Growing up, the deacons were the men who collected offering, made decisions at church, and handled various other administrative and leadership issues. In the Bible, these types of functions are arguably for the office of elder, an entirely different position largely absent in the modern church. What is very clear is the origin of the deacons, presented in Acts 6:1-7.
Before the clash between gentile believers and jewish converts to christianity, there was a conflict between more traditional Jews (Hebraic) and Jews that had been assimilated into gentile culture (commonly called Hellenistic or Grecian). Acts 2 & 4 discuss how the Church was looking out for its own, selling property even to ensure that everyone had enough food. Like any organization, an increase in size complicated the task of managing and satisfying all the new Christians. In Acts 6, we find out that Grecian Jews perceived that their widows were being overlooked in favor of the Hebraic Jews.
The 12 apostles, the leaders of the church, could no longer lead in every area. So they chose 7 brothers, wise men full of the spirit, to ensure that all the poor Christians were given care. Paul later uses the greek word "Diakonos" to describe this office. The definition, as I perceive it, does not imply any administrative leadership-- in fact, the word normally referred not only to being in service, but being the servant or attendant of a king or master.
Four Implications of this knowledge:
1) The Church must ensure that it carries out the "Diakonos" ministry. Do I really care if your church doesn't have elders, and deacons are what the leaders are called, if you have those who ensure that others are cared for? No. I don't see why you would follow the Biblical model, but then complicate things with different names, but hey, no church has 100% knowledge of the will of God for church structure and cannot operate in a state of perfection.
2) In several places in the NT, Paul spells out the requirements for deacons. These include: sincerity, well-respected, having his household in order, etc... see 1 Timothy 3. We must hold to that standard.
3) We must take this ministry seriously. I do not view it as a low position, in spite of the apostles seemingly not wanting to waste time to "wait tables." This was just to show the importance of their dedication to the "ministry of the word." The apostles show how much they value this service when they select men of good reputation. Furthermore, two of the men chosen, Stephen and Philip, go in the next chapters of the book to be martyred and to be sent on a missionary journey, respectively.
4) While they are not administrative leaders, there is a spiritual component to the ministry of distributing food. The passage highlights that the church grew, not that no one went hungry. As just written, two of the men went on to be a martyr and a missionary. I will talk about this concept more in the next post, on "spiritual poverty."
This is one of my favorite passages in the Bible and this is just a condensed version of my thoughts, both composed and uncomposed, on it. I must give thanks to Ed Silvoso and his book Anointed for Business as it led me to study this passage in detail and he illuminated several great truths.
SJ in the OT- Pt b - The 10 Commandments
Be sure to read Part a first.
5. Honor your mother and father. The first relationship anyone (should at least) has is with their parent(s). How that goes, what you learn there, will likely affect future relationships. There is a double-responsibility, moms and dads certainly have an effect. But in general, I would expect to see a correlation between the way someone treats their parents and the way they treat others. Generosity can be taught and nurtured first in this relationship.
6. Don't murder. Besides the obvious, you can dig and see people who suffer violence, even death, from social injustices: dictators sending out death squads, corporations that have destroyed the homes of the poor who live in the wrong area, etc... Also, remember that Jesus called our anger murder. If you live with an attitude of anger towards a group of people, you cannot be reconciled with them, or help them, until that anger dissipates.
7. Do not commit adultery. In biblical times, adultery was usually the product of male behavior. A woman might commit adultery, but probably at advances begun by the male adulterer (David and Bathsheba). This highlights the unequal positions held by men and women in society, especially in the area of sex. This goes on today, not just with shamefully high rape statistics in the US, but even men raping their wives in other countries.
Another, more controversial pt: adultery, especially when defined as sex outside marriage, is what proliferates AIDS, for the most part. Many children die under 5 years of age without ever making the decision to have unsafe/unprotected sex. I'm not holding African adults to a higher standard than adults in the US, but unfortunately, other factors like malnutrition and the high levels of the disease make sex outside marriage an especially dangerous and potentially unjust practice for adults in AIDS-ridden areas.
8. Don't steal. Probably the most applicable to the macro-causes of poverty, the social injustices cited by protestors: corporate greed; unfair trade practices; unequal schools; etc... I like to keep a certain distinction in mind, as a pro-capitalism, anti-rich/poor gap person: Wealth can be created, but money cannot. With technology, efficiency, business, we can create wealth on a macro-level. But a dollar bill cannot reproduce itself. If I have one dollar bill right now and want two, I must take it from someone else.
9. Do not bear false witness. Could've said lie, but it was put in courtroom terms. Makes me think of an unequal justice system (20 years in prison for armed robbery of a 7-11, fines for an executive who squanders the retirement of 10,000 people; the difference in prosecution of crack criminals vs. cocaine criminals).
Also brings to mind Jesus saying to remove the plank from your eye before removing the speck from your brother's eye. Sure, a poor person might have some control over their position. But hey, who squanders more, them or the middle class family that buys a mountain house as soon as they finish paying off their own mortgage? A) save up for the luxuries, don't get a loan. B) i'm not saying it's wrong to have a mountain home, but i'm also not saying it's wrong for a less affluent person to wear $100 sneakers. Seems about the same to me
10. Do not covet. Consumerism. Keeping up with the Joneses. The NY Times recently had an article on millionaires in Silicon Valley who feel impoverished. Mr Steger, who has a net worth of a mere $3.5 million, says "a few million doesn’t go as far as it used to..." Others add: "Here, the top 1 percent chases the top one-tenth of 1 percent, and the top one-tenth of 1 percent chases the top one-one-hundredth of 1 percent... You try not to get caught up in it, but it’s hard not to” and “We’re in such a rarefied environment, people here lose perspective on what the rest of the world looks like.” Do not make the mistake of thinking it is only millionaires that get caught up in this. I'll look in the mirror for exhibit A.
When I first went to middle school I had some really dorky clothes. I got made fun of a bit. So I went out and got all new clothes. Over time, I developed an attitude that you had to be wearing name brand clothing or people would think less of you. It's embarrasing to think I could ever be so stupid, vain or naive. But yea, that led to some not so positive thoughts about myself and others, some wasted money, and a refreshing rush of freedom when I finally broke out of that.
The Ten Commandments have impacted societal morality for over 3000 years. They are from a different historical context, and many do not share the same precepts. But let's not throw them out completely. Or at all.
5. Honor your mother and father. The first relationship anyone (should at least) has is with their parent(s). How that goes, what you learn there, will likely affect future relationships. There is a double-responsibility, moms and dads certainly have an effect. But in general, I would expect to see a correlation between the way someone treats their parents and the way they treat others. Generosity can be taught and nurtured first in this relationship.
6. Don't murder. Besides the obvious, you can dig and see people who suffer violence, even death, from social injustices: dictators sending out death squads, corporations that have destroyed the homes of the poor who live in the wrong area, etc... Also, remember that Jesus called our anger murder. If you live with an attitude of anger towards a group of people, you cannot be reconciled with them, or help them, until that anger dissipates.
7. Do not commit adultery. In biblical times, adultery was usually the product of male behavior. A woman might commit adultery, but probably at advances begun by the male adulterer (David and Bathsheba). This highlights the unequal positions held by men and women in society, especially in the area of sex. This goes on today, not just with shamefully high rape statistics in the US, but even men raping their wives in other countries.
Another, more controversial pt: adultery, especially when defined as sex outside marriage, is what proliferates AIDS, for the most part. Many children die under 5 years of age without ever making the decision to have unsafe/unprotected sex. I'm not holding African adults to a higher standard than adults in the US, but unfortunately, other factors like malnutrition and the high levels of the disease make sex outside marriage an especially dangerous and potentially unjust practice for adults in AIDS-ridden areas.
8. Don't steal. Probably the most applicable to the macro-causes of poverty, the social injustices cited by protestors: corporate greed; unfair trade practices; unequal schools; etc... I like to keep a certain distinction in mind, as a pro-capitalism, anti-rich/poor gap person: Wealth can be created, but money cannot. With technology, efficiency, business, we can create wealth on a macro-level. But a dollar bill cannot reproduce itself. If I have one dollar bill right now and want two, I must take it from someone else.
9. Do not bear false witness. Could've said lie, but it was put in courtroom terms. Makes me think of an unequal justice system (20 years in prison for armed robbery of a 7-11, fines for an executive who squanders the retirement of 10,000 people; the difference in prosecution of crack criminals vs. cocaine criminals).
Also brings to mind Jesus saying to remove the plank from your eye before removing the speck from your brother's eye. Sure, a poor person might have some control over their position. But hey, who squanders more, them or the middle class family that buys a mountain house as soon as they finish paying off their own mortgage? A) save up for the luxuries, don't get a loan. B) i'm not saying it's wrong to have a mountain home, but i'm also not saying it's wrong for a less affluent person to wear $100 sneakers. Seems about the same to me
10. Do not covet. Consumerism. Keeping up with the Joneses. The NY Times recently had an article on millionaires in Silicon Valley who feel impoverished. Mr Steger, who has a net worth of a mere $3.5 million, says "a few million doesn’t go as far as it used to..." Others add: "Here, the top 1 percent chases the top one-tenth of 1 percent, and the top one-tenth of 1 percent chases the top one-one-hundredth of 1 percent... You try not to get caught up in it, but it’s hard not to” and “We’re in such a rarefied environment, people here lose perspective on what the rest of the world looks like.” Do not make the mistake of thinking it is only millionaires that get caught up in this. I'll look in the mirror for exhibit A.
When I first went to middle school I had some really dorky clothes. I got made fun of a bit. So I went out and got all new clothes. Over time, I developed an attitude that you had to be wearing name brand clothing or people would think less of you. It's embarrasing to think I could ever be so stupid, vain or naive. But yea, that led to some not so positive thoughts about myself and others, some wasted money, and a refreshing rush of freedom when I finally broke out of that.
The Ten Commandments have impacted societal morality for over 3000 years. They are from a different historical context, and many do not share the same precepts. But let's not throw them out completely. Or at all.
SJ in the OT- Pt a - The 10 Commandments
There is a natural division in the 10 commandments, between commandments 4 and 5. The first four are spiritual in nature and the latter six give moral directions. Similarly, when Jesus affirms the two most important commands (1. to love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength and 2. to love your neighbor as yourself, Mt 22:36-40), you can find the same division-- four concern our relationship with God, and six our relationship with each other.
Social justice can be emphasized in the 10 commandments (The 10 C's from here on out), despite its reputation as a code that is whipped out in order to condemn. Not that it does not condemn-- it does a pretty good job, especially in light of the Sermon on the Mount (Jesus turns "Thou shall not murder" into "anyone who is angry with his brother is a murderer.") To think about the 10 C's through the social justice prism takes 2 things. First, time and creativity. Second, a suspension of disbelief/acceptance of certain beliefs about the nature of God. I'm going to take a stab at social justice-lizing the 10 C's, one-by-one.
(Ex 20 you can find each in full)
1. You shall have no other Gods before me. All of these other blog posts point to a God that is passionate about equality, justice, generosity, caring for the poor, etc... 'love' and 'good' are defined by the actions of the Lord. Exalting other gods could only water down the message of social justice.
2. Do not make idols. One of the most popular applications I hear on the message of idolatry today is that of money. "You cannot serve both God and money" Jesus says (Mt 6:24) and "the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil" (1 Tim 6:10). Serving God includes working towards social justice; you cannot serve God and money; therefore, if you serve money you cannot work towards social justice. Folks, I believe we have a logical argument sighting.
3. You shall not use God's name in vain. I assume that this extends beyond the literal curse word. Throughout history, oppressors have justified themselves by claiming the blessing of God in their acts. For example, African colonists who believed in the "Curse of Ham," that God willed that they subject black-skinned humans, the descendants of Ham. Today: Christians that oppose interracial marriage for theological reasons (I'll at least listen to practical reasons), other religions that institutionalize inequalities (I won't name names, but think of the position of women).
4. Remember the Sabbath. See the posts on Sabbath and the Year of Jubilee.
Here is the natural divide. I will address the last six commands in part B.
Social justice can be emphasized in the 10 commandments (The 10 C's from here on out), despite its reputation as a code that is whipped out in order to condemn. Not that it does not condemn-- it does a pretty good job, especially in light of the Sermon on the Mount (Jesus turns "Thou shall not murder" into "anyone who is angry with his brother is a murderer.") To think about the 10 C's through the social justice prism takes 2 things. First, time and creativity. Second, a suspension of disbelief/acceptance of certain beliefs about the nature of God. I'm going to take a stab at social justice-lizing the 10 C's, one-by-one.
(Ex 20 you can find each in full)
1. You shall have no other Gods before me. All of these other blog posts point to a God that is passionate about equality, justice, generosity, caring for the poor, etc... 'love' and 'good' are defined by the actions of the Lord. Exalting other gods could only water down the message of social justice.
2. Do not make idols. One of the most popular applications I hear on the message of idolatry today is that of money. "You cannot serve both God and money" Jesus says (Mt 6:24) and "the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil" (1 Tim 6:10). Serving God includes working towards social justice; you cannot serve God and money; therefore, if you serve money you cannot work towards social justice. Folks, I believe we have a logical argument sighting.
3. You shall not use God's name in vain. I assume that this extends beyond the literal curse word. Throughout history, oppressors have justified themselves by claiming the blessing of God in their acts. For example, African colonists who believed in the "Curse of Ham," that God willed that they subject black-skinned humans, the descendants of Ham. Today: Christians that oppose interracial marriage for theological reasons (I'll at least listen to practical reasons), other religions that institutionalize inequalities (I won't name names, but think of the position of women).
4. Remember the Sabbath. See the posts on Sabbath and the Year of Jubilee.
Here is the natural divide. I will address the last six commands in part B.
SJ in the NT- Philemon
Social Justice in the New Testament- Pt 8- Philemon
First things first: If you are unfamiliar with Philemon and Onesimus, read the book of Philemon! It's only 1 chapter, 25 verses! To save space I will only quote it sparingly.
Onesimus, formerly a slave, the lowest rung of society, was poor, probably owned nothing. Paul writes that to Philemon, Onesimus was once useless, but now he is useful both to you and to me. In fact, the name Onesimus in Greek means “profitable or useful.” Paul suspects that there was a divine purpose in Philemon somehow losing his servant. To quote him directly from verses 15-16: "Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back for good— no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother."
God wants the rich and poor to be brothers and sisters, useful to one another! So opposite to what we see in the world, even today, and throughout our history! There is much to be learned from this short book of the Bible. As for the relationship between the rich and the poor, I will only list the following Proverbs:
“Rich and poor have this in common: The LORD is the Maker of them all.” Prov 22:2
“The poor man and the oppressor have this in common: The LORD gives sight to the eyes of both.” Prov 29:13
One could also use this passage to combat the idea that slavery is tolerated by God, a viewpoint popular among Christians as little as 150 years ago. Additionally, a book could be written based on what this book says about spiritual submission to God or the example of apostolic leadership of Paul over the believers in his time. But I would like to focus on forgiveness, condescension, and reconciliation.
Forgiveness is obviously important in many aspects of the human experience besides social justice. Just as it is indispensable in a marriage, or in our condition before God, it is a necessary precursor to reconciliation between the rich and poor of this world. It is a two-way street and it requires condescension by all, to admit past wrongs and move ahead humbly. Without this realization, there will not only be division between the First World and Third World, but sadly a schism within The Church. In how many churches can you find a millionaire standing next to someone below the poverty line? This is not only due to geography, people. There is a barrier that was constructed long ago, and it has been fortified by events like slavery.
We all build up walls between "us" and "them." Who is your "us" and who is your "them"? While not rich or poor, you can certainly identify some other categories. Thus, while we must all strive to promote unity with all other believers, we also have a role in this historic divide between rich and poor. Ed Silvoso points out that Paul was asking for “something extraordinary from both Philemon and Onesimus… that Philemon receive Onesimus as a brother… [and for] Onesimus to return to the master from whom he had fled… Paul, the reconciler, stood in the gap, embraced both men and pleaded for them to be reconciled with each other.” Similarly, we can serve as reconcilers. What does this mean? Many things, and I will cop out by letting you find those on your own.
First things first: If you are unfamiliar with Philemon and Onesimus, read the book of Philemon! It's only 1 chapter, 25 verses! To save space I will only quote it sparingly.
Onesimus, formerly a slave, the lowest rung of society, was poor, probably owned nothing. Paul writes that to Philemon, Onesimus was once useless, but now he is useful both to you and to me. In fact, the name Onesimus in Greek means “profitable or useful.” Paul suspects that there was a divine purpose in Philemon somehow losing his servant. To quote him directly from verses 15-16: "Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back for good— no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother."
God wants the rich and poor to be brothers and sisters, useful to one another! So opposite to what we see in the world, even today, and throughout our history! There is much to be learned from this short book of the Bible. As for the relationship between the rich and the poor, I will only list the following Proverbs:
“Rich and poor have this in common: The LORD is the Maker of them all.” Prov 22:2
“The poor man and the oppressor have this in common: The LORD gives sight to the eyes of both.” Prov 29:13
One could also use this passage to combat the idea that slavery is tolerated by God, a viewpoint popular among Christians as little as 150 years ago. Additionally, a book could be written based on what this book says about spiritual submission to God or the example of apostolic leadership of Paul over the believers in his time. But I would like to focus on forgiveness, condescension, and reconciliation.
Forgiveness is obviously important in many aspects of the human experience besides social justice. Just as it is indispensable in a marriage, or in our condition before God, it is a necessary precursor to reconciliation between the rich and poor of this world. It is a two-way street and it requires condescension by all, to admit past wrongs and move ahead humbly. Without this realization, there will not only be division between the First World and Third World, but sadly a schism within The Church. In how many churches can you find a millionaire standing next to someone below the poverty line? This is not only due to geography, people. There is a barrier that was constructed long ago, and it has been fortified by events like slavery.
We all build up walls between "us" and "them." Who is your "us" and who is your "them"? While not rich or poor, you can certainly identify some other categories. Thus, while we must all strive to promote unity with all other believers, we also have a role in this historic divide between rich and poor. Ed Silvoso points out that Paul was asking for “something extraordinary from both Philemon and Onesimus… that Philemon receive Onesimus as a brother… [and for] Onesimus to return to the master from whom he had fled… Paul, the reconciler, stood in the gap, embraced both men and pleaded for them to be reconciled with each other.” Similarly, we can serve as reconcilers. What does this mean? Many things, and I will cop out by letting you find those on your own.
Spurgeon devotional on Gal 2:10
The following is from Spurgeon's Morning Devotional, March 17. It can be found online at www.studylight.org . Charles Spurgeon was a famous pastor and preacher and his set of morning and evening devotionals are excellent. This entry deals with the theme of social justice in the Bible. It is written about Galations 2:10, which Spurgeon shortens to “Remember the poor.”
Any bold is emphasis added by me. Italics are the words of Spurgeon, plain text are my comments.
Why does God allow so many of his children to be poor?
He could make them all rich if he pleased; he could lay bags of gold at their doors; he could send them a large annual income; or he could scatter round their houses abundance of provisions, as once he made the quails lie in heaps round the camp of Israel, and rained bread out of heaven to feed them. There is no necessity that they should be poor, except that he sees it to be best. "The cattle upon a thousand hills are his"-he could supply them; he could make the richest, the greatest, and the mightiest bring all their power and riches to the feet of his children, for the hearts of all men are in his control. But he does not choose to do so; he allows them to suffer want, he allows them to pine in penury and obscurity. Why is this? There are many reasons: one is, to give us, who are favoured with enough, an opportunity of showing our love to Jesus. We show our love to Christ when we sing of him and when we pray to him; but if there were no sons of need in the world we should lose the sweet privilege of evidencing our love, by ministering in alms-giving to his poorer brethren; he has ordained that thus we should prove that our love standeth not in word only, but in deed and in truth. If we truly love Christ, we shall care for those who are loved by him. Those who are dear to him will be dear to us.
Let us then look upon it not as a duty but as a privilege to relieve the poor of the Lord's flock-remembering the words of the Lord Jesus, "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." Surely this assurance is sweet enough, and this motive strong enough to lead us to help others with a willing hand and a loving heart-recollecting that all we do for his people is graciously accepted by Christ as done to himself.
Great stuff. I believe in a Sovereign Lord who not only is allowing poverty, but has purposed it. Spurgeon did not live during the information age and the globalized world. His lack of knowledge about the widespread poverty of the third-world should not be held against him, therefore, I have no problem with him saying that one reason for the poor is to give us an opportunity for showing love. The existence of the poor I take to mean that concept, that reality, but not the singular existence of any poor person. One could not point to a little boy in a picture from Africa and say “he is poor because we need someone to love.” There is a BIG difference between causes and purposes. God's purpose for allowing poverty in his Big Plan does not mean that the heart of God is not mourning for any specific person. I leave the poverty of a certain child in Africa to some explanations that are context-specific, along with responsibility we all bear for our sins and the inevitable results of a fallen world. God's purposes do not justify the means by which they might be carried out if the means are people sinning against others, if that makes sense.
Let us not try to set up a God of prosperity, or a God that frowns upon wealth and romanticizes the poor, overlooking their sins and exalting them above their worldly condition. Rather, as Spurgeon writes, let us see the path God has laid before us as a privilege to relieve the poor and by doing so, clothe, feed, and serve our Savior.
Any bold is emphasis added by me. Italics are the words of Spurgeon, plain text are my comments.
Why does God allow so many of his children to be poor?
He could make them all rich if he pleased; he could lay bags of gold at their doors; he could send them a large annual income; or he could scatter round their houses abundance of provisions, as once he made the quails lie in heaps round the camp of Israel, and rained bread out of heaven to feed them. There is no necessity that they should be poor, except that he sees it to be best. "The cattle upon a thousand hills are his"-he could supply them; he could make the richest, the greatest, and the mightiest bring all their power and riches to the feet of his children, for the hearts of all men are in his control. But he does not choose to do so; he allows them to suffer want, he allows them to pine in penury and obscurity. Why is this? There are many reasons: one is, to give us, who are favoured with enough, an opportunity of showing our love to Jesus. We show our love to Christ when we sing of him and when we pray to him; but if there were no sons of need in the world we should lose the sweet privilege of evidencing our love, by ministering in alms-giving to his poorer brethren; he has ordained that thus we should prove that our love standeth not in word only, but in deed and in truth. If we truly love Christ, we shall care for those who are loved by him. Those who are dear to him will be dear to us.
Let us then look upon it not as a duty but as a privilege to relieve the poor of the Lord's flock-remembering the words of the Lord Jesus, "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." Surely this assurance is sweet enough, and this motive strong enough to lead us to help others with a willing hand and a loving heart-recollecting that all we do for his people is graciously accepted by Christ as done to himself.
Great stuff. I believe in a Sovereign Lord who not only is allowing poverty, but has purposed it. Spurgeon did not live during the information age and the globalized world. His lack of knowledge about the widespread poverty of the third-world should not be held against him, therefore, I have no problem with him saying that one reason for the poor is to give us an opportunity for showing love. The existence of the poor I take to mean that concept, that reality, but not the singular existence of any poor person. One could not point to a little boy in a picture from Africa and say “he is poor because we need someone to love.” There is a BIG difference between causes and purposes. God's purpose for allowing poverty in his Big Plan does not mean that the heart of God is not mourning for any specific person. I leave the poverty of a certain child in Africa to some explanations that are context-specific, along with responsibility we all bear for our sins and the inevitable results of a fallen world. God's purposes do not justify the means by which they might be carried out if the means are people sinning against others, if that makes sense.
Let us not try to set up a God of prosperity, or a God that frowns upon wealth and romanticizes the poor, overlooking their sins and exalting them above their worldly condition. Rather, as Spurgeon writes, let us see the path God has laid before us as a privilege to relieve the poor and by doing so, clothe, feed, and serve our Savior.
Proud blooms? Explanation of blog title
The phrase comes from a Maya Angelou poem entitled Elegy. I am not a literature snob nor very poetic; I have one book of poetry, a large anthology of Maya Angelou. I enjoy the poems, that is, the ones I'm able to understand, which is probably only half. I don't think it's a very famous poem which makes me feel kind of smart (I had to type it up, couldn't find it on Google!) Here is the text of the poem:
Elegy
(For Harriet Tubman & Frederick Douglass)
Their petals wave and still nobody knows the soft black dirt that is my winding sheet. The worms, my friends, yet tunnel holes in bones and through those apertures I see the rain. The sunfelt warmth now jabs within my space and brings me roots of my children born.
Their seeds must fall and press beneath this earth, and find me where I wait. My only need to fertilize their birth.
I lie down in my grave and watch my children grow.
I'd like to say that the things I'll write on here are blooms above the weeds of death. In this poem, the subjects are proud blooms specifically in that they are african-americans living out the dream of ex-slaves, fighting for equality in the footsteps of Tubman and Douglass. I'm stretching the metaphor (in more ways than one). I think the blooms symbology can also refer to any people, their attitudes, and/or thoughts. We are all rooted in the past; we make decisions based on worldviews, spirituality, experience- our "blooms" stretch forth above those "weeds." Do I make the most of the past? Do I make the most of the deaths of people I know, people I don't know, Messiahs, martyrs? Anyway, that's my challenge to myself.
Fortune & Hope- the twin deceivers
Ralph Waldo Emerson, a journal entry in February 1855:
Fortune & Hope! I've made my port, Farewell ye twin deceivers; Ah! many a time I've been your sport; Go, cozen new believers.
The question is not, "have you been deceived?" I have, you probably have. The answer is not to reject fortune and hope, but to pursue a fortune and a hope that will bear much fruit in your life and in the life of others.
Titus don't care 'bout yo past!
sometime in August 2006, the following thought popped in my head:
"I want to see homeless men become elders in the church"
and why not? here is what Paul writes to Titus in the epistle,
"An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. Since an overseer is entrusted with God's work, he must be blameless—not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. Rather he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it." Titus 1:6-9
be; are; is. what do these underlined words have in common? present tense. an elder must meet a certain standard that measures his current life. Paul did not instruct Titus to look for men "born into the tribe of Levi; who obtained an education from the priests; who were never beggars." One sentence in that passage refers to the past-- "the trustworthy message as it has been taught"-- but the requirement is that they hold firmly to it in the now, not to have always held the correct doctrine or theology.
many of the stereotypes of homeless men, "bums" you might say, would exclude them from currently serving as an elder. for example, drunkenness or lack of self-control. Furthermore, in the New Testament Paul shuns those who are idle and do not work for their food. Jobless, homeless men, even if sober and well-read, do not qualify as elders. They are not upholding a home, do not have the capacity to be hospitable, and are not blameless in a measure of their work ethic. however, what about ex-homeless men?
without a doubt, there are ex-alcoholics as elders. there are probably many elders that once lacked discipline, or self-control, or who struck out in violence (replace with 'homeless' with convicts/parolees and i think the same argument should be made). so we should not exclude them. maybe you agree. but I want to see homeless men become elders, not just allowed in a hypothetical situation.
how can i say that? if the gospel of Jesus Christ has any hope to offer, surely its promises would be most sweet for a homeless and destitute person. the person who runs to Christ, abandons their old life, and overcomes destitution bears a powerful testimony. Jesus said, "the one who has been forgiven much, loves much." i would expect this person to love their Savior very much. I would expect elders to be drawn from a pool of people that love their Savior very much. for Our, The Church's benefit, raise us up elders who can "encourage others" as Paul says by their firsthand knowledge of the glory of God! I want to see homeless men become elders!
The Homeless People! They're Everywhere! (Panic, Pretend I don't see them, or Lie?)
If I'm not unlike most people, chances are the title may have crossed through your minds at some point in your lives. Needy people do seem to be everywhere. Big cities streets are literally filled with them, and you probably have at least one of them no matter where you live (the rural area I grew up had the infamous "Foot"). Then, after we make that observation, we scan our mind for what to do. Panic, pretending, and lying are three things i've done. Three things I probably did most of the time when I first encountered these situations. Thankfully, I no longer live in those chains...
Outreach to needy people on the streets (Chicago)
It kills me to walk pass “homeless” people and do nothing. Whether they are homeless, or just in need, living in a shelter or on the street, or even someone with a house who chooses to panhandle, it makes no difference. I always assume it’s someone in need of food or money. Second, i often consider that they may be in need of drug rehab or a job. But most of all, I try to see someone in need of love, a friend, a Savior. Not having food for them is not what "kills" me. I wish I always had food but I know I cannot. What bothers me is not knowing how to love them exactly the way in which they need.
Would Jesus walk past, in the 21st Century American context, any needy person and do nothing? This is not like a third world country, or even Jerusalem circa 30 AD, where there literally might not have been enough time in the day for someone (Jesus) to attend to each and every person. Jesus was able to attend to the crowds by multiplying loaves and bread among them, and more importantly by speaking to them words of truth, inviting them to eat of the “bread of life.” But I do not think he had a conversation with or healed every person in his path.
But, walking 6 blocks in an American city (Chicago for me today), you might see "only" five needy persons. Too many, but not an overwhelming number. For example, if I desired, I could buy dinner for all of them—just not for the rest of their lives. What would Jesus do? I don’t know.
What I have been unable to do, and don’t understand how to do, is give to each needy person that which I want the most for them. Is a smile better than ignoring someone? Maybe. Would a needy person resent a smile that comes with nothing else? As James writes:
"Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, 'Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,' but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it?”
What about at least saying, “hey, how are you?” I think this is better, especially with a warm handshake, or arm on the shoulder and eye contact. Does this sound paternalistic? Condescending?
What I enjoy the most is when I have something materially to offer the person AND the time to sit and talk with them, ask them questions, listen to them, and offer to pray for them. Should I do this for every person? Cannot. Should I at least do this once, even if only briefly, during every venture out into an area where I will encounter people of need? I don’t, but maybe I should. Sometimes I want to but do not because I am with people and we are “on our way” somewhere, and I don’t want to put them in the awkward position of “should we stay or should we go?”. Should they be staying, or should I be advising them later that they need to do more? Should I consider first the needs of those with whom I am in active relationships?
I have no answers for all these questions. What I do have is a list of suggestions of things I do, have done, or have heard personally of others doing that I think are good things to do whenever and as often as we can. I will post that as part 2 of this entry.
Homeless People outreach
the following is a list of suggestions that have been helpful for me, or that I would like to do, for dealing with/serving/communicating with/helping needy people on the streets, and for being a better person/servant/have better motives/feel less crappy. it is what it is, okay? is there a delicate way to put it? it may sound un-PC but it is what it is.
without further ado...
• Collect Bibles and always have one with you to give away. You could get the Bibles new in bulk, ask for donations from some kind of group/organization that has ordered many of them, or buy them from thrift stores. For example, I helped with a camp this summer and we gave Bibles to all the campers. There were several boxes left over. I asked, and was allowed, to take one box of 10 Bibles as long as I planned to distribute them. God then placed in my path someone a few days later with whom to share that gift, when I had not encountered a person on the street in need the entire month I had been in Arkansas.
• Write down verses you like and the page numbers inside the cover of the Bible. Or pre-write notes of encouragement and love to people in the cover or somewhere else of a Bible.
• Collect other books to give away. This is not something I have done, but I think it would be good. They could be Christian living books or secular novels. People do have a right to read things besides the Bible—I certainly do. And then maybe you could even give someone a choice, or offer them something in addition to a Bible, so that it’s not like all you think is important is whether or not they “confess with their mouth” and read the New Testament.
• Any time you eat out where you get a big meal, don’t feel so pressured to eat it all if you are satisfied and there’s some food left. Get a to-go box. Then give it away! If you are somewhere where you won’t necessarily see someone on the walk back to your car/dorm/apartment, be intentional about looking for someone. And use some wisdom with the food- some people might gladly accept ¼ of your burger that is bitten around, but, that may be insulting. Do not be haughty because you are doing anyone a favor and believe that someone would be foolish to turn down your food. You have germs; you are a sinner; you should be grateful for the opportunity to serve, following in the footsteps of Jesus.
• Give away ink pens—this could be done in combination with books/Bibles. You can buy a pack of 10 for 2 bucks and give something useful to 5 people that they may not have wanted to spend money on otherwise.
• I heard a pastor who faced some of the same problems I expressed in part 1 during a vacation to San Francisco. He and his wife were weary of not being able to help all the people they encountered. What they decided to do was buy groceries and make sandwiches to distribute. Again, an resourceful and “cost-effective” way to serve. (Don’t think of it as “cheap”—that has a bad connotation—it’s okay to do things in a cost-effective way, no one has an unlimited source of cash). In addition, it shows care on your part to spend time to make sandwiches. And I bet that you will feel more love for people as you give out something that was made by your own hands—it will be more personal.
• When I was in Philadelphia, the grocery store I went to had a gourmet food section. They sold these really good foccacia bread sandwiches for $4.99. However, you could buy day old sandwiches for $2.00. They tasted great, I thought of giving them away after eating them myself. Sometimes, I’d buy 3 sandwiches in the morning, 2 to give away and 1 to eat for myself. I would go to the convenience store on the corner to buy a drink when someone would ask me for food. It was costing too much to take people inside and get them a sandwich made, so instead I had something already prepared that I could give them.
• Stay with people while they eat. It is a good time to talk and listen. Food allows all of us to let down our guard. Ask them where they are from, about their family. Listen willingly to their “story” if they give it to you without immediate disbelief. Suspend your judgments and take people at their word at least to the extent that it allows you to empathize and encourage. Also, offer to either pray for them about these things and any goals/hopes they have, or even better, pray with them right there. Pray for their immediate needs and for their souls; for the love of Christ and others to be ever-present in their lives.
• Prepare packs of useful things to give away. Toothbrushes and toothpaste, deodorant and soap. I’ve heard of churches/youth groups doing this to send overseas or take to a homeless shelter. But I just thought yesterday how those groups never go to where the people in need live. They always rely on a middleman to remove that awkward interaction. They also choose to give to a “reliable” charity, assuming people on the street to either be drunks or people who aren’t actually homeless. Don’t have that attitude. Seasonally, you could have gloves in winter or an umbrella if it rained often in summer.
• Know what help is available. Likely, the people you meet already know. If they tell you they just got in town and need 20 bucks for a bus to wherever, maybe that’s true and maybe not. Either way, it can’t hurt to be able to direct them to a shelter, salvation army, etc…
• Give out bus tokens. Maybe they need to get back to their house on the other side of town, maybe not. But everyone deserves taking a ride and not walking sometimes. Hope that the person uses the token to get somewhere where they may have better resources, know that it can bless them no matter what.
• Buy gift cards to give out. Then, you know what your money is going for. Also, it is easy to keep up with. You could get gift cards for a coffee shop in the winter or a pharmacy. obviously, you could go the grocery store route, but then you are opening up the possibilities of what someone might purchase. and then restaurants would be another good one.
• Finally, a principle that to me sounds great but convicts me to the core: Consider nothing in this world to precious to give away. We are instructed to love nothing in this world (1 John 2:15). If you can’t take it with you to heaven, why struggle to hold on to it on earth?
I will add to this list as I learn more and mature as a person (which always mean editing and apologizing for past immaturity!). Please give suggestions as well.
without further ado...
• Collect Bibles and always have one with you to give away. You could get the Bibles new in bulk, ask for donations from some kind of group/organization that has ordered many of them, or buy them from thrift stores. For example, I helped with a camp this summer and we gave Bibles to all the campers. There were several boxes left over. I asked, and was allowed, to take one box of 10 Bibles as long as I planned to distribute them. God then placed in my path someone a few days later with whom to share that gift, when I had not encountered a person on the street in need the entire month I had been in Arkansas.
• Write down verses you like and the page numbers inside the cover of the Bible. Or pre-write notes of encouragement and love to people in the cover or somewhere else of a Bible.
• Collect other books to give away. This is not something I have done, but I think it would be good. They could be Christian living books or secular novels. People do have a right to read things besides the Bible—I certainly do. And then maybe you could even give someone a choice, or offer them something in addition to a Bible, so that it’s not like all you think is important is whether or not they “confess with their mouth” and read the New Testament.
• Any time you eat out where you get a big meal, don’t feel so pressured to eat it all if you are satisfied and there’s some food left. Get a to-go box. Then give it away! If you are somewhere where you won’t necessarily see someone on the walk back to your car/dorm/apartment, be intentional about looking for someone. And use some wisdom with the food- some people might gladly accept ¼ of your burger that is bitten around, but, that may be insulting. Do not be haughty because you are doing anyone a favor and believe that someone would be foolish to turn down your food. You have germs; you are a sinner; you should be grateful for the opportunity to serve, following in the footsteps of Jesus.
• Give away ink pens—this could be done in combination with books/Bibles. You can buy a pack of 10 for 2 bucks and give something useful to 5 people that they may not have wanted to spend money on otherwise.
• I heard a pastor who faced some of the same problems I expressed in part 1 during a vacation to San Francisco. He and his wife were weary of not being able to help all the people they encountered. What they decided to do was buy groceries and make sandwiches to distribute. Again, an resourceful and “cost-effective” way to serve. (Don’t think of it as “cheap”—that has a bad connotation—it’s okay to do things in a cost-effective way, no one has an unlimited source of cash). In addition, it shows care on your part to spend time to make sandwiches. And I bet that you will feel more love for people as you give out something that was made by your own hands—it will be more personal.
• When I was in Philadelphia, the grocery store I went to had a gourmet food section. They sold these really good foccacia bread sandwiches for $4.99. However, you could buy day old sandwiches for $2.00. They tasted great, I thought of giving them away after eating them myself. Sometimes, I’d buy 3 sandwiches in the morning, 2 to give away and 1 to eat for myself. I would go to the convenience store on the corner to buy a drink when someone would ask me for food. It was costing too much to take people inside and get them a sandwich made, so instead I had something already prepared that I could give them.
• Stay with people while they eat. It is a good time to talk and listen. Food allows all of us to let down our guard. Ask them where they are from, about their family. Listen willingly to their “story” if they give it to you without immediate disbelief. Suspend your judgments and take people at their word at least to the extent that it allows you to empathize and encourage. Also, offer to either pray for them about these things and any goals/hopes they have, or even better, pray with them right there. Pray for their immediate needs and for their souls; for the love of Christ and others to be ever-present in their lives.
• Prepare packs of useful things to give away. Toothbrushes and toothpaste, deodorant and soap. I’ve heard of churches/youth groups doing this to send overseas or take to a homeless shelter. But I just thought yesterday how those groups never go to where the people in need live. They always rely on a middleman to remove that awkward interaction. They also choose to give to a “reliable” charity, assuming people on the street to either be drunks or people who aren’t actually homeless. Don’t have that attitude. Seasonally, you could have gloves in winter or an umbrella if it rained often in summer.
• Know what help is available. Likely, the people you meet already know. If they tell you they just got in town and need 20 bucks for a bus to wherever, maybe that’s true and maybe not. Either way, it can’t hurt to be able to direct them to a shelter, salvation army, etc…
• Give out bus tokens. Maybe they need to get back to their house on the other side of town, maybe not. But everyone deserves taking a ride and not walking sometimes. Hope that the person uses the token to get somewhere where they may have better resources, know that it can bless them no matter what.
• Buy gift cards to give out. Then, you know what your money is going for. Also, it is easy to keep up with. You could get gift cards for a coffee shop in the winter or a pharmacy. obviously, you could go the grocery store route, but then you are opening up the possibilities of what someone might purchase. and then restaurants would be another good one.
• Finally, a principle that to me sounds great but convicts me to the core: Consider nothing in this world to precious to give away. We are instructed to love nothing in this world (1 John 2:15). If you can’t take it with you to heaven, why struggle to hold on to it on earth?
I will add to this list as I learn more and mature as a person (which always mean editing and apologizing for past immaturity!). Please give suggestions as well.
introducing a new phrase: Widely Rejected Truth
Widely Rejected Truth (July 2006, Arkansas)
I woke up a while ago and the phrase “widely accepted truth” would not let me go back to sleep. It’s now 6:30 am and I will be sharing a long idea on this phrase, but I’d encourage you to read all of it, it’s only two pages in Microsoft word!When you hear people talking about “stuff,” it’s not uncommon to throw out the phrase “widely accepted truth” as an argument that those opposing what is widely accepted have the burden of proof. Furthermore, I think it is used condescendingly, implying that if you don’t agree with what’s widely accepted, you are a fool, and if you do agree, then “if you are as intelligent as I am, surely you would see that my conclusion follows such a noble precept.”
This morning, I challenge that sentiment! And myself any time that I have employed it!
Let us break down the phrase, starting first with “accepted.” We are fallen creatures. Should our acceptance of doctrines, -ologies and –osophies, social structures, or especially anything that benefits the “acceptor” at the expense of others, be a clue as to the merit or worthiness of that doctrine etc…? Perhaps because we are fallen creatures, our acceptance could even mean the opposite; what we accept is probably wrong, rather than right.
Now, many people accept God in some way. I’m obviously not saying everything we accept is wrong. But, we do not always “accept” God in the right manner (Cain, Gnostics, basically everyone at some point). It is God’s grace that allows us to “accept” him (I know I’m using the term loosely) and his mercy that allows Him to “accept” us. Perhaps it is His grace that allows us to accept anything in the correct manner?
Widely. If we are fallen (even if we have a good filter for acceptance), is the width of acceptance a sign of merit or worthiness of that doctrine etc…? Sometimes, yes of course. “We have all sinned and fall short of the glory of God” is a widely accepted truth. It’s also a Biblical truth, a Biblical quotation even. It is grounded in something more reliable than ourselves. Without even arguing for the Bible’s inerrancy or infallibility, almost everyone in the world would probably attest that the Bible is less errant and fallible than human beings. We must test everything (1 Th 5:21). 2 Tim 3:16, by saying that scripture is useful for correcting and instilling righteousness, leads me to believe that the Bible is the measure to which all widely accepted truths should be held. Again, not arguing Biblical inerrancy. But what else do we know about Christ? Josephus said that Jesus was crucified and inspired a small sect of Jews, or something like that. Hebrews says that Jesus has become a High Priest, not by going in the temple year after year and offering sacrifices, but by the power of an indestructible life! Josephus certainly does not convey the power of Christ; we must exalt the Word of God in some fashion in order to grasp His love.
Finally, truth. Again, if we are fallen, is the assertion of truth a sign of merit or worthiness of that doctrine etc…? Look no farther than Stephen Colbert, who hilariously advances “truthiness” but “doesn’t like facts.” Truth is a commodity in our society, picked out by each individual in a market of countless truths. Asserting truth has almost been brought down to the level of expressing an opinion!
Pilate asked, “What is truth?” A lot of people didn’t realize that until they saw The Passion of the Christ. Hopefully they (I) asked the question in their (my) hearts. Psalm 31:5 calls God the God of truth. In John 14, Jesus calls himself the way, truth, and life, and the Holy Spirit, a spirit of truth. So the trinity is truth. I don’t have a good explanation of that, what it means, how to understand it in my temporal mind. But I do know God values truth. Many proverbs instruct us to have truthful lips. Jesus spoke over and over, “you have heard it said… but I tell you the truth.” "You have heard it said," could that be widely accepted truths? I think so! But Christ corrected their legalistic obedience with the moral “spirit of the law” contained in the Law. In the same way, we need to inject some Christ-like correction into widely accepted truths.
Three widely accepted spiritual truths that can explain everything else in this world: “God does not exist;” “God does not care;” “God does not judge sin.” We better believe the opposite, or there is no hope for the world. I do not believe in the power of the human spirit to overcome all evil. I do not accept the prophecy of progressive millennialism, where we all live in peace in our own little borders and live for hundreds of years because we know how to harvest stem cells in the right way and we can bring our frozen relatives back to life. God’s existence is necessary in that we need the Divine to care and judge. God must care, or for what other reason would he send a savior? If God doesn’t care, why would He ever “make all things new?” What other hope do we have to see no more pain, mourning, or death? And finally, God must judge. Sin leads to death. Sin causes pain, bitterness, rips apart relationships. God must judge it in some way, whether in each person, or in the source, the Tempter. I am not trying to argue for one doctrine of judgment over another, merely that we must put our hope in it. We need to proclaim these three spiritual truths.
There are other widely accepted truths that have had a great, negative effect in the world. In the 19th century, that slavery was acceptable due to the inferiority of the enslaved. In the 20th, that the greatest good was found through neo-liberal economic policies that maximized the wealth of rich nations and individuals at the expense of the poor who it was said could not do anything for themselves. In the 21st, we can decide for ourselves as people who will live a majority of our life in this century. You can see them in the communities in which you serve this summer. Here in Helena, that Sex in any form is good, which robs teenagers of their innocence and sets them on a path that probably does not include further education; that “I must fight for everything,” which makes distrust and skepticism of any help the rule, rather than the exception.
The word 'accept' is opposed by the word 'reject.' I think this is a telling sign. A couple months ago I read a quote (not famous, just an email between pastors) that has stuck with me: “We want to make the claim of the truth on our lives so clear that our people see that it is a matter of obedience or disobedience, not preference.” Substitute “acceptance or rejection” for “obedience or disobedience.” In some ways, widely “accepted” truth grasps the idea that not everything in the world and about God comes down to personal preference. I propose we introduce the term rejected into this phrase. God exists, God cares, and God judges sin are widely REJECTED truths. Slavery is unacceptable before God and the rich should not benefit unjustly from the poor are widely REJECTED truths.
That God would show us truth, expose rejected truths, and give us grace not to be overcome by evil but overcome evil with good…
September 11, the problem of pain, Jerry Falwell (part 1)
I believe I wrote this on the 3rd anniversary of 9-11, when I saw something that reminded me of the comments by Jerry Falwell and anti-Falwell's right after it all went down. Part 1 addresses his comments, part 2 the problem of pain and corporate responsibility for evil in the world (corporate meaning all of us, not Wal-Mart)
-------------------------
Shortly after the disaster of September 11th, Jerry Falwell, the infamous televangelist, preacher, and founder of Liberty University, gave his comments on who was really at fault for the terrorist attack.
"The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America, I point the finger in their face and say: you helped this happen."
It didn't take long before Mr. Falwell came under fire for his accusations. Despite an apology in which he said that he really only attributed blame to the terrorists (obviously not the whole truth) his words have echoed as another reminder of the (insert adjective here, such as intolerance, bigotry, hate, etc...) of the conservative evangelical Christian movement, and often, of Christians in general. When someone comes out and says something like he did, especially under the circumstances, I really don't expect anything less from the people who have been put on the same level with terrorists and murderers.
Rather than wax poetic on Jerry Falwell's history in the public eye, I would like to explore the verity of his statement. Obviously, taken literally, it is not true. It's not an opinion, it's just wrong. To my knowledge, not only have we not found WMDs, but we've found no evidence that the ACLU trained terrorists, that gays taught these dudes how to fly planes, or that abortionists deliberately ended the life of those people who were destined to beef up flight security. In effect though, Falwell said, "this happened in part because you did these things."
This word because is crucial. All of this "because" analyzation I owe to C.S. Lewis and his book, Miracles. There are two uses of the words because. First, like used before, there is a cause-and-effect usage. For example, Grandpa slept late today because he is ill. The second usage is something Lewis called Ground and Consequent. The best explanation is an example: "Julie must be sick, because she slept so late today." There is not a direct relationship. There is an inference that "A means B" rather than "A leads to B." Mr. Falwell used the latter, saying that the actions of some had no choice but to result in the events of 9/11.
You can probably guess where I'm going next. Falwell, if questioned with his hand on the Bible, may admit to a Ground and Consequent belief, i.e. that "secularization is an unwelcome trend in America because of September 11." This is an awkward wording, but, in other words, the belief that secularization is bad, or 'A', is confirmed by the occurrence of 9/11, or 'B'. Before you go and get upset, I would like to point out that this kind of logic is not just used by Christians. For years, atheists have said, "There is no god because there is evil," in other words, because all this bad stuff is going on, how can there be a god?? This is commonly referred to as "the problem of pain" and studied as "theodicy."
Under this kind of wording, I began to agree with Mr. Falwell. Yes, because there is so much evil in the world, how can we expect that something like 9/11 would never happen?!? In fact, everyday in Africa, families are ripped apart by the 9/11 sized tragedy of AIDS. Daily. Yes, unhealthy behaviors are the direct cause of the epidemic, just as terrorists are the direct cause of attacks. But also are the evils of selfishness, lust, and corrupt government magnified in the outbreak of the disease. Similarly, 9/11 or other bad events merely reflect the fallen state of the world. Not only a fallen state in which we do not help our fellow man or there are wars, but a spiritual depravity. I will get back to this momentarily after I finish with Falwell.
Jerry Falwell's problem is that he was far too inclusive in his accusation, not that he was completely incorrect. Luke 13:1-5: "Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. Jesus answered, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them -- do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no!"
Verse 4, starting with "or those eighteen..." eerily parallels the September 11th attacks. The Old Testament exposes a Jewish belief that bad events were often due to someone's sin. Jews at the time may have actually thought that those who would die in a catastrophe deserved it for some reason that the rest of them did not. Jesus wished to get rid of this hypocrisy by using this example. In actuality, those who happened to be in the tower at the time, or those whose blood was tampered with after their death had absolutely no control over the timing of those circumstances. They had sinned, of course, but so had their neighbors! I am sure that Jerry Falwell could quote Romans 3:23: "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." If he truly kept this in mind, then he would have attributed the blame equally. Each and every human being has contributed, continues to contribute, or will contribute to the sins of the world, whether in the secular or spiritual sense; most likely both. Because I, Chris, have sinned, because I mistreated a friend last year, because I was selfish with money, and so many other things, unfortunate, regrettable consequences have resulted. Because I have not always loved every person I've met, there is hate, and because there is hate, things like 9/11 are bound to happen. This would've been a far more effective thing for Mr. Falwell to say, and if he felt the need, only then would it have been more appropriate to begin including the sins of others...
September 11, the problem of pain (part 2)
There are probably a thousand arguments that theologians might make in trying to "prove" either the existence of God, His characteristics as an active, Living Being, a divine plan that included our Creation, and also just as many to refute these ideas. Again, I'm going to borrow from C.S. Lewis. I will attempt to show that this problem of catastrophe is not natural and hopefully leads to an implication of a divine plan to conquer death.
Death is one of the most approached subjects in fictional literature. It's portrayed in many ways: as an attempt to communicate in Mrs. Dalloway, as an escape from trouble in Madame Bovary, or an unavoidable tragedy in Hamlet. Hopefully we can agree that under most circumstances our society sees death as unwelcome visitor that often arrives without warning. If we knew in advance that they were coming, perhaps we could come up with an excuse to discourage their visit. In the same way, much of our resources and time are dedicated to warding off death: finding cures to diseases, upholding laws against murder, exercising, promoting as much peace as possible. Lewis recognized our contempt for death. He wrote that two facts were useful in deducing Christian theology: "that men make coarse jokes, and that they feel the dead to be uncanny." The fact that self-deprecation is so common shows an amount of discomfort in ourselves. "Dogs," Lewis writes, would not "see anything funny about being dogs." Yet we seem to object to our humanness. To death we also shout out an objection. There is something unnatural there. Would it make more sense if we knew it wasn't supposed to be this way?
The mistake of many is holding up the Christian doctrine and weighing it against our present society. Yes, at first glance, evil could appear to refute the existence of an Omnipotent Controller who supposedly loved us and had great plans for us. This is the wrong way to approach the situation. Doing this is like a young child visiting NYC and seeing the trade center rubble and saying: "Look at that. It's a pile of cement and rocks, how could there ever have been two large monuments of human achievement standing in this spot?!" Instead, what preceded the ugliness is where the true beauty is found. A picture of the Twin Towers is needed to allow the child to piece together how things came to be. This picture does not look the same as the view does right now in NYC. Similarly, a "picture" of Christianity and Jesus Christ and the Triune God does not match up with the reality we face right now. C.S. Lewis writes that "we believe that the sun is in the sky at midday in summer not because we can clearly see the sun but because we can see everything else." Just as the the sun is always present and brings light, the doctrine of Christianity can illuminate the mysteries of this world, not in the least excluding this problem of death.
Death and self-deprecation were not intended for us. Rather, humans were created as unified beings. The spiritual and the natural were both made perfect by God in a way that we were to be immortal like our Creator. Sin compromised this perfection, but only temporarily. Shortly after the World Trade Center fell to the ground, it was announced that it would be rebuilt and redesigned by an expert architect. In the same way, this fallen world will have its own renewal, but by the Divine Architect! Only then will we be able to look at the physical reality and see it is not just a picture, but a reflection of its true source.
Death is the ultimate evidence of the glaring imperfections of this world, and the ultimate source of sadness and evil. Jerry Falwell only hit the tip of the iceberg when he isolated several groups as the cause of September 11. The ultimate Ground and Consequent cause of the event, and all the evil of the world, is the collective sin of all who ever lived (with the exception of Christ, another story), live now, and remain to be born.
Death is one of the most approached subjects in fictional literature. It's portrayed in many ways: as an attempt to communicate in Mrs. Dalloway, as an escape from trouble in Madame Bovary, or an unavoidable tragedy in Hamlet. Hopefully we can agree that under most circumstances our society sees death as unwelcome visitor that often arrives without warning. If we knew in advance that they were coming, perhaps we could come up with an excuse to discourage their visit. In the same way, much of our resources and time are dedicated to warding off death: finding cures to diseases, upholding laws against murder, exercising, promoting as much peace as possible. Lewis recognized our contempt for death. He wrote that two facts were useful in deducing Christian theology: "that men make coarse jokes, and that they feel the dead to be uncanny." The fact that self-deprecation is so common shows an amount of discomfort in ourselves. "Dogs," Lewis writes, would not "see anything funny about being dogs." Yet we seem to object to our humanness. To death we also shout out an objection. There is something unnatural there. Would it make more sense if we knew it wasn't supposed to be this way?
The mistake of many is holding up the Christian doctrine and weighing it against our present society. Yes, at first glance, evil could appear to refute the existence of an Omnipotent Controller who supposedly loved us and had great plans for us. This is the wrong way to approach the situation. Doing this is like a young child visiting NYC and seeing the trade center rubble and saying: "Look at that. It's a pile of cement and rocks, how could there ever have been two large monuments of human achievement standing in this spot?!" Instead, what preceded the ugliness is where the true beauty is found. A picture of the Twin Towers is needed to allow the child to piece together how things came to be. This picture does not look the same as the view does right now in NYC. Similarly, a "picture" of Christianity and Jesus Christ and the Triune God does not match up with the reality we face right now. C.S. Lewis writes that "we believe that the sun is in the sky at midday in summer not because we can clearly see the sun but because we can see everything else." Just as the the sun is always present and brings light, the doctrine of Christianity can illuminate the mysteries of this world, not in the least excluding this problem of death.
Death and self-deprecation were not intended for us. Rather, humans were created as unified beings. The spiritual and the natural were both made perfect by God in a way that we were to be immortal like our Creator. Sin compromised this perfection, but only temporarily. Shortly after the World Trade Center fell to the ground, it was announced that it would be rebuilt and redesigned by an expert architect. In the same way, this fallen world will have its own renewal, but by the Divine Architect! Only then will we be able to look at the physical reality and see it is not just a picture, but a reflection of its true source.
Death is the ultimate evidence of the glaring imperfections of this world, and the ultimate source of sadness and evil. Jerry Falwell only hit the tip of the iceberg when he isolated several groups as the cause of September 11. The ultimate Ground and Consequent cause of the event, and all the evil of the world, is the collective sin of all who ever lived (with the exception of Christ, another story), live now, and remain to be born.
In chimp world, males find older females sexier...?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061120/sc_nm/science_chimpanzees_dc_1
"Chimpanzee males prefer to have sex with older females, U.S. researchers found in a study published on Monday that shows one of the biggest behavioral differences between humans and our closest biological relatives. Male chimps will chase down and fight over the oldest females, while the youngest female chimps are forced to beg for masculine attention, anthropologist Martin Muller and colleagues at Boston University discovered. They were checking to see if chimpanzees behave like humans, their closest living relatives, who form long-term mating bonds and who value younger females."
One of the biggest behavioral differences? What's more different- males that prefer younger females and males that prefer older females, but all of whom want sex as much as possible, or chimpanzees that throw their poop and humans who find that to be pretty sick? I can think of some pretty big behavioral differences... I like to play guitar, chimps like to swing from trees...
"Normally, I think peoples' default assumption is, 'Well other animals, they must also find young females attractive,"' Muller said. "And people assume that young females are more fertile than older females."
Who the hell thinks that? Who has a default assumption about what animals find attractive in other animals, besides primatologists with too much time on their hands? Have you ever been in public with your buddies and seen a couple pigeons and said, "Gee. I wonder what he sees in her, instead of the bird over there. Maybe it's her plumage. Maybe she emits some stronger pheromones. Maybe she is more virile." No! While we do like to personify our animal friends, I don't think people do it quite to that degree- and most people i think are only kidding when they personify animals.
"Humans may prefer younger females because of marriage and other "long-term pair-bonds," something that is nonexistent in the promiscuous world of chimps. Human men seeking progeny may need to start with younger prospective mothers, Muller said."
I'm not saying this is wrong. It's not the average response you would get from a room full of 25 year old guys, but i'm not saying they're wrong. But i will say that it exposes two incorrect view of humanity. One, that we don't live in a 'promiscuous world.' I see that as a similarity with chimps. I don't mean that to be insulting, but aren't we along with chimps two of the only, if not the only, animals in the entire animal kingdom who participate in sex for reasons besides procreation? I am pretty sure I read or saw that at some point in time. Two, that we are to be studied like chimps. These scientists are trying to reduce humanity to just another genus of animals that should be stripped down to its most basic elements and learned from. It ignores our uniqueness in the world. I think common sense speaks of that. It is self-evident to most people that we have something "they" don't- 'they' being other animals. In addition, theologically I believe it is inconsistent with the thought that we are created "in our image", the image of The Triune God; beings with a certain "it" factor, a "je ne sais quoi" that separates us from all the other animals. A moral blueprint; a united body, soul, spirit.
Before you think i'm totally out of my league here, I did study anthropology. As a discipline, it is WAY different than studying animal behavior. Maybe a colony of prairie dogs meets a basic definition of culture, but, there is a discernable and clear difference between animal culture and human culture. perhaps not in biological complexity, but in other ways.
SJ in the NT- NT Example of Spiritual Poverty
Most people think of dragons, the end times, the Antichrist, etc... when they think of the Book of Revelation. And while those kinds of things take up most of the book, there are some other sections that are quite different. Chapters 2 and 3 include 7 letters to churches, written to warn them and encourage them. The letter to the church at Laodicea is probably the best known because of the famous verse about Christ spitting the lukewarm out of his mouth. The context of Laodicea and the rest of the letter are also valuable, including bringing a perspective to social justice.
Let me preface this by saying I have no historical background- the history I will use came simply from a Greek lexicon and one anonymous commentator on Revelation and a Google search to verify that information. Laodicea was a wealthy town and the site of a medical school and served as a banking center for Asia Minor. It was so proud of its ability to sustain itself that it refused Roman monetary aid after an earthquake that destroyed many cities.
What follows the lukewarm verse are a series of statements by Christ that deconstruct what I'll call the Laodicean myth; using the wrong benchmark to judge one's own position/status. In Rev 3:17, Jesus says it this way: "You say, 'I am rich'... But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind, and naked." In verse 18, he tells them if they want to be rich, buy his gold, acquire new clothes, and put salve on their eyes. Laodicea was a banking center- it had a lot of gold. It also produced a garment and a powder that was used to treat eye diseases along with its medical school. Basically, Jesus makes a mockery of their strong points to emphasize their spiritual poverty and de-emphasize their material wealth.
Christ's words are to the Church in Laodicea, not the town as a whole. This means that Christians were not free from this materialism. Spiritual poverty and materialism do not have to be bedfellows. Certainly there are those who are both materially and spiritually poor. But, I will assert that materialism breeds spiritual poverty. Who gives the best testimonies about their trust in God about their health? Those who are or have been sick. Who usually cries out to God about a romantic relationship? Those who have been through conflict. Should it be that way? Yes and no. We should all be on our knees for these things. Laodicean Christians obviously did not submit their financial lives to the Lordship of Christ and thus fell into spiritual poverty, leading Christ to strike at that which was blinding them.
What is the relation to social justice? As Christians, we need to be aware of spiritual poverty. First, in our own lives. Our sin separates us from God and from those we want to help. Second, in those we wish to serve. Jesus said in Matt 6, "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. but store up for yourselves treasures in heaven." Helping people attain what Jesus tells Laodiceans is "the gold refined in the fire" takes precedent over distributing gold, Au in the Periodic table. In fact, it is our duty- if we feed people's stomachs and not their hearts, they remain "wretched, pitiful, poor, blind, and naked." Third, our sin collectively results in the poverty of the world- we must remember that- but there's also a need for us to have the resolve and courage to stand up against the spiritual poverty of certain individuals/governments/organizations that particularly cripple the abilities of millions of people to live a comfortable life.Social Justice in the Bible
I will be attempting to write a series of hopefully short, concise, but powerful commentaries on certain passages and concepts in the Bible that have really spoken to me about social justice. Some will address our lifestyles and convictions, some contain practical advice, all are utopian and far beyond anything we can do by our own means. To shorten the titles, they will be divided into SJ in the OT (Social Justice in the Old Testament) and SJ in the NT (New Testament) as well as being broken down into each concept. I expect to do 10 or so parts on each Testament.
I pray that God would guide me as I interpret and apply these texts, and that our Father in Heaven would impress upon all of us Biblical truths about this topic.
I firmly believe that what the Bible says about social justice, in both the Old and New Testaments, has implications for us today and is the most valuable source that all of humanity could use to approach living in the most equal and healthy society possible. May you come to share that thought…
I pray that God would guide me as I interpret and apply these texts, and that our Father in Heaven would impress upon all of us Biblical truths about this topic.
I firmly believe that what the Bible says about social justice, in both the Old and New Testaments, has implications for us today and is the most valuable source that all of humanity could use to approach living in the most equal and healthy society possible. May you come to share that thought…
SJ in the OT- Pt 2- The Year of Jubilee
Social Justice in the Old Testament- Pt 2- The Year of Jubilee
There is no evidence that either the Sabbath Year and especially the Year of Jubilee were ever practiced regularly, or even once, by the Israelites. A lack of evidence, along with the accusations of the prophets of the Old Testament, would suggest that it was far from the minds of those Hebrews in control in the pre-Roman Jewish society. The concept is not alien to others, however. Gospel songs call for the Jubilee and the Roman Catholic Church instituted its own involving “a period of remission from the penal consequences of sin” which included giving a “Jubilee indulgence” (source: some dictionaries). Once you understand what the Jubilee is, the idea of a “Jubilee indulgence” is a bit of an oxymoron.
A lot is going on in Leviticus 25 (and Deuteronomy 15), detailing what the Jubilee prescribed for the people of the Law. I’d recommend you read it for yourself: here’s a link! I don’t want to take up space quoting it all. The basic gist is that it was like a Super Sabbath Year. After seven Sabbaths (49 years), the 50th year was the Jubilee. It takes the social justice commands of the Sabbath to a whole ‘nother level, including things like releasing fellow Hebrew slaves and returning land to those who were given it as in inheritance when God divided up the Promised Land among the 12 tribes. These things were done without repayment, of course.
Here are some of the things that have spoken to me very strongly in this text (there is by far much more than what I’ll write):
1) The Year of Jubilee is not anti-capitalist. I am a capitalist. I believe in the positive effect of competition and acknowledge that people act out of self-interest, like any good capitalist. But I am a Keynesian capitalist, not a neo-liberal. In other words, I believe there should be government regulations in the economy, not a total free market.
Leviticus 25 assumes that people would buy and sell land (v14), worry about their businesses/fields (20-22), sell homes (29), and engage in banking/lending practices (36-37). Only a few things are prohibited, such as lending at interest to fellow Hebrews (37) and selling pastureland (34). This is not without parallel in our society (regulations on interest rates, not allowing people to sell their organs or bodies). Then, the Jubilee prescribes regulation on these things. These regulations certainly go farther than we are used to but are not completely unheard of. For example, the highly debated estate tax is a form of redistributing wealth acquired during a person’s life back into the community at large.
2) Conduct our business with a certain integrity. When any of the transactions I listed earlier were to take place, they would be done “on the basis of the number of years since [or remaining until] the Jubilee.” (15) Thus, capitalist transactions would not increasingly cause a gap between the rich and poor, as we have now. Sider writes that the Jubilee was “…an institutionalized mechanism to prevent the kind of economic divisions where a few people would possess all the capital while others had no productive resources.”
I’m not suggesting Jubilee is the solution, but it does present a standard. Do not profit off selling to people in their time of need. I do not think we have to follow this strictly and not sell food above its cost or to not charge any interest—we don’t just grow things in a field and carry them to the market now. However, I’ll argue that this seriously indicts predatory lenders. Payday loan stores, used car lots that lend to people with poor credit at high interest, mortgage lenders that have confusing pay structures that often end up in repossession. They prey on the poor. Also, jacking up the price of bread or water after a hurricane is another obvious example. That is a business practice lacking in Biblical integrity. And there are many others.
3) Redistribution is a Biblical concept. Specifically of land, homes, and businesses. The land that was given as an inheritance to an Israelite clan represented every aspect of their livelihood. They raised their kids there; worked/ran a business there; lived in a dwelling; received much of their education on their own property. Far too often today, people, and specifically poor people, either don’t even have the luxury of these thigns, and if they do, have it on someone else’s terms. I honestly believe in the need for those who have acquire large chunks of land, usually at someone else’s expense (even if it was several hundred years ago), to give or sell some of it away to those who are landless. I don’t suggest we enforce this like in Zimbabwe. There’s no magic formula of how or how much. But there is a dignity in people that demands it.
I also think it makes practical sense. The owners of decrepit city housing rarely live there themselves and have no incentive to take care of their property. The people living there have less incentive to care about their community when they have no ownership. Ownership is a prerequisite for many community improvements.
4) The larger issue of redistribution is ownership. God owns the land. In explaining the Jubilee system, God says in verse 23 that “the land must not be sold permanently, because the land is mine and you are but aliens and my tenants.” Psalm 24:1 declares that “the earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it.”
Redistribution under the Jubilee meant land going back to whom GOD gave it. Sider writes this: “It was the poor family’s right to recover their inherited land at the jubilee. Returning the land was not a charitable courtesy that the wealthy might extend if they pleased.” Today, we are still mere tenants of the land and have the same responsibility to perform our role as stewards in a way that honors God. Perkins believes that justice is “being good stewards of God’s earth and resources… our working to make these resources open and available to all of God’s creatures.”
5) The Year of Jubilee is liberation! Say this to yourself 10 times fast. It is easy to see it as a burden, not a privilege, to give up ownership of something and put it in the hands of someone else. It might be even more difficult to keep what you have but call God its rightful owner and put God in charge of your resources. But Jubilee is liberty. In Leviticus 25, it is liberty for the servants and slaves from their servitude; for the land from farming; for poorer families from renting and working others’ land. But is it not also liberty for the giver? There is a need to constantly cut the cord that so quickly forms between ourselves and our stuff, net worth, and possessions. In my very limited experience, when I am struggling with stewardship, what liberates me is not adding to my savings account, but giving from my plenty. Generosity does not have a positive correlation with financial comfort and financial freedom. If you want freedom, be generous and declare a Jubilee of some kind in your own life.
SJ in the OT- Pt 1- The Sabbath Year
Leviticus 25 is one of my favorite chapters in all the Scriptures. It contains one of the most powerful, challenging, awesomely radical calls for social justice that has ever been recorded. It addresses two concepts: the Sabbath Year and the Year of Jubilee. I will focus first on the Sabbath Year.
Did you know the Sabbath is more than just another name for Saturday or Sunday? Have you always wondered if NFL players were sinning by having all of their games, and thus, “working” on the Sabbath? If God would rest on the seventh day and call it holy, shouldn’t this Sabbath have more significance? It does!
A book could be written on the significance of the Sabbath. It has many different facets and implications for our lives and is implemented in different ways. For Christians, it is usually celebrated on Sunday, or the Lord’s Day, in honor of the resurrection of Christ. For the Hebrews wandering in the desert, it was the day they were not to go out and gather manna. For some Jews, it remains a weekly holy day. For most full-time workers, it means a weekend off. But there are applications specifically for social justice as well, beyond making sure that poor people get time off from work. This is a Biblical idea, by the way- see the 10 Commandments. I wonder if the people who are most concerned with us all knowing the 10 Commandments take to heart the 4th commandment’s call that people be given a rest.
In any event, Leviticus 25 says three important things about the Sabbath Year, which like the day is every seventh year.
1) The land itself is to observe a Sabbath. (Lev 25:2-5) This is a piece of agricultural wisdom. Farmers rotate crops and even let fields lie fallow to ensure the field is fruitful for years to come. The social justice aspect is an application I believe can be made in the economic relationships between rich and poor nations. Too often, third-world countries have been forced into cash-crop systems and sacrificed their ability to produce food for themselves. We must not endorse and should disapprove of this practice as a general policy for entire nations. Unfortunately, much of the harm is already done and seemingly irreversible. Economies have been ravaged, people have starved, rainforest has disappeared, and for what? Poor, relatively unproductive agricultural practices that allowed your tea and coffee to cost a few cents cheaper. Arguably, the value of the land has been destroyed—not only was it an unjust decision, but a bad economic decision if you see
2) During this year of rest for the land, it would continue to produce from past seeds and through God’s hand (Lev 25:20). This yield was to be set aside as food for the landowner as well as for his servants, hired workers, and any other temporary residents who lived there that year, as well as food for animals. (Lev 25:6-7) So many things could be said. Do not hoard, but trust God for provision so that you are not afraid to allow others to eat from your fields. Be generous with your servants (in our context, I’d argue employees) and neighbors who have less. Don’t have a litmus test of status or longevity as to who is allowed to sit at your banqueting table. The most important take-away is that God called the Israelites to intentionally and regularly step back and live as equals and ensure the health and happiness of all.
3) Finally, the Sabbath Year is the foundation of something even more powerful—the Year of Jubilee. (Lev 25:8)
Next I will address the Year of Jubilee!
Links about the diamond conflict
The Ecologist magazine
http://www.theecologist.org/archive_detail.asp?content_id=220 "Janine Roberts describes how De Beers cons the world into paying so much for its cheap, plentiful diamonds and turns a blind eye to the eradication of the oldest culture on the planet."
http://www.theecologist.org/archive_detail.asp?content_id=220
the Diamond Debate 2006 part 1- How Blood Diamond has me interested again...
I just saw Blood Diamond last night. Those of you that know me would not be surprised, since hearing my obnoxious proclamations my freshmen year that I would not be buying my wife a diamond, to my more sober and humble explanation my sophomore year that was less about me being cheap and much more about exploitation, consumerism, and a call of my conscience. Since then, however, the issue has not been in the forefront of my mind unless it came up in a conversation my stance, or if someone heard from someone else, and I felt the need to give an explanation.
Until now. I was pleasantly surprised when I saw my first commercial for this movie. I don't go see movies often (read: 2 or 3 a year) and did not necessarily plan to go watch it. But then I saw a cnn.com video explaining that the diamond industry had already prepared a response, diamondfacts.org, prior to the movie's release. I heard Leo DiCaprio talking about the movie. Most importantly to this process, the Bushmen of the Kalihari reappeared in the news, asking for DiCaprio's help in their legal battle to be returned to their traditional lands in Botswana. My sophomore year, I had read a powerful article on the Bushmen's plight in the Ecologist magazine (which you can read here). I was astonished this matter had not been decided years before. And a few days ago it was announced that the Bushmen won their case! Unbelievable, a beautiful surprise.
All these things came together to give me a strong desire to go see the movie and that's how I ended up there last night. I am no critic by any means, but I will say that I thought DiCaprio and Djimon Hounsou were excellent. Hounsou I think was also in Gladiator. He's a great actor, I'd like to see him do more movies like this (not to typecast him, but, to be in movies with an African or epic setting). I hope Hounsou wins an Oscar, he probably wouldn't get a best actor nod but really did much more than your average supporting actor.
The movie was really good in my opinion. I was slightly annoyed at the underlying love story and almost thought the movie was going to end terribly but it did not. It is a violent movie- but that violence is not unrealistic or unprecedented. Because of my sensitivity to the diamond issue, I honestly watched the movie like it was real. I thought the rest of the night, and when I woke up, about Solomon Vandy and Dia his son and what they went through (Hounsou plays Vandy). I did not find it to go the route of sensationalism- yes, these things are sensational, but real. I fully believe that the diamond industry was complicit in willful ignorance (at best) to allowing blood diamonds to be sold prior to the recent reforms. It was no secret what was happening to the people who were living it.
This kind of movie leaves me paralyzed. I see stuff like this and I'm so angry! I feel so useless! I just want to go to the airport and hop a plane and go do something, but what? The next entry will include a simple response I made to the diamond facts web site. A third entry will include some thoughts on what I think we can do as Americans/consumers/young adults/people with relatively no influence, besides writing in to an anonymous web site email address. And I'll make a fourth entry that I'll continually update with links to articles on diamond issues.the Diamond Debate part 2- my email to diamondfacts.org
This page on the diamondfacts.org "answers" some "popular questions" and allegations towards the industry. I use quotes not because they did, but because I do not believe they give great answers (and certainly not very long ones) or that they address many questions. They basically answer a bunch of similar questions about the conflict diamond. But oh, there are lots of other fun things they are criticized for as well!
Anyway, they invite the reader to write with additional questions. These are mine:
Why didn't the diamond industry themselves take measures to prevent the conflict diamond problem long before it became so ingrained in some African wars?
What are the policies in place to determine how many diamonds to hold in reserves and how many to release to the market?
Is this co-ordinated by WDC (World Diamond Council) or just by each individual company?
You comment on the indirect economic benefits of the diamond industry as itpertains to revenues being used for development or a country like Botswanafunding education. What about answers to allegations about poor working conditions and low wages?
Please consider responding to my questions on your site.
(Update, Feb 13, 2007: I have not received a reply, nor do i notice any discernable differences on the web site. I re-sent the email/questions).(Update, April 23: I re-sent the email/questions again).
(Update, August 13: I re-sent the email/questions again).
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
