Pages

Monday, January 30, 2012

Book Review: Steve Corbett and Brian Fikkert, "When Helping Hurts," Moody Press, 2009.

Review:
When Helping Hurts is an invaluable book for group discussion by North American mission teams, mission committees, groups taught by mission pastors, all those committed to God’s kingdom agenda for the poor and those involved in the outreach and missions budget of a church. The authors’ thesis highlights their challenge:
“We believe the local church has a unique role to play in poverty alleviation and we are delighted to see the recent resurgence in church-based holistic ministry to the poor at home and abroad. At the same time we are grieved when we see churches using alleviation strategies that are grounded in unbiblical assumptions about the nature of poverty and that violate ‘best practice’ methodologies developed by theorists and practioners over the course of many decades” (p.15).
One of the chief reasons for this “violation” lies in a fundamental difference in understanding poverty. The authors say, from their extensive research and teaching experience, that many middle class North American Christians think of poverty materialistically “in terms of lack of food, clothing, sanitation, medicine, money and clean water. But when the poor in the Majority world have answered the question [what is poverty?], they mention shame, inferiority, powerlessness, humiliation, fear, hopelessness, depression, social isolation, and voicelessness” (p.53). This is a “poverty of being” which is also “a problem for the economically rich who often have god-complexes, a subtle and unconscious sense of superiority in which they believe that they have achieved their wealth through their own efforts and that they have been anointed to decide that is best for low-income people, whom they view as inferior to themselves” (p. 65).
The problems are compounded, the authors say, by a blurring of distinctions between relief, rehabilitation or development. “The failure to distinguish among these situations is one of the most common reasons that poverty-alleviation efforts often do harm” (pp.103-104). “Relief is the urgent and temporary provision of emergency aid to reduce immediate suffering from a natural or man-made crisis…Rehabilitation seeks to restore to people the positive elements of their pre-crisis conditions [by] working with the victims as they participate in their recovery…Development is the process of on-going change where the ‘helped’ are better able to fulfill their calling of glorifying God by working and supporting themselves and their families…It’s an empowering process... [We] North American Christians often project our own idea of what is an acceptable standard of living into a situation and are quick to take the relief approach, doling out money in ways that the local people would consider unwise and dependence-creating. And in the process, we can undermine local judgment, discipline, accountability, stewardship, savings and institutions.” (pp. 103, 104, 108).
Problematically, many North American Christians also approach poverty alleviation from a needs assessment base which focuses on what is wrong in a poor community (p. 125). This approach can feed into paternalism as the donor wants to “help fix the problem.” The authors insist that paternalism with its many faces is “poisonous” between North American middle and upper class believers and Majority world believers because it leads to Americans doing “for others what they can do for themselves” and a tendency for Americans “to take charge and run things” (p. 119). The authors note that “the poor do not need to take charge because they know that we will take charge if they wait long enough; they have internalized the messages of centuries of colonialism, slavery and racism: that Caucasians run things and everyone else follows; and they [also] know that by letting us run the show it is more likely that we will bring in the money and other material resources to give to them” (p. 119). As a result, North American paternalism and its relief approach violates “best practice methodologies” (p. 15). 
Instead, the authors advocate asset-based community development, where the poor people involved are empowered to use their gifts and strengths and “participate in all aspects of the project, proposing the best course of action, implementing a chosen strategy, evaluating how well things are working and determining the appropriate behavior modification” (p.144). “Middle to upper class North American believers who step in for relief poverty alleviation (based on their understanding of the nature of poverty), have to accept that our power has silenced their brethren at home or abroad more than we realize” (p. 172).
The authors illustrate how well-intentioned short term mission teams sent out from the middle and upper class North American church aggravate this problem. Citing statistics in 2006 - that 50% of short term mission trips from the U.S. were for under a 2 week period of time but totaled 212 million participants and cost $1,600,000,000 (p. 161)- the authors lament that:
· often the teams are not versed in cross-cultural engagement issues;
· they come to materially poor communities experiencing chronic problems that need long-term development not relief
· they generally have a needs based approach not an asset based approach to the community
· they come with a task they hope to achieve in their brief stay without understanding or sufficiently involving the indigenous people they hope to serve (pp.162-166).

One example illustrates the harm that is possible:
“An American staff member who works with an indigenous organization trying to bring development to poor communities in a Latin American country noted: ‘The indigenous staff in my organization lead weekly Bible studies with children in low-income communities. These Bible studies are just one aspect of my organization’s over-all attempts to bring long-lasting development in these broken communities. After a short term team (sent by a North American middle class church) conducts a Bible study in one of these communities, the children stop attending the Bible studies of my organization…because we do not have all the fancy materials and crafts that the short term teams have and we do not give away things like these teams do. The children have also come to believe that our staff are not as interesting or as creative as the Americans that come on these teams’” (p.169).  
Therefore, the authors suggest to the churches or mission organizations who send out short term teams:
· “Make pre-trip learning a requirement (including a summary of the major concepts in this book);
· have a substantial presentation of at least several hours for perspective team members to clearly explain what the trip is and is not about;
· be sure prospective short termers are already actively involved in their church’s local outreach efforts;
· require short termers to pay at least a portion of the trip from their own pocket;
· design the trip to be about “learning” and “being” as much as about “doing”;
· ensure that the “doing” portion of the trip avoids paternalism;
· and do both on the field and post trip reflections for at least a year following the trip” (pp. 175-178).
· The authors even suggest renaming a “short term missions trip” a “Vision Trip” or a “Go, Learn, Return and Respond” trip (p.176).
Corbett and Fikkert’s book is replete with examples of North American middle class believers’ good intentions for poverty alleviation gone awry. But in all the chapters in the book the authors also give practical guidelines for what ‘best practice methodologies’ do work. Each chapter is also bookended by excellent reflection questions that will help small groups grapple with people’s own preconceptions and methodologies. That makes the book invaluable to all churches intent on responding to God’s kingdom agenda globally.
Wisely, the authors say their book is only the beginning of the learning cycle. They close the book encouraging readers “to pursue even deeper learning through the Chalmers Center for Economic Development (www. Chalmers.org)” (p.219). It is hoped their advice will be more fully utilized in the near and distant future.

Reviewed by Mary Lou Codman-Wilson, Ph.D. 1/27/12