The plot extends from just left of the big tree – the border is the sugar cane which is in the next plot – to the line that goes from the building on the right just in front of the bananas.

The back boundary is a path/dirt road that passes behind the house on the right and in front of the hedge in front of the house in the middle. The front boundary is a stream which passes just beyond the maize field in the foreground.

This land is sloping so is ideal for demonstrating the use of vetiver grass on the contours. It has a stream along the bottom and a pool just beside the tree so has good water for agricultural use. It is cleared land so we will soon convert it with hedges and other trees to become a very different sustainable piece of land.

One of the greatest challenges in sustainable approaches to development is motivating people and in eastern Africa we have found the Bible to be a wonderful resource for motivating people to be responsible, and to make best use of the resources available.  We use the Bible to both introduce and back up our technical teaching, and have found this particularly relevant to our Environmental and Sustainable Agriculture teaching.  Once people have been stimulated through motivational teaching they are keen to learn about practical things they can do and we have linked the Biblical teaching with this practical.  For the rural poor we promote teaching which as far as possible does not depend on purchased inputs, but which makes good use of available labour, a resource that is normally abundant for them as they seek to support many people on ever smaller pieces of land.

When talking about the soil, the starting point for our teaching is that God created the world, and everything in it, including the living soil!

Click here to read the entire article. 

REAP is a registered trust committed to distinctively Christian teaching that is developed specifically for the benefit of the rural poor in eastern Africa.

REAP works mainly with and through Christian churches and para-church organisations, by facilitating them to develop a holistic teaching ministry. It has four main ways of working:

• training and workshops on Bible based rural extension.
• advice and consultancy, focusing on Christian rural extension projects and approaches relevant for the rural poor.
• collection and provision of information for helping with practical advice.
• writing and production of teaching materials specifically relevant to the rural poor.

REAP facilitates ministry to the poor in a manner based on Christian values. It reflects Biblical principles, respects human dignity, highly regards the talents and gifts of local people, values the whole person, places high priority on communal participation and also successfully applies the self propagation principle of church planting to rural development.

Many people who start wanting to help the rural poor end up helping higher economic groups because they do not have the ideas that are relevant where the poor are. The rural poor are generally characterised by those who have a relatively large number of people to support on a small or otherwise relatively unproductive piece of land. This means that they do not have much money available but do have labour available.

In REAP we look for ideas that are relevant for the rural poor and if necessary adapt them so as to make them more accessible. In practice much existing teaching, especially in agriculture, seeks to replace labour with a purchased input. In our teaching we tend to reverse this trend.

The leaflets are in Adobe PDF format for easy printing.

Guidelines for Teaching on Natural Medicines through the Church

• They are Biblical.
• When you are physically sick, your spiritual ministry is affected.
• The good pastor is concerned about the health of his people. (contrast Ezekiel 34:4)
• They portray God’s plan for man – working with creation (Genesis 2: 15)
• They are using what God has given us in creation, and by using them we are also learning to take care of creation.
• They are practical for serving one another – they help us care and so show love.
• It is our holistic responsibility – God is concerned about the whole person and whole community. The Bible, as does African culture, sees people as a whole.
• The approach focuses upon teaching, which is much less divisive in churches than projects are.
• Their use is a strategy for the poor – the poor can use them for themselves without money and the Bible tells us to be concerned for the poor.
• They are locally found and the church is strong at the local level .

When is it Appropriate to Use Natural Medicines?

• When people cannot easily access (afford) conventional medicine.
• They are particularly relevant for common straightforward complaints.
• External use is particularly easy because dosage is not very significant
• They have a particular place in “First Aid” and as medicines for home use
• They are not second best – they are often the preferred choice (e.g. Frangipani for Herpes Zoster) – so they fit in every situation
• It is important however to know the limitations available knowledge on natural medicines does not enable us to treat everything – they are appropriate for some conditions and for others referral should be used.
• They need always to be lip..ked with sharing knowledge, including when other medical help is needed.

Biblical Support for Using Natural Medicines

In the Bible we find some themes that help us use natural medicines with confidence, knowing that we are not going against God’s will:

• The Bible has a holistic view of health. (Proverbs 13:12; Proverbs 17:22; III John v2) )
• The pastor is expected to have concern for the health of his congregation. (Ezekiel 34:4)
• Natural medicines are part of creation – God looked at what he created and it was ‘good’. (Genesis 1 :31 )
  • The way that creation is used and the motivation is important. (I Timothy 4:4)
  • God created variety for our use. (Genesis 1 :29)
• The Bible recognises the healing potential of leaves. (Ezekiel 47:12; Revelation 22:1-2)
• Natural Medicines were the medicine of Biblical times. (II Kings 20:1-7; Isaiah 38:21; Luke 10:34)
• Jesus recognised that it is normal and appropriate to be growing herbs, being part of the garden. (Luke 11 :42)
• We should redeem what the ungodly have taken by basing our use of natural medicines on scripture. (Acts 10:14-15; Romans 8:20-21)

A Biblical approach replaces Spiritual Problems of Traditional Medical Practitioners with Positive Christian Values

• We must not compromise with the devil. (Genesis 3:5;Daniel; Ezra 10; I Samuel 28; II Kings 18:4)
• Sharing open Knowledge brings freedom from fear.(Luke 4:18-19; Isaiah 61:1-2; Acts 15; Romans 8:18-21;II Kings 7 :9) But this freedom must be used in the right way for the benefit of others. (Galatians 5: 13)
• As Christians we should emphasise Service not Power. (John 10:11-12; Matthew 20: 25-28; Isaiah 58:6-7) )
• The Bible condemns Exploitation. (Mark 5 :26; Proverbs 22:22; II Kings 5 19 forward; Amos 2:7a; Amos 5:11-12; Micah 6:8b; Proverbs 29:7; Zechariah 7:9-10)
• NB Charging for service is not exploitation: (I Corinthians 9:9; Deuteronomy 25:4)
• God not money needs to be central. (I Timothy 6: 1 0)
• Avoiding Syncretism. (Isaiah 56: 1-2)
• We need to address traditions that are against God’s way. (Mark 7:6-10)
• Jesus liberates some things that the devil or godless men have bound. (Acts 1 0: 14-15)

Since many churches discourage traditional medicine for spiritual reasons, we have started to help churches understand the value of natural medicines as a strategy for the poor with no spiritual threat. See our publication “Working Through the Local Church” for more information.

In 2006 we held a couple of workshops with representatives of churches that we have been working with in western Kenya and from these we have developed teaching materials that churches can use to pass on the ideas. We are at the same time developing practical teaching on the use and cultivation of natural medicines so that we can encourage their use in the local communities.

Our focus is very much on what rural families can have available at home and learn to use safely in their families. The strategy is to introduce ideas of first aid using natural medicines for specific well-researched uses, while encouraging the use of professional medical resources for other more complex problems. Our teaching through the women’s programme (e.g. how to distinguish pneumonia from a cold) already emphasises the need to be able to identify when professional help is needed.

The women at right are making Chili Ointment at a recent workshop.

A common way of using SWOT is to try to overcome some of the constraints by addressing weaknesses. This in practice means to some degree changing the nature (and therefore identity) of the organisation to overcome the weaknesses. This is most commonly done through training etc. coming from the opportunities. This is the basis of much Capacity Building. Weaknesses are somehow seen as something to be ashamed of, but we are being strong in facing up to them!

SWOT is often used to try and help an organisation be more acceptable and able to work with outside partners or donors.

Churches do not however work in the same way as NGOs and other similar organisations. In doing a SWOT analysis with churches we often find contradictions and difficulties. The same or related characteristics come up in both the strengths and the weakness section, or characteristics may appear as weaknesses that we feel should be in the strengths. Through using SWOT with both NGOs and churches I have feel that SWOT is not entirely appropriate for churches and have sought to work on a modified tool. In particular I have felt that the aspect of trying to change the nature and identity that results from most implementation of SWOT is not appropriate.

I have taken recently tried to take a different approach with churches, namely looking at Potentials and Limitations rather than Strengths and Weaknesses. This seems to give us a much clearer idea of the realistic situation of the church as a vital body. It is not an organisation like a business or an NGO, though some churches are in this country registered under both categories. It is fundamentally a body with a membership that operates effectively at a number of different informal levels in most cases.

The methodology is not very different but the differences are I believe significant. The resultant analysis may be called a PLOT Analysis!

The analysis can be applied in basically the same way as SWOT. The thinking may need to be on a different level, as potential must look a bit deeper than strengths and weaknesses sometimes do. The resulting picture is however somewhat different from the outcome of a SWOT with different types of characteristics coming up, and no real room for something to come in both the potentials and limitations columns at the same time.

Once the boxes are filled in the way I use this is different from SWOT. In SWOT a lot of emphasis is put on weaknesses as if they are something to be ashamed of. They are not good for our relationship with partners or donors. Looking at them in this way means that you try to overcome weaknesses and do away with them. You focus capacity building mainly on this. In PLOT you use the analysis to face up to reality, and to use the picture of the church to get an understanding together of where the church fits in to the wider scene and what its strategic position is as an imperfect human organisation. It is a tool that is particularly useful for determining which relationships are going to work, and how to develop those relationships in a spirit of true understanding and partnership. You deal with Potential and Limitations in different ways:

• Potentials are those areas that point to what you can expect to be able to do well. They need to be worked on and developed, not just accepted with a pat on ones own back (as strengths sometimes are). They point to what the church could be doing well and where it has a strategic advantage. In the analysis it is however recognised that potential has not yet been reached. Developing potentials then becomes the focus for capacity building, with the focus being on how to bring the Opportunities to strategically realise the potential. The potentials are what the church brings to a partnership.
• Limitations are those things that the nature of the church point out as being the reality. Rather than trying to overcome them, and thus try to change the nature of the body, they are accepted as the background for planning and help planning to be realistic. They are also things that you may look to in others to compliment the church in partnership. Partnership of this sort recognises that you don’t have to do everything yourself!

  What are the advantages?

• It does not try to treat the church in the same way as an NGO, as a constituted organisation
• It becomes less threatening than SWOT
• It becomes less related to personalities and the resulting confusions can be avoided
• The church does not get pushed into changing its nature in order to realise some unrealistic OD goals
• It gives us tools for saying “No” to irrelevant activities, especially when donor driven
• It is a very positive starting point for real partnership
• It helps us to decide in strategic planning what is appropriate for the church and what is not

The following two pages are like appendices with thoughts that come out of this basic thinking:

Some thoughts on PLOT and the church in rural development:

What sort of picture does this give for the conventional type of rural development project that most churches get involved in because they are the only ones that they know? Churches are well equipped for certain types of activity and not for others, so why not get involved in the types of activity that they have high potential for, and for which secular and governmental organisations do not?

I would like to briefly focus of four aspects of the potentials and see how these relate to a distinctive model for development. This is a development based on teaching not on projects. These inevitably link to what we are trying to do in REAP because it is this thinking that out teaching is based on.

  Biblical Motivation:

One of the most difficult things for development is to motivate people. The Bible motivates, so should be the basis for any church development teaching.

  e.g. 1 Stewardship of the Earth for sustainable agriculture.

  e.g. 2 The Body as the Temple of the Holy Spirit for Health teaching

  e.g. 3 Absolutes in AIDS teaching

  A structure that reaches to the grassroots:

  This is potential for gaining good understanding and information for planning. It also enables replicable teaching.

  e.g. Teaching through women’s fellowships

  This being in touch with the reality leads on to:

  A concern for the poor:

 This means new teaching that is relevant for the poor or marginalised. Should not be based on money in order to benefit.

  e.g. 1 LEISA

  e.g. 2 Expense substitution – body oil, fuel saving stoves, home gardens, preventive health etc.

  (NOTE: Does credit ever help the rural poor? Is it something suitable for churches to be involved in?)

  Replicability:

 Because of the above the church has enormous potential for achieving what others cannot through replicable teaching that spreads:

  e.g. Vetiver & fruit trees through 867 local churches in Wolaitta Kale Heywet Church

  (NOTE: With things whatever is given means there is less to give, with teaching there is always potential for more)

  Some Characteristics of Churches from my experience

  The following table lists some of the issues that I have identified as being fairly common amongst churches: