« Christian Women in the Academy, part 2 |
Main
| God doesn’t need hit men »
Ethical consumerism redux
Many would take the first two title words of this post as a contradiction in terms. But I don't think they have to be a contradiction; and frankly, it's often our dollar/pound/yen/euro that speaks louder than our Sunday morning pieties about supporting the poor.
So how do we go about living out the gospel with our pocketbooks?
The thing is (as a large generalisation), it seems that most of the "liberal" churches are concerned about social justice issues while the more "evangelical" sort tend to focus on saving souls rather than alleviating poverty. But because Christianity is simply the good news of Jesus Christ and believing that the gospel is the very power of God, we need to be motivated to help alleviate poverty as well as introducing people to Jesus -- for we can only introduce people to Jesus if we love them first.
Therefore, I'd like to simply offer a few suggestions and links for further info for you to consider how to make a difference with your dollar. Let me reiterate that the reasons that Christians do such things isn't primarily because "it's good for the environment" or because "it's something we should do" or because we have a guilty conscience. No, we do such things because we are motivated by the fact that God, in his infinite mercy, redeemed us -- poor, ugly, broken and utterly helpless -- and so we too are to help those who are in need of physical, psychological, emotional and spiritual redemption.
1. Buy Fair Trade: Fair Trade is pretty big here in the UK and is just starting to catch on in the US (one of my friends is instrumental in the grassroots efforts of Fair Trade LA). Fair Trade works at making trade fair by paying farmers for their products at a sustainable wage as well as allowing them to invest in the future. My favourite product is Green and Blacks chocolate: it's organic, fairly traded, and tastier than your average bar.
2. Buy organic, local produce: There are a ton of local fruit and
veg box delivery schemes around; ask your local grocer where their fruit and veg comes from. Ask your butcher where the meat is sourced: is it free range? How are the animals treated? Buying local produce means that you are supporting your local community and thus there is a smaller chance that a number of middlemen are ripping off those who are the producers. Every town in the US has a farmer's market, at least seasonally, where you can discuss such issues with the producers, because they're right in front of you! Sure, the apples might not look as pretty, but they taste a whole lot better!
3. Recycle: I'll admit I'm not very good at recycling because I often would rather pander to my own convenience than to take my rubbish a few miles away. Here's a website for those in the US where you can find out where to recycle all of your odds and ends that don't go in your big, green bins. But US residents make up to 4.4 lbs of waste a day but, each ton of recycled paper can save 17 trees, 380 gallons of oil, 3 cubic yards of landfill space, 4,000 kilowatts of energy and 7,000 gallons of water! (source). So let's start sorting our garbage!
4. Support local poverty-relief efforts: Again, there's much to be said about supporting your local economy. Because those who work in the most poor neighbourhoods aren't actually giving back to the local economy (instead they get their services in the suburbs), we continue to perpetuate slums in our city centres. Whether it's a homeless shelter, a soup kitchen, a pregnancy crisis centre, or a substance abuse rehabilitation centre, see what's around you and how you can get involved. My mom has taken up knitting for charity as one small way to help out. See what mercy ministries your church is involved in or start one yourself!
5. Consider moving: Culture and poverty both emanate from cities. If we are serious about transforming our culture for Christ we need to confront both a culture that is hostile to the gospel in its intellectual arrogance and one that is reeling from the cycle of poverty and abuse. Check out Tim Keller's Ministries of Mercy and The biblical theology of the city, as well as Ministry in the New Global Culture of Major City-Centers handouts part 1, part 2, and part 3 for starting points. In Romans Paul writes, "But how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent?" (10:14-15). The power of the gospel then comes through the preaching of the Word and the One who equips us also sends us out to live out the gospel in the cities.
Other links of interest: Make Poverty History, The International Justice Mission, The Rough Guide to a Better World, DATA
Being very gung-ho green, I consider this post a community service! Excellent practical steps to incorporate into our lives ..and painless :)
I think the USA is already moving in this very direction.
Ashley,
Nice post. The issues involved are complex, though, and may involve a variety of responses.
I don't see an inherent contradiction in the term "ethical consumerism," provided one understands that greed can find its way into any economic system we follow.
Buy Fair Trade: what is "fair"? Are unfair practices against third world providers due to corporate greed? Or are they fueled by consumer's expectation of low prices (e.g., Walmart)? Or both?
Buy Organic, local produce: Organic and free range aren't cheap. Local is good, but what if someone from New York state desires strawberries in January? They won't be local... and they won't be cheap; but they'll be there for those willing to purchase them. A little example of supply and demand? Instead of paying for free range, how about eating meat less often? (where did we get this notion that we have to have meat every day?)
Recycle: yeah, good idea, as long as it takes less energy to process the recycled goods than it does to dispose of them. (e.g., we can plant new trees)
Support Local poverty-relief: Great idea.
Consider moving: Well, I live in the suburbs... where should I move? To the inner-city? I think that, by definition, more people are living in cities than not. Right now, my wife and I are looking moving away from the city... for family reasons. I think arguments could be made either way on this one.
Make Poverty History: that's a noble goal, but how Biblical is that idea?
As I stated previously, there are many factors to consider regarding these issues. One's culture certainly has an effect - I remember my sister, who worked for a few years in Central America, tell me of a village which didn't want a water purification system installed because the regular (tainted) water "tasted better."
Rusty, thanks for your interaction and I agree, yes, these are complex issues. I'm simply providing some resources to get people thinking. And I am well aware that greed does find its way into any system, including a more "green" one.
To try to shortly address some of your points:
Fair Trade -- In short, making trade "fair" means that people have the opportunities to work at a sustainable level and be able to provide longer term for those who depend upon them. And both the supply and demand-side in favouring convenience and low prices over this "fairness" contribute to the problem. Organisations like Fair Trade seek to raise consumer awareness.
Organic and free-range -- I am completely aware that these things aren't cheap. We're on a very restricted postgrad student budget and we still opt in to buying free range and organic. This means we cut out in other areas and don't eat as much meat as we could. (So I agree with what you're saying, we already do eat less meat b/c the meat we do eat is more expensive). And of course the New Yorker who wants strawberries in January can get them; but as Christians we might want to at least consider those choices.
Recycling -- Yes, it doesn't make sense to drive 10 miles to recycle 1 battery: doing so would be expending more energy than the recycled stuff; therefore we need to work at making recycling available and prevalent.
Moving -- Of course we're all called to different places and it's perfectly legitimate for people to serve God in the suburbs as well. But most families tend to move away from the city b/c of poor schools, increased crime, etc and instead go to the suburbs to have a larger, more affordable house with a yard and better school districts. What Tim Keller is talking about, if you read the links, is a redemption of the city -- to redeem the infrastructure: its school systems and social programs. And this can only happen if people stay in the city. I know that my sister-in-law and her family decided to move to inner-city Seattle for just that reason. Problem is, I don't see many other folks making similar decisions, or even taking such things into consideration.
Again thanks for your comment; I'm glad to see you're thinking through these issues. The post was posted to start people thinking about such things for themselves. Cheers, Ashley
Enjoyed the post, Ashley.
I won't address all the points, just touch on the ones that jumped out at me.
Recycling: We've been recycling for several years now, except our provider doesn't take cardboard. We recently learned that our city recylcing center (located near other places we frequent) does take it so over the past few weeks we've been dropping it off. It's amazing how it has reduced the amount of trash generated for our regular disposal pick up.
Organic: Our local grocer is starting to carry organic greens in recyclable, possibly post consumer, plastic so that's been helpful.
Rusty, I've thought the same thing about the Make Poverty History campaign. I appreciate the intent and efforst, yet Jesus said we will always have the poor with us. Of course, we are to minister to them physically & spiritually, but they'll always be here.
Thanks for the reminder to contirbute locally. Cheers to you, too!
I think this can all be simply something that plays on politically correct guilt, rather than really issues of Christian ethics.
Just because we buy a product does not mean we are responsible for how the product was produced. If that were the case, we would also be held responsible for every evil thing done with our tax money. We are commanded to pay taxes, and what is done with that money is not our responsibility, but rather the rulers who use the money in evil ways will answer for their bad stewardship.
We are responsible for personally oppressing people or taking advantage of them in our own business practices or personal lives. We cannot possibly know every unethical activity or unCHristian practice that takes place on every level of every product we purchase.
Whether someone buys fair trade coffee or purchases only organic is not an issue in their Christian walk. A Christian who pleases the Lord in his faith and life can shop at the much-maligned Wal-Mart and eat Wonder Bread. These issues remind me somewhat of the Titus 2 subculture, in which we see wives and mothers burdened with the legalistic idea that to be worthy of the Proverbs 31 Woman they have to bake their own whole-wheat bread, sew clothing, clean regularly on a schedule, have a thriving home-based business, etc.
As for moving to the city, you say:
"But most families tend to move away from the city b/c of poor schools, increased crime, etc and instead go to the suburbs to have a larger, more affordable house with a yard and better school districts."
Parents are responsible for the upbringing of their children. Some people may be called to work to redeem crumbling inner-city school infrastructures, but not everyone will be (I, personally, am opposed to public school infrastructures on principle) If parents desire a good school for their children, where the kids are not being shot or dealing in narcotics, what is wrong with that, Biblically? What is wrong, Biblically, with wanting to be able to have a few trees and a yard for your children to run in?
We are to be judged on where our treasure is (in earthly posessions which are passing away or in Christ Eternal), not by whether our choice of living area is selfish, according to the standards of others. It cannot be said that someone who lives in the comfortable, safe suburbs or even on 10 rolling acres of inherited family land puts their trust in those things instead of in God, nor is it a given that someone who lives in the inner city and works tirelessly in poverty ministries has their heart right before God.
The New Yorker who wants strawberries in January has a perfect right to them, as longs as he doesn't steal them, and as long as he doesn't use money to buy strawberries that could have been given right then and there, in front of their face, to someone in need. We are not called to give every extra penny to some organization or find a person living on the streets and give them every extra penny. We are called to give generously and gladly, and at times we will need to give out of our own poverty. But at times, we may be blessed with enough money to enjoy legitimate pleasures and gifts of God, like strawberries, while not neglecting our giving.
The sacrificial Christian life is so much more than economic. Christians who may seem "too financially well-off", or who "eat too much meat" or "who don't need such a big house" will certainly be bearing crosses and burdens that cannot be seen by any eye but God's.
Thanks for this post, Ashley; it is important that our spending choices, in all of the resources given us, be well-considered and discerning.
Samantha, I loved your response. There is just so much more to this issue than "meets the eye," or even the pocketbook. We are necessarily limited by the fallen world we live in; it is impossible to make "perfect" choices in food, clothing, housing, schooling, etc. etc.
I think about this often: what is my most important job in life? To take care of the people immediately in my charge, i.e., my husband and my children. In doing so I will necessarily not be doing other things, things that would be very good indeed. But they are not mine to do right now. I debate; should I put less resources into raising my children to delight in the gifts God has given them, and put some of those elsewhere? Perhaps. But how much?
I think that priority is much a matter of gifting. The things that mean the most to us, as long as the reasons are noble, ought to be the things we support. Different people will support different things. This is part of God's economy, I believe. It's also much a matter of practicality.
And lastly, on New Yorkers and strawberries (since I'm a New Yorker); if there was no demand for strawberries in New York State during January, there would be no market for them. Who would buy those berries, then? Are Californians or Floridians deprived of strawberries because their berries are shipped to New York and other places? By buying these berries (not that I do unless they're on sale :-) ), we support that market.
Samantha and Bonnie, thanks for your thoughtful comments. Again, the purpose of this post was to help people to start to think about how these issues relate to their Christian life and thus, I didn't address these issues with the necessary nuance that they deserve and you both (and Rusty) have commented to that effect; I guess this is more of a starter post than a full-fledged treatise-type post. I'm sorry if I've made it sound like these are new legalisms; from my own experience living in the suburban US and in the UK, living out the gospel as a consumer has never been touched on in church. I know that a number of churches do address such issues so I'm not trying to draw a complete blanket statement.
Samantha, two things you write are interesting to me: Just because we buy a product does not mean we are responsible for how the product was produced. and Whether someone buys fair trade coffee or purchases only organic is not an issue in their Christian walk. A Christian who pleases the Lord in his faith and life can shop at the much-maligned Wal-Mart and eat Wonder Bread.
I would like to make some qualifications. On the first point, we the consumers should hold the producers responsible for how they conduct their business; this does not mean that we can affect total change or even that we can be sure they might still be lying to us. You are right, that we cannot know what happens at every level of the production process and to know if the production of such things are unethical or unChristian. Of course this is the case, but it still does not mean we don't do the best we can with the knowledge we can obtain, that we don't seek out the best possible places for our money. This doesn't mean God looks down on those who shop at Wal-Mart; all I'm saying is that as Christians we need to consider where our money is going when we purchase things and being informed to the best of our ability is one way we can make Christian choices. You say that buying organic/fair trade is not an issue in one's Christian walk; I would argue that the points underlying buying fair trade are indeed a part one's Christian walk. I'm not holding up these as rules that 100% have to be followed to the tee (and I'm sorry if it looks that way) but instead that such buying practices support our care for the poor rather than convenience, for better business practice than lower prices.
We are to be judged on where our treasure is (in earthly posessions which are passing away or in Christ Eternal), not by whether our choice of living area is selfish, according to the standards of others. Again, I agree our judgement will be based upon our faith in Christ alone and I never meant to imply otherwise. I've tried to couch all of this in a practical living out of the gospel. I completely apologise if this is not clear, for the absolute last thing I want to do is create new "green-friendly" legalisms. Although it is the case that our final hope rests on Christ alone, we must live that hope out daily in front of people and if we want to be on the front lines, that's plainly in major city centers. (Again, this is NOT to say that the suburbs don't need a reformation, that we don't need people there, that God can't work as powerfully in the suburbs, etc). This is simply to say that the majority of people who will be the leaders in varying fields in the next generation live currently in the cities and so Christians should consider living in city centers (and this doesn't necessarily mean dowtown = inner city, either).
For those who are interested or antagonistic on this account, please read some of the links that I posted from Tim Keller (and go ahead and listen to some of his sermons too on the subject) for as a pastor in Manhatten for a number of years, he's much more articulate on the subject than I could ever be.
Rather than simply disagreeing with my points, it'd be good I think to continue the conversation with trying to ascertain what the gospel looks like in our buying practices? If it's not how I've described it, what do you think Christians should do regarding their purchases? Do we look any different than the world around us? Do we start up a "Make Poverty History" campaign based in the Church instead?
I don't think a Christian's spending habits (meaning what they buy) need look any different from a non-Christian's, except in that they should not be buying anything inherently sinful, they should be giving a portion of their income to the Lord's work and be willing to give more when necessary.
Who decides what is too frivolous a purchase, or too oppressive a purchase? Ronald Sider, in his book "Rich Christrians in an Age of Hunger" (which was masterfully rebutted in David Chilton's "Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt Manipulators - although this book has its problems as well), insinuated that it was suspect if Christians had two suits, or ate "too much meat", etc. I would say that perhaps computers, higher education, books, and especially leisure to contemplate these things (and other middle-class necessities) are too expensive a luxury, money and time that could be better spent in directly fighting poverty.
Regarding the issue of fair trade, etc. - it is an upper- middle class consciousness issue. I am sure that there are many Christian people in non-urban areas of this country who have never heard of the issue, and who have never been in a Starbucks, and probably would scoff that anyone could afford or want to pay such high prices for "good" coffee anyway. I'm sure you would excuse them, but for people like me who *do* know about the issue, I really *should* act on that knowledge I have and necessarily buy the fair trade coffee? And if I don't, I am personally a party to oppression? I don't believe that, and I don't think it is a Biblical statement.
The coffee-growers (if they are not slaves) are working voluntarily for their wages, the amount of which they have to agree to. If the person employing them pays those wages, they are fulfiling their obligation. If the coffee growers don't like their wages, they can organize in labor unions and strike (in which case the employers would be free to fill their places with people willing to work) or they can find other work. If there is no other work, then what they are doing is their best option. That is the nature of the market.
I am not saying at all that people *shouldn't* buy fair trade coffee. It is a legitimate free market enterprise. But to insinuate that people who don't buy it are somehow not fulfilling their obligation to the poor is a stretch. There are even people who think that paying above the market price for coffee (or paying less than the cost of production) will actually, in the long run, drive people out of jobs, creating more poverty.
Another question...I make handmade cards, journals and dolls. The dolls can run as high as 55.00, and a card set 35.00.
http://eclecticdomestic.net/
These things are absolutely unneccesary to life, frivolities. Is it wrong that I spend money buying supplies to make them? Is it wrong when people buy them? How can purchases like this be justified at all, when all these things do is give pleasure? When there
How can I justify using my time to make them, especially since my husband has a fairly good job and any money I make is "unnecessary" for us? Is the time I spend making these things, and the money people use to buy them, wasted, or not as spiritual as giving the money away or using my time to work at the soup kitchen?
These are not meant to be rhetorical questions, but I think they are important ones to ask in light of the ideas we are discussing.
I agree Samantha, your questions in your last comment are important. And I am also implicated in them: living an academic life is utterly superfluous when we could be putting in our time at soup kitchens but this does not mean that what you do or what I do is truly superfluous. We are called to live out the gospel in all facets of our lives, the artistic/aesthetic as well as the economic. As Christians, our decisions can't come down to "how does this affect the poor?" but rather "How does this glorify Jesus?". Big-picture gospel thinking and living allows us to create and enjoy, to contribute to the making of culture (which your artistic enterprises do), without being tied down to an idea that "you must buy fair trade" to better the world.
Regarding who decides about purchasing, it's an issue of conscience I think. We are told in the Bible to help take care of the poor, to meet their needs. One way I can see of practically integrating this in my own life is to do what I can when I buy my own goods and services to ensure what I believe is matching up with what I do. So I try to buy Fair Trade b/c this is what I see as one way of helping to care for the poor. There is a danger though if people buy Fair Trade and think they've met their Christian obligation; we need to have personal interaction with the poor as well, we should be developing programmes that address poverty. We all aren't perfect and I'm sure we should be giving away more to the Church and to the poor than we do (at least this is the case for me, I know). I fail in these very issues I'm promoting. But that's where the gospel comes in. We fail continually but God renews us with his grace. I just want to keep examining to see if I'm starting to better live out and give that same grace to others in my day-to-day choices (whether they're of a consumer, behavioural, academic or aesthetic nature).
Over my years of life I have learned to recycle, look for fair trade items, avoid buying items made in China and seek to make do with what I have. These behaviors have come as a result of having been informed, by others, of the state of the environment, the life situation of workers in third world countries and the work situation in parts of China and covetous desires. But also the Holy Spirit worked on my heart to care about these things. The change was one that came about because God worked on me, in this gray area of life choices. I can recommed it to others, but not insist on it biblically. Thanks for the ideas and links...
Ashley, I'm right with you on this one. 100%. I don't consider it a new legalism either.
I'm going to leave it at that for now. This is an issue that I feel passionately, and thus I lack patience when trying to discuss it with others. I've come from an extremely non-green, pro-big business, anti-environment background, so I tend to get frustrated when I hear the viewpoint. Besides, I've got to go eat lunch.
Questioning whether taking the "right position" on these social isues is necessarily synonymous with Christian faith and living does not mean one is "anti-green, pro-big business, or anti-environment".
One thing I am speaking against is the idea of abstraction, that "people" (say, coffee growers) can be oppressed by "people" (coffee buyers) indirectly. Individuals are the entities who act in moral or immoral ways. Therefore, I do not think that purchasing a product or using a service necessarily means that you agree with every action taken by everyone involved somehow in that operation, because "consumers" is an abstraction, with each individual consumer knowing more or less about an organization or issue, and with a different conscience regarding it. If a worker is being oppressed, some real people have to be doing the oppression directly.
Whether someone is being oppressed is sometimes (not always) a matter of perspective, anyway. I mean, most American workers would consider being paid 1.26 (the fair trade price for coffee, I believe) a pound for something as labor intensive as coffee picking and processing to be oppressive.
I am also opposed to government coercion. While for the time being we are talking about voluntary choice about purchases, the vast majority of people (and I don't know about all of us here) who are pro-green, anti-big business and pro-environment believe that these are issues that should be heavily regulated, taxed and penalized by the State apparatus.
This opposition of mine is not because I have made an idol of human freedom. Rather, it is because 1) the Scriptures speak favorably of the work of a man's hands, the sanctity of his property, his right to leave an inheritance to his children, and his right to contract in business as he wishes. This does not mean that every person will make moral decisions regarding these issues, but just because they will not does not justify imposing controls on people's freedom in these areas.
Jesus Christ Himself uses as an example of God's undeserved grace a parable in which a landowner hires men at a certain wage, each for working a different number of hours, They complain that this is unfair, but Christ denies this, and actually equates the right of the employer to do what he wishes with his own money, to God doing what he wishes with His grace. He also makes clear that the grumbling workers *agreed* to the wage. I understand that in another parable God is likened to an unjust judge, so all parables are not perfect analogies, but I have always found that one striking for the reasons I mention.
And 2) State intervention has done nothing to alleviate poverty or expand freedom or raise the standard of living for people. Government is not a productive entity, but rather takes from those who are productive and uses the fruits of their labor in unproductive ways. Government is the greatest abstraction, and too much faith in it causes us to see the world, and especially other people, as abstractions or fodder for the political grist mill.
Questioning whether taking the "right position" on these social isues is necessarily synonymous with Christian faith and living does not mean one is "anti-green, pro-big business, or anti-environment". I grew up in an "anti-green, pro-big business, anti-environment" atmosphere. I didn't say that you or anyone else in this thread is promoting that viewpoint. Nor did I say that questioning what Ashley said is tantamount to being "anti-green." I merely stated my background and how that makes me more sensitive to this issue. Please don't read into my words an accusation that is not there. Thanks, Samantha.
Sorry, Hannah...I just assumed that it was those of us *here* - meaning me ;-) who would frustrate you, since you were declining to participate.
When you say that you grew up in an "anti-green, pro-big business, anti-environment" atmosphere, what exactly does that mean? (and I understand that you'd rather not comment further... I'm simply throwing the question out there for others to think about)
I'm a supporter of our being good stewards of the environment we were given dominion over, but I also despise the efforts of Green Peace, the Sierra Club, Al Gore, ELF, et. al. In some people's eyes that would make me "anti-green," while in others (myself included), it would correlate to being "pro-green."
I work in a business directly connected to the oil and petrochemical industry. Does that make me anti-environment and pro-big business? For that matter, why is "pro-big business" lumped together with "anti-green" and "anti-environment"? Is being pro-big business a bad thing? (think about that whenever you step onboard an airplane to fly across the country/world)
My point is that the issue is complex, and the terms used are generally vague and, as such, need to be clearly defined. Unfortunately, discussions such as these seem to turn into polarized debates between liberal and conservative paradigms. It goes far beyond that, I think.
Great point on the pros/cons of governmental intervention, Samantha.
I didn't know I mentioned any pros, Rusty, hehehehe!
Thanks for the discussion. Rusty you said, Unfortunately, discussions such as these seem to turn into polarized debates between liberal and conservative paradigms. It goes far beyond that, I think. That's exactly what I've been trying to get at in the beginning of my list in the post and in my comments: this has to do with the gospel, which is bigger than and opposed to "liberal" or "conservative" agendas.
"This opposition of mine is not because I have made an idol of human freedom...but just because they will not does not justify imposing controls on people's freedom in these areas."
Huh?
"Jesus Christ Himself uses as an example of God's undeserved grace a parable in which a landowner hires men at a certain wage, each for working a different number of hours, They complain that this is unfair, but Christ denies this, and actually equates the right of the employer to do what he wishes with his own money, to God doing what he wishes with His grace."
non sequitur. The workers in the parable were overpaid, which you are trying to use as justification for underpayment.
Anyway, no one here is arguing for government intervention.
I detect in this thread (and in similar conversations amongst Christians) a tendency to want to pin people into Republican and Democrat camps, and this makes me very uneasy. It seems like saying something about protecting the environment pins one in the Democrat camp, which is equal in the eyes of many to betraying the Christian cause. The fact is that we do not live in a theocracy, and Jesus didn't establish a political kingdom. Christians are therefore called to live faithfully as members of the kingdom of God here on earth, which means we will find ourselves moving across the normally recognized political lines.
Frank, I am completely apolitical, myself. So trying to peg people by party line is not on my mind ;-)
Also, I don't agree that my point is a non-sequitor. No one was "overpaid" or "underpaid" in the parable, but was paid the agreed upon wage. There is no objective standard of what is under- or overpaid.
Maybe I should have used the word autonomy (freedom apart from God), when I mentioned making an idol, but not holding to the idea of human autonomy does not mean that freedom in the economic arena is therefore not the proper way to deal with trade and all that entails.
This is a topic I’m interested in discussing, because my views on this are in flux at the moment. On one hand, my personal habits and preferences are quite green by mainstream standards, but on the other hand, I do have some appreciation for free market economics and I am fairly conservative, but I’m not a libertarian free-marketeer either. When Rod Dreher published his first “Crunchy Conservative” essay on the National Review site, I was one of the emailers who wrote back saying “Hey, me too!”
In general, I would venture that we are called to apply Christian principles to every part of our lives, and it well may be that as a result, Christian consumption patterns (plural) could vary from the mainstream in significant ways. On the other hand, I think the vast majority of such lifestyle decisions are prudential judgments for the individual and family, not anything with the force of doctrine.
Of the items that Ashley initially listed, here is what I think today:
1. Fair Trade. I’m really torn about this one. It sounds at first hearing like a good idea. But I have read enough free-market criticisms of both the general idea and the workings of the actual Fairtrade organisation that I feel cautious. For instance, Fairtrade coffee farmers must join a cooperative and “family farm” is defined to exclude any dependency on hired labour, even a single extra worker. I’m not at all sure these things are an unalloyed good for poor coffee farmers.
2. Organic, local produce. Although I don’t necessarily agree with everything required to earn the “organic” label, I am inclined to favour this. (I used to be so much in favour of it that five years ago, my reaction to Fairtrade coffee and tea was, “Yes, but why are you buying so much non-local produce in the first place?” :) )
3. Recycling. Excellent as long as the energy-cost is less than the recycling-gain.
4. Local poverty relief. Excellent, as long as it’s the right sort of help.
5. Moving to / staying in the city. Maybe it’s a side effect of having unwillingly lived in cities for my whole adult life, but I tend to think that megalopolises like New York and London have gone way beyond the point of “healthy and good”. I certainly agree that there must be Christians in the city to evangelise. I personally like the example of Fr Vincent McNabb (Chesterton called him “one of the few great men I have met in my life”) – while he stayed to serve in the city, he believed that cities were occasions of sin to most people and especially families, and urged his poor congregants to leave ‘Babylondon’. Maybe a lot of cities would be best improved by making them smaller. :)
On the issue of Fair-Trade, I'm sure there are failings in the organisations that run them, just as there are in the large 'free trade' corporations. free trade has in the main made those who were rich, richer.
At the end of the day though the clincher for me is that while we sit here and debate the rights and wrongs of both systems, and offer our solutions from the comfort of our own homes, many of the coffee producers simply don't have the luxury of choice. They are real people with real children, just like my children. I don't think I could look them in the eye and say "Well, it's very complex you know, because I have rights too and I'm simply not prepared to spend and extra 20p on a jar of coffee, sorry"
Do we really believe that a coffee grower would willingly sell his produce below the cost of production if he had a choice?
Proverbs 31:9 says:
” Speak up and judge fairly;
defend the rights of the poor and needy.”
I think that's what Ashley was doing here.
Neither I nor you are responsible for *every* person who may be poor, therefore, *not* buying fair trade coffee does not mean that someone does not care about the poor. If they are a Christian, at least some of their money goes to helping those in need in some way.
Whether a person buys fair trade coffee or not is *not* an indicator of their compassion as a Christian.
Continuing my thought...
Since I have unpopular views on a lot of issues, I have heard quite often comments like:
"So, you don't think children should be educated?" (because I am opposed to State-run schooling)
"You can't complain if you don't vote"
(as if voting is the only way to make any kind of statement or contribution to society)
These statements seem to suggest that people have a hard time understanding that most issues are not either-or propositions. So, while I don't think anyone here is saying directly that "if you don't buy fair trade coffee you don't care about the poor", I think that is the underlying assumption.
Buying FT coffee is not the only manifestation of care for the poor, and some people may not even think it is a good one, for various reasons (You can search the web for articles from that perspective).
Other people would think that giving up 13-15.00 per pound cofee altogether and giving that money to a poverty organization would be more effective.
Still others would not have a specific concern for this particular issue (coffee growers) but would give their money to missions or some other such work.
Samantha we don't all have to be libertarian - which I think is what is underlying your arguments.
Neither I nor you are responsible for *every* person who may be poor, therefore, *not* buying fair trade coffee does not mean that someone does not care about the poor.
The post doesn't say we are responsible for every person who may be poor. It simply gives suggestions as to how we might help those who we know are poor. And when we know our neighbour is in need then we pray and follow conscience. I don't see anything in Ashley's post that says more than that really. If buying fair trade can help some-one and a persons conscience is ok with Fair Trade then go ahead and buy Fair Trade.
I don't agree with "self-autonomy" - it sounds good but there is no such thing. No one is neutral - we serve one master or the other. As Christians we die to self. I agree that we don't want legalisms - but I also disagree with reacting to any suggestion that we might help those in physical or spiritual need simply because it feels like an imposition on our "self autonomy".
As Christians we do put up with things - we do live within the restrictions of government which is ordained by God. That is not to say that it is a godly system or that leaders are not always free of corruption or mistakes. But nevertheless we live within and respect what is ordained.
On the level of personal interaction - well yes, we could say that when we are aware that thousands of people are starving to death we are not personally responsible and therefore need give nothing (and enjoy our ipods, MacDonalds, and latest DVDs). Sure. But Jesus went further than giving in terms of reparation for things we are personally responsible for. The Good Samaritan parable - he was not responsible for the man in the ditch and why should he stop and help?
Obviously not all the things Ashley has listed will be for everyone. But it seems to me that rather than finding reasons not to give we might explore ways in which we can. If these suggestions aren't workable for some-one - then what are some other suggestions? How can we die to self and live out the attitude of selflessness that Jesus modelled - he gave up his richness (in fact I don't believe he ever had "self-autonomy" - he is one with the Father) and became a servant, forgoing the glory of heaven to live on earth. He didn't just give a bit on the side - he gave everything he had.
That to me is the challenge.
Catez, of course you are right. We all are called to do what we can for people who are in need. And I am not trying to find ways to get out of doing that. But I do think that there is a strong tendency these days for people to have guilt foisted upon them simply because they are not living in poverty, and can afford certain luxuries, as if every person who doesn't live in poverty is causing someone else *to* live in poverty.
That is what I am arguing against.
And I am not saying that you or anyone else here believes that, but it is a very common thing to see today among certain subcultures of Christianity, in addition to the secular left.
I'd like to think that if some-one from the secular left (and that is going to mean different things in different countires - there are variables and nuances) read this post they might join in the discussion and we could explore that part of Ashley's post which talks about our reasons/motivation. I like how her post is wide in that sense - the pound/dollar/yen/euro. It goes to heart issues and how we try to live out the image of God - and how that can be restored.
Samantha, I'm glad Jesus didn't share your attitude towards the human race. What was his responsibility to us? NOTHING! But he lavished us with his grace and died for us. And you still want to argue about what your RESPONSIBILITY is? You're comments make me sick.
Dude, I am not trying to argue against our responsibilities. We do have responsibilities to the poor. But even assuming a certain action is good for "the poor", or particular people who are poor, does not mean that we are all obligated to help the poor in *that* particular way, or feel guilty about it. I don't see why that is such a difficult idea to grasp, nor why it is sickening ;-)
Nobody has said that buying fair trade coffee is the only way to help the poor. Nobody has said that not buying fair trade coffee is a sin or something you should feel guilty about. What several people here are saying is that the grace that God has lavished upon us compels us to (among other things) serve the poor. What is sickening is your frequent attempts to get out from this by talking about "responsibility" and questioning who "the poor" actually are, etc.
Listen. You can sit around and try to define terms and limits. Or you can get out and try to make a difference, and possibly make mistakes in doing so. Which displays a more charitable attitude? Which person do you think will have clothed Christ, or visited Christ when sick or in prison?
I'm sick of the church aligning itself with the conservative agenda that says people are poor as a result of their own choices. This is simply not the case. However, even if it were the case, would that really make a difference? Are we so concerned with not being taken advantage of , are we so concerned with our own rights and privileges, that we would rather not do anything, or sit around and try to define which particular poor people are desreving of our help? Thank God that he didn't use this line of thinking when he chose to send his son to die for us, or we'd all be getting exactly what we deserve.
You say that you're not concerned with responsibilities, but what you have done throughout this thread is try to argue that we don't have the responsibility to serve the poor. You say you are apolitical, but your very first sentence in this thread involved a political judgement. Frankly, your comments here seem to indicate that you refuse to acknowledge that you might possibly be wrong. You are going to do what you are going to do, and believe what you want to believe. That, I find, sickening.
"But what you have done throughout this thread is try to argue that we don't have the responsibility to serve the poor"
How have I said this? It is *always* right to help anyone in our path who is in need. But not everyone is called to go out and work directly in "poverty ministries". We are called to bear one another's burdens, and this can be done in many ways, and not all burdens are financial, and financial burdens are not necessarily the worst or most painful.
I have also not insinuated that some poor don't deserve our help. But the poor we will always have with us. We will never make poverty history before Christ returns. That does not mean that we don't do what we can.
"You say you are apolitical, but your very first sentence in this thread involved a political judgement"
My first statement was: "I think this can all be simply something that plays on politically correct guilt, rather than really issues of Christian ethics."
I don't think using the word "politically" or the term "politically correct" entails a political judgement. When I say I am apolitical I mean that I do not particpate in what we know as politics.
And regarding who the poor are, and how they feel about their own lives, that really is relative. Look at a book like "Material World" by Peter Menzel. The majority of people portrayed in this book are *very poor* by our standards, but if you read the interviews with them (which are found in the companion book "Women in the Material World") you will see that for the most part, they are satisfied with their lives, even if they are difficult. They have livelihoods and dreams and goals for their lives, consistent with their circumstances.
I will end my participation in this thread by saying that whatever people do voluntarily for poverty relief, whether it is giving money, giving time, buying fair trade coffee, etc. is good. The majority of books, etc. however, that I have read about this issue do not stop with voluntary measures, and long for tax supported society-wide poverty and environmental programs and wealth redistribution. I think these things are immoral by nature, and ineffective and wasteful when it comes to helping the needy.
You didn't respond to several of my more pressing criticisms.
In answer to your question, "How have I said this?", read the rest of that paragraph: "It is *always* right to help anyone in our path who is in need. But not everyone is called to go out and work directly in "poverty ministries". We are called to bear one another's burdens, and this can be done in many ways, and not all burdens are financial, and financial burdens are not necessarily the worst or most painful."
Why do you have to make such qualifications, especially in an age when the church is quite simply not doing enough? The fact that you keep qualifiying who the poor are and who should actually serve them is exactly the problem you can't seem to see.
I think your response is very typical of the attitude of the evangelical church at large: in theory we want to help the poor, but in practice, we want to be very careful about who the poor really are (we don't want to help the immoral poor, or whatever), how best to help them (which is certainly a fair point, but also a good stall tactic), how much we should help them, etc. etc., till the point that in actuallity we hardly DO anything. It is not hard to see how, refering again to Matthew 25, Jesus will say to us "I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me." After all, we're in favor of doing these things, theoritically. But we place so many qualifications around them that our care for the poor is very scant indeed.
Just so you know, participation in this thread has gotten this cold-hearted, uncaring gal to consider how she can do more for the poor and needy. So, I am not going to discuss any of the "issues" anymore, because we will keep going in circles, but please consider that you might be misunderstanding me and my motives just as you think I am clueless as to what you are saying.
Peace, I hope...
I haven't been able to participate much, but this whole discussion is inspiring me to write something along these lines on my own blog.
I don't think the question is ever "what do we have to do?" as Christians, but what things most promote the principles by which we guide our lives?
Stewardship is one principle, ethical business practices are a part of that, and a respect for God's gifts in creation is another. They are synergistic, and this topic isn't a set of rules to live by ( why do we keep insisting on reducing things to rules...this is following me everywhere lately)... but making choices that promote the good in all these areas in our own jurisdicitons of decision and influence.
I think sometimes we need to adjust our filter.
Dude, in all fairness and on Samantha's behalf, while your point is well taken on the Church at large, in the specifics of everyday lives, if you really try to be a giving, serving person you quickly find out that you have great limitations. I didn't ask Samantha, but I think she is probably coming from that perspective.
One thing you said that I completely agree with is that we shouldn't be making qualifications on "the poor". I don't think that form of judgment is our place, but having wisdom in how to deal with people on an individual basis does require some discernment on our part. Because "the poor" are just folks...like us who just happen to be doing alright at this time. There are lots of reasons for "poor", sometimes they just need the helping hand up, and sometimes they need something else...like the Chinese proverb that says teach to fish is better than to give a fish.
"You can sit around and try to define terms and limits. Or you can get out and try to make a difference, and possibly make mistakes in doing so."
I don't think it is such a black and white dilemma. I think there is a place for both, and the bigger the organization the more of the former it better be doing. Because the larger an organization is the more responsibility it bears in making good use of its resources.
Giving to the poor is almost always more efficient on the one to one basis, another point I believe that Samantha had buried somehwere in her comment. But it is one statement I would make without qualifications.
We do need to provoke one another to those good works... and your exhortation has served in this:)
Well I'm glad to see this has provoked so much discussion but sad that it seems not to be contributing to helpful discussion at the same time.
Let me again reiterate -- the point of this post was to present ways in which we live out the gospel with our money. Obviously people will disagree with the specifics.
If you don't like my specifics, please give some helpful ways which we can help to live out the gospel with the money we've been given. If not Fair Trade then what? Rather than simply discussing who is *poor*, what that word entails and how the government is going down the tubes, tell me, as Christians what do we do?
We often say one thing and yet fail to act and this is what I'm addressing in the post; I'm hopeful that the comments can reflect this. It's a heart issue.
I'm back...blush...but not to debate.
Ashley, there is no problem with your points at all.
Have any of you ever read Francis Schaeffer's True Spirituality? In that book Fran points out the difference between true moral guilt and psychological guilt. For some reason, I have always latched onto that, and think it is important.
To put my thoughts in that context maybe will make it clearer. Not having concern or doing anything for the poor and needy is something that carries with it true moral guilt, meaning, it is a sin. I have been and am guilty of this as much as anyone, and certainly more than many.
To beat oneself up for not recycling or not buying fair trade coffee or for having a comfortable home in the suburbs *may be* psychological guilt that many people will mistake for real moral guilt. I come from a Jewish background where guilt is practically transferred genetically, and I have had to look at every instance in which I feel guilty and determine whether it is because I really am doing something wrong, or failing to do something I should be doing...or whether I am just being burdened under my own or someone elses unrealistic expectations or social pressures.
I think that in this area of poverty relief, in the last 30 years especially, we have seen a great growth in psychological guilt, either because we can't possibly "do enough" (as Ilona pointed out, we are so limited) or because we, with our makeup and personality, cannot do well this very good thing that other people are doing. And, to top it off, there are disagreements and conflicting opinions about what constitutes the most effective and compassionate way to really help those in need. All those things jumbled together are enough to make people swim (and feel like drowning) in the deep end of the psychological guilt pool. To flounder around in there is unproductive and can make the Lord's burden seen heavy to us, rather than light.
To conclude, I found a website that accepts handmade dolls that go to children who are either ill or who have been victims of some kind of hardship. That is something that I could do, and it would help to alleviate some of my real moral guilt in this area.
Samantha, I think that's really great about the website where you can donate handmade dolls. I haven't read that book by Schaeffer but will put that on my list of books to read for fun. And I appreciate the distinction between moral and psychological guilt; the problem I think is that often a lot of people don't seem to experience any moral guilt whatsoever. Not that it's my job to convict people but I think it's fair game to ask how the gospel makes a difference to our buying practices.
Ashley...what's so scary about real moral guilt is that we have it even when we are unaware of it, or try to rationalize it away! I think that over time, as the Holy Spirit tenderizes our consciences - without the use of unhealthy MSG and chemical tenderizers ;-) we begin to delve into those layers of sin. I am sure that most of us who are so well off by world standards will find some real moral guilt on this issue somewhere!
Thanks for putting up with me in this thread!
I was very touched by your comment about making the dolls Samantha - it is something quite personal as children become attached to them. I agree too that we can try to rationalise our guilt - human nature goes for the denial option in so many ways. We all get caught out on that score sometimes.
Samantha, I'd like to say something more in depth but just want to say that I too struggle with understanding the place that my gifts of craft have. I struggle with sorting out psychological guilt and moral guilt.
Someone once pointed me to Ecclesiastes 9:10: "Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might; for there is no activity or planning or wisdom in Sheol where you are going."
Now, I know that we're not all going to Sheol, and I realize that the consequences of our choices as to where we put our might are everlasting. But -- as we are to delight in the things that God gives us, so should we delight in what He gives our hands to do, just because He's given it.
It reminds me of that part in the movie Chariots of Fire where Eric Liddell says something like, "God has made me to run, and He has made me fast. When I run, I can hear God laugh." I don't remember it to the exact word (it's been years since I've seen the movie), but that part has stayed with me.
Not to say that we oughtn't look for direct ways to offer our crafts in His service, but I think the mere act of doing our craft can be a form of worship, sufficient in itself.
Liddell did go on to be a missionary in China though. I think the conviction of the Holy Spirit is easier heard when we keep short accounts with God and pray about these things. I have to admit that The Dude's point about getting so caught up with reasoning that we get hamstrung did register with me too. Sometimes the need is so obvious - why not just do something?
My DH and I listened to a sermon of Tim Keller's Sunday night online. He quoted Eric Liddel in Chariots of Fire and it was that "when I run I feel His pleasure". Perhaps one of you lovely ladies could have a post on work, pleasure and God? :)
Bonnie, I think you are right. Just working in your calling and doing it well brings glory to God.
But just as I am good at being persistently disagreeable, I am also good at doing do while I am, behind the scenes, thinking seriously about the criticisms people are tossing my way! So, while I would write over again everything I have said in this thread, I decided to step out of the debate for a mement and find my real moral guilt in this area. This is what I found so far:
1) Although I have not made a *lot* of money with my art and zines, what I have made I forget about there in my paypal acount and I have not given from that money.
2) While just doing my art *is* pleasing to God, because He gave me the talent, I thought it would be appropriate to sometimes use that talent to directly help someone in need, and get no payment for it, no thanks, no ooohs and ahhas about how nice it is.
I am grateful that this thread brought these things to my mind!
That said, I am still not going out to seek regular work in a poverty ministry. I think that long-term, direct work with the impoverished, with the ill, with the grieving is a gift and a specific calling. In the NT, we see Paul taking collections for poor believers, and the act of their simply giving for those needs is seen as sufficient.
I think that for those of us who are not called to specific long-term ministries in those areas, God will send opportunities for us to deal with individual people who have these needs, so that we can minister to them in the context of our daily lives.
I also think it is important to remember how much of the NT admonitions about giving and helping are specifically speaking of those who are our brethren in the faith. This is not to say that we are not to help those who are lost, by preaching the gospel without words. But we are to be known as Christians by our love for *one another*, which can be and often needs to be expressed in ways that are not physical or financial, but may be emotional/psychological (rejoicing with those who rejoice, weeping with those who weep), spiritual (praying for or with them, encouraging them with the Scriptures, rebuking them if necessary) or practical (helping them move, helping at some church function, etc).
Of course, we can also reach out to the lost and help them in these same ways.
But I think what I was trying to say but failed to get across is earlier comments is that helping the poor is only one aspect of the Christian life, as there are many ways people can be needy. I don't think that working with the poor, either organizationally or personally, is to be seen as more important or more spiritual than helping with other kinds of needs, either organizationally or personally. This does not at all negate our responsibilty to help the poor in various ways, but there are so many people in this world and so many kinds of needs. I think with honest prayer and introspection, and attention paid to the circumstances presenting in our lives, we can all find our proper place in God's economy, and where we can best and most effectively serve Him, His people, and those who are lost.
In regard to the question about how our Christianity influences our spending habits, we approach it from a radically different point of view.
We are extremely careful with what we spend, trying to get our limited dollars (hubby manages a grocery store and we have seven children) go as far as possible. We do shop at Wal-mart, dollar stores, and thrift shops, and discount grocery stores. I don't buy fair trade coffee, except when my co-op has it on sale.
And with the money we save and the products we are able purchase so thriftily, we donate directly to families we know are in need. Our shopping style, which is almost diametrically opposed to what I see advocated here, has permitted us share with others such things as groceries, meals, housing, a washing machine, a car payment, utility bills, and more, including employment to others at times.
I feel zero guilt for shopping at Walmart (truth to tell, most of our shopping there is limited to the clearance aisle and socks and underwear), but I do get frustrated with a handful of earnest minded folk in real life who think we must be persuaded to change our selfish ways.
It is one thing to examine one's own spending choices and consequences, but what I see far too often is a quicker likliehood to move on to examining every body else's without knowing all the facts. I am here posting somewhat anonymously, which is the only reason I feel free to tell you that in spite of our small income, because of our cheapskate spending, we are quite liberal givers. But we are *anonymous* givers whenever we can be, because we believe that is what the Bible compels us to be. I doubt very much that we are alone in this. Having been very, very poor and been blessed in surprising ways by people we thought rich and proud, I know this is so. So I wonder about the accuracy (and spiritual wisdom) of the criticism of this generic group of American Christians, that selfish middle class, those I see labeled in many of these comments.
There is this tendency to quit examining ourselves and suspect the motives of others all too quickly, especially in discussions like these.
Hi deputy headmistress.
Appreciated reading your personal take on this. A couple of things:
So I wonder about the accuracy (and spiritual wisdom) of the criticism of this generic group of American Christians, that selfish middle class, those I see labeled in many of these comments.
Are we reading the same comment thread? I haven't seen the labelling you describe in these comments, and wonder if you are reading in your own reaction here. I've seen a discussion that in essence says we can get past labelling (i.e. the pc guilt trip labelling of those wishing to explore ways to give and spend ethically from a Christian motivation) and explore suggestions. I think that we may gain spiritual wisdom from discussing these issues. I find your criticism of the desire to become less self-serving counter-productive really.
The word Ashley used in her post was suggestions - and I think your use of advocate is too strong. I don't see your approach as "radically different" - good examples but I wouldn't call it radically different to the spirit of what was posted here.
As for Walmart - different issue. Goes to the whole isolationist position and is I think not the same as engaging by pouring ourselves out in different ways.
There is this tendency to quit examining ourselves and suspect the motives of others all too quickly, especially in discussions like these.
I agree that self-reflection is the way but it doesn't preclude some discussion and perspectives on evangelicalsim. To be honest your comment seems to suspect others motives in a way. Of course we can have discussions like these. I would be resistant to attempts to try and control the process in a good discussion - it's obvious from following the discussion that it has been a beneficial process once we got past some generalisations and started talking about what is actually in the post. And frankly, if it so happened that a critique of evangelical thinking or selfishness on the part of ourselves occurred then so what? If our conscience is clear we pass it by, if the suggestions are not for an individual they can present others, and if it pricks our conscience then we take a look at ourselves and pray. I see no problem.
The post has a list of suggestions. Not laws. It's a very good post in terms of looking at ways we might be better stewards and in opening up discussion for other suggestions.
You make some very good points in your last comment Samantha. On this:
I think that long-term, direct work with the impoverished, with the ill, with the grieving is a gift and a specific calling. In the NT, we see Paul taking collections for poor believers, and the act of their simply giving for those needs is seen as sufficient.
I think that for those of us who are not called to specific long-term ministries in those areas, God will send opportunities for us to deal with individual people who have these needs, so that we can minister to them in the context of our daily lives.
My observation from experience is that it's not as either/or as you suggest. Some people participate part-time and do so for a season. So yes, some have long-term ministries, some encounter people in their daily lives, but some also go and find opportunities that are shorter term and for a period of time. Helping out at a homeless shelter a few hours a week for example. The work I'm currently involved in is voluntary, and some do it for a period of time and then stop as they have new commitments etc. This time of involvement may not be something you can do but I think we need to allow for the various ways which involvement occurs.
I think you are approaching this from where you are at, which is valuable, but in doing so I get the sense that you haven't allowed for other expressions and involvements that are part-time and not necessarily long-term. God involves people in those ways too and it isn't necessarily limited to long-term calling or our current daily sphere. God can and does send opportunities - and sometimes for a season, a few hours a week, he sends people.
