I am currently taking a course with Dr. Bryant Myers at Fuller Theological Seminary called Development Tools and Practice.
Dr. Myers says the twin goals of biblical transformation are:
- Changing people: recovering true identity and true vocation
- Restoring shalom: Just and peaceful relationships
...and he claims, for Christians, these are the goals for both development and evangelism (our works and our words). I have never really thought about development and evangelism as sharing the same goals.
What do you all think? Do you agree with the goals? Do you believe development and evangelism share the same goals? How do the goals articulated by Myers connect with what MCC envisions: communities worldwide in right relationship with God, one another and creation (taken from MCC's mission statement that you can read here)?
I would be interested in hearing your perspectives - please add your comments below.
And be sure to check out Meyers' book (Walking With the Poor: Principles and Practices of Transformational Development) It's a good read...
Perhaps he’s right, but only if we take the root of the word – euangelion, meaning “good news”. I’d suggest, however, we can’t ignore the on-the-ground practice of “evangelism” over the decades and centuries where, crassly put, evangelism says my faith/God/worldview is better than yours; I’ve got the right answers to the eternal questions, and your answers are wrong. You have to be - and believe - like me to be saved. So, academic theory aside, I don’t think evangelism and development have the same presuppositions or goals. Myers, methinks, is comparing an unpractised meaning of evangelism with the common practice of development.
ReplyDeleteI agree a bit with Tim around how evangelism has viewed others. I would argue that the goals are the same for development and evangelism but the weighting and prioritizing of them are very different.
ReplyDeleteEvangelism places a big emphasis on the individual identity and transformation and hopes that the just and peaceful relationships follow.
Development focuses on the just and peaceful relationships trusting that through peace will come a new found identity and purpose.
You might guess that I am biased to the second approach (recognizing there are potential pitfalls in both)!
Russell Pyle said (on the facebook link):
ReplyDeleteEvangelism presupposes a moral superiority that is intrusive and disrespectful to other faiths. If you're intention is to convert another to your faith then you are telling them that they are lacking something necessary. That is an assumption that may not be true.
Interesting question - and I would say that they aren't the same thing.
ReplyDeleteEffective development, I would argue, is about bringing helpful, appropriate solutions that address problems that a society says are a problem.
Evangelism, for the most part, is about bringing what Person A thinks is an effective solution to Culture B, often regardless of whether or not Culture B thinks there is a problem in the first place.
Practiced by Mennonites, development talk often has a lot of relationship/shalom/community/spiritual elements that are part of the mix of objectives, but I think that's not a mainstream part of the development world.
To be perfectly honest, 'shalom' and helping people with their vocation can be enormously difficult and time intensive, and require a huge amount of cultural capital in order to do well. I would argue that most development projects would do better to do development work - and the shalom and right relationships will follow.
Interesting questions and conversation indeed!
ReplyDeleteIt occurs to me that your comments about “evangelism,” Tim, could apply to "development" as well. You describe "the on-the-ground practice of “evangelism” over the decades and centuries where, crassly put, evangelism says my faith/God/worldview is better than yours..." Couldn’t the same be said for many instances of “on-the-ground practices” of “development”...? The sense that “my faith/economic model/worldview is better than yours”... and that “you have to be - and believe (and behave economically) - like me to be saved (or “prosperous” or “developed” or “to have access to markets in the global economy”)”...? Isn’t this a posture that “development” work is also prone to?
I agree that we can’t ignore the “on-the-ground practice” of “evangelism”... but I would also submit that we can’t ignore the “on-the-ground practice” of “development” either.
When I look at Jesus’ “purpose and vision statement” at the beginning of his ministry (Luke 4:16-21), and the way this “purpose/vision” is implemented/embodied throughout Luke and Acts, I don’t know how one would go about separating out the “development” and “evangelism” goals. I haven’t read Myers’ book, but my sense from your summary, Allan, is that he is trying to get Christians to re-think our sometimes instinctive assumptions about what constitutes “development” and what constitutes “evangelism.” This strikes me as a good thing.
And I think this is very much in line with what MCC has articulated in the “purpose and vision statements” that you’ve linked to.
Elizabeth Bontrager said (on the facebook link)
ReplyDeleteConrad, I think you're right about effective development from a theoretical perspective, but it seems to me that despite best intentions, far too often the proposed (and often implemented) solutions are as exogenously conceived as what you've described in the case of evangelism. The more I see and learn, the less comfortable I am with allowing the "relationship/community-building/solidarity" part of development to be on equal footing with the actual solutions part. Ideally, development is linked inextricably to a moral/ethical component...but the moral superiority element of evangelism (as Rus described) makes things a bit sticky. (At the same time, I still think that a lot of the best work being done "on the ground" comes from a number of small, faith-based organizations....so take that for what you will.) Allan, thanks for starting this conversation!