DO WE HAVE THE EYES TO SEE - PART 4b

The question I want to tackle in this section is this:

What inherent resources do humans have?

I typed into Google this question: what is the most important resource in the world?  As to be expected the cyber world provided a wide array of answers.  There were a few somewhat obvious answers like, water, gold, soil, and the sun.  I can’t argue with any of the resources in that group, those are definitely important.  There were a few not so obvious answers like, language, knowledge and salt; and of course there were a few interesting answers like, chocolate, tequila and whales.  I like chocolate, but I think I can live a few days without it, unlike water.  One website mentioned that the most important resource in the world was children.  Now that’s not so bad.  I think it is a good answer and unquestionably much closer to what the real answer is. 

However, to no one’s surprise the very first link and the most common answer to this question was undoubtedly oil or petroleum.  Our world is consumed with oil.  It made me stop and think for a moment….  what would the answer have been 400 hundred years ago… long before petroleum was of any use?  Does our answer to this question change every century?  Should it?  Should our answer be something that is so apparently temporary? 

I like this quote by Michael Novak, Catholic Theologian and Economist:

“Countless parts of God’s creation lay fallow for millenia until human intelligence saw value in them.  Many of the things we today describe as resources were not known to be resources a hundred years ago.  Many of those which may come to be of value still lie fallow today.”

What will the Internet say in 100 years?  Lithium?  Asteroid dust?  Kangaroos?  Until we realize that man and woman, made in the image of the creator God, is the most important, critical, essential and indispensible resource that has ever existed on earth then we will only be chasing a dead end trail.  Sure, we need many of the things mentioned on those lists to survive and thrive but are they the most important?  I think not. 

What we can do by our unassisted strength is very small.  What we can do acting with mechanical, electrical or atomic power is much greater…. But what we can do with these means is still very small compared to what we could do acting in union with God Himself, who created and ultimately controls all forces and aspects of creation.  Friends, when we Be who God designed us to Be (engineers, artists, carpenters, poets, and farmers) we produce development!  When we take what God has so graciously given us, use our creativity and intelligence to fashion, form and mold it, this “stuff” turns into beautiful art, life changing medicine, or energy creating technology.  It is not the “stuff” or material resource that is most important, rather it is the mind, heart, and creativity of Man, made in God ‘s image, acting according to God’s principles, creating and developing with stewardship and in obedience to God’s will that is most important.  Man and woman is the most important resource on this earth, and we mustn’t forget what a privilege life is.

How does this realization impact our development strategies?  If you recognize the potential in something shouldn’t you steward it and utilize it to garner it’s maximum potential?  The answer is yes!  We should, and that is why development strategies that aim to empower and develop the potential in every single human life will ultimately produce far greater and far more effective development. 

The individual is not born empty, but is born filled with potential. When a culture believes that a person is empty, then they assume that the individual has nothing to contribute to the development process. When a culture believes that an individual is filled with potential, then it will educate the person and order the society to bring out all the potential for the development of the community and the building of the nation.

“For you formed my inward parts;
 you knitted me together in my mother's womb.

I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made”

Psalms 139:13-14

What inherent resources do humans have?  More than one could ever image.  Our physical, emotional, spiritual and intellectual skills and gifts are immeasurable.  Every single person created in God’s image is like a cornucopia of potential ready to be used to further develop society and bring development to every facet of culture and kingdom. 

So, the question remains:  Do We Have The Eyes To See???

We will conclude this series “Do We Have The Eyes To See?” with one final section that will bring together all of the thoughts I have submitted in this series and address the question: How should these concepts frame our biblical perspective on resources?

DO WE HAVE THE EYES TO SEE - PART 4a

It’s great to be back!  After several months of absence I would like to continue and conclude my series on a biblical perspective on resources.  This is the final section of this series.  If you are just joining me now, take a moment to read the first 3 sections of this series (Do We Have the Eyes to See, parts 1-3) to become updated on our discussion.  Much of what I will write about in this final segment will build off of the foundation presented in the first 3 parts. 

As detailed in earlier posts I believe that man has been created with a wealth of potential.  Potential that when tapped into properly can be used to develop our individual futures as well as our families, communities and nation’s future.  Men and women, created in the image of God, are the preeminent most effective resources on the face of this planet.  My desire in these entries is to effectively communicate why this truth should be foundational to our poverty alleviation and development strategies.  I will break this final blog segment into 3 different entries.    

As I seek to unpack this principle I will address in each entry one of these three specific questions.
1. What does it mean to be made in the image of God?
2. What inherent resources do humans have?
3. How should these concepts frame our biblical perspective on resources?

MADE IN THE IMAGE OF GOD?

“Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, in our likeness” 

Genesis 1:26

“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”

            Genesis 1:27

What does it mean to be made in the image of God?  Whether we realize it or not, this simple declaration made by God in the early chapters of Genesis is a revolutionizing pronouncement.  This concept in and of itself should be a fundamental root that establishes our beliefs, values, actions and behaviors, and should deeply impact our social, political and religious thinking.  To truly comprehend what it means to be human we must grasp imago Dei the image of God in man. 

Man has been endowed with several characteristics that highlight this uniqueness.  Animals and the rest of creation on the other hand, though brilliantly and beautifully made, have not been made in God’s image.  This special attribute has been reserved for God’s crown jewel of creation; man and woman.  Listed below are a few of these distinctive human traits. 

Thank you to the following article for providing much of the information below. Source:  http://www.sbclife.org/Articles/2009/10/sla6.asp  

Spiritual Beings:

Human beings are not merely material beings.  When God created the first man He breathed into his nostrils the breath of life (Gen 2:7) making man a living soul and giving to him a spiritual life.   We exist currently as body and soul together. It is meaningless to talk of us as just a soul or just a body when we are alive on earth. Both are intricately intertwined to make you the person you are. 

-On the opposite spectrum, take a lobster for example.  When a lobster is caught in a trap and boiled for stew it does not have a spirit that lives on.  It’s simply dead.  A lobster is a physical material animal creation that lacks a soul.   

Moral Beings:

God is holy.  He created humanity with a moral compass, a conscience that gives each of us an inner sense of the difference between right and wrong.  Though deadened by sin, that conscience remains hardwired in man.

- Our family used to have a cat named Harvey who would come home most days in the summer with mice, chipmunks, snakes or birds.  Harvey did not have a conscience about killing rodents; it was merely his animal instincts with no guilt attached.  For Harvey there was no judgment of right or wrong through the evaluation of consequences and affects, he just did what he was created to do. 

Relational Beings:

Man has not been made for isolated individualism.  The image of God is reflected in how we relate to others in fellowship (marriage, family, work and the church) the great commandment (love your neighbor) and even the great commission (make disciples of all nations). 

Rational Beings:

God is a God of knowledge.  While our knowledge is limited, God created us with the capacity to think, to learn and to know.  Our minds are a vital part of how we are to know God (Matt. 22:37).  We are to cultivate our minds (Eph. 4:23) and to renew our minds for transformation (Rom. 12:2). 

- Again, let’s contrast this concept with an example from the animal kingdom.  Take a turkey for example: (Turkey’s are pretty dumb animals.)  Some turkeys have been known to stare straight up into the sky when it is raining to get a drink and subsequently drown themselves.  Definitely lacking in rational thinking.  Yes, some humans have done some pretty brainless things but we should know better.  At least the turkey has an excuse. 

Creative Beings:

God is the Creator.  Built within man is an intrinsic desire to create (music, art, engineering, landscaping, or writing).  While our creativity is different from God’s, who created everything out of nothing, we unmistakably have a creating responsibility. 

“Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it.  Rule over the fish of the sea the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

            Genesis 1:26

God has given man a command to create.  Develop the social world!  (Build families, churches, schools, cities and governments.)  Harness the natural world! (Plant crops, build bridges, design iPod’s, and carve sculptures) Our purpose is to build cultures and create civilizations… and glorify God in the process.  After all, we have been made in His image.

Though the image of God in man has been marred and ruptured through the sinful nature of mankind, we still mustn’t forget that all people, no matter the age, race or physical capacity has been made in His Likeness and for His glory. 

So you may ask, why is it important to understand the phrase made in the image of God when discussing the biblical perspective on resources?  In a culture that continually diminishes the value of man (the result of a random evolutionary process), it is crucial to realign our beliefs in order to restore a biblical perspective on life.  Though we live in a world continually subjugated and run by secular ideas and philosophies we must not lose track of the vision and purpose for which we were created.  Humanity in all aspects (white, black, male, female, every ethnic group in every culture) is of immeasurable value, made with incalculable potential that could and should be stewarded to develop and expand God’s name throughout the world.   

Imago Dei.  A powerful attribute ascribed to man and a mighty promise made to mankind.  Furthermore, understanding imago Dei in all its dimensions is the first critical step to comprehending development from a biblical basis. 

In the next entry we will build off of this understanding and highlight the many extraordinary resources that are within our grasp.  The question addressed will be:

What inherent resources do humans have?

TRANSITION TIME

Wow, how time has gotten away from me!!  These last 2 months have been absolutely crazy for my family and I so I have not been able to continue in my blogging.  We have been moving our home from Bolivia back to the United States and we have been swamped with details and logistics.  With that said, it has gone really well and we are slowly starting to get settled into our new home in South Dakota.

I will begin work at my new position starting the first of August.  One of my responsibilities will be to study, write and blog so I look forward to continuing in my blogging here on Shorashim.  If you have been following this blog I thank you.... it is good to see someone actually reading what I have to say.

Please check back starting in August and I will be updating with new entries on a regular basis.  I look forward to getting back into it!

DO WE HAVE THE EYES TO SEE? – PART 3

As mentioned at the conclusion of my previous post, in this entry I would like to take a moment to move away from the theoretical and focus more on application.  How does the potential-based development theory play out in modern day community development?  The needs seem so great, what can one really do to alleviate poverty through developing potential? 

This past week I spent several days serving with an international team in a rural community about three hours from the city of Sucre.  This community (Ckara Ckara) is one of the highest villages in the world, located at close to 14,000 ft. in altitude.  As is the custom with all of Food for the Hungry’s work zones, this is a community that has been labeled as one of the most vulnerable in Bolivia.  Defining vulnerability is a great post for the future, but for now let’s just say it is extremely materially poor, with very little development.  There are many reasons for this.  One, being the extremely animistic worldview that exists among the people, which has played out in several consequences such as the Potlatch ritual which I mentioned in my previous post on resources.  Secondly, this is one of the highest villages in the world, so agriculture potential is extremely limited.  Crop diversity is difficult, and the farmers have a great deal of fear growing something that they do not have experience with. 

As to be expected malnutrition is a major issue among the children and families of this area.  The farmers grow mostly potatoes because that is not only what they know how to grow but it is one of the few crops that flourishes in the Andean mountain climate and at that altitude.  Thus, many of the families and children living in Ckara Ckara live on a mostly starch based diet.  As an organization, Food for the Hungry has two options when deciding how to help alleviate the material poverty that exists in Ckara Ckara.  (As written in one of my earlier entries I believe poverty to be a holistic issue that has it’s roots in the brokenness of man’s four foundational relationships.  For more information on this belief read the blog post titled “Poverty Alleviation From the Roots.”)  With that said, as the organization seeks to help man in the reconciliation of his relationships, they also seek to provide tangible philosophies of development and transformation.  As a development organization the question remains as to which development philosophy FH will choose.  One option is the need-based theory, which would have FH constructing buildings, bringing in bags of nutritious food or a crate of GNC Vitamins, and providing a variety of other resources that could be used to eliminate many of the current material needs…… temporarily.  The end result?  The community has a temporary fix for their material poverty and a new list of needs to be addressed.  Add to that, a new sense of inadequacy and a more dependant need for handouts.  Not biblical empowerment if you ask me.  So, how does the organization work at the roots of malnutrition while providing for the immediate felt needs?  How does the potential-based development theory work in this case? 

Because Ckara Ckara is a village located at such a high altitude, the climate is not favorable for many fruits and vegetables.  The weather often dips below freezing and many products can’t grow in that climate.  However, there isn’t anything wrong with the soil of Ckara Ckara and there is plenty of sunlight to grow a variety of crops, it is just the really cold nights that present a challenge.  After an inventory of the potential in Ckara Ckara, below is what the organization came up:

For Americans a greenhouse seems like a simple solution.  However, for Bolivians this was a new concept, (growing food inside of a building???) and one never explored in the Ckara Ckara area before.  All of the materials for the project can be found in the Ckara Ckara area and there was no financial funding imported into the village in order for this project to be built or maintained.  It is merely wood, rocks, mud bricks (plentiful in the region) and corrugated plastic roofing, which you can buy in Ckara Ckara.  Buy using products available in Ckara Ckara, along with the power of the sun; carrots, lettuce, basil, tomatoes, cauliflower and other healthy foods are being grown at an altitude of nearly 14,000 ft!  Add this to the fact that a greenhouse takes up very little land, and the farmers are much more willing to invest in a small house of vegetables than risk farming 3 acres of their land on something they are unfamiliar with. 

With the introduction of the greenhouses, Food for the Hungry along with the local indigenous farmers in Ckara Ckara are fighting malnutrition…. with success.  Not only are the farmers proud of the success of their accomplishments but they have taken ownership of the project and grown from its achievements. 

Fighting malnutrition is never an easy task.  Malnutrition has deep roots and a greenhouse in and of itself will not solve the problem.  But through teaching the biblical principles of stewardship and good health (notice the sign above the door on the greenhouse.  It says Creation is Good!!! That is one of the principles that has been taught that accompanies this project), along with empowering the local farmers to see the potential within their midst, the struggle against malnutrition in Ckara Ckara is being defeated.

I believe in this project, Food for the Hungry has empowered the local farmers, through the potential-based development theory to realize their potential and make a direct sustainable impact on malnutrition in Ckara Ckara.  When we permit the people of our communities to see the abundance of resources that exist around them, we allow them to develop as God designed them to.  They take pride in the change and become motivated by the results of their efforts.  They become empowered to follow through on God’s creation mandate to rule, subdue, multiple and administer with stewardship all that He has provided in them and around them.  I believe that should be the goal when working with the poor in the area of development.  May we model for them the belief that God has made each of us in His image, designed with potential, creativity and talents, and He has blessed us with all we need to develop.

In the next entry I will address the abundance of potential that exists in each human.  What does it mean to be made in the image of God?  What is a biblical perspective on resources?         

DO WE HAVE THE EYES TO SEE? – PART 2

I concluded the last entry with an overview of the danger of viewing resources as static and limited.  Such a perspective can have a deep and lasting impact on a person, family, or community’s ability to develop as God intended.  To compliment this idea of zero-sum and limited good I would like to introduce two development theories that often formulate our poverty alleviation strategies.  The first theory is the need-based development strategy.      

Need-based development focuses first on determining areas of need then seeks ways to address them.  The theory asks: “What needs, deficiencies, problems or gaps exist that need to be addressed?”  The downside of this approach is that it focuses much of the attention on what is missing rather than on what exists.  A better question to ask is:  “What is currently present that could be built upon?” 

A need-based approach leaves the community or individual with a laundry list of deficiencies that can become overwhelming and discouraging.  Such a mindset of inadequacies and failings can leave a person defeated looking for answers that seem impossible to reach.  “Which one do we address first?”  “Who is responsible for these deficiencies?”  Overcoming seems impossible. 

Julie N. Zimmerman in “Building a New Perspective: Asset-Based Development” gives a helpful metaphor for explaining this theory. 

“For example, when we think of a need-based approach, especially as it relates to funding, a metaphor that we can invoke is one of going shopping.   When we go shopping, we usually stop, take stock of what is missing, and then leave our homes in search of filing those gaps.  After all we don’t go shopping in order to purchase what we already have.  We go to obtain items we don’t have and cannot fill with our existing store of household items.  This metaphor can also reflect how many approach community and economic development.  We take stock of where our gaps are, identify what is missing and then go looking for opportunities to go and fill them.”  (Zimmerman pg. 1)

Zimmerman goes on to say:

“While a need-based approach may be common, and it is one often pursued, it need not determine how we pursue our futures.  There is another approach.  After all, if we try to build our futures based on what we don’t have, all we do have are empty hands.”  (Zimmerman pg. 1)

To simply enter into a community, identify its needs and seek to answer them with outside resources does injustice to the gifts, abilities and potential that exists in the people of that community.  They may be materially “poor” but they still have the capacity, when motivated and driven, to collaborate together and accomplish great things for the good of the group.  Which leads to the other development theory I want to share:  the asset-based theory or potential-based theory.  

The potential-based development theory as an alternative to listing the deficiencies and problems that exist in a community, instead, takes inventory of the broad array of actors and assets in a community, identifying how they can be mobilized for development.

Again Zimmerman gives us a good analogy to describe the potential-based development theory:

“An asset based approach is like cooking dinner.  After all, I don’t decide what I will make for dinner based upon what I DON”T have in my cupboards.”  (Zimmerman pg. 2)

The key for believers working in potential-based strategies is changing the conversation from deficiencies to solutions.  However small or grand, what does the community have to give or offer towards this development process?  What exists within the DNA of this community or its people that can be used to bring change? 

According to Zimmerman two influential individuals in promoting and popularizing the development of this model are Kretzman and McKnight.

“The starting place of asset-based development is first and foremost to identify and build on the strengths that exist.  For Kretzman and McKnight, while communities vary in size, place, and endowments, they all already have the two most important ingredients: their people and their institutions and associations.  All people have abilities, talents, and knowledge.  And as individuals organize themselves into institutions and associations, these too have talents and abilities and strengths.” (Zimmerman pg. 2)

Men and women made in the image of God are the most powerful and instrumental resources any community has at its disposal.  By mobilizing the talents and skills of the individuals in a community, great difference can be made. 

I believe God’s command in Genesis 1:27-28 is to be taken with great confidence:

“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”  

God has given man everything he needs to design, create, organize, invent, produce and develop.  He commands us to increase, subdue, rule and be fruitful.  The one caveat?  We must be good stewards of that which we have been given.  

As believers we need to change the conversation.  Instead of asking, “What are we missing?” we need to ask, “What do we have?”  What can we use that already exists, to get where we want to go? 

“Asset-based action is no more a silver bullet than need based or any other approach.  And, an asset-based approach does not mean that needs, gaps, and deficiencies do not exist.  The key difference lies in our outlook: seeing these gaps and needs exclusively, or seeing them in conjunction with the strengths and assets that exist right along side of them.”  (Zimmerman pg. 4)

Our approach should not be to shop, but rather to cook.  To take that which is already in the cupboards, mix the ingredients together with creativity and good stewardship and create a better more developed future for the community.  As Christians, our greatest most powerful responsibility in community development is to empower the locales to recognize that which already exists in their midst.  The potential that God has given in them and around them, take it, rule it, subdue it, and multiply it for development and God’s glory.   As we permit them to SEE, we encourage them to BE the difference. 

DO WE HAVE THE EYES TO SEE?     

I realize that much of this is theoretical and seemingly impractical.  Thus, I intend to present an example of this empowerment in action and application in the next entry, before concluding with a biblical perspective on resources.

For more explanation and the source of the above quotes read Zimmerman’s article “Building a New Perspective: Asset-Based Development”:

http://www.ca.uky.edu/snarl/CommunityResources/BuildNewPerspect.pdf

DO WE HAVE THE EYES TO SEE?

Seeing potential in the midst of severe material poverty is very challenging.  Specifically, because poverty can be blinding not only for the individuals entangled in the web of its devastating lies, but also for those standing on the outside of material poverty looking in… attempting to help and alleviate it.  With that said, I would like to take a moment to dig into a topic referenced in my previous blog on empowerment: a biblical perspective on resources.  I will be splitting this blog into several different entries in order to shorten the length and enhance the content.

Before unpacking this concept it may be wise to discuss why I feel this topic is important.  For many Americans, when thinking of resources our minds immediately jump to wealth generating resources such as natural resources (wood oil, gold, the sun), or economic resources (technology, know-how such as entrepreneurship, computer sciences, and elements of infrastructure).  These are without a doubt strategic resources, and ones we must continue to develop and steward, but what else exists that is possibly overlooked or neglected?   If we allow our minds to end with the physical/material (which is our tendency since we live in a culture that promotes a secular belief system) we miss out on the most powerful resource of all…. humans.  Men and women created in God’s image.  Without a biblical perspective on resources our poverty alleviation and development strategies will inevitably focus on the material, which I believe significantly impedes biblical empowerment as discussed in the previous blog.  Thus, this is a critical discussion because it directly effects how we approach our work with the poor.   

   

To begin I would like to introduce two key development concepts into this discussion.  The first concept is limited good.  Limited good suggests that wealth and resources are static.  “Only so much to go around.” 

The second concept is zero-sum.  Zero-sum suggests that a person or groups gain is exactly balanced by the losses of another person or group.  “In order for someone to win, someone else must lose.”

To quote INVESTOPEDIA, an online resource for investment definitions, strategies, and philosophies the definition of zero-sum is:

“A situation in which one participant's gains result only from another participant's equivalent losses. The net change in total wealth among participants is zero; the wealth is just shifted from one to another.”

Read more:

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/z/zero-sumgame.asp#axzz1sD52z4b8

Both of these terms and concepts are crucial to the philosophy of poverty alleviation.  From the perspective of those living in poverty, the belief that resources are static and that there is only so much to go around, breeds competition.  It’s more or less a race to figuring out how one can obtain the precious resources that do exist.  Further more, if you live with a zero-sum philosophy (one person’s gain, is balanced by another’s loss), and you don’t receive the perceived resources you are than assumed to be the loser.  Put these 2 concepts together and you have a devastating effect.  A spirit of envy and jealous is fueled and communities, families, and cultures are pitted against each other in the fight for limited resources.  A variety of results could be expected.  One result could be a battle to undermine your neighbor who has “stolen” the resources (competition); the other could be as described below:

“The Theory of Limited Good helps us understand the cultural, as well as economic, life of pre-industrial peoples of the world. If the supply of economic goods is limited, then the supply of pleasure, beauty, and happiness may also be limited. When one family has too much of those things, they must be taking them away from other people. Your home and possessions should not be too pleasant, nor your daughters too beautiful, nor should you be too happy.

Members of a community might want to avoid accumulation of wealth because the resulting impoverishment of other families places community solidarity at risk. The Potlatch ritual (present in several Andean countries), in which a family that has accumulated a conspicuous amount of wealth must divest itself of that wealth by lavish gift giving, was common among many Indian tribes in North America and elsewhere.  In this case a family that had accumulated conspicuous wealth would feel obligated to throw a party for the village, providing chicha beer and rum, as well as food, to everyone in the village until the wealth was used up. Some of those parties would continue for two or three days, ending only when the drunken party thrower had spent all his money and all money he could borrow against future earnings.” 

Lyn Williams, Professor Emeritus, Ohio University.  Author of the blog: The Logical Middle: http://thelogicalmiddle.blogspot.com/2009/07/theory-of-limited-good.html

The unconscious goal for individuals living in cultures that promote this concept is perceived equality.  If fairness in response to resources is not promoted, then something must be done.  Either the person must be punished for stealing their unfair portion of the resources, or they must share, in order to make everyone happy and equal.  (see the Occupy Wall Street movement for a current example)  It’s a destructive theory, from the roots of secularism, that has profound impact on one’s ability to steward, save, and gather resources for development purposes.  Living with such theories as limited good and zero-sum actually, in many ways, promote material poverty and undevelopment.

A secular worldview sees resources as being solely physical and material.  At first glance one would not see this as being a harmful theory but with further study one realizes that the effects of this philosophy can have profound results.  Not only does it create competition and jealousy between individuals or groups as they compete for the rights to resources but it can also have devastating impact on the sanctity of life.  If humans are merely resource consumers, (mouths to feed) then what is the best way to preserve and safeguard the precious resources that are limited and static?  Through the elimination or restriction of human development.  Acts of genocide, euthanasia, and abortion can be justified through the framework of resource preservation.  Why rescue a dying child or abandoned baby from the gutters?  It’s nature’s way of eliminating the weak, and by doing so you are only impeding the natural selection process.

How we look at resources is vital to the poverty alleviation discussion.  In the next entry we will examine 2 different development theories and seek to find answers to some of the secularistic principles present in today’s poverty alleviation efforts.      

A RE-FOCUS ON EMPOWERMENT

One of my daughter’s favorite movies is the Veggie Tales story of David and Goliath.  As a five year old she loves the animated and colorful characters, the funny movements of the vegetables as they hold items and eat things despite the absence of arms, the creative songs and lyrics and of course the ability for the show to bring to life a tale so famous and full of life.  (OK, so I must admit, those final few items might be likings by me, her father, more than her.)  Either way, this compelling story is full of wonderful principles and re-affirming values.  As I watched the movie with her a few weeks ago I realized for the first time that David was also portraying a concept that is often missed in our retelling of the classic bible story, the principle of empowerment.  We enviably don’t pass up the opportunity to commend David for slaying the giant and overcoming seemingly impossible obstacles while trusting God in the face of adversity, and we shouldn’t, but there is also more there that we mustn’t miss.  For the first time a few weeks ago those crazy vegetables uncovered for me a new concept I had never seen in this story before, the theme of proper biblical empowerment.

As a pastor working in the area of spiritual and community development I often find myself evaluating philosophies and ideologies concerning individual and community growth and development.  How are our strategies on development being impacted by our pre-conceived worldviews and cultural belief systems?  It is a question that digs to the true roots of our poverty alleviation efforts and profoundly influences the concepts we are planting in the minds of our “clients.”  For many Americans the concept of empowerment is closely connected with the transfer of resources, wealth, and technology from the more well-off to the less-well off.  This past week my wife read to me a quote from a book we have both really enjoyed reading.  The book is Seven, an experimental mutiny against excess by Jen Hatmaker.  The book has set forth a great challenge to all individuals and families looking to re-focus on the priorities of life.  While reading the book the following sentence jumped out to us. 


“The poor don’t lack ambition, imagination, or intelligence; most simply lack resources.  We have what they require and more than we need.  We could share.”  (Seven, page 169) 

As much as I have enjoyed the premise of the book, the above statement is an indictment on the American paradigm for overcoming poverty.  That paradigm is one based on a secularistic worldview that reinforces the belief that what really matters are material resources.  Intangible resources such as mind, spirit, creativity, beliefs and culture are downplayed, ignored or often neglected.  In one sense Jen is correct.  We do have excess, and for many living in deep poverty the material needs are overwhelming.  As well, as indicated in the quote, these poor people have been created in the image of God and do have value, purpose, talents, gifts and the ability to think and create, so they don't literally lack an imagination or intelligence.  However, the distribution of resources will not magically restore for them a sense of ambition or a newfound creativity to envision or development.  Where the secularistic, materialistic perspective of poverty alleviation falls short, and I believe this quote becomes misleading, is through the realization that simply distributing resources encourages needy individuals to look outside of themselves or their communities for resources FIRST, limiting their ability to see the bountiful resources in their midst. I agree, more finances, resources and technology could and should be given to poverty alleviation.  However, the question remains: “Will the resources that are given have the effect of empowering the poor or hindering them?”   

(A biblical perspective on resources is also needed and I will address that concept in a future blog.)

Elisheva Sadan's book Empowerment and Community Practice describes empowerment as the following:

“Empowerment is a process of transition from a state of powerlessness to a state of relative control over one’s life, destiny, and environment. This transition can manifest itself in an improvement in the perceived ability to control, as well as in an improvement in the actual ability to control.” (pg 144)

What I find interesting about this statement is that empowerment is deeply tied to one’s ability to control, whether perceived or actual.  For many living in deep poverty lacking a sense of control is a significant issue.  Sensing that they cannot control or change their situation, (Fatalism) leads to perceived powerlessness that becomes debilitating and incapacitating.  A common theme I have noticed over the past 3 years of working with the most vulnerable here in Bolivia, is that many of them lack a sense of self-worth.  They have become indifferent towards their situation and often blame themselves for there inability to overcome and conquer their situation.  They have lost their sense of dignity and value, which is absolutely devastating to see.  Reversing this paradigm is very difficult and we must be extremely careful in our efforts to do so.  With that said, if our answer to this issue is simply giving them “things” we are only re-enforcing their perception of inadequacy!  In a sense we are confirming that yes, in fact, they can’t change, and the only hope for a better future comes through our gifts and altruism towards them.   Sadan’s book continues in this vain by stating that:

“Empowerment is a transition from this passive situation (their sense of helplessness) to a more active situation of control. The need for it is part of the realization of one’s very humanity, so much so that one could say that a person who is powerless with regard to his life and his environment is not realizing his innate human potential. (pg 144)”

“…his innate human potential,” wow,!  How often we forget what it means to be made in the image of God.  We cannot strip the poor of their value and hinder their God-given ability to discover their own resources and potential!  This is a grave tragedy.  This is the “American” way…. and this is not empowerment.

When thinking of empowerment I choose to use the word permit rather than give.  There is a time and place to give, but more often than not we give and neglect to permit.  We must work alongside of them helping to develop confidence, boost self-esteem and enhance their skills to render them proactively assertive and participatory in matters directly affecting their lives.  They need to be permitted to realize their abilities and understand their capacity to change the situation.  This process may not be easy, or immediate but it’s what empowerment is.  Permitting them, maybe for the first time, to see their God given potential.    

King Saul (the asparagus) graciously placed his royal amour on David (an even smaller asparagus) and commended him into battle with the giant.  After all, in order to defeat such a warrior as Goliath one must enter the battle with the best of the best equipment, tested and proven to work.  “Clink… clunk… bang…” and there stands David with only his eyes peering through the amour completely incapable of moving, yet alone able to defeat the mighty Goliath.  Saul tried to empower David with his kingly sword, helmet and amour, but in reality he merely hindered his ability to fight the giant.      

“…I cannot go in these, he said to Saul, because I am not used to them.  So he took them off.  Then took his staff in his hand, chose five smooth stones from the stream, put them in the pouch of his shepherd’s bag and, with his sling in his hand approached the Philistine.”  (1 Samuel 17: 39-40)

“As the Philistine moved closer to attack him, David ran quickly toward the battle line to meet him.  Reaching into his bag and taking out a stone, he slung it and struck the Philistine on the forehead.  The stone sank into his forehead, and he fell facedown on the ground.  So David triumphed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone; without a sword in his hand he struck down the Philistine and killed him.”  (1 Samuel 17: 48-50)

The task that young David the shepherd faced seemed impossible.  The odds and statistics were stacked against him.  Yet, he managed to overcome the task that seemed unfeasible.  The battle that day was not won with the most sophisticated and proven armor of the day.  Rather David chose the weapons that he knew how to use, the weapons that were available to him.  He defeated Goliath that day with a staff, sling, stone and faith that God would prevail against all obstacles. 

Empowerment is about putting into practice what we already have and know.  It’s about permitting others to see the resources that exist and encouraging them to imagine and create, with ambition, a new and better future.  The church holds every human being to be a creation of God. Therefore, each person is valuable. This belief is at the core of Christian theology and thought. If properly understood and applied, it feeds a long-term commitment to address the needs of all men, the poor included.  The biblical perspective of empowerment is one that overcomes all odds by using the resources God has provided within us.  The poor don’t lack ambition, imagination or intelligence… they simply don't know they have it.   Just as David accomplished the seemingly impossible, so too can we, as we partner with the poor and properly empower them towards a better more biblically prosperous future.