Exploring Ecumenism

Four Types of Investment

Why economics?  There is a relationship between the words economics and ecumenism.  The latter derives from the Greek oikoumene which relates to the reconciliation of all things to God.  The root of the word economics means good housekeeping.  It is about how we act as stewards to creation; the creation which needs to be reconciled to God.

Churches together need to take an interest in economics because it is through the economy that communities prosper or fail.  It is not enough that churches simply help the victims, they must also learn to speak truth to power.  To do this we need not only to be critical of economic systems but to have some alternatives.  Over the next few days I will open up this subject.

Today, I want to focus upon investment.  In future posts I will look at each of the following in more detail.  Any investment is a relationship.  The quality of that relationship is crucial from a Christian perspective.  Each of the following have pros and cons as approaches and we need to understand how they work.

1. The approach with least relationship is the gift.  This may come as a surprise to some Christians and it has to be said the gift can be an extremely positive element of relationships.  But the gift in itself does not lead to a sustained relationship.  Once given the act is over.  The difficulties emerge when we look at the nature of grants in communities.
2. The second approach is through loans.  Loans with interest are a real problem in many religious traditions but today they are seen as the lifeblood of the formal economy. 
3. Next is equity; this is where someone invests in another person's enterprise and shares the risk.  This can be a positive relationship although misused it has potential for great damage.
4. Finally, mutual relationships where the enterprise is held in common.  This requires sustained relationships over a significant period.  This is a great strength although some would argue also a significant weakness.

Whilst writing these out I was struck by certain similarities with the four types of conversation I described a few days ago.  I will reflect upon this further.

On the Meaning of a Simple Story

Some years ago, at a conference for County Ecumenical Officers, an aid agency led a session.  It's a long time ago and I can't remember the name of the agency or the theme of the talk.  However, they told a story and I do remember that.

Somewhere in Africa, food was scarce and a woman had no meat to feed her children.  She had a large clay pot with a lid and filled it with water.  She picked some herbs and placed them in the water, put the lid on and set the pot on the fire.  She told her children the pot was full of meat and so they were not to touch it and that she was going to look for some herbs.  She placed another pot on her head and set off.  Soon she came to a clearing and found a dead buffalo.  It was freshly killed and she knew that because a lion was eating it.  She hid in bushes and considered what to do.  She took the ring of plaited grass she wore on her head to carry the pot and threw it a long way into the bushes.  The lion distracted, ran after the disturbance and the woman quickly threw dirt on the buffalo.  Lions will not eat dirty meat and so after it returned the lion soon left the meat.  The woman waited and then cut off the meat she needed, washed it in a nearby stream and placed it in her pot.  Upon returning home she added the meat to the pot on the fire.  There was more than enough meat for the meal and so she also fed all the childrenin the neighbourhood.

The aid agency asked what we thought the story was about and the usual sort of conversation followed where the lion was taken to be the West and so on.

It was only after the session that the meaning of this story dawned on me.  That is why I have remembered it.  The point of the story is in the very last few words.  The woman finds meat after considerable adversity and then gives most of it away.  Why?

The answer is self-interest, not altruism.  Tomorrow, another woman might be lucky enough to find a lion.  She will do the same and feed all the children.  This is the mutual sharing practiced by communities that survive.

Introduction to the Churches and Economics

Yesterday, the cashier at my bank made me an irresistible offer (I resisted it).  For only £8.50 per month I could receive benefits of up to £500 a year.  One reason I resisted it was that I'm not convinced, especially with low interest rates that I'd actually gain anything.  Also I'm of a generation when banking was free unless you went overdrawn.  But there was also another reason that was nagging at the back of mind.

I heard or read that traditional banking (making loans and charging interest) is not very profitable - this is one reason why bankers in recent years have taken the risks they have - in a search for more profit.  It also rings true in the light of the reason we have credit unions.  Small loans to poor people are not possible for large banks because they are too expensive to administer.  You can see the attraction of £8.50 per month per customer to the banks (and why the cashier was so keen to sign me up).  Come to think of it, she also gave me her card, which suggests she's under commission. 

The story of the start of the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh is worth reflection.  Muhammed Yunus, at the time a lecturer in an economics related subject, visited a rural village.  He met a woman who made baskets; sale of her baskets realised enough money to feed her family and to purchase the raw materials the next day.  Yunus realised that if she had a very small loan it would make her independent of the dealer.  He asked his students to research how many others were in a similar position.  When they added up the amount in loans the village needed it equaled less than the cash Yunus had in his wallet.

A letter in The Times yesterday claimed our problems as a nation were down to lack of moral fibre.  To qualify for lack of moral fiber as far as I can tell you should be young and / or poor.  How do we describe the person who sells mortgages to people who cannot repay them?  Building societies are not permitted to do that, many of them turned into banks in recent years; unashamed asset stripping. 

What do we make of the wealthy people with enormous bonuses awarded for asset stripping?  How much of the government money given to bail out banks for their mistakes has found its way into off-shore accounts? 

This combined erosion of organisations based on mutuality and of the assets of this country, for which people have for several decades been awarded, has disabled our government and undermined confidence in leadership.  President Obama has an enormous task as the state of the US economy is down to the Republican project to destroy government institutions and asset strip them for personal gain.

Raise this in our churches and we are told that some Christians are bankers and so we cannot criticise those who are trying to inject some morality into the system.  This is not good enough.  We need a more sophisticated approach than this.  There may be several reasons why the churches sit on the sidelines; it's time we identified these reasons and examine them together.