I posted about an editorial in the Christian Science Monitor by Mark Lange asking the question is it possible to end extreme poverty. He outlined six myths about global poverty that must be overcome if we are going to make a significant difference.
I found myself asking how Compassion is addressing the six myths. Here are the myths that Lange laid out with some of my thoughts about Compassion’s impact:
1. It’s an intractable problem – Well, we obviously think that’s a myth or we wouldn’t do what we do. However it is an extremely complicated problem that mocks any easy answers. Compassion’s solution is holistic development. If you don’t address the whole person and every aspect of their lives then there is no way to release that person from poverty. Relief is important to relieve suffering and community development is an important part of an overall objective, but it is holistic development that ends poverty.
2. There are too many impoverished people to help – We repeat it so often that it almost has become a cliche in Compassion circles, but you can’t change the world but you can change the world for one child. By reaching out one at a time we can make a difference. Compassion has now passed one million children in our program and while that’s small compared to the total number in abject poverty when you begin to combine the cumulative effect of changed lives you make a difference.
3. Moral obligation is enough – Moral obligation, rooted in Scripture and the commands of God, is important and should be enough. But it is not enough. Lange uses this point to emphasize the global instability that poverty creates as a reason to be involved and that’s important. However another aspect that is even more important is the threat to lives, culture and civilization that wealth brings. Scripture is full of warnings of the dangers of wealth and our society is full of examples of those dangers. The antidote for the poverty of wealth is involvement with the poor. If we aren’t going to get involved just because we should then do it because it will save us.
4. If aid is good, more aid is better – Creating dependence does not eliminate poverty. It reinforces it. Interdependence, or partnership where each party offers and receives as much as the other, should instead be the goal. What do the poor give to us? An example of community, of living in grace, of prayer, of faith, and many, many other things. Involvement with the poor changes us and that’s a gift they give. You can’t out give the poor.
5. Globalization is hurting the poor – Lange makes this statement, “For anyone on the edge of survival, the real risk isn’t globalization. It’s isolation.” There is a hopelessness among those who live in poverty that isolation reinforces. Compassion works through local churches bringing not only communities of faith but of hope into their lives. By concentrating resources from around the world on a local community we are giving what they don’t have, but by doing it through the local church we are empowering the local people to take care of themselves. That’s the beginning of the end of poverty.
6. Wealthy nations must work to reduce poverty everywhere – The question is what does it mean to no longer be in poverty? For Compassion the opposite of poverty is not wealth but enough. Our goal should not be to bring wealth to everyone. In fact, we’ve discussed that wealth is a danger in itself. Instead our goal is to help those who don’t have enough to have enough. By concentrating on the poorest of the poor and by focusing on children who are most impacted by poverty we can make the biggest impact.
What do you think? How does your church take account of these myths when addressing the needs of the poor?








