by David McPhail

[8-17-06]


David McPhail, who earlier shared his reflections on participating in a demonstration against the School of the Americas, reports now on a two-week visit to Bolivia with a delegation from San Francisco Presbytery, meeting with their Joining Hands against Hunger partners UMAVIDA (Joining Hands for Life).

I recently returned from a two-week visit to Bolivia, where I was a part of a delegation from San Francisco Presbytery meeting with our Joining Hands against Hunger partners UMAVIDA (Joining Hands for Life). There I experienced first hand a whole different way of doing mission than I had known before.

I remember another time. When I was a child there was a clear, round glass jar at the back of the sanctuary, filled with rice, into which people placed coins – some nickels and dimes and a few quarters. I was told this was for the missionaries in China.

Fifty years ago I spent a school year in India as a part of the Junior Year Abroad program of the Presbyterian Church. This was a time of transition, as the image of the "lone wolf" missionary entering a heathen country to proclaim the gospel, was being replaced by those who came to be co-workers with the new churches that had sprung from the work of the pioneers.

My impression of these missionaries (unlike that of favorite author Barbara Kingsolver) was that they were some of the "best and the brightest." This was also true for my few fellow seminarians who went to the "mission field." To be a missionary was seen as a life-long commitment, though that was changing. Wherever the Protestant Missionary movement went it often had its greatest success among the poor and outcast. Ironically it was often dogged by charges of buying people who became "rice Christians," because of the bounty (from overseas) shared by Western Christians. And then there were charges of being too closely associated with the colonial powers and therefore patriotically suspect. Still the result of the education and medical efforts of missions meant many former outcasts now had skills needed by the new nations emerging after WWII. One of the continuing "challenges" facing the missionaries was how to connect their work with the "folks back home."

In recent decades many congregations have become involved with mission projects that sought to provide practical help for pressing needs. Wells were dug, schools were built, and training was provided. Most difficult was when the projects came to an end. A funding source stopped, a personal connection petered out, and some sadness resulted. All these efforts were good deeds that flowed from charitable impulses together with an unacknowledged world-view – "We are rich and you are poor and we will ship you some money to fix your problem".

Justice before charity

That we (the USA and Western European nations) could be a part of the problem didn’t really enter calculations, or was dismissed as being too political for churches to discuss, much less act upon. We were just trying to help people, but what has been the result? The rich get richer, and the poor, poorer, both between and within nations. With injustice like this in the long run, in the big picture, all the charity in the world is not worth the proverbial bucket of warm spit. Results are not what idealogues like to talk about, but results are where biblical justice begins. Amos and Isaiah didn’t want to hear the king’s complaints about the ‘free loading’ poor who were a drain on the public treasury, spoiled the temple visits for tourists and were ungrateful to boot. Biblical justice demanded a radical overturning of the status quo. Mary’s Magnificat cannot be understood otherwise.

At the very least this would seem to require a "preferential option for the poor" not as charity, but as justice. What are the rules of the game that has brought about the current state of affairs? Almost anywhere in the Two-Thirds world of poverty, one can find examples of powerful multinational companies, often in cooperation with one another, entering countries whose GNP is less than the companies’ annual sales, in order to exploit natural resources and cheap labor. That they are able to do so says much more about the weakness and corruption of local governments than the desire of peoples to sell their natural resources, or their labor, to the lowest bidder.

Justice without power is a farce

At the University of Allahabad I took a course in comparative constitutions that I discovered, to my surprise, was exactly what it said it was – an attempt to understand a country by its constitution. We read constitutions including those of India, the USSR, and the USA. By then I knew enough to know that as important as my constitution is, it tells little about how the country actually works – no political parties, no lobbyists, no fourth estate are even mentioned. I felt sure the Russian constitution’s use of words like "elections," "rights," "freedom" meant something very different from my understanding. Later in life I came to read parts of the constitution of Mexico and was amazed at what a progressive document this is. However, I know from frequent visits that almost none of what it promised came true. Poverty and corruption has made a mockery of its high flowing phrases. This weakness undercuts the legitimacy of the government to establish justice that goes against the perceived "interest" of any group.

Justice requires that we first look at who makes the laws and who benefits. Nowadays my country touts Freedom abroad, but really wants an order where we make all the rules. In the 1970s and ’80s many in our government spoke well of "authoritarian" regimes, claiming they were not totalitarian, and were on the way to democracy. These countries were thought congenial to business, providing a safe environment for investments and therefore a good place for the major international lending institutions like the IMF and World Bank to put their (our) monies. Most of the unpayable debt incurred by third-world nations happened during this time. It is a fact that debt and its compounding interest has since been used to give these institutions, and by extension the governments that support them, control over most of the economic and political life of third world countries. As a result many of the world’s countries are powerless to seek justice.

Power comes out of the barrel of a gun

Today everyone seems to be a firm believer in Chairman Mao’s dictum that power comes out of the barrel of a gun. No one is a stronger believer than those who run our own government, regardless of political party. It is now said that we spend more on our military enterprise than all other countries in the world put together, and this before 9/11!! For sure the military is our number one growth industry. After the Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam there was a pull back from increased military expenditures to a "peace time level" that was considered "normal." However, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, which many would argue was the real end of WWII, there was no such pulling back. Just the opposite was the case. The rest of the world recognizes the power of the US military and our willingness to use it. As Vice President Cheney has pointed out this tends to improve our chances of getting what we want in negotiation with other countries. In other words, if for some reason the economic levers mentioned above don’t work, send in the Marines. (Since 1898 there are scores of examples, but this history is largely unknown in the U.S.)

An example of these forces can be seen in Bolivia. UMAVIDA is made up of eight Churches and NGOs, which come together to work on the root causes of hunger and poverty – really to work for justice in Bolivia. We had the opportunity to meet people from many different parts of the country who were not always of one mind on the many challenging issues facing this country, with it great beauty, mineral wealth and poverty. However, they all were concerned about the presence of the US army in neighboring Paraguay.

In June, 2005, the US entered into an "agreement" with Paraguay to send troops, beginning with 400 in July. While this agreement runs through 2006 it can be extended. In August, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld made his third trip in 10 months to South America. As reported by the Associated Press, Rumsfeld’s visits grew out of "concerns about what U.S. officials call stepped-up efforts by Cuba and Venezuela to install more leftist governments in Latin America by targeting volatile countries like Bolivia…. (which we want) to grow and function in a manner that’s free of external influence…." Reports in the Washington Post said our actions were related to efforts to fight terrorism, drug traffickers, and concern over political instability caused by "unhelpful" actions of Hugo Chavez, President of Venezuela.

The people we met in Bolivia did not choose any of these reasons, but instead pointed to an abandoned airfield, the largest in Paraguay, 150 miles away from Bolivia’s natural gas fields – the second largest in Latin America. Everyone seemed to believe that the American Embassy directed much of the action of the last two Bolivian Presidents. Was this unhelpful? Were these external influences? A member of the U.S. House Armed Services Committee reported that the military action in Paraguay had never been brought to them for review, and that the Pentagon reported this simply was a continuation of military training provided since 1943. For over a hundred years the USA has intervened militarily in Latin America usually to protect the economic interest of some company. With that history is there any wonder Bolivians are worried by our military presence? The gap in perception between the two views expressed about this action is huge.

Power also comes through solidarity

What power do the weak nations have to protect themselves against the strong? What power do they have beyond handouts to improve their well-being? How can they maintain a unity of purpose or vision without succumbing to infighting over the crumbs left by the giants of the earth? How can they avoid environmental degradations when so many mouths need to be fed now? Solidarity with others is perhaps the only alternative source of power.

On a national level this means building alliances with other states in the region. One problem here is that many are former enemies (Bolivia in the past 125 years lost wars and territory and an outlet to the sea to Peru, Chile and Paraguay). Perhaps more important, only when the leadership of these countries perceives a common interest can there be real cooperation. However, ties can be formed between groups from different countries such as unions, churches, peasant organizations, and the indigenous. Within the nation there needs to be a highly organized society that can hold together its common interest while still providing a sense of the individual’s special place. From our contact in Bolivia it seems that this is a far more organized society than our own.

And then there can be ties between groups in "weaker" countries, and those who live in the "giants." This is perhaps the most difficult to achieve because of the huge inequality between societies. Since we are not on an equal footing, the temptation to return to the older worldview is always present. Shortly after arriving in Bolivia, members of UMAVIDA were sharing the story of some of their work. This included a recent publication of four pamphlets dealing with important social issues. The first printing was small, but they hoped to have this distributed more broadly when resources were found to do a larger printing. This was said almost in passing. It was certainly not an appeal. However, I immediately jumped up and suggested we each kick in to help this effort. The response was muted. Later, I realized I too was operating on the old worldview.

Besides twenty thousand dollars for administrative expenses, the Presbyterian Church provides a mission facilitator to give staff support to UMAVIDA, and serve as the chief "translator." Clearly this doesn’t cover everything. No money goes to the organizations that make up UMAVIDA. It also doesn’t cover the time and effort these eight organizations must put into this work they do together. They are a diverse group not just in their make up – Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian and, yes, Catholic (though not as a religious organization), as well as different racial and ethnic groups. They come from different parts of the country and are focused on different issues – environment, youth, women, poverty and mining. Each organization is stretched thin to do its own work. Nevertheless, they make the extra commitment to join together because they believe that dealing with issues of poverty and hunger, which impacts the people they serve, requires them to reach out to others to be able to confront international issues like trade and the environment. Recently, their major attention has been devoted to increasing political participation in the country, and not just for the recent elections, but also for a constitutional convention to be held in July.

Solidarity means we all have a stake

Equality and solidarity flow in many different directions. In Bolivia we visited a village a couple of hours from Santa Cruz on the edge of the Amazon. The leaders of the people came and stood in front of us as we (approximately 25 Bolivianos and Norte Americanos) sat in children’s seats in their one room school. Though a proud people their expression was almost hat in hand, as they thought we might be a funding source to help them fix the church roof or provide potable water. However, they were told this was not the case, but that we (in this case the youth organization of Santa Cruz, a partner of UMAVIDA) could work with them to seek a solution to their problems. More important, we would walk with them to see if together we could create a better and more just life for their children and grandchildren. I thought they might leave at that point, but they didn’t and we didn’t and thanks be to God for those young people in Santa Cruz.

Because of the level of equality those of us involved with Joining Hands, and by extension the Presbytery, are not being asked first for funds, but to support the efforts of UMAVIDA to gain justice. This often means opposing policies of our own government. Three years ago an overture opposing the Free Trade of the Americas Agreement came from Joining Hands through churches to the Presbytery of San Francisco. This was passed by the 2003 General Assembly. More recently we have been struggling with Newmont mining company, a group far more powerful and well versed than we, to obtain a fair and transparent environmental audit, before closing a gold mine in Oruro. Now we are also trying to raise the issue of the U.S. military presence in Paraguay. That we can plant the American Flag with boots on the ground in yet another country with little or no notice in the press or in the Congress staggers some of us, even if we could accept at face value all the reassurances of Rumsfeld et al.

In the US and Bolivia the social contract is being dissolved

As we go further in this new relationship, I believe that we are discovering another basis for equality that can lead to greater solidarity. We are realizing that not only can we be a help to Bolivia, but we are understanding how similar are the dark forces we both face. We need their prayers and their wisdom as the system that crushes them begins to divide and weaken us. Here at home, concentration of economic power is becoming ever greater as unions lose members; tax laws are changed; regulation of industry is weakened; and environmental laws are "improved"; good jobs in the US are moved overseas to be replaced by "service jobs" with little future; and where the competition comes from Latinos fleeing the crushing poverty in their own countries. We are all just sailing in different parts of the same boat!

We had a social contract in our country, but we don’t often talk about it. I think I know why. The social contract went something like this: Those who benefitted the most from living and working in this country, should do the most to support the country and by extension those who have benefitted the least. We are talking tax laws more than charity here. We don’t talk about it much because it sounds a little too close to "from each according to their ability to each according to their need." And that is a little too close to Acts 4 for comfort. Perhaps we don’t talk about it because it no longer exists. Nevertheless, justice cannot stand too great a disparity between wealth and power and poverty and powerlessness either between or within nations. Clearly this view is close to biblical and perhaps indigenous views of justice, where just the fact of great inequality is reason for judgment, without the need to explain.

When did the Global Village become the Global Sweatshop?

Somewhere in the 1950s, when race was the defining issue in my life, I read the affirmation that "Every man puts his pants on one leg at a time." I know we would express it differently today, yet at that time this spoke to something within me, about who I was, and what kind of world I was supposed to be living in. I also understood that this was also not the truth of my world. However, it did point me in the right direction.

I believe it was in the 1970s that the term "Global village" first came into use. I’m not sure exactly what was meant, but its use seemed to reflect a growing awareness that we are all on the same planet. Perhaps it came from the environmental movement’s recognition that we were spoiling our own nest and that all the pollution and poison was not contained by national boundaries. Whatever way the wind blows or the river flows so goes our earth. Did "Global Village" also reflect an awareness of our essential equality as persons? That when it came to really important things we were not just players in an "ownership society"? By the 1990s the global village had been replaced by the global sweatshop. The ground of our being had become a unit of production. Now it was much easier to treat people as things, since they were far removed from our sight. And besides they couldn’t vote in pesky laws, and should be grateful for all the new jobs we were supplying in Bangladesh or El Salvador. Soon we should be able to set up shop in Iraq.

Good News is for All God’s People

I can remember when I was a seminarian, being critical of my father’s preaching. I was all excited by the theology of the day whereas my dad’s preaching seemed to revolve around acts of kindness, or treating folks fairly, or facing one’s fears, or not thinking too highly of oneself. Later I made my peace with Dad’s working theology by calling it one of common grace. In Paul’s letter to the Philippians Christ is held up as our example because he did not believe that equality with God was a thing to be grasped, but gave it up for us all. This act of God’s love we know in Jesus’ humanity. And is not this expressed through the common grace that sustains us, and our world? This really is not so difficult to understand. We don’t have to be spiritual giants. We do need to live intoGod’s world where we recognize our brothers and sisters wherever they may be. Doing the truth does require courage, and is most possible when supported in community and solidarity. The saving grace Christians find in Christ Jesus must be lived out in a world where God’s common grace can and does break out anywhere. A very special gift I received in my visit to Bolivia was the humanity shared by my hermanos and hermanas who were so open about their hopes and fears for their families and their country. I received many such gifts at their hands. If this be charity, so be it. I am in their debt. I hope I have more than money to give in return, though that is needed – but only when it is a part of our common solidarity in the cause of justice for all God’s People – including us.

David McPhail, Kensington, CA irenendavid@yahoo.com

The author, David McPhail, is a graduate of Union Theological Seminary and served two parishes in Texas during the 1960s. He left the ministry in 1970 as (he says) "one of the lesser losses in the civil rights struggle." He has been involved in various businesses since then, and for the past 14 years has been a member of Northminster Presbyterian Church in El Cerrito, CA (a more light church), where he serves on the Session. His wife, Irene, is a member of Kehilla Synagogue.