Bread for the World

This is good!

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.

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

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?   

 

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!

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.

Skid Row

These videos on LA's Major Homeless District speak for themselves. I will post a few of them. One thing they do highlight is the importance of your working definition of poverty. It does not seem to me that arresting those who urinate in public or those who are intoxicated is going to fix this probelm of LA's 40,000 homeless! Perhaps our city officials need a new working definition. Better yet, why don't we begin addressing the problem of the wealthy who live only blocks away?

Video I. Introduction/Health

Video 2. Kids/Education

Video 5. Afterward: "embrace them, include them"

(Video 3. Culture/Drugs and Video 4. God)

Poverty Porn

Caution--I am passionate about this! One of my really good friends, Holly, and I have been talking quite a bit the past few days about the objectification of the poor, especially those in the developing world, especially those in Africa, especially the children. She coined a term that I am adopting and incorporating into my vocabulary in reference to this issue--poverty porn! 

I mean, where do we find permission either in our affluence or religion to travel to those "poor places" and "love" everyone out of their poverty? You know what I'm talking about, we all hear about Somalian refugees, or we see commercials on tv that make us feel guilty, or we run across the occasional movie trailer on the Internet for a non-prof that is doing "special work" that we all need to know about. And instead of sharing the goodness of their work or the need that is present or recruiting volunteers on a factual level, instead people are objectified, children are portrayed void of human contact making them look like caged zoo animals, and the casual observer is left to mourn the atrocity of the human condition alone with no outlet to grieve properly. It is all about emotion, desperation, and guilt. Maybe, that's a bit extreme, but you get the point.

Now, hear me out. I want you to read this as less of an accusation and more of a question...

(And I'm not including in this post those organizations and non-profits that do a GREAT job of communicating such difficult news and needs without the objectification factor.)

What are appropriate ways to relay the direness of the developing world's message of need and appropriate assistance from first world citizens? Surely we can do better at preserving the worth of the individual who is in need.  Would it not be better to recruit volunteers and financial offerings from a sense of urgency and a willingness to contribute to the growth of humanity rather than from a sense of guilt or shame? Is it fair to even try to separate the two? Again, how can this best be done, and who is already doing it well? I just don't think Jesus was about the business of making us feel bad about ourselves for doing wrong or neglecting important matters. He was more interested in the problem itself, right? Please, I invite you to share your insights.

The image is a portrayal of guilt. It makes me ask the question, maybe we all need a little bit of guilt in order to help us get off our rumps and up working for some justice. Then again, let's not confuse guilt with conviction and the motivating force behind each of those emotions. Finally, maybe I'm just a bit too emotional for my own good and the only one who feels this way...am I overreacting?

--Maybe a better title for this post is Rant #1!

It's All in the Definition

We spent a bulk of our initial class meeting discovering the importance of a good and working definition of poverty. What, really, does it mean to live in poverty? Our definitions shape what we think to be the causes of poverty, and consequently, how it can be resolved. 

Consider with me the World Bank's definition published in the 1990's. They said that a person is living in poverty if they live on less than $1 per day. An individual is moderately poor if they live on less than $2 per day. That means more than 3.6 billion people in the world today fall within these parameters. Since their definition is purely economic, guess what causes poverty? Yep, not having enough money. (duh.) What is the solution then? Their website says it best, "[the world bank's] primary focus is on helping the poorest people and the poorest countries. It uses its financial resources, its staff, and extensive experience to help developing countries, reduce poverty, increase economic growth, and improve their quality of life." Yet, isn't it more than a lack of funds? Doesn't this negate major issues like colonialism, corrupt governments, evil corporations, to name just a few?

We then briefly examined the World Summit's leading definition as it was put forth in the early 21st century. Moving beyond economic limitations, the new definition focuses on severe deprivation in a myriad of categories: education, health care, food supply, knowledge sources, shelter, water, sanitation facilities, etc. These additional vulnerabilities seem to more fully encapsulate the plight of what it means to be poor. Clearly the poor in developing countries and those who are impoverished in our own country are major victims of human rights violations. 

Therefore, to see poverty as the result of a lack of social justice throughout the entire world certainly complicates the ways in which it can be resolved. Under this scope, monetary goods and financial donations simply won't correct all that needs fixing. 

What is more, let's throw in the spiritual component. Not only do we need to start responding to this lack of human rights because it makes sense to do this as able, wealthy, caring Westerners, and because its resolution is going to require more than just writing a few checks every now and then, but shouldn't we be responding because it's the right thing to do? 

Why? Why is caring for the poor right? Because Jesus cared for the poor? Why? Because God cares for the poor. Why? Because God creates people in God's likeness. God created humankind and saw that it was very good. Therefore, all humans, rich or poor, have intrinsic value and worth by the mere fact/miracle that we are God's children created in God's likeness! To deny people of this truth in their livelihood excuses us from the Kingdom of God. yikes.

So let's together embrace our need to care for the poor on micro and macro levels, for this is where God resides, among the people who need God most--the absolutely poor. And let us not shy away from a definition that encompasses all of the varying causes of world poverty. We need to directly face all that it will require to resolve such a monstrous issue and join in where God is leading us to participate.