Wednesday, July 18, 2012

the difference between serving and partnering

Below is a link to a great article by a guy I really look up to, Bob Lupton. I visited his group FCS Urban Ministries last year with Lt. Leotis Brooks. They are located in Atlanta and work to "create healthy places in the city where families flourish and God’s shalom is present.""FCS (focus community strategies) is a collective of visionaries and social entrepreneurs, transforming distressed urban neighborhoods through Christian community development."Bob writes:I had done my best to explain to a church group the difference between serving and partnering. I had described how developing the poor requires an entirely different strategy from traditional service methods that “do for” those in need. I explained that when you do for people what they have the capacity to do for themselves you actually weaken rather than strengthen them. I gave practical examples of how lending and investing, how sharing technological knowledge and connecting isolated people with new markets, enabled whole villages to emerge from poverty. I told them that if we measured actual outcomes rather than merely activities we would have a much better gauge for the effectiveness of our missions.(click this link to read the rest of the article)We think a lot about this at Temple Corps. I also wrestle with it personally, a lot. Is what I am doing allowing others to move forward and grow or am I simply enabling people to remain stagnant? Am I benefiting from my efforts or is God being glorified? Lord forgive me for my vanity. Let all things I do point to Your goodness and grace. Amen.

1 comment:

  1. I think that you are on to something here. I have been working/serving through the Army's social services since 1995. I have seen a downward trend in regards to what we do, in that it makes people more dependent, not less. Have we really helped them? One of our policies is that each client MUST pay a portion of any bill they are requesting help with. It is, after all, their bill. We are only here to help them in times of greater need. But this goes so much farther. Several weeks ago a flyer was put out by the Dept of Agriculture, lauding the fact that more people than ever before are now on Food Stamps. In the same flyer, they covered a newer, stricter policy in National Parks against feeding the wildlife - because it was causing the animals to lose their desire to hunt for their own food. What will happen when there are no tourists, they ask. Is this a major disconnect, or what?

    ReplyDelete