Wednesday, September 16, 2015

Church Welfare Program--George's Post


1.    Church Welfare Program


From its inception in the 1830s, the Church has sought to help the poor and needy, though the form of such assistance has changed over time.   Just like the early Christian church, after the death of Christ,[1] the Church practiced, for a limited period, a communal order of living—called the “United Order”—whereby the members contributed all of their material possessions to the Church, and those assets were then re-distributed among the members according to their needs.[2]   Not surprisingly, given the dramatic sacrifices required of members under the United Order, the practice was never widespread and eventually was discontinued.  The basic elements of the Church’s current welfare program were developed in the mid-1930s, when the United States was still in the midst of the Great Depression, and many were on the brink of bankruptcy and were suffering greatly, and employment opportunities were limited.[3]  
According to official Church publications, the “purposes of Church welfare are to help members become self-reliant, to care for the poor and needy, and to give service.”[4]   In 1936, the First Presidency said, when outlining the new welfare plan for the Church: “Our primary purpose was to set up … a system which the curse of idleness would be done away with, the evils of the dole abolished, and independence, industry, thrift and self respect be once more established amongst our people.  The aim of the Church is to help the people to help themselves.  Work is to be re-enthroned as the ruling principles of the lives of our Church membership.”[5]    The two Church Handbooks (Section 5 of Handbook 1 and Section 6 of Handbook 2) set forth the principles that currently govern the administration of Church welfare, and is to be used by Church leaders (such as branch presidents, bishops, and district and stake leaders) in administering the use of the Church welfare funds and commodities.  As such, the understanding of the principles and policies outlined in the Handbooks is of critical importance to the Church leaders in Africa, as they both try to instruct the new members and respond to their welfare needs.   Especially where the Church is new, as in Malawi, many of the Church leaders themselves struggle to be financially independent—hence they are trying to learn the very principles they have been asked to teach to others.

(a)  Self Reliance

The Church welfare system starts by emphasizing each member’s obligation to fend for himself or herself—hence to be self reliant.    The member should not look to others, including the Church, to care for the member.   This emphasis is not surprising in view of the Church’s belief in the centrality of “agency”—one of the greatest gifts of God.   “Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh, and all things are given them which are expedient unto man.  And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the capacity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself.”  2 Ne. 2: 27.   Through the exercise of agency, men fulfill the purpose of their existence—both to learn to exercise dominion over the earth[6] and to choose good over evil.   With the gift of agency comes personal accountability.  We are “accountable” for our decisions, having tasted of the tree of good and evil, and the day will come when we will be judged according to our works, whether they be good or evil.[7]   Of course, the Church and society in general recognize some may lack full accountability for their actions either because of age or mental infirmity.]
In order to help members understand their responsibility, Handbook 2 defines what it means to be self-reliant—members are expected: (i) to take care of their minds and bodies; (ii) to obtain as much education as they can; (iii) to prepare for and get suitable employment to provide for their own and their families’ needs; (iv) to build a at least a three-month supply of food; (v) to pay tithes and offerings, avoid unnecessary debt, use a budget and live within a plan.   In addition, they are to develop their testimonies, exercise faith, obey the commandments, pray daily, study the scriptures and modern teachings of Church leaders, attend Church meetings, and serve in Church callings.[8]   Generally speaking, following these principles of prudence will enable them to care for themselves and their families.   The Church makes clean that the members are look first to “family members” for support, if they are not able to make it on their own.   The Church’s resources are to be tapped only after personal and family resources prove to be insufficient.

(b)  Caring for the Poor and Needy

In theory, if all were self-reliant, there would be no need for welfare assistance.    But the world is far from perfect.   Many do not observe principles of self-reliance; natural disasters occur, wiping out the resources and reserves of many, including those who have prepared; and groups, such as children, widows, widowers, the mentally and physically infirm, and elderly, are often left to rely upon others.   Sometimes members in the extended family are around to help, but occasionally they are unwilling or unable to bridge the gap.   Sometimes, the need for assistance is temporary, as the needy need only a little time to get back on their feet; but often the need for assistance may be long-term, such as in the case of physical and mental infirmities.   The Lord commands his people “to visit the poor and the needy and administer to their relief.”[9]    Members in the Church often give such service, freely and without being asked.   “Church members are encouraged to give personal compassionate service to those in need.  They should be “anxiously engaged in a good cause,” serving without being asked or assigned.”[10].   Sometimes, Church leaders organize relief efforts, especially in cases of natural disasters affecting many in the same area.   Nonmembers may of course do the same.  
Yet, on occasion, all of these alternatives fall short, leaving it to Church leaders to look to the welfare funds and goods to provide the needed assistance.    In those cases, the Church uses the fast offerings of the members, together on occasion with tithes, to fund welfare assistance.   Once a month, members throughout the Church are asked to fast for two full meals and then contribute the money they would have spent for food to the Church.   These funds are called “fast offerings.”   The Church then makes the world wide fast offerings available to the branch presidents, bishops and stake presidents to help the poor and needy.   These funds are considered sacred and leaders are to be vigilant to ensure they are used only for the purposes for which they are intended.

(c)   Edifying All Involved; Showing Compassion and Charity

The Church further recognizes that welfare assistance, if administered properly, helps all involved.   “Providing in the Lord’s way humbles the rich, exalts the poor, and sanctifies both.   President J. Reuben Clark taught: ‘The real long term objective of the Welfare Plan is the building of character of the members of the Church, givers and receivers, rescuing all that is finest down deep inside of them, and bringing to flower and fruitage the latent richness of the spirit, which after all is the mission and purpose and reason for being of this Church.”[11]    One wonders if it is possible to emphasize this principle enough.   When separating the sheep from the goats, at the time of the last judgment, the Savior spoken unequivocally about the importance of Christian service to the needy.   “Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? Or thirsty, and gave thee drink?  When saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?  And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.”  Matt. 25: 37-40.   We are expected to help our own, but it is harder to provide the same service to others who have no direct claim upon us.    Those who serve when it is hard to serve, or who show compassion to those who are strangers and have no customary claim upon their time and resources, display great charity.  

2.    Church Policies in Administering Welfare Funds

Church leaders have an affirmative obligation to seek out and care for the poor.  “It is not enough to assist only when asked.”[12]  They are to seek the guidance of the Spirit and apply the principles outlined in the Handbooks in deciding (i) whom to help; (ii) what kind of assistance to provide; and (iii) the duration of the assistance.   In making these determinaitons, they are asked to conduct searching interviews of the needy.   They are to assess their needs, available resources, the extent to which they can get help from family members before turning to the Church.  
The following are some of other guidelines given to the Church leaders:
(i)                The Church should generally provide only temporary assistance as the members work to become self-reliant;
(ii)              Even those requiring long-term assistance should do all they can to help themselves;
(iii)             The Church provides only basic life-sustaining necessities; it does not provide assistance to maintain an affluent living standard;
(iv)             When possible, the Church provides commodities or services instead of giving money or paying bills;
(v)              Those receiving assistance should be asked to work to the extent of their ability in exchange for the aid; it will left to the Church leader to decide upon appropriate work assignments;
(vi)             Family resources should be exhausted first before using Church welfare.
In addition, in lieu of Church welfare, members may choose to resort to community resources, including government assistance, before using Church welfare.  The Church considers this welfare program to be divinely inspired. 




[1] “And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things in common.”  Acts 4: 32.
 
[2] Section 104 of the Doctrine and Covenants is a revelation, given to Joseph Smith, regarding the operation of the “United Order.”
 
[3] See Glen L. Rudd, “Pure Religion—The Story of Church Welfare Since 1930,” 1995.
 
 
[4] See Handbook 2, Section 6.1.
 
[5] Conference Report, Oct. 1936, 3.  Quoted in Handbook 2, Section 6.1.
[6] “What is man, that thou art mindful of him? And the son of man, that thou visitest him?  For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and has crowned him with glory and honour.  Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his fee: All sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field; The fowl of he air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas.”  Psalms 8: 4-8.
 
[7] See, for example, Rev. 21: 12-13.
 
[8] See Section 6.1.1 of Handbook 2.
[9] D&C 44: 6.
 
[10] See Section 6.1.2 of Handbook 2.
[11] See Section 6.1.2 of Handbook 2
[12] Section 5.2.3 of Handbook 1.

The Elephant in the Room--George's Post


A.   The Elephant in the Room

The Church will likely struggle to thrive in Malawi fully, until it can help members manage the trials they face due to poverty.  While poverty may cause many to be more God-fearing and open to hearing the message of the restored gospel, it also has the potential of distracting them—many find themselves totally consumed with the search for life’s basic necessities and dealing with the constant, almost overwhelming, challenges of being so poor.    These matters dwarf all other considerations, compromising their efforts to be fully obedient to key gospel principles, such as honesty, being charitable, paying fast offerings and tithing, keeping the Sabbath holy, and putting the Kingdom of God first.  
Within the villages, sustenance farmers spend most of their time eking out a living—yet life in the villages never seems hurried. [1]  Most live hand to mouth, working small plots by hand, and growing little more than they need to feed their families.  Some are able to find odds jobs, such as wood carving, carpentry, and the like, to supplement their income, earning a little extra for cash to purchase store-bought commodities.    In the larger cities, such as Lilongwe and Blantyre, most struggle to find full-time employment.   Steady jobs are hard to come by, even for those with more education and greater personal skills.[2]   Hence, many bread earners devote much of their energy looking for piece work or odd jobs to come up with enough money or goods to feed the family.  
Poverty is so widespread, that being poor is not stigmatizing—most everyone is in the same boat—and a communal spirit tends to prevail, so that the poor are often quite compassionate with one another.   They visit one another when sick, share food, watch out for the children of one another, and even take into their homes the children of deceased relatives and friends.   Yet still life is difficult and crisis is always just around the corner.   It is relatively easy for Westerners to feel great compassion for the poor.  None of us could live as they do and we ache when we see their challenges.   But we have no personal framework of reference for understanding how stressful day-to-day life may be for the poor, though we imagine that we would likely act pretty much the way they do were we to find ourselves in the same position.   It is not too hard to keep at bay our normal Westerner arrogance.   
Thus, it is not surprising that money is never far from the minds of the poor—any little thing they can do to come up with a few extra kwacha (the local currency) may make an enormous difference.   What is less than spare changes for Westerners is enough to supply a meal for the family, purchase some prescription drugs to manage pain or treat malaria, cover the school fees for the semester.  
“Money” issues surface daily in countless other ways.  We learn of members going without prescription drugs because they can’t afford them; and hear of members, even good and faithful ones, stealing tithing funds from the Church’s coffers (indeed neither of us had heard the term “defalcation” until coming to Malawi).    Members try to skim on spending money in variety of ways—flashing others to induce them to return their calls;[3] plugging their cell phones into the socks at church to re-charge the batteries; asking the Church for transport money to attend leadership meetings; coming to Church socials to get a free meal; and using the Church computers for internet searches, resume preparation, and other personal uses.   Institute and seminary attendance rates, each a condition for PEF loans, tend to be considerable higher than those of Sacrament Meetings for the branches.   When giving temple recommend interviews, the question that gives Malawians the most pause is:  “Are you honest in your dealings with your fellowman?”    Anything of value, left unattended at Church for a few minutes—from a cell phone to a pen to a pad of paper—will likely disappear without a trace.   Some poor Malawians see the hand of God, blessing them, if they find something to steal.   Church leaders worry about the members’ self reliance and honesty and are anxious to teach correct principles.   They are concerned about people joining the Church for the wrong reasons and about the welfare needs of the members getting out of hand.   At least in Africa for the foreseeable future, Church fast offerings will lag far behind the costs of covering the welfare needs of the Church in the area.[4]
Poverty, together with all of the related issues, is clearly the elephant in the room for the Church, because so many of the Church’s members are very poor.  What follows is a discussion of the Church’s efforts to help the members coping with poverty and the role the senior missionaries play in the process.  


[1] There are very few commercial farming operations in Malawi.
 
[2] Most branch members do not have  9 to 5 jobs as we think of them.   Instead they are either still in school, look constantly for piecework or live off the income of some other bread earners in the extended family.  In many cases, we can’t quite figure out how the families make ends meet.
[3] See “_________________________.”
 
[4] The fast offerings made by the members are used to cover welfare needs. 

Sunday, September 13, 2015

Aid Dependence and Feelings of Entitlement--George's Post


A.   Aid Dependence and Feelings of Entitlement

1.    Foreign Aid to Malawi

The twin topics of aid dependence and entitlement are frequently raised by Westerners (including government leaders, scholars, reporters, and NGO representatives) when discussing the risks of helping out financially poor Africans, including those in Malawi, one of the poorest countries in the world.   Given the massive amounts of aid directed at Malawi, it is easy for Malawians to become “aid” dependent, and the receipt of that aid often leads to feelings of “entitlement.”   Without question, many Malawians find it difficult to provide, solely from their personal resources, for the day-to-day needs of their families.   They don’t earn enough money to buy food, pay for housing, cover school fees, and defray incidental health expenses, including the purchase of prescription drugs.   Their budgets are strained beyond capacity in the event of an unexpected tragedy—sudden illness, the loss of a bread earner, flooding or droughts--or to handle the costs incurred with a funeral or wedding.   Without assistance, these families suffer great deprivation, occasionally finding themselves at the edge of starvation.
Foreign aid from countries around the world, NGOs, and churches (including the Mormon Church) often serves as the bridge to help those who are poor and needy span the gap between their available resources and the costs of their most immediate human needs.   Frequently, this foreign aid comes in the form of institution-to-institution loans, grants or subsidies from foreign sources to Malawian organizations, including governmental bodies and NGOs, which in turn deal directly with the local populations they serve.   In those instances, the presence of the foreign funding may not be evident to the local population.   The foreign monies, together with those available locally, are used to fund the delivery of no-cost or low-cost health services; the availability of highly subsidized education; the construction and servicing of major public utilities—water, sewage and power; and the subsidized construction of other major infrastructure programs, such as roads, dams, irrigation systems, athletic facilities, governmental buildings.
In other cases, foreign aid sources may work more directly with the target beneficiaries; but even then, they usually employ one or more Malawians as local partners or third party intermediaries to assist in coordinating with local government bodies, navigating the local regulations, identifying suitable recipients, and distributing the aid.   Under these circumstances, Malawians are apt to be aware of receiving aid from foreign sources.    There is an almost endless list of large and small foreign organizations active in Malawi, providing money to support orphanages, provide medical care, relieve hunger, combat sexually transmitted diseases, comfort women and children, including among others Doctors without Borders, UNESCO, Meals by Mary, Hope Africa, Raising Malawi, CARE Malawi, Save the Children, Concern Worldwild and a countless number of church sponsored groups, including the Catholic Relief Services and the Mormon Church.

2.    The Crippling Effect of Providing Aid

Anyone providing aid to Malawi is mindful of the unintended risk that the delivery of the aid itself, while addressing pressing human needs crying out for immediate help, may, at the same time, have long-term crippling consequences for the pool of recipients.  It may undermine self-reliance, sapping individuals of the will to develop their own skills, leaving them without core skills necessary to provide for themselves.   Those receiving the aid may become “aid dependent,” and develop feelings of “entitlement.”    So often the presence of foreign aid, rather than helping the local populations, makes them captive and even more vulnerable than they were before receiving the assistance.   Rarely does the foreign aid come in the form of direct gifts of money to the target recipients, but rather is delivered as supplies, commodities, services, or provisions--such as bags of maize or flour; the drilling of boreholes to provide clean drinking water; the delivery of mosquito nets, blankets, temporary shelters, and latrines; the access to dental or medical services. 

3.    The Terms of “Aid Dependence” and “Entitlement”

Before talking more about the risks of aid dependence and entitlement, it is worthwhile to define more precisely what people likely have in mind when using these terms.  The meaning of the “aid dependence” is not particularly hard to decipher.   One is “dependent” when one relies, either intentionally or not, upon the aid of others to meet some or all of one’s basic human needs (food, shelter, security, health) rather than looking solely to one’s own resources or the those that can be mustered from working within the extended family, who have claim, due to family ties, upon one another to care of each other’s needs.    Obviously, certain classes of individuals are “aid dependent”—infants, children, the sick and infirm, the elderly—because they lack the mental or physical capacity to fend for themselves and have no choice but to look to others for assistance.   Another class is the “poor,” who due to lack of skills or resources or misfortune find themselves suffering.   In some cases, this mental or physical incapacity is expected to be temporary—such as in the case of children as they grow up and learn the skills needed to be independent or in the case of the sick who may recover from the crippling effects of illness or in the case of the poor if they are able to develop skills or exercise initiative to overcome their challenges.   In other instances, “aid dependence” may continue for the balance of an individual’s life, potentially placing great demands upon others to show compassion and to provide ongoing help.   For this purpose we are not talking about emotional dependence—and there are certainly many instances or that—nor about situations when individuals rely upon close family members to support their ongoing physical needs.[1]
Usually, the term “entitlement” is used to describe the state of mind that exists when an individual believes he has a “right” (hence, is “entitled”) to receive from someone a particular benefit, privilege, advantage or item (collectively, a “benefit”).   However, when using this definition, the word “right” may be ill-advised.   It might be more appropriate to speak in terms of “expectations.”   Accordingly, one has a sense of “entitlement” when one “expects” to receive from someone a benefit, however that “expectation” might have arisen.    Feelings of entitlement are tied at the hip with aid dependence, the one flowing from the other.
There is another concept that is so closely tied to that of “entitlement” or “expectation,” as to be an inherent part of its colloquial use.   Once the sense of entitlement has been created, those feeling “entitled” will experience disappointment or anger or resentment if the benefit that is expected is not forthcoming, in that it is cut back, withdrawn, or eliminated without their consent.   This is the case because the recipient acquires an expectation of “continuing” receipt.   One has received the benefit in the past and expects to receive the benefit in the future.

4.    The Sources of “Entitlement”

What precisely gives rise to these “expectations” or “feelings of “entitlement” in the first place?   There is not a single answer to this question.   One may feel “entitled” to a benefit because of one’s hard work, industry, social status, ancestry, or property.  Similarly, one may gain an expectation because the benefit is part of the law.  But when employed in connection with the “poor,” “entitlement” is hardly ever thought to grow out of the hard work or industry of the poor.  Instead, the poor become “entitled” to a benefit, because that benefit has, for some period of time, been granted to the poor.  Hence, the history of the largesse creates the “expectation” of future benefits, and that expectation over time is converted into a claim of “right.”   No longer is it fair or equitable to cut back upon the “expectation,”   It does not matter that, when the benefit was first granted, the benefit was given voluntarily, was the result of charity, and even bestowed with the expectation that it might be withdrawn in the future.   If the aid was given without an expectation of labor or work by the poor, the poor will likely feel “entitled” to the continuing receipt of the aid, whether or not they do anything for its receipt.   This of course runs contrary to the common notion that people should be accountable for themselves as expressed in the following verse from the Doctrine and Covenants:  “Thou shalt not be idle, for he that is idle shall not eat the bread nor wear the garments of the laborer.”[3]   Many may feel such relationships—granting benefits without some expectation of work or labor in exchange—are simply not sustainable over time, nor are they justified, even by principles of Christian charity.   Sooner or later funding sources disappear, leaving those dependent upon them for sustenance ill-equipped to deal with the future.

5.    The Role of Senior MLS Missionaries

As senior MLS missionaries, we do not control, nor make any decisions, regarding the disbursement of Church funds used to help the poor and needy.   Branch presidents and bishops are responsible for administering the welfare funds to help local members—and it is to them that the local members are to go for aid when they have welfare needs.   The use of the PEF[4] funds is under the direction of the District PEF specialists, and the local welfare missionaries, together with the welfare specialists in the Area Office, control how the available “humanitarian” aid of the Church is applied within the Zambia Lusaka Mission.   All we control is the use of our personal monies and how we use our own time to provide charitable help.   During our time in Malawi, we have found, as the missionaries before us, and as will be the case for the missionaries after us--that questions as to the “right” course of action—what to do with our time and resources--come up, over and over again.   This is the case because our members, as well as others in the community, have many basic human needs that neither they nor others can readily handle.   So we are constantly required to exercise judgment to answer these three basic questions—(i) whom do we help, (ii) how do we help, and (iii) what can we do to ensure that we are doing the most good possible.    We also have to worry about whether we are actually hurting others when we try to help.   
Under the rubric of these three overarching questions, we have, since arriving in Malawi, been forced to grapple with these specific questions.  Is it ever right to loan or give money to members to cover welfare needs, bearing in mind the Church’s counsel that such gifts or loans should not be made?    When does being charitable cross the line—causing more bad than good?   How can we help others to be more self-reliant?   Is it appropriate to step in at the last minute, when it becomes apparent that others—perhaps even others with a responsibility to help—fail to come through?    Are some human needs so pressing, that concerns about “aid dependence” and teaching correct principles must be subordinated in the interest of basic human compassion?  When is “charity” not about “money,” even if the exercise of charity involves the spending of money?   How do we keep things from getting out of hand?    When might our charitable acts be more about “ourselves” than those we think we are helping?




[1]  Instances of both “emotional” dependence, as well as dependence upon family members, may be unhealthy.  
[3] D&C. 42: 42.
 
[4] “PEF” means “Perpetual Education Fund.”