One of the things I’ve noticed in the robust discussion taking place on the blog last week is the worldviews through which we are all posting our thoughts. One of the professors at my seminary talks about how we interpret reality through narratives. We do not just nakedly observe facts; we interpret them as part of a script or view of what reality is, where it came from, and where it is headed.

For example, say two guys get together to talk about a large drug company getting involved in helping AIDS victims in Africa by selling their drugs. Guy number one has the belief deep in his gut that business is good. That free markets are efficient, effective and better than governments or non-profits at getting things done. Guy number two has a very different view that is just as deeply worked through all his beliefs. His script is that big business (particularly drug companies) are never to be trusted. They’re greedy, self-interested oppressors who just want to profit from others sickness. They’re the reason there are problems, not the solution.So, when guy one and guy two attempt to discuss the AIDS crisis in Africa, the main issue wouldn’t be the facts. It would be the narrative through which the facts were interpreted.

Guy #2 points out how much the drugs cost and how much profit the drug company made last year. Guy #1 points to how much it costs to develop a drug and that the drugs being sold today fund the drugs being developed tomorrow. Back and forth the argument will go with neither side finding the others arguments compelling because their arguments are only compelling within the script or narrative of the one who holds it.

Our newscasts are shaped around this concept. Newscasts are not (or not only) the reporting of facts, they’re the collaging together of pre-existing cultural narratives. The greedy politician, the corrupt politician, the senseless crime are all narratives and sub-narratives into which all the facts we encounter in life are incorporated into.

What does all this have to do with poverty and race? They, too, are interpreted through scripts that create the narrative. To make a broad generalization there is a liberal explanation and a conservative explanation for poverty. (those terms are quickly becoming moot, but I am using them for the sake of argument) First, is the conservative script. Conservatives argue that poverty is the result of personal behavior, primarily laziness and sin. If we could make people work, stay with their families, not have sex outside marriage, and quit drugs we’d end poverty.

The liberal script is that poverty is the result of unjust social structures. If we could eliminate prejudice and racism, provide good education and fix the justice system as well as giving the oppressed equal opportunity, we’d end poverty.

I would suggest that neither of these scripts is wrong and neither is sufficient. I’d also suggest that most people fall pretty firmly into one camp or the other. This is not helpful. I believe the Bibles teaching on sin is helpful. God created a world with shalom, a state of interconnected harmony in which humans related properly to God, themselves, one another, and their creation. Sin destroyed all this and brought alienation to all levels. We’re broken in our relationship to God (spiritually), ourselves (psychologically), one another (sociologically), and the creation (ecologically).

Both the conservative and liberal scripts are unhelpful because they’re reductionistic. The liberal script only acknowledges sociological sin – unjust social structures. The conservative script only acknowledges personal and spiritual alienation. Ie. people who say the solution to poverty is just getting people saved.

We need to form a worldview that doesn’t ignore any of the consequences of sin either personally or socially. Evangelicals need to learn to apply the gospel to more than just personal conversion. Liberals to more than just injustice. We need ministries that are concerned with all God is concerned with.