Right now Uruguay will play Germany for 3rd place in the 2010 FIFA World Cup. But why are 3 of four semi-finalists from Europe?  Is it any coincidence that the developed/1st/one-third/global-north world has dominated the developing/3rd/two-thirds/global south in the World Cup?

In the documentary “The End of Poverty?” by Philippe Diaz a case is made that a globalized economy will not tacitly end extreme poverty, but is exacerbating it.  Neoliberalism is one focus of the movie.  It developed in the late 70′s and 80′s in the Americas.  The film makes the criticism that looser forms of trade allowed multi-national corporations and the privatization of public goods in Latin America to further push the marginalized into poverty.  Is this unfair-global landscape to blame for a fundamentally un-fair world soccer(futbol) tournament?

Cliff Cobb is a producer for the film.  He is the son of theologian John Cobb of Claremont School of Theology.  The solution that he puts forward in this film is a return to the idea of the “commons.”  That is, holding wealth and resources collectively instead of private ownership.   This is an interesting idea.

The film, I think, takes aim at the book by Jeffrey Sachs, “The End of Poverty.”  Sachs has argued that a simple amount of foreign aid that could get poor countries up to the bottom rung of the economic ladder would enable them to develop economically on their own.  This approach could be considered more pragmatic than a more fundamental shift in thinking to the idea of the “commons” put forth by Diaz and Cliff Cobb.

Which solution will work? Will either work?

I once heard a podcast from Union Theological seminary where Jeffrey Sachs spoke.  During the question and answer period a person asked him if a more fundamental change was needed in politics to really remedy the problem of extreme poverty, i.e., a move toward socialism or an idea of the “commons.”  Mr. Sachs responded at the time that he did not like that idea.  He was more inclined to suggest that just some resources committed by rich countries to achieve the millennium development goals would be what is needed.

But what of the Christian witness?  Social Justice is definitely en vogue these days.  So much so, I would say, that the term has already begun to lose its meaning and prophetic punch.  What exactly does it mean to work for social justice?  Should Christians yearn for nothing less than economic socialism?  Or is free market capitalism with regulation acceptable within Christian ethics and theological witness?  Are either of those options too political entirely for theologians to delve into?  Does the Christian notion of salvation have any intrinsic connection to economic well being, or does this lead one down the slippery slope of works-righteousness?

Speaking for myself.  A message like the one given in “The End of Poverty?” is alluring. However, Sachs methodology seems much more practical and achievable.  I think that a practical approach like that of Sachs is still true to the desire to work for justice and not just charity. And I do not think that the two approaches are necessarily against each other.

So many question remain.  How do we get there?  What is the proper role of government and business?  How much regulation should their be?  What is the individuals role?  A good place to start, if you are interested in working toward ending hunger and extreme poverty is to join the ONE campaign.  If you are someone who is weary of the political elements of this conversation, ONE does a good job of being accessible to a variety of political persuasions.

If I can turn back to the term, “social justice” once again, I’d like to ask you what do you think a better term would be?  How can people of faith express their desire to end extreme poverty, hunger, and huge disparities of wealth.  Is “social justice” the best term their is? What say you?