How should Christians respond when faced with issus of poverty and injustice? This question has come up in the discussion of my post Why I shop at Tesco.

Much of the discussion has really been about who should be considered the poor people to whom I should show Christian compassion. I do not include among such people British farmers, who are complaining about being squeezed of their excess profits by supermarkets trying to keep the price of food down. I don’t approve of all the supermarkets’ business practices, but that is a commercial matter, not one for Christian social action.

Eclexia has a thought-provoking post on The Poor and Needy, basically asking what defines someone as poor and needy or as a worthy recipient of charity. See also her follow-up post. My personal situation is a bit similar to hers, in some ways poor (very limited income) while in other ways rich (significant assets tied up in property) – now as well as in the past when I was on the mission field. A large part of my concern is for the poor people (at least by western standards) of the estate around me, who are finding life very difficult at the moment because of rising food prices, and who have good reason to thank the supermarkets for fighting hard to keep prices down.

So the first question that Christians need to ask when faced with apparent poverty or injustice is whether it is real, and a really significant matter. Regrettably, in this world not everyone who asks for help is genuinely in need of it. Giving through registered charities (here in the UK) at least gives some assurance that most of the money given really benefits those for whom the appeal is made, although there is still no guarantee that their need is genuine. Sadly there is not even that assurance concerning the extra price paid for supposedly ethically traded items, much of which can end up in shareholders’ pockets.

So what can Christians do to respond to poverty and structural injustice? Here I am assuming a situation in which Christians are a rather small minority of the general population. I can see several possible types of reaction:

1. Christians can do nothing. That may sound unethical. However, in an age where we are bombarded with appeals for apparently good causes, each Christian, with God’s guidance, needs to make an informed decision about which causes to support and which ones to ignore. A Christian who ignores all issues of poverty and injustice is probably acting unethically. A Christian who refuses to support your own pet project may simply have made a sensible decision to target limited resources elsewhere.

2. Christians can privately make small donations, “ethical” purchasing choices etc to ease their own consciences for their generally inequitable lifestyle. Thus they may buy Fairtrade coffee or respond to appeals with pictures of starving children, but in most of the way they live they continue to support the structures which lead to third world poverty. Is it too cynical of me to suggest that most giving by Christians, and others, falls into this category?

3. Christians can make prophetic gestures. These are actions which in themselves don’t make a real difference to the situation, but they publicise issues, demonstrate Christian concern, and perhaps stimulate others to make a real difference. A recent example of this was the Archbishop of York cutting up his dog collar in protest against the situation in Zimbabwe: in itself this did nothing to help, but it raised awareness of the issue. Thus a Christian might wear a T-shirt with a slogan about the need to remember the poor, which is a valid response whether or not the T-shirt is itself ethically produced and traded. If I announced on this blog that I had just bought a small Fairtrade item (actually I haven’t, but then I haven’t bought anything for several days), that would be more a prophetic gesture than offering real help.

4. Christians can get together to make small but significant differences. Christians giving together, or making purchasing decisions together, cannot solve the overall problem of world poverty and injustice, because there are not enough of us – certainly not here in the UK, it might be a different matter if we could mobilise a majority of the Americans who call themselves Christians. We can make a significant difference in certain places, alleviating the poverty of some people, but not all. But this approach has a problem in that concentrating resources on just a few projects creates a divide between those who benefit and those who do not. That is not a reason not to help just some people, but it is a reason to be careful about how we do it, and to ensure that others do not end up worse off.

5. Christians can support the same causes as the world around supports. There is nothing wrong with this, although Christians would want to avoid charities with policies going against Christian moral standards. But another problem which might arise is that in doing so Christians implicitly accept the world’s ways of solving its own problems, which may not be the solutions which Christians would choose. Again there is a need for informed choice, rather than simply giving to the cause making the most tear-jerking appeals.

6. Christians can try to do small actions which trigger wider beneficial changes, such as by setting an example which others might follow, or setting up pilot projects which be self-funding and able to multiply. I added this point on the basis of what my commenter Karin wrote:

What we do when we choose to buy a product made nearer to home or a fairly traded product from a developing country is to show suppliers that there is a market for such things, as we are a substantial minority.

Another example might be providing micro-finance for a small business which is then able to grow or replicate itself – or, if the concept is actually sustainable, following the recent fashion of buying animals for poor farmers. When this kind of thing works, when something started on a small scale by Christians or others grows into a broader movement, that is of course excellent – as long as the benefits outweigh any disadvantages. But it is only rather rarely that this approach actually succeeds. So often Christian attempts to do this end up as little more than prophetic gestures, or as individual projects making a local difference but failing to catch on more widely.

7. Christians can work to change general attitudes and structures of society. This is perhaps the most controversial approach as it means Christians getting involved in political action, as Christians. It is also problematic in situations where Christians are in a small minority and cannot expect to get majority support for their position. A serious danger with this approach is that Christianity becomes watered down into moralism, with sermons like this one becoming little more than appeals to ethical behaviour. I don’t actually think it is realistic for Christians to expect to change the world’s mind on issues of poverty and injustice. Nevertheless, it is right for us to stand up and say what we believe.

I believe that it is right for Christians to be involved with politics, and indeed I am. But I am not at all convinced that Christians should campaign as Christians or set up Christian parties. To be consistent, I would have to say that while I support much of what Rev Jeremiah Wright says about politics I don’t think he should have said it from the pulpit.

As Christians, before we make our responses to poverty and injustice, we need to understand what we are doing, into which of these categories it fits. We need to avoid simply responding to pressure and guilt put on us by others. Yes, we need to do something, but a small contribution well targeted may be much more effective than large amounts spent on ill-considered causes.