Introduction
This paper develops a model for Christian ministry in urban
Australia that draws on the theology, principles, and practises of
transformational development. Initial
analysis compares the contexts of the two, namely the nature of poverty in urban
Australia and that nature of poverty in the third world. Next we turn to the nature of the church in
the inner city, locating it historically before outlining the current issues
that it faces. Next we outline the key
features of transformational development – its goals, theological framework,
strategies and tools. Finally, we bring
the insights of transformational development into the context of the inner city
and the inner city church to outline an integrated model for church planting
and development.
Transformational Development
While international debate in recent years has centred on
integrating evangelism and social action, proclamation and demonstration
(McAlpine 2005, 5-7, e.g. Nicholls 1985[1],
Sine 1991, 178-181), McAlpine (6) and Myers (2005, 1) amongst others, have
developed an understanding of development “in which physical, social and
spiritual development are seamlessly interrelated.” (Myers, 1). Myers (3) calls this “transformational
development”, describing it as “… seeking positive change in the whole of human
life materially, socially and spiritually”.
Two aspects of this definition are critical. The first is that offering an opportunity to
hear the good news of Jesus is a core component of transformational development
(Myers 2005, 88). Secondly, material,
social and spiritual transformation are inseparable.
This is the understanding transformational development that
we will use for this paper. Whilst it
appears to be a completely integrated approach, Myers (3) is nevertheless able
to differentiate if from “Christian witness”, which he sees as a recognition
that the best news we have as Christians is that God has made it possible for
people to come into a covenant relationship with God. Further, he says that the two “… should be
held together in creative tension” (Myers 2005, 2). Both these statements undermine the idea of
“seamless integration”. We cannot be
overly critical of Myers in this regard however. There are many situations in which Christian
agencies are required to differentiate between their development and witness
work. Moreover, many practitioners still
see the two as separate. Finally, this
is recognises that non-Christian agencies do valid development work.
Who are the poor in Australia?
The contexts which have birthed the concept of
transformational development are predominantly third world and largely
rural. In this section we look at the
understanding of poverty developed in this context and compare it with poverty
in urban Australia.
Who are the poor?
The poor are first of all people in God’s sight (Myers 2005,
58). (Myers, 65-81) examines a number of
understandings of poverty, which can be summarised as follows:
- Poverty
is a deficit of material, skill and spiritual resources.
- Poverty
is a trap made of the six elements of: material poverty, physical
weakness, isolation, vulnerability, powerlessness and spiritual poverty.
- Poverty
is a lack of access to social power.
- Poverty
is disempowerment caused by the interaction of cultural, biophysical,
personal, religious and social systems.
- Poverty
is limitations imposed by others out of their own self-interest.
Without in depth analysis of the nuances of these
definitions, it is clear that poverty is not only physical/material in its
nature but also social/cultural and personal/spiritual. Myers concludes that the nature of poverty is
essentially relational. The
relationships of the poor lack shalom in five dimensions: their
self-understanding is marred, others treat them oppressively, their environment
does not support their material needs, their community/culture/social system
restricts their opportunities for change and their understanding of God is
inadequate (Myers 2005, 86f). For
simplicity we will use the three part division.
Welfare state
In Australia, as elsewhere, poverty is a politicised issue
and so estimates of poverty range from 3 to over 40% (Saunders 2003, 11). Unlike most third world countries, a welfare
system in Australia ensures that all citizens have at least a minimal regular
income. Poverty therefore in Australia
is much more cultural/social and personal/spiritual in nature. This reality points clearly to the inadequacy
of a purely physical/material understanding of poverty, which suggests that the
solution to poverty is simply the supply of goods and services.
Further, if reliance on the welfare system is an indicator,
poverty in Australia is growing. In the
1960’s, 22 workers paid for every one person who was wholly or mainly reliant
on welfare support, at the beginning of the 21st century the ratio
is 5 to 1 (Saunders 2003, 3). This trend
shows no sign of changing. Saunders (8f)
suggests the welfare state is promoted by four categories of people: social professionals out of self-interest,
the intellectually lazy as it has become a mark of being ‘progressive’, those
who argue it is needed economically to meet people’s basic needs, and
those who argue it is needed sociologically to forge a bond between the
more and less fortunate.
This is a telling insight for urban missionaries as most of
them could probably claim membership of all four categories. The former two are the most dangerous. Intellectually, Christians on the whole could
do to be more rigorous. Often our
(right) response is to the circumstances of those in need, but we must also ask
the deeper questions such as what the causes are behind these circumstances
(recognising that they may be varied) and what actions will actually make the
circumstances better and help avoid them in the future. Moreover, urban missionaries must recognise that
their mission is not dependent solely on the plight of those they would seek to
help. That is to say the Shalom of God
that they come to foster goes beyond the provision of basic needs and the
forging of a bridge between the more and less fortunate. Their will always be a place in any community
for more of the Shalom of God until he comes again. The ‘mission’ is also independent of the
plight of the urban needy in that when the missionaries have come, completed
their work, handed it over to local people and moved on, there will still be
more work to do. Their will always be a
place for the church in every community.
Saunders (2003, 40f) argues that the welfare state tends to
create poverty through laziness and dependency.
He sights the increase in reliance on the disability support pension
(from 2 to 5% for working age recipients between 1980 and 2003) and the
transfer of people from Newstart unemployment benefit to the more generous
disability support pension (300 000 in the same period) as evidence. This element can hardly be denied, bringing
the reality of personal sin, inadequate worldview and self-view, as well as the
inadequacy of social and cultural systems to the fore. Whilst the welfare state’s aims of social
equality, minimum standards of provision and social cohesion have only been
partially achieved, there is some justification for saying that it has
prevented even greater excesses of inequality (Ife 2002, 3).
Ife (2002, 16) identifies lack of community as part of the
poverty of the modern industrial society.
Industrialisation brought a shift from relating to relatively few people
known well to relating to many people known only via their role - a shift from knowing others as people to
knowing others by their role. “…
community in the traditional sense is not a significant element of contemporary
industrial society, especially in urban or suburban settings” (Ife 2002, 13).
On many indictators, the Australian welfare system compares
well with those of other countries.
Australian mothers and people aged 45-64 have the highest rates of
participation in the work force. The
trend, however is toward greater inequality and greater welfare
dependency. Whilst there are more two
income families there are also more families with no income earners. Lone parent families are on the increase and
less than half of these are in work.
Social security dependence was at 10% in 1978 and almost doubled by 1998
(18%) (Newman n.d., 3f).
The faces of Australian poverty
The faces of poverty in urban Australia are the homeless,
the physically and mentally ill, addicts, and indigenous people. Most people in these categories qualify for
public housing so public housing estates become the ghettos of Australia. The commonality of these groups is a lack of
supportive relationships and personal skills, and social marginalisation. When in the ups and downs of life, things go
down and there is no supportive network to carry people through, many fall
through to the bottom. The escape of
additions or the abandonment of responsibility that homelessness brings, become
their support. The stress of trauma
often results in mental illness. For
indigenous people and the mentally ill the stigma of social unacceptability
enforces their poverty.
As across the advance economies of the world, the welfare
state in Australia seems increasingly unable to redress the widening income gap
within urban communities. Homelessness
in the advanced economies is at its highest level since the end of World War
II. The causes of this trend are argued
– globalisation, unemployment and insufficient safety nets are popular
candidates. Job opportunities for
unskilled workers have contracted with the contraction of some industries and
the movement of jobs to low wage countries.
For people find themselves temporarily out of work or in some other
major disadvantage and unable to access social capital through their family or
other networks, welfare safety nets have not provided the support needed to
enable them to re-enter the market.
Those who become homeless tend to be those whose vulnerability is
exacerbated by health, drug and alcohol issues, or physical or sexual
abuse. The traditional homeless “wino”
has been joined by unemployed younger men, by the mentally ill without
institutions to care for them, by women and children escaping domestic
violence, and by young people whose families can’t cope. Shortages of public housing and increasing
rents mean many individuals and families stay in emergency accommodation for
long periods and their homelessness, disempowerment and vulnerability is
reinforced. Australia’s 1996-1997
estimate of homelessness of 147 000 or 0.8% of the total population compares
favourably with the US figure of 1.2% but is way above the UK figure of 0.2%
(UNHSP 2004, 124-129; Johnstone and Mandryk 2001, 83, 649, 657).
As well as the rise in homelessness and unemployment,
especially amongst the young, Cooke (2003, 18f) points to three other key
trends in Australian society. Firstly
the marginalisation of rural communities, reflects in the high rate of suicide
amongst young rural men. Secondly,
changes in government policy, which have meant a rise of economies based on
non-productive income generation, such as gambling, increased privatisation of
social services and the sale of publicly owned assets. Thirdly, the question of Aboriginal
reconciliation and rights.
Australia compared with the third world
In Australia then, as compared with the third world, poverty
is more abruptly social/cultural and personal/spiritual in nature, through this
regularly results in physical/material lack as well. The welfare network maintains a minimal level
of income, arguably prevents the worst excesses but also exacerbates a poverty
of dependency. Where third world
development strategies are based around communities and households (Myers 2005,
62), Australian society lacks a community to work with. Further those who become poor in Australia
tend to be the least skilled, the least educated and the least motivated.
Being church in the inner city
This section places urban ministry in Australia in its
historical and contemporary context.
The history of the urban church in Australia
From history essay.
Recent trend to escape from the inner city.
Presence as community
With the rise of the commuter suburb as the dominant mode of
urban planning, the presence of Christians in Australian cities has been drawn
away from the inner city to the suburbs.
As the inner city was regarded as the home of the poor and marginalised,
the trend away from the inner city was reinforced by “redemption lift”, the
tendency for people to move toward greater affluence and stability when they
come to faith (reference from missions lectures). The result is cathedrals in the inner city,
which were built in the “city church” era, with few people attending them. Particularly in city churches, those that do
attend often travel from some distance, so there is little local presence.
The first challenge for urban ministry is simply to be
present in the inner city. There are
just not enough Christians living in and engaging the inner city community.
Since the 1990’s, the inner city has become popular as a
residential location, particularly amongst singles and couples without kids,
who are seeking a more bohemian lifestyle.
Affluent workers, actors, artists and the gay community now live
alongside those in public housing, boarding houses, refuges and on the
street. To limit the scope of this
study, the focus will be on the implications of transformational development
amongst the poor in the inner city.
Presence as word
A natural consequence of the lack of Christians living in
the city is a lack of proclamation by word.
In a number of ways, various groups have attempted to redress the lack
of proclamation through strategies other than moving Christians in to the inner
city. Evangelistic outreaches, featuring
singing, preaching and the distribution of literature, are held by a number of
groups who come to the inner city specifically and only for that purpose. Some groups add the provision of food or
clothing, or some other service to their outreach, seeking to respond to both
material and spiritual needs.
There are a number of negatives in these approaches. When local people do respond to the message
when it is proclaimed, such missions don’t provide any opportunity for
following people up and incorporating them into a faith community within their
own locality and their own culture. The
fact that the Christian workers return to the suburbs reinforces the idea that
the inner city is an inappropriate place for Christians, so new believers tend
to fall away or move out and Christian presence in the inner city doesn’t grow.
Presence as deed
As we have seen, the inner city is the locality of much
human need. This has heightened the
awareness of Christians of the need to be presence in deeds which respond to
this need.
We have already noted that some short-term missions to the
inner city include helping people in practical ways. In addition, the church is present in deed,
through numerous church agencies that provide human services such as
accommodation for the homeless and drug and alcohol rehabilitation. These agencies operate amongst many
non-church agencies, which provide similar services. They are generally very corporate in their
structure, and predominantly government funded.
As a consequence the number of Christians amongst their staff is limited
– both by the fact that their funding structure prohibits them from insisting
on Christian workers and because there are a limited number of Christians that
are qualified for and interested in, the positions that they offer.
Challenges to being church in the inner city
Christian ministry thus faces the following challenges in
the inner city. Firstly, and
pre-eminently, there is the challenge to be physically, residentially, locally
present. Because the church has moved
out of the inner city over the years, establishing a local worshipping
community requires church planting.
Secondly, there is the challenge to be present both in word and deed, to
offer the good news of transforming poor living situations into fulfilling ones
as well as the best news of transformation toward the likeness of Christ. It is in the latter area that
transformational development has the most to offer and on which we will focus
for the remainder of this study.
Theological Framework
Goals
Myers (2005, 113) defines the goal of development as the
unshakable Kingdom of God via the person of Jesus. In concrete terms this means the Shalom of
God: “… just, peaceful, harmonious and enjoyable relationships with each other,
ourselves, our environment, and God.” He
elaborates on this goal under the headings of “Changed People” and “Just and
Peaceful Relationships”. Changed people
means that people will discover their true identity in that they are made in
the image of God and their true vocation in that they are gifted to contribute
to their own well-being and that of their community. These goals are the same for both the poor
and the non-poor. Just and peaceful
relationships means restoring relationships with God, oneself, one’s community,
those who are “other” to us and one’s environment. Relationship with God is the central, key
relationship in this set. They exceed
the more familiar expressions of the goals of development such as “transferring
resources”, “building capacity”, or “increasing choices” (Myers 2005, 115-120).
Shalom as the goal
Holistic Theological Framework
Transformational development is build around a holistic
understanding of mission. Classically
this means that both proclaiming God’s word through evangelism and doing God’s
work through social action are the key components of mission, and that they are
closely integrated in the practise of mission.
For Myer (2005, 213) and McAlpine (1995, 2), a third component is also
critical. This is “sign”, prayer and
miracles, which point to the incursion of God’s action directly into the
present situation.
(Myers 2005, 46) The incarnation tells us that God takes the
material world seriously and that God emptied himself of his prerogatives.
Myers’ (2005, 8) argument for the inclusion of “sign” arises
particularly from his experience in non-Western cultures where there is a
heightened awareness of the spiritual world, coupled with a strong belief in
techniques of influencing this world, such as prayer and rituals. Like Hiebert (1994, 189-198), he points out
that the Western worldview generally includes an understanding of the spiritual
world in very pure and transcendent terms and of the material world in very
mechanistic terms. Other cultures by
contrast include an intermediate world of lesser spirits, where “inanimate”
things might interact with people and where they seek the answer to questions
of intermediate cause – “What caused my child’s illness?” for example – an
extension of the unseen world, inhabited by angels, prayers and visions, sacred
space, and signs and wonders. This
intermediate world, Hiebert calls “the excluded middle”, pointing out that the
Western Christianity often does not have answers to the questions other
cultures seek in this zone, and advocates developing a theology of the middle –
of divine guidance, provision, healing, spirits, and invisible powers of this
world. Myers adds that this middle world
is part of the biblical worldview also.
Charismatic Christians in the west would argue that they have not lost
this focus and that it is important in every culture. They would probably concede however, that
miracles are more prevalent in cultures where this middle world is widely
accepted.
In trying to develop such a theology, Hiebert (199f) offers
only the parameters that the middle zone ought not be totally spiritualised or
rationalised. His example, however, is
more instructive. He speaks of an
incident where he and a church leader prayed for healing of a child with the
whole village looking on to test the power of the Christian God. The child ultimately dies, but they take more
interest in Christianity when they see the Christians’ affirmation of the resurrection
at the child’s funeral, even in the face of death.
The middle zone is intrinsically ambiguous, but undeniably
real. God is at work in the details of
life, as is the evil one, yet the causes and outcomes in any given situation
are not completely knowable. The
atmosphere of Christian worship and the day to day practise of the Christian
life ought give a sense of the incursion of God’s presence in the here and
now. Christians must pray and work for
the ultimate good and trust in God’s ultimate ends whether or not these are
reflected in particular situations. This
means recognising the impact of the spirit world on the material world as well
as being realistic about outcomes that are predictable, based on what we know
of the material world.
Myers (2005, 35) argues that we see no model or pattern of
development other than the inclusion of word, deed and sign. This point is not explained further. The assumption would be that this assertion
is based on classifying Jesus’ preaching as “word”, his radical inclusion of
the marginalised as “deed”, and his working of miracles as “sign”. In contract to this view, many advocates of
holistic ministry would include Jesus’ miraculous healings under in the “deeds”
classification.
Overarching the word, sign and deed trinity, both Myers and
McAlpine see another integrating concept.
For McAlpine (1995, 2), the Christian community is the central reality
which precedes the issues of evangelism and social action and how they
connect. “The Christian community is to
be a sign of the kingdom, in which evangelism, social action and the Spirit are
present and inseparably related.” For
Myers (2005, 213), the overarching concept is “life”, the Christian’s practise
of being with Jesus. For both, these are
the foundations, which precede the activity of word, deed and sign.
The contrast between the “life” of the individual Christian
and the Christian community belies Myer’s inadequate individualistic and
disconnected framework. This is
reflected elsewhere in comments about the church. Whilst affirming the importance of the
church, he speaks very much as an outsider to the church and this flows through
to the practise he suggests in the context of transformational
development. He speaks of the
development worker’s tendency to devalue the church (Myers 2005, 120-127). Whilst this is under the heading of
“affirming the role of the church” the church is viewed as a very separate
entity. He latter suggests that
development workers introduce themselves to the local churches (Myers 2005,
150f) and “Somehow development workers must be part of a church” (Myers 2005,
38). This is very minimal engagement in
contrast with McAlpine’s “central reality”.
Nevertheless Myers (2005, 39) affirms that a church, serving its
community is the proper end of mission.
If our framework is to be truly holistic, along with
McAlpine, I would suggest that the practise of mission in the form of
transformational development must be integrated with the church. This is not just the church in the countries
which have sent out development workers but the church in the local
community. Local churches must be
empowered to take charge of development projects and to become agents
themselves of holistic development.
Holistic mission means seeing “…the gospel message is an
organic whole” (Myers 2005, 213). Word,
deed and sign must go together. Deed and
sign are ambiguous alone. Word alone can
be abstract. The gospel is truncated if
word, deed and sign are separated.
“Words clarify the meaning of deeds.
Deeds verify the meaning of words.
Most critically, signs announce the presence and power of the One who is
radically other …” (Myers 2005, 10).
The church and church agencies are not being holistic when
they speak of bringing evangelism and development together or of one part of an
organization or church doing one and another part doing another (Myers 2005,
7). A holistic approach means that
mission will present as an integrated initiative in a community. Ideally this will mean that all of mission
(word, deed, sign) are undertaken by a single entity (preferably the local
church). Practical considerations of
organization may preclude this at times but it should always be a goal to which
we aspire.
A holistic approach means that different people will
initially connect with different parts of the missional engagement and we can
adjust our approach to the person that we are dealing with, focussing on the
aspect that most closely relates to them.
Over time the connections of an integrated approach will help to engage
them with all of the gospel.
McAlpine (100) surveyed a variety of ministries as to how
evangelism and social action worked together in their experience. All of the ministries surveyed included
evangelism as one of their key activities.
Half of the ministries were churches, the other half para-church
organisations. In many cases evangelism
arose unintentionally from their social action.
Others fostered evangelistic opportunities by choosing personal
relationships that provided a context for “friendship evangelism”, which
sometimes precluded the necessity of evangelistic programs. The survey reflected that while evangelism is
integrated it does not disappear. What
the call to follow Jesus involved must be made explicit (McAlpine, 1995,
10-105).
Hiebert (1994, 199) outlines the three levels of “Holistic
Theology” which parallel the concepts of word, sign and deed respectively as
follows:
- Cosmic
History: The ultimate story of the origin, purpose, and destiny of the
self, society, and universe. A
truth encounter.
- Human
History: The uncertainties of the future, the crises of the present, and
the unexplainable events of the past.
The meaning of human experiences.
A power encounter.
- Natural
History: The nature and order of humans and their social relationships,
and of the natural world. An
empirical encounter.
A holistic approach means telling the whole biblical story
rather than just the gospel in the sense of some short facts necessary for
salvation. It means viewing people
holistically, in relationship with God, self, community and “others” (Myers
2005, 134). They are people with
physical, social and spiritual needs, each of which impinges on the other, so
attempts to deal with only one aspect of people in isolation will be inadequate
and frustrating.
Myers (2005, 134) says that time should be viewed
holistically also. That is, we should
recognise that the past, the present, the future and eternity are connected.
A holistic approach also recognises that there are multiple
causes, in particularly causes on a number of levels, behind poverty. Individual decisions, community culture,
national business and government structures and international markets and
organisations all play a part. Thus a
holistic response will respond to a number of causes where possible. (Myers
2005, 32) The prophets warn us that idolatry, personal sin and social sin are a
“seamless package”.
Holism is a state of mind.
It must be part of the way the practitioner thinks. It cannot be easily programmed into a
program. “Not transformational
development effort can do everything and work at every level of the
problem. This means that the best test
for holism is a negative test. If there
is no work directed at spiritual or value change; no work involving the church;
no mention of meaning, discovery, identity and vocation, then one should be
concerned that the program is not holistic” (Myers 2005, 135).
Poverty is spiritual
Transformational development has some valuable reflections
on the nature of poverty also. The cause
of poverty is fundamentally spiritual.
That is to say it can be reduced to worldviews which are inadequate and
people and systems which lack power. A
wholesome understanding of the world and the power to pursue it are only found
in God as revealed in Jesus Christ. For
the poor, their own spiritual values and those of others mean they are in
relationships that diminish their well-being.
Those who are “other” to the poor are often oppressive, and the poor
often have a diminished view of themselves.
Generally also, the poor also have inadequate understanding of God and
so little relationship with him (Myers 2005, 13).
God is for the poor.
This is not to say God is only for the poor. In fact we must embrace the non-poor as well
as the poor, recognising that having “things” brings a poverty of it’s own
(Myers 2005, 45). To say that God is for
the poor, is to say that God is for everyone, to the extent that he makes the
effort to reach into the lives of those who experience the least of his Shalom,
in order that they might know his love.
To say that God is for the poor is perhaps also to say that God welcomes
all who will come to him. The non-poor
often have trouble in accepting God’s story.
The poor seem to take to it more readily (Myers 2005, 55).
Development Principles
Ultimately all development is God’s action, but God works
through people making choices to commit themselves and their resources to the
process of change (Myers 2005,
120-127). This section looks at principles
that foster the kind of development which move towards God’s Shalom.
Relationships must be the focus
Relationships must consistently be the primary focus. Programs, techniques, data and analysis will
not bring transformation unless we know people.
A detached program cannot foster transformational development. Worker must beware that attempts to work more
efficiently don’t mean working more relationally. We must love the people not the program
(Myers 2005, 120-127, 150f). The
corollary of relationship focus is that the development will take time and will
be difficult to quantify and organise into a program (Myers 2005, 150f,
Burkey 1996, 208).
Moving from a framework base on programs to one focussed on
people might mean (Chambers 1997, 37):
|
Point of departure
|
Things
|
People
|
|
Mode
|
Blueprint
|
Process
|
|
Key word
|
Planning
|
Participation
|
|
Goals
|
Preset
|
Evolving
|
|
Decision-making
|
Centralised
|
Decentralised
|
|
Analytical assumptions
|
Reductionist
|
Whole Systems
|
|
Professional mindset
|
Instructing
Motivating
|
Enabling
Empowering
|
|
Local people as
|
Beneficiaries
|
Partners, actors
|
(Heibert, 1994, 134) Christian and church are best
understood as centred sets – relationships have priority and there are clear
boundaries.
While people from the “developed world” readily think in
terms of material help for those in need, experience shows that it is more important
to consider “intrinsic values such as dignity, solidarity and community …”
(Aaker 1993, 48).
Local ownership
Key to any development process is that development workers
foster local ownership of any development project. Those in need of change must own the
process. They must shape the vision they
desire to move toward. Change will
happen at the pace they are ready to go (Myers 2005, 120-127).
Ownership is crucial in ensuring that the development is
something that local people want rather than the worker’s conception of what
they should have. We should note here
that neither the desires of local people nor those of the development workers
are guaranteed to be the best outcomes for the community. Development workers may bring prejudices or
misconceptions from their own context.
Local people may have their own biases within their community or may not
have the background or vision to conceive some outcomes. Nevertheless it is the local community who
will enjoy or suffer the outcomes of the project. It is therefore their decision that must be
final. For Christian development
workers, the vision of the local community may be good but not the best one. In this case the role of the development
worker becomes steering the local community toward a better outcome. Myers () gives the example of a community
that wanted to build a well for each ethnic group. The development team steered them toward the
better outcome of agreeing to share the one well. Workers will struggle with how far to push
this principle. Do we only go with the
local solution if the outsiders can’t think of a better one? Or do we go with a less than ideal solution
because it is locally owned? The worker
will be called to balance ownership with knowledge in each situation. No formula will produce an easy answer. It is also conceivable that the local
community will generate a vision that the Christian development worker does not
feel able to join them in pursuing – the group of sex workers who decide to
support their drug rehabilitation program by running a brothel specifically for
this purpose, for example. While in
these sorts of situations there would ideally be enough trust for development
workers to persuade locals away from bad ideas, there may be times when
development workers actually have to distance themselves from projects or
aspects of projects.
Ownership is also important in helping to ensure that the
project will continue beyond the time the development workers are
involved. Developing skills and
accessing appropriate resources will also be important in sustaining projects
but without local motivation nothing will happen.
Local participation is the only way to gain the knowledge we
need to foster positive development in a community. Participation must be inclusive – not just
those in leadership or with power and not leaving out particular social
groups. “Leaving any group out sows
seeds for future injustice and strife” (Myers 2005, 147-149). Participation must be active so that it
generates ownership. Empowering participation
is arguably the most critical element of transformation because of its
potential to change people. Only changed
people change history.
Working with and working for is a critical distinction
(McAlpine, 2005, 107).
A participatory mode of operation in the agency is critical
to supporting participatory development on the ground (Burkey, 1996, 209).
The golden rule, “Do not do anything for people that they
can do for themselves” (Burkey, 1996, 211).
Practitioners need to have “low ego needs” (Aaker 1993,
42). They must get satisfaction out of
seeing others succeed and doing themselves out of a job.
Nevertheless implementing participatory methods is not
straightforward. There are many
impediments to full implementation of participatory methods – lack of capacity,
of self-esteem or community cohesion, or outside factors like an oppressive
regime that views participation as a threat.
“The further from the field of action, the louder the rhetoric calling
for participation.” (Crooke 2003, 9).
Stakeholders include local people, staff, the organisation
and its supporters. Those with the
largest stake should have the largest say in the project. This is always the local people who will have
to live with the results of the project (Cooke 2003, 21). The contribution of their lives and
participation will always outweigh the monetary input of donors and the
management input of organisation. The
corollary of this principles is that hands-on staff out have more say in the
development of projects, than managers further up the management
hierarchy. This is a challenge for any
organisation with any kind of hierarchy to practise.
Respecting the community’s story
Listening to a community’s history helps to understand its
present situation and identity, and communicates that the community is
valued. It is an opportunity to see how
God has worked with the community already.
On the negative side, it is often people in power that tell history,
doing so in a way that reinforces their position. In listening to a community’s story,
development workers are not only trying to understand the community, but to
join in with its story. This means
laying aside our own story so that the program becomes a shared story such that
both poor and practitioners emerge from it changed (Myers 2005, 137-139).
Myers (2005, 140-144) divides worldview into the three
levels of natural order, folk religion and formal religion. Listening needs to occur on all three
levels. We need to recognise that a
survival strategy is already in place when we arrive in a community. Hearing about this strategy is another
insight into how the community views the world and reflects to the community
that the do already have skills of their own.
Similarly local, indigenous knowledge can be very valuable. This sort of listening requires a partnership
relationship.
Collecting information
There must be thorough investigation and analysis of the
socio-economic relationships in a community.
This is not primarily information for the practitioner, but skill
building, motivation and information for the local community. The aim of the analysis is to help the
community identify the root causes of its poverty (Burkey, 1996, 209).
Helping the community tell its story
(Myers 2005, 12) Highlights the importance and effectiveness
of sharing stories. This is an inviting
way to engage people and the biblical story integrates all of our stories.
(Myers 2005, 23) It is the overarching story of God which
gives ultimate meaning to the story of humanity, of others and of ourselves.
(Myers 2005, 168)
Social analysis invites the community to tell their story and analyse for
themselves the forces which press on their situation, not just at immediate but
also at community, national and international structural levels, and the various,
interrelated systems which make up their world (biophysical, social ,
psychological, spiritual, cultural).
Suggests two frameworks for analysis.
Firstly vulnerabilities and capacities.
Vulnerabilities are long-term factors which limit the community’s
ability to direct its development. They
often explain why things are as they are and point to underlying causes. Capacities are long-term strengths within a
society. Understanding what a society is
good at gives hints for ways forward and build the confidence of people in
their own ability. {cp strengths group}.
The second framework provides three domain for the
vulnerability/capacity analysis: physical-material, social-organisational, and
motivational-attitudinal.
(Myers 2005, 171) Community organising gathers people around
a particular issue and uses a cycle of action and reflection to probe the
causes behind it. Generally the process
moves from immediate toward ultimate causes, and the action involves challenging
political or business interests who are oppressing the poor. The downside, as Myers points out, is that
the gathering is around an issue, rather than creating community directly, and
that it can set one group against another.
{As Myers says in an urban situation gathering around an issue may be
the best that can be done as community as such may be difficult to
identify. Organising may challenge some
people, and we shouldn’t be antagonistic, but the biblical testimony is clearly
that direct confrontation of those in power is sometimes necessary and not
always pleasant.}
(Myers 2005, 198) Participatory Learning and Action is an
array of techniques which can be used to facilitate a community telling its
story and revealing to both themselves and the practitioner, what the
structures, causes and opportunities are within their society.
(Myers 2005, 174-179) Appreciative Inquiry begins with the
assumption that a functioning community is “a miracle that can never really be
understood” (Cooper and Suresh, 1987, 129), and posits that a new better reality
is best envisioned by beginning with what is working well in a community. So appreciative Inquiry asks questions like:
“What life-giving, life-enhancing forces do you have in your community?” “What is your geographical area and in your
local political and economic systems has helped you do things of which you are
proud?”
(Myers 2005, 179) Logical Framework Analysis is a linear,
management-by-objectives tool which sets goal and identifies desires outputs
and required inputs and sets verifiable indicators for these with some
recognition of the risks and assumptions associated with these. In the hands of the community it provides a
useful tool for getting things done once a specific goal has been set.
Recognise the established balance
Any intervention will change the balance of the existing
social and economic system (Myers 2005, 120-127). This may not necessarily be for good, for
example, hiring armed guards to protect aid resources may make you part of the
armed conflict that started the problems in the first place. Good development will look for what is
valuable in the existing system and build on it, as well as consider carefully
the potential impact of any intervention.
Apolitical intervention will be appropriated by both sides
of any conflict. It is difficult to be
neutral (Aaker, 19).
We had to do something even if it was just to be there
(Aaker, 22). This is a biblical
response.
Sustainability
The project that does well when supplied with staff and
funding and soon disappears when these are withdrawn is very familiar. We need to recognise that communities have a
sophisticated level of sustainability before any outside development worker
arrives. We also need to recognise that
the goal is not just sustainability but sustainable growth, learning and
continuing transformation.
Sustainability can be considered under the headings of
physical, mental, social and spiritual sustainability. Physical sustainability is providing the
resources needed for life in a way that doesn’t degrade the environment. Mental sustainability is restoring
psychological and spiritual well being, treating people as valuable human
beings made in the image of God, helping the poor believe in themselves, to
learn new skills and learn how to learn.
Social sustainability is establishing local and wider political systems
that support self-determination and good choices. The concept of civil society, the
collection of voluntary organisations in a society that provide the social
capital for a society is in focus here.
In some situations where the state is weak, NGO’s may find themselves in
a very powerful position in this regard.
Spiritual sustainability is recognising an ongoing dependency on God
(Myers 2005, 128-134).
Burkey (1996, 208) insists that development activities must
be funded initially from local savings to avoid dependency. When local people gain competency in handling
funds they can later move on to accessing institutional credit.
Addressing wider causes
As mentioned earlier, the lives of the poor are often influenced
by decisions made a long way from their homes (Myers 2005, 120-127). Development efforts are generally focussed on
the local level, and if a choice must be made between this and engaging on more
structural levels then it is the local level which must remain the focus. This is because it is at this level that
relationships are best formed and the Shalom of God, which we seek to share, is
fundamentally relational. Nevertheless
where regional, national and international contributions to local poverty can
be challenged then they should be. Some
agencies have reflected that there are so many issues on the broadest level
that they could engage themselves with that they need to be selective to avoid
being spread to thin. They therefore
choose to engage with only those issues which they are directly involved with
on a local level (eg UNOH). As well as
focussing on a more manageable scope of issues, this approach has the
authenticity of hands-on involvement in the issue being addressed.
(Myers 2005, 45) God sees the “system” three ways: upholds
for its ability to support human life, condemns it for its destructiveness to
human life, and seeks to transform it to better support his order of Shalom.
Development must focus first of all on the local level also
because nothing can change unless the poor are engaged in the process of their
own development and because this is the beginning of giving people the ability
to change the structures which disempower them (Burkey 1996, 207).
The wider causes are so clear now that any informed response
must see them as a larger part of its agenda.
The list includes “external debt and unfavourable, terms of trade,
militarisation, exploitation by the powerful, environmental degradation, and
overpopulation … and greed” (Aaker 1993, 45).
Giving aid apolitically is virtually impossible. Agencies inevitably have their own political
agenda about how development should be done.
Keeping informed and avoiding obvious partisan politics are important
ways to minimise the worst effects of politics (Aaker 1993, 53).
Building the church
Telling God’s truth
Connect this section with another
(Myers 2005, 120-127)
The pervasiveness of evil should be recognised, particularly in
societies which fear spirits. {!}
Bringing God’s truth to bear.
Telling the truth both about the inadequate self-understanding of the
poor and the oppression of the non-poor.
Tackling both these sins.
Come as a learner
Be humble before the facts: Practitioners must avoid
overestimating their knowledge and training and underestimating that of others
(Myers 2005, 150f).
Everyone is learning: Transformation means that not
only the poor, but also the non-poor and the practitioner are learning (Myers
2005, 150f).
Cultivate a repentant
spirit: Need to be ready to admit mistakes
and ask for forgiveness. (Myers 2005, 150f)
(Myers 2005, 59) Any work done in understanding yourself,
your assumptions, your worldview will make life easier for the poor.
The most influential factors in shaping attempts to help the
poor are the helper’s perception of the world and motivation for helping. So we need to examine our assumptions about
why people are poor (Aaker 1993, 48)
There is much to learn from the poor. A women from one of Rio de Janeiro’s many favelas
remarked, “The other day in a middle-class apartment building I noticed that
people do not greet one another in the elevator. Many do not even know their neighbours. If one day they needed help, if would be
difficult to find it next door.” (Barbosa
2006, 4).
Similarly, “I wish to advise everyonr that I like living in
the favela. The only thing I
would like to change si hat its inhabitants one day have more options to choose
from and can walk around freely without other people getting scared when they
hear the magic word: ‘favela’.
(Barbosa 2006, 4).
Be a neighbour
Being a good neighbour: Summarised by Volf (1996, 29)
“we must have the will to give ourselves to others and ‘welcome’ them by
re-adjusting our identities to make space for them” {It means personal engagement that sees the
assumptions of the other as the primary reality.} (Myers 2005, 150f)
(Myers 2005, 24)
There is no dichotomy of being and doing in God and so there must not be
in the life of Christian mission. “We
must both be Christians and do Christian work.”
We act out who we truly are.
Live with the people
(Myers 2005, 156) {Talks a lot about the need to know the
background of the people and the project, the worldview of the people, theology
and science. No mention of living
amongst people.}
Re-evaluating evaluation
While much planning is linear, social systems are not. This means moving from traditional
management-by-objectives to a vision-and-values approach. Rather than beginning by setting goals, we
identify the broad vision of where we want to go and the values that we wish to
hold to on the journey toward that goal.
Short-term plans are then step within the framework of the vision and
values. Working on these short-term plans
we then stop periodically to assess whether these plans are in fact moving us
toward our visions. This approach means
evaluating more frequently so that we are learning as we go (Myers 2005, 146f).
Development implementers focus on problem-solving and
process thinking. Evaluative analysis is
needed from another quarter to complement this.
Paulo Friere believed that it is critical to raise the consciousness of
the poor to bring about their liberation.
Consceintisation (the process of consciousness raising) is characterised
by: a depth in interpreting problems, through openness to revision and testing
one’s own findings, attempting to avoid the distortion of preconceived notions
and being open to new things. Rather
than being passive, this process invites individuals to join a collective process
of dialogue. The process of action-reflection-action
is critical here. The aim is to
encourage learners to challenge and change the world, not uncritically adapt
themselves to it (Cooke 2003, 129).
Monitoring is more important than evaluation. Evaluation is a learning tool. The key question is always why an
activity worked or didn’t work (Cooke 2003, 131).
Evaluations must be planned in at the beginning of a project
so as not to be a surprise or an afterthought.
Ganntt Charts and Critical Path Analysis are useful tools in planning project
implementation. Ganntt Charts show
graphically the time relationship of the various major tasks in a project. Critical Path Analysis sequences tasks and
events logically to show the most efficient route to the program goal.
Management
Lewis (2001, 83-85) suggests that both top-down and
participatory management styles have things to offer Non-Governmental
Organisations in their approach to management.
Both, it must be recognised, arise from the Western private sector and
so must be informed and modified by the culture within which they operate. As values are critical for NGO’s, these also
must be allowed to shape approaches to management.
There is a spectrum of views on how management of
development organisations relates to generics management. At one extreme is the ‘management is
management’ view, which sees the management of development organisations as
generic management task. At the other
extreme is the view that managing development organisations is a completely
distinct proposition (Lewis 2001, 189f).
Both extremes are best avoided, but there are some useful lessons to be
learned between the two extremes.
Firstly, there is a great body of general management knowledge that can
usefully be draw on. Secondly,
development organisations are strongly values-driven and so their management
must also be shaped by their value.
Hence generic management approaches will often need to be modified or
added to so as to sit well within a development organisation. Thirdly, the activities that a development
organisation undertakes will shape which parts of wider management practise the
organisation taps into. An organisation
that does not-for-profit trading may draw on business management skills, and an
organisation that deals heavily with government may adopt some practises from
the public sector. The environment both
within and without the organisation may shape its approach to management
also. Any parent or associated body, the
political climate, resource availability and cultural norms may all play a part. Thus the mission, culture and values as well
as the environment within which it operates will shape an organisation’s
approach to management.
With this variety of well to draw from, development
organisations are often hybrid in their structure, even down to their approach
to core issue of top-down versus a collectivist approach. One study found both traditional and radical
women’s organisations used a combination of both (Lewis 2001, 194). This hybrid structure may lead to a degree of
ambiguity. Organisations working in
‘fair trade’ may find tension between their charitable and business management
styles. Adopting both transformational
and modernising approaches, as the same time, and appearing apolitical toward
governments but encouraging political activity on the ground, are other
examples of potential tension. Some of
this ambiguity is simply using the most appropriate approach for each
task. Some of it, such as managing the
political scene, is being ‘as wise as serpents but as innocent as doves;
(). It is vital that managers and
governing boards understand these tensions and have a shared approach to them,
an openness to discuss boundary issues and a good degree of pragmatism and
sensitivity to grassroots issues. Where
organisations lack a clear strategy, as Lewis
(2001, 196) says, ambiguity can become a weakness. The pressure to grow is almost inevitable,
and this pressure can be in tension with an organisation’s values. Organisations must either be clear enough
about their goals and values to resist the pressure to grow, or find growth
strategies that allow structures and practises that are in keeping with the
organisation’s values and ethics (Lewis 2001, 197).
Assessment
“more action than reflection” is World Vision’s charism
(McAlpine 1995, 4). This is indicative
of development
Evaluation
(Myers 2005, 181-189) Because social systems are
counter-intuitive and self-organising, the best approach to keeping a program
of transformation on track is regular, routine evaluation. Evaluation to give feedback to donors is
necessary, but evaluation by the community of the change that it itself is
involved in can engage them further in the process, highlight new
possibilities, and reinforce their ability to take control of their future. As well as measuring what changed, if we are
looking for transformation, we must also look at who changed. We would look for individuals who have
changed in their self-understanding of identity and vocation and for changes in
the wider structure of the community. We
would expect both the poor and those working amongst them to change. Sustainability should be evaluated. Not just on a physical but also a mental,
social and spiritual level, is the community becoming more sustainable? An ethical component of evaluation is also
important. Myers suggests a framework
which looks at: Intention and motivation: Why did we do this?; Capacity:
Did we do all we were able to do?; Knowledge: Did we gather the
information we could and was it sufficient to move forward on?; Deliberation:
What adequate time and attention given to thinking through the
possibilities?; Mitigation: Were
reasonable steps taken to minimise the possible worst effects of our
actions?. Finally a holistic approach
will look for change in every aspect. In
particular are people changing toward a more biblical view of their identity
and vocation? Are people becoming
Christians and if so what sort of Christians are they becoming? It is impossible to set “acceptable levels”
for these kind of goals but if nothing is happening then our development is not
truly Christian.
Building community
Myers (2005, 152) makes this pithy comment: “being good
neighbours” is a better metaphor than “problem-solvers” or “answer
givers”. This puts people and
relationships before ideas and programs, creating that intangible thing called
community.
Advisors should: participate by invitation, help locals
clarify their needs and goals, work with a local counterpart, especially in
training (Aaker 1993, 42)
Christian Practitioners
Without Christians as the practitioners of transformational
development, there is little likelihood that development will be holistic in
the sense of connecting people spiritually to God. As Myers (2005, 16) says, “Holistic
practitioners must be Christians with a truly biblical worldview.” Unless practitioners are motivated by faith,
they are unlikely to share faith.
Further, the fact that Christians engage in development work personally
is testimony to the fact that they see it as important, in the same way that
their God does. Myers (2005, 30) also
makes the point that organisations as well as individuals must be driven by a
sense of divine vocation. And this is
for similar reasons. Organisations are
prone to the temptations of self-preservation or organisational growth
overtaking their sense of vocation. This
is made more difficult in that the value of growth is often reinforced within
the Christian community as it is seen as a sign of God’s blessing.
The poor are seldom able to initiate community development
themselves, so an external agent acting as a catalyst is necessary. The skills, aptitudes and attitudes that
these agents bring are crucial (Burkey, 1996, 208). Note here that the necessity for an external
agent arises from the need of the poor outside of the need for the gospel to be
preached.
Choosing Christian practitioners gives a high level of
coherence and a broad shared understanding of the wider purpose of the project
and why people are involved (Aaker 1993, 40).
Development workers must not only be able to deliver
technical professionalism whereby their work is carried out effectively, they
must also deliver procedural professionalism whereby the processes related to
their work are carried out in accord with the organisations development ethos
(Crooke 2003, 7)
Choosing Practitioners
Often in the field
of development, personal relational skills, common sense and sensitivity are
more valuable assets that academic qualifications. The assessment process for staff must
therefore consider both. Cooke (2003,
20) goes as far as to say, “Students with post-graduate qualifications in
development studies may have no idea what constitutes a practical development
intervention.”
The personal
characteristics of development workers at all levels are critical. Cooke (2003, 29-43) spends a whole chapter on
the characteristics of an effective program manager. An ability to envision the project is
essential. Personal aspirations which
are consistent with the opportunities of the position and values that are largely
aligned with those of the organisation are vital. In terms of personality, staff must be aware
of the role of personality in professional life. Their own personality needs to be emotionally
resilient, creative, mentally agile, able to learn and self-aware. They need the capacity to sense the feelings,
temperaments and motives of others, to discern non-verbal communication, to
cooperate in groups, to have fun, to listen actively to others, to accurately
relate what others have said, to empathise and to foster synergy. In the area of project skills, practitioners
need to be able to maintain sensitivity to the continually changing context,
analyse and solve problems, to know the key facts and factors influencing the
project well and to have the relevant technical knowledge to deal well with
specific processes.
“If organisations
are process structures, then seeking to impose control through permanent
structure is suicide.” (Cooke 2003, 45).
Research by Riddell
and Robinson in 1992 found that that successful projects had six important
features: a strong emphasis on participation, good leadership and management,
quality staff with reasonable conditions, reaching the poor, cost-effectiveness
and sustainability. Of the six qualities
reaching the poor and sustainability were found in very few projects. Projects tended to make marginal gains with
some groups but failed to touch the poorest of the poor. Few projects continued after outside support
was removed. (Cooke 2003, 89f).
Recognise God’s presence before
and beyond
We began with the recognition that development is ultimately
God’s work. Living out this assertion
will mean a number of things. It means
sensing that every place and every opportunity is holy. God is present ahead of us in every place (Myers
2005, 150f). It means being dependent on
God for ideas, directions, connections, for opportunities that we can see and
those that we can’t. And is means being
open toward others about this dependency (Myers 2005, 150f). A corollary of this is being dependent on
people, as we have discussed earlier, and being open about this
dependency. Dependency on God frees us
from needing to be the people that have all the answers. Dependency on God means that prayer and
fasting are important tools for transformational development (Myers 2005, 11).
Welfare, empowerment, advocacy
McAlpine (1995, 106) defines three categories of social
action: Assistential: giving people things, Promotional: teaching people
skills, and Structural: Acting to relieve oppression. More familiar naumclaumanture might be
welfare, empowerment and advocacy.
Despite the emphasis that development puts on empowerment, development
work will mean working at each of these categories at different times.
Korten (1990, 113-132) sees four stages: relief and welfare
– giving material assistance, self-help community development on a project by
project basis, trying to influence policy through the cumulative effect of
sustainable development strategies, and fourthly, mobilising a people’s
movement with a global change perspective.
In moving from a relief effort to community development
Aaker (1993, 39f) made an initial move to stop incoming relief and then
concentrated on two keys tasks. Firstly
establishing a structure with job descriptions and policies upon which projects
could be built and secondly training staff.
Frances Gorman (Aaker 1993, 48) uses a four level schema:
direct assistance, the teaching approach, development projects, and
transformation. Each is valid in the
appropriate setting and each has its limitations.
- Direct
Assistance: Backed by Scripture (Is 58:10; Jm 2:15f), most common
response, based on perceiving people as unable to help themselves, one
directional help, eg Mother Teresa, this is the least controversial
approach as it does not ask the question of what is the cause behind the
need, can’t live with people on this level, mostly given from a distance,
not sufficient but often a necessary response (Aaker 1993, 49-58).
- The
Teaching Approach: Assumes that people lack knowledge and that with
knowledge they will be able to improve their situation, does not address
structural causes except to the extent that it raises consciousness of
these, lack of resources and the imposition of models from the outside can
be hurdles to delivery of education, Popular Education where the
aim is appropriate education which arises from the people is one counter
to this, teachers should see themselves as learner also, education is
bi-directional, education of those in developed countries through exposure
tours – where the poor are seen as persons is more and more available and
critical – perhaps more than technical education in underdeveloped
countries (Aaker 1993, 59-67).
- Development
Projects:
- Transformation:
goes beyond the material definition of development as economic growth,
includes social, ethical and spiritual change, is concerned with justice –
fair and adequate credit to buy a fishing pole, an uncontaminated river
and a fair price and a secure market for the catch, aimed a the creation
of a new and just social relationship, the whole world needs
transformation while development is the rich doing for and with the poor,
holistic change, sees the poor as the oppressed so relieving poverty
requires undoing unjust relationships which generally means political
action, need to choose the issues as there are so many you can easily burn
out – organisations need to ask themselves what is their focus, difficult
to measure (Aaker 1993, 77-87)
- Accompaniment:
1. Considers the social, cultural, and historical context, 2. operates
primarily through human relationships working in concrete programs, 3. is
based on underlying values – particularly mutual respect and dignity.
Partnerships over own projects, building self-confidence in local people (Aaker 1993, 111-120)
- Values:
Solidarity – sensitivity and commitment to the struggles, pains and fears
of people living in poverty, “commitment with”; mutuality – give and take, respect,
reducing the power differential; trust – clarity is hard work through
cultural differences, but transparency is essential, accountability –
mainly financial and necessary, is partnership possible when only one
partner has money? Staying power
(Aaker 1993, 122-131).
“People centred development,
emphasising the empowerment of the communities involved” is the predominant
model for development today. On the
micro level the impact of this appears tiny and a number of large NGO’s attempt
to add policy advocacy to their grassroots development to make a bigger impact
(Crook 2003, 9).
Service delivery vs social transformation, efficiency vs
empowerment, instrumental participation – as a way of achieving the project
aims vs transformational participation – designed to change awareness,
perceptions, attitudes and behaviour.
Participation is a continuum:
passive – participants join in projects designed by outsiders;
consultation – participants views are considered in the formation of projects;
interactive – participants have input to projects and shape decisions;
self-mobilisation – participants initiate projects and changes to systems and
institutions (Crooke 2003, 10).
Participation must be tailored to the context. A community that is well organised, assertive
and confident will have little need for social processes. In contrast, a community that is divided and
disorganised will need a slower process aimed at building confidence and
cohesion (Crooke 2003, 11).
“Development is first and foremost a psychological
process.” It must achieve material
outcomes but cannot do so without engaging people (Crooke 2003, 1).
Approaches that: help people perpetuate the belief that
people are incapable of self-help; decide the priority problems keep recipients
functioning as children; are driven by external agendas risk the same
oppressive effect as political dictators and ruthless markets (Crooke 2003,
1f).
Participation usually enhances sustainability and
achievement, but if these are the reasons it is encouraged the ethos is very
likely to be undermined at some point (Crook 2003, 12).
“Participation must be learned.” It requires skills in interacting and
decision making. So the development
worker must assess the level of these skills and design ways for them to be
increased. A common approach is to set a
period of community preparation where only very simple projects are undertaken
alongside activities like literacy classes designed to raise awareness and
confidence (Crooke 2003, 12).
Participatory approaches almost necessarily create conflict
with donors as the seek to cede control to participants and thus aware from the
project supporters (Crooke 2003, 12).
Approaches to development lie on a continuum from welfare
and the provision of essential services through to liberation and emancipation
through empowerment (Crooke 2003, 13.
Ways to increase participation: “Recognise that constructive
participation is learned and that this process is gradual.” , ensure early
recognisable success, make constant efforts to help people learn participation,
create enthusiasm, start small and simple, use only outsiders who will respect
locals, plan to phase out outsiders from the beginning, teach local to
experiment and adapt, encourage leadership, don’t flaunt the budget, don’t try
to do everything, constantly monitor levels of participation (Crooke 2003,
13-15).
Compassion Fatigue
The public is frustrated by slow progress. It is hard to convince them to continue to
give to seemingly intractable needs.
Nevertheless commitment and continuity are vital (Aaker 1993, 4f).
“Television is the best fund-raising mechanism that relief agencies
have” (Aaker 1993, 34).{Cp NI article}
Projects are too often shaped around the needs that
outsiders perceive and provide. Local
people who have lost everything still have the dignity and the right to say how
they how they want their community to grow.
We must start with them from the start (Aaker 1993, 36).
The saturation principle
More aid is not always better. If the influx of materials exceeds the local
infrastructure and administrative capacity, it can ruin the local
organisation’s self-management capacity and easily lead to corruption and
misuse of resources (Aaker 1993, 35).
Project approaches
Food for work is used in disaster relief situation where
people are given food in payment for their work in reconstructing local
infrastructure. These tend to focus on
symptoms rather than causes though this is often appropriate in relief
situations. If carried on beyond the
initial disaster, they can create dependence and hinder the local agricultural
economy. They are also criticised for
not helping to organise local people or focus them on deeper causes (Aaker
1993, 27-29).
A model for urban ministry in Australia
Church Planting and Transformational Development
I want to suggest that church planting and transformational
development have a lot in common in the area of urban ministry. In fact, properly conceived, not only does
transformational development practised within the church provide the best model
for developing the church itself, transformational development is the best
model, in itself, not alongside evangelism, church planting or “Christian
witness” (Myer), for Christian ministry in the community. “… the goals of Christian witness are the
same as the goals for transformational development: changed people and changed
relationships” (Myers 2005, 18).
Myers (2005, 211f) affirms this, “The goals of Christian
witness are the same as the goals of transformational development: changed
people and changed relationships. We
desire that all people … be able to experience the lifelong process of recovering
our true identity as children of God and the restoration of our true vocation
as productive stewards in God’s creation.
This comes about only by restoring the family of relationships of which
we are a part.” He concludes that the
only difference is that witness focuses on relationship with God and
development on the other relationships.
In some circumstances we are forced by practical considerations to
separate Christian witness and transformational development. Differentiating projects for the sake of
government funding would be one example.
For the sake of discussion sometimes it is also helpful to divide the
two, as many non-Christian organisations do worthwhile development. However, if we are being truly holistic then
transformational development will fully embrace bringing people into
relationship with God as its ultimate goal, threaded through all of its
practice.
To make this point more clearly it is helpful to look at the
approach of a non-Christian practitioner who is seeking to work in a holistic
way. Jim Ife (2002) is such as
practitioner. Ife (2002, 14) espouses
not just the development of programs but of a structure – a radical
restructuring of society that re-establishes “… the community as the location
of significant human experience and the meeting of human need …”(Ife 2002,
160). Consistent with his commitment to holism,
sustainability, diversity and equilibrium, Ife (2002, 161-199) identifies
six critical dimensions of community development:
- Social
Development: providing human services through service development,
community centres, social planning and social animation.
- Economic
Development: moving economic activity into the community and for the
community’s development
- Political
Development: organising the
community for joint action and promoting the community’s good in the wider
government forum.
- Cultural
Development: valuing local culture
with special attention to indigenous and multicultural dimensions.
- Environmental
Development: protecting and
rehabilitating the physical environment.
- Personal/Spiritual
Development: meeting personal needs
through the community and increasing the sense of purpose and worth.
We see that Ife includes spiritual development in his
framework. While this does not point to
a particular spirituality, it recognises that the spiritual is a core part of a
complete life. So we have secular
development saying that a holistic approach must include the spiritual, how
much more then must a Christian approach include it! It is worth noting also how much like the
emerging kingdom of God on earth Ife’s approach is. His six dimensions include restored
relationships with others, political and social powers, the environment, with
self and God. Also in many ways, the
community that he is seeking to build is like the church. This all tells us that our Christian
conception of heaven coming to earth is very similar to what the wider
community are looking for. It also tells
us that non-Christians are unafraid to present a panacea.
Christian development therefore ought not be afraid of
presenting a panacea. By contrast the
Christian vision is more ultimate and visionary, less dependent on structures
and systems, rather grounded in values.
The spiritual in Ife’s schema is something of a minor inclusion, seen as
increasing people’s sense of worth and purpose.
However, if the worth of persons and indeed their purpose are not
established, then there is no direction for the rest of development. By contrast this is where Christian
development begins and is strongest. In
coming from an external reference point (i.e. God) begins with the value of
persons and their purpose in knowing God and living under his Shalom.
Development as the model for developing church
I think this is what Vinay Samuel (1995, 145) is getting at
when he asks the question, “What would happen if we apply the same principles
of community participation to the establishment and building of the church as
we do for the agriculture, health and school projects?”
Development as the model for doing mission in the community
Myers (2005, 209) suggests “Go and tell” evangelism is
anti-developmental because it cuts across the notion of the community owning
its own development and the outsider as the facilitator encouraging the
community to find the answers to its own questions. He concludes, ‘Since we don’t do “go and
tell” development, we should do what we can to avoid “go and tell”
evangelism.’ We have to agree with his
rational that our evangelism and development strategies must be
consistent. We are left with the
question, however, as to whether the Bible insists on a “go and tell”
approach. If the essence of “go and
tell” is people with information giving it to people who lack that information,
then the Bible clearly does not insist on “go and tell” evangelism. Rather what it envisages is a clear and
passionate explanation of the goodness of God that is backed up by the
demonstration of that goodness seen in the life of the community. As he says “…we do our development with an
attitude that prays and yearns for people to know Jesus Christ” (Myers 2005,
204). Evangelism is an invitation to a
relationship with a person. It is the
announcement of a reality, which has broken in to our history and that everyone
deserves to know about. Our actions are
in fact our strongest witness and will identify what we see as the core of our
own being and the hope of the community we are serving. For Christians, witness is integral to our
identity and vocation and so should be threaded through all we do and come
quite naturally. We cannot deny people
the best news that we have.
Myers (2005, 209f) traces the gospel-preaching stories in
Acts and concludes that they are generally in response to a question from the
people. Something in the actions of
Christians provoked people to ask God questions. This is evangelism as the work of the
Christian community, provoking questions to which the good news of Jesus is the
answer. This is a framework for
evangelism that is consistent with development.
The initiative lies with the people.
And the burden for response is on the Christians. So if no one is asking
questions the Christians must ask themselves why. A few additional caveats are necessary here. Firstly, we must avoid the Messiah complex of
thinking that our actions will be so good that people will necessarily ask God
questions every time. While many actions
will provoke questions, particularly in the West there are plenty of good
actions which are not motivated by faith in Christ, so our actions may simply
blend in with these. Further, despite
our best action, the choice lies with the individual as to whether and how they
will respond to God. Some people will
continue to ignore him.
[1]
Note that even in the context of integrating evangelism and social action, a
key advocate such as Ronald J. Sider sees the two as “distinct aspects of the
total mission of the church” (p12).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
McAlpine, Thomas H 1995, By
word, work and wonder MARC, Monvoria.
Heibert, Paul G 1994, Anthropological reflections on
missiological issues Baker, Grand Rapids.
Saunders, Peter 2003, A self-reliant Australia: Welfare
policy for the 21st Century Centre for Independent Studies, St
Leonards.
Ife, Jim 2002, Community development: community-based
alternatives in an age of globalisation Pearson Education, Frenches Forest.
Myers, Bryant L 2005, Walking with the poor: Principles
and practices of transformational development Orbis, Maryknoll.
Chambers, Robert 1997, Whose reality counts? Putting the
first last Intermediate Technology Publications, London.
Samuel, Vinay 1995, ‘A theological perspective’, in Serving
the poor in Asia, ed. Tetsunao Yamamori e al., MARC, Monrovia.
Burkey, Stan 1996, People first: A guide to self-reliant
participatory rural development Zed, London.
Johnstone, Patrick and Mandryk, Jason 2001, Operation
world: when we pray God works Paternoster, Carlisle.
United Nations Human Setllements Programme 2004, The
state of the world’s cities 2004/2005: Globalization and urban culture Earthscan,
London.
Aaker, Jerry 1993, Partners with the poor: An emerging
approach to relief and development Friendship, New York.
Korten, David C. 1990, Getting into the 21st
Century: Voluntary action and the global agenda Kumarian, West Hartford.
Nicholls, Bruce J. (ed.) 1985, In word and deed:
Evangelism and social responsibility Paternoster, Flemington Markets.
Newman, Hon Jocelyn Minister for Family and Community
Services n.d., Discussion paper: The challenge of welfare system dependency
in the 21st Century.
Barbosa, Gabriela Torres 2006, ‘At the top of the hill’, in New
Internationalist No 386, January/February 2006, 4-6.
Sine, Tom 1991, Wild hope: Crises facing the human
community on the threshold of the 21st century Word, Dallas.
Crooke, Mike 2003, Beyond the horizon: A guide to
managing development projects from a distance Australian Council for
Overseas Aid, Canberra.
Lewis, David 2001, The management of non-governmental
development organisations: an introduction Routledge, London.
