Science in Christian Perspective
Malnutrition and People
D. GARETH JONES
Department of Anatomy and Human Biology
University of Western Australia
Nedlauds, Western Australia 6009
From: JASA 30 (September 1978): 103-116
The Experience of Malnutrition
"No one in the hospital appeared to be unduly concerned when four-year-old Sonia Enamorado died of starvation. No mother waited tearfully by the cot. The doctor was busy attending to the rasping wailing from the other wasted bodies in the tiny ward. Only one nurse seemed interested: she laid a small muslin square over Sonia's once pretty face, to keep the flies back for her last few moments".1
"I remember Jobeda who was sitting in the shade of a tattered lean-to in a refugee camp in Dacca. A small withered form lying close beside her whimpered and stirred, instinctively, she reached down to brush away the flies. Her band carefully wiped the fevered face of her child. At six years of age, acute malnutrition had crippled his legs, left him dumb, and robbed him of his hearing. All that was left was the shallow, labored breathing of life itself-that, too, would soon be gone ".2
"The other day a Zambian dropped dead not a hundred yards from my front door. The pathologist said he'd died of hunger. Its his shrunken stomach were a few leaves and what appeared to he a halt of grass. And nothing else".3
I have just quoted the plights of three individuals, three of the many victims
of malnutrition. All three instances occurred within the past few
years, the first
in Honduras, the second in Bangladesh and the third ill Zambia. The
three people
involved were ordinary human beings, two were young children and one was
a young adult. Apart from their malnutrition and certain cultural differences,
they would have been just like you and me. And yet they were so very different
from you and me-they were malnourished, and even had they been alive
today their
lives would have been hard, limited and tragically deprived.
How easy it is though to lose these three individuals in the midst of an array
of accurate, objective and yet
lifeless statistics. There are hooks galore on malnutrition, oil its economic
spectrum, its morbidity and its consequences in educational terms. How easy it
is to write about the Third or even the Fourth World, the disadvantaged and the
underdeveloped (or more acceptably the developing) nations. However
much we need
these studies, they are emasculated to the extent that we lose sight
of the human
face of malnutrition.
Malnutrition is personal; it affects individuals. The individuals are you and
I; you who are reading the paper and I as the one who is writing it. They are
also those who are hungry, those who are malnourished, and those who are on the
verge of starvation. They are those children who are no longer curious; they are
those 30-year-old women who look at least 50; they are our children
who are healthy
and fun-loving and' they are we who have every opportunity in this life. We are
all individuals and we are all affected by malnutrition, either as
the wellnourished
who prosper at the expense of the malnourished or as the malnourished
whose only hope depends upon the concerted efforts of the
nutritionally privileged.
Whatever approach we adopt towards this issue therefore, we cannot afford to overlook the personal aspects of the malnutrition in today's world. Moberg4 has expressed this point very succinctly: "all social problems are intensely personal to the individuals who are their victims." Neither can we afford to underestimate either the global or the historical dimensions of malnutrition
Global Malnutrition
Famine is no new problem to the peoples of the world. One has only to read the
Bible and other chronicles to realize how frequent and devastating were famines
throughout the Middle East and Europe in ancient times.5 Likewise,
medieval Europe
was repeatedly gripped by famines while even this century has seen
people driven
to cannibalism in the face of relentless hunger.
Famine is practically integral to the life of humanity, so much so that Jesus
Christ in describing the signs which would usher in his return at the
end of time
foresaw famine as one of these.6 In spite of such gloomy (and
perhaps realistic)
forecasts, the late 1940's were characterized by an upsurge of
optimism-the battle
against hunger was almost concluded. Bumper harvests in the United States and
the development of "miracle seeds" would vanquish this
dreaded foe and
the densely-populated countries of the Third World would attain selfsufficiency
in food stuffs.
Alas, history was not to be so easily overturned! The 1970's have
been accompanied
by malnutrition of plague proportions, as well as by an avalanche of cries of
doom and despair. In 1972, for instance, the world's harvest was some 3% short
of meeting demands, while by 1974 the world's reserves of grain reached their
lowest level for 22 years. This corresponds to a 26 days' supply compared with
one of 95 days in the early 1960's.7 It is estimated that at the present time
anything from half a billion to a billion and a half people are suffering from
some form of hunger, and of these about 10,000 die of starvation each week in
Africa, Asia and Latin America.
Such figures are well beyond our comprehension and tend to leave us
numb and unmoved.
Even worse perhaps is the plight of the children. At any given time there are
approximately 10 million severely malnourished preschool children,
with very many
more suffering from moderate and mild forms of malnutrition. All told, about 3%
of children under five in low income countries suffer from severe
protein-calorie
malnutrition, their body weight being lower than 60% of the standard. Another
80 million preschool children are probably suffering from moderate malnutrition
(60-75% of the standard) and 130-160 million from mild malnutrition (75-90% of
the standard).8
The Context of Malnutrition
It is far more accurate to view malnutrition as part of a much larger
constellation
of deprivation.9 Malnutrition itself is just one aspect of poverty,
and it frequently
accompanies other traits of poverty such as high infant mortality and
prematurity
rates and high levels of mental deficiencies.10
Its severity appears to be
related to differences among some of the following factors: total number of siblings, number of siblings
under the age of 2 years, family income, food expenditure per person
per month,
schooling of mother and father, number of marital separations at the
time of birth,
and the likelihood of being the product of an unwanted
pregnancy.11 An additional
factor is illiteracy, which merely serves to augment the more
strictly biological
aspects of malnutrition.
In more general terms, malnutrition has a number of dominant
contexts. These include
and revolve around poverty which itself may be a manifestation of a
host of other
contexts such as ignorance, adverse climatic conditions,
dispossession, urbanization
and the economic and commercial structure of the contemporary world.12
These in
turn constitute the interrelationship of perspectives in which
population levels,
food production and food consumption need to be viewed.
Poverty
But what of poverty which is so essential to any appreciation of the world of
the malnourished? Mooneyham13 has made the telling
remark:
"Poverty is relative
but total poverty is absolute, and total poverty is the only term
that adequately
describes masses of people in the Fourth World". Unbelievably, this fourth
world of absolute poverty applies to some 40% of the people living in
the underdeveloped
countries.
Poverty is the pivotal point of more than one vicious
circle. In the words of Heilbroner: 14
It is not just a lack of capital, or just backward ways, or just a population problem or even just a political problem which weighs upon the poorer nations. It is a combination of all these, each aggravating she other.
The troubles of underdevelopment feed upon themselves.
Although the impact of poverty is on the deepest aspirations and expectations of people as individual human beings, the easiest way of expressing poverty is in financial terms. While the average per capita income in developed Western nations is of the order of U.S. $2,400 (in North America it is well over U.S. $4,000), it is only U.S. $200 in the underdeveloped world. What is more, this differential is rapidly increasing. These figures tell its something about the inequality of wealth at the international level. This unfortunately is only the beginning of the inequality saga, as inequality is even more devastating at the national level. For instance, in Latin America as a whole 60% of the population have incomes of less than U.S. $50 a year, 40% earn up to U.S. $190, while of the remaining 10%, 9.9% cans over U.S. $500 leaving just 0.1% with incomes in excess of U.S. $27,000.15 And the inequality in these countries is becoming more marked with the passing of each year.
The plight of many in the underdeveloped countries is appalling. And once poor,
there appears little that can be done to break out of any one of the
vicious poverty
circles. There is growing disparity in the face of growing need, and one of the
cogent reasons why this should concern us is that, as Alfred Marshall16 put
it many years ago, "the study of the causes of poverty is the study of the
causes of degradation of a large part of mankind." If those
words were true
in 1890, they are just as true and many times more pressing today.
Poverty dominates the underdeveloped nations, what
ever its cause; and poverty brings in its wake ill-health. Malnutrition, as we
have already seen, is well nigh endemic in some countries. In some areas 30-50%
of all children die before reaching their fifth birthday. Poverty
also means that
doctors are scarce, particularly in rural areas, while overall some countries
cannot afford to spend more than 60 or 70 cents a year on the health
care of each
of its people.17
Malnutrition therefore, is an integral part of the lives of a majority of human
beings today. It is one of the most potent forces in our world, and
its presence
will be increasingly felt in coming years. Indeed, it may be no exaggeration to
suggest that it will prove the major factor in revolutionizing the life styles,
social values and political systems of underdeveloped and developed nations in
the not-too-distant future.
Definition of Malnutrition
A number of terms are pertinent to any discussion of nutritional deprivation:
malnutrition, undernutrition, hunger and starvation.
Malnutrition has the broadest coverage, including as it does
undernutrition and,
at the other end of the scale, overnutrition and obesity. In ganeral therefore,
it is a manifestation of any form of nutrient imbalance.
Undernutrition describes
the more specific condition of an inadequate intake of food.
Hunger is simply a symptom expressing a craving for food and as such
is an essential
physiological phenomenon common to all human beings. It must not therefore, be
equated with undernutrition, although it is obviously far more of a problem in
areas of the world subject to undernutrition.
Starvation is the extreme of undernutrition and leads to a number of
well recognized
conditions on the road to death. Wasting of muscles, loss of body fat
and wrinkling
of skin are manifestations of a general deterioration in which the body, in a
desperate attempt to find fuel, is burning up its own body fats,
muscles and tissues.
Inability to resist infection leads to disease, while a shortage of
carbohydrates
affects the brain and the person's ability to comprehend his plight. Alongside
starvation is a whole host of deficiency diseases which are almost endemic in
some of the developing countries. The main deficiencies involve
proteins, vitamin
D, thiamin and niacin, with rickets, beri-beri, pellagra and osteomalacia being
the sad end-results.
The must common of the deficits is a lack of proteins and calories, leading to
protein calorie malnutrition. Although it is unwise to isolate
protein and calorie
deficiencies two syndromes are recognized in severe malnutrition.
These are marasmus
and kwashiorkor. Marasmus is usually confined to children less than one year of
age, the principal deficiency being one
of inadequate calories. Kwashiorkor, by contrast, occurs
more frequently in the second year of life and principally involves a protein
deficiency. In spite of this apparently simple separation of the two
conditions,
there is considerable clinical overlap between them, marasmus
describing a child
without oedema and less than 60% of its weight for age and
kwashiorkor referring
to an oedematous child falling within the 60-80% range of weight for
age.18
Many eases of malnutrition are undetected in the
Malnutrition is personal; it affects individuals. The individuals are you and I. They are also those who are hungry, those who are malnourished, and those who are on the verge of starvation.
early stages. This is because they are sub-clinical, and it has led Broek19
to
propose his iceberg analogy. According to this, the tip of the
iceberg represents
the minority of obvious eases where malnutrition is readily apparent while the
submerged portion corresponds to the majority of cases which are the
sub-clinical
ones.
Even if this analogy is only partially true, its relevance is all too apparent
if it does emerge that relatively mild nutritional insults have
irreparable consequences
for brain and mental development. It also brings into perspective the potential
importance of relatively mild malnutrition, as opposed to the dramatic and all
too obviously tragic episodes of extreme malnutrition in its guise of
starvation.
This, in turn, illustrates a phenomenon that is being increasingly
widely recognized
in the contemporary world: the almost universal presence of malnutrition. The
impact of malnutrition is not confined to the Third and Fourth Worlds. While it
is, of course, seen in its direst forms in the underdeveloped regions
of the world,
its influence extends from Harlem to Ethiopia, from the inner areas of our big
cities to the parched rural areas of India and Bangladesh.
Some Consequences of Malnutrition
Malnutrition affects people; malnutrition kills. For instance in
Brazil, children
under five form less than 20% of the population but account for 80%
of all deaths.
Beyond this, it converts otherwise minor ailments into killers while even more
subtly it leads to prolonged illnesses, chronic infections and a
variety of forms
of permanent handicap with an accompanying irreversible loss of opportunity in
life.20
The impact of the relationship between infection and malnutrition is
to transform
what would he incidental infections into chronic disabling diseases.
Opportunities
are lost, education is wasted and the mediocre product of one
generation becomes
the non-productive, dependent member of the next.21
All ton rapidly
undernutrition
assumes transgenerational proportions with the perpetuation of
inefficiency, lack
of productivity and enhanced impoverishment. 22
Malnutrition interferes with a child's motivation as well as with his ability
to concentrate and to learn. Such a child is apathetic and listless, and lacks
the curiosity so essential to normal development. Not surprisingly he is unable
to cope adequately with the demands of schooling, mental and physical fatigue
as well as frequent bouts of nutrition-related illnesses together contributing
to pour performance, limited aspirations and a high drop-out rate.
It is into this arena that discussions concerning the impact of malnutrition on
behavior patterns, intelligence and the brain have intruded. While
this is a difficult
and in many respects a confused area, it is a pertinent one for all
who are concerned
with analyzing the possible effects of malnutrition on the individual's
capacity to develop optimally as a responsible and responsive person.
The basic data stem from the fact that approximately 80% of the growth of the
human brain occurs between the end of the second trimester of pregnancy and the
end of the second year of life. This period coincides with the growth spurt of
the brain, during which time many brain parameters are undergoing rapid change.
Hence any interruption to this growth spurt will, it is argued, affect a number
of parameters including the establishment of synaptic connections between the
nerve cells, the multiplication of the glia or supporting cells and
the formation
of myelin which is the insulating material of the nerve cells. From
this it follows
that, if physical growth processes occur at specified ages throughout
development,
any insult disrupting this chronological sequence of events during
the brain growth
spurt may be expected to result in long-term structural and
neurological deficits.23
These ideas are central to the concept of the growth spurt as the
vulnerable period
of brain development.24 Comparatively mild nutritional restriction during the
period of the brain's growth spurt may lead to permanent deficits of the adult
brain, both in its physical configuration and in the resulting
behavior patterns
of the individual .25
This concept of vulnerability has a number of repercussions. In the first place
it pinpoints the last trimester of pregnancy and the first two years
of postnatal
life as a critical time for human development. Second, even a minor
insult applied
at this time may have major consequences, which may prove to he permanent. The
evidence on which this idea of vulnerability is based is derived from all the
areas that have been used in malnutrition studies: structural, functional and
behavioural fields. These, in turn, have been carried out on a range
of experimental
animals, while they also draw on observations of underprivileged
human groups.
As an example of one of the human studies, consider those carried out
by Cravioto
and enworkers26 in Mexico. They found that those school children who
had suffered
from severe protein-calorie malnutrition before their 30th month of life scored
consistently lower in psychological tests compared with equivalent children who
had not experienced malnutrition.
In another study Cravioto looked at the effect of early malnutrition
on auditory-visual
integration by comparing school children of shorter stature with their taller
companions of the same age. The shorter children showed poorer
intersensory development,
a factor more closely connected with malnutrition than with
environmental influences.
In animal investigations protein malnutrition inflicted during the
growing period
of the brain has been found to result in an apparently irreversible deficit in
indices such as brain weight, the thickness of the cerebral cortex, the number
of brain cells, and the amount of brain lipids and hence the degree
of myelination.27
In addition there is evidence to suggest that the development of some
transmitter
systems is delayed, while there is a decrease in synaptic
connectivity and a retardation
in the maturity of the synaptic junctions themselves .28
Even if these and related data are accepted as evidence in favour of
the concept
of brain vulnerability to nutritional deprivation, there is still the
possibility
that the deficits may not be permanent. It may be possible to
subsequently rectify
these deficits. Experimental evidence on the extent of possible rehabilitation is sparse and
confused, suggesting
that while a limited amount of "catch up" may take place,
the distinction
between retarded brain development and abnormal development is a tenuous one.
29
Evidence favouring catch-up amongst human groups is, once again, of a
conflicting
nature. Cravioto and Rubles,30 in a study of twenty children undergoing
nutritional rehabilitation after severe protein-calorie malnutrition, concluded
that children over 15 months of age at the time of the malnutrition
showed improvement
over a 6 month period. By contrast, children less than 6 months of age may he
permanently affected. Even here however, one must he careful, because
the apathy
and unresponsiveness of the severely protein malnourished child,31 itself
leads to the critical stages of cognition being missed. Other
environmental factors
of potential significance include the effects of hospitalization and
the decreased
response of the mother to an unresponsive child.
Chase and Martin,32 in a study of children suffering from
undernutrition during
the first 4 months of life and later nutritionally rehabilitated, came to the
opposite conclusion. According to their data, these children 3 years later had
developmental quotients equal to those of control children.
The overall confusion of these investigations is symptomatic of many
others, with
their pointers on the one hand to various permanent psychological
deficits following
early malnutrition and regardless of later efforts at rehabilitation33
and on
the other to a marked degree of improvement in a number of physical and mental
parameters. 34, 35
What then can we conclude, at present, from these investigations? There can be
little doubt that malnutrition is integrally involved with
environmental and social
factors in depressing the cognitive development of previously
malnourished children.
Perhaps only
academics would be concerned with the relative contributions to this appalling
state of affairs of malnutrition as distinct from environmental factors. Most
academic commentators however, are forced to conclude-albeit tentatively-that
malnutrition probably does play a role apart from factors related to
social status.
36, 37 It must never he forgotten though, that almost invariably malnourished
infants are exposed to poor housing, low levels of educational
achievement, high
infection rates and all sorts of taboos.
An interesting, if unproven, idea having a bearing on the interrelationship of
malnutrition and general social deprivation is that of Dobbing.38 According to
him, permanent intellectual deficit occurs only in malnourished children where
the non-nutritional environment is also poor. This has some support from animal
investigations39 and, whatever its validity, reiterates once again the overall
interdependence of the components of human growth. Each is important
and probably
contributes to the optimal functioning of the others .40
The Inequality of Malnutrition
One thing is self-evident: we are no longer living in one world. We are living
in at least two worlds, the worlds of the rids and the poor, the haves and the
have nots. The world of need and the world of plenty. The hungry and
the full.41
And there is no doubt to which one we belong.
Just consider a few comparisons. In England and Wales there is one doctor for
900 people; by contrast, the ratio in rural Kenya is 1 for 50,000. In
rural Senegal
in 1960 the death-rate of children aged 2-5 years was 40 times higher than in
France. A teenager in Tanzania has about 1% of the educational opportunities of
a teenager in North America. The G.N.P. per person in Malawi is approximately
one-fiftieth that found in Sweden.42 And so one could extend the list. The end
result of these and similar statistics is best summed up perhaps in
the life expectancy
in different countries, varying as it does between more than 70 years in most
rich countries to as little as 25 years in some poor countries.
This is the epitome of inequality, and this is the foundation on
which the inequality
of malnutrition has been built. This in turn has devastating effects upon life
styles and aspirations, and indeed is central to determining what we
are as human
beings.
In the 1970's we in the Western world are repeatedly confronted by
problems that
are the making of our technological expertise. Me have been given
immense control
over our lives and destinies as biological and spiritual beings. We are in the
midst of a revolution that has its origin in what man is and in what
he is going
to he. It is a revolution with profound repercussions for each one of us, as it
may well force us to revise our ideas of man and of his role and status on this
planet.43
Part and parcel of this revolution are the many techniques implicit in genetic
engineering, psychosurgery, drug induced control of moods, family planning and
contraception. In other words, techniques aimed at controlling not
only the quantity
of life, but more significant perhaps its quality as well. We are in the realm
of what Joseph Fletcher 44 refers to as quality control. While he
uses this term
with regard to genetic engineering, we need to remind ourselves that we in the
Western world have been governed by this concern for many years under the aegis
of our medical care, obstetric services,
public health programmes and many other medical and paramedical
services. We have
been free to concentrate on quality, and have done so with
spectacular success.
Our success in this direction has actually modified our view of the nature of
man; it has certainly led us to stress the value of health over
against ill-health
and it has dramatically altered our expectations of what constitutes
normal human
experience. So radical has been this revolution that we must now very seriously
ask the question whether we are not in danger of equating biological excellence
with human fulfillment. 45
This however, is a question which has meaning only for modern, scientific man.
It is only he who is able to ask such questions, because it is only he who has
experienced the transforming power of technological expertise.
Modern, scientific
man is rich; he has the means and the leisure to indulge in
scientific experimentation
and the development of scientific ideas. He has the financial
resources to bring
concepts to fruition and then apply them to his own life as a human being.
Man is an enquiring animal; he is creative and inventive, and his
ever-increasing
technological prowess has brought the environment within the realm of his
One thing is self-evident: we are no longer living in one world. We are living in at least two worlds, the worlds of the rich and the poor, the haves and the have nots.
creative talents.46 This is true to any significant degree however, only where
man is rich and where he has the leisure and the opportunities to develop these
abilities.
Poor man is not just poor; he is impoverished as a human being, and
in this sense
poverty can be defined as that condition which restricts the
development of roan's
creativity and resourcefulness. Here again then, we meet the two
worlds-the poor
world with its cultural impoverishment and the rich world with its
opportunities
for cultural enrichment and control of the environment. These worlds are made
up of different kinds of human beings, differences which are manmade
rather than
God ordained.
Mooneyham47 asked a 7 year old boy in the Sahel what he wished for
more than anything
in the world. His answer was striking and stunning: "For today,
I would like
a meal, arid for the future, an education". Alas, there are many
in the poor
world for whom such simple aspirations are mere fantasies.
Cohn Morris48 made the pungent observation that only the well-fed
play at Church.
The rest are too busy raking dustbins and garbage heaps for a morsel
to feed their
children." In similar vein, we may say that only the well-fed
play at science
and quality control and the ethical dilemmas that are currently
emerging because
of these frontiers. This is not to decry quality control any more than Morris
was decrying the church in its essence. Nevertheless, it does
highlight the inequality
of the rich and the poor, the well-fed and the malnourished.
Our two worlds are worlds of unequal human beings; those with hope as
human beings
and those with little or no hope. Those capable of living life to the
frill, and
those whose horizons are limited by the need to acquire fond and stave off the
next death in the family. To the one world, quality control is a
reality; to the
other, it is a mocking charade.
Well-nourished Christians in a Malnourished World
It is tragically easy to approach the world food crisis in an unduly objective
and observer-like fashion. With little difficulty, we illustrate the reality of
our two worlds-we, the rich, sitting in gastronomic splendour as we describe in
minute detail the impoverishment and squalor of the other world out there, the
poor world. The ease with which we do this is not diminished simply because we
are Christians. Indeed, there is some evidence to suggest that
theologically conservative
Christians may be more inclined to act in this manner, upholding the
status quo,
than those with a more liberal theological position or with no
specific Christian
presuppositions at all .49 While this position has been
energetically challenged
and substantially modified by others,50 the status quo has a
peculiar attraction
for Christians in the rich world.
Moberg,51 in writing of the relationship of Christians to social issues in their widest perspective, has this to
say:
In regard to most social issues of this century, evangelicals are known for their negative positions. . . They have worked for changed lives of individuals but not for changes in society . they have described social conditions as going from bad to worse without recognizing that their own lack of social action to correct the structural evils of society - . . were major factors contributing to the deterioration of social conditions.
Their ready acceptance of the social status quo and their inability
to understand
the relationship between evangelism and social action 52
have been
two major contributing
factors to the supposed "neutrality" of Christians on
social issues.
As a consequence of this trend, an increasing number of forthright criticisms
are being made of the Church at large, criticisms that are desperately relevant
for evangelicals. Mooneyham,53 writing from an evangelical
standpoint, is forced
to exclaim:
The church which bears the name of the Man who lived for others is more and more living for itself. In 1971-72, sixty-three church denominations in the United States and Canada reported contributions in excess of $4.5 billion. About $1 billion of that was spent on new church buildings . . . . There is no way to know how little of that went into programs that would relieve the sufferings of humanity. . . There is something unbelievably immoral about Christians who still demand to be convinced of the biblical mandate for . . . active involvement in the world hunger crisis.
Morris,54 in his fervent polemic Include Me Out!, states quite
emphatically that:
"we are a rich Church in a hungry world". "But", he argues,
"you cannot have a rich Church in a hungry world. And wealth in
this context
is a single penny more than it costs us to keep body and soul alive".
Bonhoeffcr55 expresses similar sentiments in more directly
theological language;
"To allow the hungry man to remain hungry would be blasphemy against God
and one's neighbour... it is for the love of Christ, which belongs as much to
the hungry man as to myself, that I share my dwelling with the
homeless."
A church satisfied with the status quo of riches implicitly denies
the radicalness
of Jesus Christ. It denies his concern for the poor and the outcasts, for the
dispossessed and the downtrodden, in both spiritual and material
realms. A complacent
church in a rich world cannot he sufficiently concerned for the poor
and the needy.
At the basis of so much New Testament teaching is the call to love others, to
put others first, to bear the burdens of others, to live for others and to give
ourselves for them. But what do these injunctions imply for a rich church and
rich Christians in a world of poverty and destitution?
Why Should Christians be Concerned for the Malnourished?
This question is one facet of a much broader one: Why should
Christians be concerned
for the social welfare of others?
An adequate answer to this question would take us into the relationship between
social concern and evangelism, and thus into the tension often felt
between the
great commission on the one hand and the great commandment on the other. Such
an examination is outside the scope of the present paper and has been
forcefully
tackled in recent years by Carl F. H. Henry,56
David 0. Moberg,57 Sherwood Eliot Wirt,58
John H. W. Stott59 and Klaus
Runia60 among others.
The Lausanne Covenant61 expresses the Christian's social responsibility in these terms:
We affirm that God is both the Creator and the judge of all tarn. We therefore should share his concern for justice and reconciliation throughout human society and for the liberation of men from every kind of oppression. Because mankind is made in the image of God, every person . . . has an intrinsic dignity because of which he should he respected and served, not exploited. . - We affirm that evangelism and socio-political involvement are both part of our Christian duty. For both are necessary expressions of our doctrines of God and man, our love for our neighbor and our obedience to Jesus Christ.
What is evident in this statement is that the Christian's
responsibility for the
social well-being of his fellow man stems from the relationship of God to those
he has created, and from the nature of man as a being
created-in-the-image-of-God.
All men are of equal worth in the sight of God, all men have an
intrinsic dignity
because of who they are and therefore, those who are Christians are
to view them
in the same way as God views them.
We can go further than this, however, and state that God is concerned
with justice
and compassion in human society, a concern so eloquently and movingly brought
out by Amos62 when he stresses the importance of human rights,
freedom, obligations,
compassion and the integrity of the individual. And insofar as God emphasizes
these traits, we are to follow and emphasize them also.
Man's relationship to Cod in creation implies, therefore, that each man has a
responsibility to his neighbour. In other words, intrapersonal
relationships are
important; man lives in community and the manner in which he lives
out these relationships
is important in the sight of God. This, in turn, points to the
importance of relationships
between groups of individuals, a point which is amply illustrated in
the Old Testament63
by the repeated denunciations of the perversion of legal structures
to the detriment
of underprivileged groups in the community.64
None of this, of course, in any way belittles the importance of evangelism. It
simply stresses the wholeness of man. As John Stottt65 so eloquently phrases it:
"God created man, who is my neighbour, a body-soul-in-community." He
continues, "if we love our neighbour as God made him, we must inevitably
he concerned for his total welfare, the good of his soul, his body
and his community."
And the reason why we should be concerned for the social welfare of others is
quite simply compassion, the compassion of Christ himself.
As Christians, we are to respect others as people and are never to use them as
things.66 Put in biblical language, we are to love our neighbours;"67
and everyone else-friends, enemies, those close to us, those unknown to us-are
our neighbours." We have therefore, a social responsibility for
other people
and a responsibility for the whole person.
Applying these principles to malnourished people is
all too obvious. They are our responsibility, because not only are
they our neighbours
but they are underprivileged. We are, therefore, doubly responsible for them.
If we are still unconvinced about this, we should remind ourselves of
God's concern
for the hungry. For instance, in Isaiah 58:6-10 we read:
Is not this what I require of you as a fast . . . . Is it not sharing your food with the hungry, taking the homeless poor into your house . . .? If you feed the hungry from your own plenty and satisfy the needs of the wretched, then your light will rise like dawn out of darkness
Then again, in Psalm 146:7 we are reminded that "The Lord feeds the hungry
and sets the prisoner free," Moreover, in Proverbs 25:21 we are exhorted
to give bread to our enemy when he is hungry and water when he is
thirsty, while
in Ezekiel 18:7 one of the marks of the righteous man is that he gives bread to
the hungry. In the New Testament, quite apart from the many
injunctions relating
to the poor, the needy and the hungry, Mary69 in extolling the wonderful works
of God exclaims: "the hungry he has satisfied with good things,
and the rich
(he has) sent away empty."
It is little wonder that today there are some to whom hunger is an obscenity.
For Larry Ward70 hunger is "an ugly, six-letter obscenity". For Cohn
Morris71obscenity is the deadly ease with which I and all ecclesiastical
word-mongers can write of hungry little men when our hands ought to tremble and
refuse to do our bidding". Perhaps this is an emotional response; it may
however, be a prophetic one and one also in tune with many of the
biblical writers.
Rationale for Action
Christians should he concerned for the plight of the malnourished. Given this
basic premise, what follows? Where do we go from here? What specific principles
do we need to help us put into practice these very general principles?
(a) The love principle
Concern for the malnourished must start from the great commandment. We are to
love our neighbours as ourselves. Jesus linked this obligation with our duty to
love God will all our heart, soul, mind and strength.72 Love therefore, is the
essence of the moral law.73 What is more, Christ taught that we are always to
treat others as we would like them to treat us.74
In no sense was this a departure from Old Testament teaching, as we
read in Leviticus
19:18: "You shall not seek revenge, or cherish anger towards
your kinsfolk;
you shall love your neighbour as a man like yourself." It was
this that served
as the starting point for Christ's own position. Note at this juncture that our
neighbour is a human being, a created man, a being in the image of
God, in exactly
the same way as we are beings in God's image. There is no distinction between
us in God's sight; the malnourished and the well nourished are on equal footing
as beings of concern to God.
But what of our reaction as individuals to the malnourished and the
underprivileged?
It is all too easy to look upon our own social group with favour and
other groups
with disdain. Christ however, allows for no such distinction. Love of those to
whom we are
God is concerned for social justice, and he is concerned that his own people put justice above everything else within society.
naturally drawn, that is, our neighbours in the narrow, parochial
sense, and hatred
of our enemies, has no place in the ministry of Jesus.75 According to him, we
are to "love our enemies, do good to those who hate us, bless
those who curse
us, pray for those who treat us spitefully. . . We are to treat
others as we would
like them to treat us."76
There can be no escape from this principle of selfeffacing love. And if this is
the governing principle in our response to our enemies, the extreme situation
at the individual level, this must also be the principle by which
Christians respond
to groups of individuals with whom they have no natural affinity.
It is hardly surprising that self-giving of this degree is the
essence of Christ's
standards, as Christ himself gave without expecting any reward. This
is precisely
the nature of the love demanded of Christians. We are to give of ourselves for
the malnourished; we are to give so that we lose and they gain,
thereby restoring
the balance of opportunity that should exist between human beings. This is love
as exemplified repeatedly in the life of Christ and as underlined by
the leaders
of the early church.
To John it was axiomatic that the Christian exemplified the love of Christ in
his relations with those around him. And so, if a man has enough to live on he
must, because he is a follower of Christ, help his brother who is in
need. Otherwise,
"how can it be said that the rhyme love dwells in him?"
After all, John
continues, "love must not be a matter of words or talk; it must be genuine
and show itself in action."77
To ignore the plight of needy fellow human beings is to withhold from them the
love of God. It is to refuse to do good, and in Christian terms this is sin.78
This responsibility of love is a fundamental requirement of Christian service
even when the emphasis is placed no the alleviation of material need.
It is equally
applicable to the need for evangelism, but this is not a more
pressing cause when
there is genuine material need. Love should compel us as Christians to feed the
malnourished and an restore them to their full dignity as human beings.
Love, as we have seen, is inseparably linked to action and hence is
the only satisfactory
startingpoint for an approach to the malnourished of the world. Mooneyham79 has
expressed a similar thought with regard to caring. He writes:
Caring is the crux of the matter. Knowledge will not produce change. It won't make any difference for you to know that ten thousand people die every day from starvation and diseases related to malnonrishment unless you care . . . action is horn out of caring.
(b) The 'our neighbour' concept
In his letter80 James rebukes those who would pay especial attention to a
rich man attending their church but scant attention to a poor man.
Such discrepancy,
argues James, demonstrates their own inconsistencies and the falseness of the
standards by which they regard the rich and the poor. It is an insult
to the poor
man, and it flies in the face of the realities of their society, as it is the
poor who are rich in faith and the rich who are the oppressors.
Beyond these inconsistencies however, lies the basic one. By elevating the rich
at the expense of the poor, these people were abrogating what James calls the
sovereign law of God: 'love your neighbour as yourself." Their
snobbery was
just the opposite of this; it was a transgression of God's law, because it was
showing partiality by valuing a person according to his possessions
and not according
to his intrinsic worth as a human being.
This illustration brings into focus the importance of our attitudes towards the
rich and the poor, the well nourished and the malnourished. Our attitudes quite
simply demonstrate the degree to which we are conforming to the
"our neighbour"
concept. It is far too easy to respect the successful business man or
the influential
academic and yet ignore the starving peasant or the underfed ghetto
mother. Here,
just as elsewhere, however, the standard set by Christ starts with
attitudes and
motives; it is never content with superficial conformity to accepted
social mores.81
It is far too radical to equate our neighbour with those who are the rich and
respectable in the eyes of society.
Whatever our attitudes to the poor may be, they will manifest
themselves in actions.
This is the burden of so much of the letter of James and also of the
first letter
of John, and it is equally the burden of Our Lord's parable of the
good Samaritan.82
"Who is my neighbour?", asked a lawyer, to which Christ
replied by way
of this parable "anyone you see who is in need." In this, Christ made
explicit what was implicit in all his teaching on the "our neighbour"
concept. Our neighbour is anyone anywhere, everyone everywhere; the
only criterion
is his need of help. There are no geographical, religious or racial
boundaries.
It is also instructive to note that Jesus did not answer the question "Who
is my neighbour?" By contrast, he implied that a more appropriate question
would have been "Do I behave as a neighbour?" As Marshall83 has
commented: "Jesus does not supply information as to whom one should help,
for failure to keep the commandment does not spring from lack of
information but
from lack of love." Perhaps this is a relevant comment for the Christian
Church confronted as it is by deprivation on an unprecedented scale.
Georg Borgstrom,84
author of the book The Hungry Planet, came to a similar conclusion
when he wrote;
"In order to bring health and restore vitality to the whole human species,
nothing less is required than a global will to act.."
The "our neighbour" concept brings us back to the importance of the
welfare of all people everywhere and of their total welfare. Paul85
reminded the
Christian congregations at Galatia that, as opportunity offered, they were to
work for the good of all, a sentiment echoed by Columbus Salley and
Ronald Behm86
in their hook on Christianity and race in America. They write:
Christians should therefore he taught to do those actions which promote the good of all men . . . . The example of Christ means that Christians must be involved in ministering to the whole man. It is totally inconceivable for a Christian to say that he loves men if lie does not attack those forces which destroy men themselves.
Our neighbours are being destroyed daily by lack of adequate
nutrition. The destruction
may be total; it may he partial, cnnervating and demoralizing. No matter what
the extent of its severity, it remains and will continue a reality. The overall
welfare of our neighbours is at stake each day, but does the Church
(do we) behave
as a neighbour?
(c) The demand for justice and righteousness
Writing about social needs in general, Paul Schrotenbocr87 has
written: "The
gospel will dispense healing only when the harmonious biblical norms
of love and
righteousness are built into . . . societal structures.
Christ works through his people in bringing balm to festering
societal structures."
Justice and righteousness are foundational, therefore, for the health
of society
and must constitute the goals to which Christians aspire in their work within
society.
Time and again throughout the Old Testament we are brought face to
face with the
lack of justice within society, and God's forthright condemnation of this state
of affairs. In Amos' time, for instance, the injustice within Israelite society
was an essential ingredient of the people's rebellion against God.
Bribery, inequitable
real estate deals, oppression, dishonesty, crime and violence were
all characteristics
of that society.58 Evil and injustice were so deeply rooted in the society and
were so characteristic of the actions of the people, that nothing less than a
moral reformation of the whole society was required. "Seek good
and not evil,
that you may live . . . hate evil and love good; enthrone justice in
the courts"
was Amos' plea to them.
In commenting on this Motyer89 writes:
Can God do other than stand aloof from people who claim to know His name but refuse to imitate in life the very things the name stands for-human and humanitarian concern, good social order, even-handed justice, the dignity and well-being at men and women?
Our treatment of our fellow human beings in society is vital, because they are human beings like ourselves. The Israelites among whom Amos was living were very religious, even if their religion was far from pure, and yet it made little difference to their social attitudes. And it is significant, I think, that their social misdemeanors were the first reason quoted by Amos for God's condemnation of them.90
God is concerned for social justice, and he is concerned that his own
people put
justice above everything else within society. The Israelites, by
turning justice
upside down, brought righteousness to the ground.91 The two are
inseparably linked,
demonstrating the interrelatedness of social and religious ideals.
Much earlier in the history of the Jews the concept of social justice
was unequivocally
written into their way of life. In Leviticus,92 among the rules about conduct,
they were instructed thus: "You shall not pervert justice,
either by favouring
the poor or by subservience to the great. You shall judge your
fellow-countryman
with strict justice." Interestingly this was closely linked to
the "our
neighbour" concept. A man must be treated
as a man and this entails scrupulous justice.
It may seem as though I have strayed some distance from the theme of
malnutrition.
Justice however, is not an abstract concept to be viewed idealistically. It is
a basic ingredient of equitable societies and of an equitable world;
if societies
are not equitable, justice is at a premium because lack of justice is closely
associated with greed.
This association surfaces repeatedly in the Old Testament. In Jeremiah,92 for
example, we read:
Think of your father: he ate and drank, dealt justly and fairly, all went well with him. He dispensed justice to the lowly and poor; did not this show he knew me? says the Lord. But you have no eyes, no thought for anything but gain.
The gain referred to here is "greedy wrongdoing." It is unjust gain,
as is brought out in other passages.93 John Taylor, 94 in discussing
this greed,
expresses the idea that at the heart of it is "a narrow-minded obsession
with one's personal desire and ambition." Where such exists, there can be
no justice, no righteousness and no social stability.
Social justice is not therefore, a matter of legal ordinances,
although it inevitably
involves these. It is just as much a matter of personal life-style.
Where individuals
at large live selfindulgent, greedy, unjust lives, there will he
other individuals
who will lose out and will he unjustly treated. Where injustice
serves the greed
of sosue individuals, it leads to the deprivation of others. Where
injustice leads
to excessive overdevelopment of some nations, it leads to the gross
underdcvelopment
of others. Injustice is central to the well-nourishedmalnourished paradigm, and
at the heart of injustice is the excessive covetousness of individuals.
Injustice should be anathema to Christians, not only because of the
human suffering
that follows in its wake, but also because Christ came to demonstrate
the reality
and nature of justice. This is the evocative picture painted by Jeremih95 with
these words: "The days are now coming, says the Lord when I will
make a righteous
Branch spring from David's line, a king who shall rule wisely, maintaining law
and justice in the land." And this is, to use Jeremiah's phrase, "the
Lord is our Righteousness."
The "our neighbour" concept demands standards of justice
and righteousness.
Nothing less is consonant with the dignity of man and the character of God. And
implicit within this framework is the equal worthwhileness of all human beings,
and the right of all people to be treated as individuals of value.
This, in turn,
should lead to the realization that individuals are of greater value
than possessions,
people are more important than things. And this is where the crunch
so often comes.
The Christian, however, must cling to those words from Isaiah so deliberately
quoted by Jesus96 himself: "He has sent me to announce good
news to the
poor
to let the brokers victims go free, to proclaim the year of the
Lord's favour."
Wide as the orbit of this task was, it included the alleviation of
socio-political
injustices. Carl Henry 97 is insistent on this point,
The Christian is morally hound to challenge all beliefs and ideologies that trample man's personal dignity as a
hearer ,,f the divine image, all forms of political and economic practice that undercut the worth of human
beings
Social injustice, and hence malnutrition, are more
than legitimate concerns for the Christian. They are integral to his standing
as a Christian. They are marks of his Christian character.
(d) The danger of riches
The dangers associated with amassing wealth are brought out on many occasions
in the New Testament, where riches are seen more often than not as
the consequence
of greed. We may consider this another aspect of the greed-justice
dichotomy stressed
by so many of the Old Testament writers.
Jesus,98 when discussing greed, introduces the idea of "enough", a
concept developed in theological and social terms by Taylor99 in his
book Enough
is Enough. According to Jesus, anything in excess of enough fails to
provide satisfaction
or depth to life. In all probability it is a symptom of self-destroying greed,
in which the individual's own selfish desires are elevated at the expense of an
understanding either of God or of the needs of other people.
Each of these possibilities is taken up by Jesus. On
the one hand he demonstrates100 that a love of things
simply demonstrates that our fundamental concerns are confined to that realm,
In other words, materialism is the outward expression of an inward secularism.
In Christ's own words: "For where your treasure is, there will your heart
be also." The emphasis here is once again no storing up treasure on earth.
It is the active attempt to amass possessions and wealth, with the
aim of providing
for oneself, one's own enjoyment and pleasure and one's own satisfaction. The
wealth in these illustrations is misused; rather than serving others
by enhancing
their wellbeing, its inward direction destroys its rich owner and ensures its
own sterility.
The other consequence of greed brought to the fore by Jesus101 is
this neglect
of other people's needs. The rich man in Christ's parable of the rich man and
Lazarus is condemned for his total neglect of Lazarus' basic
nutritional requirements.
Indeed Lazarus is the epitome of the "little man with the
shrunken belly"
of Cohn Morris' saga. He was hungry, he lived with the dogs, and he died in
penury.
The rich man, meanwhile, ignored him.
The danger of excessive wealth lies here. It is not so much what can
be acquired
or built with the money; such things are neutral. The danger exists
in the transformation
wrought in the attitudes of the rich. The greed underlying these
attitudes leads
to neglect of God and neglect of his fellow men. Both results
however, are aspects
of the same problem-neglect of the world outside the rich individual himself.
Concern for the poor, the hungry, the diseased, the deprived, the malnourished
has no place in the limited world of the rich individual. They lie outside his
self-indulgent frame of reference.
This is the antithesis of the epic promulgated by Jesus. It has nothing to do
with the compassion of Jesus, or with the "our neighbour" concept, or
with the justice and righteousness so actively put forward by the Old Testament
prophets. Perhaps James102 in his New Testament letter best sums
up the fate
of the
greedy rich. In sarcastic terms he concludes: "You have lived on earth in
wanton luxury, fattening yourselves like cattle-and the day of
slaughter has come."
The Christian stance amounts to concern for the poor, the despised
and the malnourished.
Anything in excess of enough is to be available for distribution as appropriate.103
Those who are rich in material goods are also to be rich in good
deeds. 104 They,
after all, are the ones who have this privilege. They are the ones
able to mobilize
financial and personnel resources. It is therefore, their responsibility. And
so we find Moberg105 writing,
I have concluded after years of reflection upon this subject that the weight of
Christians usually should be thrown behind the poor, dispossessed,
outcast, strangers,
and minorities of society.
Our concern is to be directed towards those unable to protect and
fend for themselves,
and poverty replete with its undesirable social overtones must feature large in
any such concern.106
Another biblical justification for this stance is found in Christ's parable of
the sheep and the goats,107 where the righteous are equated with those who have
provided food, drink and hospitality for people in need. Moreover,
the righteous
in acting in these ways directly minister to Christ himself. This
reinforces the
importance of social concern, although whether or not this parable
has the extremely
wide application sometimes given to it is a matter for debate. Nevertheless, we
can readily say that ministering to human need has a direct hearing
on our service
of Christ.
(e) The perspective of Christian responsibility
It is important that the responsibility that Christians have for the
malnourished
should be seen in a Christian perspective. This is provided by some
words of Jesus himself,108 words of remarkable aptness for this topic. After dealing with some
of man's chief causes of anxiety, such as his daily requirements of
food and his
need for essential material provisions such as clothes, Jesus reminds
his disciples
that God is aware of these needs and will provide for them. He then continues
with this general principle: "Set your mind on God's kingdom and
his justice
before everything else, and all the rest will come to you as well."
Eller,105 in his book The Simple Life, argues that this is the "essential
premise upon which thought, faith and practice must build if the result is to
qualify as the simple life in any Christian sense. There is a
"first",
and there is an "all the rest." He goes on to argue that a person is
living the simple life when his ultimate loyalty is directed solely
to God, with
every other concern following on and flowing out from this central
loyalty."'
Hence, concern for food, clothing, pleasures, satisfactions-whatever "all
the rest" may encompass-are good only "if they are used to
support man's
relationship to God rather than compete with it.111
This gives us some clues about the perspectives for the rich, well
nourished Christian,
who has the freedom to consider and make such choices. What help does it give
to the poor, malnourished Christian, who cannot choose but can ask only whether
there actually is life before death?112
The poor Christian canbe assured of his essential
food and clothing requirements, only insofar as the rich Christian shares with
him his riches. It is precisely at this point that Mooneyham,113 finds what
he terms a "food ethic" in the Bible. According to him this
food ethic
is encompassed by the "all the rest." Rich Christians should realize
that a fundamental obligation placed upon them, in their brother's keeper role,
is to give of their resources in compassion and in respect for the dignity and
worth of man.
Christians everywhere pray the Lord's prayer: "Give us today our
daily bread.114 This is a communal prayer by God's people world-wide. It is a
recognition by Christians
of their oneness in Christ and of their mutual obligations to serve each other.
No Christian can he satisfied with his supply of food, while a
brother in Christ
lacks food. Indeed, on a broader front, no Christian can be content as long as
anyone, anywhere lacks food.
Both poor and rich Christians are confronted by the same principle of primary
dependence upon God, with the expectation that the essential
requirements of life
will he forthcoming. The poor Christian may well find himself thrust upon the
former, with all too little knowledge of the latter. The rich
Christian, by contrast,
living in a world of super-abundance may find it all too difficult to
appreciate
that dependence upon God for his material needs is a reality.
The relationship therefore, between our dependence upon God and the provision
of our material requirements is an intimate one, and this
relationship holds for
all Christians wherever they are placed on the wealth-nutrition
scale. The nature
of our response to this relationship will depend on our position on the scale,
the criteria for action being our acknowledgement of the primacy of God in our
lives and our desire in the light of this that our resources be used to serve
both him and others.
Realization of his dependence upon God should lead the rich Christian not only
to gratitude for the food and clothes he enjoys, but also to a way of
life satisfied
with "enough". This is the beginning of Christian social concern, a
beginning that enables the well nourished to take seriously and
respond enthusiastically
to the world of malnourished individuals.
Actions Required by the Well-Nourished
In this paper my emphasis has been on the principles underlying the response of
Christians to the malnourished world, emphasizing that it is individual people
who are suffering and not simply anonymous societies. My stress therefore, has
been on the attitudes essential to a Christian response, rather than
on the particular
programmes rich governments should adopt towards the underdeveloped nations. We
are individuals who have to make our own response to the deprivation
of our world.
Individual initiative must come first; individuals must be motivated
by the plight
of other individuals, because it is only in this way that meaningful
cooperative
action will emerge.
As I turn to look more specifically at actions, my emphasis will
still be on the
responsibilities of individuals. Furthermore, it will soon become obvious that
the actions urged on Christians by the biblical writers are implicit
in the principles
previously outlined. There is no rigid distinction between our
attitudes and actions; the latter are merely the external aspect of the former.
Before I turn to the specific areas themselves however, one general
point should
be mentioned. This concerns the readiness with which Christians conform to the
political status quo of the society of which they form a part. Moberg,115
in discussing the American situation, comments:
Americans selfishly assume that whatever is best for their own subculture, their own occupational group, their own neighbourhood, city, state, or county, will obviously be best for the entire nation-indeed, for the entire world.
This is not the place to enter either into the reasons behind this assertion or
into their general validity. Suffice it to say, that this description
of Americans
and of American Christians could be applied to many other groups of
Western Christians.
Working outwards from this assertion, Moberg116 proceeds to
elaborate a concept
of collective or social sin. In his own words:
(Many Christians) are conformed to their culture and this world age, participating in its unrighteousness, condoning its social evils, and cooperating in its collective sin . . . . Such sins may be individual acts, or they may he acts indulged in by . a nation, or even a church.
This condition Moberg terms "fractional conversion." What this means in practice is that Christians who, as individuals in their normal environments, may be loving, honest and kind people, may at the same time be implicated in evil through their roles as citizens or employees. More than this however, they appear to see no evil in the actions of their nation or employer and hence are willing participants in the evil. This is a major issue demanding rigorous debate and discussion. Nevertheless, Moherg's examples of social sin, including slavery, child labour, maltreatment of the mentally retarded, and exploitation of the poor and racial inequalities, have much to say about the nature of Western societies and raise poignant questions for Christians.
Another example of social sin is the scant attention paid by the rich nations
to the poor nations. This may well he a conglomeration of social sins, of which
our lack of concern for the malnourished of the world is just one
component. Illustrations
of these social sins are many, including the way in which so much aid
is "tied"
and the feeble attempts made by most rich countries to give even 0.7% of their
gross national products annually as overseas grants and loans to
developing countries.117
The question confronting its as individuals is whether we readily concur with
such official attitudes or whether we believe a radical reversal of policies is
desirable, given the political implications of such radical action.
Are our attitudes-personal
and political-radical in this area, or are we content to he a part of
the prevalent
social evils of our societies?
(a) Spurn excess
This is the corollary of the principle of "enough." Taylor,118 in
working out a theology of enough, finds repeated instances of it in
the Old Testament.
In particular,
Realization of his dependence upon God should lead the rich Christian not only to gratitude for the food and clothes he enjoys, but also to a way of life satisfied with "enough."
he looks to the laws of gleaning,119 limited cropping120
and tithing,121
each in its different way being a device for setting limits to selfish excess.
The goal of these laws was the establishment of what Taylor calls an equipoise
society, one characterized by right relationships and in which there
was a balance
between interdependence and responsibility. For the individual there
was moderation,
a readiness to fit his needs to the needs of others.
Implicit in this idea is the rejection of individualism and stark independence.
So too is there a rejection of striving for excess, excess in one's own life at
the expense of sufficient in another person's. The needs of a
balanced community
are brought into focus, a community in which each person receives and
is satisfied
with enough.
The imbalance of our world stands out in sharp relief against this picture of
harmony and equality. The rich nations are overdeveloped; they are immersed in
excess. The poor nations, by contrast, are just sufficiently developed or alarmingly
underdeveloped; their resources are insufficient to meet the demands
of a healthy,
vigorous community.
The situation looks so hopeless that despair is frequently the order
of the day.
The principle of spurning excess is not however, a call either to pessimism or
reluctant poverty. It is a matter of willingly sharing our abundance. This is
brought out in relation to tithing, and is repeatedly met in the New Testament
both in the teaching of Jesus122 and in Paul's letters. For instance,
Pau1123 on one occasion synthesized excess and equality with these words:
There is no question of relieving others at the cost of hardship to yourselves; it is a question of equality. At the moment your surplus meets their need, but one day your need may be met from their surplus. The aim is equality.
Here is the balance we need today. It is however, a balance that can
he achieved
only by the ready distribution of excess. Sharing is the indispensable fulcrum
of a balanced society.
(b) Share riches
Of the many reasons that could be elicited for sharing the resources we have,
perhaps the foundational one for the Christian, stems from the fact
that everything
created by Cod is good and is not to he rejected when used within a
God-structured
frame of reference. 124 Riches fall within this framework when viewed
positively'.
Paul's advice 125 to the rich is therefore: "Tell thesis to do good and to
grow rich in noble actions, to be ready to give away and to share,
and so acquire
a treasure which will form a good foundation for the future."
Sharing is repeatedly recognized as the prerequisite for a life of
value, simply
because the one who shares
recognizes his dependence upon God, his creator, the worthwhileness of other
human beings and his intimate relationship to them. Excess, on the other hand,
emphasizes the converse-one's own autonomy in a closed universe, the
lesser value
of other human beings and one's independence of them.
Sharing of one's abundance is as much a religious necessity as a
social or economic
one. The task of justifying it in a malnourished world is a double
one for Christians-the
necessity of sharing at a national level and its possibility at an individual
level through the example of their own lives. It was Jesus himself126
who advocated
that the man with two shirts must share with him who has no shirt. In exactly
the same way, a person with excess food must share his excess with the person
who is hungry. What greater justification could a Christian want than that?
(c) Support the needy
This pinpoints those who are to be recipients of the sharing of the rich. For
those in the early church the needy in their midst were orphans and widows,127
and considerable emphasis was placed on their support. In spite of this, help
was not indiscriminate, care being taken to ascertain that there were no family
sources of support and that the support was not likely to result in
idleness and
irresponsibility.
Material support was however, indispensable in certain instances and indeed was
evidence of genuine Christianity. So it is today, although the needy
from a Western
standpoint may be largely outside Western churches and may also be
largely outside
the rich developed nations. The principle of support still holds; its
application
however, has to take different forms.
A Radical Response to a Revolutionary Situation
Were the Church of Jesus Christ to adopt the teachings of Christ and
the teachings
of the Scriptures relating to social justice, it would he far more radical than
any extant political organization. While I have purposely confined
myself in this
paper to the level of individuals, even individual action along the
lines I have
suggested would have far-reaching social repercussions.
In the end the plight of the malnourished can he alleviated on a massive scale
only by a major redistribution of power and wealth, between nations
and also within
nations.128 Whether this is feasible politically and economically, or whether
it is the pipe-dream of idealists is a question beyond my competence to answer.
Neither am I in a position to judge whether such a redistribution of resources
will he brought about by violent means. Suffice it to say that this
is a possibility
which should not he lightly dismissed.
That such questions are even being discussed highlights the gravity
of the malnutrition
issue, and it is essential for all of us to ask just where we begin.
What should
have emerged from this paper is that "the people of God have a radical and
unique contribution to make toward the restructuring of the old systems and the
creation of new ones.129 This follows from the Christian view of man as a
creation of God's arid as a person imaged after God's likeness. This
is the basis
of respect and concern for all men everywhere, regardless of their beliefs, colour,
social status or aspirations. This is God's world and all people are
God's people.
Such is the dynamic of the Christian ethic, and yet unfortunately it
is far easier
to conform to the sub-Christian social ethic of the societies of which we form
a part than launch out with a radical, truly Christian social ethic. In spite
of this, the potential is there and the challenge of the malnourished world is
an ever-present reality for the church today-in the rich and the poor nations
alike.
A revolutionary situation demands a radical response. Such appears to have been
provided in a few countries. Of all the preindustrial nations, three
have eliminated
malnutrition-North Vietnam, Cuba and the Peoples' Republic of China.130 In these
instances, revolutionary measures have achieved marked gains in this
area. Whether
these gains outweigh losses in other areas of life, such as the loss
of personal
freedom, is an issue worth pondering.
If Jesus was the revolutionary he is frequently said to he, Christians should
he in the vanguard of social change working for the sort of social
equality which
will lead to the diminution of malnutrition. If malnutrition is a
man-made disorder,
such a goal is feasible.
Christians however, insist never forget that Jesus was principally
neither a social
reformer nor a political activist. While his teaching led to radical
social changes,
his message also warned of apocalyptic judgment on the world in the
wake of man's
rebellion against God."' Man therefore, is not only in need of
social healing;
he also needs the forgiveness of God and newness of life in Jesus Christ. Hence
Christians have the task of presenting Christ as Saviour, as well as being salt
and light in the present world, thereby bringing hope to society. This is the
twofold, radical element of Christianity, and both aspects are required if the
malnourished are to be helped back to wholeness of life.
©1978
REFERENCES
1Winchester, S., The Australian, January 1976
2Mooncyhssrn, W. S., What Do You Say to a Hungry
World?, p. 17, Word
Books, Texas,
1975.
3Morris, C., Include Me Out!, p. 17, Collins/Fontana Books, Glasgow,
1975 edition.
4Moberg, D. 0., The Great Reversal: Evangelism versus Social
Concern, p. 99,
Scripture Union, London, 1973 edition.
5Genesis 41. This famine occurred around 1700 B.C., since which time there have
been at least 375 documented famines throughout the world.
6Mark 13:8
7Time, p. 62, November 11, 1974.
8Berg, A., The Nutrition Factor, p. 5, The Brookings Institution, Washington,
1973.
9Jones, D. G., The vulnerability of the brain to
undernutrition, Sci Prog., 63,
483-503 (1976).
10Shneour, E., The Malnourished Mind, pp. 6, 7, Doubleday/ Anchor Press, New
York, 1974.
11Cobos, F., Malnutrition and mental retardation: conceptual
issues. In CIBA, Lipids, Malnutrition and the Developing Brain, pp. 227-248, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1972.
12Mooneyham, op cit, part 1.
13Ibid.p. 27 see also Mooneyham, W. S., Ministering to the hunger belt,
Christianity Today, 19, 326330 (1975).
14Heilbmoner, B., The Great Ascent: The Struggle for Economic Development
in Our Time, p. 59, Harper and Row, New York, 1963.
15Mooneyham, op cit, p. 45.
16Marshall, A, Principles of Economics, MacMillan, New York, 1890.
17Billington, R., The Third World, p. 6, Inter-Varsity Press,
London, 1972.
18Lancet (editorial), Classification of infantile malnutrition,
Lancet 2, 302 (1970).
19OBrock, J. F., Ann. Int. Med., 65, 890 (1966).
20Berg, op cit, p. 4.
21Jones, D. G., The Brain and Its Environment, Chapman and Hall,
London, in preparation.
22Robson, J. B. K., Malnutrition: Its Causation and
Control, Vol.
1, p. 29, Gordon and Breach, New York, 1972.
23Jones, op cit. p. 490.
24Dobbing, J., Vulnerable periods in developing brain. In
Applied Neurochemistry
(ed. A. N. Davison and J. Dobbing), pp. 287-316, Blacksvell
Scientific Publications,
Oxford, 1968.
25Dohbing, J., The later growth of the brain and its vulnerability,
Pediatrics, 53, 2.6 (1974).
26Cravioto, J., Dc Licardie, E. R. and Birch, H. C., Nutrition,
growth and neurointegrative
development: an experimental and ecologic study. Pediatrics, 38,
319-372 (1966).
27For a summary of these points, see Jones, op cu, pp. 492, 493.
28 ibid, pp. 494-497.
29ibid, p. 499.
30Cravioto, J., and Rubles, B., Evolution of motor and adaptive behavior during
rehabilitation from kwashiorkor. Amer. J. Ortlsopsychiat. 35, 449-464
(1965).
31Craviotn, Dc Lieardie and Birch, op cit.
32Chase, H. P. and Martin, H. P., Undernutrition and child development,
New England J. Med., 282, 933.939 (1970).
33Stoch, M. B., and Smythe, P. M., The effect of undernutrition
during infancy
an subsequent brain growth and intellectual development, S.A. Med. J., 41, 1027-1030
(1967).
34Lloyd-Still, J. D., Hurwitz, I., Wolff, P. H. and Shwaehman, H.,
Intellectual
development after severe malnutrition in infancy. Pediatrics, 54,
306-311 (1974).
35Stein, Z. A,, Susser, M. Saenger, C. and Marolla, F.,
Famine and
Human Development,
Oxford University Press, New York, 1975.
36Coursin, D. B. (for Subcommittee on Nutrition, Brain Development
and Behavior),
The relationship of nutrition to brain development and behavior,
Ecal. Ed. Nutr.,
2, 275280 (1973).
37Barnes, B. H., Nutrition and man's intellect and behavior,
Fed. Proc., 30, 1429.1433 (1971).
38Dobbing, J,, Food and human brain development, Proc. 3rd
lot. Congr. Jut. Org. Study of Human Development,
Madrid, 1975.
39Barnes, op cit.
40Jones, D C., op cit.
41Mooneyham, op cit, p. 26.
42Billingham, op cit, p. 1.
43Jones, D. C., Making new men-a theology of modified man,
JASA, 26, 144.154 (1974).
44Fletcher, J., The Ethics of Genetic Control, Doubleday/Anchor
Books, 1974.
45Junes, D. C., The new man: have we the right to create him?,
Ark, 3, 17-18 (1975).
46Jones, D. G., What is man?-a biological perspective and
Christian assessment, JASA. 28, 165 (1976).
47Moonyham, op cit, p. 76.
48Morris, op cit, p. 71.
49Rokeach, M., The Paul H. Douglass Lectures for 1969: Past I. Value systems
in religion. Part II. Religious values and social compassion, Review
of Religious Research, 11, 3-39 (1969); see also Stark, R. and Glock, C.Y., American Piety:
The Nature of Religious Commitment, University of California Press, Berkeley,
1969.
50See for instance Moberg, op cit., pp. 61-63.
51ibid., p. 177.
52Stott, J., Christian Mission in the Modern
World, Falcon, London,
1975; see also
Moberg, ibid.
53Mooneyham, op cit, p. 29.
54Morris, op cit, p. 80.
55Bonhoeffer, D., Ethics, p. 137, MacMillan, New York, 1955
edition.
56Henry, C. F. H., The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1947;
Aspects of
Christian Social Ethics, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1964.
57Moberg, D. 0., Inasmuch: Christian Social Responsibility in the
Twentieth Century,
Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1965; The Great Reversal: Evangelism versus
Social Concern,
op cit.
58Wirt, S. R., The Social Conscience of the Evangelical, Harper
and Row, New York, 1968.
59Stott, J. R. W., Christian Mission in the Modern World,
op cit.
60Runia, K.,
Evangelical responsibility in a secularized world, Christianity Today, 14, 851-854
(1970). 61Stott, J., The Lausanne Covenant, p. 25, World Wide
Publications, Minneapolis,
1975.
62Amos 1:1-2:3.
63E.g. Isaiah 10:1 if.
64EIliott, C., The Development Debate, p.
87, 88. SCM Press, London, 1971.
65 Stott, J., Christian Mission in the Modern
World, op cit, p. 30.
66Gcisler,
N. L., Ethics: Alternatives and Issues, pp. 178-180, Zondervan, Grand Rapids,
1971.
67Matthesv 22:39.
68Matthew 5:43; Luke 10:29 ff.
69Luke 1:53
(all Scripture
quotations are from the New English Bible).
70Ward, L . . . . . . .
. . And There
will be Famines, p. 29, Regal, Glendale, 1973.
71Morris, C., op cii,
p. 57. 75Loke
10:25-28; Mark 12:28-34. 72Matthew 22:40. 7tMstthew 7:12. 75Matthew 5:43; at.
Rum. 12:20.
76Luke 6:27-31,
771 John 3:16-18.
78James 4:17.
79Mooneyhans, op cit,
p. 27.
80James 2:1-9.
81 Matthew 5:27, 28.
82Luke 10:25-37.
83Marshall, I.
H., Commentary on Luke. In The New Bible Commentary Revised (ed. D. Guthrie, J.
A. Motyer, A. M. Stibbs and D. J. Wiseman), p. 905, Inter-Varsity
Press, London,
1970.
84Borgstrom, C., The dual challenge of health and hunger-a global crisis,
1968, quoted by Mooneyham, op cit, p. 24.
85Galatians 6:10.
86Salley,
C. and Behm,
R., Your God is Too White, p. 119, Lion Publishing, Berkhamsted, 1973 edition.
87Schroteuboer, P., What is!?, Inside 2, 26-27 (1971).
88Amos 2:6, 7; 3:9, 10;
5:7.20.
89Motyvr, J. A., The Day of the Lion, p. 83, Inter-Varsity
Press, London,
1974.
90Amos 3:9-4:5.
91Amos 5:7.
92Jerensinh 22:13.17.
93Exodus
18:21; Habakkuk
2:9.11.
94Taylur, J. V., Enough is Enough, p. 44, SCM Press, London,
1975.
95Jeremiah
23:5, 6.
96Luke 4:18.
97Henry, C. F. H., A Plea for Evangelical Demonstration,
pp. 111, 112, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, 1971.
98Luke 12:13-21.
99Taylor,
op cit.
100Matthew 6:19-21.
101Luke 16:19-31.
102James 5:1-6.
103John 3:17.
104Timothy 6:17-19.
105Maberg, The Great Reversal; Evangelism versus Social Concern,
op cit p. 134; cf. Proverbs 31:9.
106see for example Luke 14:13, 14; Luke 18:22; Luke 19:8;
Galatians 2:10; Romans 15:26; Acts 11:29; Leviticus
19:9; Leviticus 25:35; Proverbs 19:11; Psalm 41:1.
107Matthcw
25:31-46.
108Mattlsew
6:25-34.
109Ellcr, V., The Simple Life, p. 20, Eerdmaus, Grand Rapids,
1973.
110Ibid, p. 28.
111Ibid, pp. 28, 29.
112Moonsyham, op cit,
p. 33.
113Ibid,
1). 178.
114Matthcw 6:11.
115Moberg, The Great Reversal: Evangelism versus
Social Concern, op. cit, p. 126.
116Ibid, p. 127.
117Billingtnn,
op cit, pp.
7, 8; Moneyhan, op cit, pp. 116-131.
118Taylor, op cit, pp. 40-62.
119Leviticus 19:9, 10; Deuteronomy 25:19-22.
120Deuteronomy 22:9; Exodus 23:10,
11; Leviticus 25:1-7.
121Deuteronomy 14:22-29.
122Loke 6:38.
123E.g.
2 Corinthians
8:12-15.
1241 Timothy 4:4, 5.
1251 Timothy 6:17-19.
126Luke 3:10, 11.
1271 Timothy 5:3-16; James 1:27.
128Hatfield, M., quoted by Mooneyham, op cit, p. 131.
129Mooneyham,
ibid, o 123.
13OWatts, G., The ecology of hunger-a portrait of Professor Joaquin Cravioto,
New Scientist, pp. 388-390, 19 February, 1976.
131Henry, A Plea for
Evangelical Demonstration, op elf, pp. 123, 124.