What is mission?

lecture at the Swedish Mission Councils bi-annual meeting

Andrew Kirk
1 swedish mission council 2/2002

svenska missionsrdet swedish mission council andra upplagan 172 99 sundbyberg www.missioncouncil.se tryck: Alfa-Print, sundbyberg form: viktoria isaksson/SMR isbn: 91-85424-71-4 copyright 2002 svenska missionsrdet

Contents
Preface Holistic mission: the anatomy of a catchword Authentic partnership The churchs ministry of reconciliation The vulnerability and liberation of the poor 2 3 9 14 19

Preface
The Swedish Mission Council held its bi-annual council members meeting on 1011th October 2001 in the newly inaugurated Ecumenical Centre in Sundbyberg, Sweden. Andrew Kirk, one of Englands leading missiologists, was invited to speak at a seminar arranged to coincide with the meeting. He spoke on such main concepts and issues as the holistic view of mission, partnership relations, reconciliation and vulnerability. The purpose of Andrew Kirks contribution was to give a deeper orientation of the debate on mission from his knowledge and experience of missiology and international mission discussions that would enrich the debate in Sweden. His visit also served to give a valuable international input to SMCs work on its policy and strategy document that is a basis for international development cooperation. Andrew Kirk is presently active as the senior teacher of Missiology at Birmingham University. He was previously Dean of the School of Mission and World Christianity, Selly Oak Colleges, Birmingham. The Missiology Department of Birmingham University has developed to be one of the largest and most significant centres for teaching and research in mission studies in Europe. Andrew Kirk has written a great deal on the subject within the context of mission research. His latest work, What is Mission? Theological Explorations , published in 1999, has received wide acclaim. It is hoped that a Swedish translation of the book will be available shortly. The seminars and lectures from Andrew Kirk presented in this publication are recommended reading for those working on the Christian theological motivation for mission and for continued study and reflection on the values, policy and strategies needed in the church and mission. I sincerely wish you an inspiring time of reading and reflection! Ove Gustafsson Research Secretary

Holistic mission: the anatomy of a catchword

What is mission? I do not dare to claim a definitive answer. There may be many answers. Yet surely (even in a post-modern age) we do not think that they could all be equally valid. There are real misconceptions, and they are deeply rooted. I will begin an exploration of the meaning of mission with three of them, following a kind of via negativa.

Old ideas die hard

1. Mission only happens when national frontiers are crossed This idea is dependent on the old premise that the world is somehow divided into a Christian and a non-Christian part. This seemed to be the premise of the Edinburgh conference of 1910, for it was convened in part to consider the means for evangelising all the non-Christian world. This concept was not fundamentally challenged until the CWME Conference held in Mexico City in 1963. The final report, amongst other things, said the following: The missionary frontier runs round the world. It is the line that separates belief from unbelief (or as Leslie Newbigin might say, belief in Christ from all alternative beliefs on the grounds that total unbelief is impossible), the unseen frontier which cuts across all frontiers and presents the universal Church with its primary missionary challenge. The 16th century principle, invoked to stabilise religious conflict in Europe, of cuius regio, euius religio (whoever the monarch, that is to be the religion), has proved tenacious, even when the majority of a given population either confesses belief in religions other than Christianity or no

religion at all. On the basis of this principle, which has allied a particular territory with a specific religion, mission is what happens on the margins of the established church. If most of a nations population are baptised (the exception being a small population of Jews), then evangelism is complete and, ipso facto, can only take place somewhere else. 2. Mission is identical with primary evangelism Under the heading of this misconception we can identify three different theories. a Primary evangelism (understood as the task of taking the initiative in inviting people to believe and commit themselves to the good news of Jesus Christ) is the complete goal of mission. This may be called the narrow definition of mission. b All of mission can be called evangelism (for example, serving the needs of the poor in the name of Christ is always already a proclamation of the gospel). This may be called the wide definition of mission. c Mission should be understood to be more than evangelism (contra the narrow definition) and not all of mission is evangelism (contra the wide definition); nevertheless, primary evangelism as defined above should always have primacy in mission. Thus, if there were ever a need to choose between say evangelism and involvement in development projects, the former would have to be chosen. 3. Mission is directed either to individuals or to structures If one assumes that the message of the gospel is about transformation (as in the books by Bosch, Transforming Mission, and Samuel and Sugden, Mission as Transformation), is there a natural order in which either individuals or structures come to be transformed? Do changed individuals automatically change structures (including the contours of cultures) or do certain structures predispose people to believe? What is the good news all about? Is it primarily about a change of attitudes or a change of circumstances? Depending on variations in peoples theological views, different traditions in the

Church may hold any one of the following assumptions: Personal evangelism is to be equated with proselytism (particularly when undertaken among people of another faith) Renewal of the Church must precede evangelism, for seeing the evidence of new life is believing. The Church cannot, with integrity, proclaim a transforming message, unless it is itself transformed. Transforming society is a co-operative task, in which people of different religious and ideological persuasions may come together; evangelism, on the other hand, is a divisive task, for it implicitly privileges one set of beliefs. Evangelism is a task that only the Church can perform, for it alone is the keeper or steward of the story of salvation in Jesus Christ. As everyone has a right to hear of the significance of Jesus Christ for their lives, the Church has an inescapable responsibility to evangelise. It is incongruous to believe that structures could be the recipients of the gospel, for it is essentially a message of salvation from sin and only humans (not structures) commit sin.

The germination of new ideas

At the end of the first international conference of the International Missionary Council, held in Jerusalem in 1928, the report said that mission is both evangelism and social betterment, the conversion of individuals and the redemption of society. This notion of a twin thrust to mission gave rise much later (most notably at the Grand Rapids meeting of the Lausanne Committee of World Evangelisation, 1982) to the image of mission as a bird with two wings or a pair of scissors with two blades. The Jerusalem Conference said: The New Testament does not recognise the antithesis, frequently emphasised, between individual and social regeneration.

It is quite probable that this fuller, less dichotomised, account of mission sprang from a rediscovery of the Matthean and Johannine accounts of the great commission. According to Matthew, the goal of mission is to make disciples. This implies much more than an initial conversion, personal piety and the ethical integrity of the individual. Being a disciple is to live out Christs presence in the world (it is mission in the way of Jesus Christ as the San Antonio conference of CWME (1989) put it). This will inevitably involve challenging corrupt power and oppressive laws, a ministry of healing, true hospitality, the right use of wealthy and much more. The sermon on the mount, for example, speaks about the integrity of marriage and true witness, the call to reconciliation with ones adversary, the forbidding of retaliation and vengeance and love for ones enemy, trust in the providential care of God and the rejection of false prophets.
John 20. 21

According to John, mission is to be sent out into the world by Jesus Christ, as the latter was sent by the Father (John 20. 21). This is the missio Dei, or missio Trinitatis (the following verse makes reference to the empowering of the Holy Spirit in mission). This version of the great commission refers to both the content and means of mission. Mission is defined by the ministry and methods of Jesus Christ. This saying has led to perhaps the most adequate, albeit brief, definition of mission as everything that Jesus Christ has sent his Church into the world to accomplish. In this definition, it is important to note that it does not understand mission either as everything the Church does nor everything God does in the world. It is a recognition that mission starts from the nature of God he is just, compassionate and merciful. Mission is the human response to who God is in fulfilling prophetic, diaconic and evangelistic ministries. Perhaps one way of overcoming an apparent dichotomy between mission and evangelism is to say that every aspect of mission has an evangelistic dimension, in that it shows forth the good news of Jesus Christ; however, not every aspect of mission has an evangelistic intention. To fulfil the purposes of a missionary God is to give evidence of the good news that there is a new way of being human, that sin and destruction is not the last word. Sometimes speaking the message comes first (as in the Alpha programme of evangelism); sometimes it is the deed (as in caring for street children). In this sense, the Church is both the subject and object of the message it proclaims. In Ephesians 3, Paul refers to the gospel as the secret of Christ now revealed by the Spirit to apostles and

prophets. This secret is the revelation that in the gospel Jews and Gentiles are members together of one body, that the enmity has been overcome and a new community formed. So, the Church is not merely the result of the verbal proclamation of the gospel, it is part of the good news, i.e. that Gods plan of salvation includes community. It is in this sense that the old affirmation, extra ecclesiam, nulla salus, can be defended. Gods salvation can never be understood in wholly individualistic terms. It is about reconciliation between human beings in the formation of a new community. Therefore, full salvation is not possible outside the community that God is creating in Jesus Christ. In the light of this discussion, we can say that whenever the Church serves others, it proclaims that Jesus took the nature of a servant; whenever it suffers, it states that Jesus also suffered, so that by his wounds we might be healed; whenever it is involved in the ministry of reconciliation, it points to the fact that Jesus is our peace; whenever it shares its wealth and gifts with others, it emphasises that Jesus Christ makes us rich by his poverty. In other words, by being the Church it is spreading abroad good news. Conversely, where it is not good news it denies the gospel.

Eph. 3

Contemporary trends
We can notice a number of converging and diverging forces. 1. Overcoming the isolation of different traditions The International Missionary Council amalgamated with the World Council of Churches in 1961. The Roman Catholic Church opened itself to new ways of understanding and expressing its traditional faith (19625). The evangelical movement moved to a more integrated conception of mission at the Lausanne Congress (1974) and in subsequent developments.

There was a serious dialogue on the meaning of mission between evangelicals and Roman Catholics (197882). Many different traditions within world Christianity experienced renewal in terms of Pentecostal manifestations (1960s onwards). The Affirmation on Mission and Evangelism of the CWME (1982) was an attempt to incorporate the understanding and insights of many branches of the Church into one document. 2. Increasing polarisation In the discussion about the relationship between a given gospel and concrete cultures, there appears to be a tendency towards relativising the gospel and absolutising culture. This is bringing sharp disagreements among Christians world-wide. In the debate about inter-religious encounter, there are substantial divisions about the significance of salvation in Christ between exclusivists , inclusivists and pluralists. In the course of grappling with the mission of the Church in a supposed post-modern culture, there are differences of opinion among those Christians who proclaim that religious language has no reference beyond declaring the dispositions of those who use it and those who continue to assert that it corresponds truly to an objective reality (i.e. between realists and anti-realists).

10

Authentic partnership
When considering relationships between churches, mission bodies and agencies across the world church, the main question has to be, what practice best reflects the Gospel? This is a particularly difficult question because it touches upon the existence and nature of structures. The question has a historical dimension, in that present structures and ways of thinking continue, in part, to reflect old ways of thinking, characterised by the language we sometimes use mother/daughter, older/younger, established/developing. One of the major issues is that of financial imbalances: resources are not equally owned; lines of accountability do not allow for a properly mutual process of decision-making; there may be a subtle use of grants as either incentives or sanctions. Where there is dependency built into the system, there cannot be mutuality; partnership is denied, for the stakeholders have an unequal share of the ownership of the means of mission.

Biblical reflection
Perhaps the closest linguistic approximation we can find in the Bible, given that partnership is not a common category in the New Testament, is that of koinonia as a description of the Church. This word, with its rich associations, describes one body with a common identity, goals and responsibilities. It alludes to the fact that partnership is not so much an ideal for which the Church should strive as a reality constitutive of its being; the Church is, by definition, a partnershipin-mission. If partnership is not functioning well, then the Church is defective at its core. Within the New Testament there are three specific elements that we might highlight. 1. A sharing of gifts Growth into maturity for the Church as a fellowship, built on the foundation of Jesus Christ, is dependent on a balanced use of all the gifts distributed by the Holy Spirit (Eph. 4.11-13). Here,
Eph. 4.1113

11

Rom. 12. 613

in the letter to the Ephesians, we have a picture of the Christian community as a body in which all the parts are flourishing together. It describes a partnership in which each is participating in the life of all in such a way that the needs of all are met (Rom. 12. 613). 2. A sharing of material resources

2 Cor. 910

The classic example in the New Testament is provided by the churches of Macedonia and Achaia (2 Cor. 910). Although they were not well off, they made available to the church in Judea something of the little they possessed. They demonstrated in this commitment an act of allegiance, a bond of recognition and identity and a token of solidarity in a time of need. It is mutual partnership, because the church of Judea had shared the gospel with them. 3. A sharing of suffering and hope

Phil. 3.10 Gal. 6.17, 2 Cor. 8.412

Christians are also called to share in the broken nature of the body the koinonia of his sufferings (Phil. 3.10, Gal. 6.17, 2 Cor. 8.412). This is undoubtedly the most profound and difficult manifestation of partnership. Somehow, it also represents a sharing in the agony of God, who took part in the suffering of human beings, and continues to do so. Koinonia is a participating together in , summed up in the mutual support given within the early Jerusalem community: from each according to the gifts and prosperity received to each according to individual need.

Partnership as shared responsibility

Partnership is authentic when each part of a community is able to exercise an appropriate responsibility for other parts. Behind this principle is the assumption that responsibility can only be exercised wherever there is a genuine freedom to make decisions. However, decisions can only be free, when they are not imposed, and they are not imposed, only when the resources are available for real choices to be made. If one side of a so-called partnership controls the resources unequally and lays down the conditions for their use, then there can be neither freedom, responsibility nor mutuality.

12

Obstacles to shared responsibility

1. The demand for resources outstrips the supply In such cases discrimination becomes inevitable; serious choices have to be made about who receives what is limitedly available. Partnerships then have to answer questions like these: by what criteria are decisions made between different demands? Who decides on these criteria? Who interprets them in specific situations? 2. Guilt for past patterns of partnership A bad conscience from a colonial past and fear of any hint of paternalism may lead Western mission agencies to give indiscriminately without a proper process of consultation with the recipient. However, for partnership to reflect a mature attitude on both sides difficult questions have to be faced: will the resources be used to further coherent mission objectives mutually arrived at? are there appropriate lines of accountability in place on both sides? what procedures are in place to tackle and overcome misunderstandings and possible rivalries between different concepts of and priorities for mission? 3.Different perceptions of mission Again some pertinent questions need to be faced, if potential obstacles are to be overcome: How far do the latest theories in mission influence sharing? How far do traditional views of home supporters, influenced by concepts of mission as a series of particular activities that take place overseas, determine patterns of giving and receiving?

13

Is there, albeit unconsciously, an acceptability test with regard to what is currently regarded by the donor partner as acceptable views of mission?

The implications of shared responsibility

In closing this discussion we may refer to major areas of concern: 1. The present patterns of giving and receiving need to be transformed In the modern missionary movement, the flow of money, people and other resources has generally been from the centre to the periphery; whereas, in the time of the early Church the movement was in reverse from Jerusalem (on the periphery of the Roman empire) to Rome (at the centre) via Antioch, Ephesus, Athens, Corinth, etc. In the last forty years, or so, the flow of people has increasingly also been from the periphery (the Third World) to the centre (the North Atlantic nations). This is a truly astonishing new mission movement it will be interesting to see how it is documented and written about in the future, and from what perspectives. What is new is that the West in its heartlands now has to learn how to receive, as well as give. Previously, its receiving has only been done vicariously through missionaries who have returned from the periphery, having been transformed by their experience.

What is new is that the West in its heartlands now has to learn how to receive, as well as give.

How far is the Church in the West acquiring the relevant skills necessary to facilitate this new learning experience, particularly in enabling returning partners-in-mission to share their insights. The following may be some of the realities that now need to be taken seriously: the recognition that, because of the cultural poverty of its affluence and materialism, the West also qualifies as being designated humanly underdeveloped;

14

there is a dimension of evangelism that can only be accomplished by those who are excluded from sharing the benefits of the creation of wealth; the gifts of the Holy Spirit, being gifts of grace, are distributed to the whole Church without favours; the Church can only grow as all the gifts are exercised. Thus, it may be that part of the poverty of the Church in the West has resulted from its failure to acknowledge its need of its sisters and brothers from less favoured parts of the world to participate in its life. 2. Mission in any part of the world is the responsibility of the world Church In practice this principle means that local churches in one location will invite other local churches in other nations to be co-workers in evangelism, discipling, diaconal ministries and in the overcoming of conflict and violence. Such a vision is particularly difficult for churches in the West because of deeply-embedded paternalistic attitudes for example, they may instinctively wish to protect those they still unconsciously consider to be weaker from the temptations of materialism, or they may not wholly trust their sisters and brothers to be sophisticated enough to come to terms with the cultural challenges of living in a late modern society. By the same token, such a vision may be difficult for churches in the Third World because of their deep consciousness of being receivers rather than givers. The image they may well have of the church in the West is that it is self-sufficient. It will require a massive conversion of consciousness, from feelings of inferiority to an acceptance of adequacy for the calling, to reverse the trend of centuries. There is, of course, already a Third World church in the West. However, it is active mainly among immigrants or ethnic and cultural minority groups.

The image they may well have of the church in the West is that it is self-sufficient.

One of the greatest mission challenges for the Church in the West is to facilitate a true unity in mission, so that Christians who come from the Church in other parts of the world, either as citizens of their adopted countries or as guest residents, may shape the mission of the whole church in the nations of the dominant powers.

15

The churchs ministry of reconciliation

The need for reconciliation assumes an abnormal situation and also a process of restoration to normality, which is the gift of the fullness of life, encompassed by the biblical vision of shalom. However, the Christian concept of normality is different from that understood by contemporary society, summed up in the idea of peaceful co-existence, or peace as the absence of conflict. Peace should be understood not as absence, but as presence: essentially that of living in right relationships. The restoration is to a reality where sin and evil are overcome and the healing of broken relationships takes place. In this vision, conflict is not normal, in the sense that the sin which causes it has entered into Gods world as an alien intruder. Reconciliation is a creative act, through which something is brought into being which was not there before. The putting right of wrong relationships brings about a qualitatively new situation.

Analysing the problem

Abnormality due to sin can be focused in two ways in relation to reconciliation.
Eph. 2.11ff.

1. Alienation (Eph. 2.11ff.) Reconciliation depends on a right diagnosis of an abnormal situation. Human beings are individually and collectively alienated from one another, themselves, creation and the Creator. What, then, are the symptoms? 1.1 Distance People live at a distance from one another because of a lack of understanding of the reality and

16

circumstances of the other, because of false accusations, misrepresentation, generalisations, scapegoating, prejudice, stereotyping and demonising . 2.2 Estrangement A barrier is created when people perceive that difference threatens their own identity or when they feel the threat of displacement by the potential removal of their jobs, culture or political power by other strange people from outside. Such barriers can lead to a paranoid fear of the other and the belief that one needs to protect ones own interests by an aggressive pre-emptive strike. 2.3 Exploitation Alienation happens on a massive scale through some human beings using others for their own ends. In order to justify the abuse of power, such people may well go to great lengths to create ideologies, doctrines, myths, and even religions that seek to give such practices an unsustainable legitimacy. This leads to the delusion that security is achieved through the use of superior force in which the weaker group is constantly suppressed in order to ensure that there is never an equalisation of power. 2. Sickness This may also be manifested in a number of ways. 2.1 Disorder An abnormal situation is one in which there is a lack of harmony, demonstrated in confusion, the breakdown of communication and the inability to restrain destructive forces in society or in human relations. These latter might be the proliferation of false ideologies and political movements such as fascisms, nationalisms, ethnic cleansing, and the constant demand for rights without responsibilities.

17

2.2 Impotence A body becomes sick when the immune system ceases to function properly; it is no longer able to cope with disease-causing viruses or malignant cells. There is an analogy with the body politic, when society as a whole no longer has the power to resist forces which cause it to break down and break apart. 2.3 Disintegration Institutions, traditions and conventions that normally hold society together collapse, because either they are no longer respected or they are deliberately undermined. Such a situation can easily lead to a polarisation within society whose outcome is civil strife, or even civil war.

Solving the problem

1. Reconciliation Abnormality is a normal situation in human affairs, but not normative. The ministry of reconciliation presupposes that another reality is possible. Alienation and sickness bring pain, a festering wound, a sense of disorientation and misery, even a curse, in the sense that, as long as we do not deal with the problem, we bring judgement on ourselves.
2 Cor. 5.1821

The solution is costly precisely what it has cost God (2 Cor.5.1821). To understand the meaning of reconciliation theologically, we need to start with Jesus Christ as the one model of the normal and normative human life, and as the one way of reaching it. As the crucifixion is the supreme evidence of alienation and sickness in the human race, so it is the only and final means of complete reconciliation and healing. Jesus Christ penetrated to the very heart of problems. He knew intimately the deep causes of alienation fear, insecurity and hatred. He experienced in his own being the anger and enmity of opponents and the fear and disloyalty of friends. He bore them in his own body on the cross, the supreme place and moment of alienation my God, my God, why have you forsaken me? The death of Jesus was the moment of absolute abnormality, of total estrangement. The curse of

18

abnormality was born to its uttermost, but was then followed by three great cries of triumph: it is finished; Father, I commend myself into your hands; he is not here, he is risen. So, restoration is a costly process; there is nothing cut-price, nothing short-term. As a first step it demands of all human beings that they admit the abnormality of their lives. As a second step they then need to admit their own thorough complicity, i.e. their guilt and responsibility, with their situation. The third step is repentance, which is more than the emotions of sorrow, regret or remorse; it is an act of the will, turning away deliberately from a past life, in order to embrace a new one. The fourth step is restitution. This may take the form of punishment (either administered judicially under a proper rule of law or self-inflicted in acts of penance, such as an apology for wrongs done and a costly embrace of the person wronged). The object This is not the same as is to ensure that justice is done and that injusticies are rectified. The forgetting, for memory is fifth step is unconditional forgiveness. This is not the same as forgetone way of guarding ting, for memory is one way of guarding against repetition of wrongs against repetition of committed; nor is it the overlooking or minimizing of wrong-doing. wrongs committed The purpose and consequence of forgiveness is to release (the same word aphiemi - is used for both in the New Testament) the wrongdoer from his or her guilt and the wronged from bitterness and hatred. Restoration implies a new state of affairs, a changed attitude, a new resolve, the conversion of enmity into friendship. It can only be brought about completely in inter-personal relations by a recognition of the reality of Gods grace. There is a sense in which we cannot not but go through the five steps outlined above, once we realise our abnormality and need of becoming whole again.

Living reconciliation
In practice, we might like to reflect on the following strands of a life of reconciliation. First, the need to be vigilant in removing barriers and division in society which unfairly discriminate against genuine diversity. However, this should not be confused with an easygoing, undemanding tolerance. Sometimes, the protection of human integrity requires the most

19

absolute intolerance, as in the case, for example, of child-abuse. Diversity is enriching for a community when it is part of the normative variety of creation in races, cultures, gender and age. It also is to be accepted, even when caused by external factors, as in the case, for example, of disability or poverty. However, in the latter case, at another level, the diversity has also to be treated as abnormal. Secondly, the need to practise forgiveness in the place of condemnation and judgement. Love is, by its very nature, unconditional. In this sense forgiveness is prior to repentance, for it is not dependent on prior actions. Forgiveness cannot be bought or earned; it is absolutely gratis, i.e. belonging to the essential freedom of grace. In other words, acceptance of the other is not dependent on the prior need to clear a set of hurdles. It is a total contradiction to say at one and the same time, you are forgiven and you will have to pay for it. Condemnation comes from a desire to go on finding fault and laying blame. It does not so much expect from the other sorrow and a determination to make amends, but perfection, i.e. the complete lack of any faults. Thirdly, the need to banish all notions of vengeance and retaliation, even when provoked by violence and justified anger. Evil cannot be conquered by perpetrating further evil, only by doing good. Having said this, there is a place for both the use of legitimate force to restrain violent people, as the lesser of two evils, and for punishing people after the due process of law. However, if retribution is going to uphold justice, it has to be carefully controlled.. Fourthly, the need to exercise power in a new way. Power is not in itself corrupt or corrupting. Nevertheless, because it undoubtedly has a tendency in that direction, individuals and society as a whole need to be eternally vigilant. Power must always be accountable democratically, i.e. to corporate, open, non-coercive, decision-making structures and processes. Authority, to be used rightly, must always be open to correction, share responsibility, not insist on its own way and be impartial. Nothing demonstrates more clearly the reality of Gods power, of the truth of the Gospel and the authentic renewal of the Spirit than genuine reconciliation.

20

The vulnerability and liberation of the poor

As we live in a technical and statistical world, we tend to create definitions in terms of figures. Thus, To be poor means that one belongs to a household which has access to a total annual cash income of less than one half the national average (J. Remenyi, Where Credit is Due. London. Intermediate Technology Publications, 1991, p.3). This group represents some 60% of all households throughout the world, and perhaps as much as 75% of all human beings. Within this group there are further categories, of which the largest are called the ultra poor or the vulnerable poor . These are people who cannot work the elderly, the disabled and children -, and those dependent on seasonal work, because they have no productive resources of their own (i.e. land, skills and tools) to earn an adequate income. The poor have often been thought of in terms of deprivation, that is lacking access to lifesustaining means such as adequate nourishment, housing, clothing and health-care. This understanding of the poor is based on what one might call quantity of life criteria. There are also quality of life criteria, which are both the cause and the result of material deprivation. Some of these are proper access to decision-making processes, redress against violence and bureaucracy in a properly respected system of law, opportunities for education and training, useful and rewarding work and a healthy environment. Another category of poverty, although more difficult to define and more controversial, is that of the spiritually poor. Under this term, one may refer to anyone for whom life has become a frustrating, depressing or meaningless business, or who is unable to sustain positive relationships,

21

or is driven to a fatalistic outlook on the future, or who pursues life-objectives which leave a deeper inner emptiness such as wealth, status and power. Spiritual poverty may afflict those who may, or may not, be materially poor and who may, or may not, be abusing themselves (through drink, drugs or indiscriminate sexual relationships) or others (through violence, exploitation and intimidation). From the perspective of the Christian gospel, it has to be recognised that Jesus fully recognised, understood and had compassion upon all kinds of poor. However, his message to each category was not necessarily the same.

Liberation of the poor

Liberation assumes a state of bondage, slavery and powerlessness. It is a state in which the Godgiven dignity of every single human being has been seriously compromised and trampled upon. Liberation implies an action in which people are removed from a less human to a more human life; they are transferred from one set of circumstances to another, from one mode of existence to a better one. The goal of liberation depends enormously on how true humanness, or the profile of a truly flourishing human life is understood.

By the accident of birth, and for no other reason, one has either ended up at the bottom of the pile or one is affluent and privileged.

The means of liberation from poverty depends upon an analysis of the causes of poverty: is poverty largely inflicted by others, or is it self-inflicted? Are the poor basically sinned against, or sinners? Some see poverty as the direct result of a system of exploitation and the structures that keep it going. By the accident of birth, and for no other reason, one has either ended up at the bottom of the pile or one is affluent and privileged. Others see poverty as the result of a series of choices, which the poor themselves could influence: for example, certain attitudes to work, to the male/female division of labour, to wealth creation and saving, or to not being drawn into a debilitating drug-culture or a promiscuous lifestyle. There are extreme responses to the problem of poverty. Some will say it is all the system . The poor are always the victims of a particular way of managing the economy which discriminates,

22

by virtue of the way it functions, against those without economic power. Others will say it is all up to the individual. The poor are victims of a set of views (usually deeply embedded in culture) which they need to renounce and change. There is a tendency in the discussion of the causes and cures of poverty to polarise around extremes and seek to gain the moral high ground by means of rhetorical language and ideas. On the one hand, it is said, there can be no liberation from poverty unless one system is replaced by another. The existence of private property and the working of a competitive, profit-seeking, market-economy inevitably produces inequality of opportunity and denies access to the benefits of wealth-creation. The system in practice discriminates against the weak, denies openings to the disadvantaged and discourages people from trying to escape from the spiral of poverty. Poverty is caused by the flight of capital from the South to the North, by the manipulation of markets by the economically powerful, by grossly unfair trading arrangements, by paralysing debt burdens and by the imposition Those who argue this of programmes of austerity by international financial institutions which further depress economic growth. Moreover, the system is morally case believe that one repugnant, because it is based on self-interest, the necessity of ever needs to look at the higher levels of consumption and the unsustainable exploitation of causes of wealth, the environment. before one asks for the On the other hand, it is said, there can be no liberation unless individuals change their attitudes. Poverty is the result primarily of the acceptance of a fatalistic view of life, of the belief that the spirit-world, rather than natural causes, is directly instrumental in creating ills, of the refusal to accept blame, of an acceptance of nepotism, of the corrupt culture of bribes, of a lack of thrift, and so on. Liberation from poverty, therefore, has to come through renouncing and removing the cultural and religious factors inimical to wealth-creation. Those who argue this case believe that one needs to look at the causes of wealth, before one asks for the causes of poverty. Wealth can be created wherever there is a favourable environment (i.e. where the belief-system is conducive) for creating a self-sustaining productive capacity.

causes of poverty.

One group advocates some form of socialism as the only way of ending economic injustice and exploitation. The other group advocates a purer form of capitalism, though shorn perhaps of an extreme individualism and conspicuous consumption.

23

Conclusions
1. Systems are vitally important and influential, but the liberation of the poor will not come through changing them alone. This is a left-wing fallacy . A system may provide greater or lesser opportunities for genuine change, but people can never be obliged to take them. There is no real historical evidence that new structures create new human beings. The dream of revolutions like those of Cuba and China that new unselfish human beings can be produced by removing opportunities for selfishness and by mass cultural and educational reconstruction has been exposed as a fantasy by the reality of history. 2. Neither capitalism nor socialism fulfils what their advocates have promised. In the former case the celebrated theory of the trickle down of wealth is a myth. This is a right-wing fallacy . At the risk of a gross generalisation, we might suggest that capitalism has become the dominant ideology in the age of globalisation for two basic reasons, neither of which have to do with its success as a liberating force: a historically capitalism emerged at the same time as absolutism ended and liberal democracy began to be in the ascendancy. The conjunction in 1776 of American Independence and the publication of Adam Smiths book, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, the first major exposition of a capitalist system of economics, was fateful. b the expectation and enjoyment of freedom is a greater force in human affairs than the struggle for justice. Socialism also fails to provide genuine liberation, not so much because its implementation historically coincided with the Leninist autocratic maxim that the good of the party is the good of all, but because it creates a culture of dependency and throttles initiative and responsibility. Moreover, a centralised control encourages political elites, privileges, bureaucracy and paternalism. A welfare state tends to be over-protective and encourages concern for rights without responsibilities. It may correct some imbalances in quantitative poverty, whilst contributing considerably to qualitative poverty. 3. For the present, to imagine any alternative to some form of capitalist world order is to suffer from a romantic delusion. This recognition of the present balance of economic power does not

24

imply either resignation or a deterministic view of the development of economic forces; it means that, for the time being, the liberation of the poor can only happen within certain severe constraints. In political and economic terms, the currently favoured idea is empowerment, that is encouraging and enabling the poor to take responsibility for their own liberation through low-interest credit schemes, through organising to confront vested-interests and through pressure on governments (not least those in the advanced industrialised nations). Material poverty could be overcome when the fruits of wealth-creation are enjoyed by those most in need, when people are able to keep the value added in the productive process. Churches have a great opportunity to model good relationships between the North and the South, even if only on a small scale, through such means as income generating programmes. 4. In a biblical perspective, the poor are not just those who are deprived of the basic necessities of life, nor just those who suffer violence at the hands of the violent, nor the vulnerable who are exposed to exploitation and without the means to sustain life for themselves. The poor are those who consciously yearn for Gods coming reign of justice and wellbeing (shalom) and for Gods salvation from their own sins and failures. Poverty ultimately is manifested in fatalism which leads to self-pity and despair and in materialism which is expressed in a self-centred pursuit of ones own security and happiness.

Churches have a great opportunity to model good relationships between the North and the South, even if only on a small scale.

Liberation, therefore, means being freed from self-interest for the sake of others, of finding life by not clinging on to it. As someone has provocatively put it, to be liberated is to live as if God now reigns and no-one and nothing else has any power in the world. To live on that basis is to make oneself vulnerable in a right sense for the sake of the liberation of others.

25