CROP Walk

Dear Friends and Family,

On Sunday, October 19th, Tyler, Livia, Jude, and I will be walking a 5K (complete with double stroller) in the 33rd Annual Pasadena CROP WALK for Hunger. Over 2000 families walk each year to raise funds to help alleviate local and global hunger. This year, as food prices continue to soar, we are looking forward to this social event, especially since we are in Los Angeles, a city where the growing divide between the rich and poor is dramatically evident on most any street. We also expect this to be a great and practical way to begin introducing our kids to the plight of those in need.

In 2007, over $40,000 was raised collectively. Our church's, Pasadena Mennonite Church, current goal is $2200. The money that is used locally will be donated to the various soup kitchens and food banks that serve the homeless throughout the greater Los Angeles area. The funds that are utilized internationally will flow through Church World Service and their partner humanitarian organizations. The benefits of undesignated, ecumenical funds like this are plentiful as they support a much wider range of needs.

Therefore, Tyler and I would be so grateful if you would like to make a financial contribution to us as you sponsor our family in this endeavor. If you are interested, you may give as a general donor, or more specifically. For example, you may designate your money to various organizations like The Baptist World Alliance, Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, Heifer International, Project Hope, Mennonite Central Committee, and many more. In addition to financial support, for those of you who are local, if you would like to give us non-perishable groceries, there are collection barrels at the start line of the walk. We would be happy to offer those up for you.

If you would like to donate and need further information please feel free to contact us. All donations are tax deductible and need to be in our "walk packet" by Oct. 19th. Additionally, you can navigate to this website, and click on the "donate" button to use your credit card to give.

Thank you in advance for your consideration and generosity. We so appreciate you!

With Peace,
Lauren

P.S. CROP = Communities Responding to Overcome Poverty

Thoughts--as Promised

My posting is so sporadic right now because I don't have time, or when the time is there, I don't have the energy to write. Two-week intensive classes, swim lessons for the kids, visiting family, etc. makes for speedy summer days. Yet, somehow in the midst of ordinary Mayfield mayhem, I am struck once again right now at how God's voice can perpetrate my routine so dramaticaly and quickly.

Background Info.
In my class on wealth and poverty last quarter, and also on this blog, we talked quite a bit about the Rich Young Ruler. Using it metaphorically, if Jesus were going to ask me to sacrifice something that was preventing me from experience life with him more fully, what would it be? I have struggled with this question ad naseum in a quest for great self-awareness. What would make me grieved at the thought of its loss? I asked Tyler if he could sell his books for Jesus, the symbol of what he values immensley. I asked my parents if they could sell their lovely home, a warm, hospitable place used more often than not for ministry and community. I asked my brother if he could arrest his educational pursuits, and on and on. But what is my question? (and not that these people should give up these things--that's not my point.)

More info.
Tyler and I were members, and I was the children's minister for a while at Wilton Baptist Church when we lived in CT. It is mostly comprised of New York business men and their wealthy families, as Wilton is a small town in Fairfield County, one of the richest in the country and only about 30 minutes east of Manhatten. We attended All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena for about the first year that we were here in California. Their social agenda and 'liberal' inclusivity attracted my wayward evangelicalism and permitted me to delve even further into the waters of mainline Christianity. (An ocean that I was only able to dip my big toe into while we were at Yale for fear of drowning or nearing too close to the dark waters.) Now, after having been members at Pasadena Mennonite Church for a little over two years and understanding better the subversive call to simplicity, especially in an area so full of consumption, smog, and oil as is Los Angeles, it leaves me perpetually perplexed. Where are all of these experiences leading my family? How are they shaping us?

I more often than not feel like a fish outta water at Fuller, but then I remember that we're all in one great big ocean, under God (note my previous metaphor), so, what am I supposed to be gleaning even in the wake of Fuller?

When I was cynically reading the first chapter to Wilson-Hartgrove's New Monasticism a few weeks ago, my skepticism receeded and in washed a powerful new currant of hope and direction. While I am still weary of the marketing of this movement, and the fact that a bit of their publishing is coming from Grand Rapids, nor do I think this communal stuff is really all that "new," I find myself totally in awe of what this lifestyle communicates to our contemporary society, one that is mostly socially fragmented, morally thirsty, and economically bereft--even in the rich parts like Wilton. There is something that seems so right to me about living, eating, and sharing everything with those we serve, as if we are married into one giant family--to borrow the metaphor from the Eugene, OR, folk...thanks, Chris. (I like it, a lot!)

Enter God.
So as I was sitting in the library reading this book, wondering these thoughts, query-ing these questions, praying such prayers, (before my phone rang) the windows all merged into one for a few seconds, and it began making sense..until I realized now I have about fifty gazillion more questions.

While the light at the end of my theological and educational tunnel started glowing a bit brighter in this moment, so too, was my rich young ruler question being answered, nearly causing me to lose my vision for all the bright dots of color that were overshadowing my questions and preventing my eyes from adjusting to the new route in life.

Culmination.
When Tyler finishes his dissertation and we move to wherever he gets a teaching job (hopefully as early as next August), we will be moving into an urban area to live with the poor, in community. This is where it's all going for us. We've seen the rich, we've seen simple living, we've seen ecumenism and inclusivism at its best, and as I learn more and more about what it means to pastor, it is clear that the only place this will fulfill God's giftedness in me, is to be in the city, with the poor, working it out, side-by-side with those Jesus really did come to save.

So, yeah, the sacrifice? Just like that young ruler was being asked to give up his goods, I'm being asked to give up a way of life. One that I am comfortable with, accustomed to, and more reliant on than I have ever realized before now. I swallow deeply at this. It is a suburban life with lots of time at the pool in the summers, over-sized smelly fires in our living room in the winter, and basically any and every need met with no worries. When I think about passing on a different childhood experience to Livia and Jude, I get excited about the multiculturalism and social awareness they'll be immersed in. And I'll always be thankful that even amidst my own childhood comfort, the wider world of need was never too far away, even only a few blocks away, and we were careful to not ignore it.

I have a lot to learn, though. I am eager and anxious about how this will work out and what it really all means. I don't think I really have any idea.

New Monasticism

I am gathering thoughts from friends regarding this new movement of doing and being church. If you have anything to add to the conversation please feel free to comment. I might not get anything...that's okay. I am working on my own response to it all, which will be my next post. I promised in an earlier blog that I'd share my beefs about Shane, and while they're mellowing out, I'm currently reading a new book (note the pic) about New Monasticism that's quite intriguing. It sparked a new spiritual quickening in me while I was in the Claremont library the other day. But then my phone started blasting her Back Street Boys ringtone, which not only pierced the quite of the summertime library (read: I'm the only nerd alert who was in there) but it interupted my pastoral contemplations and aspirations. So more to come, but in the meantime, please tell me what you've read and are thinking about it. Gracias.

P.S. Here is an interesting article about it from one of my favorite sites.

P.P.S. And here is an article about it from the Christian Century.

P.P.P.S. Krista Tippet has a few podcasts on the movement (easliy found through itunes) on her NPR show, "Speaking of Faith."

Bread for the World

This is good!

'Nother Sign

We drove by another one last night worthy of mention, but I didn't have my camera...argh!

"Tithe if you love Jesus! Anyone can honk!"

I kid you not.

The second week of our class, our professor entertained a lengthy and interesting discussion centered on the question, "Why do evangelicals teach the importance of a 10% tithe?" After examining several OT texts on the purpose of tithing for the Israelites, along with the percentages they were suppossed to tithe, it's more clear that our modern tithing concepts are pretty fabricated. Not only so, but designating only a portion of our income, like 10%, to God or the church, or our ministers seems to convey a completely erroneous concept, that being only a portion of our earnings/worth is God's, the rest if ours as a result of our hard work. This mentality fails to promote the idea that all of our wealth, possessions, and charity are God's.

If our financial perspectives admit that everything in our bank accounts belong more fully to our Creator, it might be easier to love Jesus by giving it away. However, I don't think the church sign was relating this theological presupposition.

I am a BIG fan of the congregation financially supporting their pastors and ministers. But I'm not a fan of it coming forth from legalism or a duty to keep up one's "Christian" appearances.

Marquee

We're in rural Alabama right now, and I always love reading all of the church signs. They are creative and theological masterpieces at times. I made Tyler pull a u-turn and into the parking lot so I could grab this picture on our way home from a trip to Birmingham last night.

Plaguing Thought

This sorta traces back to my questions about God's intevention (when, where, and how).

Revelation 3:14-22 is a rather common passage for evangelicals, as it mistakenly serves as a warning against the temptation to become complacant ("lukewarm") in your faith. But when you read the whole stinkin' passage you realize it's about wealth--not faith! Vss. 15-16, "I know your works; you are niether cold nor hot. I wish that you were either cold or hot. So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I am about to spit you out of my mouth. For you say, 'I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing.' You do not realize that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked." This is a daunting message for the Laodiceans, who probably thought they were doing alright in this world, given their prosperity and all.

I'd rather be from the church in Smyrna, which is addressed just a chapter earlier in 2:8-17. Vs. 9, "I know your affliction and your poverty, even though you are rich. I know the slander on the part of those who say that they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan."

Aight. What about this? If Rome is the big bad devil in this book of end times, and if everything that Rome does is evil, then that includes their economic system. Their coins are marked with the face of Caesar and other "lords," their taxation system is inherently corrupt, and their rich prosper off of the weakness of the poor. So the Smyrna folk refuse to participate in Rome's systemic evil. They are materially poor. Yet, John says they are rich--rich in their faith, rich in the promises of fulfillment that depend on Christ's return, and rich because God's heart is tender toward them.

Down with the rich, tepid, Laodiceans. They are indifferent to the corruption of Rome; they participate in her politics by gambling in the game of empire economics, and while they are secure in their possessions, too bad their eternity is marked by an absence from God. (I mean, "spit from the mouth of God?" That's a fairly vivid image!)

So if God's blessing resides on the materially poor, who claim their riches in Christ and who will be completely wealthy in the future for faithfully sitting at the table of kingdom economics, and not at one of those other temporal, luck-bound casino tables, if God's blessing is on them, then why do they still have to worry about the bills each month, the piles of debt, the lack of education their children receive, the multiple minimum wage paying jobs they work that still leave them financially destitute and exhausted?! I kind of want to scream on their behalf, "If you love us so much, and if we're so blessed, then where the hell is our shelter, water, and food? I'm sick of waiting for the final fulfillment; I'm tired and hungry."

It sure is a subversive picture of love and grace, you have to admit. One that the world will never understand. One that I often fail to get, even though I claim allegience to God's economic pattern. It bothers me that those over at the roulette wheel, playing with their stocks, negotiating meeting times with their financial advisors, and careless about those their power hurts are so comfortable (I won't say content or happy).

What does it mean to consider ourselves blessed? If God knows our afflictions, and the ultimate victory is alive in the power of the resurrected Christ, what is this middle time in the course of the history and future of the world all about? I am going to stop asking questions right now and go read Paul Ricoeur's, The Symbolism of Evil. Maybe that will make some sense of it all for me. (just kidding...I'm not that big of a dork.)


But seriously, when we consider the marginalized, this message of redemption and restoration sure does get bigger and better! Amen?

Last Quote--I Just Finished the Book

Wheeler compares our healthy amount of possessions to the alcoholic who says he could stop drinking anytime he wanted to, but continues to hurt people and himself in the quest for more to drink. She coins a phrase that I love: "the liberty of conscience" vs. "the bondage of addiction." The alcoholic knows he drinks too much (liberty of conscience) but he can't stop despite it (the bondage of addiction). So that, the person caught in the negative cycle has too greatly blurred the lines between liberty and addiction. The same is true for the shopper, not even the shop-a-holic. She concludes, "The only way one can be certain that possessions do not reprsent a moral and spiritual peril is continually to leave them behind!" --As the alcoholic must leave behind his drink again and again in an effort to sober up and be all that God created him to be.

Our possessions bind us to a particular location, to a certain way of life (whether we enjoy it or not) in an effort to make ends meet, and they deafen us to the call of God on our lives and in our churches. How can we be confident of our ability to discern a vocation in the midst of such economic pressure? (All questions asked by Wheeler in one way or another.) The New Testament's view on wealth is that it is more than just a stumbling block to discipleship or an idol of our worship. It is something that must continually be denied so that we can, like the camel, more easily find our way through the eye of that prickly needle and find peace and pustice in the kingdom of God. So here's my question, how do we suck in our guts enough to slide through such a tiny, pinhole opening meant to lead to God?

Give it all away-plain as that.

How do we define ourselves, for whom do we work, and to what extent does our spending threaten the human rights of others? (Again, more Wheeler questions at the close of her book.) Questions that if answered honestly will help us shed our pounds so that the slim needle hole won't feel quite so constricting and will also show the nearness of God.

Dang.

Weekly Wheeler Quote

She is discussing in her conclusion one of the points of her entire book, which is to provide a methodological and exegetical approach that leads the Biblical reader, scholar and lay person alike, to a conclusive reading that promotes better contextual understanding combined with appropriate contemporary, ethical insights. Keeping this in mind she writes,

"If the point of the Lucan discourse about anxiety and possessions (12:22-34) is to draw out the implications of Jesus' advent for economic life, then there is a third option, which is neither to disregard it nor to take its call for divestiture as a permanent and binding rule. Instead, it may serve the church as a call to single-heartedness and a warning against the insidious idolatry of a safety medicated by what one owns. Within this framework, its imperative, "sell your possessions and give them to the poor" stands as a model of, and a provocation to, "seeking first God's kingdom." It is a counterweight to every complacent self-assurance, "I have given enough," and a continual challenge to consider what the church's material life says about the true objects of its trust and its worship. To take seirously as a model is to call into question many of the assumptions of middle-class existence, including the fundmanetal assumption that there is such a sthing as "economic security" and that Christians are entitled to it."

Okay, I could go on. I wish I could post the whole book, but alas, I'll spare you. So, given the frequency of the Oprah show hosting financial analysits who work with common middle class Americans to help alleivate their debt (almost as much as that Dr. Oz is on now), I do not think we are in a position anymore to claim any sort of economic security in the middle class, which is probably just another reason that the rich are getting richer and the poor, poorer. And if the middle class comprises a large majority of American church-goers, what is the true object of our churches material lives as they relate to what they actually trust and worship? Dare we allow ourselves to be this honest? Aren't most churches claiming economic security (because they love God) and therefore fail to see opportunities to follow Luke's Jesus that teaches give more because they feel they have already given enough?

In my opinion, this image speaks way more adequately than anything I've written here in the last eight weeks, and it sums up well several of my points about American consumerism, political corruption, and our frustration with not feeling like we have enough.

Can't Help Myself--'Nother Wheeler Quote

"Instead of antimaterialism or generalized "hostility to wealth," we find specific theological and moral rationales for the attitude toward material possesssions in the New Testament. Material wealth is problematic because it is often a hindrance to heeding the gospel; it is dangerous because it is a temptation to the sin of idolatry; it is suspect because it is frequently the result or the means of social injustice; finally, it's disposition is a matter of great moral weight, as the response to human needs is a sign of the advent of God's kingdom and a test of the love that identifies Jesus' true followers."

--Preach it, Sista!

So, I take this to mean...wealth and ample material possessions in and of themselves are not inherently "sinful." whew. But lest we think we're off the hook, we need to maintain an accountable level of eduation and awareness regarding the production and disposal of the products we do buy and own, so as to avoid contributing as much as possible to a vicious cycle of neglecting human rights in order to acquire more--a very Western and colonial ideal, I might add--the quest for more, that is.

Too Much

I have been feeling so overwhelmed by this topic lately; I think that's why the posting has slowed down quite a bit from when I first began. Initially my mind was exhilerated by the ideas I wanted to share, the books I was/am reading, and the resources that have influenced mine and Tyler's finances in the last two years. But now...I am just plain tired. Not so much tired of thinking about these things-that will probably always keep me fired up and energized. I think my fatigue stems from the feeling of having so much to unload-- I'm not sure where to begin anymore.

Actually, here's the truth. About six weeks ago a friend of mine from college had a stroke and through a rough series of events has been on full life support since then. Mostly, I have been asking about God's intervention. How, when, why, where does God intervene or not intervene? Is this 'God intersecting our life stuff' just something we tell ourselves to feel better? I do still believe that God moves in our lives, but to what degree? This question is not just about my friend, but about all of life. Particularly, about poverty as well.

Where is God in the midst of the traumas in our world? I see Scritpure narrative teaching us that God is always present and near to us. I believe this. However, when and where are the miracles? I tend to believe right now that more than interacting in the processes of my friend's recovery, God is present through the redemption that comes to her family as they process this tragedy, cope in the meantime, and plan for the future. But isn't it true for the impoverished as well? God is in the process of redeeming this world through the power of Christ and the presence of the Holy Spirit. So much so, that I confidently want to say, that God is just as grieved by the plight of the poor as anyone else who cares deeply for them, even more so, just as God is also grieving for my friend alongside her family. So why then, does it continue? Why does my friend still need her ventilator? Why is Skid Row a real place, and where did this AIDS pandemic originate? Did God surrendur the right to fully intervene and rescue when humanity was incorporated into the process of serving as God's helpers in redeeming and being redeemed? I am thankful for the Gospel of Matthew today (see prior post) and his eschatological assumption that Christ will come again and God's kingom will be fully restored. This is a truth I hang to tightly and often!


My work on the site is officially "due" on Wednesday, but I think my thoughts here will continue. Please keep reading and participating as you feel led. I will blog when the thoughts are too much to keep in and as questions keep arising.

Reflections on Sheephood

Matthew 25 is the parable of the sheep and the goats. The sheep did for the least, the goats looked the other way. The sheep saw Jesus in the hungry, thirsty, wounded, worn out, and rejected. The goats did not. On my good days, I'm a sheep. But I think on most days, my goatyness gets the best of me. Sometimes there is not time or not enough resources to stop and see Jesus in the midst of the marginalized, right? hmmm...

(This is an excerpt from my final reflection paper on this exercise-tweaked a bit to make it more interesting for this format.) This blog was an excellent way for me to continue classroom dialogue on a public level and to remember specific classroom lessons on a personal level. At the risk of sounding obnoxiously dramatic, this project has changed me, and it never would have commenced had it not been for the project assignment. For several years I have been comfortable (not in a negative way) knowing that people who live in poverty need attention and service. The discomfort lied in my lack of foundational political facts that pave the way for contemporary promotions of national and global poverty, as well as the fact that my personality type rejects all forms of strong activism. In this way, I am unlikely to boycott certain shopping centers that demolished affordable housing in urban areas to attract the rich—this is not because I like to shop so much as it simply does not make sense to me why one person not shopping at Paseo Colorado in Pasadena is going to change anything. For all of that, the secondary readings for class and a new reading of Scripture itself repeatedly insisted to me that Jesus did just that.

Jesus made sure that he knew well temple politics, and then as a single individual he over turned the tables, loved the Samaritan woman at the well, ate with sinners, and condemned religious elites. This humbled me in my blogging pursuits, as well as it enabled me to more freely confess not having the key that will unlock the solution to an end of homelessness. My writing and research also demonstrated that those who are called to sacrifice diet coke in the name of the mistreated at the Coca-Cola plant in South America is an admirable task, not overly simplistic or necessarily the result of pietistic motives. On the other hand, my slight Diet Coke addiction is not something that, at least right now, causes me great conviction. There are other things, however, that ignite me to a passionate anger, a fundamental principle that if others disavow are most assuredly a direct denial of the way of Christ. Ummmm, like, pastors who lead churches without giving the people a vision. (So, it's a different form, but nonetheless, something I do not tolerate well.)

I care more deeply now about the farm bill, the food stamp program, the illegitimate activity that transpires in the US Department of Agriculture, in large part as a result of Sondra Wheeler and a better understanding of how just one person can make a difference. The director of Bread for the World is also teaching me this lesson. (In fact, I roll my eyes a little less frequently at people who are zealous and possibly even divisive in their efforts to educate the rest of us consumers through their refusals to partake in mainstream American past-times like shopping/gift-giving, viewing professional sports, etc. In fact, I'm admitting that I am swaying to this side more dramatically-sometimes.) There are countless individuals living out their conviction to simplicity and justice in creative, life-giving ways. I want to learn better the ways of how to do this, especially for my family.

This class and blogging experience has given me renewed permission to be a co-creator and designer with God, the ultimate Creator. Like I mentioned in my blogger profile, I continually ask questions about the legitimacy of celebrating beauty, art (architecture, expensive paintings hanging in museums, Broadway, even a good marketing campaign, or the leather that's shaped into a stunning pair of high heels), and design in the midst of such harrowing realities of life and death that we see throughout America and the world if we stop long enough to look. I tend to embrace this duality now without guilt while recognizing the lack of justice residing in the face of an HIV-infected, orphaned, African child who has no access to school, much less the chance to see the cathedral, Notre Dame in Paris. What is more, I see the danger existing not in the presence of such cathedrals, but how we view ourselves in relation to it. When we think we deserve the beauty and wonders of art we are amiss. Like the class discussion that continued throughout the quarter, our possessions, our wealth, our stability, our land, all the pieces of life we claim to be our own, are indeed, not our own. They belong to God. So too, the gifts made of God’s co-creators are not their own; so again, it is a matter of the heart--just like so many things are with Jesus. “For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.” If nothing else, this blogging exercise has taught me that so long as we are sharing our treasures (whatever they are to us) with those who are in need, our hearts, our loyalties, and our longings will be with those who are need. Today this seems to me a good and solid way to mimic our Redeemer and continue on the path of discipleship. I want to be a sheep. The sheep loved their creator and cared for those their creator cared for.

Comment

This is a guest posting, so to speak. The writer is a one of my best and childhood friends who currently lives in Switzerland (love takes us to crazy places), after having lived in Denver for a while where she worked at the Denver Rescue Mission. She is smart, thoughtful, and honest, albeit a bit technicologically challenged. ha. I added the photos, which will probably make her chuckle. Here goes:

 Lauren,

Greetings, friend. How are you?  I wanted to let you know that I've read your entire blog and just wanted to say I think it's a cool project. It'sinteresting that your struggle seems to be fighting the fear of seeming prideful, like you have all the answers and can outline how to save the world on your website. It doesn't come across like that AT ALL. It actually sounds really humble-- a real person, albeit privileged, struggling with figuring out what her (or anyone's) role might be in the poverty predicament. Props for pondering it. 

I don't even get out of the thinking about things stage (much less to the action phase) because I'm too afraid of seeming like a hypocrite, even if well-intentioned. I wouldn't have had the courage to set up a blog like yours because I would have thought I was a hypocrite and would have been afraid that other people would think the same. Oh, cool-- another rich white girl with a catalogue-perfect looking little family (all that's missing is the golden retriever) singing the woes of the world from her ivory tower. Like, oh my god. Isn't it like, so terrible that people are like starving? You know what I mean? It's like totally tragic, you know? Let's like have a bake sale or something for them or maybe we could like, package up our leftovers from PF Chang's and mail those poor kids some food.... I'm so afraid of being criticized or of doing something wrong or useless that I don't do ANYTHING. Now in my mind I know that Jesus would probably smile
more on someone who tried to do something and perhaps failed, or worse, did damage, than someone who sat in the wings and did nothing. So , I repeat, props to you for starting the dialogue. It's the necessary first step. Hopefully it will eventually lead to some action, which I would presume is the ultimate and eventual goal. 

My family proposes serving at a soup kitchen as a family Christmas activity every year and every year I poo poo it because I think it's indirectly arrogant. I feel like if we don't do it all year and if caring for the poor isn't a part of our daily lives, then it's almost insulting to waltz in there on Christmas so that we can feel good about ourselves. I fear that I will do more harm than good because I think the people being served can sense the volunteers' motives and I think it's demeaning and insulting to them. 

Question: Is a deed "good" (or bad) because of 1) its results  2) its motive 3) both or 4) neither? An example:  Let's say I'm a rich politician. In order to get elected, I decide to build a homeless shelter even though I don't give a rat's ass about the people-- only my election. As a result,
hundreds of people are off the streets and have a hot meal at night. So, it was with an impure motive, and therefore, kind of tainted, but the result is good. What are we to think about a situation like this? What's the alternative? Is there one? Or, consider giving politically-motivated aid to foreign countries.  Wrong motives, but at the end of the day the people have some rice in their bowls.   

In my life right now, I'm trying to find the balance between principle and reality. I want to be a person of principle. I want to base my actions upon them. I think I would prefer to sleep on the street rather than take dirty charity from some slimeball politician (I say that now as I write on my
$1000 computer in my warm dry apartment....) 

The problem of poverty seems so big and so complex and therefore overwhelmingly untouchable. The roots are hopelessly entangled and every seeming solution has a pitfall. I can not speak for everyone, nor do I think it is the solution for everyone, but given my interests, gifts, and personality, I'm coming to see my role in the poverty problem as bottom-up as opposed to top-down. I might mentor, or "adopt" one family in my little town and hopefully that will make a difference. I know there's a need for lobbyists, politicians, shiploads of foods sent to foreign places, etc., but I see my role on a smaller scale.  That's one. And two, what's I'm really into at the moment is a) the idea and role of "community" and 2) local economy. Very oversimplified, the problem of poverty could be seen as the result of the breakdown of the local community and therefore the first step (not cure-all) in alleviation of poverty would be in the restoration of
community. 

When you have a minute, you might be interested to consider some excerpts from a collection of essays called THE ART OF THE COMMONPLACE by KY writer Wendell Berry, whose thoughts have been hugely influential in my life over the last year. I'm sure I want to pursue social work, but I often fear spinning my wheels in the wrong direction--being more a part of the problem
than the solution. As the result of reading some of his thoughts, I feel more convinced than ever of my current project: to develop a community garden project with the goals of naturally, providing a source of healthy, organic food, but also providing a social gathering place where people (for example of a certain apartment complex) can meet and work with their neighbors, hopefully fostering integration of marginianalized (ex: elderly, refugees, poor...) people.

If I could allow myself the liberty of reducing Berr'y thoughts to the "gist",  I would put it like this: As I understand it, he believes that most of society's problems that keep cropping up in the headlines (racial tension, the environment, crime, poverty, etc.) stem from the industrialization, urbanization, and globalization of the world.  He says we've got to stop tinkering away at these problems piecemeal with government programs or well-meaning social aid organizations--it's like pouring water solely on the leaves of a plant instead of its roots.  Everything is connected. The environment affects the economy(not to mention health, happiness...)  If the economy is bad, there is usually more crime as people get more desperate. And on and on. 

Take a common headline for example: Crime. He looks at crime as the result of the breakdown of community. Before, people lived in small communities where everyone knew each other. For one, you're less likely to wrong your neighbor because you actually know him and also, you probably depend on him for some reason or another (he's the butcher, the baker, the candlestick
maker, etc.) and if you murder him or steal his cow, you won't have anything to eat yourself. Additionally, if you're up to no good, Aunt Lulu down the road is going to see you and tell your family and you'll be ashamed and held accountable. 

Nowadays, we live in highrise apartments where we know no one and no one knows us. It's psychologically much easier to steal when you're taking "that guy's" TV instead of "Ole Farmer Joe's" TV and even if you get caught, it's just something written in a folder in a filing cabinet-- you never have to face the people you wronged- never have to apologize or make amends. 

Same for environment. We're so mobile these days, flitting in and out of different towns that we never have to face the consequences of our actions on the local community. If my condo is built on the last green space in town, or if the local school isn't very good, who cares? When I get that promotion next month, me and hubby are moving to the next best suburb and they have better parks and nicer schools... Point being, when you are rooted somewhere, and when there is a local economy instead of chain stores and
restaurants, you are more likely to have relationships to your neighbors and are more likely to get politically and environmentally involved since whatever happens directly affects you and the future generations of your family. 

It sounds all hippy happy-go-lucky and simplistic, but it makes sense to me that a community naturally lends itself to taking care of its members and its surrounding environment much as the Acts church model. We shouldn't need social welfare programs if we had any decent communities.  So Joe Smith lost his job and is down on his luck.  People cook for hum, babysit his kids, lend him a car, etc. until he's back on his feet. He's thankful for their help and support and there isn't much danger that he will abuse or take
advantage of their help because they have a relationship and he knows that while their help is gladly given, it has its limits and he's expected to carry his own weight again.  Then he'll be the one helping the next guy who falls into the same situation. Now instead,  when Joe's getting someanonymous check in the mail every month, 1) what motivation does he have to look for a job? There's no embarrassment. He's not putting anybody out.
He'll keep drawing that check as long as it keeps coming. 2) What chance does he  have to get out of the welfare trap even if he wanted to? He can't make something out of nothing. He can't magically find the skills or motivation to do that if he doesn't have them to begin with-- He needs the example, push, and interdependence on his neighbors and family. 

So I guess that was more than the "gist." Got a little carried away there. The bottom line is that instead of trying to imagine the perfect cure-all for world poverty (or any of the other big problems of our time), we'd be far better off, and lots of the problems (like the environment or crime) would probably resolve themselves en suite, if we would work to reestablish a local economy (so that everyone has a job suitable to the environment in which he lives and isn't dependant on a fickle global market,) and foster a sense of community with those around us.  

Some of Berry's thoughts (hopefully still interesting even though they've been taken out of their original context):

(Religion) It has encouraged people to believe that the world is of no importance, and that their only obligation in it is to submit to certain churchly forumulas in order to get to Heaven.  And so the people who might have been expected to care most selflessly for the world have had their
minds turned elsewhere-to a pursuit of "salvation" that was really only another form of gluttony and self-love, the desire to perpetuate their lives beyond the life of the world.a man, while pursuing Heaven with the sublime appetite he thought of as his soul, could turn his heart against his neighbors and his hands against the world.  
----------------------
Once the revolution of exploitation is under way, statesmanship and craftsmanship are gradually replaced by salesmanship (the craft of persuading people to buy what they do not need, and do not want, for more than it is worth).  Its stock in trade in politics is to sell despotism and avarice as freedom and democracy.  In business it sells sham and frustration as luxury and satisfaction.  The constantly expanding market.is still expanding-no longer so much by expansions of territory or population, but by the calculated outdating, outmoding, and degradation of goods and by the
hysterical self-dissatisfaction of consumers that is indigenous to an expoitive economy. 

-------------------------

We do not have a working concept of economic justice.  We ae resigned to the poor principle that people earn what they earn by power, not by the quality or usefulness of their work.  Insurance executives, doctors, lawyers, mechanics, factory workers, and garbage collectors all earn in proportion to their power. People such as small farmers who have no power must resign
themselves to earning what they can get. 

In such a society our private economies will depend less and less upon the private owenership of real, usable property, and more and more upon property that is institutional and abstract, beyond individual control, such as money, insurane policies, CD's, stocks.And as our private economies become more abstract, the mutual, free helps and pleasures of family and community
life will be subplanted by a kind of displaced or placeless citizenship and by commerce with impersonal and self-interested suppliers.

Guess that ought to do it for now! If creating dialogue is you goal, then there's 5 pages of dialogue for you from someone who is equally concerned and equally lost as you!

PS-At time of writing, the last entry I had read is For Love of Jimmy. Just checked your site again. See now that you have Acts on there, and I saw the world "community" while I was skimming just now.  Great minds think alike! Will catch up on your blog now. Some of what I wrote may be redundant but it's cool we were on the same wavelength without knowing it

Last Minute Gift Idea

Those of you still pondering what to give mom for mother's day have a great option through Kiva. Kiva is a micro-lending website that allows you to designate an amount of your choosing and offer a loan to an individual in the developing world who needs assistance in an entrepreneurial endeavor. Tyler and I have helped a single mother with her chickens in Cambodia and a another woman begin a cell phone business in Nigeria (pictured above). It's cool. Once the recipient of the loan has repaid the amount, you can either choose to recollect your funds or circulate them back out to another business person.

The Mother's Day gift works by you giving a gift certificate to your mom for the prepaid amount. Then your mom gets to choose who and what to donate the money to. It's a really neat way to give a gift in a meaningful way. 

What was Jesus really saying?

How many of us have read, assumed, or heard sermons articulating that the poor widow who gave the two coins out of her poverty and gave everything she had in Mark 12:41-44  did so as a result of her piousness and loyalty to God? Perhaps we've also learned at one time or another that part of the temple system was about providing provisions to the poor. (Even though we see through Jesus' cleansing of it that the temple skimped on that duty quite a bit.) I've always read the passage about this widow as saying that her devotion to God was so intense, so holy, that she was willing to offer even the last bit of what she needed for her very survival.

On the contrary, our professor comes to teach at Fuller, here in California, by way of a church in upper Manhattan populated mostly by homeless and marginalized people. After doing a teaching on this passage about the widow's offering at his church one morning, an African American man approached him afterwards and said in reference to the poor widow something along the lines of, "That bitch is gettin' ripped off." 

Wow! What a contrast. Maybe Jesus wasn't really praising her after all, but instead he was critiquing a system that was full of flaws and systemic evil. He had just finished talking to the scribes in the prior verses about their hypocrisy. Also, the temple money system worked by people giving money/alms to the temple which the temple authorities were then supposed to give to the people in the community who were in need. Unfortunately, it didn't quite work this well. So that, the leaders of the temple, i.e. the Scribes and Pharisees, were outwardly religious and pious, but inwardly straying from God's original commands as set forth in the law. 

In this way, her generosity toward an institution that is meant to provide for her but instead maligns her is not only foolish, but lamented by Jesus. This is a text that introduces us to new questions about what it means to be poor in the first century world and likewise, what it means to be poor today. The nuance in the text that is to be uncovered by Jesus' sentiments towards her when compared to her fellow patriots, who give out of their abundance, is the misfortune that she is forced, by her very devotion to God, to participate in a system that promotes injustice tempered with a (false?) promise of spiritual blessing for giving all that she has to share. 

There is so much that we miss in our white, educated, suburban worlds? How, then, does this messianic lamentation speak truth into our ecclesial structures and the systemic injustices they may or may not promote today?

(Oh man, I've never even thought about the widow being a young, single mother...that adds entirely new, deeper dimensions to the issue! It's actually made me tear up a little.)

Come on People (myself in included)

Acts 2:42-47

They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. Awe came upon everyone, because many wonders and signs were being done by the apostles. All who were believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their possession and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need. Day by day, as they spent much time together in the temple, they broke bread at home and ate their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having the goodwill of all the people. And day by day the Lord added to their number those who were being saved.

We just finished class and a hearty discussion about this text. 

The question was posed, "How is this and similar texts presented in our churches? What are our experiences with such New Testament idea(l)s?" Is it an ideal? Many historical critics and NT scholars in general are presuming that when Luke wrote this to old Theophilus that it was an ideal he was adapting or borrowing (?) from different, nonScriptural sources. Plato said that an ideal society exists when the philosopher calls nothing his own, or something like that. Yet, even before class I would have disagreed with this assessment. It sure seems like a theological and ethical cop-out if I've ever heard one. 

Or how 'bout this one? On the other extreme it presents a picture of the first community church that had their members on an entirely equal economic ground. Everyone is called to be the rich young ruler and sell everything for everyone else. Sort of a forced poverty, but not really, because everyone is sharing with everyone else. Maybe I'm just thinking of Shane and his monastics again. (Have you noticed I have a bit of a beef with them, albeit a bit unjustly I admit--don't even ask my community group how I really feel. ha. Did he talk about this during his "speaking of faith" interview with Krista Tippett?) In medieval church history it certainly was left to the monks and nuns living in monasteries who were the only ones called to live this ideal through their vow to poverty and communal dwelling. --Too bad that all fell apart when the monasteries started acquiring land and tax payments, and alas, mass amounts of wealth...and, yep, you guessed it, corruption.

Then again, maybe this perfect idea of economic equality isn't so far from the truth for Luke. The Essenes migrated away from Jerusalem city politics that were surrounding the temple while they were waiting on the arrival of the Messiah by moving out to the dessert. The Dead Sea Scrolls are often attributed to this people group; I'm inclined to agree. The community scroll describes how they shared everything and lived together. Even first-century historian, Josephus wrote of this desert-dwelling cadre, "You will no where see abject poverty or inordinate wealth [among them]" (Jewish Wars, 2.122). This historical data seems to contradict the NT scholars who argue against any literal interpretation regarding shared resources and a common purse.  

Then again, if Luke is telling the truth and these people shared all material goods, this presents a pretty intense way to live. There is a reason the rich young ruler left his meeting with Jesus greatly grieved by the prospect of selling it all. eek. Yet, we also see lots of Scriptural examples where people didn't have to give EVERYTHING: Zacchaeus, Cornelius, Dorcas (I'd be happy to give references if anyone cares to have them) all gave portions. Regardless of the command to give it all, or give a little, or give a lot, the point is, GIVE GIVE GIVE. These freshly gathered, Holy-Spirit-holding, communal commoners knew well their mission once Peter finished the sermon. They were to embody the Kingdom of God that had been shown to them in and through Christ Jesus; they were to care for the poor as part of that mission. Again, it's all about DOING kingdom work rather than believing in a kingdom creed. 

I remember growing up and jealously reading this passage from Acts as a teenager wondering what kind of power must have been with these people that the Lord was adding to their numbers DAILY those who were being saved when I was working so hard to live the "Christian life" in high school. I couldn't understand why none of my classmates cared about God's message for them. But I was missing the whole point. It's not about the number of people that were assured of a place in heaven when they died that Luke used the word "saved." (Actually, I think probably most people in my high school class cared quite a bit about God.)

Instead, doing church in this way, in this way of equality and caring for, as Matthew called it (in chapter 25), the "least of these", doing church in this way is most assuredly going to continue bringing in people to the community, especially the people who are in need! duh! (Not that all of my attempts to be contagious and holy in high school were in vain, that's not my point.) My point is, that God was adding to their numbers daily because the disciples and people were doing work that needed to be done and work that no one else was doing. And of course it says they're being saved--saved from destitution, hunger, injustice, general marginalization and strife! It's so clear, and so much easier to do church in this way instead of in a way that promotes rigid belief and such misunderstanding. It makes me feel sad that such a life-changing message has been so corrupted by all of us, by all of us, I mean humanity.

When I'm a pastor, come to my church b/c I've got this whole way of being church figured out. It's really not that hard. (--I am going to invent a key on all keyboards that people can use when they want to convey sarcasm in their typed thoughts.)

My parents and their good friends have recently begun a new church centered on acts of service. Their motto, not that they have it all figured out either, is, "Love God, Love People, Bless the World." Every time I say it, it prompts an emotional response in me. Surely God's heart is also swelling with satisfaction and celebration, that even after a few short months of meeting together their numbers are truly growing daily with those who are being saved because their focus is on doing kingdom work. They deliver groceries, clean apartments on the brink of being condemned, rescue single mothers from loosing their children as a result of no household furniture, and the list goes on. 

"...All who believed were together and had all things in common..." 

As a class member today said, this sort of faithful living "sells itself." And who was it that said "faith without works..." You know the rest, but that's for another post.

I can't end without noting that together they broke bread, ate with generous hearts, praised God and had goodwill toward all people. I think it no coincidence that when we are truly serving others we cannot help but to love them as Christ does and overflow with wishings of goodwill for them.

For the Love of Jimmy

Before I can remember, my family has not been shy about our near obsession with President and Mrs. Carter. (So you're going to have to forgive my assumption that the entire world also thinks everything the man writes is genius!) My grandparents proudly display a photo of themselves with Rosalynn and Jimmy on the front porch of Maranatha Baptist Church, Plains, GA in their family room. My mother has been drafting a personal letter to him for over three years now in an attempt to share her admiration and his positive influence in our lives. She just can't seem to fully convey all that's there...so I think it's been laying dormant on her computer for a while. And well, let's be honest, while Tyler and I were dating, I gave him a Jimmy Carter bobblehead. The exhilaration with which he received the gift was added confirmation that surely our marriage was meant to be. (Here is a picture in case you don't believe me.) Jimmy watches our goings-on from the bookshelf in our living room. And well, we named our first born son after him, Jude Carter Mayfield. We like the Carters. When we met him at a book signing at Vroman's here in Pasadena last year, as he hurriedly signed my book and the publishers literally pushed me out of the way I said, "You're awesome!" He looked up and smiled.

Most of the information in that paragraph was useless to the overall point of this post; I just want you to know that we really admire their work both in and beyond the White House. I mean, he's eradicated diseases! Enough you say, on with it. Well, in his book (no, not the controversial Palestinian one), the I'm-the-smartest-man-ever-so-let-me-tell-you-how-to-change-the-world-from-my-perfect-perspective-one, Our Endangered Values: America's Moral Crisis, he closes with a chapter that underscores the most severe crisis to yet hit all of us: poverty. More specifically, Carter warns, "With little doubt, the greatest challenge we face is the growing chasm between the rich and poor people on the earth." 

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantees that all persons deserve a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of themselves and their families. Carter writes in the book, "In my speech at the beginning of the new millennium, I outlined a few proposals for meeting this standard [no big deal, right, wait, it gets better], including increased development assistance with fewer strings, forgiveness of foreign debts of the poorest nations, seeking peaceful solutions when there are known threats to peace, getting to know the poor, giving people authority and responsibility over their own affairs, enhancing cooperations among donors, and recognizing the inevitable impact of abject poverty on human rights, violence, and susceptibility to recruitment for violent acts."

Here's the kicker statement, "Our Center's programs have shown that with wise use of even limited resources, extremely poor people demonstrate remarkable intelligence, innovation, and effectiveness." A few pages later he concludes that when rich people grant impoverished people the chance to respond to their lack of resources and poor condition, they improve their lives. That's for all you skeptics out there thinking that poverty is the mere result of laziness or greed.

One glaring element that is contributing to this disparaging assessment about the rich-poor divide is the fact that so few rich do not even know the name of a single poor person. While we all may not be called to establish an organization like Habitat for Humanity in order to heal this unsightly wound, surely we can stick a much needed band-aid on it by shaking hands with the next person we see who is in need, right? Review with me a few verbs Carter used in his surgical procedure --oops, I mean proposal from the quote above: 

1) increase assistance

2) forgive

3) seek peace

4) get to know 

5) give authority and responsibility

6) enhance

7) recognize

Is it just me, or is this solution based on one heck of a definition of what it means to be poor!? It seems he's really viewing poverty as a result of basic human rights violations. And this, my friends, is a huge infringement on social justice. From here, Carter cracks down on our present White House administration, which may dismay a few of you, but when confronted with the startling LOW figures in America's foreign aide budget, one can't help but note our lack of generosity as a nation. It's a problem, folks. On a national level, Carter doesn't let Bush and his posse of the hook either. Enumerating just how many decisions have been made, bills passed, and dollars lobbied on behalf of the wealthy, the chapter becomes difficult to finish. But he ends strong.

"We [America] should be seen as the unswerving champion of freedom and human rights, both among our own citizens and within the global community. America should be the focal point around which other nations of all kinds could marshal to combat threats to security and to enhance the quality of our common environment. We should be in the forefront of providing humane assistance to people in need, willing to lead other industrialized nations in sharing some of our great wealth with those who are destitute...There would be no real sacrifice in exemplifying these traits. Instead, our own well-being would be enhance by restoring the trust, admiration, and friendship that our nation formerly enjoyed among other peoples. At the same time, all Americans could be united at home in a common commitment to revive and nourish the religious faith and historic political and moral values that we have espoused and for which we have struggled during the past 230 years."

I couldn't have said it better myself. In fact, I'm not nearly this patriotic, nor do I care to be. But one thing is certain, the path our country is now walking does not seem centered enough on generosity, forgiveness, or peace. I have to claim security then, not in my American heritage, but in another kingdom that surpasses even the potential goodness of America. A kingdom to which Jimmy, too, first claims allegiance. (The End.)

Sondra Wheeler Writes,

"Bluntly put, there must be some idea that a commitment to Christ might take the form of being called upon to do something concrete and distinctive, rather than (for example) simply to believe something, or to live a conventionally decent life. Without the idea of a call to be obeyed, poverty cannot be of instrumental value, as welath cannot serve as a practical obstacle...The text can (and does) operate in this way in the present time across a great diversity of circumstances for those who understand their situation as one of sacrifices made for the gospel. What is crucial is the self-understanding of the community."

With no agenda or rhetorical finesse, I sincerely ask in response, is this self-communal-awareness possible in an American suburb? or in an American suburban church?

Blessed are the Poor, Damned are the Rich

Jesus began his Sermon on the Mount with an audacious statement, "Blessed are the poor, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." I like Luke's version better. Matthew waters it down a bit in my opinion when he says, "poor in spirit." Speculation thinks Matthew may have been writing to a more middle-class Jewish audience who was currently in the midst of their divorce from the synagogue, or in the early stages of grief and recovery following the divorce. Where as, Luke is in touch with his poverty-stricken brothers and sisters a bit more and already finished with life in the synagogue. Luke, feeling a bit more free in what he can and cannot say, chops off "poor in spirit," and also truncates Matthew's desire to keep this beatitude more focused on attitude and posture. Luke's spirituality, then, seems to veer down a different path than Matthew's right from the get-go.

Oddly enough, then, Matthew doesn't shy away from the story of the rich young ruler which is fully disclosed in chapter 19. "if you wish to be perfect," so reads the NRSV, "go, sell you possessions, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me." yikes. This pericope is present in all the synoptics. double yikes. Mark 10's reading of the rich young ruler highlights ongoing structural and social sin going on the culture. So we see Jesus loving the rich young ruler more fully and the young man greatly grieved at what he has been challenged to do. Does this show a great divide between the haves and the have nots of Jesus' days in Palestine? Did the rich young ruler acquire his possessions and stature by exploiting others, cheating people in the market place, or not offering full health benefits to his employees? 

This seems to make sense with my reading of the text right now, and I'm also following West's ideas in his book, "The Academy of the Poor" which is listed on the right hand column of the blog. Until the young man makes restitution for his earnings and success, in other words, his contributions toward the social and structural sins of his society, he cannot earn enough merit to store any of his treasures in heaven. He was missing the entire point of the law.

So too, don't we miss the entire point of the beatitude when Jesus said, "blessed are the poor?" I don't think he meant blessed are you when you live on student loans, have only a mediocre paying job, or just generally don't feel vibrant and enthusiastic about life these days. Albeit, I think we are all stilled blessed, but the point I'm making is that the poor, and well, those darn camels going through the needle eye too, have an easier time getting into heaven than the rich because God's heart is with them. God loves societal outcasts. Jesus' attention and ministry was repeatedly to those who were lacking stature, monetary comforts, and the disenfranchised (women, children, and immigrants). And with those qualifications, I don't think any of us reading this blog qualify as poor. So, again, blessed are the losers, the societal outcasts, (dare I say it, the illegal Mexican immigrants) because God loves and cares for them because they need God and they need access to more resources for better quality in living. The rich young ruler, not so much. He just wanted to be sure to get a golden ticket into paradise. Too bad God never had a chocolate bar ticket voucher campaign. 

When will we be more willing to admit that our practices contribute to structural sins in society? (I don't even like the word sin much anymore, but there doesn't seem to be an adequate synonym for it in this context.) Better yet, will we ever be willing to sell the aspects of our lifestyles that on a daily basis, depending on how honest we're really being, contribute to social and structural sins that degrade, exploit, and hurt those that God works to save? No wonder the ruler left grieving. Following Jesus is not for pansies.

Am I wrong?   

 

The 11th Hour

This is a trailer for the film, The 11th Hour, which was released sometime in late 2007. Did anyone see it? Granted, the writing behind it is a bit cheesy at points, but the message 

is clear. It's narrated by Leonardo DiCaprio and speaks to the environmental horrors that are left in the wake of our environmental and cultural footprints. However, I want to see this film because it looks like it speaks well to the idea of our need for new and creative design in all aspects. We need new technologies to save us from dependence on oil, over consumption 

of all natural resources, among other travesties. What is more, the film addresses the possible 

massive quantities of environmental refugees the world can expect to encounter if we do not 

begin changing our ways and living less excessively. Again, I think good design can help us see 

this more clearly, along with films such as this. If we are going to completely change this world,

and I would like to argue, save this world, like the film claims our generation has the power to do, 

first we need to acknowledge and embrace all of the issues that are currently at stake, and then 

we need to begin accepting all of the new designs that will enable us to either heal the damage 

or begin treading along new and uncharted paths of responsible living (read: caring more for 

others and consuming less junk in the meantime).



I'm still trying to figure my way around this website, but it looks fascinating. It's about

normal and professional designers working together to create dialgue about how and why

we should call upon design to begin changing the world for the better.

Developing Nations Skipping Modernity?--Rant #2

A fascinating comment made by one of my favorite professors in a class a few quarters back was on the nature of the third world and their apparent cursory regard for the modern era (the Enlightenment up through the mid-twentieth century?). Did Indonesia skip the onset of rantionalism, and India the quest for absolute Truth? I'm not claiming this happened fully and completely, but it is curious that teenage shepherd boys isolated in the middle of a Bengali field are often carrying cell phones. Regardless of whether or not the signal is alive and working, the fact of the matter remains, new businesses are emerging throughout developing countries that insinuate there is a growing use of technology that is providing many the opportunity to work and earn a living.

This article published in the NY Times a few days ago highlights such a concept. It discusses Jan Chipchases' job as a marketing researcher for Nokia, a Finnish cell phone company. He travels the world taking pictures of where and how people are using their phones. Consider this bit from the article: 

Last summer, Chipchase sat through a monsoon-season downpour inside the one-room home of a shoe salesman and his family, who live in the sprawling Dharavi slum of Mumbai. Using an interpreter who spoke Tamil, he quizzed them about the food they ate, the money they had, where they got their water and their power and whom they kept in touch with and why. He was particularly interested in the fact that the family owned a cellphone, purchased several months earlier so that the father, who made the equivalent of $88 a month, could run errands more efficiently for his boss at the shoe shop. The father also occasionally called his wife, ringing her at a pay phone that sat 15 yards from their house. Chipchase noted that not only did the father carry his phone inside a plastic bag to keep it safe in the pummeling seasonal rains but that they also had to hang their belongings on the wall in part because of a lack of floor space and to protect them from the monsoon water and raw sewage that sometimes got tracked inside. He took some 800 photographs of the salesman and his family over about eight hours and later, back at his hotel, dumped them all onto a hard drive for use back inside the corporate mother ship. Maybe the family’s next cellphone, he mused, should have some sort of hook as an accessory so it, like everything else in the home, could be suspended above the floor.

How intriguing is this? I love design and I especially love to celebrate it. I am beginning to think it is an essential part of unearthing enough stamina to continue living joyfully in such a degraded and haphazard world sometimes. God called us to be co-creators. But when is the line crossed that demarcates creating useful products to help ease the hardship of life verses selling more crap to people who cant' afford new crap by making them think that they need new crap in order to live a less crap-filled existance? Not that people in Mumbai live crappy lives, that's not the point. The point is, does this guy really need a phone that hangs on a hook? If so, by all means I want to be the first to praise Nokia for their anthropolgical astuteness and willingness to go to the corners of the earth to help ease the trouble of poverty. But, pardon my skepticism, I just don't think that's their goal. So what is to be done then? 

Because I do think it's cool that this is creating business ventures and other opportunities for "success" outside of any materialism it may or may not be promoting.  The article reports that 80% of the world's population lives within cellphone range, and 68% of worldwide cellphone subscriptions are in the developing world. 

“You don’t even need to own a cellphone to benefit from one,” says Paul Polak, author of “Out of Poverty: What Works When Traditional Approaches Fail” and former president of International Development Enterprises, a nonprofit company specializing in training and technology for small-plot farmers in developing countries. Part of I.D.E.’s work included setting up farm cooperatives in Nepal, where farmers would bring their vegetables to a local person with a mobile phone, who then acted as a commissioned sales agent, using the phone to check market prices and arranging for the most profitable sale. “People making a dollar a day can’t afford a cellphone, but if they start making more profit in their farming, you can bet they’ll buy a phone as a next step,” Polak says.

So this highlights a different point. Technology designed to boost our convenience levels in life can actually be life-saving devices for people who need more efficient ways to acquire knowledge and information in other places on our planet. So if this is the end result of Nokia and other companies--more power to 'em! This can serve as a great example of business truly helping consumer, and of that, I am a fan.

Here's an example to finish the post.  

A “just in time” moment afforded by a cellphone looks a lot different to a mother in Uganda who needs to carry a child with malaria three hours to visit the nearest doctor but who would like to know first whether that doctor is even in town. It looks different, too, to the rural Ugandan doctor who, faced with an emergency, is able to request information via text message from a hospital in Kampala.

Go here to donate your old cell phone(s). If it doesn't work anymore, they will donate a cash equivalent to the phone's current value. Cool!

Dabbling and Babbling

"Forgive me father for I have sinned..."

Well, maybe not really, but I do have a confession. Each time I begin a post for this weblog I can't help but feel a bit queasy just before hitting the "publish post" icon. The little devil on my should raises his pitchfork in triumph shouting, "You are working really hard here to make everyone think you know what you're talking about. You sure are painting a big picture like you care about all this." Then the voice gets a little sarcastic, "You even think you're doing your part now, caring for the poor and all on your blog." Then the little halo-ringed character opposes from across my neck, and while I won't continue the mock conversation, lest you think I've really flipped my schizophrenic lid, I will say I disagree with the little red man on this one. 

While my contact with the poor right now is limited, which is something that honestly keeps me awake at night as I try to figure out how to let that change, my intentions here are not a result of me thinking I've got the problems of global hunger or absolute poverty solved, or that I even understand all of them. That's why I am taking a class exploring what Jesus has to say about all of this. In fact, in the short time I've been posting here, God is transforming me from the inside out on the issue. I'm understanding better the historical implications behind poverty in the first century, along with political implications surrounding poverty in the twenty-first century. And surprisingly, the causes aren't all that different, but that's an entirely different conversation and beside the point. My point, then, is that if you're feeling a bit reticent as well to click that "publish comment" icon at the bottom of the page, I challenge you to go ahead and share yourself a bit. I invite you to contribute to this conversation. I find that's how I learn best these days, anyway. Know that I will work to continue to keep posting as well, espcially on the days I remember to take my psychotropic drugs, only kidding. 

And with that, my sins of arrogance and fear have been absolved. (Since I'm feeling a connection with my Catholic brothers and sisters today, I think I'll still do a few hail mary's nonetheless. Blame it on the nearness of the pope.)

Religion--An Opium for the People?

There is a new website in the cyber world  that once discovered leaves little time for other daily chores as a result of its highly addictive content and presentation. Consider that a warning, especially if contemporary forms of spirituality peak your interest. Dear God is an interdenominational, interreligious, already global site dedicated to God's people who wish to share needs, confessions, and desires in an online prayer format. It's amazing! Plus, the art associated with each prayer, which can be addressed to any diety (one prayer calls upon Oprah for help), can induce worship in and of itself; the images are beautiful. The prayer accompanying this one is moving:

Dear God,

Every feast of the Nazarene in a place here called Quiapo, thousands of people trample each other just to touch the statue of you being paraded outside the church thinking it will bring them luck or cure their ailments. Many do die in this event. During holy week they flagellate and crucify themselves to atone for their sins.People flock to masses when the lottery hits the high marks, praying for signs of what the winning combination will be. In this country where most people live below the poverty line, most people turn to you during their suffering. So much so that they do nothing for themselves and solely depend on you.

I don’t blame you God. But I wonder why you created religion when it just serves as an opium of the people and as a vehicle for violence?

Karen, Philippines

What do you think about her final question in the prayer? Based on reading almost every posting on the site, it seems like it is quite easy for us (I use that term in the most collective sense possiblt) to blur the line demarcating that which God creates and that which comes from humanity's hands. As a whole, I would lump poverty and homelessness into this fuzzy category of confusion.