In the Letters to the Editor column in the July 22 issue of "The Living Church" I came across a letter from a priest that captured everything that has made me uneasy about Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and what they represent in the current mindset of The Episcopal Church. Essentially it is this: people who support MDGs have too little doubt that the goals will succeed. Indeed, they speak as if the ambitious programs of the MDGs have already been completed and that the end of world poverty is literally in sight. Further, to some Episcopalians skepticism regarding the feasibility of the MDGs is a form of unbelief and a repudiation of the baptismal covenant.

Under a heading titled "Mission and MDGs" the Rev. Richard H. Lewis of New Hartford, New York, shared his "amazement" that "folks find it needful to separate the mission of the church from the Millennium Development Goals and construe them as unrelated." He went on to point out that mission is clearly spelled out in the baptismal covenant of the 1979 BCP, particularly in the promise "to seek and serve Christ in all persons and, beyond that... to strive for justice and peace among all people while respecting every person's dignity." The simple citation of the text from the baptismal liturgy was sufficient to establish Millennium Development Goals as another name for Christian mission.

It is interesting to note that striving for justice and peace is something "beyond" seeking and serving Christ in all persons. Prior to 1970 such a remark would have been considered redundant. In today's church the kingdom of God is more real when expressed in abstract language. Seeking and serving Christ in every person on earth is mundane and inadequate. Swearing fealty to a bureaucratic structure charged with establishing "justice and peace" is more high minded and inspiring.

The good Father continues: "It is in living out the latter part of the covenant that we find a straight ahead path into doing the MDGs." Why didn't he say a straight path into serving the poor, for which MDGs are proposed as a strategy? Here's why: because for MDG true believers the outcome is not in doubt, nor is it even contemplated. In the mind of supporters the absence of doubt suggests that MDGs and saving the world are one and the same. The two are interchangeable. If you criticize MDGs as a program or strategy, you must be opposed to feeding and clothing the poor. You haven't yet grasped that mission lies at the heart of the baptismal covenant.

I have no doubt that this is a good and faithful priest truly concerned about the poor and about the account he will one day give regarding his response to them. I am certain that he, like most Episcopalians who have warmed to Millennium Development Goals, is sincere in wanting to solve the problems of the world. It is for this reason that I believe the MDGs must come under scrutiny, along with the psychology of those who acclaim them so uncritically not only as the church's mission, but as the church's mission accomplished. The heady euphoria of announcing "mission accomplished" stands out in the promotional rhetoric regarding the MDGs. It comes too cheap and rings hollow.

In the thinking of MDG enthusiasts promoting Millennium Development Goals is the moral equivalent to achieving them. This is based on what has become a formula for a new kind of sacrament in our culture: good intentions equals good outcomes. Hence the church has a new basis for proclaiming, "The kingdom of God is at hand." The "at hand" quality is very evident in the priest's letter to The Living Church, as it is in the promotional materials of the national Episcopal Church.

The problem with MDGs is that they are nothing new and we know better than to take them at face value. We have every reason, particularly if we are serious about our baptismal covenant, to subject them to rigorous analysis, even hearty skepticism, and to compare them with other strategic responses to the same problems. And, if we're serious about saving the world and ourselves, we have every reason to be suspicious of our own motives cloistered in the security of the First World.

The problem with MDGs is the problem of economic development: it is getting money and goods into the hands of the needy. Third World development is a major industry run by a number of key organizations, each with its distinctive philosophy of what works. The track record for development over the past half century is disturbing, because money and goods too often do not get to those who need them. What makes the problem intolerable is that, typically, nobody notices -- nobody except the poor, who have no recourse. While progress has been made, and while the work must continue, the present psychology of First World benefactors is perhaps the greatest obstacle to success. The rich are not motivated by results (which are difficult to measure) as much as by the perception that "something is being done" and by the flattering notion that they are part of the solution.

William Easterly, professor of economics at NYU, summarizes the recent history of development in Africa as the basis for his own skepticism regarding MDGs. "We have seen the failure of what was already a 'big push' of foreign aid to Africa. After 43 years and $568 billion in foreign aid to the continent, Africa remains trapped in economic stagnation. Moreover, after $568 billion, donor officials apparently still have not gotten around to furnishing 12-cent medicines to children to prevent half of all malaria deaths" (from "Utopian Nightmare").

Professor Easterly continues: "The poor have neither the income nor political power to hold anyone accountable for meeting their needs -- they are political and economic orphans. The rich-country public knows little about what is happening to the poor on the ground in struggling countries. The wealthy population mainly just wants to know that 'something is being done' about such a tragic problem as world poverty. The utopian plans satisfy the 'something-is-being-done' needs of the rich-country public, even if they don't serve the needs of the poor."

Easterly's comments provide a hint of the type of critique that ought to be taking place. I cannot comment on the economics. What impresses me is how Easterly couples his development theory with observations of the psychology behind it. Rich people who support ambitious development projects are too quickly satisfied with relieving their own guilt and anxiety to bother verifying that the economic goals are actually met. Clearly the main goal of the rich is to relieve their own angst. When they find that the situation on the ground has not improved after all, their response is generally the same: pour more money into the same programs brokered by the same bureaucratic machine. The impressive charts outlining goals with staggering dollar figures give donors plenty to feel good about. This is the underlying psychology of utopianism, and there is every reason to suspect that this is what underlies the church's latter day enthusiasm for Millennium Development Goals.

There are two categories of big losers in this scheme. The first is the poor, who are rarely helped in spite of all the rhetoric and ritual hand wringing, not to mention the countless billions invested in a faulty development infrastructure. The second group of losers is the rich, particularly in the churches, who have deluded themselves into equating God's salvation with their own need to feel righteous. The outcome is a vast network of mutual dependencies in the First and Third Worlds. Again, whether due to local corruption or bureaucratic paralysis, the material goals are not met. The churches for their part have invested themselves in a spiritual illusion.

The goals will not be met until incentives are created in the First and the Third Worlds to give them reason to be met. This is where the shallow enthusiasm for MDGs must be exposed, along with the counterfeit spiritualities that surround them. The reckless naivete with which bishops and clerics jump on the MDG bandwagon is transparent. The payoff is too obvious -- an easy righteousness that comes with the belief that the mere statement of good intentions is the spiritual equivalent to salvation.

This is not a partisan issue. No one is opposed to fulfilling the concrete objectives of the Millennium Development Goals. People of good will would welcome the opportunity to contribute if they could believe in the outcome. Liberals and conservatives alike have every reason to be suspicious of yet another scheme that promises even more than similar schemes have delivered in the past. Christian people ought certainly to be suspicious of anything that flatters their sense of moral goodness at so little cost.

One who promotes Millennium Development Goals should not brag like one who has already saved the world.

--The Rev. Canon J. Gary L'Hommedieu is Canon for Pastoral Care at the Cathedral Church of St. Luke, Orlando, Florida, and a regular columnist for VirtueOnline.