In both cases, the goal is to help the person back to self-sufficiency. But the strategies in each case are different — often profoundly so.
Relief
The goal of relief is to meet pressing, urgent needs that are causing great hardship to a person or group. You don’t worry about things like “dependency” here; you just get in and solve the problem because people’s lives, or livelihoods, are at stake and there is very limited time. For example, right after an earthquake you don’t care about whether your help might create a “dependency” or whether you are dealing with the so-called “worthy” poor. You just get in and save lives. Time is of the essence, and people need immediate help.
Development
The focus of development is enabling and empowering the other person or group to act to solve their own problems. Here, things like the risk of dependency matter very much, because you aren’t dealing with extremely time-sensitive needs that are of such an extreme nature that the person will lose their life or experience extreme loss if the needs aren’t addressed almost immediately. You have time. If you simply give the person hand-outs, they will not develop their own capacity and become self-sufficient.
The Great Mix-Up (Which is No Longer What You May Think)
We often get these things mixed up. One of the central tenets of my thinking for the last 15 years, ever since I started learning about economics, is that we often take a relief-based approach to situations that are really issues of development. This screws everything up and hurts those that we are seeking to help.
As the importance of this truth is being recognized more and more, I am unfortunately noticing an unfortunate trend in the other direction now. People are suggesting development-based approaches in contexts that actually require a relief-based approach. This especially happens in personal situations here in the U.S. I’ve seen people withhold help to others that is essential to meeting pressing needs (Titus 3:14) out of fear that they will create dependency in the person. As a result, the person experiences great loss that, in turn, actually undercuts their ability to remain self-sufficient.
How’s that for irony? In an attempt to avoid creating “dependency” in the person, you actually undercut their ability to remain self-sufficient by failing to help with a need that is genuinely beyond their capacity, through no fault of their own.
Plain and simple, this is disrespectful. We need to have enough respect for people to realize that most people are not seeking to become moochers. When a person has a real, immediate need that is beyond their power to meet, plain and simple, just help them!
This is why we don’t see Jesus very worried about “dependency” in all the healings he did. If a person was blind, or paralyzed, or disabled in another way, Jesus didn’t say “well, hmmm….; if I help you, you might not be grateful enough, you might abuse it, and you might become dependent, no longer seeking to do things yourself.” He healed every person he came across (Matthew 4:23-25; 9:35 — note: he healed “every disease and every affliction”). People are supposed to be able to walk, they are supposed to be healthy, and they are supposed to be able to see. That’s God’s design for human beings. When people lack these things, you have a case of relief, not development, so Jesus healed every person he came across in order to re-establish them, at the very least, back to the baseline of what God intended for them.
With our sanctification, on the other hand, the Lord tends to take a development approach with us (Philippians 2:12-13). That’s why it’s so hard! The Lord is not an enabler and does not do everything for us. He is helping us grow into mature, self-governing Christians who are capable of making our own decisions. Hence, he takes us on paths that will involve us making mistakes and having to exert great effort on the path of sanctification. The result is that we grow.
But the Lord doesn’t mix up the situations calling for relief, and the situations calling for development. He takes a relief approach when necessary, and a development approach when that is appropriate. We shouldn’t mix these things up, either.
Bottom line: when a person has a need that is beyond their capacity, especially that is a result of injustice, don’t let the concern to avoid “dependency” get in the way of actually helping them. When you see a pressing need, help meet it (Luke 10:29-37; 1 John 3:17; Titus 3:14)!
No comments:
Post a Comment