Jae Hyoung Choi: St. Basil, Charity, and Justice

Today’s post is by Rev. Jae Hyoung Choi. Rev. Choi is Missionary in Residence with the General Board of Global Ministries.

I visited Kenya recently as a member of Global Ministries' core team for Global Mission Fellow (GMF) training. During the program, we had the opportunity to visit Kibera. A Kenyan guide mentioned that Kibera is one of the largest slums in the world, along with Soweto in South Africa, where I had a chance to visit during the 2019 Africa regional missionary gathering.

Observing GMFs engage in programs with children in Kibera brought back memories of Parola, an informal settlement in Manila, Philippines. Parola served as a refuge for those initially arriving in Manila to escape poverty, owing to its proximity to the bustling market called Divisoria. While Parola was smaller than Kibera, the living spaces were considerably narrower. Due to the illicit practice of electricity tapping, known as “jumping,” Parola often experienced fires.

I recalled a grandmother who tragically lost her beloved grandson in one such fire. While she went to the market to buy food, locking the door from outside for the child’s safety, the fire consumed her home. I also knew a woman raising nine children, three of her own and six brought by her husband from other women, who made ends meet by doing laundry in other people’s houses. Despite outward smiles, it seemed they might be silently shedding tears, enduring unspeakable suffering.

I pondered the meaning of missionary work for individuals facing ongoing poverty, injustice, and discrimination. What does it truly mean to “participate in God’s mission” amidst these challenges?

In recent months, I studied Basil, a figure from the fourth-century Cappadocian Fathers. While renowned for his Trinitarian theology, my focus delved into his social teachings and his acts of charity. 

His Christian ownership principles, rooted in natural law and the Scriptures, offer profound insights into contemporary socioeconomic and structural issues. Perhaps his concern for land issues in his homeland, Cappadocia, led him to advocate the Christian ownership principle based on the biblical mandate, “The land belongs to God (Leviticus 25:23),” which underscores a commitment to distributive justice and equitable resource access, promoting communal responsibility.

However, the historical evaluation of Basil’s charitable activities is divided. In 369 AD, a severe famine left many in poverty, some even starving to death. Basil mobilized his assets and connections to aid the poor, establishing the Basiliad, a massive complex dedicated to caring for the poor and sick, which moved Emperor Valens to donate land.

Yet, the church’s charity, including Basil’s, during that time is now facing reassessment in a new light. Historian Peter Brown notes that the eastern church during Basil’s time earned the title “Lovers of the Poor” not only due to its active charity but also because it was an era when the Roman Empire’s unjust economic system mass-produced the poor.

Some wonder whether Basil’s words were prophetic but his deeds were priestly. Why did Basil, who approached the core of social justice through his land ownership teachings, focus only on charity in practice?

Basil’s charitable work was intertwined with his ascetic monasticism, which was based on Hellenistic dualism. At that time, the monastic movement’s ultimate focus was the coming kingdom, emphasizing helping the poor rather than solving poverty itself.

The fundamental reason seems to be his dichotomous worldview dominating his ascetic monastic movement. Ioannes Karayannopoulos comments that Basil’s ultimate orientation was “to the other real life [heaven],” so “Basil does not consider it his duty to try to change [the present system].”

Today, charity remains essential to the church's mission. However, the church must hear that the world is voicing criticisms of its charity. Books like “Toxic Charity,” “When Helping Hurts,” and “When Charity Destroys Dignity” illustrate this phenomenon. Kibera, Soweto, and Parola call for justice beyond charity.

David W. Scott: Mission as Investment, Not Charity

Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Mission Theologian at the General Board of Global Ministries. The opinions and analysis expressed here are Dr. Scott's own and do not reflect in any way the official position of Global Ministries.

Mission and the associated financial and other forms of support that the Western church gives to the church elsewhere in the world are often framed as charity. But what if this exchange was framed differently, as an investment by the Western church in a joint partnership with the majority world church? How might that shift understandings of mission and international relationships in the church?

The Charity Framing

As I said, mission and financial and other support from the Western church to the majority world church is usually framed as an act of charity on behalf of the Western church to the majority world church. However, this framing of that support includes several latent and problematic assumptions:

• It assumes a dynamic of inequality. Charity flows from those who have to those who have not, and those are two unequal groups. Those who have not need those who have, but those who have do not need those who have not.
• It assumes clear roles of givers and receives. In charity, giving comes from one group, and what is given is received by a separate second group. Givers do not receive, and receivers do not give.
• It assumes a focus on reducing deficits, not promoting growth. Charity is usually given to alleviate problems and return people to a minimal baseline. It is not given to help others grow to their fullest potential.
• It tends to assume a short-term horizon for results. While some charity is given towards longer-term development work, and thus this short-term focus is not universal, the focus on reducing deficits rather than promoting growth tends towards a short-term time frame. One need not think about how people will grow long-term but rather about whether their basic material needs were met at the moment.

The Investment Framing

The practice of financial investment runs on very different assumptions than the practice of charity. Those assumptions include the following:

• Inequalities may exist, but all partners are necessary. Not all partners in an investment scheme or business plan may have the same input, voice, or compensation, and thus inequalities do exist among business partners. Nevertheless, business investments only include people who contribute to the endeavor, since including non-contributors would reduce the benefits for everyone else. Therefore, if you're part of the business investment, it is because you are necessary to the success of that investment.
• All partners contribute; all partners benefit. Building on the previous assumption, because all partners are necessary, all partners are seen as having skills or assets which they are expected to contribute. There is no free riding. At the same time, everyone who contributes expects to receive something in return. Investments are supposed to make money for those who invest; people do not invest just out of goodwill and altruism.
• The focus is clearly on growth. Investments are not about losing less money or about meeting a minimum standard; they are about producing financial growth.
• Long-term results may be more lucrative than short-term results. Again, this assumption varies. There are plenty of day traders and investors obsessed only with the next quarter. But there are incentives within investing to look to the long-term return: what the fruit of an investment will be in five, ten, twenty, or thirty years. Often, those who look to these long-term horizons will be more richly rewarded.

The Benefits of Reframing Church Relations

Because the assumptions behind investing contrast with those of charity at precisely some of the problematic points of the charity frame, reframing Western mission and support for majority world churches as investment rather than as charity can potentially help to correct some of those problematic assumptions. Framing Western money, goods, effort, and expertise sent to majority world churches as an investment in those churches, their people, and ultimately the reign of God reframes the relationship between Western and majority world churches in several ways.

First, such a reframing highlights the necessity of the assets that majority world churches brings to partnerships with the West. Western contributions are not sufficient to accomplish anything outside the West on their own. For the church in the majority world to successfully grow and benefit its context, it requires the assets of those in the majority world. They are not passive beneficiaries of someone else's charity; they are active partners making essential contributions to a joint undertaking.

Second, such a reframing emphasizes that, just as the church in the West and in the majority world are both givers, they are both receivers. The church in the West invests in the church in the majority world because that investment will lead to something that the church in the West values: the transformation of individual lives, the growth of the church universal, and the building up of the reign of God. This is a spiritual benefit for the church in the West, and not the only one they may receive from the investment partnership. And those benefits reaped by the church in the West are possible only because of the contributions of the church in the majority world.

Third, such a reframing shifts away from problems and towards growth. Certainly, there are many and serious problems in the various contexts of the majority world, just as there are many and serious problems in the West. The church is called to address these problems. But not in a way that is limited to trying to have less bad in the world. The church is called to proclaim good news: a vision of human flourishing that is just as much about naming positive things that should grow (love, peace, justice, etc.) as it is about naming negative things that should decrease (suffering, hate, alienation, etc.).

Fourth, such a reframing promotes long-term thinking. The question becomes not just whether someone has fish and will eat for that day but rather how they will have fish to eat tomorrow, the next day, and the day after that. The focus shifts from accomplishing projects for their own sake to asking what the impact of such projects will be on churches, communities, and the world decades down the road.

Theologians are rightly cautious about relying too much on metaphors from capitalism, which can include some problematic assumptions. The framing of the Western church investing in the majority world church certainly has its limits. Yet, assumptions from other metaphors can be problematic as well, as the assumptions about charity highlighted above are. Therefore, having other metaphors to understand what is going on when Western churches send financial and other support to majority world churches is important to developing more robust understandings of mission.

Recommended Reading: African Aid Recipients on Charity Adverstising

NPR.org recently published a story sharing findings from a survey of Africans, taken to determine Africans' own views on advertisements used in the West to solicit aid for Africa. The survey was supported in part by SAIH Norway (the Norwegian Students' and Academics' International Assistance Fund), a group that has done previous work to combat negative stereotypes in international charity work.

The individual comments by Africans on the ads - some ads showing positive depictions of Africa and Africans, and some showing depictions of problems - are well worth reading. They are also worth considering as American United Methodists decide how to carry out the various mission fundraising projects they do for their African partners.

Recommended readings: African charity

There is a tendency in the West to see Africa as merely a place of poverty, a place that needs Western donations. This view is stereotypical and harmful for a variety of reasons and does not do justice to the many positive things happening in Africa.

In particular, when Westerners view Africa as a place of need, they can overlook the assets that Africans themselves possess. Moreover, such a view overlooks the differences in distribution of economic assets within African societies.

To get a better sense of the assets that Africans have, how those assets are distributed, and how Africans are using their own assets to help other Africans, read the following UMNS stories about African charity to other Africans. This is not an endorsement of all of the charity models followed. These stories are offered instead as counterexamples to the "Western donor-African recipient" stories that we hear all too often.

Liberia UMC schools help Ebola survivors

Urban Congolese congregation helps rural congregation

Zimbabwe UMW donates to orphanage

Women's entrepreneurship project of East Congo UMC

Liberia UMW give scholarship to rural students

Women's entrepreneurship project of Zimbabwe UMC

Zimbabwe UMC schools give access to computers

Liberia UMW gives out personal transportation devices to disabled persons

Liberia UMC clinic cares for persons with leprosy

Liberia UMC provides medical help for seniors

Zimbabwe UMC helps prisoners learn to grow food

Zimbabwe UMC donates food to prisoners

Nigeria UMC schools conduct adult education program

This list in not comprehensive. Moreover, it doesn't even include the extensive evangelistic, peacemaking, or women's rights work that African United Methodists undertake on their own initiative and with their own assets. Nor does it include any of the work wherein African United Methodists are active, contributing partners with United Methodists from elsewhere in the world.

Clearly, United Methodists everywhere need to take seriously African United Methodists' assets and abilities for impacting their societies.

Jacob Dharmaraj: Advocacy vs. Charity, Part III

Today's piece is written by Rev. Dr. Jacob Dharmaraj, President of the National Federation of Asian American United Methodists. It is the third of a three-part series.

Our perplexities with advocacy arise primarily because we are offered either charity or advocacy as a missional choice. These two are perceived as mutually exclusive. Since many of our United Methodist constituents are preoccupied with this duality, dichotomy, and double with their favored mission principles and practices, it is imperative to scrap this unfair duality between advocacy and charity, and replace it with missional reality, scriptural faithfulness, and life-enhancing practicality. It can be achieved by creating and practicing a theology of advocacy.

Practicing advocacy takes into consideration the agency of the victims of injustices themselves as they engage in resisting and addressing the barriers and systems that deny abundant life to them.

Charity engages participants in a ministry of care and it facilitates space and means for providing their needs.  Advocacy, on the other hand, addresses the root causes of the problem of victimization, and stands in solidarity with the victims in their resistance and struggle towards wholeness.

Charity and advocacy may complement each other in their common goal and caring engagement of the weak and voiceless, but one should keep in mind that charity serves as anodyne alleviating the pain. Advocacy’s goal is to eradicate the root causes that continue to create the pain.

Advocacy is far reaching and all encompassing. It gives hope to the victims for a long haul. It is time consuming and a slow process, but it will not cease until the cause of its engagement is fully addressed.

We live in a world that is all too familiar with the template for the treatment of "the other." It is a grievous offence to refuse to comply with or show any form resistance in the face of oppressive and capricious institutions and decrees. All too often, it is a capital offence in some parts of the world. Charity plays a maimed role in such a context. Ministering with those victims and taking measures to address the root causes of the problems alone would give victims hope, as such an endeavor that would lead to transformation to recreate their future.

Hope is a thing with feathers
Emily Dickinson defines hope in concise dexterity: “Hope is the thing with feathers.” Many well-meaning Christians don’t hesitate to identify with victims of abuse by journeying with them and sharing meals and means. Yet the root causes of the problems go unaddressed. Survivors of oppression get stuck in a limbo due to the lack of a sponsor to advocate for them. To be honest, in so many cases victims don’t need our tears but outrage and response against injustice, loss of dignity, and oppressive human or institutional cruelty.

It is simple and plain that when people are homeless or hungry or forcefully displaced, they lack more than shelter from the elements. Being a migrant is not a metaphor, or not always. What they are lacking is a stable life, a secure place, and a recognizable identity among others which charity cannot provide.

Public witness to the Gospel through advocacy work and active partnership with allies who share our values would be the way to effectively engage in mission today. Vatican II, a historic Roman Catholic mission conference, urged Christians everywhere to collaborate with secular partners in ways to improve the lot of humanity by building bridges even with those who question our beliefs. It said, "The church sincerely professes that all people, believers and unbelievers alike, ought to work for the rightful betterment of this world in which all alike live."

The United Methodist Church, through its mission boards and agencies is undoubtedly involved in such a ministry. But many of our constituents are bowling alone. They belong to fewer community-oriented organizations and are increasingly atomized, anomic, and apathetic subjects of the community rather than active participants within it. Our voice in public leverage and how to shape humans into transformative agents should never be limited or accrued to just a few tiers of our denomination. It should be picked up from annual conference to local church level.

In the final analysis, advocacy is not only our ecclesial modus operandi, but a timeless missional practice as well.

Jacob Dharmaraj: Advocacy vs. Charity, Part II

Today's piece is written by Rev. Dr. Jacob Dharmaraj, President of the National Federation of Asian American United Methodists. It is the second of a three-part series.

Physicist Richard Feynman once asked, “If, in some cataclysm, all of scientific knowledge were to be destroyed, and only one sentence passed on to the next generation of creatures, what statement would contain the most information in the fewest words?” He answered it himself saying, “I believe it is the atomic hypothesis that all things are made of atoms — little particles that move around in perpetual motion, attracting each other when they are a little distance apart, but repelling upon being squeezed into one another.”

If a similar question can be asked about Christian mission today, “What single sentence or statement that would encapsulate Christian mission engagement in 21st century?” my response would be: Mission-Advocacy.

Unlike charity, which has been widely practiced and decorously promoted, advocacy does not get much fanfare or accolade today. It is not often preached about from the pulpits. Not much has been written about theology of advocacy. Confusion between the missional function of charity and missional task of advocacy abound. Hence, I would like to outline the importance of the creation of a theology of advocacy and the preclusion of charity and advocacy as binary division.

When I say theology of advocacy, I mean a theology of engagement, a communal activity, and a mobilized movement; a theology that would define advocacy from a biblical and theological perspective by seeking its place in the world which is a God’s intended entity not yet consummated; a theology that would help us faithfully engage in the public square, just like Moses, Joseph, Esther, and others did during Old Testament time; a theology that would help us actively witness to the whole Gospel of Jesus Christ to the whole world, just like Paul, Apollos, Barnabas, and others did during the New Testament time.

Advocacy theology versus theology of advocacy
Theology of advocacy is different from advocacy theology, which is highly accommodationist. Its terms of agenda are often set by those outside of the faith community and from there it works its way back into the church community.

Theology of advocacy, on the other hand, is deeply embedded in the very fabric of our biblical heritage. It is not just a bit of software in its operational function but a vital part of our ecclesial habitus and an integral component of our church’s mission. It cannot be easily uprooted or exchanged for a hydroponic version.

Christian advocacy, as mission principle, is habitually misunderstood primarily because of the absence of a theological rationale or biblical underpinning. The failure to articulate advocacy’s foundational characteristic that is rooted in the Bible and its lack of cohesive theological articulation is the root cause of its current predicament.

Proponents of advocacy work must make sure that charitable acts could never  be set against the vital role of advocacy work. The focus of charitable activities is to address the immediate needs, which is undeniably important in all crises situations. But relief work should not be used as a substitute from remedying long term suffering often caused by unfair structural policies and practices. Finding and working toward a permanent solution to end needless human pain, exploitation and travail should be the aim and goal of mission, not just a band-aid ministry.

Advocacy is not anti-Charity. Much like the poor, the rich and powerful have always been with us. Violence, injustice, all forms of oppression should make everyone at least a teensy bit nervous just as poverty and homelessness does. Both the victim and perpetrator should be given an opportunity to respond to the Gospel.

Advocacy is not antigovernment. Rather, it invites and revives major structures of power, including governments, as dynamic agents of change. It may move with glacial pace, but it is deep, effective and long-lasting.

Many in our time are ready and willing to donate a large amount of money, time and resources to alleviate hunger and eradicate killer diseases. They are doing this at a much younger age and take a much more hands-on approach. They want to save the world right now. But they are more into charity than change, more alleviation than transformation; more lineal and amalgamation than vertical and assimilation.

Our core mission, therefore, ought to be to sound the alarm about how even the best intentioned among us are engaged in only band-aid ministry, and fail to address the root causes of unnecessary human desolation.

Jacob Dharmaraj: Advocacy vs. Charity, Part I

Today's piece is written by Rev. Dr. Jacob Dharmaraj, President of the National Federation of Asian American United Methodists. It is the first of a three-part series.

As we rumble along the potholed 21st century mission road, and when we look at the expansive landscape of God’s worldwide community and smell and inhale the overwhelming love of Jesus Christ for the whole of God’s creation, one resounding message the hurting world expects to hear from the church is this: “We see you; we truly care about you. We will not normalize destitution; we will not substitute Christian charity as a response to violence, oppression, inequality, and injustice.”

The overwhelming need of the hour is not being more religious but being more humane to listen to the cry of the victims of abuse and exploitation both in our own backyard and beyond; not to be more dogmatic in our belief but to demonstrate our commitment to Jesus Christ through active intervention for the weak and standing in solidarity with the exploited in hours of their greatest susceptibility. By doing so, we indeed join the throngs of biblical advocates like Joseph, Moses, Nathan, Nehemiah, Daniel, Esther, Paul, Apollos, and numerous others for humane and compassionate treatment of the strangers and neo-neighbors among us.

Why Advocacy?
Accordingly, as a denomination we work for the healing of the nations, raise awareness, initiate changes, and organize group actions to alleviate human suffering for a long haul starting from the local church. Together Towards Life: Mission and Evangelism in Changing Landscape, a WCC document, affirms, “Advocacy for justice is no longer the sole prerogative of national assemblies and central offices but a form of witness which calls for the engagement of local churches…churches must help in identifying the everyday choices that can abuse and promote human rights, gender justice, climate justice, unity and peace. Local churches’ grounding in everyday life gives them both legitimacy and motivation in the struggle for justice and peace.”

This process would carry Christians from being mere gratified charitable relief workers to ardent agents of advocacy mission to cause societal changes and assist all those who are negatively affected by oppressive institutional systems or exploitative political structures.

Such an advocacy work will not limit us in running a food pantry or providing an after-school program. It will take us to a place where we will be active and engaged and enable us to influence laws, public policy, and resource allocation within political, economic, and social systems and institutions—more importantly, structures that directly and powerfully affect the lives of the people. This advocacy mission process will move the church from “what is” as a community to coming one closer to “what ought to be,” residents of the kingdom of God.

Normalizing charity or advocacy?
There is a fundamental difference between charity and advocacy. The former is the translator of the gospel; the latter is the interpreter of the Gospel. In Sweet Charity, Janet Poppendieck writes that charity acts as “a sort of a ‘moral safety valve.’” It reduces the discomfort evoked by visible destitution in our midst by creating the illusion of effective action and offering us myriad ways of participating in it.  It creates a culture of charity that normalizes destitution and legitimates personal generosity as a response to [inequity and injustice].” Essentially, charity robs one’s identity and fosters a dependent, paternalistic, donor-donee paradigm.

Charity injures human dignity as it fosters and perpetuates inequality. Most importantly, charity does little to change the unjust social and political systems that breed and foster injustice. Unlike advocacy that stands for justice, charity offends no one, including the perpetrator. William Coffin, former pastor of Riverside Church in NY City, had aptly said, "Charity must not be allowed to go bail for justice.” Vatican II fittingly depicted, “The demands of justice must be satisfied first of all; that which is already due in justice is not to be offered as a gift of charity.”

Advocacy has been a key ingredient in migrant mission concerns both yesterday and today. It is never more important than in today’s worldwide diasporic context where the victims are impelled by forces within themselves, their families and their communities that feel so furtive, even unspeakable.

An eye on the forest and another on the tree
The ministry of advocacy is less direct. One may not find immediate emotional, spiritual or missional gratification. It is a slow process and laborious mission. It takes time to get results. At times, it may not even lead the workers to have contact with people or communities in need to see the transformative change or end result first hand. Yet it addresses the root causes of the problem and generates a lasting result which embraces all involved.

Advocacy is goal-oriented and calls for a plan and preparation to correct an unfair or harmful situation that negatively affect individuals or a community. Acts of advocacy usually challenge large institutions or unfair power structure or legislation to correct their unfair or harmful behavior. Hence advocacy employs persuasion through political or legal action which some deem and detest as un-Christian or deeply political. The truth is that this is a truly biblical act just as the prophets of old such as Elijah, Samuel, and Nathan have done.

The outcome of advocacy ministry is totally unpredictable and is riddled with trials and challenges. Unlike charity work, advocacy mission is not for novices and the ill-prepared. Not everyone can thrive in this mission and ministry. It needs specialized skills and deep commitment to remain steadfast until after everyone else leaves. Novices need not apply.

Advocacy keeps an eye on the forest while working on the trees one at a time. Hence, one needs to develop a detailed blue-print based on the knowledge of who the opponents and who the alliances are.

Charity mission work can be carried out with a smaller budget, fewer volunteers and limited donation or resources. Over the long run, charity cloys. Advocacy needs multiple partners and warrants specialized skills. The challengers of advocacy mission are well-prepared waiting in the tall grass; there is a great deal of risk involved. Many persist in advocacy work because they believe they can make a difference and together they can bring transformation.

Whether it’s ending homelessness or working to protect global-level human rights, each of us is driven by our commitment to mission and call to take a take a stand. Advocacy, I submit, affirms there is another way as it enables us to stand for what we know to be true and just.