More of Chapter three, this time section two, where my theologians engage with the more practical texts. Whether it is really possible for Gutierrez' sweeping theological treatise aimed at Latin American Catholics to speak to Lupton's practical mission advice aimed at North American Evangelicals is questionable, but I've given it a try.
While Gutierrez agrees with Robert Lupton’s (Toxic Charity) critique of charity in the form of handouts from people with plenty to individuals with less, much of Gutierrez’ critique of our economic and political systems is a direct critique of Lupton’s proposed solutions to the challenge of charity. Both authors insist that solutions to poverty must arise from the people who live in poverty, and that it is disempowering to be given things based on what people who have plenty believe you should be given. Both are arguing for moving the power for change from those who have plenty to those who have little. But that apparent agreement hides substantial differences that are foundational to their theories and proposed practices.
For Lupton modern US poverty has been caused in part by the welfare state. “[T]he welfare system has fostered generations of dependency and has severely eroded the work ethic” (Lupton 121). The challenge of “dependency” is, for Lupton, the primary challenge. He shares a moving story of Janice, a single mother who Ann chooses to support financially, which ends with Ann learning that Janice is more interested in conning people like Ann than in finding work (Lupton 60). His analysis implies that Ann’s support, like government support such as welfare, is actually causing Janice’s unemployment—it is easier for Janice to get handouts than to work. As such, Lupton argues that ethical charity must not include direct support, but instead should be based in community development and job training.
Gutierrez disputes the value of community development in particular, noting that the term almost always really means only economic development—as shown in Lupton’s example where it is presumed that Janice’s real problem is that she won’t work. Gutierrez argues that economic, social, political, and cultural development cannot be separated from each other (Gutierrez Liberation 15). I imagine Gutierrez asking Lupton why it is that our culture expects mothers to be separated from their children in order to do paid work? Why are we lacking social support systems to care for our children? What are the political systems we have created that make it so hard to find work and to find child-care and to find affordable housing? Why is Ann so frustrated to find that Janice is not just like her?
Indeed, development theories pre-suppose that the solution to poverty is that those who are poor should take on the cultural practices of those that have more; essentially people who have plenty are more culturally advanced than people who have little (Gutierrez Liberation 50). When we feel we can see so clearly what another person should do to improve their life, and yet we have not gotten to know that person as neighbor and a friend, any ideas we have are based in our own cultural identity, own life experiences, our own world view. Whether intentional or not, we are presuming that our strategies are better than the strategies of the person we are aiming to help.
If we start instead with the person in need, trusting that they are worthwhile to be known, and that they have within them the next steps for their challenges, we are engaging in more than economic development—we are engaging in human development, we are making room for individuals to control their own future (Gutierrez Liberation 16). Gutierrez suggests development theory works when it takes “into account the situation of dependence and the possibility of becoming free from it” (Gutierrez Liberation 54). Freedom from dependence is liberation; the ability to be in full control of our own lives. Liberation begins with economic, social, and political independence, but is much more, it is a process self-growth, it grows out of an individual’s own values, and out of their own life story. That is, liberation is something that people with less things do for themselves, from their own growing awareness of themselves and of the culture they are enmeshed in (Gutierrez Liberation 57).
As a church, then, to engage in a theology of liberation is to engage in helping people to know themselves, to know their own values, strengths, and weaknesses, to begin to see themselves as children of God. Interestingly, that is the same work that the church might be doing with people who have plenty! But people without things, and people who are oppressed have additional weight blocking their self-awareness. Gutierrez suggest that the work of the church is
To “make the oppressed become aware that they are human beings” (Gutierrez Liberation 154) or even better help them to become agents of their own humanity (Gutierrez Liberation 155). He wants the poor to see the systems that have been created to trap them, and trusts that when they see those systems they will develop for themselves the right tools to fight the systemic oppression around them.
What Lupton fails to see is the systems that oppress people in poverty. Gutierrez is quite blunt in suggesting that poverty in the third world is actually a by-product of the same behaviors that created wealth in the United States and elsewhere (Gutierrez Liberation 51). I believe the same dynamic is at work in US poverty where we have created a system where a full time job is not sufficient to support a family and support systems for moving out of poverty are not prioritized. With Lupton, our social and cultural forces blame the poor are blamed for their inability to get ahead. Gutierrez is speaking out against the moral critique implied in the language Lupton uses around dependence.
To develop a theory of dependence, Lupton looks at individual actions. Gutierrez would say that Lupton’s focus on individual behaviors is where his mistake begins. “To be poor is something much vaster and more complete than simply belonging to a specific social group (social class, culture, ethnos)” (Gutierrez Wells 101). The lasting solutions to poverty are not primarily about helping individuals to overcome individual barriers, but rather for the systemic barriers to be removed. We don’t try to identify individuals, but systems, and in the same way, it is not individuals who do this work but the entire church (Gutierrez Wells 101). The Church is converted to a new way of engaging poverty, rather than the dependent poor person being converted to a new way of wealth.
Working with people who have plenty and people who have little, the Church works for Liberation. Liberation for Gutierrez is not, in fact a question of having wealth, or not. Liberation is a community value, where the people in the community work together, play together, indeed, they pray together to create an environment where each person can live up to their full-potential, with enough food, enough work, enough self-agency to be the people of God together. Outsiders do not develop people to this potential, but rather are in solidarity as the community breaks from the status quo that is holding them back (Gutierrez Liberation 59).
Gutierrez, Gustavo, We Drink from Our Own Wells The Spiritual Journey of a People, Maryknoll NY: Orbis: 2003. Matthew J. O’Connell, Trans. 20th Anniversary Edition.
Gutierrez, Gustavo, A Theology of Liberation, History, Politics, and Salvation, Maryknoll NY: Orbis: 1988. Sr. Caridad Inda and John Eagleson, Trans. 15th Anniversary Edition.
Lupton, Robert D. Toxic Charity: How Churches and Charity Hurt Those They Help (And How to Reverse It) HarperOne 2011 Kindle Edition.
While Gutierrez agrees with Robert Lupton’s (Toxic Charity) critique of charity in the form of handouts from people with plenty to individuals with less, much of Gutierrez’ critique of our economic and political systems is a direct critique of Lupton’s proposed solutions to the challenge of charity. Both authors insist that solutions to poverty must arise from the people who live in poverty, and that it is disempowering to be given things based on what people who have plenty believe you should be given. Both are arguing for moving the power for change from those who have plenty to those who have little. But that apparent agreement hides substantial differences that are foundational to their theories and proposed practices.
For Lupton modern US poverty has been caused in part by the welfare state. “[T]he welfare system has fostered generations of dependency and has severely eroded the work ethic” (Lupton 121). The challenge of “dependency” is, for Lupton, the primary challenge. He shares a moving story of Janice, a single mother who Ann chooses to support financially, which ends with Ann learning that Janice is more interested in conning people like Ann than in finding work (Lupton 60). His analysis implies that Ann’s support, like government support such as welfare, is actually causing Janice’s unemployment—it is easier for Janice to get handouts than to work. As such, Lupton argues that ethical charity must not include direct support, but instead should be based in community development and job training.
Gutierrez disputes the value of community development in particular, noting that the term almost always really means only economic development—as shown in Lupton’s example where it is presumed that Janice’s real problem is that she won’t work. Gutierrez argues that economic, social, political, and cultural development cannot be separated from each other (Gutierrez Liberation 15). I imagine Gutierrez asking Lupton why it is that our culture expects mothers to be separated from their children in order to do paid work? Why are we lacking social support systems to care for our children? What are the political systems we have created that make it so hard to find work and to find child-care and to find affordable housing? Why is Ann so frustrated to find that Janice is not just like her?
Indeed, development theories pre-suppose that the solution to poverty is that those who are poor should take on the cultural practices of those that have more; essentially people who have plenty are more culturally advanced than people who have little (Gutierrez Liberation 50). When we feel we can see so clearly what another person should do to improve their life, and yet we have not gotten to know that person as neighbor and a friend, any ideas we have are based in our own cultural identity, own life experiences, our own world view. Whether intentional or not, we are presuming that our strategies are better than the strategies of the person we are aiming to help.
If we start instead with the person in need, trusting that they are worthwhile to be known, and that they have within them the next steps for their challenges, we are engaging in more than economic development—we are engaging in human development, we are making room for individuals to control their own future (Gutierrez Liberation 16). Gutierrez suggests development theory works when it takes “into account the situation of dependence and the possibility of becoming free from it” (Gutierrez Liberation 54). Freedom from dependence is liberation; the ability to be in full control of our own lives. Liberation begins with economic, social, and political independence, but is much more, it is a process self-growth, it grows out of an individual’s own values, and out of their own life story. That is, liberation is something that people with less things do for themselves, from their own growing awareness of themselves and of the culture they are enmeshed in (Gutierrez Liberation 57).
As a church, then, to engage in a theology of liberation is to engage in helping people to know themselves, to know their own values, strengths, and weaknesses, to begin to see themselves as children of God. Interestingly, that is the same work that the church might be doing with people who have plenty! But people without things, and people who are oppressed have additional weight blocking their self-awareness. Gutierrez suggest that the work of the church is
To “make the oppressed become aware that they are human beings” (Gutierrez Liberation 154) or even better help them to become agents of their own humanity (Gutierrez Liberation 155). He wants the poor to see the systems that have been created to trap them, and trusts that when they see those systems they will develop for themselves the right tools to fight the systemic oppression around them.
What Lupton fails to see is the systems that oppress people in poverty. Gutierrez is quite blunt in suggesting that poverty in the third world is actually a by-product of the same behaviors that created wealth in the United States and elsewhere (Gutierrez Liberation 51). I believe the same dynamic is at work in US poverty where we have created a system where a full time job is not sufficient to support a family and support systems for moving out of poverty are not prioritized. With Lupton, our social and cultural forces blame the poor are blamed for their inability to get ahead. Gutierrez is speaking out against the moral critique implied in the language Lupton uses around dependence.
To develop a theory of dependence, Lupton looks at individual actions. Gutierrez would say that Lupton’s focus on individual behaviors is where his mistake begins. “To be poor is something much vaster and more complete than simply belonging to a specific social group (social class, culture, ethnos)” (Gutierrez Wells 101). The lasting solutions to poverty are not primarily about helping individuals to overcome individual barriers, but rather for the systemic barriers to be removed. We don’t try to identify individuals, but systems, and in the same way, it is not individuals who do this work but the entire church (Gutierrez Wells 101). The Church is converted to a new way of engaging poverty, rather than the dependent poor person being converted to a new way of wealth.
Working with people who have plenty and people who have little, the Church works for Liberation. Liberation for Gutierrez is not, in fact a question of having wealth, or not. Liberation is a community value, where the people in the community work together, play together, indeed, they pray together to create an environment where each person can live up to their full-potential, with enough food, enough work, enough self-agency to be the people of God together. Outsiders do not develop people to this potential, but rather are in solidarity as the community breaks from the status quo that is holding them back (Gutierrez Liberation 59).
Gutierrez, Gustavo, We Drink from Our Own Wells The Spiritual Journey of a People, Maryknoll NY: Orbis: 2003. Matthew J. O’Connell, Trans. 20th Anniversary Edition.
Gutierrez, Gustavo, A Theology of Liberation, History, Politics, and Salvation, Maryknoll NY: Orbis: 1988. Sr. Caridad Inda and John Eagleson, Trans. 15th Anniversary Edition.
Lupton, Robert D. Toxic Charity: How Churches and Charity Hurt Those They Help (And How to Reverse It) HarperOne 2011 Kindle Edition.
RSS Feed
