The Terrible Flaw in a Lifeboat View of Poverty
The Terrible Flaw in a Lifeboat View of Poverty
"But he said to them, 'You give them something to eat.'"
Luke 9:13, ESV
Introduction
A political hot button was punched in recent days that intersected a perennial moral concern: poverty. The United States "Agency for International Development" (USAID), an independent federal government agency within the executive branch, became the focus of the new administration's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which has been tasked with eliminating government waste of tax dollars. USAID was established by Congress and signed into law in 1961 by an executive order of President Kennedy. Humanitarian needs like food and nutrition, health, and education are a significant part of the agency's mission with $15.6 billion, or 21.7% of its total disbursements, dedicated to global disaster relief and other humanitarian aid. Such charity has long been considered a key national goal. Nevertheless, the agency's funds for foreign aid and development were recently frozen by executive action, which has created a tremendous stir of uncertainty and upset both here at home and across the globe.
An underlying moral crosscurrent factors into the economic reasons that have been given for shuttering the agency's mission. A longstanding concern has been growing about the return on billions of aid dollars expended across the globe. Government officials and ordinary citizens want to know what ultimate good this six decades of expenditures has accomplished. The nature of the question suggests a "give-to-get" view of humanitarian aid, which I will examine below (cf. quid pro quo; cf. Carnegie endowment's term, "transactional nihilism"). Opponents of such foreign aid also question why the US is helping the impoverished world when citizens have so much need here at home. These are ethical questions because they express concerns about our national goals (that which is good) and obligations (that which is right) and our duty ought to be.
My reason for calling attention to this issue ultimately rests on a Christian moral principle of charitable care for the poor and not politics. The topic of poverty is timely because I have heard similar questions asked about aiding the poor overseas in church finance committee and business meetings throughout the years, and of late in conversations with friends and family. Christian readers do well to examine the moral concern of poverty at the deeper level of principles and core values (Leviticus 19:17; Proverbs 14:31; Matthew 5:42; esp. 25:35-36; Luke 3:11; 12:33; James 1:27). First, we must know to what we refer when we use the term "poverty."
An underlying moral crosscurrent factors into the economic reasons that have been given for shuttering the agency's mission. A longstanding concern has been growing about the return on billions of aid dollars expended across the globe. Government officials and ordinary citizens want to know what ultimate good this six decades of expenditures has accomplished. The nature of the question suggests a "give-to-get" view of humanitarian aid, which I will examine below (cf. quid pro quo; cf. Carnegie endowment's term, "transactional nihilism"). Opponents of such foreign aid also question why the US is helping the impoverished world when citizens have so much need here at home. These are ethical questions because they express concerns about our national goals (that which is good) and obligations (that which is right) and our duty ought to be.
My reason for calling attention to this issue ultimately rests on a Christian moral principle of charitable care for the poor and not politics. The topic of poverty is timely because I have heard similar questions asked about aiding the poor overseas in church finance committee and business meetings throughout the years, and of late in conversations with friends and family. Christian readers do well to examine the moral concern of poverty at the deeper level of principles and core values (Leviticus 19:17; Proverbs 14:31; Matthew 5:42; esp. 25:35-36; Luke 3:11; 12:33; James 1:27). First, we must know to what we refer when we use the term "poverty."
What is Poverty?
"Poverty is the human condition of being unable to obtain or provide a standard level of food, water and/or shelter for you or your family." This circumstance has existed from ancient civilizations to the present, and in every country, with varying degrees. Even America, considered to be the wealthiest nation in the world, has 37.9 million residents who live in poverty. Globally, roughly 3.9 billion people live in poverty with 700 million living in extreme conditions; that is, surviving on an income less than $2.15 per day (World Bank).
Many of us are familiar with the main kinds of poverty in our practical experience, even if we are unfamiliar with the formal terms. Absolute (extreme) poverty is "when people lack basic necessities like food, water, and sanitation." Relative poverty is "when people have a standard of living below the average for their society." Situational poverty represents a short-term period of financial difficulty, caused by specific events like job loss, illness, conflict, or natural disasters." The Baptist Center for Global Concerns' (The Center) Mary's Table® ministry uses demographic analyses that include all three of these types of poverty.
Poverty may also be sub-categorized as geographical, which includes urban and rural types. Urban poverty is tied to living in an urban area and "refers to the condition of people who lack the resources to secure the minimum necessities of life, including food, clothing and shelter." Rural poverty relates to the poor who live in rural areas. The latter is often caused by "a lack of access to essential services and opportunities, such as education, healthcare, and employment.
Poverty can also be sub-categorized in sociological terms. Generational poverty, for example, occurs when individuals and families in this group are included in the main categories. It represents countless families that have been impoverished for two or more generations. The common denominator is a lack of "education, job stability, and land ownership." The Center also takes into consideration these sub-categories when assessing the effectiveness of our Mary's Table® efforts.
Many of us are familiar with the main kinds of poverty in our practical experience, even if we are unfamiliar with the formal terms. Absolute (extreme) poverty is "when people lack basic necessities like food, water, and sanitation." Relative poverty is "when people have a standard of living below the average for their society." Situational poverty represents a short-term period of financial difficulty, caused by specific events like job loss, illness, conflict, or natural disasters." The Baptist Center for Global Concerns' (The Center) Mary's Table® ministry uses demographic analyses that include all three of these types of poverty.
Poverty may also be sub-categorized as geographical, which includes urban and rural types. Urban poverty is tied to living in an urban area and "refers to the condition of people who lack the resources to secure the minimum necessities of life, including food, clothing and shelter." Rural poverty relates to the poor who live in rural areas. The latter is often caused by "a lack of access to essential services and opportunities, such as education, healthcare, and employment.
Poverty can also be sub-categorized in sociological terms. Generational poverty, for example, occurs when individuals and families in this group are included in the main categories. It represents countless families that have been impoverished for two or more generations. The common denominator is a lack of "education, job stability, and land ownership." The Center also takes into consideration these sub-categories when assessing the effectiveness of our Mary's Table® efforts.
Flaws in moral reasoning about poverty
Here is a reminder: facts about terminology do not feed people. There are moral considerations related to poverty that intersect human rights (right to food, healthcare, and shelter), justice (fair distribution of the world's resources), sanctity of life, and dignity. What follows are several common examples of flawed reasoning that draw upon these core principles and hinder efforts to mitigate poverty.
"Eat all your broccoli" reasoning. Countless children in my generation were urged by their parents to eat all their broccoli, with the added motivation that there were millions of hungry children in other parts of the world! Indeed, children in all cultures and on all continents suffer because of poverty. Nevertheless, aside from being a poor nutritional motivator, the underlying principle was poorly expressed and did little to motivate a desire to ease the burden of world hunger. Such reasoning clouds the issue of a human right to food and clean water and a person's responsibility to assist others with such needs. The goal was to teach children gratitude for what they received. This key life lesson is best conveyed, however, when we remove guilt as a persuader (Psalm 65:11; 1 Thessalonians 5:17; Philippians 4:19).
I recall watching many television commercials as an adult that I term "eat your broccoli" advertisements because they presented pictures of malnourished children to motivate donations. Gratitude, not guilt, should lead us to express our thanks for God's daily provision, to strive not to waste it, and to joyfully share with others (see 2 Corinthians 9:6-8, "not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver"; Matthew 5:42; 6:11; 6:25-26, 31-32; Luke 18:22; John 6:12-13).
Human misunderstanding and flawed decisions. Our grandparents, and even our parents, often believed there were not enough resources, which included technology and organization, to address global poverty (Hulme, Should Rich Nations Help the Poor?, 2). This lingering flawed belief still contributes to the problem. Truly, our global agricultural systems produce enough food to feed everyone on the planet. (Hulme, 2). Droughts and other natural disasters do impact poverty, but there are other human reasons that lead to this social harm. Wars, low wages, lack of access to helpful agricultural technologies, indebtedness to moneylenders, oppressive corporate business practices, poor quality public services, and policy decisions that governments choose and put into action or fail to implement are just a few (Hulme, 3). These human contributors to poverty may be corrected.
The use of "Lifeboat Ethics." The principal argument, then, being used by some wealthy Westerners, is that aid programs are inefficient, the return on investment is limited or nonexistent, and that money is being wasted. This argument is called, "Lifeboat Ethics," which was conceived in 1974 and applied to ecological and biological moral concerns (e.g. food production and population growth). USAID may be said to have become the first major casualty of this type of flawed line of reasoning. Here is how this thinking unfolds.
Suppose, theoretically, there is one lifeboat afloat (rich nations) that holds fifty people. It can take safely onboard another ten people before it becomes swamped. The problem is that there are a hundred more people swimming in the water (poor nations) who want to reach safety. The reasoning used to support only saving those in the boat is that there is only so much room (i.e. limited resources for distribution). The author of the lifeboat metaphor reasons against the Christian ideal of being "our brother's keeper." He concludes that this approach would allow for the swimmers to enter the boat, which would then become swamped and sink! He concludes with "Complete justice, complete catastrophe" (Hardin, "Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping the Poor," in World Hunger and Morality, ed. by Aiken and LaFollette, 5-15). Hardin concluded that wealthy people (nations, too) should not be responsible for the poor. The consequences of feeding the poor would be hurtful to the environment and to society. We will momentarily take up a Christian approach to poverty, but first we need to consider two basic objections to lifeboat ethics.
First, the lifeboat approach is simplistic. Some of Hardin's agricultural views never materialized, the ethical approach fostered an "us" versus "them" mentality, and failed to consider the contributors to poverty which include, to use metaphorical language, the rich people in the boat.
Secondly, the approach also overlooks the dignity-building and life-valuing benefit of collaborative solutions to global problems. The majority world sees the blind arrogance of a rich nation approach (cf. the current world reaction to the suspension of American foreign aid). There are, in reality, many boats in the water.
Furthermore, not every moral concern boils down to ecology and money. Lifeboat ethics skews justice when it is used to validate inaction by rich nations toward those who have needs. Christians have important options and decisions to make when considering poverty. They begin with a Christian worldview.
"Eat all your broccoli" reasoning. Countless children in my generation were urged by their parents to eat all their broccoli, with the added motivation that there were millions of hungry children in other parts of the world! Indeed, children in all cultures and on all continents suffer because of poverty. Nevertheless, aside from being a poor nutritional motivator, the underlying principle was poorly expressed and did little to motivate a desire to ease the burden of world hunger. Such reasoning clouds the issue of a human right to food and clean water and a person's responsibility to assist others with such needs. The goal was to teach children gratitude for what they received. This key life lesson is best conveyed, however, when we remove guilt as a persuader (Psalm 65:11; 1 Thessalonians 5:17; Philippians 4:19).
I recall watching many television commercials as an adult that I term "eat your broccoli" advertisements because they presented pictures of malnourished children to motivate donations. Gratitude, not guilt, should lead us to express our thanks for God's daily provision, to strive not to waste it, and to joyfully share with others (see 2 Corinthians 9:6-8, "not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver"; Matthew 5:42; 6:11; 6:25-26, 31-32; Luke 18:22; John 6:12-13).
Human misunderstanding and flawed decisions. Our grandparents, and even our parents, often believed there were not enough resources, which included technology and organization, to address global poverty (Hulme, Should Rich Nations Help the Poor?, 2). This lingering flawed belief still contributes to the problem. Truly, our global agricultural systems produce enough food to feed everyone on the planet. (Hulme, 2). Droughts and other natural disasters do impact poverty, but there are other human reasons that lead to this social harm. Wars, low wages, lack of access to helpful agricultural technologies, indebtedness to moneylenders, oppressive corporate business practices, poor quality public services, and policy decisions that governments choose and put into action or fail to implement are just a few (Hulme, 3). These human contributors to poverty may be corrected.
The use of "Lifeboat Ethics." The principal argument, then, being used by some wealthy Westerners, is that aid programs are inefficient, the return on investment is limited or nonexistent, and that money is being wasted. This argument is called, "Lifeboat Ethics," which was conceived in 1974 and applied to ecological and biological moral concerns (e.g. food production and population growth). USAID may be said to have become the first major casualty of this type of flawed line of reasoning. Here is how this thinking unfolds.
Suppose, theoretically, there is one lifeboat afloat (rich nations) that holds fifty people. It can take safely onboard another ten people before it becomes swamped. The problem is that there are a hundred more people swimming in the water (poor nations) who want to reach safety. The reasoning used to support only saving those in the boat is that there is only so much room (i.e. limited resources for distribution). The author of the lifeboat metaphor reasons against the Christian ideal of being "our brother's keeper." He concludes that this approach would allow for the swimmers to enter the boat, which would then become swamped and sink! He concludes with "Complete justice, complete catastrophe" (Hardin, "Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping the Poor," in World Hunger and Morality, ed. by Aiken and LaFollette, 5-15). Hardin concluded that wealthy people (nations, too) should not be responsible for the poor. The consequences of feeding the poor would be hurtful to the environment and to society. We will momentarily take up a Christian approach to poverty, but first we need to consider two basic objections to lifeboat ethics.
First, the lifeboat approach is simplistic. Some of Hardin's agricultural views never materialized, the ethical approach fostered an "us" versus "them" mentality, and failed to consider the contributors to poverty which include, to use metaphorical language, the rich people in the boat.
Secondly, the approach also overlooks the dignity-building and life-valuing benefit of collaborative solutions to global problems. The majority world sees the blind arrogance of a rich nation approach (cf. the current world reaction to the suspension of American foreign aid). There are, in reality, many boats in the water.
Furthermore, not every moral concern boils down to ecology and money. Lifeboat ethics skews justice when it is used to validate inaction by rich nations toward those who have needs. Christians have important options and decisions to make when considering poverty. They begin with a Christian worldview.
Governments and Governance: A Christian Perspective
Christ's Economy and Ecology
Christ's Economy and Ecology
The practice of justice and just-ness. Jesus states that the care His disciples should show others was not to be limited to isolated acts; instead, they were to be demonstrated as a fundamental attitude, which is the meaning of the word "visit" or "care" (see again James 1:27; Matthew 25:35-36; see also Luke 18:22 and the call for a radical reversal of values). Poverty relief for Christians stems not from human governments, but from God's governance over His creation (Genesis 1:1). Aid for the poverty-stricken draws upon God's resources, which are endless. God, as the ultimate source of all that is just and loving, requires His people to practice justice and just-ness. This principle and virtue point to God's kingdom activity in our world when we embody them in our actions and attitudes toward the poverty-stricken.
Poor in spirit. It has been said that this first beatitude is not only the first in order, but in some way generates all the other virtues to follow (Matthew 5:3; Hans Dieter Betz, The Sermon on the Mount, 111). The virtue of “poverty in [the] spirit” means that a person has insight into the true human condition (mortal and finite). Socrates once stated that the unexamined life is not worth living for the human being. Here, Jesus introduces a call to reflect upon the basis for His radical discipleship—genuine humility that permeates the entirety of life (mental, physical, emotional, and spiritual) (cf. Betz, 118).
Recognize our own spiritual helplessness. The one who is poor in spirit is convinced of his or her need of God and all pride (e.g. trust in riches) has been broken. As disciples, we realize our utter spiritual helplessness. The Hebrew word, which Matthew & Luke translated into Greek, means both spiritually and economically poor (cf. Betz: “conscious of deprivation”), powerless, and often oppressed by the rich and powerful. We are all swimmers, to carry forward the lifeboat metaphor from above. It is our own awareness of need that enables us to identify daily with this type of existence. When our lives are characterized as being needy, humble, lowly, and pious, then our discipleship calls attention to God’s grace and not to ourselves (cf. Matthew 5:16).
True eternal reward. As a result, theirs is the “kingdom of the heavens.” Notice that God’s realm is spoken of in the plural. His realm is not limited to place and time—it is beyond earth and sky, but it is also everywhere in creation. It is here and now and is coming in the future. This expresses a worldview that God’s eschatological (end times) verdict can be known and pronounced now! God rules with justice and mercy and His realm is where “His justice” prevails (Matthew 6:33; see also Lord’s Prayer at 6:10). “God who represents and guarantees justice, will therefore reward such faithfulness [i.e., humility]” (Matthew 5:12) (Betz, 119).
Poor in spirit. It has been said that this first beatitude is not only the first in order, but in some way generates all the other virtues to follow (Matthew 5:3; Hans Dieter Betz, The Sermon on the Mount, 111). The virtue of “poverty in [the] spirit” means that a person has insight into the true human condition (mortal and finite). Socrates once stated that the unexamined life is not worth living for the human being. Here, Jesus introduces a call to reflect upon the basis for His radical discipleship—genuine humility that permeates the entirety of life (mental, physical, emotional, and spiritual) (cf. Betz, 118).
Recognize our own spiritual helplessness. The one who is poor in spirit is convinced of his or her need of God and all pride (e.g. trust in riches) has been broken. As disciples, we realize our utter spiritual helplessness. The Hebrew word, which Matthew & Luke translated into Greek, means both spiritually and economically poor (cf. Betz: “conscious of deprivation”), powerless, and often oppressed by the rich and powerful. We are all swimmers, to carry forward the lifeboat metaphor from above. It is our own awareness of need that enables us to identify daily with this type of existence. When our lives are characterized as being needy, humble, lowly, and pious, then our discipleship calls attention to God’s grace and not to ourselves (cf. Matthew 5:16).
True eternal reward. As a result, theirs is the “kingdom of the heavens.” Notice that God’s realm is spoken of in the plural. His realm is not limited to place and time—it is beyond earth and sky, but it is also everywhere in creation. It is here and now and is coming in the future. This expresses a worldview that God’s eschatological (end times) verdict can be known and pronounced now! God rules with justice and mercy and His realm is where “His justice” prevails (Matthew 6:33; see also Lord’s Prayer at 6:10). “God who represents and guarantees justice, will therefore reward such faithfulness [i.e., humility]” (Matthew 5:12) (Betz, 119).
Conclusion
Aid for the poor in Christ's kingdom flows from hearts that have received the life-gift of grace and seek for others to receive the same (Luke 21:1-4). We give because He has given to us and not because we expect anything in return (cf. quid pro quo above). Jesus, our supreme example, became poor so that we might receive His riches in new life and lead purposeful lives in His kingdom (Philippians 2:5-11). He radically transforms our values and we joyfully carry out his mission on earth. Our witness is most powerful when we apply Christ's words in Matthew 5:3, where poverty has both spiritual and economic meanings, directly at the point of holistic need in the lives of others. Such action shows the ultimate respect for the value of all human lives, enhances their dignity, and addresses poverty in all its forms.
Prayerfully yours,
Larry C. Ashlock
Prayerfully yours,
Larry C. Ashlock
Posted in Pathway Perspectives