Sustainability in the Christian Community According to some theorists of language, the meaning of language is in its use. In his Philosophical Investigations, Ludwig Wittengstein asserts that “...the meaning of a word is its use in the language” (Section 43), and this meaning is given by its surroundings. As a word is used, the context from which it emerges determines its meaning. Hans-Georg Gadamer describes this context as horizon, “the larger context of meaning in which any particular meaningful presentation is situated.” This does not mean however, that language is purely private, always confined and defined by its social location, or its “historically determined situated ness.” These horizons do not remain isolated or unchanged. There is interaction and synergy among these horizons —fusion of horizons (horizonverschmelzong) — and thus, the basic model of understanding that Gadamer arrives at in Truth and Meaning is that of conversation. So here I am, in conversation with you to elucidate the meaning of sustainability as it relates to our mission and ministry. Sustainability has been primarily defined within the context of social development theories whose main aim is enabling individuals and communities to live fuller and more satisfying lives. In order to achieve this goal, certain objectives should be met. The Oxfam Field Director‟s Handbook identifies these objectives as • an increase in participation • the strengthening of communal organization • the reduction of dependence • the development of initiative/motivation/leadership
the heightening of critical awareness. The ELCA Division for Global Mission Policy Statement Concerning Sustainable Development defines it as “a process that leads to improving the quality of life of people.” As a process, sustainability in development is a continued effort that centers on empowering people to overcome situations that oppress, exclude and marginalize them, ensuring “their rights to determine their own future, [ rights that include sovereignly over natural resources, production, and distribution. People are at the center of this process. People and people‟s communities are the means and end in this approach. „1 In more recent times sustainability has been understood from an economic development perspective. The goal of economic development is to a) raise the income of project participants, b) to generate employment, and c) to achieve self-reliance. In this context, sustainability is the means by which an organization will continue to offer and fund a project or program once the grant period has concluded. The emphasis here is on a project‟s financial viability, which is effected by the use of appropriate technology that can be supported locally, by better managing the financial resources, and by generating local sources of income that lessen dependence on outside capital or grants. Under this premise, a corollary to sustainability is efficiency and maximization of resources. I am a strong supporter of empowering people and communities to control their lives and destinies as they develop to the fullest their human potential. We are called to accompany them in this process toward self-determination. However, at times, we, the people and churches of the North, have fallen prey to today‟s obsession with efficiency and maximization as prescribed by the neoliberal, policies of market economy. I don‟t need to spend time here discussing the effects of these policies. We all know about the
Structural Adjustment Programs. What is interesting is that we have not only fallen pray to these notions, but have also engaged in our own SAP processes with companions. Oftentimes I hear our companions complaint about our own practices and requirements in the planning, monitoring and evaluating process. They are not complaining about being held accountable for the management of these resources, but about their lack of participation in developing the terms of reference for these processes. I have seen this in DGM decisions to reduce or withhold funding to particular programs and in LWF-DMD/WS evaluations. The element we are missing is m and interdependence in the path toward sustainability. Last year Martin Junge, LWF-DMD Area Secretary for Latin America and the Caribbean, presented a discussion paper on this very same issue. As he pondered the concern for the sustainability of the churches in the South he asked: “Is it because also the churches in the North are facing constraints and difficulties, thus foreseeing already that their support to their partners in the South will diminish in the future and endanger therefore their financial sustainability? Or is it because the backward trend openly challenges a paradigm, which builds (unconsciously) the basis of assumptions regarding „development‟ in the world, which is then implemented through programs and projects? Is it an existential suffering, a pain, because the scope of the churches is being diminished? Is it that in times where beauty and success count, it becomes difficult to accept (and sell) defeats and ugly dependency?” Can we speak of dependency in the community of faith? Dependency language implies that there is a separation of gifts and resources. Personal possession is the defining principle. I have something upon which you depend. This kind of language
accentuates the we-they, have and have-not, donor-recipient dichotomies pervasive in the world and the church today. There is no room for this kind of privatization in the community of believers. St. Paul uses the image of the body to describe the church and the life of its members. God has given God‟s people a diversity of gifts whose purpose is the edification of the whole community, and these gifts (charismata) are signs of God‟s free grace. This notion of giftedness runs contrary to the prevailing mentality of privatization of resources. We are dependent on God‟s grace and mercy. It is God alone who sustains our lives and expects that we will also rely on each other‟s gifts to sustain our life together. The ELCA Social Statement on Economic Life addresses this issue with vigor: When we pray in the Lord‟s Prayer, “Give us this day our daily bread,” we place ourselves in tension with economic assumptions of our society. Rather than being self-sufficient, we need and depend on what God gives or provides through people, practices, and systems. “Daily bread” is not earned by efforts of individuals alone, but is made possible through a variety of relationships and institutions. 3 The question for us regarding sustainability is not financial viability or organizational capacity — as important as they are for the work we do. Our discussion is guided by what is ultimately the goal of this process -- people -- and in this particular case, people in need. We can see this emphasis in Luther‟s writings where the “neighbor in need” is a central hermeneutical key. We are freed and gifted for service: “A Christian is a perfectly free lord of all, subject to none. A Christian is a perfectly dutiful servant of all, subject to all.” Again, the ELCA social statement on economic life underscores this concern for the poor:
In relation to those who are poor, Martin Luther‟s insights into the meaning of the commandments against killing, stealing, and coveting are sobering. We violate “you shall not kill” when we do not help and support others to meet their basic needs. As Luther explained, “If you see anyone suffer hunger and do not feed [ you have let [ starve” “To steal” can include “taking advantage of our neighbor in any sort of dealing that results in loss to him [ her] ... wherever business is transacted and money is exchanged for goods or labor. “You shall not covet” means “God does not wish you to deprive your neighbor of anything that is [ letting [ suffer loss while you gratify your greed.” The challenge for us in the Lutheran community is to develop a spirituality of giftedness that enables us to transcend the limitations of economic theory that abstract itself from the social or communal character of human existence. Cynthia Moe-Lobeda provides us with a starting point for this reflection in her Communio and a Spirituality of Resistance. Building on Luther‟s Eucharistic economic ethics she sees economic life as practice of neighbor-love which is sustain by the indwelling of Christ in the community. This mediated presence, through the Word and the sacraments, as well as what I call the third sacrament in the Lutheran church — the mutua consolation fratis, is the basis for our giftedness. That” „Christ [ fills all things‟, and is present particularly in sites of suffering, enables us to acknowledge soul-searing economic brutalities that must be faced if we are to resist neoliberal economic globalization, and convert to economic ways that enable just and sustainable communities and earth communities for generations to come.” 6 Once we acknowledge that the giftedness of our lives and resources is to serve God and God‟s purposes in the world, the criteria for judging and implementing sustainable processes are defined more by our understanding of stewardship, and the interdependency and interconnectedness of its members, than by the notions of efficiency
and maximization of resources. In our communion we are to be “.. .good stewards of the manifold grace of God [ must] serve one another with whatever gift each of you has received.” iPeter 4:10
Rafael Malpica Padilla May 13, 2005 1
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Division for Global Mission, Policy Statement concerning sustainable Development, 2000. 2
Martin Junge, Sustainability of the churches in the South —Framing a Needed Discussion, 2004
3
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, A Social Statement on Economic Life: Sufficient, Sustainable Livelihood for All, August 20, 1999. 4
“Martin Luther, The Freedom of a Christian., in Three Treatises, W.A. Lambert, Translator (Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1986), p. 277 5
Cynthia Moe-Lobeda, Communio and a Spirituality of Resistance., in Communion, Responsibility, Accountability: Responding as a Lutheran communion to Neoliberal Globalization, Ed. Karen L. Bloomquist (Geneva, Switzerland: The Lutheran world Federation, 2004) 6
Ibid, p.153