Duty, Aid, Dignity and Work Ethic

Back in 2003, while a missionary in Honduras, I came across a gentleman in a small village in central Honduras who, from my point of view, was poor, out of work and had a need the size of Texas with a family that almost matched the population of Texas. At the time, and being new in the mission field, all I could do was to compare him to my standard of living. I had nothing else to go on. My immediate reaction was to help. I thought to myself “I am going to offer this man a job and help him come out of his plight.” I knew that I could not just give him what he needed because of what I had learned in the past. As the old proverb goes, “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” That seemed simple enough. However, I soon learned that human condition and environment are a bit more complicated.

The next day held a lesson I would never forget. I approached the man with a job and his response totally shocked me. He said, “I do not need work, the Gringos give me all I need.” He was, of course, talking about the other missionaries in the area. He shared the truth of the matter with me because he did not see me as a missionary. I was Honduran, I spoke his language, and, to some degree, I understood the culture. He had no idea that his statement would catalyze a fundamental shift in my approach to missionary work and my approach to giving. 

I took this simple experience, a conversation, and decided to explore the methodologies (the art) of giving. Traditionally, the methodology of most giving practices has become westernized. We now tend to give out of obligation or duty. The “obligation/duty” mentality has stripped the “giving” of grace, responsibility, legacy and outcomes. We still call it charity, but it no longer has the charitable qualities and outcomes it had at one point in time. For example: That same year in 2003, I was sitting on the porch with my cousin. A drunk came toward us and asked for money. My cousin quickly put his hand in his pocket, took out some money, and handed it to the man. The man said thank you and continued stumbling on completely crippled by the liquor he had already ingested. I looked at my cousin and asked, “What are you doing? He is now going to take the money and squander it on more liquor!” He looked at me and said, “My duty is done, now it is up to him.”

If you think that my cousin’s remarks and mentality were incredibly flawed, you are not alone. However, when we look at the macroscopic vision of the Western style of giving, we are not far off from the same “obligation/duty” plagued system we use in our own giving practices here in the United States, or any other Western nation giving aid to the poor. Developed nations (governments, churches, NGOs—Non-Governmental Organizations—and us as individuals) have, most likely unintentionally, adopted the same flawed system of giving. The claim is that the alternatives of engaging and following through are too difficult and too costly.  

Most developed countries have also traditionally given aid to other underdeveloped countries that need aid when scenarios like tsunamis, hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes or other disasters occur. This is good, but there is one very big problem with this scenario. We do not know when to stop. We continue to give with an aid mentality even when a development approach should become our new standard. We now couple a “duty/obligation” mentality with “aid” scenarios and have made that our new constant. We think that if poverty exists, it is our obligation and duty to give with an aid mentality because it relieves us of our moral burden without engaging us in the cumbersome dynamics of relationships. This aid mentality is to give for the sake of relief when disasters have happened. Our natural instinct is to provide relief, which is good and needed, but is best when taken to the next level. We should move toward sustainability and permanency, which is much better because it offers a development, superior stability and longer-term outcomes. The practice of permanency, however, requires engaging in relationships, teaching and securing sustainability, so that a legacy is established and the initial investment is protected.

When we look at the fundamentals of giving in the Bible we see several examples. One of the best examples we have of providing assistance to someone in need is the parable of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10:25-37. Jesus tells the story of three men, a Priest, a Levite and a Samaritan, who came a across another man who was robbed and badly beaten. Of all the men, only one was willing to engage the badly injured man. It is important to notice that the Samaritan was the only one who decided to help and ultimately recognized as a good neighbor, but it is equally important to notice how he chose to help. The Good Samaritan helped in three specific ways:  1) by providing immediate relief to the man, 2) by providing additional help and resources in order to have initial assistance take effect, and 3) by returning to follow up on the man. The key is that he remained faithful to his initial word, “look after him…and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.” The Samaritan understood the essentials behind the giving process in order to achieve the highest possible impact.

Another subtle point lost in the pursuit of aiding the needy is that in most cultures gift giving is reciprocal. You receive a gift, and you have an opportunity to give back. In most cultures this method of giving allows for the dignity of the individual to stay intact. The act of being able to give back, reciprocity, is essential to the process for the relationship to last despite the value of who gave what. A missionary may give a villager school supplies that are worth $25 and the villager may give the missionary a chicken worth $5 in return. The value of the item is not important because it is understood that the missionary has more to give than the villager. The important point here is being able to reciprocate is some fashion to salvage dignity. The win/win exchange is not the value of the items, but the allowance to accept something of lesser value with equal esteem in return.  

Another overlooked factor is work ethic. When work ethic is compromised, the effects are more subliminal. Sometimes the giving entity and the receiving entity do not see the effects of a devalued and a compromised work ethic until it is too late. If the giving entity continues to give without the allowance of reciprocity, the receiver can slowly develop a dependent mentality or one of entitlement. They may develop a habit of assigning no value to work or effort to the receipt of goods and erasing the expectation of having to do something in return—a mindset that might not have existed when the giving relationship began. The receiver may also accept gifts out of respect without being allowed to reciprocate. They do so because they recognize their own need and swallow their dignity for the sake of the aid not knowing that work ethic has been compromised for them and their children. The two-sided trap is set and this giving and receiving practice will ultimately and predictably destroy the relationship leaving a disgruntled donor and a damaged receiver.

Next time we will be looking at methodologies to circumvent this trap and ultimately restore the ethic of this giving and receiving relationship. Helping can be tricky sometimes, but there are best practices we can put into action to avoid failing or being a stumbling block to those we have been called to help.

Alfredo Cerrato
President and CEO 
Cornerstone Alliance Navigators
www.cornerstonecan.org