Christadelphian Welfare Policy: A Critique
Capitalism And Christadelphian Welfare
Policy
We all have a tendency to overlook where
we are situated within life, and the nature of the social, economic
or family system which we are part of. It seems to me that Western Christadelphians need to give some more thought to the simple fact that they live within a capitalist
system, and to appreciate some of the features of that system within
which they live. There would appear to be a tacit assumption amongst
Western brethren that capitalism is somehow right, or at least, better
and more justifiable than socialism; that the right wing of politics
is better than the left.
In the context of seeking to conduct our
mission work from the purest of motives, we need to reflect upon the
historical progress of capitalism. As capitalism developed in the West,
there arose a need to expand markets and find sources of raw materials.
Expansion is necessary to fuel capitalism; it can’t work without growth,
without the creation of wealth, without the creation of new markets
and cheap labour. This is why Marxist critics have always predicted
that capitalism must ultimately come to an end once the whole world
has been ‘colonized’ by capitalism. And so it was in the search for
cheap raw materials and new markets that imperial colonialism began.
The Western European nations began sailing the seven seas, running up
their flags around the world.
Capitalism, however, affected the areas it invaded. They are sucked
into what Milton Santos called a “core-periphery model” (1).
This core-periphery syndrome works itself out on different levels. In
a Western country, the ‘core’ may be the owners of a factory. The ‘periphery’
are the workers who work for low pay in order to make large profits for
the owners. Capital and resources tend to agglomerate, i.e. the ‘core’
people tend to come to live in the same areas, notably big cities. They
may open a plant in a poorer or geographically isolated part of their
country. The local managers of that plant in turn become the ‘core’, living
in comfort, whilst the workers are again not given a fair share of the
wealth created. Capitalism is characterized by its cyclical nature; production
of goods and profits rise and fall over the years in cycles. In the downturn
years, it’s the periphery which suffers. The periphery plants are closed
down for a few months, often with no compensation for the workers left
with no income. When the economy picks up, the periphery is again brought
into action.
Once the Western nations started to geographically spread their influence,
the countries they arrived in became the ‘periphery’ to them. And yet
the local people with whom they forged the deepest ties became the ‘core’
in their local context. The Western nations assumed that the areas they
arrived in had no history; even today, the history of the American Indians,
or the Australian Aborigines, or the Zulu tribes, are very poorly researched.
It was assumed that Western culture would be exported there; that the
‘White man’s burden’ was the spreading of his culture into the newly invaded
areas. Eric Wolf wrote a classic study whose very title sums up his whole
thesis: Europe And The People Without History (2).
He discusses in detail the case of the American Indians, as does Immanel
Wallerstein in his study of Historical Capitalism (3).
The Western traders arrived, and showed an interest in the skins which
the Indians wore to keep warm. They exchanged trinkets and alcohol for
skins. Suddenly, skins became really important. The Indians were running
everywhere hunting and skinning animals. The Indians who learnt English
and did the deals with the visitors became the ‘core’. Then the Westerners
offered them guns for skins. The Indian who possessed a gun became in
a far stronger position to kill far more animals more quickly, and to
therefore get more skins, and get more guns, with which to kill yet more
animals. These men therefore started to employ people to skin the animals;
they started a primitive production line. And they suddenly had more power
and goods than anyone else ever had. No longer was the tribal chief the
most powerful and important person. The men with guns and skins were.
These wealthy ‘core’ people were then able to indulge themselves. They
started employing people to be their personal slaves; they amassed luxury
goods. Things which were just occasional treats in their culture became
things which the ‘core’ people regularly enjoyed. Money was introduced.
Everything became commodofied; things which had had no special meaning
in the past, like skins, suddenly took on new meaning as a commodity.
The meaningless trinkets bought from the Western visitors took on special
value.
The same process repeated itself throughout the world, especially in
Africa and Asia. Railways and transport networks were developed- not for
the benefit of the local country, but in order to develop the links between
core and periphery. Christianity was brought to these areas along with
the economic exploitation. Nobody doubts the sincerity of the missionaries
themselves; but there is no doubt that consciously or unconsciously, capitalism
found the spread of Christianity convenient. It got the local people on
their side; they could use the need to protext missionaries as a pretext
for military presence; and it tied the local people into Western culture.
David Livingstone was a medical missionary originally sent to Africa by
the London Missionary Society, “but he later returned under government
auspices as an explorer "to open a path for commerce and Christianity"”.
The French likewise used missionaries in Algeria and Tunisia as an excuse
to “set up a religious protectorate that preceded the political protectorate.
Gambetta said of [the missionary] Lavigerie, ''His presence in Tunisia
is worth an army for France"”(4).
Over time, the colonies were given independence.
But there was a politics to that independence. It wasn’t true care for
the value of freedom or independence which led Britain and France to encourage their colonies to become independent.
They wanted to retain them as their economic colonies, without the need
to support their poverty- the poverty which they had created. And it’s
the same with the expansion of the E.U. into the poorer areas of Central
and Eastern Europe. Cheap labour and easy markets are clearly the motive
for dragging these new areas into the periphery of Western capitalism;
for the core will remain in the Western countries.
Against this background, we must consider
the simple fact that Christadelphians have been amongst those who went
out from the West to ‘convert’ Africa; and in more recent times, have set out
from England to ‘convert’ Eastern Europe, at the very time when that area is being
tied in to the capitalist core-periphery model. The question we must
ask in the context of mission work is simply ‘To what degree are Western
Christadelphians caught up in the attitudes and assumption of the Capitalist
system to which they belong?’. When they enter
e.g. Lithuania, or when they entered Kenya 30 years ago, are they bringing with them
even unconsciously the Capitalist Western attitudes, assumptions and
motivations which other Western missionaries have brought with them?
It would appear that the interaction between
Western Christadelphians and those in what they call ‘the mission
field’ does have elements of the core-periphery model about it. For
example, English is seen as the ‘core’ language; the local ‘core’ members
in the periphery are characterized by good English skills, email access
etc. Often they are bought computers and mobile phones or have internet
access paid for, by the Western brethren. Is this in essence any different
to the colonial powers building railway and transport networks in the
‘peripheries’ which they invaded? One doesn’t doubt the genuine motivations
behind it all, and yet there is an uncanny similarity. The result often
is that a core-periphery scenario is re-enacted in some newly preached
in country, and the local ‘core’ in the new country end up with AV Bibles
marked up in the very same way as one might encounter in Adelaide, Australia;
even learn how to pray using ‘Thee’ and ‘Thou’; and end up bonding with
other similar local ‘core’ members. They learn to sing the English language
hymns, in a way which is comforting and reassuring to the Western visitors
(the singing of local hymns in another language by the ‘periphery’ is
found often to be rather disturbing by the Westerners). The Christadelphian
orthodoxy of the ‘core’ members is then presented in the West as an
example of the success and high standards of ‘the Mission’, with many appeals to patiently wait for
the local ‘periphery’ members to ‘get there’. But unity is not the same
as uniformity; such examples are rather an admission of spiritual colonialism,
rather than giving individuals the freedom which is in Christ, and which
the cross opened up for every man and woman to whom we share the Gospel.
Power And Control
Power and control are what capitalism is
all about. And one cannot easily dismiss the possibility that the same
factors have crept into Christadelphian mission politics. If the Lord
Jesus is our head, all concept of core-periphery vanishes. His greatness,
the magnitude and extent of the Lordship which He exercises over us,
should mean that we look to nobody else as our head or ‘core’. All resources
are His- not ours to manipulate. The teaching of the Lord Jesus
places a huge value upon the value and meaning of the individual, with
absolutely no distinctions made in terms of race or social / economic
position. The very talk about ‘the mission field’ can smack of core-periphery.
The ‘core’ is the Anglo-Saxon Christadelphian heartlands of North America, the UK and Australasia. The ‘periphery’ is the ecclesial worlds
of Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe etc. Although there are now more non-Anglo
Saxon Christadelphians than Anglo-Saxon ones, the core-periphery model
seems to be in place in some ways. Ecclesias in the periphery are not
accorded the respect nor autonomy of those
in the core. It has not been unheard of for a ‘core’ ecclesia to disfellowship
a member of a ‘periphery’ ecclesia; and the CBM position is that they
decide the validity of baptisms performed in many ‘periphery’ areas,
not recognizing the baptisms performed by local members there unless
they have their approval. Welfare funding is made conditional upon being
a ‘CBM ecclesia’; whereas those who are simply, e.g., Jamaican ecclesiasa
but not CBM ecclesias, are not granted that welfare support.
The dynamic in all our relationships must
be the love of Christ. That alone must constrain us. We are under the
constraint of all the principles which arise from seeing and knowing
His person. Nikita Khrushchev pointed out many years ago that capitalism
was by its nature unprincipled. It just went on growing. He saw a difference
between what he called the principled world and the unprincipled world;
and he feared the inevitable encroachment of the unprincipled upon the
principled. He perceived that there was no care for individual people
in unprincipled capitalism. It was survival of the fittest, a social
form of Darwinism. Those with wealth and initiative and opportunities
developed. Government intervention was only necessary in cases of acts
of God like earthquakes, or in order to enable the working classes to
do their jobs. We need to reflect upon Khrushchev’s warnings and observations.
For care for the individual must be paramount. It matters not what ecclesia or
fellowship our brother belongs to; he is our brother, or she is our
sister. Their needs are our needs. All our giving out in welfare or
time or worry or support must be fashioned after the love and grace
of our Lord to us. It is given out not to be controlling, without conditions-
because it is grace. This was the Lord’s point when He spoke of how
in the world, those who are benefactors are those who exercise authority-
but it is not to be so amongst us, He warned. In other words, our giving
is not to be in order to get any power over anyone.
Culture
There is a cultural arrogance about the West,
an assumption that their way, their literature, their language, their
economic principle, simply has to be better than that of the ‘periphery’.
This is unconsciously assumed, even in Christadelphian mission programmes.
Economic or technological superiority is confused with cultural supertiority.
If a Western brother shows his love for his Lord by wearing a tie to
the memorial meeting or by pronouncing the Name ‘Yahweh’, he has no
right to assume that his cultural perspective is automatically superior
to that of a brother in, e.g., Central Africa who has a different culture. There are worrying signs
that the Western desire to recreate the rest of the world in their own
image has spread in some ways into our approach to mission work. Hymns
are to be sung from the English Christadelphian hymnbook, or at best
to be translated from English into a local language; the ‘converts’
are encouraged to learn English, an ecclesia in the middle of the South
American jungle or the ice fields of northern Russia is expected to
have the Birmingham, England ‘Statement of faith’ as the basis of their
constitution, etc. It would be unheard of for the periphery to influence
the core. The Western brotherhood [even though they are numerically
smaller than the non-Western brotherhood] would likely feel insulted
if they were asked to adopt, e.g., the Karachi Statement of Faith, or
the Moscow Amended Statement of Faith. And yet in Christ, we learn from
each other. The exhorter comes back exhorted. We are built up by that
which every other member of the body supplies. No part of the body can
think that they somehow are the source of power and vitality; for the
Head is the Lord Jesus. True leadership is in servanthood, and respect
or superiority is never demanded nor assumed- it is always loving given
by the undemanded respect of others.
The West has always been fascinated with non-Western
cultures, but they only see what they want to see- e.g. African or Arabic
art, literature or cooking is depicted in mission publicity meetings
as exotic, quaint, etc. Yet it’s just as valid as anyone else’s culture.
Christadelphians in the ‘periphery’ often complain of being treated
as animals in a zoo, stared at and photographed by fascinated Western Christadelphian visitors.
Europe perceived that the rest of the world was without history,
without culture, and needed to be graced by their presence. And this
attitude can rub off on Western
Christadelphian preachers.
“When President William McKinley told a delegation of church leaders
that God had counseled him to annex the Philippines and "to educate
the Filipinos, and uplift and civilize and Christianize them," few
Americans knew that the Philippines had an educational system older than
that of the United States and that the majority of Filipinos were Catholic”
(5). There is an assumption that ‘they’
must be helped by ‘us’, because ‘they’ have absolutely nothing of intrinsic
value or ability- rather than dealing with each other as equals in Christ.
The whole concept of equality in Christ turns the capitalist model on
its head.
The local ‘core’ brethren in the ‘periphery’ of the ‘mission
field’ often end up adopting the Christadelphian culture of the West,
rather than allowing e.g. Chinese Christadelphians to be Chinese Christadelphians.
One hears local brethren even speaking of themselves as being in ‘the
mission field’, or even as ‘overseas brethren’. But the very concept
of a mission field, or being ‘overseas’, is all relative; ‘overseas’
from where? Over which seas? Indeed, one CBM welfare presentation features
an African brother warning his white brethren that ‘We blacks are always
liable to be dishonest with money’. He had been abused by generations
of economic and spiritual imperialism, of which Christadelphia had sadly
been a part, to perceive his own people as the White West perceived
them.
Politics
Exporting Western Christadelphian division
into the mission field is a grave sin. Acts 6:1-6 makes the point that
aid to the poor widows was cut off or impaired, because the other believers
were arguing amongst themselves. It would appear that the Hebrew Christians
went to the temple daily (Acts 2:46), whereas
the Greek widows wouldn't have done (Acts 7:48,49). So the common theological disagreement about how far
the Jewish Law should influence Christian life- resulted in old and
needy ladies in the ecclesia suffering.
Welfare
The giving of welfare can be used as merely
another link in the core-periphery model. True grace, or ‘giving’ as
charis means, gives a genuine freedom of choice to the person
helped. Such grace empowers. Giving, true, grace-inspired giving, is never a means of control. God’s grace of giving
His Son, and the “all things” which are in Him, is pure grace. Pure
grace does not expect results, response, adulation etc. Those who grasp
it do of course respond; response is inevitable, all because grace by
its very nature doesn’t expect this response. In the giving of welfare,
those who are in a position to do so are to reflect the grace / giving
of God; and His grace is never given in a controlling sense. Grace by
its very nature is not controlling. Grace is sensitive to needs. No
impoverished brother or sister should have to come cap in hand, Oliver
Twist-style, asking for help. Help and support are given as part of
a whole relationship. Never should it be emphasized that ‘We have the
money, you have the need’- for this is the stuff of control and core-periphery.
If Western brethren are perceived solely as the source of welfare, then
something of the ‘Cargo Cult’ will develop as it did in New Guinea 100 years ago. Missionary planes landed
on the island and gave the people beads, food, goods etc. as aid- and
then the planes flew off again. The local people worshipped the planes
as God. The missionaries were playing God, unconsciously of course.
No relationships were built. But the locals became loyal members of
their church. This isn’t what we want to see happening.
The view that the world should be left to
go its way to its destruction, whilst the believers concentrate on their
own acceptability before God, effectively leads to a laissez-faire
approach to society- which is exactly Capitalism’s view. Let the
economy develop, intervene with social welfare if there are ‘acts of
God’ such as floods or disaster, but let society care for itself, believing
that capital will always trickle down to help the poor. And, therefore
and thereby, the poor are poor because they are basically lazy. Welfare
policy of the Bible missions appears to be similar- intervene in disasters,
but little else. It may be shocking to think that Christadelphians are
in fact so ‘political’ as to be passive supporters of Capitalism in
this way, when we pride ourselves on being so apolitical. But it doesn’t
take much to figure out that if Christadelphians were to vote,
the majority would vote for right-wing, Conservative parties who consciously
enshrine the principles of Capitalism.
I have heard very many talks, exhortations,
sermons etc. from our community which use a piece of business training
or ideology in order to make a spiritual point. The message is that
we can, e.g., serve the Lord more effectively and efficiently if we…
develop good management practice and the like. There is little wrong
with this in itself (although I would prefer all exhortation to be directly
Jesus-based); but what this reflects is a tacit acceptance of overt
capitalism. Here we see the tensions within much Christian mission work.
On the one hand, the message is that we should not trust in ourselves,
in human strength, but only in that strength which comes from the Lord.
And yet on the other hand, there is a laissez-faire attitude
to capitalism, and a tacit support of it, when this philosophy is all
about human strength and trusting in the power of money for security.
There has been the strong message in previous
decades that God is somehow especially with America and the Anglo-Saxon world, and somehow He
is espcially against the Russian and Arabic speaking world. Can it be
coincidental that these very areas were the two sections of the globe
that the West failed to fully colonialize, never succeeding in drawing
them into the periphery where the West was the core. The African, Asian
and South American sectors of the global economy are generally treated
with some kind of paternalistic pity by mission organizations; and these
are the very areas that were well and truly sucked into the core-periphery
model of capitalist expansion. Yet the Russian and Arabic speaking worlds
have undoubtedly been treated by our community especially with more
suspicion and negativity. Controversies over whether or not the converts
there were valid broke out, whereas this didn’t happen very much in
the other areas. Far more cynicism has been expressed by us over meeting
welfare needs there; and there has even been the comment that the Arabs
shouldn’t be helped but Jews should be. The existence of paradoxes of
this magnitude can only be debilitating to any mission organization;
they can only sow the seeds of confusion and disharmony within the lives
and thinking of those whom it converts.
In capitalism, there has been what Wallerstein
called ‘the commidification of everything’. In spiritual terms, we could
better talk about the objectification of everything and everyone. The
value and wonder of the individual human person, so stressed by the
Lord Jesus, is lost. Relationships are utilitarian, and can be severed
even after 30 years. Relationships are a means towards an end, rather
than being enjoyed for what they are in themselves- the natural bonding
of men and women in Christ. Standard Christadelphian mission work has
a very sad history of argument, dispute, betrayal and broken relationships-
along with a poor track record of caring for the needy individual.
Could this not be because of the ‘objectification of everything’? Of
course, none of this has been consciously done. It has all been an unconscious,
tacit result of not firmly establishing spiritual principles first,
and insisting on working according to them rather than according
to political expedient.
Towards A Holistic Welfare Policy
This study has mainly sounded only caveats.
More positively, building on these points, we would like to present
the conclusion of a study by Sister Ruth Stibbs (Brisbane, Australia):
“From a social welfare point of view, welfare means people
feeling connected to others, of being part of a group, of not being
alone in the world. But from the spiritual welfare aspect which we are
promoting, I would rather call this 'True Fellowship', despite the somewhat
legalistic context in which it is understood these days in Christadelphia.
True Biblical fellowship provides the most loving, supported interconnectedness
with others and is really what we are getting at:
Notes
(1) Milton Santos, The Divided
Space (Rio: Alves, 1978).
(2) Eric Wolf, Europe And The
People Without History (University of California Press, 1982).
(3) Immanel Wallerstein, Historical
Capitalism (Verso, 1996).
(4) Quotes from David Thomson, Europe
Since Napoleon (Knopf, 1966).
(5) Helen Toribio, Abe Ignacio and
Jorge Emmanuel, Malevolent Assimilation [quote provided by John
Stibbs].