A recent edition of Southern Cross (our diocesan newspaper here in Sydney) featured an extended and very positive series of articles on the Fairtrade movement. Fairtrade is a ‘think global, act local’ sort of initiative which involves consumers in the West attempting to improve the lot of poor and exploited farmers in the third world by buying ‘Fairtrade’ products. By buying certified ‘Fairtrade’ coffee, for example, you ensure that a higher income flows to the cooperatives that produce it (usually 10% or so above the market price). There were stories about Christians who have become involved in the Fairtrade movement, and strong encouragement for churches to get involved—not only as a means of adding valuable momentum to the whole movement, but as a culturally attractive way of building links with our community and sharing the gospel.
I read the articles with a growing sense of shame-faced exasperation—shame-faced, because how could I object to helping third world farmers?—and yet exasperated that our diocesan paper should devote so many pages to the issue. Upon reflection, I realized my problem with the articles was both economic and theological.
Economically, it was naïve. Trying to solve pricing problems on the other side of the world through our shopping choices may make us feel better, but it is unlikely to have much effect, except possibly to make the situation worse. Basic economics tells us that the usual reason prices for a particular commodity are low is that too much of it is being produced: supply and demand. This normally motivates some farmers to move into other crops that are in shorter supply, and thus have a higher price, giving greater return to the farmer. It’s why those nasty free markets tend to promote efficiency and prosperity.
However, artificially propping up the price of a commodity distorts this process and removes the incentive for farmers to diversify. In fact, it does the opposite: it creates an incentive for others to start producing that crop (since it has a guaranteed higher price), thus increasing output and putting an even further downward pressure on price. So there is a reasonable chance that the well-meaning ‘Fairtrade’ movement may actually make things worse in the long run for the majority of third world farmers. The world is very complex place, and solving problems in the world (economic and otherwise) is very difficult. The intuitively obvious action (let’s give some farmers more money for their coffee by buying Fairtrade) may, in fact, end up having larger negative consequences we haven’t stopped to consider.
The same is true for nearly all the practical, secular problems we face. And the larger, more complex and more distant the problem, the more resistant it is to simple, feel-good solutions. It’s why being a politician is such an unenviable task. Even if you’re smart enough to foresee some of the byproducts and consequences of your policies, there will be unforeseen negative results and implications that will only become apparent over time. (We could have the same conversation about global warming, and whether we really have any idea how bad it will be, and whether our proposed solutions will, in fact, make things on the whole better or worse—but let’s leave that for another time!)
This is not just an economic judgement born of observation (although the older you get, the more you observe this phenomenon in action); it is a theological observation as well. It’s the world that Ecclesiastes 3 describes for us so beautifully—a world in which we can see glimpses of order and goodness, and in which we can affirm that everything has its right time, and yet a world which eludes us. We cannot see the whole—neither in all its parts and variety, nor in its future. This is the burden God has laid upon humanity, Ecclesiastes tells us. It is the frustration he has afflicted us with so that we might seek him, who alone sees all and knows the meaning of all.
The gospel does and doesn’t free us from this frustration. It doesn’t give us the answers that the Preacher of Ecclesiastes agonized over. We still can’t see the whole. We still can’t explain everything. We still can’t rule the world. But we do see Jesus, the Man who rules the world, and who will one day free us from our frustration by bringing in God’s new creation. That’s our message to the world, and we know it because the God who knows it all has revealed it to us.
The continuing and frustrating opacity and complexity of the world is why Christian citizens who agree on the Bible and the gospel will, nevertheless, come to different conclusions about secular arrangements, plans and problems (like the price of coffee). We may share a biblical desire to love and do good to all people, and especially the household of faith, but think quite differently as to what the best way to help is, or what the most pressing problem to address is. So some of my brothers will conclude that the Fairtrade movement is important and worth supporting, whereas I think it is on the whole a misguided waste of time.
It is just as well that our job is not to improve the world because it is a task demonstrably beyond us. What is the commission our Lord has given us? The Sydney Diocesan mission statement puts it beautifully:
To glorify God by proclaiming our saviour the Lord Jesus Christ in prayerful dependence on the Holy Spirit, so that everyone will hear his call to repent, trust and serve Christ in love, and be established in the fellowship of his disciples while they await his return.
It’s boring, I know, and it lacking all cultural credibility and attractiveness. But it’s what God has called us to do. Let’s encourage each other in getting on with it.
I notice that Wikipedia has an interesting debate on fair trade where some of the economic arguments are touched upon.
As an economic layman (or even lamebrain) I don’t know what the right view is, but it does worry me to see an official publication of a denominational organization assuming the answer, and not only so, but promoting it as part of an evangelistic strategy!
The theological rationale for this bemuses me, as do so many other discussions of evangelistic strategy. Why hamstring yourself to just one way of telling people the gospel? Especially if the way you choose is open to serious critique on non-theological grounds.
So we should share a biblical desire to do good and love but it is not our job to improve the world because that is beyond us?
If the issue is one of balance in Southern Cross and being too prescriptive about a particular means of remedying injustice that is one thing (although in fairness to SC there were a couple of critiques of Fairtrade offered) You seem to go further and be saying our job is evangelism and not doing things that would improve this world.
That would seem to run against a fine evangelical legacy of working to improve this fallen world. The issue is not coffee but injustice – the same theological issues arise for slavery, apartheid, global warming, saying sorry to indiginous Australians etc. Do we ignore injustice because it is in the too hard basket? Or do we say it is hard and messy but we need to name concrete examples of sin and show its destructive force. Think for instance of the way Revelation 18 describes sin not just in an abstract way but describes a city built on unjust trade. Because of this the judgement of God is coming! If it is sin then it needs to be repented of.
Attempting to keep the primacy of evangelism by not engaging in difficult areas of social justice will subvert the very gospel you want to proclaim. What is the sin you are describing? What does repentance look like? What is the nature of the hope you should have in this creation?
Tony, I’m one of your colleagues who think the Fairtrade movement is more important than you. And thanks for leaving room in your article for us to do so! I have promoted it at church, and buy some of the products myself. We are also exploring it as a community connection idea in the Friday markets (see my post on our website here). However I believe it’s an issue to consider regardless of whether any evangelistic opportunities come because of it.
I am aware that there are some economic complexities in how effective the Fairtrade movement (and especially the coffee premium). And Southern Cross did engage with the critics of the movement in its series of articles.
My understanding is that the coffee premium makes a small to moderate difference to individual farmers.
However I was also glad to support a project like the one that occurred through our own Archbishop’s relief and aid fund encouraging farmers to switch over to growing vanilla beans instead of coffee beans, as a more sustainable and in demand cash crop.
However I do not think you can dismiss the driving principles behind Christian support for such movements so easily. For a start, it is not simply an argument about the best way to alleviate poverty. For me at least, it also flows from the biblical principle that we must pay fair wages.
To give one example, for me this principle of doing our best to ensure workers get a fair wage flows from James 5:1-6. (One could add references such as Lev 19:13, Job 31:39, Jer 22:13, Mal 3:5 as supporting the principle of fair wages for employees.)
At any rate, James 5 warns ‘rich people’ to pay their workers fairly. V4 says,
This word is especially addressed to property owners like farmers, but also those able to live in luxury and self-indulgence (v5; which I reckon = most most middle class westerners!!!)
In our case the middle-man means the problem is out of sight, out of mind, except that the global village phenomenon means we cannot truly plead that we are unaware of the slave wages paid in some third world farming operations and the cheap child labour used to harvest the cocoa beans that go into our chocolate.
So I think James 5 at least means that when you buy your products you should not only think, ‘How can I get the cheapest deal?’, but also, ‘Am I only getting this cheap deal on the back of exploited labourers?’
The Fairtrade movement does more than pay a premium for coffee beans. It also looks to support projects that pay labourers just wages and so forth.
I am sure the debate about the best way to ensure this occurs more often will continue. And I am sure that some supporters of the movement are naive and sentimental. And I am sure that some of its projects are not as effective as they could be. Fair enough.
And I have no argument that our mission is to proclaim the gospel of the Lord Jesus.
But Tony, I presume the biblical principle to pay fair wages stands whether or not it alleviates poverty or promotes the gospel. We should do it simply because it is right.
Are we being generous when we buy Fairtrade?
You are probably right on the point about economics, but I wonder how we accept this without being defeatist when it comes to worthy causes, i.e. avoid the attitude of “nothing helps on a large scale, so I won’t do anything at all”. By this logic, should we then avoid giving to charities at all?
The diocesean mission quoted is right on target and the main goal, but could supporting worthwhile causes (aside from whether Christians think Fairtrade is one of them) a part of godly living? As Dianne mentioned, isn’t it the result of generosity? And could this not also glorify God?
<i>Why hamstring yourself to just one way of telling people the gospel?</i>
Given the SC issue immediately prior to the one in question featured the Total Church/Crowded House movement, I’m not sure we could say that the good folk at Anglican Media are suggesting we use fairtrade as our only evangelistic strategy. Over subsequent editions they seem to be doing their best to present a number of different opinions as to how we might be able to commend Jesus to our society.
<i>I’m not sure we could say that the good folk at Anglican Media are suggesting we use fairtrade as our only evangelistic strategy.</i>
Yes, that’s true enough, Martin. But what I meant in this instance was that there seems to be a case (whether you are left- or right- wing in your sympathies) for arguing that vociferously campaigning <i>against</i> Fair Trade would be a wise and just option (see the wikipedia article I linked above, which offers both left- and right-wing critiques).
Now I have no idea whether these critiques stand up under scrutiny.
But as a Christian who is looking to connect with my community, it seems to me that the original article is going to hamper my attempts as a Christian to connect with those non-Christians out there who sincerely believe (and possibly with good reason) that Fair Trade is a well-motivated but ultimately bogus idea.
That’s what I mean by hamstringing.
Back to praying the Diocesan mission prayer for me!
Sophia, I was actually questioning whether it is a particularly generous act? I pay for my coffee and receive my coffee. I am not being generous at that point.
I am thinking, are there more gospel focused ways of supporting our brothers and sisters in Christ?
I agree with Tony’s economic assessment. Fairtrade is fasionable at the moment, and it is probably doing a small amount of good. But it will likely go out of fashion at some point, and then some farmers will be left in a difficult position indeed.
I should say, too, that I thought the Southern Cross article was pretty fair-handed. And it seems to me a reasonable subject to devote some space too.
Thanks everyone for the thoughtful comments and critique. There are two issues I think: our approach to doing good/justice; and the place of such action in our priorities (in relation to the task God has given us).
On the first: paying fair wages is (of course) always right and good, in and of itself. But that is not the course of action being recommended. What we are being urged to do (at length) is to attempt to remedy someone else’s failure to pay fair wages. My point is that buying Fairtrade may or may not be a useful way to do this. There is every chance that in balance it is not.
So are we to throw up our hands and do nothing? (Michael’s and Sophia’s point I think)
No, I think we should do what the Bible calls on us to do, and to cry out to God for vengeance on behalf of the exploited. Plead with him to cast down the corrupt and the wicked from their high places.
If we want to do more than that, then we must be ready for real and effective action, not the kind of gesture ethics that Fairtrade represents (again, IMHO). What that action might be in my own street would be quite different from what it might be on the other side of the world. Suppose, for example, that there are unjust trade laws in distant Country X, or laws that are not being enforced through endemic government corruption, such that workers in that country are being paid unfairly or inadequately. One way (perhaps the only real way) to bring change to the situation would be to invade Country X, topple the corrupt government, and begin to undertake the long and painful process of rebuilding the legal and economic structures of the society from the ground up. Anyone up for that?
Given recent history, probably not. We’ve seen how hard, how bloody, how full of complications, setbacks and difficulties such a course of action is.
And so we find ourselves feeling powerless in the face of evil, sin and injustice everywhere, like the psalmist who cries out to the Lord for relief and salvation.
Of course, we can do good where we are, and in the proximate circumstances God has placed us in. We can pay our workers fair wages (make that generous wages!), and work within our own laws and structures to give justice to the oppressed. But (to repeat my point) the larger, more complex and more distant the problem, the more resistant it will be to our efforts, and the more likely we are to do more harm than good.
This brings me to the second issue. My exasperation with the SC feature was not just with its prominent, glowing and extensive support of Fairtrade (as if it was the next bandwagon Sydney churches should all jump on), but the underlying assumption that this somehow should be justified in connection with our core mission. (Which incidentally I described not just as ‘evangelism’, but as glorifying God through prayerful proclamation resulting in a loving fellowship of disciples etc.)
Doing good should be done for its own sake (as Sandy says). So let us do so as we have opportunity. We don’t do it in order to make friends or to impress people. We should do it to glorify God (not ourselves), and out of love for our neighbour. Our good deeds will adorn the gospel, and our bad deeds will bring discredit on the gospel, but that is quite different from engaging in PR.
I guess my concern is that prayerful proclamation is so hard, so slow, so apparently weak and foolish, so counter-intuitive, and so easy to give up on, that we don’t need any encouragement to be distracted from it into other more fashionable (nice word, Craig) causes.
Tony, thanks for post & response to comments. Our parish is deciding whether to go with Fairtrade at the moment & I’ll refer Parish Council to this discussion.
I’m not really persuaded that the only choices before us when it comes to world trade are empty gestures or regime change. You might think for example how Nike has moved away from sweatshops and towards paying fair wages. Not by the invasion of Indonesia and China but by Western consumers agitating at a largely grassroots level.
I also wonder if you’ve located the problem too far away for us to do good. Given globalisation we make decisions every day about who we buy products from. By calling it ‘someone else’s failure to pay wages’ we are no longer complicit. We musn’t turn a blind eye to exploitation, injustice, child labour etc just so we can get cheaper coffee, shoes, gizmos. OF course its tricky to know how to remedy wrong like this – maybe Fairtrade isn’t the way.
I’ve only gone across to the dark side & started drinking coffee in the last couple of years. My very limited experience of coffee suggests to me most of the cost of a coffee isn’t in fact the production but the experience – compare the cost of buying beans to the cost of a Starbucks Cappucino. It seems like some of the coffee chains are getting on the back of fairtrade style coffee to avoid consumer backlash (much like McDonalds did with 100% Australian beef to avoid backlash over rainforest clearing for beef) In other words people are prepared to pay more to feel good about themselves – I don’t take part in that nasty trade! Whether it makes a difference is much harder to know. But I think there is something here deeper than just being fashionable – people wanting to do good or feel good about themselves? I think the gospel has something to say to that. Can’t develop this thought any further as I’m off to meet someone face to face – over a coffee.
Hi Diane,
Sorry to misunderstand! I suppose you are right, there are better ways to be generous and that should not be the end of generosity. But still, for those who like to buy that morning cup of coffee, it cannot hurt to buy FairTrade.
Thanks all, great discussion and very polite input by all.
There’s some comment on fair trade on the TV series of “Black Coffee”. The show is also a great history of coffee from the discovery of coffee to its reign as the world’s second most traded commodity, and the role it has had in changing regimes!? It’s worth asking your local library to stock this great DVD pack.
Hi Tony,
You may be surprised that I agree with the criticism that the spread was ‘too long’ and thus overbalanced. This has to do with boring technicalities of advertising spread v folio numbers that editorial can’t control.
You said your main concern with the article was this: “the underlying assumption that this somehow should be justified in connection with our core mission.”
If that is how it came across that was not my intention.
I was really just asking a series of journalistic questions one of which was the economic ones you have raised here, as well as asking if there is any evidence that Fairtrade initiatives [which do involve contacting the general community] actually lead to gospel connections.
the answer was “no current evidence”.. Its up to churches to assess what that means.
I have had criticism from some pro-Fairtrade churches for even asking that question. Why? because they say Fairtrade shouldn’t be judged on those terms – it should be judged as a justice issue only.
The journalist in me however recoils at not asking what seems an interesting question – is there a ‘side’ benefit in making these community connections – in case we give ‘the wrong impression’ that this is the main game.
I think people may be reading into the article an agenda that wasn’t there.
Regarding the economic question – are you aware that the premium can be paid to a whole community as a development project? This overcomes some of the concerns about distorting the market and doing harm..
Oh yeah and if I knew you had a such a strong theological critique of Fairtrade I would have included you in the article
Just didn’t come across this in my investigation.
<i>But as a Christian who is looking to connect with my community, it seems to me that the original article is going to hamper my attempts as a Christian to connect with those non-Christians out there who sincerely believe (and possibly with good reason) that Fair Trade is a well-motivated but ultimately bogus idea.</i>
Or perhaps it will show you how to break down barriers with those who reject Jesus on account of the church being ‘full of evil economic rationalists’. But I guess the world looks a certain way when driving along Pennant Hills Road. *winks*
Tony should remember his evangelical history. An earlier boycott – of sugar – was a key part of the campaign against slavery. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/march/14.8.html
The boycott’s success caused retailers to sell sugar “produceed by the labor of freeman”. Clearly an earlier form of fairtrade.
It is worth noting that coffee forms 79% per cent of the expoerts of Rwanda and 86% of the exports of Uganda, home to two key gafcon allies. We should do good to those who are of the household of faith.
Thanks for being bold enough to suggest that Fairtrade coffee is a simplistic solution – at least in the way it is promoted, Tony.
Indeed, one of the things I dislike most of all about the way it is promoted in Christian circles is via the big guilt trip!
I roast and sell small amounts of coffee, and I also source green coffee for home roasters. For myself and others, I buy around $20,000 worth of green beans per year
I am highly interested in the whole coffee roasting area, and have developed a number of good relationships with well-placed people in the industry.
I am also concerned to be doing the ethical thing with the coffee I buy. I have a great relationship with the main buyer/cupper for the wholesaler I buy coffee from. He spends around 3-4 months a year overseas tasting (cupping) and buying coffee from around the world. He sees first hand what really happens on the ground in places like South and Central America and in Ethiopia and other parts of Africa.
He is pretty scathing of FT.
For him, it makes no commercial difference whether he buys FT or not (the FT levy of 2% is added down the line until us end users pay it), but will tell you that if you want to help the farmers and their communities the most, then buy Rain Forest Alliance (RFA) beans. He has seen many times how that body educates and equips farmers and their communities to use better farming and land use techniques which leads to a far better product and far better returns.
He also engages in an increasing amount of ‘direct-relationship’ buying where he deals directly with a farm or co-op and negotiates fair prices, and incentives to do better with the next crop.
I haven’t touched on the theological content of your post, but I can say that as a Christian, I’m very comfortable buying the coffee that I do from that wholesaler (by volume, the biggest importer of green coffee in Australia), and I vote with my palate by buying a lot of RFA beans.
There is nothing wrong with FT as such, but everything I read and hear from those close to the coffee ‘coal face’ leads me to believe it is not necessarily worth the hoo haa that lots of Christians are making over it.
If you are serious about you and your church using ‘ethical’ coffee, then the best way to do that is to develop a good relationship with whoever is roasting your coffee and get them to find out more about the beans they buy…
I could go on…
Fair trade was being promoted at my local syd ang church Sunday before last. It was fairly cringe-worthy, equal parts hand wringing over our exploitation of 3rd world labour and misplaced idealism.
That said, this is a very strange piece, for a number of reasons.
Firstly it seems odd to criticise SC for naivity, and yet offer such a glib rundown of the economics involved in response.
Secondly, I think the characterization of SC’s coverage is unfair. We should indeed do good “out of love for our neighbour”, and in our age of globalisation we have quite a lot of neighbours! I think that’s the main thrust behind the interest in supporting the Fair Trade movement (which may or may not be effective) as covered by SC, it seems silly to paint it as purely church PR.
Thirdly, it seems odd to have such faith in the benevolent, free hand of the market, and that interfering with it can only do harm. I’m pretty sure the bible pre-dates Adam Smith.
Fourthly, I have to take issue with comments like “It is just as well that our job is not to improve the world because it is a task demonstrably beyond us.” Is creating utopia here on earth beyond us? Of course. Is it *not* our job to be improving the world? I find that hard to believe. By virtue of loving our neighbours, acting with compassion and fairness, and telling people about Jesus I think we are indeed meant to be improving the world, if only little by little! Of course our good deeds are a by-product of our lives as Christians, but to suggest that we shouldn’t be improving the world seems patently absurd. Especially when the main criticism in Tony’s piece is that we should leave it up to the market to decide, because that would infact improve the world!
—
Finally, I think the issue of capitalism is an interesting one that we as a church don’t have much of a response to. Capitalism is founded on obscene greed on the one hand (which I think we’re against, aren’t we?), and fantastic benefits for hundreds of millions of people who are lifted out of poverty on the other, which we’re for. On balance I would happily take the greed for all the good that has come of it, but how do we reconcile that we the scriptures?
We hacked greed and it kind of worked. I can get rich, pay more taxes and support our society, give more away, and most importantly help others out of poverty through my consumption. So if I am to truly love my neighbours in developing countries via material support, should I get as rich as possible so I can consume & give as much as possible?
Ahhh Luke, a breath of fresh air asking the hard questions.
James Madison once said: “If men were virtuous, there would be no need of governments at all.” (I know Paul said something similar, involving swords, but I’ve just been watching Alistair Cooke’s “America” and I wanted to throw in a cool quote.)
It seems the larger the societal emergency, the larger the government that is required to handle it.
Government’s expand and contract depending on the historical context in which they govern. In peacetime and plenty, govenments can afford to strip back to basics and become a lean, mean, running machine. On other occasions governments bulk up for battle, (EG: America for WW2) and are about muscle to “get the job done” rather than slimming down for “economic speed and efficiency”.
So I guess my question is, why are so many Christians so right wing? I’m definitely not accusing Tony or Gordon or anyone here of the following, but I often wonder if many Christians today still suffer from exaggerations handed down from McCarthyism? Maybe they’ve fallen for clichés more to do with dictatorships V democracies than actual economic theories of left wing V right wing management? I don’t know. Wondering what your thoughts are?
Because ultimately, we all have to be accountable for how we vote, no matter how gospel focussed we are — and I’m wondering where so many “stridently” right-wing Christians get their “strides”.
Tony makes three points in his post: 1) that fairtrade may be poor economics and may do little good or even do harm and that the free market would be a better mechanism, 2) that scripture suggests that the complexity of these kind of social and economic issues means that we can’t really hope to have any clear insights into how do deal with them and that 3) the church’s (or perhaps he’d prefer churches’) mission is to “proclaim” Christ so people here his call to “repent, trust and serve Christ in love” , ” in the fellowship of his disciples while they await his return”. My comments are at http://ptcsydney.blogspot.com/2008/05/fairtrade-again.html
Fairtrade is not without its faults – even less so is any normal charitable giving. Accepting charity is only ever a short term solution – people need to be able to stand on their own two feet and be self sufficient. Poverty is not solved long term by charity.
A lot more can be done by schemes like fairtrade – they help improve an economy and reward people for working. Yes, there may be potential economical disadvantages, but if we worried about every possible negative side effect to everything we did, we’d never do anything.
I honestly believe that as Christians, we have a duty to support scheme’s such as fairtrade. We can all afford to, if we genuinely believe we can’t we should drink less coffee so we can. Coffee is a luxury, and for us to enjoy a luxury at the expense of others being taken advantage of is abhorrent.
BTW – the articles were NOT about fair trade coffee. I was intentionally looking at the issues far wider than either ‘fair trade’ or ‘coffee’ because I was well aware of the vex debate around Fairtrade certification.
I have read the fair trade criticisms of Fairtrade and discussed them in depth with Oxfam’s advisor/lobbyist to the WTO.
In my view there are multiple varieties of Fairtrade.
The missionaries directly sourcing ‘gifts, clothes’ etc from Christian-based employment programs in the developing world is on a completely different scale to Fairtrade-certified coffee branded by multinationals. The first example is far more clearly and directly about loving one’s neighbour.
In the article I looked at chocolate and cotton production in depth. I did not look at coffee at all.
The issue with chocolate (coca production) is child slavery. The best solution is not fair trade per se but to encourage the Australian manufacturers to use slave-free coca. This has nothing to do with Fairtrade certification.
The issue with cotton is more about sustainability due to pesticides corrupting water supplies. ‘Fair trade’-style community development can help address this issue through funding new clean wells for local villages.
To narrow the discussion to Fairtrade coffee is misleading and unhelpful.
It’s a very un-O’Donovanian post, Tony, so I am quite surprised, because I know you are a fan. Not the Fair Trade issue so much (about which I remain unconvinced either way), but the suggestion that behind your response is a political quietism occassioned by the complexity of issues as we encounter them. We can never know, finally, whether what we do is right, in all the complexity of the world. We can never safeguard entirely against our actions causing harm. We can never even be sure of the purity of our own motives. But act we must in the light of the gospel, and in the light of what we have discerned as best we can, in confidence that it is God who justifies! That is one of the greatest things about justication by faith alone.
Evangelicals just like us faced this issue in the 80s in South Africa. And, because it was a complex problem, and because there were Christians who disagreed about apartheid and what to do about it, they chose to remain neutral. Frank Retief’s repentant statement about those times, in 1997, makes interesting reading.
Jeremy, thanks for the clarifications. I fully understand—one editor to another!—how the finished publication can give an impression that was not part of the initial idea. And it was the impression of prominence and importance that in part got under my skin (as you no doubt gathered!). Sorry if I over-read your intentions.
It certainly happens often enough at The Briefing (over-reading intentions and agenda, I mean). I think people tend to assume that every article, sentence and comma is carefully planned in advance and positioned so as to fully express our deep, political agenda etc. etc. If only they knew what banal and arbitrary factors often result in one article being published rather than another, or being positioned on page 6 rather 10, or ending up being the ‘cover story’ because a major article falls through at the last minute.
Another consequence of life in our fallen and frustrating world, I guess! Thanks again for responding so thoughtfully and graciously.
(off Topic) Whether the commas were pre-planned or not, the “Total Church” exhange in the current Briefing is very well done. For any one who hasn’t read it, it is well worth $5.
Just as an observation on internet etiquette, John McLean, it’s generally considered poor form to comment off-site, rather than contributing to an existing thread. It’s a little like leaping into an established and vibrant debate and announcing you will pick up the discussion over at your place, if anyone wants to jump ship.
You’re SO right Tony.
That’s why I also refuse to buy clothing certified child-labour free. The additional production it encourages drives down the wages of all the under-age sweatshop workers.
Plus I’d have to pay more for my shirts.
<i>…it’s generally considered poor form to comment off-site…</i>
News to me, and I’ve been doing this for a while now…
@Ian McNaughten.
I hear where you are coming from Ian, but there are erroneous assumptions here that all coffee (for example) that is not FT certified is produced by slave labour, and is bad, bad, bad.
Frankly, that is nonsense. As I indicated in my previous comment there are numerous other bodies and systems in place that do better than FT, and (shock, horroe) even ordinary, commercial coffee plantations that treat their workers fairly.
Michael, I assumed that if the moderator did not like it, it would not be posted, and that would be their right. I’d commented on the Southern Cross article a week ago and I was going to comment on Tony’s article on our blog. I was simply letting people know I’d done that.
I did think about putting the whole of my text here, but considered that was cumbersome and meant I’d fill the comments here with lots of words.
Neil,
When you say there are “common assumptions here” that non-FT Coffee is produced by slave labour – you have some responsibility to indicate where those incorrect assumptions are being made. Otherwise you simply smear the posters here none of whom seem to be making those assumptions, or Anglican media which has not made those assumptions either.
Craig,
I don’t know about you, but the fact that I have been doing something for a while has never been much of a defense against a charge of “poor form”. It may be just me, though.
Great to see a debate where feathers are being ruffled, both on and off topic.
A significant part of Jesus’ ministry was to challenge the status-quo of conventional thinking – mostly as challenging the Pharisees etc about the institutional religious conventions, but also the Roman authorities as well.
Fairtrade presents to us such an opportunity to challenge conventional wisdom, and act in the interests of the vulnerable. This conventional wisdom may even just include our perceptions of a “free market is best” paradigm.
Could I offer a suggestion to local congregations, on an initiative we have undetaken in our context. If your community has some local markets, rent some table space and sell faitrade items (and similar from Ammnesty, Oxfam etc) – and opportunities to connect with the community absolutely flood in! We have had a tremendous response, and some people have connected into our congregational life. Its a win-win-win situation!
It’s more than just what coffee is served after church on Sunday mornings.
John, I wasn’t clear. What I meant was that I’ve been blogging for a long time, and I’ve never heard of this particular piece of etiquette before. I don’t think it is “generally accepted”.
Ooh, you really know how to hurt a guy, Michael Jensen. Un-O’Donovanian? (Personally, I think “not very O’Donovanesque” sounds better.)
But what I want to know is how you figured out the ‘suggestion’ behind my response? You been tapping our phones again?
I’m not a political quietist, so perhaps you were tapping the wrong phone.
I think I made it clear that my problem lay in what I took to be an over optimism about the value and effectiveness of Fairtrade, the prominence it was given in our Diocesan Paper (the bandwagon effect), and the connection that was made with our mission (which ought to be thought about in other ways, I suggested).
That’s all.
But you’re making me think that I should post on political activism, quietism and couldn’t-be-botheredism sometime in the near future. TP
@John S.
Hi John, I was simply responding to the thinking by a number of people commenting that unless Christians buy FT coffee we are contributing to injustices done on the plantations of South America, Africa, etc.
After all, isn’t that one of the basic premises of FT coffee?
I wasn’t suggesting that injustices are not present on coffee plantations, but <i>rather</i> that choosing to buy non-FT coffee does not necessarily mean that I contribute to those injustices.
No offence or smear was intended at all – just trying to draw attention to the fact that there are other ways to deal justly over your morning cup of elixir.
Great discussion and very thought-provoking.
Re the idea that ‘just because it is the free market it is all good for everybody’ (my paraphrase). People and corporations involved in the free market are not immune to sinful behaviour, and large corporations have certainly been known to exploit their large buying power to pay below market prices for certain goods.
(Hey, I posted a comment a while ago and it hasn’t shown up. Did I break a rule? If so, apologies.)
[moderator hat on]
No rules broken at all, Michael! Someone else reported something similar yesterday, ie a comment going missing.
Please keep trying everybody, if a comment has gone missing. At the moment, as far as I am aware, the only thing being deleted is spam.
Michael, perhaps it was that car insurance thing you were trying to sell me.
First phone-tapping, now car insurance!
Thanks Gordo, I didn’t think I had been rude or irrelevant! I can lower your premiums, though…
I was just basically trying to draw a principle from Tony’s post. I don’t know if he is quietist or not, but you certainly could be forgiven for thinking it from this post – that’s all. If you apply the principle he espouses here to other situations, I am not sure you get a non-quietist result.
Thanks Tony for your post and further remarks. At All Souls we have a FT market every Saturday morning, and have done so for the past few years. I’m a fan.
1. I’ve only done three years undergraduate economics, so I am no expert, but I think your analysis is a little simplistic and rests on the classic assumptions of free market economics that don’t actually work in the real world. I don’t think it is true to say that FT is bad economics because it distorts the market. There is no such thing as a free market, and one thing FT does is reform some of those structures that, in fact, distort the market and artificially reduce wages (such as restricted access to western markets, lack of access to capital etc). That is, the distortion is not at the level of supply/production, but capital and distribution to the market. Classic free market economic theory says nothing about distribution (it assumes distribution just happens, and so focuses on supply and demand, but there is much more happening than supply and demand).
2. FT really does change lives. As a means of loving our neighbour and really helping the poor, it works. And it is more than coffee. We support the Priscilla Centre in NE India. Recently, from proceeds from our FT market we purchased 8 sewing machines and a embroidery machine. 12 women, all HIV infected widows who would otherwise be working as prostitutes or dying in the gutter, have completed 6 months training at the centre. During their training they had bible study every day, and some have become Christians. They now have the knowledge, equipment and access to western markets.
3. I think you reduce the mission that the Lord has given us far too much. On many occasions Jesus commands us to care for the poor and marginalised, and threatens wrath and judgment if we don’t (Matt 25.41ff)! I see proclamation as a very important part of our mission as well, and see that words and deeds work closely.
4. There are a few reasons we do FT ministry at All Souls. One is because in a globalised economy we have a responsibility for those who make what we buy. Our buying is an ethical choice. It would be a terribly dualistic spirituality that saw our choices as consumers as morally neutral. I also want my congregation to love the poor by giving them their most precious possession – time, as they work at the market. It is also a ‘branding exercise’ as we live in a community that has rejected a brand of Christianity that is aspirational, self-centered, and all pie in the sky when you die. We want to show them, that we are Christians who value the poor, look outward and believe that, because Jesus isalready Lord of the world, things can change. It also makes real, personal connections, some of which have proved quite significant.
I’m sorry for such a long post. If you’ve read through this far – thank you for your patience!
Dave Lankshear, Luke Spears
Thanks for the posts. I’m not sure I agree that a critique of Fairtrade based on an objective economic framework is specifically right wing. In fact it is neither right or left. Fairtrade coffee appears to be a variation of the classic administered price-floor. These may work in the short run. Beyond the short run, it can end up hurting everyone (for eg wool stockpiling).
As a policy, I’m not confident Fairtrade would work. But don’t let me stop people from being generous!
Sophia Russell, on the subject of generosity, like you, I can’t see that being charitable is a bad thing. However, I’m not convinced that providing money for non-Christian welfare causes is biblically a high priority.
For example, from 1 Tim 5:3-16, you get the sense that broader social welfare is not a priority of Paul. I know this is specifically about widows, but I think we can apply this more broadly.
The passage suggests that we should only provide support for people who are 1) really in need and 2) who will contribute to the kingdom of God. Based on this why use your money to support charities that are indifferent to (or even hostile to) the gospel. That’s why, I’m not comfortable having the church sharing the same label as Oxfam/Fairtrade.
A true ‘visiting of widows and orphans in their distress’ must surely address their main distress – their rebellion against God, which can only be remedied by preaching the gospel as the core outcome.
Give money for the work of the gospel, not for the subsidising of an industry!
I really don’t get why Paul giving instructions to how the church should treat widows in families in the church, including says anything about the attitude of Christians to the needs of those outside the church.
Gal 6:10 seems to make caring for all a concern, first for fellow Christians and then beyond. I find Chris Wright’s presentation of a holistic view of Christian mission a compelling one, with good biblical-theological foundations.
Neil,
with respect you said
“I hear where you are coming from Ian, but there are erroneous assumptions here that all coffee (for example) that is not FT certified is produced by slave labour, and is bad, bad, bad. “
I think you should point to these “common assumptions” and/or explain what you mean by “here” or withdraw the comment.
Gday John McClean,
Thanks for sharing that and sharing the Galatians passage.
It seems Gal 6:10 gives implicit priority to God’s people over outsiders. This seems to be consistent with the point that providing resources for God’s people to do God’s work is higher priority that giving to causes indifferent to the gospel.
Re 1 Tim and widows, I think we can see principles behind how church resources should be allocated as previously discussed.
Tim
Thanks for the thoughtful response, and yes I did read to the end!
From yours and other comments (thanks for your input too John McC!), it seems like we are moving towards a more in principle discussion of the place of social involvement/action with respect to God’s mission. I didn’t really address that in my original post (except in a fleeting final flourish), so perhaps that should be my next task. I’ll see what I can do.
TP
Tim,
I still think that to argue for not contributing to the poor beyond Christian brothers and sisters on the basis of 1 Tim 6 is an argument from silence and unpersuasive.
How you treat Gal 6 will depend on what pattern you see in the whole of the Bible. My take is that the ‘household of faith’ is the first place where our care is to be focussed, but that it should flow from there out to others. Again I’d appeal to Chris Wright’s work to show that pattern. If you don’t see that pattern then you’ll probably read Gal 6 as virtually saying the ‘all’ are represented by the household of faith.
@John
Well unless I’m reading a different blog to you, one of the fundamental arguments under discussion here (ie: this blog) is that FT is superior to non-FT.
I commented on the area of FT coffee because: (a) it’s the biggest commodity traded under FT and (b) it’s the area I know a bit about.
Proponents of FT say: buying FT coffee is better for the people growing/processing it because non-FT coffee producers are often/sometimes exploited by the big companies buying the product.
That’s the basic premise of FT – at least with regard to coffee.
Indeed, some Christians push a big guilt trip on churches/individual Christians by suggesting that to drink anything but FT coffee is a terrible and unjust thing!
My comments were simply pointing out that is not based in fact, and that a working knowledge of the way the world wide coffee industry actually functions is helpful in understanding why non-FT coffee can as just or even more just purchase (in some instances) than FT.
But this is getting way too complex a discussion for the comments on a blog. Happy to continue via email if you wish.
Neil, I think you are making this far too complex. The whole point of FT is that we don’t have to have “a working knowledge of the way the world wide coffee industry actually functions”, something that virtually none of us has the opportunity to possess. Let’s make this really simple:
1) My luxury contributing to someone elses misery = BAD!
2) My luxury contributing to the economical development of poverty stricken region = GOOD!
Agreed?!
Now we have 2 choices:
1) Buy FT coffee at a slight extra cost to us, but a much fairer cost to the workers.
2) Buy coffee that isn’t ethically certified in any way, and may well have been produced through exploitation.
Whether or not there are some “non-certified” companies that do treat their workers fairly is irrelevant. Short of visiting the coffee plantations ourselves, we cannot know that – that’s why for normal folk like me, fairtrade allows me to make a more ethically sound decision when it comes to my coffee buying. They have done the leg work for me.
If more people refused to buy non-certified coffee, it would force the decent companies to become certified (surely a wise business decision anyway) and the exploitative ones to sort their act out or go out of business.
John McCl,
I think here is where we politely agree to disagree. The risk is that we assume the other person’s views are not coming from a sound biblical theology framework (obviously, I think biblical patterns point towards prioritising the work of the gospel over social justice). Suggest we excise this discussion to when Tony P. posts further material about this.
Tony P. cheers for the feedback.
@Ian.
But there’s the rub Ian!
First of all, it’s questionable whether FT coffee does do the ‘good’ that it’s proponents claim – and I’m on the record as saying that such claims are far from given, based on what knowledge I have of the coffee industry.
Second, if people could be bothered doing a modicum of investigation, they could find out that there are other, alternative certified sources of coffee that are measurably far more effective at long term support of the farming communities.
Of course most people don’t have the opportunity or interest to understand the coffee industry – just as I don’t have the motivation to understand, say, the clothing industry. So what I was attempting to do was simply point out that the real life situation is far more complex that buying a bag of FT coffee will address. And that I hate the way that FT is put forward as the saviour of worker in the coffee industry.
It may help, but in many situations I don’t believe it is (based on long conversations with a friend who is a buyer for Australia’s largest green coffee importer)
With respect, I think your approach is far too <i>simplistic</i> and merely contributes to the misinformation surrounding the issue.
My contribution was a small attempt to help people realise this problem is far more complex than most realise and that supporting the ‘widows and orphans’ of this world will not necessarily happen because you might choose to feel good about an FT purchase. It may help – but equally, it may not, and worst case, long term you might actually be doing harm by destabilising the industry.
hi Tony
it would also be interesting to see how your eschatology shapes your understanding of justice and social involvement – so far you have given a fairly gloomy picture that might lead people into a kind of life boat approach that resigns from social involvement- what Michael refered to as political quietism?
in particular I would be interested in how much the church and its ethics should be a sign and foretaste of the new creation that we proclaim in the gospel of Jesus’ life death and resurrection.
I think the question is
is your relatively pessimistic view about justice through fair wages in a global economy indicative of an eschatology that is more future than realised?
everything seems to come down to eschatology I find.
Tony (and anyone else thinking about this),
It would be good if any discussion on the topic could cover not only Gal 6.10 but also Gal 2.10 and what it says about Paul’s concept of mission.
Thanks.
Neil, the problem is – you criticise something that could be part of the solution, without offering anything of an alternative. You seem to suggest just doing nothing!
I can see where you’re coming from with your point about it destabilising an economy, but if the economy is built on injustice and exploitation then it’s not a bad thing for it to be destabilised. The abolishion of the slave trade destabilised a huge economy, but it was one that needed to change.
You say “if people could be bothered doing a modicum of investigation, they could find out that there are other, alternative certified sources of coffee that are measurably far more effective at long term support of the farming communities” – I’d genuinely be interested to hear about these. I am very open to supporting alternative schemes if they seem to be doing a better job – what I’m not prepared to do is nothing!
@Ian
I don’t believe I advocate doing nothing anywhere! I simply haven’t focussed on that side of the equation.
I’ve said once or twice now that this really far too complex an issue to be debated in a ‘comments’ context, but you can Google for a host of ‘for and against FT’ info if you are interested.
I personally (in my context <- note the disclaimer), choose to buy (green) coffee that is either from Rainforest Alliance (which I think is probably the best of the organised bodies helping coffee farmers), or from a ‘direct relationship’ arrangement, or from other commercial sources that I know have ‘ethical’ purchasing practices. Periodically, that will include an FT coffee, but my decision is guided by the quality of the product rather than just the label on the bag. Because the end result is fundamentally the same: producers being paid a fair(er) price for their product.
What it means for me is doing a little research using sources that are available to me – ie: predominantly industry sources.
), yet I can readily access this information with a bit of digging.
Now I choose to do that because fine coffee is a passion of mine and my hobby. But the fact is, I’m not even a blip on the radar of the coffee industry – I’m not even a ‘micro-roaster’ (perhaps a ‘nano-roaster’?
So – with every respect – if you want to DO something, start by researching the situation and stop believing all the marketing hype that is thrown around in the name of ‘ethical products’.
Hi Tony, I think your idea of a “a more in principle discussion of the place of social involvement/action with respect to God’s mission” would be excellent. However, the discussion is also broader. That is, what is the place of helping the poor in the Christian life? With Shane, I would be interested to see how your eschatology shapes your view.
Warm regards
“Especially if the way you choose is open to serious critique on non-theological grounds.”
Gordon, reminds me of an ad I saw early in our marriage:
Is your coffee grounds for divorce?
I think Tony Payne needs to be challenged on his economic arguments against Fairtrade. I can’t speak on any of the theology in his blog post, but I have real problems with the apparent naivety of the ‘economic’ thesis he presents on 2 key points – which are aside from the questions of whether Fairtrade works, etc., as raised by others on this blog.
Firstly, the economic argument of oversupply, low demand and low prices fails to account for the very real structural issues at play in global trade and global agriculture that favour those who are already wealthy and powerful. Free markets don’t exist except in the fantasies of economists. Trade is dominated by rich countries and multi-nationals seeking to maximise profits. While coffee farmers are not being paid enough to feed themselves and their families, the big coffee multinationals have been making money hand over fist. Sure, there has been oversupply of coffee during the last decade. That does not excuse coffee traders from paying such low prices that the coffee growers whose product they are dependent on are forced to abandon their crops and land, remain trapped in poverty, and accept with gratitude any price offered to them for their toil.
These kinds of economic arguments keep commerce ‘faceless’ and devoid of any sense of the human – let alone the environmental – costs of our dominant economic system, our ravenous consumption, and the pursuit of profits at all costs. These arguments provide sweet comfort for us as Western consumers that there is no need to change our lifestyles or take responsibility for the world we create by our consumption choices. These arguments tell us we can go on participating in the market and maintain the moral high ground that to do anything else (but trust in an unregulated market to make things right) is misguided, foolish and done only to make us feel better about ourselves.
My second problem is with the argument that paying fair prices will artificially distort the market and end up hurting growers in the long term. In my experience, this is a lazy and misinformed analysis. For one, it seems to assume that our producer partners are both stupid and money hungry (I fear we project our failings on to them). As an example, the stories from Fairtrade Certified producer cooperatives show that farmers want to diversify their crops and sources of income so they are not structurally reliant on one crop. They show that cooperatives invest Fairtrade premiums in microcredit programs to fund people to start up new businesses, in buying seeds for new crops, in growing their own food to improve food security. They show that the fair prices paid and the extra money received for development are spent to secure a better future for their communities, to pursue more sustainable development, to deliver basic services in education, health and infrastructure.
The other problem with this argument is the assumption that producers have the capacity to simply ‘move in to other crops that are in short supply’. For many poor farmers, this is simply not an option. If industries are failing in Australia – for example our sugar industry challenged by cheap production from overseas – our government very often props them up temporarily or helps people retrain or find new sources of livelihoods. How can we expect poor farmers, who are trapped in poverty due to big picture structural trade issues, to make this transition if we are not going to invest in helping them do so? It is also such arrogance (in my view) to proclaim ‘you are poor because you are growing the wrong crop!’and demand that producers shoulder responsibility for taking stock of our consumption trends to ensure that they are growing what it is that our stomachs crave this winter. How offensive.
For me, Tony, peddling textbook economic theories such as this only serves to make us feel better about our own wealth and lifestyles, insulate us from having to ask questions about the kind of world we create by our consumption choices daily, and perpetuate the selfishness at the heart of an economic system that not only fails small producers around the world, but diminishes our humanity.
I am taking part in this blog as one of the interviewees of Jeremy’s article for Fairtrade fortnight.
I once had a boss that said “if you come to me with a problem, in how we do things, also come to me with a your opinion on how we can do it better”. This was full of wisdom and kept newbies like me in their place. It seems this idea is yet to be used at Solapanel as you deride Fairtrade in a few paragraphs and offer us no worthwhile solution. You take the years of work of strategists, development workers on the ground and in the statistics room, economists of many Christian organisations (and non Christian) that initiated and now drive Fairtrade, and think your opinion might balance things out a bit? Unless you have some amazingly detailed research to back this up it is an approach that lacks humility.
What you have not spelt out, in any of your comments, is that we are caught up in the problem of exploited and underpaid workers. Though a small and distant economy in Australia, each purchase we make either has a negative impact on them (they have not been paid properly, they are desperate for some job, they fill 12 hours of their day and have nothing to show for it) or a positive impact (they are paid enough to get by on). Like it or not, our choices either encourage or discourage exploitation. At the moment our choices are limited but take heart, The Oromia Coffee Farmers Union (growers of Harrar, Yirgachefe, Sidano etc) combining upwards of 80.000 farmers, through their coffee sales to Australia (a minnow in the Fairtrade world) have not only gained a much better price (http://www.ico.org/asp/display7.asp) but have also received $75,000 from the FT premium (10cents for every kilo that goes into a democratically used development fund pool). They have spent it building schools, wells, roads and improved medical care. And this is not ‘charity’, we paid them what is needed to run a farm, clothe and feed their family, it is what FT calls a ‘living wage’ By doing this we partly display the marks of the church/Christians that will be shown up, for better or worse, on judgement day (Matt 25:31-46). Being part of the world economy we can stand up for justice (Prov 31:8,9) care about equality (2 Cor 8:1-15) and make a difference with a flick of the wrist at the supermarket shelf or online. By not taking part we risk the world not seeing any love in us as we ignore the cry of our brothers/sisters (cf 1 John 3:17, and this especially in the light of the many Christians in Rwanda, Burundi and Ethiopia, some of the hardest hit coffee growing countries) and neighbours (Luke 10:25-37). Doing PR for the church, at it’s best is going to be tough (Mark 13:13), but if we add a lack of love to our approach we have become Paul’s clanging gong, written off by the world and certainly adding no further praise to the Father (Matt 5:16)
I am not suggesting FT is the only way to ‘love mercy and do justly” (Micah 6:8) but it is the only way that guarantees a fair price through regulation and tight auditing from producer to end of chain sales. The ‘free market’, corporations with their legal obligation to maximise profits for shareholders, have not, and few ever will, deliver on this. (to be continued, sorry about the length of this post)
Nor am I saying that the bible says “all should be passionate about this, all the ministers should be actively promoting from the front” No! Nor especially that it should replace or divert attention from the gospel. I am saying that the body, made up of many parts, should have some ‘parts’ bringing the issues of exploitation in trade and what we can do about it, to the attention of the family of believers, as one part of what we do.
Nobody in Fairtrade claims perfection, each year brings new debates, taken part in by producer to exporter/importer to wholesale/retailer. These rage around what the set FT price is worth today in X country verse Y country, would it be better to go with the Euro, how do we respond to a particular massive change in the marketplace etc.
Our experience of it at Tribes and Nations has been a tough road, to get the message out there, to kick off a new business, but we are thankful for what we have achieved with such ‘weak’ efforts and limited business skills. With other fair trade businesses we have helped grow (through purchasing) the following partners
Umtha, Sth Africa, a small business that employs women from the nearby slum, who minister to them within the working day, who pray together regularly. Some of them are HIV+, but lives are being touched there. They continue to employ more women.
Priscilla, (mentioned in Tim’s post) ministering to prostitutes in Assam, some converted, some not, showing them and others (alcoholic and drug addicted women) how to earn an income beyond what they did or do so that they may escape it. Through the daily bible study some become Christians, mini missionaries, fully integrated, language on board and ready to witness. From humble beginnings this home grown charity is expanding rapidly.
Some groups do not receive mention on our site, nor even in public, because we do not want to be the ones who lead the religious police to their door. Ministering to the poor, answering questions where they can, quietly witnessing under oppressive circumstances that we struggle to imagine. It is an honour to be part of a small contribution to their work! Sanctifying trade, helping up not handing out, blessing the nations in some way, touching the people Jesus touched.
One of our biggest hurdles in understanding the depth of poverty and exploitation is that, as Westerners, living in the midst of wealth, welfare, justice and relatively high levels of honesty, is believing that people can grind (Isaiah 3:15) other people so thoroughly. If we had not lived in Tanzania, we would not have seen a person stand on the neck of a poor man in the name of economic gain. It would be hard to believe that the police would not back you up, that the union would not fight your wrongful dismissal or that the rich corporation may pay you at least the basic price. Our hope is that we, as a church, can step over these hurdles and ‘remember the poor’ (Gal 2:10) in this, and many other ways.
My great concern with this debate is that we as Sydney evangelicals do and view ministry and justice issues from the window of prosperity. Wilberforce, Shaftesbury and Newton engaged the society around them and their witness commended the preaching of the Gospel. Where is our compassion ?
I agree with Tony that an article on Fairtrade shouldn’t ask the question “does it bring more people into the church?”. Otherwise Jesus would have said, “love your neighbour, if it brings people to the synagogue.”
But I wonder if, given the amount of poverty in the world, the general tenor of the conversation could be more of Heb 10:24 “and let us consider how we may spur one another on towards love and good deeds.”
There are enough poor to go around. So, if you’ve found a way to get good coffee and at the same time the picker was paid well, praise God. If everyone in your church knows how to get a t shirt that has justly grown and picked cotton, praise God. And if you know another way to be sure that you’re not supporting child slavery when you buy chocolate, except by buying Fairtrade chocolate – then let the UN know – because their single recommendation is to buy Fairtrade cocoa.
But at the moment I don’t know how to buy shoes and pants etc that have been justly made, and I would love some help with that.
Let’s encourage one another to love and good works. Remembering that Paul says we are slaves to justice.
I appreciate many of the comments above, and especially Grant Murray’s following comment.
<i>Nor especially that it should replace or divert attention from the gospel. I am saying that the body, made up of many parts, should have some ‘parts’ bringing the issues of exploitation in trade and what we can do about it, to the attention of the family of believers, as one part of what we do.</i>
My social justice concern has been slightly different. (Whether or not the world will adopt the Oil Depletion Protocol and share the remaining oil after production enters permanent decline). Yet I have repeatedly met the same straw-man attacks time and again.
I’m just glad that <i>some</i> Christian leaders have learned the basics and bothered to present a gospel approach to the beginning of the end of the oil age.
Haven’t had time to take part in this discussion for a bit, but just read Max Collison’s comment and wanted to say I agree wholeheartedly – the most sensible thing said in this discussion!
I just take issue with the advice to plant vanilla instead of coffee and to tear down the coffee farms. Vanilla needs different minerals and has a higher price per-pod level, but it is a also a climber that grows on established trees and needs these to survive. That’s fine for the mixed spice forests of somewhere like Zanzibar, but doesn’t work so well in the foothills of Kilimanjaro, to use Tanzania as the obvious example. The coffee growers aren’t stupid about their soil and try to plant trees and prevent erosion and mineral leeching where possible, and some grow bananas as a cash crop instead. Advocating a change of farming rather than mixed land use and improvements in growing and harvesting methods, and direct arrangements to provide decent prices to the growers seems like a half-baked (actually, idiotic) solution to the problem.
Also, if you’re worried about giving 50c extra for fairtrade and only 2c getting to the grower, why not drink the normal stuff and give 50c to a community project in a coffee farming area each time. People like Neil and CoffeeSnobs’ FairCrack make these easier.
In response to John Hancock’s posting today, I’d just like to say that the point of Fairtrade is that it is NOT charity. It is about trade. About trading fairly. Farmers should not have to be reliant on our generosity to give them our spare cash via schemes like FairCrack. They should be paid fairly for their crops and products and supported to develop sustainable businesses that can provide pathways for their communities out of poverty. Fairtrade is about respect and providing farmers and workers the autonomy to work themselves out of the situation that they find themselves in – very often as a result of structural inequalities in global trading systems, rampant self-interested capitalism, and cynical consumers.
Fairtrade is an opportunity for each of us to do better through our daily purchases.
If we choose to give money to charity as well, then I think that is a good thing.
Hi Cameron,
thanks for your reply, and I hope I didn’t mis-represent myself too badly! I strongly believe that FairTrade is a fantastic concept/association/scheme and does a lot of good for farmers, who do benefit in a measurable and definite way. Many of the green bean wholesalers have ethical considerations which they try to apply whilst maintaining quality – unfortunately FairTrade coffee tends to get a bad rep because of retailers choosing to mark it up significantly (this practice seems to be dying down, thankfully), single origin FairTrade beans being used as the base for milk drinks (because it’s harder to get an interesting, well-balanced blend worked out from a more limited selection of greens), quality control (FairTrade shouldn’t be perceived as a taste control organisation, it isn’t!) and that “not much” ends up with the grower. Having said that, the “not much” that gets sniffed at in Australia is a lot better than the growers had previously, and will go up over time because of the more symbiotic relationships that are emerging. FairTrade can’t change everything overnight, and we shouldn’t expect you to!
The best thing to do is to buy ethically imported beans (or local) and do charitable giving if you feel led to do so, I agree.
And for the plug, don’t forget FairTrade cocoa, rice, teas, sugar, cotton and footballs – I got a FairTrade soccer ball today and highly recommend them. In Sialkot, Pakistan, FairTrade makes the difference between a wage and a ‘living wage’, and the product quality is the same.