Three Empty Cups of Tea

This week I was honored to guest lecture at the prestigious Monterey Institute for International Studies. The topic was nation building but because I am the founder of MicroCredit Enterprises, which finances microloans for poor women in the developing world, the discussion shifted to people building.

My talk was open to the public (what a splendid idea for all universities!) and in the audience a raised hand came from a gentlemen with deep faith convictions. He described how his church addresses the multidisciplinary nature of poverty in African villages by drilling wells, building schools, erecting health clinics, etc. while also distributing bibles and proselytizing the gospel.

photo credit: Danny Gallant

As I suggested to the class (pictured here) that all economic development promotes one sort of gospel or another. Microfinance, for example, inherently proselytizes the virtues of free market capitalism. Microfinance embeds gender equality, women's empowerment and human rights -- development for the whole person, if you will. Enduring economic development upsets the status quo.

What disturbed me about this particular gentlemen was not his faith motivation which was genuine, but his unwavering conviction that his church's time and money is actually doing good on the African continent. Whether it is or not, he is never going to know because he is not asking any self-examining questions about his impact on the lives he purports to save.

From beginning to end, he unconditionally follows the personality cult of his Savior and the doctrine of his religion. He is a change agent without doubts.

He not much different than the donors, journalists and other apostles who believed in Greg Mortenson, best-selling author of Three Cups of Tea and founder of a school-building program in Afghanistan and Pakistan. His compelling (but allegedly hyped) personal story created a media blizzard of belief in him and a dearth of data about his impact.

For two very thoughtful commentaries read Three Cups of BS by Alanna Shaikh and It's Not About The Tea by Kevin Starr.

One regrettable defense for Mortenson is that he is simply a bad manager. This narrative feeds an urban legend pushed by ideologues and market fundamentalists who want to believe an alternate reality. Nonprofit is a tax status, nothing more. It does not establish management quality or results. It is certainly not an excuse for anything.

Yes, some nonprofits are poorly run, as the Mortenson dustup and opulent church altars surely suggest. However, by the same fuzzy yardstick, British Petroleum confirms the mendacity of all corporate chieftains and Donald Trump is an icon of political truth-telling. We can reject the charlatans of social change without concluding that dedicated nonprofit executives don't care a whit about the efficacy of what they do, wantonly waste money or poorly evaluate programmatic results.

Let's reject social change by personality cult and embrace empowering the poor to speak up, speak out and speak for themselves. That's what good nonprofit leaders have always done.

 

Comments

[EWeaver-Opportunity Fund]

02:37 PM on 05/06/2011

As my Aunt Betty used to say: "Anything that seems too good to be true probably is!"

[rschroedy]

04:10 AM on 05/05/2011

First, I think it is important to self-examine interventions that are made in a place in order to see if they are doing the good that they are supposed to do What I find interesting is that you criticize this man for his intervention, but when you were challenged about interventions in general during this presentation that you gave you refused to self-examine, and instead asked the question "Do you act or not act?" If you are going to criticize this man and Mortenson for their interventions, you should at least be open to critiques of interventions that you advocate.

[rschroedy]

04:18 AM on 05/05/2011

I'm sorry this post became redundant, I did not know about the pending policy with the Huffington Post.

[Jonathan Lewis]

10:03 AM on 05/05/2011

Your point is well-taken, although I think you may have misunderstood the context....or I did not explain myself as well as I should have. I think examining impact is necessary, but inaction is inexcusable. Serious economic development experts need to constantly review their impact and seek to improve. The concern, and judgment call, is making decisions based on the available options, not waiting for the perfect solution. In the case of the gentlemen to whom I referred in my blog, I had the distinct impression that he was set in his core belief that his impact was “perfect.”

[rschroedy]

03:42 AM on 05/05/2011

I find your post interesting because during your presentation you were reluctant to self-examine interventions that you advocated and never brought up this criticism with the man himself. You criticize him in this post about whether or not his intervention is doing good, but when whether or not your interventions, or interventions you advocated for, were doing good you simplified your reasoning to "it's a decision to act or not to act" and that it was irresponsible to not act.

[Brian Fikkert]

10:47 AM on 05/04/2011

Thank you Jonathan for urging all of us to be more reflective about our efforts to alleviate poverty. You are correct that all organizations--the World Bank, the IMF, the UN, USAID, microfinance institutions, churches, faith-based NGOs, etc.--are promoting some view of human flourishing and of the best way to achieve such flourishing. As a Christ follower, I do have enormous confidence in the power of Jesus Christ--not in myself, my efforts, or my programs--to bring healing to people who are poor and to me. This belief necessarily shapes the approaches that I use to help people who are poor. However, such confidence in Jesus Christ should NOT justify shoddy methods, a failure to apply best practices, a lack of accountability, or an overconfidence about the efficacy of various strategies to help people who are poor. Indeed, as I have argued in the book "When Helping Hurts: How to Alleviate Poverty without Hurting the Poor...and Yourself," well meaning churches and Christian ministries often do considerable harm in their attempts to do good. I believe the same is true for many other sectarian and non-sectarian organizations. So let us all pause, reflect, and self-examine a bit more before we claim that we have found the silver bullet for alleviating poverty. May I even suggest that a bit of repentance is in order for all of us?

[indy girl]

08:26 AM on 05/03/2011

"He described how his church addresses the multidisciplinary nature of poverty in African villages by drilling wells, building schools, erecting health clinics, etc. while also distributing bibles and proselytizing the gospel."

Why not just drill wells, build schools, and erect health clinics? I am sure these Africans had their own spiritual beliefs before the church arrived, probably ones which have worked just fine for generations. Remove the foreign religious proselytizing and they'd have been even better off.

[Jonathan Lewis]

12:34 AM on 05/04/2011

Thanks for your opinion. My personal views mirror your own, but I also think we need to respect that different people travel different paths and have different motivations. If, for example, it is acceptable for me to advance my beliefs about gender equality (thereby perhaps upending local "beliefs"), I think I should also make room for others to promote thier views. I am working to be less dogmatic and rigid. In any event, in this instance I was merely reporting on this particular individual's self-described activities. Cheers.

[f0rTyLeGz]

02:08 AM on 05/03/2011

Bravo!