This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development-professionals-network/2013/jun/07/faith-based-and-secular-ngos-knowledge-sharing
The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
Previous version
1
Next version
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| It's a mistake to separate faith from development | It's a mistake to separate faith from development |
| (4 months later) | |
| Religious groups the world over have been trying to improve the welfare of poor communities long before such work became a branch of international development. However, with the ascent of secular enlightened thinkers and later Marxist doctrine, faith-based organisations have been viewed with scepticism because of the religious elements they employ when dealing with the poorer segments of society. Marx famously described religion as "the opium of the masses", and many regarded religion as a tool that the elites used to oppress and control the less educated. | Religious groups the world over have been trying to improve the welfare of poor communities long before such work became a branch of international development. However, with the ascent of secular enlightened thinkers and later Marxist doctrine, faith-based organisations have been viewed with scepticism because of the religious elements they employ when dealing with the poorer segments of society. Marx famously described religion as "the opium of the masses", and many regarded religion as a tool that the elites used to oppress and control the less educated. |
| Following the recent debate on faith and development on the Guardian Development Professionals Network, I am trying here to present key points of the counter argument: that instead of regarding religion as increasingly irrelevant to the process of development, its role as a longstanding institution and dynamic actor in the process of social change is something from which today's post-modern development practitioners would do well to learn, rather than seek to avoid. | Following the recent debate on faith and development on the Guardian Development Professionals Network, I am trying here to present key points of the counter argument: that instead of regarding religion as increasingly irrelevant to the process of development, its role as a longstanding institution and dynamic actor in the process of social change is something from which today's post-modern development practitioners would do well to learn, rather than seek to avoid. |
| There are three core reasons why a better articulation of dialogue between faith and development could enrich both sectors: | There are three core reasons why a better articulation of dialogue between faith and development could enrich both sectors: |
| The most prominent reason not to ignore either faith or religion in modern development thinking is that both are often held in higher regard among poorer communities targeted by development projects. To ignore religion and faith is to miss a key participatory component that will give an insight into the perspective of the poor. According to Deneulin and Devine's journal publication Negotiating religion in everyday life, 70% of the world's people identify themselves as members of a faith community, meaning that, even if you agree with Marx on opium, to ignore or avoid questions of faith is to neglect to see the full picture of development challenges from the perspective of those who experience poverty first hand. | The most prominent reason not to ignore either faith or religion in modern development thinking is that both are often held in higher regard among poorer communities targeted by development projects. To ignore religion and faith is to miss a key participatory component that will give an insight into the perspective of the poor. According to Deneulin and Devine's journal publication Negotiating religion in everyday life, 70% of the world's people identify themselves as members of a faith community, meaning that, even if you agree with Marx on opium, to ignore or avoid questions of faith is to neglect to see the full picture of development challenges from the perspective of those who experience poverty first hand. |
| Additionally, religion permeates not just the lives of individuals but often the institutions of state themselves. In Peru, for example, the Catholic church receives preferential treatment in education, tax benefits and immigration of religious workers as a result of a Concordat signed between the Holy See and the Republic of Peru back in 1980, and its leaders are consulted at the highest level of government when social conflicts occur, such as the mining protests against Newmont in Cajamarca last year. | Additionally, religion permeates not just the lives of individuals but often the institutions of state themselves. In Peru, for example, the Catholic church receives preferential treatment in education, tax benefits and immigration of religious workers as a result of a Concordat signed between the Holy See and the Republic of Peru back in 1980, and its leaders are consulted at the highest level of government when social conflicts occur, such as the mining protests against Newmont in Cajamarca last year. |
| The second argument to consider is how faith-based organisations have been trying to assist the poor since long before the invention of modern-day international development as an academic and political discipline. They have had a longstanding interest in the poor as a result of specific doctrinal teachings. This, in turn, means they've had long-held relationships with poor communities. Modern donors are keen to assist such communities for the social and economic problems and opportunities they represent, but often lack the immediate grasp of the context in which they are operating. Likewise, international NGOs are usually limited to tightly budgeted, project-based interventions, meaning that the time they can spend building relationships with poor communities cannot be as extensive of that of religious groups. | The second argument to consider is how faith-based organisations have been trying to assist the poor since long before the invention of modern-day international development as an academic and political discipline. They have had a longstanding interest in the poor as a result of specific doctrinal teachings. This, in turn, means they've had long-held relationships with poor communities. Modern donors are keen to assist such communities for the social and economic problems and opportunities they represent, but often lack the immediate grasp of the context in which they are operating. Likewise, international NGOs are usually limited to tightly budgeted, project-based interventions, meaning that the time they can spend building relationships with poor communities cannot be as extensive of that of religious groups. |
| A third point to be made is that to separate faith communities' activities from development is counterproductive to progress on both sides. Development professionals who want to keep their work strictly secular are not recognising the importance of spreading the knowledge they have in what can often be closed communities, where knowledge filters through religious authorities who hold a position of trust and influence in their communities. If, for example a development worker concerned with HIV/AIDS education chose not to engage with religious groups, this would be deny the possibility of making a meaningful impact where engagement could ultimately strengthen the articulation of the message that both sides wished to put across. While, of course, there will continue to be differences between the secular and faith-based approaches to tackling HIV/AIDS, to keep them totally separate will only polarise approaches, each proposing even more imperfect solutions than they would otherwise. This concept is covered in more detail in here. | A third point to be made is that to separate faith communities' activities from development is counterproductive to progress on both sides. Development professionals who want to keep their work strictly secular are not recognising the importance of spreading the knowledge they have in what can often be closed communities, where knowledge filters through religious authorities who hold a position of trust and influence in their communities. If, for example a development worker concerned with HIV/AIDS education chose not to engage with religious groups, this would be deny the possibility of making a meaningful impact where engagement could ultimately strengthen the articulation of the message that both sides wished to put across. While, of course, there will continue to be differences between the secular and faith-based approaches to tackling HIV/AIDS, to keep them totally separate will only polarise approaches, each proposing even more imperfect solutions than they would otherwise. This concept is covered in more detail in here. |
| In conclusion, the point is not to advocate wholeheartedly faith-based approaches to development. It is instead to recognise the relative strengths of faith-based organisations in their experiences in areas where secular development work is often weakest – namely longstanding community ties and deeply held influence which has been built up over a number of years of relationships of trust with the poor. In the meantime, secular development NGOs may hold the upper hand in terms of technical expertise but lack the networks with which to successfully bring their approach to fruition. Furthermore, with further emphasis in secular development thinking on "wellbeing" models, the two poles no longer seem so far apart as they used to. For all these reasons, strengthened collaboration between faith-based and secular development models would combine strengths where organisational goals converge in poverty reduction. | In conclusion, the point is not to advocate wholeheartedly faith-based approaches to development. It is instead to recognise the relative strengths of faith-based organisations in their experiences in areas where secular development work is often weakest – namely longstanding community ties and deeply held influence which has been built up over a number of years of relationships of trust with the poor. In the meantime, secular development NGOs may hold the upper hand in terms of technical expertise but lack the networks with which to successfully bring their approach to fruition. Furthermore, with further emphasis in secular development thinking on "wellbeing" models, the two poles no longer seem so far apart as they used to. For all these reasons, strengthened collaboration between faith-based and secular development models would combine strengths where organisational goals converge in poverty reduction. |
| Sophie Ayling is an analyst at a secular, research-based NGO specialising in impact evaluation through randomised controlled trials. | Sophie Ayling is an analyst at a secular, research-based NGO specialising in impact evaluation through randomised controlled trials. |
| This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. To get more articles like this direct to your inbox, sign up free to become a member of the Global Development Professionals Network | This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. To get more articles like this direct to your inbox, sign up free to become a member of the Global Development Professionals Network |
| Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. |
Previous version
1
Next version