[My apologies for the late post]
The indigenous principle
We began the seminar with a brief overview of the different kinds of responses to the world’s water crisis. Official (or Overseas) Development Aid (ODA) is a particular economic response. It was mentioned that recipient states increasingly request more control in using ODA. More or less, they reason: “We understand our context best. Therefore, let us figure out how to use it.”
I was attracted to WWB because INWEH seeks to apply the indigenous principle. Part of INWEH’s mission statement reads (emphasis mine),
“It is now widely accepted that a critical factor contributing to the water crisis is the lack of indigenous capacity… in many developing countries. Despite some progress, many barriers remain, including the fragmented, intermittent, donor-driven, project-based approach that has been so ineffective, and even damaging, in the past.”
I presume that this is quite clear to us. In my reflections I was reminded that this is not an epiphany of the (post-) modern era, and was helped by looking at an analogous dilemma was faced by first-century Christ-followers.
An ancient application
In the ancient world, society’s institutions (e.g. government, business, family, ‘religion’) were quite integrated, whereas today they are quite separate. For example, Greco-Roman civic duty required citizens to offer sacrifices to their emperor; trade guilds likewise venerated various deities. Similarly, ancient Israel was a theocracy: there was no separation of ‘church’ and state and culture.
Enter Jesus of Nazareth, an unusual rabbi teaching norms antithetical to both Jews and non-Jews (and North Americans), claiming to be the fulfilment of God’s promises to Israel, the long-awaited chosen king. After he lived, died, and rose from the dead, his disciples began spreading to all nations the good news of what his death accomplished.
The promises, the earliest disciples, Jesus himself – all spring from a Jewish context. What would this mean for non-Jewish Christ-followers? “Must they believe in Jesus and become a Jew, or is Jesus enough?” We must understand that the Mosaic Law (particularly male circumcision) was the covenantal sign from God to Israel, an uncontested pillar in Jewish identity. Long-story short, Jesus was enough: he was the end of the law. In fact, the first (Jewish) disciples considered it heretical to impose Jewish law on non-Jewish believers. Subsequently, as the news spread, indigenous leadership was established to mediate their King’s love and rule appropriately in diverse contexts.
Questions for consideration
Development aid policies, institutions, solutions and more also spring from a particular context. I think consideration of the following questions will bring helpful perspective in diminishing crises of all kinds.
- Are we aware of our own cultural values? Can I pinpoint the specifics of my own?
- What uncontested pillars/norms define my culture, my life?
- Do I understand the context of aid recipients?
- What do they really need? What don’t they need? What is enough?
- Do our solutions impose Western values that may hinder the intended goal?
- Has our contextualization permeated to enable diverse economic, political, and institutional means?
- Are we intentional in increasing indigenous capacity, even if it is inconvenient?
