Religion Matters in the Hood

While fatherhood hasn't left me much time to blog of late it has left plenty of odd moments (i.e., the wee hours of the night) to read blogs and one I've been especially enjoying of late is Tales from the Hood. Today's post is a good example why as it deals with a topic near and dear to my heart, the intersection of religion and development, here's an excerpt:

I am saying that we need to see religion as more than a curiosity or a barrier. I am saying that I see significant room in the aid industry to expand our understanding of the ways in which Religion affects people, broadly speaking, and the ways in which religions are powerful forces in the communities where we work. If the statistic is right and 85 percent of the recipients of aid that we deliver are religious (it’s actually probably higher than 85 percent), then we see a necessarily incomplete picture by sticking with the concrete, the tangible, the scientific. I’m not saying that we should all embrace religion (this is a very personal choice for everyone), but I am suggesting that we need to move beyond arm’s-length tolerance: It is not enough to simply know intellectually that communities in southern Laos are Theravada Buddhist: we need to know what that means specifically in the life of that community and in the lives of those who are to benefit from what we do there. It is not sufficient simply to know that recipients of aid in rural Afghanistan are Muslim; it’s not even enough to overtly make the link between that fact and what it means for us and how we structure and run programs there…

The aid programs that we design and implement and monitor and evaluate nearly always take place in contexts where religion is a central part of peoples lives. For us to be less than complete in our understanding of what that means necessarily limits our ability to fully comprehend the impact of those aid programs.

The whole thing is recommended. My previous posts in a similar vein are tagged under "religion matters."

Urban Hunger in Africa

If I remember correctly, somewhere around 40% of Africa's population live in urban areas, a number that was in the low teens circa 1950. So it's no surprise that the U.N. is struggling to find solutions for the rising problem of urban hunger across the continent and in doing so finding that it's a different beast altogether from the rural hunger that the international development industry has principally been "designed" to combat:

Escalating hunger in African cities is forcing aid agencies accustomed to tackling food shortages in rural areas to scramble for strategies to address the more complex hunger problems in sprawling slums.

The United Nations World Food Program, the world's largest food-aid group, has plenty of experience trucking food into rural Africa, responding to shortages sparked by drought, famine and war. But in urban areas -- where, despite widespread poverty, hunger wasn't a significant issue until recently -- the hurdles are different.

In the vast and crowded slums, with many unnamed streets and dwellings without running water or electricity, it is difficult to identify who's most in need of help. Simply handing out food can disrupt cities' informal markets, cutting into the livelihoods of those who earn a few dollars each day selling peanuts or fresh fish, or of small farmers who haul their produce to the city.

As Bill Easterly is fond of saying, poverty is more than a technical engineering problem that is simply waiting for the right answer to come along. Effective ground level solutions have to find ways to knit together the socio-cultural fabric that has been torn apart by poverty and hunger, unfortunately that is a really hard task to accomplish if the needed threads have been left behind in the village.

In rural areas, aid groups can rely on the communities to help single out the neediest people and quickly distribute aid. That's more difficult in cities, where more nuanced surveys are needed to find the most vulnerable.

One suggestion, Ms. Sheeran, might be to call the church.

Conversion as a Bridge to Development?

Here's the title and byline from Matthew Parris's current piece in the Times Online:

As an atheist, I truly believe Africa needs God

Missionaries, not aid money, are the solution to Africa's biggest problem - the crushing passivity of the people's mindset.

Aside: It's probably no fault of Parris, as titles and summaries are usually the provence of editors, but there is plenty to quibble with in those first thirty words or so before we even get to the article itself, something of an inauspicious beginning. Not the least of which is to bemoan yet another occurrence of run of the mill adult behavior somehow being deemed worthy of laudatory attention ("Cat says, 'Dogs not that bad, really!'"). The ability to see both sides of an issue and muster up the intellectual imagination necessary to conceive of how someone approaching said issue might arrive at a different conclusion, given their own unique starting point, was at some point in the past not a feat of staggering genius but a minor point of good manners. Alas, that and the hills requiring us to walk up them both ways in the snow appear to be no more and so matters of intellectual civility are reduced to little more than a writers conceit. Bah, bring me my lap blanket!

However, even though I appear to be on the other side of the spectrum when it comes to the matter of religious faith, I'm not sure that we are interpreting the cause and effect of religious involvement, in this case a decidedly Christian faith, in a similar fashion. Since I'm just re-entering the digital world after a bit of a holiday fast here are a couple of random, disjointed, very inside-baseball thoughts drawn from my own time working with faith based groups on the African continent:

1. Africa has "had God" for quite a while now. Depending on your reading of history the African church has been around since the first century, Mark the evangelist is traditionally thought to have founded the Coptic Church in Alexandria between 40-50 AD. So, either God's not doing that great a job or there is more going on across Africa than a dearth of missionaries (a point I'm sure Parris wouldn't argue). I'm actually a fan of the reading of history which gives the Christian faith a place of importance in the cultivation, development and spread of the best of our modern society (and admittedly a not infrequent tool used to decimate some of the worst) but it did so amidst the seedbed of more than a few other important factors, many of which Africa lacks. Faith, Africa has in spades.

Aside: If you're curious about the historical importance of Christian thought that has taken place on the African continent, Thomas Oden released a good book at the beginning of this year entitled How Africa Shaped the Christian Mind.

2. I can't help but hear my neo-colonialism bells ringing when I read Parris's article - no accusation there, just my own reading. Admittedly, they are occasionally tuned a little too finely but when Parris recounts returning to his boyhood home after being away for 45 years and comes away impressed by the Africans who have thrown off the bondages of traditionalism, be they religious or communal, and embraced the well spoken niceties of western European conventions it is hard for me to hear him saying anything other than, "I like the Africans who are more like me and less like their uncles."

3. Parris attributes this escape from the "crushing passivity" of the African mindset to Christian conversion. Undoubtedly, there's some merit to that claim as exposure to the Christian faith has traditionally meant exposure to Europeans and Americans (Aside: this is increasingly not the case however, as the majority of Christian "evangelism" taking place on the African continent is now African to African.) and this exposure has brought along with it not only a new found faith but a variety of invaluable social capital that might push them ahead of their more traditional neighbors. The same thing happens to individuals in developing countries who find work with NGO's. Their English gets better, even if passively so they are more aware of both the hurdles and opportunities for bettering themselves and again, by association if nothing else, they are better equipped to avoid the former and embrace the latter. In a developing context where a weeks delay in the rainfall can be the difference between famine and plenty, how much more meaningful could a relationship with a wealthy, accommodating Westerner be in terms of incremental change?

4. Missionaries frequent the lobbies of expensive hotels quite a bit. Which is not to say that they do not live lives of spartan sacrifice in relation to what they may have left behind in their native lands and in service to their calling; but it is simply to acknowledge that they too attend conferences and discuss strategy, take the occasional vacation, entertain a donor here and there, and are no more ignorant of the exchange rate than their NGO counterparts.

5. I don't think "tribal value systems" should be beyond critique either but neither do I think that the Christian gospel is inherently destructive to traditional cultures. There is no denying that in the hands of the over zealous it has often been so, as they introduced not only the gospel message but their own culturally conditioned interpretation of the gospel as being both singular and normative, but at its heart the gospel is a message of redemption and reconciliation for both individuals and cultures.

Aside: One valid critique of Christianity in Africa by Christian African academics is that its failure to move beyond superficial transformation in many African cultures is a result of its failure to adapt itself to what Parris bemoans as the "rural-traditional mindset" (or rather re-adapt, since it is hard to read the biblical narrative as anything other than speaking to and out of a "rural-traditional mindset"). They claim that an individualistic, community eschewing faith (which it pains me to say has been the most prevalently espoused Western interpretation) is not what Africa needs, but a faith that redeems the strength of community and enables the community to move beyond the corrupt, monopolies of individuals who have learned to manipulate the strengths of community against itself.

6. A final quibble:

Christianity, post-Reformation and post-Luther, with its teaching of a direct, personal, two-way link between the individual and God, unmediated by the collective, and unsubordinate to any other human being, smashes straight through the philosphical/spiritual framework I've just described. It offers something to hold on to to those anxious to cast off a crushing tribal groupthink. That is why and how it liberates.

Since Parris is a self-professed atheist he can be excused for the over simplification, but that isn't Christianity, it's not the gospel, or at least it's not all of it. As I mentioned above, the heart of the gospel is redemption and reconciliation but it's not simply a restoration of the link between God and humanity - it is certainly that, but it is also the reconciliation of humanity to others, to creation and to itself. Christianity does not call us out of the tribe, out of community, but it calls us into "true" community. The faith described by Parris above will certainly position Africa to be a continent of independent, self-interested, potential consumer-capitalists but I don't think it will make them overly Christian or developed.

The bulk of Parris's article is interesting if problematic in places - though if taken to its logical conclusion I fear it would be bad for both religion and development on the African continent. I tend to agree with the overall gist of his premise - that there is something both good and necessary, both affecting and effective, inherent in the faith based work that takes place across the developing world, and the African continent in particular. As I've said before, (here, here and here for starters) I think that religion can (and must) be one of the key bridges to continued development success when operating in cultures as intrinsically religious as those found throughout much of Africa. To ignore religion is to do more than fail to acknowledge the elephant in the room it is to fail to arrive at the house all together. More could be said but this has gone on far too long already, apologies.

More on Religion Matters

Ethan Zuckerman points to a good column in Sunday's Washington Post that falls firmly into the category of "religion matters." It is written by a catholic priest and professor at Georgetown, Ryan Maher, who has been teaching the university's traditional freshman theology class in Doha, Quatar at a recently opened branch campus of their School of Foreign Service. The class, to say the least, was not typical of those he had taught on the Washington D. C. campus:

That was not an easy course to teach. I imagine it was not an easy course to take, either. We were all aware that we were engaging in something novel, a college class of mostly Sunni and Shiite Muslims exploring with one another and with their Catholic priest professor some of the basic theological issues: the existence of God, free will, sin, prayer and Judgment Day.

One day early in the semester, in the middle of a discussion on the definition of revelation, one of my students, an intensely bright Muslim from Bosnia, heaved a deep sigh and blurted out, "I hope we don't get blown up for talking about this stuff." I was writing on the blackboard, with my back to the class. I laughed. When I turned around, I saw that he wasn't joking.

Reading the rest of the article it is apparent that Maher feels that a personal experience with religious belief and not just an anthropological knowledge of religions is important for reasons that go to the heart of international relations and foreign service:

The majority of Georgetown students I know are fairly knowledgeable about religion. They can talk intelligently about Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism and Buddhism. The glitch is that they talk from the perspective of anthropologists and sociologists and historians. These are valuable perspectives. But they are not enough. Of course we need to raise young people who can be smart, savvy, sophisticated participants in international affairs. What we also need are young people who can be all of those things while at the same time knowing and understanding what it is to live one's life with a commitment rooted in faith.

He gets to the heart of the matter when recalling a conversation with a friend over the place of faith in American politics, specifically in light of John Kerry's refusal to discuss his the role faith played in his own life:

I have thought about that conversation for a long time. It has helped me understand what hobbles American higher education when it comes to educating people for careers in international affairs. It's not that we don't know about religion; it's that we don't understand faith and its life-shaping power.

The majority of people I know in higher education would argue that there is nothing wrong with religion for people who feel they need it. Their sentiments come down to something like this: "You have your religious convictions, I have mine. Let's acknowledge our differences and agree to disagree with one another within the confines of polite debate." That makes sense, of course, but it is not enough to prepare a new generation of diplomats who will be asked to engage the Muslim world in the decades to come.

This template for discussing religion and faith is fundamentally flawed. It presumes that different groups of faithful people approach their religions in the same way football fans approach their favorite teams: I cheer passionately for mine, you cheer passionately for yours, and we all agree to play by the rules and exhibit good sportsmanship. For people of faith, religion isn't like that. A person of Muslim faith and a person of Christian faith engaged in honest conversation about religion are not like two fans pulling for their respective teams. They are more like two men in love with the same woman, each trying to express, safeguard and be faithful to his relationship with his beloved. Love brings with it complexities that football does not.

I think Maher is absolutely correct and as I've said, as recently as yesterday, religion matters. Whether we are engaged in international diplomacy or trying to communicate the benefits of leguminous cover crops, we ignore matters and factors of faith to our own peril, detriment and eventual failure when dealing with the vast majority of the world's peoples.

A Purpose Driven Africa?

I never know what to say about articles like this one from USA Today entitled, "America's finding purpose in hopes for Africa's future," and for that reason I usually say nothing. But this one dovetails closely enough with some other things that I've been thinking through and dealing with - including looking for a new job - that I thought I would throw a few thoughts into the wind.

For starters I'm tired of being cynical. I'm really making an effort, although it's hard to tell at times, to shed the ironic cynicism that marks so much of how myself and my peers view, comment on and relate to the world. It's not profitable, it's not clever and after a while you actually start to feel as shallow and stretched thin as you sound. Not that I'm embracing naivety, and there are certainly worse things to be than naive, it's just that I want to be more sincere, more present, more charitable and I don't want to assume that there is anything special about me in doing so. Instead I want to assume that the best of me is encountering the best of you, the best of whatever, and naive or not it usually becomes quickly apparent whether or not that is true. At some point the benefit of the doubt fell out of vogue but I'm trying to bring it back - if JT can bring sexy back why can't I do the same for sincerity.

So, all that introspection to say that there is plenty of fodder for cynicism in this article, and a number of cringe worthy statements which I will try to treat charitably. Here are a few thoughhts:

1. It's a run of the mill story looking at the movement among American's to invest themselves in the "obvious solutions" to Africa's problems. Broadly, from a sociological standpoint, I'm really interested in this movement. How new is it? Who's involved in it - from my experience it tends to be limited to middle to upper-middle class WASP's (no coincidence that this demographic makes up the bulk of Warren's congregation) and the usual disenchanted twenty-somethings - is it broader than that? Are there really more people involved in this type of charitable work than before or has globalization simply moved more of it abroad like everything else and therefore it's a bigger story?

2. Religion matters. I've said this before, although not very coherently - here and here. It is not coincidental that the lens through which this movement is viewed is the work of Rick Warren's Saddleback Church. Religion as an on the ground reality that must be factored into development strategies and as a motivation for those involving themselves in relief and development work does not get the attention that it needs from the development biz. Conversely, those like Warren, involving themselves in relief and development work often do not draw heavily enough upon the experience and expertise of those who have devoted themselves to the study and practice of that work. If you can get McCain and Obama on the same stage in your church, you have no excuse for not getting the best advise you can find in terms of planning and methodology. And maybe they are, I don't know who is running the P.E.A.C.E. program now so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt but there are a few statements in the article that make me worry.

3. As an aside, the criticism that Warren and company should be focused on doing more "at home" is a red herring. For starters, their local ministries out number their global programs. Second, I'm not sure people understand the scale that this church is operating on. This isn't your local parish church, this is a small city of 30,000 people. What if the Red Cross only operated charitably in America, wouldn't we wonder why they were being so stingy with their resources. Saddleback is the Red Cross of the American religious landscape, there would be something wrong if they were not working globally. As an aside within an aside, this is one of the few arguments in favor of the megachurch model that I find relevant, i.e. that they are resource rich enough to involve themselves in worthwhile projects that would otherwise be neglected.

4. The relationship between motivation and methodology. I know these people. Not personally, I've been to Warren's church and met him in an academic setting - we share an alma mater, but I know people like these people. And I like them. The way they express their faith, the life choices they have made, their politics - all of this and more I certainly have quibbles with but they tend to be genuinely good people in the sense that even the most cynical of us understand that to mean. So, when Tom Wheeler says he feels called to pour sidewalks in Kigali and in that way that he will be serving the nation of Rwanda and somehow contributing a small piece to moving it in the direction of stability, peace and prosperity I tend to believe him. Cities need sidewalks and I've never been to Kigali so I don't know how high up on the priority list they really are but at least he's a civil engineer with a specialized skill from Orange County willing to use it in the service of someone other than Walt Disney. I have trouble finding fault in him for that. I have trouble finding fault in someone who feels like they can make the world a better place. I have trouble chastising someone who feels like a smooth piece of concrete with one less pothole for an overburdened mother to watch out for on her way home is a good thing. Combining religious zeal with sound, sustainable development is hard for lots of reasons and there aren't a lot of good models out there to draw on but I think it can be done. Achieving a sustainable good for a developing country does not require a detached bureaucratic elitism.

However, there are certainly questions of methodology that need to raised. Who is profiting from this work? Are jobs being created for local laborers or are they being undercut? How will it be sustained? Is there a priority need for new sidewalks in Kigali? Again, maybe these questions and more are being asked but it is worth noting that noble motives do not lead to sound methodology any more than sound methodology engenders right motivation. All the more reason for there to be conversations and cooperation between secular and faith-based NGO's, who often fall within one camp of the other.

5. I'm sorry we didn't hear from more Rwandan voices in this piece, and I'm sorry that this is often the case in such instances - I hope it is not the case with the work that Warren is doing. In light of the long term investment that Saddleback is making in Rwanda I would hope that much of the leadership of those endeavors is in the hands of Rwandans. Again, I'm extending the benefit of the doubt here and hoping this is the case, but the truth of the matter is that it needs to be the case.

6. I would like to see more modesty from religious groups involved in relief and development work. This may be another way of saying I would like to see more realism, more admission of the harsh realities of fundamentally changing the structures that entrench poverty, hunger and war into the fabric of a society. On the one hand those who do not come from a religious background find this understandably naive. Even I, who come from a similar evangelical protestant background cringe when I read statements from Warren like, "within a few decades, Rwanda could be an oasis of prosperity — "the next Singapore." I know that the idea is not original to Warren, but there are so many problems with that statement - simple geography for one - that I've been trying to ignore it, and hopefully someone will pull Warren aside and ask him to take it out of his talking points. The more "faith-based" language is also understandably troubling:

About 100,000 copies of The Purpose Driven Life in the Rwandan dialect have been handed out. Bradberry says that if Rwandans really hear the Gospel, they'll have no choice but to forgive each other.

That is tough for even me to swallow, and I have a profound faith in the transforming power of the gospel. Unfortunately, as unintentional as I'm sure it is, this is an example of a statement which reads more like a downplaying of genocide than a confidence in the redemptive power of faith. Faith-based groups involved in relief and development work need to be more modest in their claims and they need to be quicker to ask for help, advise and collaboration from experts in the field - all of which I think they can do without losing the integrity of their faith, enthusiasm, zeal and presence which positions them to be bridges for development.

Ok, There is more that could be said, but I've spent (wasted?) enough time on this, there is actual work to be done.

PS - One last thing as long as I'm dispensing unsolicited advise, on the very small chance that anyone associated with Saddleback reads this post, please read between the lines of this "throw away" sentence in the article: "The move has been a shock for his kids, Hannah, 12, and Zack, 10." Make sure your training and recruitment is taking into account just how big a "shock" it can be for those who get dragged along.

Religion Matters: Mugabe Plays the God Card

The runoff "election" is underway in Zimbabwe today and Sokwanele will be posting updates if you want to track the voter turnout or lack thereof. What more can you say?

Not much I thought, but writing in The Globe and Mail, Daniel Morris gives a new perspective on Mugabe and the election through the lens of Zimbabwe's religious landscape:

In perhaps his sincerest admission of how he has regarded today's runoff presidential vote, Zimbabwean strongman Robert Mugabe recently told a group of businessmen in Bulawayo: "Only God, who appointed me, will remove me."

The not-so-veiled threat of more violence was the last straw for beleaguered opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai, who promptly announced his withdrawal from the race. In southern Africa and beyond, even the usual apologists for Mr. Mugabe's behaviour were moved to issue condemnations. More vocal critics were appalled at his craven demagoguery.

But his words would have been heard differently in Zimbabwe itself. Religion plays a major role there, especially in politics. Indeed, in many respects, God is an active player in this campaign.

Morris then goes on to relate how Mugabe has often invoked Nehanda, the spiritual guardian of the Shona lands and thus an important anti-colonial symbol, in his rallies and how an anti-Christian sentiment has emerged in violence perpetrated on his opponents and an anti-Nehanda strain has emerged among Mugabe's opponents:

Twenty-five years later, Nehanda continues to play a role in Zimbabwean political debate. On June 14, Mr. Mugabe told a crowd of supporters: "We are prepared to fight for our country if we lose it the way it was lost to Mbuya Nehanda." Editorials in the state-run Herald newspaper regularly claim Nehanda's endorsement of government policies. For many people accustomed to consulting a spiritual medium for everything from weather forecasts to medical ailments, the divine sanction resonates.

But there is a twist. With the rise of Pentecostal Christianity in Zimbabwe in recent years, some Zimbabweans who are fed up with Mr. Mugabe have come to reject Nehanda as a demon. One blogger - an admitted supporter of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change - recently indicted Mr. Mugabe as a new "host" of Nehanda.

In any case, when Mr. Mugabe said that "only God" can remove him, it was not just an empty provocation. It was a well-calibrated speech to the many Zimbabweans who believe there is a certain legitimacy that only God and the ancestors can provide.

The world already knows Mr. Mugabe is cynical and dangerous. But to understand the enduring, if waning, support he has been able to maintain for decades, the story goes beyond modern politics. The current battle for the presidency of Zimbabwe is taking place in the spiritual world as well, where the soul of a religious ancestor continues to be used as a political weapon.

I would like to read more on this angle. For instance, how has Mugabe's relationship with the religious establishment in Zimbabwe evolved, as by all accounts he was a very devout Catholic in his youth? As his anti-Western rhetoric has increased has that been reflected in a more vocal embrace of the traditional spiritualism represented by Nehanda? Again, religion matters.

Religion and Development Revisited

In a post entitled, Why the Base of the Pyramid Needs God, Moses Lee over at the NextBillion blog has returned to a topic that has been on my back burner for a while now as well. Here is his opening paragraph:

In my previous post, I suggested that BoP enterprises should consider partnering with faith based organizations (FBOs) on the ground, particularly in countries where religion plays a large role. In this post, I’d like to put forth another distinct, but similar idea: FBOs in the West can play a large part in the overall BoP Movement. Crazy, right? Maybe not.

No, not crazy at all. In fact, its probably much closer to crazy to think that they can not, or are not already doing so. Whether or not that involvement looks like something that the World Resources Institute would want to endorse as either positive or sustainable is another question. A couple of quick thoughts which I can hopefully return to later:

Moses presents FBOs as bringing two things to the development table - money and heart. Unlike Moses, I wouldn't go so far as to say that "churches are well off" - Joel Osteen and Rick Warren are not the norm, the average congregation size in the US has long been below 200 people - but it is a fact that churches are still the most common charitable organization to which people give (2/3 of households in 2003 which I'm sure has continued to decline since then). So there is some money in play out there that could possibly be channeled in the direction of development. For Moses that is where the heart comes in:

. . . . I think many FBOs are perfect candidates to jump on board not only because of funding, but also because of their mandate to “love thy neighbor.” Imagine what could happen if churches and other FBOs from the West started channeling their resources and energies to affect the billions of poor in a sustainable way? As an active volunteer at my church in Ann Arbor, I have shared with many of the leaders/pastors the idea of using market based approaches to addressing poverty in areas of the world we are involved with.

And here too I think he is largely correct. There is inherent in the Christian faith a call to care for the other, the alien, the stranger, the orphan and the widow (I won't wade into trying to explain why that call has often been marginalized, distorted or ignored within various strands of the Christian tradition) and thus there should be a natural motivational fit for working with FBOs.

A couple other points:

1. One of, if not the, most convincing cases for working with FBOs is that they are already there. Money and motivation are already being used to put boots on the ground, as they say. Whether they are stand alone non-profits or church based volunteers there are countless groups going to the developing world every year. Now, what are they doing once they get there? Moses mentions proselytization and that certainly takes place - they are faith-based organizations. But the age of the rice-Christian is largely over and secular NGOs are naive to think that proselytization is the only form of expression that the "faith" in FBOs can take (Moses doesn't say that in this piece). Many FBOs that do have both a relief and development and "preaching" mission have separated them logistically and those that have not generally operate with greater sensitivity and awareness when engaged in relief and development work - if for no other reason than that they have realized that it just doesn't "work" very well otherwise. What they could benefit greatly from is the expertise that secular NGOs possess which could be used to bolster their good-intentioned efforts into something more like long-term sustainable development.

2. Second verse, same as the first . . . . except in reverse (too much?). They are already there. Name a place in the developing world where religion is not an integral part of the cultural structure. You can come up with a few bastions of communist-infused atheism but even there if you dig beneath the state-sanctioned surface you'll find something. There are "churches" everywhere. Groups of people who organize themselves around a set of beliefs and a way of living, who gather together on a regular basis, who often have some form of leadership structure already in place, who have a voice in the lives of families and their communities, who are already networked and distributed. They are there and they are not American and they are not European. Religion matters. You can certainly argue the pros and cons of its overall influence but it's not going away and we ignore it to our own detriment. FBOs understand the language and worldview of religion and they can be of significant strategic value in connecting existing religious communities and their structures with the programmatic efforts of NGOs.

3. FBOs are not afraid of doing the micro-level "dirty work," of digging in and getting to know people. They do it to a fault sometimes. They often need help seeing the macro-level possibilities.

4. When talking about FBOs you have to use "usually" and "generally" a whole lot, because just like there are screwy good-for-nothing NGO's there are screwy good-for-nothing FBOs.

5. Some FBOs may not want to work with secular NGOs.

These are some initial sloppy, quick thoughts on the way out the door to lose money at a poker game so I'll return to clean up my mistakes later.

Religion as a Bridge to Development

Several weeks ago a good friend was kind enough to invite me to have lunch with him and a colleague of his who is the development specialist in his department. It was a chance to bounce some ideas around about the possibility of future study, future job options, etc. One of the things that we talked about was my desire to serve as a bridge between faith based NGO's and those of a secular bent so that each can benefit from the other. It doesn't take much of an argument to convince anyone that the faith-based end of the spectrum can benefit from having access to the expertise and resources of the invariably better funded and staffed secular NGO or development agency. The harder case to make is that the reverse is also true - that these, often, incredibly well funded, imminently staffed NGO's have anything to gain from partnering with faith-based organizations, other than a headache from all the perceived baggage that they must bring with them.

The case I made that day as we talked over lunch was that if there is any one nigh unto universal institution that can be found in the developing world it is that of religion, it is the "church." In places where there are no roads, no phones, no sanitation, no infrastructure whatsoever there exist networks of profound depth and breadth, already entrenched in peoples lives, that can serve as the vehicle of transmission for development projects which otherwise would take years to accumulate the credibility necessary for adoption - networks of faith. Other than those groups partnering with faith communities to take on the herculean task of hospice care for those suffering from AIDS in Sub-Saharan Africa I haven't been able to find many examples of this or even many instances of a call for this type of partnership at a grassroots level. So, I was especially glad to see this post over at the Next Billion blog which stumbles upon almost the same realization in the form of a question:

. . . . I would like to suggest that we have left out of the conversation a very important component of culture: religion. It is a subject that is very polarizing and often taboo to discuss in business. But it is important to bring up because religion is very important to people in the communities that we in the NextBillion community are trying to serve.

Recently, this dawned upon me as I listened to a presentation by some MBA students from the Ross School of Business on improving the penetration of insecticide treated nets in Ghana. One recommendation that particularly jumped out at me was the following: leverage the church's influence. The presenters noted that in Ghana, Christianity is widely practiced, and as a result, the church is a very powerful and influential social institution.

. . . . Despite this, the fact of the matter is that religion plays a huge role at the BoP. Let's take for example Christianity in Africa. Though the faith has been dwindling in Europe and North America, it is exploding in Africa and Asia, regions of the world where there is a substantial BoP population. In Africa alone, there are approximately 380 million Christians, an unbelievable number considering that there were only 9 million Christians in Africa at the turn of the century.

. . . . If faith is such an important part of the social structure at the BoP, the question that inevitably arises: Should a BoP enterprise involve or partner with religious institutions? And if so, how should BoP capacity builders (i.e. funders, supporters) from the West respond?

This follow-up question is very important because many large aid organizations and foundations from the West would find it very difficult to support an enterprise that incorporates religion. But should this be the case?

These are indeed weighty questions, but they are necessary to raise as the BoP movement continues to grow and mature.

Weighty questions indeed, so in the weeks ahead I'll try to unpack what I see as some of the barriers to these type of partnerships, some of the changes in perspective that may be necessary on both sides and what I think are the tremendous benefits that could emerge out of them.