[This is the second part in a blog series on Worldview and Social Change]
The causes of poverty are closely related to the nature or ‘definition’ of poverty in many ways. For the purposes of this blog series, the ‘nature of poverty’ acts as a theological framework for understanding poverty whereby the ‘causes of poverty’ act as a practical application to these theological underpinnings.
Causes
In When Helping Hurts, the authors do well to illustrate differing perspectives on how worldview informs causes and actions (see accompanying recreated figure). Oftentimes, we try to isolate one issue as the major cause of poverty. However, if we hold that sin has truly pervaded all aspects of human life, we might be more inclined to agree with the selection of authors mentioned in Part II who suggest that there are many issues that collectively contribute to the problem of poverty. Often times, it is spoken that there are no “silver bullets” to alleviating poverty, which is certainly true if we hold that sin has reached all mankind, every system, and indeed, all of creation (Romans 8:18-24).
First, it is critical that we do not fall into the temptation of dichotomizing the spiritual and physical aspects of poverty, as government institutions have labored towards. As Westerners, our society tends towards a scientific view of problems and solutions. This is not the case in the global South. In fact, a spiritual cause and effect will often be interpreted, whether we are cognizant of this or not. For example, what we see as a scientifically proven medical cause may be viewed by the local people as the work of a witch doctor in the spiritual realm. If we have a holistic view of poverty, we will take on a broader perspective of what the causes of poverty are – which directly inform the interventions we take on. And, if service to the poor is to be Kingdom focused, the intentional integration of the gospel message will be prerequisite.
Second, if the nature of poverty truly is theological at its core, extending out towards the psychological, social, and physical spheres of life (as proposed by Keller), then we are led to believe that the causes of poverty can and should be viewed at a variety of very different levels. These causes of sin in the heart of man may therefore be at a personal level (spending income on drugs and alcohol, lack of opportunities, damaging worldviews) or a systematic level (corruption, oppression, government policies). Oftentimes, multiple causes are involved, which is clearly the case in the sex slave industry example given in Part II (as exemplified by Keller’s terms):
Theological – Wrong view of God causes the family to sell their child for slave labor
Psychological – Child slave views themself as worthless to God and man
Social – Oppression and evildoing from watchful authorities; child is stigmatized from society
Physical – Lack of work opportunities; disease and fear of treatment
…and the list goes on.
Summing up what has been discussed thus far, we see that a biblical worldview informs how we view the poor, the nature of poverty rooted in the Fall, and the practical ways of how sin has pervaded the many different aspects that contribute to poverty. The good news is that Christ has already accomplished His work of redemption, and we can be assured that one day there will be no more suffering and no more poverty! In the meantime, Christ has called His people to reflect His power and redemption by being the hands, feet, and mouthpiece of Christ in our present circumstances of suffering and poverty.
In the next part of this series, we will take a closer look at this call.
2 Comments on "The Causes of Poverty: Why does it happen?"
This is a really interesting topic. I get what youre saying about sin and the West, etc, but I’m curious what other ways you think we tend to dichotomize poverty. Thanks in advance, it’s just I’ve never thought about missions or social justice like that before.
Thanks for your comments Teppei. I think you’re asking for other ways that we isolate the causes of poverty as not being interrelated to one another. Generally speaking, I find Westerners to be linear thinking, problem solvers. Some may believe that the ultimate need of those in poverty is education or job training or nutritional supplements or good governance, etc. However, I would say that most people would accept a level of interrelationship between each of those solutions. In other words, the level of success of one solution (education) is dependent upon the success of another (nutrition) to some degree.
To me, the word ‘dichotomy’ has a much greater connotation of division where there is no relationship between a solution and the problem. And if this is the case, there is no reason whatsoever to pursue that particular solution. For the secularist, the dichotomy has separated out the biblical solution as unrelated to the problem. This is the primary difference between secular humanitarian and Christian worldviews. We fully believe that there are issues of poverty in the physical realm that ought to be addressed AND we believe that the gospel speaks to each of those issues. Most importantly, the gospel speaks to issues of eternal consequence that address the ultimate problem of sin and judgment. With all of that to say, I hesitate to speak of dichotomy outside of the distinct differences between secular and Christian worldviews. On an interesting note, there is some academic work being done right now on showing the greater effectiveness of Christian-based development projects.
I hope that response was somewhat in the ballpark of what you were responding to! If not, feel free to ask again.