End Goal

How can we best help people?

That is the main question that I ask myself when I consider the needs around the world and the actions of humanitarian aid.  I think that at this point everyone knows that we cannot willy nilly do humanitarian aid.  There needs to be a strategy.  There needs to be a plan.  There needs to be a reason behind the things that we do, the resources that we use, the manpower that we utilize, and the money that we spend.  And all of this needs to revolve around one simple question: How can we best help people?

I would like to offer a simple and yet strategic way to best help people: simplifying humanitarian aid down to two specific forms of aid.  We need to re-think “short-term” and “long-term” forms of aid.  We need to change them to be more specific, more strategic, and more accurate.  Here are the two forms of aid that we should be focusing upon: Desperate and End.

Desperate-term. This form of aid is extremely similar to short term.  This is the type of aid reserved for people who are in desperate situations.  This is the aid that people need or else they will die or suffer or continue to live in extreme oppression.  This aid is the type of aid that needs no thinking.  It doesn’t matter where it comes from or who gives it or anything.  People need help.  They need it now.  And those who have the ability to help – they have to help.  This is desperate term aid.

End-term. Now end-term aid is a lot different than long-term aid.  End-term aid is doing things that are going to literally end these problems.  That means we need to do big things, macro things.  End-term aid revolves around changing the context so that these problems fully end.  There is a lot more to say about this type of aid, as it is a relatively new idea.  But end-term aid is all about ending these problems.

And those are the two places where we need to focus.  Help people today.  Help people forever.  And that is all we need to be doing in order to give people the best help possible.

Are you ready?

Let’s go.

I recently returned from a mission trip to Nicaragua and was reminded again of something that has been on my mind a lot lately.  I quite simply can’t escape it.  Basically, it is the concept that in order to truly end the effects of extreme poverty, the entire context needs to be changed.

Working in some of the small, poor neighborhoods in Nicaragua, I was really struck again by the thought that nothing our group did would really change things.  I mean, we definitely helped some kids and some families.  But tomorrow morning, they will still wake up in their same context of poverty: terrible local economy, no good jobs, limited education, terrible infrastructure, etc.  No matter what good things people can do to help them in the short-term (which is still a vital need), it does not change the context.  Today, tomorrow, and twenty years from now they will still be living in poverty because their context is poverty.

So I keep coming back to this question: “What is the best thing that we can do to help those living in poverty?”

I believe the answer is this: Change the context.

We have to find ways to change the entire context if people are going to be put in the best position to succeed and not suffer.  This can be accomplished in a myriad of ways including establishing up-to-date infrastructure and communication abilities, focusing on assets and natural resources, maximizing the macro-economy, and several other things.  These things are not as tangible or immediate as short-term aid or some of the other popular forms of aid used today, but they are much more effective in the long-run.

Really, I think that it all comes down to this: Changing the context for people living in poverty is the best thing that we can do to help those living in poverty.

Yesterday, I was preparing for a meeting about a mission trip to Nicaragua with my church.  As I was thinking about this mission trip, I began thinking about our outcomes.  What were out outcomes?  What were we trying to accomplish?  What did success look like at the end of our trip?

As I thought about this, I began to think about justice and injustice.  Our group has been looking at the definitions of justice and how God interacts with justice.  But why are we trying to do a trip that is focused on things like compassion and justice?  What is the outcome of these type of things?

Not that there is just one outcome of justice and compassion and love and mercy and things like that – but still, what are we trying to accomplish?  What are the outcomes?

As my train of thought went down these tracks, I stumbled onto a thought about justice/injustice that has been sticking with me.  Maybe the outcome of all of these things is for people to simply be the people that God created us to be?

God created us to have community with Him and others.  He created us in His very own image – to think for ourselves and choose things for ourselves.  He created us to be unique and special and calls us to do unique and special things.  Justice is putting people in the right positions to more fully be the people that God created them to be.

Conversely, injustice is when people/systems take away the ability and opportunity for people to be the people that God created them to be.  Injustice happens when things limit a person’s ability to connect with God and connect with others.  Injustice happens when people are not given opportunities to be unique and special and to do the unique and special things God has called them to do.  Injustice happens when choices, decisions, and free will are taken away.

So what were we trying to do with our mission trip?  What was our outcome?

We simply want to fight injustices and put people in better positions to more fully be the people that God wants them to be…

There is a coffee shop in my town that has recently started a small nonprofit arm of its organization.  They call it Full Circle Coffee, and it purchases – through Fair Trade markets – coffee beans from small farmers in developing countries.  Admittedly, this is an excellent program that is helping some families.  It is making a difference for someone, and that means something.

But it is not making a difference for everyone – and that means something, too.

I am not saying that we should never do anything on a micro level.  But I am trying to point out that micro-level aid will not ever change the macro-level.  It will not change the context.  Farmers will still barely get by in their poor local economies with terrible infrastructure and far-too-basic education.  Helping them in small ways will make a difference, but it will not change the overall context of the situation.  It will not end the problem.

We cannot continue to nickel and dime our way through humanitarian aid if we think that will end these problems.  Doing small, micro-level things will not change the context and end these problems.  It helps some people, for sure; but it does not help everyone.  And we cannot continue to nickel and dime our way through these problems, because it is not enough.

So what I am trying to say with all of this?  My main point is this: Based on the fact that we are not doing well with ending these problems in the world, we need to be more strategic about our aid.  Since we need to be more strategic about our aid, we need to recognize that we cannot nickel and dime our way to ending these problems.  We need to strategically put our aid in endeavors that will change the context, the macro, the overall – and end these problems.

It’s time for us to realize that no matter how good these small programs like Full Circle Coffee can be, they are not ending these problems.  And that needs to be our focus.  Nickel and diming humanitarian aid will not end these problems.

…and we need to end these problems.