Great questions. The first list is what a volunteer tacitly wants to know when serving a ministry. The second list is what a ministry wants to know when a volunteer comes through the doors.
-
Will my investment make any real difference?
- Am I really helping or is this just to make me feel good?
- Will this be a personally meaningful experience?
- Does this ministry really get at the root causes?
- Will you value my time?
- Do you just want my money or do you really want me involved?
- Is the ministry cost-effective?
- Are you open to change if I offer solutions or improvements?
- Will you deal with me responsibly and follow through on your commitments?
- Will I get feedback on how the mission is going?
- How much staff time will it consume to put you to work?
- Will your volunteering cost more than it’s worth?
- Will the ministry actually get any money from you?
- How much will hosting you pull us away from our mission?
- Is this about you having a meaningful experience or about serving the poor?
- Will you share your contacts/networks with us?
- Are you more concerned with measurable results than being faithful?
- What is your agenda, really?
- Can you serve without feeling the need to take over?
- Will you attempt to control me with your money
These lists collide at points. Time and good experience versus faithfulness and effectiveness. Money and networking versus usury and manipulation. Personal versus systemic. But I love that Lupton writes them out for us. Let’s face it, we all have agendas. They all need to be checked and known as best as we can. Some of us want to be used well. Some of us want to feel better about the way we spend money. Some of us want to lead and some of us just want to really better the mission.
I think both sides should have this conversation with each other—a lot. It can bring understanding and honesty that only aids the mission.
But I’d like to add some two more questions to the both sides. Call them 11. and 12. for both lists.
- Do you love the neighborhood and its neighbors, or do you love the idea of your place as servant or leader?
This question reveals an others centeredness and our commitment to the beauty of a place. Love of a neighbor and neighborhood precedes its restoration. No one sacrifices for something that they hate. But people will give there lives for what they love. My favorite exposition of this is in from G.K. Chesterton’s Orthodoxy where he describes the run down neighborhood of Pimlico and what it needs first.
Let us suppose we are confronted with a desperate thing — say Pimlico. If we think what is really best for Pimlico we shall find the thread of thought leads to the throne or the mystic and the arbitrary. It is not enough for a man to disapprove of Pimlico: in that case he will merely cut his throat or move to Chelsea. Nor, certainly, is it enough for a man to approve of Pimlico: for then it will remain Pimlico, which would be awful. The only way out of it seems to be for somebody to love Pimlico: to love it with a transcendental tie and without any earthly reason. If there arose a man who loved Pimlico, then Pimlico would rise into ivory towers and golden pinnacles; Pimlico would attire herself as a woman does when she is loved. For decoration is not given to hide horrible things: but to decorate things already adorable. A mother does not give her child a blue bow because he is so ugly without it. A lover does not give a girl a necklace to hide her neck. If men loved Pimlico as mothers love children, arbitrarily, because it is theirs, Pimlico in a year or two might be fairer than Florence. Some readers will say that this is a mere fantasy. I answer that this is the actual history of mankind. This, as a fact, is how cities did grow great. Go back to the darkest roots of civilization and you will find them knotted round some sacred stone or encircling some sacred well. People first paid honour to a spot and afterwards gained glory for it. Men did not love Rome because she was great. She was great because they had loved her.
Second question:
- Do you really want relationships or do you want to just do a good job?
In the present state of mercy and justice ministries, there is a stated value to make our service about relationships and not just deeds. Some volunteers state they want to be in “relationship” with the poor. I’m not sure that this value needs to be pursued with as much vigor as we once thought. Social capital is hard to come by when working cross-culturally and cross-socio-economically. Deep distrust remains—from both sides. The cost may be too heavy for that risk at first.
In the South especially, we have a pathology that says if we are friends or close, then everything is OK. If we can be nice to each other, then all is well. That’s a lie. As I’ve talked to poor folks, they often aren’t looking for another friend (sometimes poor communities have tons better social networks than the burbs). They are looking for comrades in a mission of betterment or development. Fellowship is secondary to mission. Friendship comes as we fight for justice and peace. Fellowship of the foxhole, if you will. So we need to ask the question of whether or not “relationships” are the end, or the mission is the end. So I ask this 12th question a little differently than the others. It’s not an either/or. It’s not a right/wrong. It’s an expectation. You may want a relationship with someone who doesn’t want one with you. Or visa versa. Doing a good job is a kingdom service. Having an easy relationship with someone different than you can be too. But it’s not necessary to work toward the peace of a neighborhood. Colleagues for good and co-belligerents against injustice can be good enough.
