Toward a Missional Economy, Part 5
This is part 5 in a 6 part series on moving churches toward a missional economic practice. You can check out the previous posts by clicking: Part 1: Manna in the Desert, Part 2: Manna in the Postmodern Desert, Part 3: From Wealth Building to Gift Giving, and Part 4: From Scarcity to Abundance.
From Altruism to Reciprocity
The third, and perhaps most difficult, shift is the move away from altruism and toward reciprocity. It has becomes clear in recent years that charity often exacerbates poverty by creating a one-directional patron/client relationship between those who give and those who receive. When we treat those with little money and material possessions as though they have nothing, we exclude them from their human vocation of work (i.e. “gathering” in Ex 16) and thereby debilitate their role in the community. Even worse, we create relationships of co-dependence that merely serve to perpetuate the modern hierarchies of power and control. In altruism, the patron remains powerful and the client remains weak. With altruism the implicit goal is not equality, it is relief.
By contrast, what we see in Exodus 16 is a dynamic community of reciprocity where today’s givers may be tomorrow’s receivers. Again, the goal isn’t wealth building, or even the (laudable) relief of suffering, but rather, equality. Yet even deeper than material equality, this economy creates relational equality. In his book Walking With the Poor, Bryant Myers rightly identifies the deeply interpersonal roots of poverty, stating,
“Poverty is a result of relationships that do not work, that are not just, that are not for life, that are not harmonious or enjoyable.”
Therefore, even though altruism relieves much suffering, joining God’s economic mission means abandoning the paradigm of charity and pursuing the higher, biblical vision of equality.
At Twoshirts.org we’ve made this shift by insisting that everybody has something to give. It may be something small, or even something intangible like knowledge, skills, or simply friendship – either way, everyone can contribute and everyone’s contributions are equally reckoned. This rule promotes dignity, responsibility, and inclusion for everyone, especially those normally thought of as poor because gifts transcend their physical form – they are a commerce of kinship. When we give and receive gifts, new relationships are formed, old relationships are strengthened, and broken relationships are healed. The autonomous self dissolves. Again, Marcel Mauss eloquently observes,
“This [gift-giving] represents an intermingling. Souls are mixed with things; things with souls. Lives are mingled together, and this is how, among persons and things so intermingled, each emerges from their own sphere and mixes together.”
That is exactly the kind of economy needed by the poor the rich the world.
Last year a woman named Kelly and her husband moved to Columbus, OH. They were new in town and in a tough spot; they had medically fragile twin babies and no family or friends to rely on. So one day on Twoshirts.org she posted a “need” for a “surrogate grandmother.” Donna, a complete stranger to Kelly, saw the listing and felt strangely compelled to respond. Today Donna is more than a babysitter; she’s become a true grandmother to the girls and a kind of mother-figure to Kelly as well (click here to read the full story). This was no one-way donation or cold transaction. Together they’ve demonstrated that human needs are best met by human relationships.
Questions:
1. Why do you think I said this might be the most difficult paradigm shift? Do you agree?
2. Do you find the notion of equality (as I’ve defined it) troubling in any way? If so how? If not, why not?
