to involve the impacted population in the task? Could they help prepare the meal? Do you get to know them? Do they know you?

Are you going to New Orleans for hurricane rebuilding? Wonderful. Carefully choose the group you go with and when you're there, be a learner. Ask about the long-term plans for rebuilding, find out how you can continue to be involved, and if you meet people remember they are a million times more important than any "project."

When Helping Hurts Part 4: Success?

Last week, I sought to establish two main points from the book "When Helping Hurts", that poverty is more than material and that poverty results from broken relationships with God, ourselves, others, and creation.

So if we accept these premises, what does progress look like? How does someone tackle problems that have existed for thousands of years? What does it look like to go beyond material solutions?

These are hard questions. I frequently tell people that one of the hardest things about my job is that I have little conception of what "success" is. There is no easily measurable standard to go by, if one accepts these premises.

But as a starting point, let's remember "the grand narrative" I presented that ends with restoration and redemption. The ultimate solution and destination is entirely outside of human control and efforts. In the end, "Jesus is bringing reconciliation to every last speck of the universe, including our foundational relationships and the systems that emanate from them." (see Colossians 1:15-20)

So the end goal and the power is found in Christ and this future restoration, but is this relevant in the meantime?

Absolutely. Christianity isn't about treasures and Heaven, it is and always has been about a King and a Kingdom. And that King is Christ. And his followers are called, chosen, and expected to live lives here on this broken planet as a preview of that Kingdom. His Kingdom is both already and not yet here. (let's throw a plug for Rick McKinley's This Beautiful Mess for a wonderful tackling of this topic)

So, success in poverty alleviation must look something like that Kingdom. The authors define it: "Poverty alleviation is the ministry of reconciliation: moving people closer to glorifying God by living in right relationship with God, with self, with others, and with the rest of creation." More specifically, the goal of material poverty alleviation is reconcile these relationships so that people can "fulfill their callings of glorifying God by working and supporting themselves and their families with the fruit of that work."

Notice what the goal is not. The goal is not to turn the materially poor into middle-to-upper class North Americans, "a group characterized by high rates of divorce, sexual addiction, substance abuse, and mental illness." The goal is right, reconciled relationships. Right, reconciled relationships that allow for persons to escape the cycles and effects of material poverty.

The goal is to see people empowered, to see their own gifts and abilities and use those to impact positive change. It must be done through a process and a relationship (with that attitude "I am not OK, and you are not OK, but Jesus can fix us both"). Its must be a process that is centered on the end goal of bringing God glory.

People over projects.

Processes over products.

Glory over all else.

When Helping Hurts Part 3: The Grand Narrative

So far in this series, I've been discussing the basic principles of the book "When Helping Hurts." In it I have asked about our definition of poverty and suggested that our commonly assumed material definition of poverty is incomplete and that a full diagnosis of the problem is necessary before we embark on alleviation efforts.

Sorry, I couldn't resist the picture. Too good. As you'll read on I think its safe to say, that is not what God's plan of redemption looks like.

Today, how did it get this way? Our world is broken, selfish, and wracked with evil (For proof, see LRA or the depths of one's own heart).

The simplest explanation is a grand narrative of creation, fall, and redemption. These three acts play out in four key relationships: our relationship with God, with others, with our self, and with the rest of creation.

So here's the story. In the beginning, God, an inherently relational being, created humanity in his own image and created each of these relationships.

And it was good. And it was very good.

Humankind's relationship with God, our primary relationship, was perfect. Humans had perfect relationship with others never erring in the task of loving one another. Humans had a perfect relationship with self, there was not a hint of shame or insecurity or feelings of worthlessness. And humans had a perfect relationship with the rest of creation as stewards and caretakers of the world around us.

But, act two sees the plot thicken. Humans choose to ditch these perfect relationships and pursue our own fulfillment, our own satisfaction, and our own ways. We doubt that this God is really as good as He says He is and head our own direction.

This is not how it is supposed to be and each of these relationships are broken. With God, with others, with self, and with creation.

Poverty enters the world in each of these four relationships. Poverty of spiritual intimacy. Poverty of community. Poverty of being. Poverty of stewardship.

Of which, the conclusion can be made that "poverty (material and otherwise) is the result of relationships that do not work, that are not just, that are not for life, that are not harmonious or enjoyable. Poverty is the absence of shalom in all its meanings."

Further this means that poverty is not merely a problem for the material poor. We are all broken, all of creation is broken and this brokenness takes many forms.

Briefly, how might we see this play out in the four relationships for a lower class or a middle class person?

Broken relationship with God for the lower class individual may lead to denying God's existence, while for the middle class person this brokenness will often manifest it self in materialism, the replacement of God with money, possessions, and ownership.

Broken community in material poverty looks like physical fighting, broken community in the middle class is gossip, the silent treatment, and unspoken bitterness.

Broken relationship with self for the poor means hopelessness and feelings of worthlessness for the rich it means pride and promotion of self.

Finally, our broken relationship with creation is easily seen in work where purposeless, laziness, and workaholism all stem from the same broken relationship.

What this means is that, biblically, we are all in poverty. And each of these relationships interacts with the others to deepen and perpetuate our own poverty and that of others.

Knowing this leads to a key observation, "until we embrace our mutual brokenness, our work with low-income people is likely to do far more harm than good." Without an attitude that says "I am not OK, and you are not OK, but Jesus can fix us both" all our efforts will increase (!) the poverty of being of both the materially poor and materially non-poor (one through sinful feelings of superiority and knowledge, the other through feelings of inferiority and shame).

Those who seek to alleviate poverty must shed their "tendency toward a Western, materialistic perspective on the nature of poverty" and replace it with a relational view of poverty that acknowledges mutual brokenness and need for redemption.

Speaking of redemption, I need to finish the story! Because the story does not end with brokenness! The story ends with restoration of that which God originally created. With a return to a perfect relationship with God. A return to a perfect relationship with others. And a return to a perfect relationship with self and creation.

The God who created this world is not satisfied to see it torn apart, his desire is for its redemption and restoration, so he takes action to bring this about. His Son enters the world in the most humble of circumstances, lives a perfect life, and dies as a substitution for the very people who have turned and rejected God (Phil 2:6-10; Rom 5:8; 2 Cor 5:21; Eph 2:8-10). And His offer is one of Grace, a free offer for humanity to return to him and his offer comes with a promise, a promise that redemption will come. That this is not the end. That a loud voice will one day proclaim:

"Look! Look! God has moved into the neighborhood, making his home with men and women! They're his people, he's their God. He'll wipe every tear from their eyes. Death is gone for good—tears gone, crying gone, pain gone—all the first order of things gone." The Enthroned continued, "Look! I'm making everything new. Write it all down—each word dependable and accurate."Then he said, "It's happened. I'm A to Z. I'm the Beginning, I'm the Conclusion. From Water-of-Life Well I give freely to the thirsty. Conquerors inherit all this. I'll be God to them, they'll be sons and daughters to me.

(Rev 21:3-7 The Message)

The story is clear that we're all broken, we're all in poverty, but that Yahweh, the Holy One of Israel, the King of Kings, the Lord of Lords, God of All the Earth will not leave us this way, that he comes to redeem, to rescue, and to save.

The Redemption is real. Real. Amen.

When Helping Hurts Part 2: Your definition of poverty is wrong

Your definition of poverty is wrong.

Well, maybe not wrong according to the dictionary, but chances are if you come from a middle-class American background, the words you would use to describe poverty are not those the materially poor around the world would use.

When asked to define poverty my first impulse is to use the word lack. Poverty is the lack of material resources, which is caused by a lack of other resources: skills, training, networks, wealth, infrastructure, etc.

And while this is certainly true: the poor lack money, if the poor are asked to define their own situation their answers are so much more than a lack of material resources . . .

Cameroon: "a feeling of powerlessness and an inability to make themselves heard"

Latvia: "The lack of contact leaves one depressed, creates a constant feeling of unhappiness, and a low sense of self esteem"

Uganda: "When one is poor, she has no say in public, she feels inferior. She has no food, so there is famine in her house; no clothing, and no progress in her family"

Quotes from Voices of the Poor a study put together by The World Bank

Here the author's words are better than mine, so I'll hand it off to them, "While poor people mention having a lack of material things, they tend to describe their condition in far more psychological and social terms than our North American audiences. Poor people typically talk in terms of shame, inferiority, powerlessness, humiliation, fear, hopelessness, depression, social isolation, and voicelessness."

But even if all this is true, people still need food? And clean water, right? Yes, I'll address those questions in a later post about the differences between relief, rehabilitation, and development.

But, if you'll track with me and accept this is true, that poor people define their own poverty in far more than material terms, this has crucial implications. For if the problem is more than material, any solution will be illegitimate unless it goes beyond the material.

If our diagnosis is incomplete or inaccurate, our treatment will be as well.

We must be careful of a dangerous two dangerous pitfalls here. 1. We must never let a supposed "understanding" of poverty overtake the words and feelings of real people who are experiencing it. Never assume you can "fix" them. 2. An academic flyover of the issue. If the problem is largely one of isolation, shame, and inferiority the solutions require RELATIONSHIPS. This is much harder than any program or outreach or giveaway, but I will argue far more effective and far more loving.

Check back tomorrow or so for the theology of poverty: How did the world get to this point anyways? (if you're a Madison-dweller who goes the Blackhawk Church the answer will sound rather familiar).

"When Helping Hurts" Part 1

Welcome to the most ambitious project I've ever sought to take on via blog. This is part 1 of a . . . several part series discussing the book "When Helping Hurts" by Steve Corbett and Brian Fikkert.

I've been wanting to discuss this book on here for the past few months as I think it will be helpful as a framework for understanding poverty alleviation on the whole and what my job (ideally) looks like, but also for readers (you!) to engage with and ask necessary questions we don't often think about.

The basic premise of the book can be found in the subtitle, "how to alleviate poverty without hurting the poor . . . and yourself". The authors (successfully, in my opinion) argue that most efforts to address poverty as commonly carried out, both domestically and internationally, risk causing far more harm than benefit. They then go on to show how these mistakes can be redressed and avoided.

But for this post, before I speak a word of content, I want to ask questions. Questions about how we define poverty and questions about how we view the "poor" and how we view ourselves. And . . . if this is about Christ (hint: it always is), are these assumptions and strategies grounded in the Bible?

So, some questions to answer. I may or may not revisit and answer these questions in later posts, but you should answer them nonetheless . . . I'm serious. Get out some paper, or open a Word document. Write out your answers. So, the questions . . .

Why did Jesus come to Earth?

What is the task of the Church?

What is poverty? What words come to mind? List them.

Based on that answer: What methods should be used to address poverty?

Alright, write it out. I'll be back in a couple days with part 2. I'm excited about this . . . and if you know me much at all, you know what happens when I get excited!