Kruse Kronicle

“Is charity the wrong approach?” David Robinson

—

by

mwkruse
in , ,

Defeating Global Poverty (David Robinson):  Is charity the wrong approach?

Muhammad Yunus, the recently announced 2006 Nobel Peace Prize winner and founder of the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh, did an interview that was recently published in Ode Magazine. Here are a few of his quotes:

"What all these pop stars and politicians want, is the usual recipe: charity. But charity is not the way to help people in need; it is not a healthy basis for a relationship between people. If you want to solve poverty, you have to put people in a position to build their own life. Unfortunately, this is not how the aid industry works. Western governments and development organizations think they need to offer permanent charity. As a result, they keep entire economies in poverty and families in an inhuman situation."

"The approach [many take] to poverty is thwarted by our fixed convictions. Poor people are helpless, unhealthy, illiterate and thus stupid, they have nothing, they know nothing, we must take care of them, we must give them food… It is completely wrong to think like this. I am convinced that poor people are just as human as anyone else. They have just as much potential as anyone. They are simply shoved into a box marked POOR! And it’s written in giant letters so that everyone simply treats them the way poor people are treated, because we think this is the way we should treat them. This means it isn’t easy to get out of the box."

Comments

6 responses to ““Is charity the wrong approach?” David Robinson”

  1. the very left reverend Avatar
    the very left reverend

    Whereas he is on target regarding the relative effectiveness of “charity”, what he is forgetting is that charity is not about the one receiving the charity, but the one giving it.
    The first step away from selfishness is charity and (although we don’t want people to remain there) that is an important move that should be recognized and validated.

    Reply
  2. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    “…charity is not about the one receiving the charity, but the one giving it.”
    I think I would say it is both. I positively agree with you that giving is an essential spiritual discipline of the Christian life. However, we are stewards of the resources God has entrusted to us and at a minimum I think we need to not give in ways that harm others by creating dependency or enabling destructive behavior.
    Thanks for your comment.

    Reply
  3. Virgil Avatar
    Virgil

    Excellent post Mike, and I would like to disagree with the first comment in that the act of giving is not about the one giving. Looking at the greatest example of giving coming from the greatest giver (God), we can see that the sacrifice of Christ was not about him but about us; we were and we are his utmost concern.
    To follow in his footsteps we should not make giving about US unless we want to manufacture feel-good scenarios where real relationships lack and there is no substance to the giving whatsoever, mostly because like Yunus wrote “they are all stupid, illiterate and ignorant” so we are only concerned with their poverty rather than them as real human beings in need of real economic foundation that can give them long-term support.
    Again, I see Emergent greatly lacking in this aspect…it’s disappointing but I think we can and are making some progress 🙂

    Reply
  4. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    Thanks for these thoughts Virgil. The single best “gift” we can give to the poor is a legitimate job and an environment where they can be sustained in that job. Short term stop-gap measures are often needed but true Christian compassion seeks to include others as part of the prosperity generating economic system, not dehumanized dependents.
    Yet I do think there is a sense in which we all do need to forgive. God established the sabbath and the jubilee as institutions to remind the people to keep their trust in God. We no longer live in such an economy but I think giving at least 10% of all we make is another way act on our trust in God.

    Reply
  5. the very left reverend Avatar
    the very left reverend

    I agree, Virgil, that there is an ideal that we should strive for. I merely want to interject that humanity is developmental is all of its life, ethical behavior included. If we do not provide for the ethical development of these “pop stars and politicians” (all of us really) then hope is lost.
    The first step is self-sacrifice. You simply cannot expect everyone to be a mature Christian (or Muslim, in Yunus’ case) ethicist right of the bat.
    I couldn’t care any less that their giving is about them – I’m glad that they’re giving. At least hen we can use their cash for something good, rather than a Lexus. Simply getting someone giving is a huge feat. Let’s not berate folks for it.
    Don’t you see, Virgil, in the beginning IT HAS TO BE ABOUT THEM. Epistemologically, it can be no other way. They are just learning to see another perspective other than their own.
    We can use all the theological words we want, but if we all we do is tell them their giving isn’t good enough because it does not have the intention that we think it should, then guess what? They won’t give.
    I’d hate to be the one responsible for that. Wouldn’t you?

    Reply
  6. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    I think giving poorly is usually better than not giving at all.
    Giving well is better than giving poorly.
    Equipping and empowering through legitimate employment and trade is the best answer of all.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Michael W. KruseCancel reply

Discover more from Kruse Kronicle

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading