In the midst of the disasters that are piling up this year, Speaking of Faith is doing a series on foreign aid and the ethical questions that surround it. One fascinating guest is Jacqueline Novogratz, head of the Acumen Fund.
Novogratz' method of "patient capitalism" is based on the premise that development works best when the traditional roles of giver-receiver are broken open. People engaged in ongoing economic transactions, she argues, are more likely to be in honest relationship about what's working and what is not. If we simply give gifts to the poor, we set up a relationship in which they will be reluctant to offer feedback about the gift, and where currying the favor of the donor ends up taking precedence over effectiveness.
“Slow capitalism" takes a step away from the fast-paced demand for profit that most free market investment brings, but maintains a relationship of economic partnership. It's a new model, but she makes a strong argument that it's one worth trying in a variety of places and ways.
This got me thinking about the ways a theology of grace can sometimes stand in the way of honest relationship at an institutional level – even in church situations that aren’t about money or charity. The hierarchy of the church says, "we're offering you a free gift, the best gift of all.". . . and then there's a silent follow-up which boils down to "so don't go critiquing the way it is offered, take it or leave it!" As a result, tragically, thousands have decided to leave it, because there is no further conversation about what this gift means, how it might seep further into our lives, and how we celebrate it together. Meanwhile lots of profit-driven enterprises very successfully convince people that they want a "relationship" with their brand, their products, their "lifestyle systems."
The problem, of course, is not with the free gift, but with the power dynamics in the relationships. Economic partnerships encourage everyone to contribute as they can. Gifts shared among equals keep relationships going. Hand-outs given from rich to poor -- or from those in charge to those with no say -- have the opposite effect. So how do we get clear about what this relationship is? Yes, God is still God, and we are still receivers, but within the church, those who lead and those who participate could use some more conversation.
