Why you should give a goat this Christmas

I think David Sanderson would see himself as a supporter of those who are poor in our world, but his article "Why you shouldn't give a goat this Christmas" adds confusion rather than support to their case.

The goat of course is the quintessential Christmas gift from an Australian NGO. Your donation goes to a project which includes goats and your friend receives a card letting then know of you very practical love for them and for someone far away.

Firstly, David points out some of the things that can go wrong with aid and assumes that the goat is a victim of these. There have been some bad mistakes over the years, But the NGO community puts a high value on learning from them. If the NGO behind the goat is a member of ACFID, they will be carefully examining the goat project to make sure that locals get good value out of it. The goat, for example, would be sourced as close as possible to its new owner. This will stimulate the local economy adding to the benefit the recipient, who will probably be required to return a kid to the program within two years, kept accountable and encouraged to see the wider picture of positive change for everyone.

Secondly, David conflates at least three types of aid: bilateral - from government to government, private aid - from NGO to NGO, and emergency aid, which is delivered response to a crisis.

It is bilateral aid which has the worst reputation for importing goods rather than stimulating local markets. Plenty of Chinese product is going into African infrastructure right now, and Australia has also insisted use of Australian goods and services. Governments like to stimulate their own economies. NGO's on the other hand really need to justify importing goods, and there are times when this is necessary, for example, if the technology is just not be available locally, or in an emergency, where some essential supplies may have been wiped out.

As David says cash handouts are increasingly being used as an efficient form of emergency aid. The goat, however will be part of a longer term community development project which is aiming to change the opportunities of a community.

There are good reasons to buy a goat this Christmas. If it is from an ACFID member NGO you can be assured that their operation meets a high standard. The goat money will get there. The first thing it will do is stimulate a struggling local economy with demand for the essentials of life, Then the goat will arrive at someone's humble door, communicating a message of solidarity. The wealthy people across the sea do care. Finally, two years down the track a family will have a new income stream which will help them send their kids to school and put food on the table where there was none. That's a lot more like Christmas than another gingerbread house for Aunty Flo!

Setting up tables and flipping them over

The Abbott government's overseas aid policy encourages engagement with the private sector.  For agencies following Jesus this means grappling with whether their role is to challenge business or to foster it.  Are they to follow Jesus in upturning the tables of the money changers in the temple (Mk 11:17), or in some less conspicuous example (Lk 14:13 for example) by boosting the livelihoods of the poor with business development and development by business.  Good governments, like thoughtful Christians, wrestle with the tension between these two competing calls for justice.

 

Jesus' most colourful and obvious interaction with business is his violent upturning of the money changers tables in the temple (Mk 11:17).  Entrepreneurial people had turned the need of worshippers into selfish business.  Jesus is quick to take them to task.

 

This incident reflects the churches role in challenging business when it is exploitative or inappropriate.  Campaigns for fairly traded products are a current example.

 

Jesus is also supportive of legitimate taxation (Mk 12:17), a challenge to both individuals and business today.  Churches and both sides of politics have taken up this challenge.

 

That people will engage on productive business to sustain themselves is the backdrop of the whole Bible (eg Ez 27:13,17,19,25; Mt 11;160.  Working for a living is the New Testament norm (2Th 3:10).  There is nothing intrinsically dirty about being involved in business.  Dishonest business dealings, of course, are called to account like every other unjust behaviour (eg Ho 12;7).
 

That churches find themselves amongst the poor (Jn 12:8), helping people get started in businesses is as it should be.  It is recognition that the goal is not to give people health and education and other services but to enable them to provide these for themselves and their families - even more - to have the resources to pursue their own hopes and aspirations, whatever these are.
 

"But what if a business we helped start turns into a greedy, exploitative monster!?"

Firstly, we need to recognise that this is completely possible in the most perfectly planned and executed project.  Development projects are like lighting a fire - you never know where they will spread because they are about freeing people to pursue their own hopes and aspirations.  We hope they free people to be more of what God has created them to be (Jn 10:10), but we know that freedom can be misused (1Co 8:9).
 

Secondly, Christians engaging in this space are challenged to build a better breed of business - one that makes profits but values people.  With what is often a long partnership to helping small businesses get started they have an ideal opportunity to do just that.  There are some of these out there and a few examples at home, but we could do with a lot more models of profit making, people valuing businesses.

So set up trading tables and flip them over, followers of Jesus and leaders of good government, but don't think that you can do only one or the other.  The deeper challenge is creating something that builds wealth and honours people.  Jesus says this is possible with a proper alignment of the heart (Pv 14:34), not merely choosing one side of a dilemma.