The strategy of God

I was hugely disappointed to read Tony Payne's thoughts about Fairtrade in The Briefing which appeared on my doorstep. It is true indeed that this was a “blatant opinion to get me started”, as I immediately reached for my laptop to write a response.

The supply and demand argument is, as Payne says, “basic economics”. I can make no claim to be an expert on economics, but I can see straight away that this argument is flawed. If the money you make from your crop is insufficient to provide a living, you cannot always switch to another crop because you may not have any money to buy different seeds. You can, however, keep growing the same crop by replanting some of your crop. This keeps people trapped in poverty. I recall, on more than one occasion, reading the sort of testimony you find on the side of a Fairtrade coffee jar in which a farmer says that Fairtrade prices allow him to put his children through school at last, and that they will be able to get better jobs. Fairtrade is more likely, counter-intuitively, to stop the children of coffee or tea farmers being stuck in the business.

The article also seems to suppose that Fairtrade will retain its current level of market share, an idea which is sharply contradicted by the massive growth rates. If you go to Sainsbury's and feel like buying a banana, it now has to be a Fairtrade one. The market is small now, but it is growing enormously, so it won't just affect a tiny proportion of farmers in the future (at least one would hope).

Finally, I would like to appeal to the Christian principle of justice. Throughout the Bible, God says that he is on the side of the oppressed, and that he requires his people to behave justly. Buying goods at prices below their cost to make cannot be a part of this justice just because the rest of the world accepts it. I suspect that many evangelical Christians use right wing economics and politics to excuse things they feel uncomfortable about. It saddens me that evangelicals often seem to lag behing their liberal counterparts in this area. We do not have to make a choice between evangelism and social justice; they should go hand in hand.

Edmund Woodfield of Tunbridge Wells, Kent, UK (01/07/2008)

If there needed to be a countering argument to that given by Tony Payne on the Fairtrade issue, it has been given in Stuart Heath's article on ‘Doing good’. Our whole lives are dedicated to the Lord, and we are to let the gospel guide our attitudes and actions in every aspect of our daily life. It is not enough to have an intellectual or even spiritual concern for the poor and not put this into action. The article also reminded us of the integrated nature of our existence—a helpful balance for those would say, “I am a Christian first and a father, a plumber or a member of society second”.

Philip Cooney of Wentworth Falls, NSW, AUS (16/07/2008)

I am not sure I am convinced by the comments offered by Gavin Perkins. My first thought was he must be a clergy man (or minister) to write the way he did, and this was made clear from later comments.

The world of communications has, as noted, changed dramatically over the history of the church. Christians have always had to adapt and move with the times. I am sure earlier generations changed when the availability of printed material increased, when the Bible became available in the common tongue and when the likes of radio and TV came on the scene. Now the internet revolution is upon us, and has been for more years than some may imagine.

In adapting, personal relationship have not been lost or even lessened they have simply taken different directions, meaning that all involved have needed (and, perhaps, been forced initially) to think differently and adjust their styles. Most seem to have done so. Failing to was never an option.

I came to the internet when I was 50 and changed jobs. I quickly adjusted, and did not find it harmed relationships, but rather added another exciting and efficient element. For example, it allowed me to be better prepared for some contacts (relationships) and allowed for a degree of ‘pre-positioning’ that, on most occasions, proved helpful. Along the way, it saved an enormous amount of time, and freed me up for relationships.

I do agree an email cannot replace all personal contacts. You can hardly comfort a grieving family via the net. The humble letter of old (do we still use them?) could not do so either, and neither medium was ever aimed at trying to.

The comment about podcast sermons is interesting. I often find them much more engaging than delivered sermons, and I feel I can have a ‘relationship’ with a preacher I have never seen or met, for that matter. It is simply a different way of receiving teaching that, again, we need to adjust to. It is not going to go away whether we like it or not. I have listened to hundreds of sermons via this means over the last 10 years, but I have still attended church twice each Lord's Day, and would not miss the sermons for dollars.

For some, it might be time to think about the quality of the weekly sermons and the preparation and thought put into them. I fully appreciate the preacher can be tested when some of his hearers have been taking in a diet of some of the greats of the pulpit.

Please forgive my ramblings. Please do not go down the Luddite path, but rather use what we have to the glory of our great God.

Geoff Kyngdon of Albion Park, NSW, AUS (16/07/2008)

I wanted to express my concern at an underlying assumption that appears to have been made in a couple of articles in Briefing #358/9. There was an assumption made by Cheng/Poulos and Walter that when some one preaches ‘live’ in a local church, they have more authority because they know their congregation better than, say, a recorded talk downloaded from the internet. I think this assumption, if I have read the assumption right, is naïve and simplistic. While I cannot offer a better alternative, I think it is important to explore why this is an unhelpful assumption.

Firstly, examining Paul as a case study, we see that where it was possible, he did seek to know the people he was preaching to as well as he could, and this is a good model for Christian leaders to emulate. However, this was not always possible. Turning to writing, there are at least two letters where he did not know most of the congregations he was addressing: Colossians (Col 2:1) and Romans (1:8-13). He did know some of them, at least, but not the majority. Does this mean that these letters carry less authoritative weight than, say, the Corinthians' letters, or that he was pastorally ineffective? By no means!

Secondly, in my experience as a Uni staff worker, I see churches in a way that others may not. For example, a number of conversations have gone something like this:

I hear a pastoral alarm about a relationship in the church community: “I think you should speak to your pastor about this.”

Hesitation. “I don't really know him that well.”

Let's look at that relationship: “How often do you see him?”

“On Sundays when he preaches and at leaders' meetings.”

Hmm, not what I was looking for. How about: “When was the last time you sat down and really chatted with him?”

Look of bewilderment. “I never have.”

Incidentally, this does not mean that the person I am speaking to is not being pastored. Eight times out of 10, they are being pastored by their Bible study leaders who are pastoring on behalf of the preacher (and are doing an excellent job of it). The point is that although the preacher does not know, nor in some churches cannot possibly know, everyone he preaches to, it does not mean that his authority as he preaches is diminished. Furthermore, people in the ‘pew’ understand and submit to this authority even though they do not know him intimately.

Thirdly, as someone who has stood on both sides of the conference speaking platform (as a speaker and as a regular listener), I have never seen the speaker's authority regarded as different to the week-to-week preacher of a local church, even when I did not know the speaker intimately, or when, as the speaker, I didn't really know the people I was talking to intimately.

What all of this means is that we need to question the assumption that a recorded talk from someone else has less authority than a talk done in the local church on Sunday. The Bible does not address this change in technology directly, but I think we need to re-examine our definition of preaching with the changes of culture and technology. I would love to see The Briefing tackle this issue: is the ‘live’ element essential for preaching?

Peter Hughes of Kellyville, NSW, AUS (16/07/2008)

I was interested to read Nathan Walter's article ‘iPod, iSermon, iRighteous?’ in the latest edition of The Briefing. As an avid listener to talks on my MP3 player while driving, ironing or cleaning, I nevertheless agreed with his reservations about listening to sermons from across the world. I have a few additional tips for using our iPods and MP3 players to help us grow as Christians.

1. Re-listen to the sermons preached by your own pastors in your own church. Many churches like mine publish sermons in MP3 format, as tapes or as CDs. I have found it immensely helpful to listen to each week's preaching a second time; it makes me less likely to forget the teaching during the following week, and it makes me much more diligent to apply it my own life.
2. Use your iPod to learn Scripture, as well as to meditate on it (Ps 119:11). Mark Altrogge in the US produces some great Scripture memory CDs based on the ESV (www.forevergratefulmusic.com). Free MP3 samples are available on his blog: http://www.theblazingcenter.com/category/free-scripture-song. (He gave me permission to copy the audio tracks on the CDs into other formats so I'm sure he'd do the same for others.)
3. Listen to the sort of teaching that you won't get from your local church. The last few decades' focus on biblical theology and expository preaching have been wonderful, but such a focus has its weaknesses: many people (and especially those in their 20s/30s like me) are now functionally illiterate when it comes to systematics, and know even less about church history. (I shall never forget my shock when I read Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology and discovered the doctrine of the ‘intermediate state’ which I had never been taught about, despite having spent nearly 10 years in conservative evangelical churches renowned for their faithful expository preaching.) We need to develop an understanding of systematics as well as exposition and biblical theology. And without a good understanding of church history, we are likely to make the same mistakes as the past, and will fail to benefit from the wisdom of the church throughout the ages (Jer 6:16). And, of course, systematics makes much more sense when you understand the historical development of doctrines like the Trinity and Christology. Two great resource sites are Monergism.com (www.monergism.com/directory/link_category/MP3-Audio--Multimedia/), and Biblical Training (www.biblicaltraining.org) which has series aimed at differing levels of understanding (e.g. new believers/basics/first year of seminary-level). And women may benefit from some of the talks by women on biblical femininity if their own church isn't able to give such teaching (e.g. from the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood [www.cbmw.org/Audio] or Sovereign Grace Ministries [www.sovereigngracestore.com/category.aspx?categoryID=2062]).

Finally, I'm not sure I agree with Nathan's penultimate point that “Nothing beats the godly discipline of reading your Bible”. That is immensely important in the Christian life, but surely attending to the preached word within the context of the local church is even more important? After all, it is the preached word which is “living and active” (Heb 4:12; cf. 1 Pet 1:25). And millions of Christians throughout the world and throughout history have been unable to exercise the godly discipline of reading their Bibles, either because of poor literacy, lack of Scriptures readily available in the vernacular, or the prohibitive cost of those which are available. Let's not fall into the trap of thinking that growth in godliness happens primarily on an individualistic basis (which is an easy trap for us in the iPod culture to fall into); it is as a church together that we are being made holy (Eph 2:19-22).

Thanks for a thought-provoking article!

Katie Fisher of St Albans, UK (16/07/2008)

I have a more radical application of economic theory to the coffee problem posed by Tony Payne in Up front (The Briefing #358/9, July/August 2008): everybody give up coffee. If nobody consumes coffee, then nobody will grow coffee. The farmers might be forced into some last-ditch enterprise like growing food crops to feed their families.

I can joke about that because I don't drink coffee or tea. But having been to CMS Summer School, I can't see this scheme working. So, instead, let me suggest why I disagree with Tony and why I think Fairtrade is worth a try.

Tony suggests (implicitly) that naïve consumers see the coffee market as nasty because it is a free market. The Fairtrade proponents have started up precisely because they believe, rather, the opposite. They argue that the price of coffee is kept artificially low by oppressive tactics of the big companies. If this can be established to be true, then Tony's economic theory arguments do not apply. Fairtrade may, in fact, restore the market to free trade.

Furthermore, I would argue that Fairtrade coffee does not artificially prop up the price of coffee. I suggest Fairtrade adds a new quality—a new range to coffee buying: clear conscience. Not everybody will want this coffee variety. But those who do may be prepared to pay a premium. These buyers would not pay this premium, however, for ordinary coffee. So the possibility that this development will disrupt the whole market is, in my opinion, slim. If every coffee addict in the world however, came to prefer this coffee, then, the market would change, but it would still be a free market.

Finally, however, my main disagreement with Tony is over his assertion early on that shopping choices are unlikely to have any effect on the problems on the other side of the world. I think he's right: my choices are unlikely to have any effect. But it's actually the only thing I can do. Sometimes self-regulating industry bodies seem to do nothing, and governments are all hands off these days (or hand-in-the-till in some places). Global regulation has not even tried to keep up with globalization. What else can I do but refuse to buy a shoe that was made in a sweat shop, and prefer a coffee that doesn't grind workers into the dirt?

Lately, it has been asserted that Côte d'Ivore, the biggest producer of cocoa in the world, has a significant proportion of its cocoa grown on plantations using slave labour—actual child slaves stolen from other countries. The industry is apparently going slow on efforts to prohibit this practice. It's just too complicated, you see. If this is true, then I do not want to be a part of it. The government seems unwilling or unable to take adequate steps to prohibit the practice. The chocolate industry seems unwilling to self-regulate and develop a certification system. So what can I do? Only this: I will research this issue, and if I can be convinced that children are stolen, locked up, beaten and starved to make my chocolate, I will pluck it out and throw it away. And if enough people do that and sales slump, then maybe the producers will take enough notice to begin the regulation process.

Rather than a feeble response, consumer choice is the only power I have in the market. In fact, it is what drives the market, especially when exerted collectively. I think ethical considerations should always be part of economic choices. As Charles Colson said, quoting Michael Novak, “Free, democratic capitalism is like a three-legged stool, supported by economic freedom, political freedom, and moral restraint”. But I would go so far as to suggest that making ethical choices as a consumer is not the only means I have to influence the producers on the other side of the world, it's also the right thing to do.

The great thing about organizations like Fairtrade is that they make it easy for me to do the right thing. They do the research. They have made it easy for me to buy coffee without oppressing the poor. That takes the uncertainty and time out of working out what to do in the supermarket aisle, and poring over the internet. They give me more time to get on with what I want to do—glorifying God by proclaiming our saviour Jesus Christ.

Michael Hutton of Ariah Park, NSW, AUS (16/07/2008)

I felt the tension of Tony Payne’s opening comments to the issue regarding strategic planning and God's strategy (Briefing #358/9); I'm looking forward to the articles on that. My wife Susan has an especial distaste for ‘strategy’ in all things Christian so she was encouraged in being able to empathize with your feelings towards the matter.

I wanted to make a couple of comments though, on your early piece where the Fairtrade coffee movement got caught in the crossfire. Susan is pretty keen on things Fairtrade so I'm afraid you started to lose her there. I said I'd look into it.

So I've just done a bit of searching around the journal articles and a few things come out of them. Your analysis based on ‘simple economics’ is quite right: isn't this just a case of over-production? Shouldn't the coffee producers get out of the market and sell something else if they can't get a good price?

Unfortunately, however, Economics has done a bit of a disservice to the community at large by giving the impression that supply and demand considerations are everywhere and correctly applicable. The standard/simple argument actually requires that a few fundamental elements of said markets be satisfied, e.g. complete information, free and competitive markets etc. etc. It turns out that the coffee industry in many developing countries fails even the most basic test for several of these assumptions.

So, in fact, Fairtrade is not so much ‘distorting’ an otherwise perfectly functioning market to everyone's loss, but rather, they are actually trying to provide some structure to a badly functioning coffee producer market such that the humble producer in a developing country can provide for their families. And to be clear, this is not a marginal industry for the producers concerned: there are 20-25 million families from 50 developing countries who depend on income from coffee bean production to provide for their families. So the outcome of the analysis bears much weight.

The story goes like this:

1. Little ‘c’ coffee farmers can't eat their crops, so must sell them.
2. In order that they sell their produce, they need a coffee mill/exporter to connect them to the wider market.
3. The international price for coffee fluctuates wildly (and recently has dropped a lot) and so the focus of inquiry is on whether such changes are carried through to the producer such the ‘simple economics’ argument you put forward can correctly signal when it is time to stay in coffee, and when it is time to pack up and move to a different crop.
4. Unfortunately, in developing countries the exporter ‘market’ is not free or fair; there is evidence of monopolistic activities. These mills/exporters drop the buying price to the producers, ceteris paribus, significantly below what would be expected under normal, efficient market movements.
5. Hence, the producer gets a raw deal.

Then come the multiplying factors:

1. Information dispersal in developing countries is very poor (despite the best efforts of [some well-intentioned] governments).
2. This means that there is a lag in price signals getting to producers from season to season. Hence, whilst prices fluctuate wildly on the coffee market, the evidence on long-term producer activity in developing countries is pretty much a continually increasing line.
3. The analysis shows that producers increase production when/after a price rise, but are very reluctant to reduce production with a price fall. In the ‘bad’ times, they try to co-plant subsistence crops to feed their families. This is not optimal and often causes malnourishment.
4. So the farmers are not getting good signals, and since they don't have good insurance access to cover risks of price fluctuations, drought, or other extreme events, they attempt to ‘make do’ whilst times are bad (actually, getting sick and eating less), and then hope that they can make a big sale when times return. ... But then they face the distorted exporter market.

So what to do?

1. Farmers can form co-operative mills such that prices are better reflected with less rent-seeking behaviour. Additionally, cooperatives, though small can get a morsel of the market power off the monopolist exporters
2. Governments can try to regulate the mill/export industry for goods such as coffee, but there is robust evidence that this regulation is not overcoming the distortions. It appears out of the nation-state's control.
3. Fairtrade's response:
1. Minimize apparent price volatility by locking in a price for a farmer early so that they know they can sell their crop at a price that is compatible with their costs and family needs. (Contrary to your thinking, this price is not artificially high as a rule; it is actually just a fixed/certain price, and at times it is barely distinguishable to the true/efficient market price.
2. Fairtrade helps train and manage cooperatives (they only work with cooperatives), and these fairtrade led cooperatives significantly reduce the inefficiencies in a given market, hence, gaining a closer price to the efficient price for farmers.
3. Fairtrade builds funds up through the sale of Fairtrade branded coffee to establish and maintain two types of funds that are used to help farmers such as building up organizational and marketing capacity for producers, gender and environment programs, agricultural diversification and programs aimed at mitigating the risks that farmers are exposed to.

The results of Fairtrade's work appear to be robust and helpful. In some cases, Fairtrade cooperatives have been so trained and equipped, they can be established as their own independent producer outlets. This is a really positive outcome since these skills may be used in coffee for now, but are transferable to other crops in the future.

The fact is that in developed countries like Australia, the risks inherent in farming are overcome by access to stable and efficient credit and insurance markets, or in very difficult times, emergency relief from stable and well-resourced governments. Markets that our producers sell into are efficient, and the prices etc. are very responsive to market information. Farmers can buy or even access for free, all manner of climate, economic forecast and other information through their PC at the farmhouse. Not to mention being able to access sophisticated laboratories to improve their crops and enhance their yields.

For the many millions of farmers who sell coffee as a cash crop to make a living, I judge that, based on some very detailed econometric analysis (see example: Ronchi, L. [2006]. ‘Fairtrade and market failures in agricultural commodity markets’. The World Bank. Retrieved July 3, 2008, from http://ideas.repec.org/p/wbk/wbrwps/4011.html.), we can actually regard the Fairtrade movement as a positive force for good. The question seems thus not “Is Fairtrade worth it?” but “Why aren't we all supporting Fairtrade”?

Time for a coffee?

Simon Angus of Maroubra, NSW, AUS (23/07/2008)