Abstract
There has been a resurgent interest in the role of religion in international development work over the last decade. While churches are being engaged as local development partners in implementing development programs there is little research on the efficacy of doing so. This paper argues that there can be strong advantages of partnering with churches as local, permanent, geographically-dispersed, persuasive, community-based organizations. At the same time, however, there are significant risks for donors and other stakeholders, creating ambivalence about the suitability of some church partners. This paper draws on the experience of World Vision in eight settings. It explores the risks and benefits of partnering with churches, and argues that church engagement overall is important for developing communities, the sector, the church itself, and for shaping the concept of ‘development.’
Keywords
Another day dawns
The architecture of villages across much of southern Africa is the same. Most consist of groups of one room houses rising humbly from the ground which are crowned with thatch. In more urban settings there are ramshackle structures of corrugated iron and breezeblocks, but in every village there is at least one building which stands out because of its more regular lines. As the sun shines upon it, the church is given a place of pride. At the same time, it casts a shadow stretching back into the community. I cannot help but think that this typical scene is a metaphor for all that is good and bad about the church in international development.
The paucity of research about church-based development work
Some of the world’s largest international development organizations are ‘faith-based’. Most stand in Christian traditions. Organizations like Caritas and World Vision are household names in many donor contexts. There are also global federations which have sprung out of Christian denominations, like the Lutheran World Service.
Many faith-based non-governmental organizations (NGOs) enter into partnerships with churches when implementing their development programs. For some, this is a theological imperative. They understand the church as the primary way that God acts in a local context. For them, the church is conceived of as a community giving active expression to the concerns of God’s heart, especially in regard to caring for the poor and marginalized. Working within global denominations is also a helpful way of expressing fellowship and solidarity with their co-religionists who live and work in environments of great challenge.
Despite the longevity and ubiquity of faith-based development organizations they have received very little academic attention until recent times. This is because ‘development’ has been seen as a project of modernity, something that stands above and apart from religion. Jones and Petersen summarize: ‘The narratives of modernization and secularization that shaped the social sciences for most of the postwar period saw religion as a conservative and traditional force, destined to withdraw and disappear from public life as part of societal progress towards an increasingly modern society’ (Jones and Petersen, 2011: 1292). Faith-based development organizations have been dismissed as ‘interesting or irritating marginal players in the struggle for human emancipation’ (Linden, 2008: 90).
In the last decade, there has been a greater emphasis on the role that can be played by faith-based organizations in development work. In part this is because the gains delivered through development have been patchy, and there is a renewed appreciation that development programs need to be ‘owned’ by communities rather than thrust upon them. That said, the relationship between the development sector and churches has generally been instrumental or transactional, rather than one characterized by deeper kinds of partnerships that are generative of new ideas (King, 2011: 22).
Geographic and power dissonances
To understand the role of faith in development, or the lack of it, it is helpful to look back in history and to some global trends.
International development studies, as an academic discipline, grew out of post-Enlightenment thinking that saw science and technology as offering a new plausibility structure for humankind. From its earliest days, development was about finding the right kind of interventions to achieve an enduring uplift in living conditions. While some theorists embraced community-led models, such as those focusing on greater civic participation, there was discomfort about the acceptance of religion as having any central role in development work. This is because in the West, religion is seen as a private and personal choice embraced by a diminishing number of people. In much of the Western world, religion has long ceased to have any entrenched role in setting public policy.
Against this background, international development studies have been taught at secular universities in mostly Western settings. It is not surprising that there have been several studies pointing out the paucity of research about the role of religion or spirituality in development research (Selinger, 2004: 523–543; ver Beek, 2000: 31–43). There is even less research on the role of churches in doing development work.
It is also potentially significant that most large development organizations are headquartered in the West, and that leading multi-lateral organizations, such as the World Health Organization and the World Bank have, historically at least, distanced themselves from engaging with faith-based organizations. This is because of their own profoundly secular roots (Grills, 2009: 506–508, 512).
Critically, while it is true that religious adherence has been steadily declining in the West that is not the case in developing countries. 1 In the majority world, theistic religious belief is the primary source of meaning for the overwhelming number of people; this is the lens through which many communities view and interpret the world. Recent demographic studies indicate that religious belief is actually growing in developing countries, and in some places, is more intensely held than in earlier generations. 2
It is a peculiarly Western conceit to think that development can occur in communities apart from their religious beliefs. How is it possible to meaningfully engage with communities when that which is most important to them is left out of the conversation? With this in mind, I set out to research the role of faith in development, and in particular, the contribution of churches as development partners.
Research methodology and limitations
My research was based on eight reports prepared by World Vision Australia which looked broadly at the role of faith within international development work. Each report focused on the development work of World Vision within a specific country context. The locations were Albania, Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Lebanon, Rwanda, Senegal, and Tanzania. There were about 250 records of interview and focus group discussions supporting the conclusions in the reports.
Internally produced research reports can lack a critical edge. In this case, however, the risk of bias was offset by the large number of data sources external to World Vision itself. These external sources typically included community representatives, church leaders, leaders of other faiths, and personnel from other NGOs. They represented more than half the interviewees. Some reports also contained conclusions which were plainly critical of aspects of World Vision’s work.
The dataset was interrogated using grounded theory. The purpose of grounded theory is to elicit understandings about patterned relationships. It is an interpretive process, not a logico-deductive one. It relies on the constant and reflective interplay between the researcher, the data and the emerging theoretical categories (Suddaby, 2006: 637). Grounded theory was well suited to draw links between religious faith and World Vision’s development work.
Many of the links to emerge from the data concerned the role of the church, both positive and negative, in undertaking international development work. While these links were certainly the most numerous, a robust quantitative analysis was not possible. The dataset was, however, able to offer comprehensive qualitative insights into the role of the church in undertaking development work.
The purpose of this article is to share some of the insights gained from the analysis of the World Vision studies. This analysis confirms many findings from the broader literature. There are, however, some important methodological implications that should be noted. The World Vision studies reflect the work of only one development organization and its interaction with churches. The categories of advantage and risk discussed emerged directly from the dataset; however, these data were drawn from eight different contexts with many different types of churches. There is always a danger in talking about ‘the church’ and ‘development’ in an overly generalized way. That said, many observations were supported by data from several jurisdictions, and also confirmed the findings from other studies.
Shining in the sun
The data highlighted many powerful ways that the church positively contributed to development work. The areas discussed below are not exhaustive nor in order of importance. Collectively, however, they do offer a compelling rationale for church involvement in international development work.
The starting point is to recognize that the church has a persuasive voice which can help change social or cultural practices. This is an important aspect of many development programs. Since Narayan’s study, it has been established that in developing countries religious leaders and their institutions are among the most trusted voices (Narayan, 2000). 3 In Africa, another source claims that three-quarters of people trust their religious leaders (Widmer et al., 2011: 222). The World Vision data corroborated this evidence from the perspective of development practitioners. It was claimed that partnerships with the church helped in many contexts because of the very high regard for the church by the general community. It was noted that ‘If you work with the church you are trusted as well.’ 4
The reason for this high level of trust is that churches express values that are embraced by local communities. Churches and other religious institutions ‘are perceived to work for the public good and, in comparison with government agencies, it is believed that they are more sensitive to people in times of catastrophe, chaos, or conflict, are responsive to people’s needs and flexible in their provision, act with honesty and take distribution seriously’ (Lunn, 2009: 944). By contrast, government and NGO personnel may be labelled less empathetic when they engage in contracted service delivery.
Another feature is the church’s permanent presence within developing communities. In contrast, many NGOs come and go, existing in a community only for the life of a program. When it is over, the NGO packs up and withdraws, which sometimes causes resentment. If the capacity of the church can be improved, particularly in its developmental understandings, then there may be an enduring and more organic impetus for change.
A related point is the substantive quality of an NGOs presence. The World Vision data showed that communities had a cynical view about city-based NGOs, for example, those that would come and visit remote areas on an occasional basis. 5 On the other hand, the church is conceived as locally based yet apostolic in nature, discerning and giving expression to God’s will within a community. With this comes an empathy and reciprocity that city-based NGOs were unable to achieve.
It is a fact that every developing community will have a religious institution somewhere near its center. In the West, organized religion has largely dissipated between the search for ‘universal values’ and the post-modern penchant for a privatized spirituality. This is not the case in the developing world. The importance of organized religion has not diminished within these communities and this explains the ubiquity of religious infrastructure. Importantly, not only does religious infrastructure exist, it is in many places the only functioning part of civil society. According to one World Bank commentator, ‘faith organizations play major roles in communities and together constitute the world’s largest distribution system’ (Marshall, 2005: 8). The existence of vast networks means that it is possible for developmental messages or ideas to be disseminated to very remote locations.
The reason people gather in such places is not simply to worship, but specifically to receive instruction or guidance on matters pertaining to daily life. The dispersed nature of the church represents an unparalleled opportunity to socialize development concepts consistent with the church’s own teachings.
In this regard, the role of church leaders as gatekeepers, endorsers, and translators of development programs should be noted. Church leaders are important community leaders. They are teachers, upholders of tradition, pastoral carers, and those who exercise important cultic responsibilities. Their opinions matter. If development plans are resisted by church leaders it can be very difficult to gain any traction within devout settings. 6
Conversely, church leaders can have a vital role in the legitimization of new ideas. The World Vision dataset provided a clear example of development practitioners targeting faith leaders to help bring about social change among their congregants. The personal endorsement by an authority figure can help shift community attitudes. In revivalist East Africa, the word of the pastor is readily equated to the word of God (Goode, 2011a: 16). In the case of people living with HIV and AIDS church leaders were able to promote compassion and inclusion over judgement and stigmatization. Sometimes symbolic actions were just as effective. A clear example was the blessing by the Patriarch in Georgia at the opening of a new AIDS center. This center promoted condom usage. The blessing of the Patriarch was tacitly permission-giving. 7
Church leaders are also translators of development concepts and principles within communities. An Anglican priest in rural Rwanda explained the process to me by way of an example. He relayed that a secular-based development agency had approached him about implementing a domestic savings program in his strongly Christian village. The social tradition among subsistence farmers was to live from day-to-day.
Arguably, ‘saving money’ is more an individualistic and Western cultural practice than a biblical mandate—especially in the context of a communal society. Nonetheless, the priest thought that the program had value. However, he warned that it would not gain traction unless grounded in the community’s religious values. Accordingly, the program was ‘translated.’ This meant that it was launched at the local Anglican Church, maximizing attendance. It started with a one hour teaching session on biblical principles of stewardship, run by the priest, before it moved to the workshop based on secular principles of financial management. It then concluded with a time of public prayer in which the priest prayed for villagers to take greater personal responsibility. 8
This example illustrates the local and embedded nature of
The types of capital available to the poor are limited. Financial capital and intellectual capital are often diminished by poverty. However, one type of capital readily available to the poor is spiritual capital. This is a subset of social capital: it comes from a community’s religious beliefs which instill social resilience (in its broadest sense) including through participation in formal religious structures (Berger and Hefner, n.d.: 3). The church is uniquely placed to harness spiritual capital.
Spiritual capital may provide hope, resilience, and motivation to social action through religious conviction. Importantly, participation in worship and church life can provide important social networks and support. The church can help mobilize congregants in response to community needs and can provide a stable and existing organizational mechanism for doing so. Given the relative importance of spiritual capital to developing communities the question arises about how it can be harnessed more effectively by upskilling church leaders in development principles. The dissemination of development knowledge within religious networks is one way to spur on social transformation.
One aspect of this transformation is the enculturation of values that are conducive to social harmony, community service, and civil participation. In this regard church teaching, theology, and scripture are important resources. The World Vision dataset provided excellent examples of the link between values formation and development outcomes. The Armenian context was a good case in point. Staff commented: Development is not just economic; it is much more than that. We have been under communist propaganda for 70 years and the church has been severely damaged as the propaganda has changed the mindset of generations, especially subsequent generations. This propaganda has established an atheistic generation and our values have been completely changed. Right now, Armenia is in a state of transformation and we see development as the process to restore values. We do this as an organization and support churches to restore values. The result will be people who will have values to serve their country and neighbors. It is easiest to start with children as they have not been affected as much.
9
A Roman Catholic nun observed that in a depressed post-Soviet world: We have learned lying and cheating and things that are wrong. Most adults have suffered and that is their foundation … We are on about reinstating moral values; faith needs to enter the private lives of people. Transformation will not happen otherwise. This faith needs to be internalised.
10
More generally, there are many resonances between development principles and Christian scripture. Without wishing to diminish the many hermeneutical issues in reconstructing the Jesus story, there are many points for reflection. Jesus is seen as challenging patriarchal norms, valuing children, affirming the humanity of the disabled, touching lepers, and befriending the marginalized. Strong communitarian values are illustrated, power structures are critiqued, and neighborliness is radically reframed. There are stories of refugees and transmigration, and early examples of organized famine relief. Forgiveness is commanded, peace-building is lauded, and reconciliation is supremely exemplified. There are rich teachings about social ethics, justice and inclusion and a powerful vision of an alternate future in God’s coming kingdom. It is easy to see how Christian notions of incarnation intersect with many aspects of development work.
Finally, building up the church can be a way of strengthening civic life in an overall sense. In some cases, it is also a way of reclaiming cultural heritage and sense of identity. In the dataset, this was very clear in the unusual contexts of Georgia and Armenia, where there were ancient national churches re-emerging from decades of Soviet repression. However, in religiously diverse societies, such as Albania and Bosnia, the strengthening of churches was important to significant cohorts and helped to normalize spiritual life more broadly. This outcome may sit uncomfortably with traditional notions of development, but it is one valued and affirmed within many communities.
At the same time, the role of development is not to promote a particular religious position. It can, however, involve strengthening those institutions which help build a vibrant and well-functioning civil society. This is commonly expressed in building the capacity of religious institutions to fund, design and execute development programs. This knowledge and experience may have the side benefit of improving institutional capacities overall.
This brief overview shows that the church can be a powerful ally in undertaking development work for a wide variety of reasons. Yet at the same time the church shines in the sun, it also casts a shadow.
Casting a shadow
Any romanticized view of churches as the ideal development partner should be dispelled. Many churches are socially passive, lack organizational capacity, and sometimes embrace change at a glacial pace. These are just a few of the reasons why churches can make poor development partners.
A problem with many churches is that they are stuck in a purely charitable paradigm. The heart of development is the desire to achieve a lasting and self-sustaining improvement in social conditions within communities. A permanent uplift is in view—a more abundant life—not hand-outs or the eponymous band-aid solution. This is a problem for churches which by and large lack a vision for social transformation.
Almost all churches are quick to promote compassionate action in the form of charity. While there is an important and appropriate place for charity in the ministry of the church, charity alone is unhelpful. Charity in the longer run can entrench dependencies that disempower communities. Development work, on the other hand, moves into a challenging space that seeks to tackle underlying causes.
It is interesting to ponder why the church embraces compassion in the present through charity, but is less willing to pursue equally strong biblical themes of justice, prophetic action, and working for God’s kingdom. The answers to this important question are beyond the scope of this paper, but go directly to the effectiveness of the church as a development partner. The data reported that careful thought is required to ensure that church partnerships do not become open-ended give-away programs that fuel demand, skate over the real issues, build dependencies, and leave the church exposed to exploitation.
A related concern is that the church has muted its prophetic voice. The church is commissioned to confront evil in all its forms, including structural and systemic injustices. While Jesus’ own ministry was replete with prophetic words and actions, the modern church tends to be more restrained. There are many reasons for this. Churches may be accommodated to power, they may wish to eschew engagements that are seen as political or divisive, or they may simply lack courage or the competency to analyze and respond to complex issues of public policy. The church may also see its role in more pietistic terms—as a benevolent chaplain to society—rather than being the driver of more substantive change.
In development work, a willingness to confront underlying issues is unavoidable. In the lexicon of NGOs such activities are usually bundled as advocacy work. The dataset indicated that some churches are unwilling to accept this challenge. The complaint was made that ‘The church doesn’t come out of its corner.’ 11 A United Nations Advisor added this sharp critique: ‘The Church dives into “safe zone” only, which is infant behavior instead of [addressing] hard core issues.’ 12
Another suite of concerns relates to the theological positioning of churches which can create tensions with particular development goals. Cross-cutting themes in development, like the promotion of gender equality and women’s empowerment, may not sit comfortably in some places. For example, church teaching is used to reinforce patriarchal hegemony and corresponding subservience of women. I am personally aware of a gender equality initiative in a Pacific island church context being resisted on the basis that ‘Eve ate the apple.’ It goes without saying that there are competing and well-considered theologies that advance a full and positive role for women in society.
Most of the time, church teaching provides a strong basis to reinforce development principles. In some areas, however, such as women’s empowerment, human sexuality, and environmental issues, tensions can be exposed. More broadly, the best development partners are those with a capacity to be reflective and self-critical, and this is an area for challenge. Some churches see themselves as perfectly and continuously inspired by the Holy Spirit. Against this understanding, the opportunity for critical self-reflection may be limited (Mitchell, 2015: 215 citing the example of the Georgian Orthodox Church).
Another area for potential concern is so-called prosperity teaching, which is growing in popularity in African and South American contexts. This type of teaching elevates the idols of money and self, and sits uncomfortably with the theology of the Cross. In short, prosperity teaching asserts that it is God’s desire to materially bless his people, and that there is a covenantal right to claim such blessing (Sharpe, 2013: 164–165). According to the World Vision reports, this ‘appears to undermine the positive role of Christian faith in doing effective development. The individualistic, materialistic, and pietistic thrust of prosperity teaching appeared to present a serious threat to the communitarian ethos underpinning much development work’ (Goode, 2011a: 6). Again, ‘While prosperity teaching has an obvious attraction to people who wish to escape from the grind of poverty, it may equally lead to frustration and disillusionment if material aspirations are not quickly satisfied’ (Goode, 2011b: 31); it can also lead to judgement of others.
The suitability of a church as a development partner may depend on the type of program, the analysis of the context, and an assessment about the impact of its theological positioning on the proposed development goals. A more prosaic concern, which can lead to unforeseen consequences, is that many churches lack good internal systems and processes.
Global development requires accountability to donors for acquitting funds, good systems of governance and oversight, and processes for risk analysis, monitoring and reporting. Many churches do not have the experience to implement such systems.
Money can be a corrupting influence, and the risks can be elevated in situations of extreme poverty. Passive funding arrangements with churches are especially fraught (Newmarch and Goode, 2008). Partnerships need to be documented, setting out clear goals and objectives and budgets which control the use of funds. Not all churches have an understanding of the difference between development programs, on the one hand, and programmatic evangelism on the other. There is a risk of funds being misapplied.
What flows from this is that the donor agency may be associated with socially divisive activities in sensitive contexts. The data highlighted engagement with ‘crusading’ churches in East Africa as ‘highly contentious in multi-faith (especially Muslim) contexts’ (Goode, 2010a: 13). A lack of transparency about the use of funds, and tacit pressure being applied in vulnerable communities, were two of the risks identified. Being aligned to ‘pushy’ practice can also lead to negative feedback, divisiveness and even violence (Newmarch and Goode, 2008: 24).
Finally, just as the church can leverage its persuasive voice in communities, some church leaders are disreputable. It is not only questions of character, but the desire of some leaders to co-opt their flock in political or nationalistic agendas. These can be divisive and render the church an unsuitable development partner. In other cases, sins of the past encumber their leaders. In Armenia, it was reported ‘Many of the leaders of church are former KGB or party officials. It will take time for these people to digest what they have learned from seminary training and promised to do … It will take three generations to bring real change.’ 13 A careful process of due diligence is required down to the lowest level.
Surveying the scene
Contemplating the church and its shadow, and reflecting on the history of faith in development work, gives rise to some important implications: these implications do support ongoing engagement with churches in development.
Continuing to work with churches will move relationships beyond shallow instrumentalism
Many development agencies, faith-based and secular, see the church as a delivery mechanism to roll-out their pre-conceived programs. This transactional approach is not ideal. True partnerships will unlock greater value in program design. The church knows its particular context better than anyone else, it can discern local priorities, and can act with an awareness of cultural sensitivities. In this regard, Goulet has observed that religious beliefs ‘when properly respected, can serve as the springboard for modes of development which are more humane than those drawn from outside paradigms. When development builds from indigenous values it extracts lower social costs, and imposes less human suffering and cultural destruction than when it copies outside models’ (Gourlet, 1980: 485).
It is hoped that the current instrumental approach will eventually be replaced with more meaningful relationships, and that this will in turn strengthen the quality of development programs. The aim is relationships which are mutual, respectful, and generative. The task of living and working for the Kingdom of God is always one which must be locally envisioned. Deeper partnerships will help facilitate the role of the church as a co-creator through development in its diverse contexts.
Working with churches has important implications for Western secular governments
Governments have been loath to engage with faith institutions, but a revision is required. They are out-of-step with the majority world they seek to help. The model preferred by some governments of stripping out faith from development work is not only disrespectful, it is in some respects a neo-colonial imposition. Communities do not make the separation between faith and development that Western policy-makers would like them to.
This kind of enforced dichotomy is also impractical (Hoyland, 2005; James, 2009: 7). Local communities struggle to understand separations that are alien to their being. Researchers have pointed out that religion is not about abstract doctrinal or theological positions that can be neatly compartmentalized. Instead it permeates everyday life: ‘The relationships between religious and non-religious worlds are deeply inter-penetrated, to the point of being hardly distinguishable’ (Devine and Deneulin, 2011: 73).
In this light, a new understanding of secularism is required. Properly understood, secularism is not about an entrenched state opposition to religious points-of-view. It is about an open and pluralistic society which has room for religious, non-religious, and anti-religious perspectives in public discourse. As one commentator reminds us, ‘The secular system of a State does not necessarily presuppose a non-religious society or the exclusion of cooperation between Government Donor Agencies and Faith-Based Organizations. A secular system frees the State from being patronized by religion, but it also frees religion and religious communities from patronization by the State’ (Holstein, 2005: 370).
Working with churches helps to redress an historical imbalance
Notwithstanding the problems, risks and deficits, working with churches in development helps redress a serious imbalance. At a practical level, Western governments, multilateral organizations, and secular NGOs have been reluctant to deal with churches. The academic literature about the role of religion in development also reflects this bias against religion that has lasted six decades (Lunn, 2009: 937–951). This kind of approach is ‘based on normative assumptions in terms of how both religion and development are conceptualized: religion is understood to be apart from “mainstream” development, while development is defined as that thing that development agencies do’ (Jones and Petersen, 2011: abstract).
A decision to work with churches in implementing development programs works towards a shared understanding. It will enable the development sector generally to confront its own blinkered reality, and may help the church to learn from new approaches and models.
Working with churches in international development helps the church to be the church
International development work—which has an emphasis on social equity, health and prosperity, peace and reconciliation, and care for the environment—has many points of resonance with the motif of global restoration contained in the idea of the coming kingdom. In short, engagement with development can help the church be the church. It can help the church strengthens its apostolic character and move it beyond just facilitating social pietism.
Working with churches helps make the kingdom an immanent reality. For these churches the first intercession in the Lord’s Prayer—thy kingdom come on earth, as it is in heaven—will have a special resonance. Engaging with the church in development work can stimulate a focus on the difficult but rewarding areas of justice and prophetic action.
It is important that theology be reconsidered as a potential development asset
The concept of asset-based community development is nothing new. It is about encouraging communities to help identify and leverage those assets which it already has. Considering theology as a development asset is new. Understandings about God and Christian teaching can be enlisted to serve developmental goals. There was evidence in the dataset that this is leading to new methodologies. Reference was made to World Vision’s Channels of Hope program which is using alternative understandings of Christian teaching to build compassion towards people living with HIV/AIDS and to challenge cultural understandings about the role of women. At a more basic level, it is easy to imagine Bible studies and sermons being added to the more usual array of development interventions.
Working with development agencies will also help the church to sharpen its own thinking. There will be points of difference, but delineating common ground is also important. Faith-based development organizations especially have the ability to work co-operatively and constructively with churches as a friend and ally.
Ecumenical development agencies have a special role in brokering church unity
International development programs sponsored by non-denominational agencies have the potential to unite churches in local action. The data showed that World Vision was able to act as an honest broker because it did not get caught up in inter-church doctrinal controversies. The nature of its work as a development agency enabled it to focus on issues of Christian orthopraxy rather than orthodoxy.
This has helped it to transcend dogmatic differences while at the same time upholding a clearly Christian motivation and ethos. It also enabled representatives of different churches to come together because of their shared interest in development. For example, it was reported that in a setting of mixed religious leaders, ‘a priest can think of development, it’s not theology or doctrine so we can discuss and share [the] same values’ (Goode, 2011b: 17). The evaluation report for Tanzania noted the consistent finding that World Vision acted as a unifying agent among churches. It did this by bringing churches together in locally adapted collaborations that emphasized capacity training in areas like HIV and AIDS, gender and interfaith dialogue (Goode, 2010b: 13). This steady focus on orthopraxy has enabled churches to come together in a lasting and constructive way. This is remarkable in some contexts of intense historical interdenominational rivalry.
Working with churches challenges concepts about ‘development’
Development is a contested notion. The church should have a voice in setting the priorities of its community, which may be reflective of faith concerns, a broader notion of personhood, and a less rationalistic view of the things that matter. Secular models of development, by definition, do not acknowledge the importance of the spiritual dimensions of community life. Working with churches offers a corrective to a modernity-inspired and soulless vision of development. One researcher argues that the question of aligning development activity with religion should be turned on its head: ‘Rather than asking how religion may align with our (secular liberal) priorities, attention should be turned to the more interesting and important question as to how development came to be seen among mainstream actors as distinctly secular, universal and [a] virtually unquestionable moral good such that religious involvement could be imagined as an abnormal intrusion’ (Fountain, 2013: 25).
Working with and through church-based development partners helps to normalize spiritual life as an important feature of personhood and community. It also helps assuage the risk of development interventions as being seen as disembodied from, and alien to, the psyche of the community.
Working through churches engages spiritual life and disciplines for project staff
When development programs are undertaken through local church partners this may help tap into the deepest personal motivations of congregants, church workers, and other staff involved. The church context invites people to connect their faith and to bring their whole selves to the development task. This can be important in ‘owning’ and sustaining programs. It may also help enlist volunteers, as well as bringing the disciplines of prayer, theological reflection, and personal service to the activities required.
Working with churches helps build their capacities in the longer run
International development work is close to the church in its heart, but distant in other ways. The vision of achieving an uplift in social and living conditions is one that readily gains acceptance. It is strongly resonant with ideas about justice, compassion and God’s coming kingdom. However, the language and processes involved in international development can be very unfamiliar. When churches are engaged as partners in development programs, this helps build familiarity with development concepts and the types of processes involved. This builds the capacity of churches to participate.
Educating church leaders about development principles may be a highly strategic investment (Mitchell, 2015: 196–198). Where an exposure to development studies is taken seriously as a part of a minister’s formation or in-service training this may lead to more educated and sympathetic workforces in churches which are then better placed to constructively interact with the sector. The data indicated significant benefits to churches and their surrounding communities.
The sun at its zenith
The interaction between churches and the international development sector should be the subject of careful academic study. It is surprising how little work has been done in this area. There is a strong overlap of interests. Churches are not only rightly concerned with the curing of souls, but the social transformation of their communities. Engagement with international development organizations is one way this kind of transformation can be achieved.
As local, permanent, dispersed, authoritative, community-based organizations, churches have many strengths to bring to development work. Understanding these strengths is important. There is a shift in thinking within the development sector which is now actively seeking to engage with organized religion in the pursuit of its goals. The tide has turned, and churches need to be ready for that shift.
However, any idealized notion of churches as development partners must be disabused. The kinds of risks identified include: the charitable mindset of many churches; the dangers of passive funding relationships; anti-developmental theological positions; limited capacities; the misuse of relationships; and co-option. Further work is required to see how the benefits for development can be captured and leveraged, while minimizing the risks. A clear line for further research is mapping the kinds of due diligence protocols which are appropriate before entering into church relationships, as well as the ways of monitoring and improving the developmental effectiveness of church relationships over time. Another area is the capacity building of churches to help them engage more effectively and sympathetically in carrying out development work.
In short, the research task is to locate the place where the sun reaches its zenith. This is the place where the sun shines at its brightest, but with the shortest shadow. There is an urgent need to find that place and to learn how to grasp it.
Footnotes
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.