Yuppie For Jesus - Intelligent Christian Dialogue on the Webs

Faith and International Relief

2010-02-28T22:52:00.000-08:00

Hello dear readers,

Something to tide you over 'til I deliver on my promise to have the third post of the series within the week:

Take a gander at this (and ignore the sensationalist title) :

Nicholas Kristof usually writes great columns on international relief and crises and draws on his wealth of experience in the field. I think he did a particularly great job this time with looking at evangelical Christianity as a positive force for social change.

That's not a storyline you typically hear in media that isn't explicitly Christian in focus; the MSNBCs of the world seem to focus on the negative when faith-based orgs come into play, I've seen the FOX News-es of the world co-opt it into their own larger narrative of mainstream media bias/ideological justification, and neutral outlets like CNN avoid going there (perhaps out of a desire to avoid the appearance of advocacy or partisanship on behalf of one faith/group). There's too much for a media outlet to gain by distorting tone, for it to be portrayed more simply or honestly for what it is. And even a media outlet being Christian doesn't necessarily mean that stories like this are treated objectively. (I'd say it's MORE likely but not 100%)

My favorite part of this article (and his attached blog post here) is how he addresses many of the out-of-hand dismissals often made of faith-based relief work. Take the mention of World Vision's practice of banning the use of aid dollars to proselytize. Or him pointing out the healthy, sustained evangelical pressure on the Bush White House that was no doubt a part of unprecedented increases in HIV relief and other foreign aid to Africa over the past few years.

I could go into the millions of $$ of support and all the positive work Rick Warren has done for HIV/AIDS in Africa with Saddleback Church, but most of what you hear about him in ANY media is his megachurch falling on financial hard times or his stance on Prop 8/his former support for that one Ugandan pastor who wants to criminalize homosexuality. (I guess I DID just go into that. Oh and I disagree with Warren on Prop 8, but you already all knew that).

My point is that regardless of how it's dressed up by the storyteller, sometimes it's people just helping others because it's a central tenet of their belief system that others should be helped. And I appreciate that sometimes that gets recognized by a columnist in a prominent paper like the New York Times.

One of the commentors on Kristof's blog had a great St. Francis of Assisi quote about social justice/living out the Gospel with good works that I'll leave you with.

"Preach the Gospel always. When necessary, use words."

Are you my Neighbor?: A Morally Defensible Media Diet: Part 2

2010-02-22T16:00:00.000-08:00

Where do you get your news? How do you take in information about the world around you? Are you getting enough vegetables and fiber in your media diet?

A Shrinking World = Closer Needs

Since it’s been 2-3 months since the first part of this post (sorry), I’ll recap.

Last post, I talked about how the world has been getting "smaller" and smaller. Bit by bit, because of technologies like the telegraph, the telephone, the text message, and the Internet, we've become functionally "closer" to everything on the map.

We can communicate with others further and further away, with less and less difficulty, at a ever-quickening pace. Sports journalists will Tweet an update about a athlete's injury across the country, from the sidelines of a game before it's even finished. CNN streams video coverage live, online, from the latest incident in the Gaza Strip half the world away.

And it's more than just info that gets around more quickly. Living in Mexico, you can buy DVDs from China, using Ebay in California. You can wire money to any bank account in the world from your armchair, as long as that armchair is close enough to an internet connection. You can find that rare foreign holiday special you loved as a kid on Youtube (or available for actual download though any number of less reputable sites).

So the world’s “smaller” and we can all appreciate the benefits of cheap online DVDs, but when does erasing the physical distance erase the moral distance between us and the rest of the world’s problems? When do we go from enjoying cheaper crap and a constant connection with the world around us (neither of which we physically NEED), to caring about and investing in problems and issues where we can now make a difference all the easier?

As Christians in America, when does someone become "our neighbor," when we can be made instantly aware of their issues (like a food crisis or epidemic) and contribute to solving them just as easily as if they were in our own backyard?

It helps to live in the US and have more disposable income per capita than any country on Earth. You could even argue that since our money goes further in countries with a lower cost of living, our giving solves some international problems MORE effectively than our own. But I digress.

What happens to “love your neighbor” when geographical distance isn’t the only thing that determines what you hear about, or can effect?

Big or Small World: Your Call

Here's my take: If you hear about it and you can change it, you have just as much responsibility to take action as if it were local. Because, for all practical intents and purposes, it is.

You can take this and run with it the other way if you like; In deciding what to watch or not watch, read or not to read, what to be notified of, you are deciding how “big” or “small” you want your world to be. Ultimately, the one responsible for what media you consume is YOU. And that’s a big decision.

It’s a tricky call to make, and I think we avoid it by taking some shortcuts. Subconsciously, unconsciously, or just plain consciously, we do it in a variety of ways.

Filters

Since we can access news/info/media easier than ever before (it’s always present at our fingertips) we automatically put some filters into place to control what we’re taking in. We do this by choosing what to watch on tv, what to read (on the internet or in magazines/newspapers), what conversations to be drawn into.

And this is something we automatically do, as a part of processing info. There’s nothing wrong with this, it’s an automatic step we take because there’s only so many hours in the day and only so much attention we can give during those hours. I wouldn’t say that there’s a moral question of whether or not to commit this act. But HOW to do it well is the tough part.

Natural Tastes

If we don’t think about it, we tend to go with our natural inclinations. If we like Google News as a source of, well, news...we'll come to rely on it more and more to determine what we read. And sometimes that's okay. Google News does a pretty good job on its own of providing a balanced diet, compared to some sources (yes, I'm looking at you, MSNBC and FOX News).

Other people might follow a certain Twitter feed for their breaking news or celebrity gossip. A media diet isn't even necessarily about news; someone might take in the majority of their info through Consumer Reports the magazine, or the John Tesh radio program (let's hope not, on that last one). The point is, people have a tendency to gravitate towards what they like, identify with, or are most entertained by. And to a certain degree, that's fine.

The moral component comes in taking an active role in figuring out this “media diet.” We shouldn’t default to our first instincts and habits; let's be intentional and challenge ourselves. Let’s take stock of what we DO and DON’T wall ourselves off from, with our decisions. One can argue that we have a moral imperative to seek that out.

Next week: Part 3 - How?

(Most of it’s already been written. Feel free to nag me if I haven’t posted it by then)

Are you my Neighbor?: Globalization and Moral Distance: Part 1

2009-11-04T19:12:00.000-08:00

I like knowing what's going on around the world. I just enjoy it.

Sure, there is a small component of self-interest; I might take a little too much pride in the fact that I make the effort to stay well-informed about other countries or follow international news. And anyone who knows me knows my love of factoids. "Did you know that Pakistan means 'land of the ritually pure?' or that Japan's imperial line is the oldest hereditary monarchy on the planet?" Great icebreakers, I know.

All that aside, I think that there's a lot to be said for seeking to better understand the world outside our borders. US residents are only 4.5% of the earth's population living on 6.5% of its land mass. Really, no matter what country you live in, there's good justification for not completely ignoring how the other 99% lives.

And these days, it's even easier to find out. The world comes to you, really. With 24 hour news networks, the ever-expanding grasp of the interwebs, and cheaper and cheaper phone technology, the sky is literally the limit. You can Skype a family member who's traveling abroad or collaborate on a website with someone across the country as easily as you could make a phone call or hold an in-person meeting. Globalization has become kind of a buzzword these days, but really, geographical distance has almost never mattered less.

Anyone remember where you were when Michael Jackson died? I remember logging on to Facebook 1 minute after NBC confirmed the death and seeing a sea of MJ-death related status updates from all over the country, some specifically referencing the NBC report. If you didn't know when you logged on, you found out fast.

Journey found its new lead singer via Youtube, fronting a cover band in the Philippines that specialized in, you guessed it, Journey songs. He sounds just like Steve Perry, too.

After elections were disputed in Iran in early 2009, protesters used Twitter to coordinate rallies against a government crackdown forbidding dissent. As media outlets across the country went dark, Twitter was used to keep the rest of the world updated on what was happening. The US State Dept. actually asked Twitter to postpone some scheduled maintenance, since tweets were one of the main channels of info left free. Granted, tweets are not the same as professional journalism, but that's not the point.

Beyond easier access to political news or finding a new set of pipes to front your band, there's plenty of practical, immediate benefits. A cut-and-dry example: Public health workers on frontline clinics in Malawi and Uganda are able to compress complex medical records and diagnostics into SMS format and send them to doctors and nurses at remote hospital sites, using super-cheap and super-abundant mobile phone tech. (http://bit.ly/cTcXX . Check it out, it's actually pretty cool)

These days, when an international disaster occurs (thinking of the cyclone in Myanmar earlier this year or the tsunami in Samoa a few weeks ago), I can expect a few disaster relief nonprofit emails in a day or two, asking for support. Direct Relief Int'l, Oxfam, the Red Cross, and others can now spring into action immediately with the resources they need instead of waiting for loans, cash flow, or snail mail support to trickle in.

The world gets smaller and closer every day, relative to our reach, what we can affect or change. It's just as easy to give $50 online towards repairing a cleft palate or harelip in the developing world as it is to donate your old clothes to the Salvation Army downtown. One might argue that it's actually easier, because you can give at your computer without getting your lazy butt out of the house or even out of the chair. (not that you shouldn't fight the impulse and do just that)

How does living in a smaller world and becoming (effectively) closer to big problems change our relationship with them? When does malnutrition or a lack of potable drinking water half the world away become as big a concern to us as it would be, were it people down the street from us? What keeps people in the new "global village" from being, for all intents and purposes, our neighbors?

How does Jesus' commandment to "love thy neighbor" (Matthew 22) apply to people a world away who we'll never meet, when we CAN increase a village's life expectancy via antibiotics/vaccines with a mouse click? Who fits the description of "the least of these" (Matthew 25) more than a child soldier or sex slave? Even if they ARE in a country you couldn't find on a map without names, you don't need to do that to give through PayPal.

As Christians, at what point does the luxury of ignoring the "physical" distance between us and the rest of the world lead us into the virtue of ignoring "moral" distance between us and problems we could be helping to solve?

When does it stop being "their" problem and start being "our" problem?

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

Check back soon for Part 2! Feel Free to comment!

Blog 2.0

2009-10-31T15:15:00.000-07:00

Hi everyone,

This post will hopefully be the first of many more-frequently-added ones to come. I want to put some free time to use and externally process some thoughts I've had, as well as getting back into writing.

I think I'll use this space less as a way to blog about political issues (which was my original goal) and use it more to dialogue on some thoughts on faith as related to everyday life.

Some initial areas of interest that I'm thinking about: Christianity and the advent of digital media, reaching a God/life/work balance, worship, church, the Church (with a big C), social justice, modern idolatry, Christianity and marketing, business ethics/Christian ethics, and authors like Chesterton and C.S. Lewis.

There'll probably be an occasional political tidbit in there too (hard to stop myself) but I will keep it civilized.

So sit back, enjoy, and comment! I welcome feedback and honest, open, civil dialog/discourse.

Peter

first!/A Christian Argument Against Prop 8

2008-12-31T09:58:00.001-08:00

Hi everybody! This is the start of what I hope will be fertile ground for thoughtful dialogue on issues of faith from a Christian perspective as well as politics, international relations, and socioeconomic stuff.

Over the course of the last year, there have been plenty of times when I see an article or an online post where my faith is misrepresented by others. Sometimes it will be too judgmental and politically charged a point of view, or sometimes it'll be a statement that is too culturally accomodating and doctrinally unsound. Sometimes it'll be a statement unrelated to faith that's just plain ol' erroneous.

In any case, whenever I see this stuff out there, I want to write a letter to the editor/writer/etc. to try to come at the issue from a more thoughtful/prayerful/correct point of view. So I thought, why not just blog instead? So anyways, I'm taking a stab at this and we'll see how it goes.

To start things off right, here's a facebook note I wrote about why I voted "No" on California's Proposition 8 (the bill "Removing the Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry" according to the Ballot's official title for it.) I wrote this before the election, but I'm posting it now as a sample of how I try to approach issues. Enjoy!

A Christian Argument Against Prop 8

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

Hi everybody. There’s a lot of focus on this election for the obvious reason of the presidency, I think we can all agree. Record numbers of turnout on both sides, increased media focus, fundraising records being shattered, the electoral map shifting, groundbreaking nominations on both sides…but I think those of us living in California, while we hear plenty, are far more removed from the general election process than someone living in say, Ohio, Florida or Virginia.

We’re one of the safest blue states on the map (although I think we went for Reagan in ‘84). Even though we make up about 10% of all the votes and are by far the biggest state in terms of population, neither candidate really uses California for anything other than raising money, or bugging us to drive to Nevada to knock on doors. (Anyone on the Obama campaign’s email list knows what I’m talking about.) So, all this to say, even though Barack Obama and John McCain have brought the largest, youngest, and most diverse groups out of the woodwork, from sea to shining freaking sea, it can be easy to feel like if you live in California, your vote doesn’t matter as much.

But it does. If you’re reading this on Facebook, I’d be willing to bet that you’ve heard of this summer’s California Supreme Court decision, which recognized marriage for same-sex couples. And you’ve probably also heard of Proposition 8, the ballot measure that came into existence almost immediately afterward. On the sample ballot, it reads “Eliminates right of same–sex couples to marry.” If passed, this law would define marriage in California and legally recognize only heterosexual marriages. In the last few months, a lot of passionate feelings have been raised on both sides of the issue, so let’s clear a few things up. This law is not to decide “yes” or “no” on gay marriage, this law is to say that a same sex relationship cannot be termed “marriage” in the state of California. Marriage for same-sex couples has already been granted through the legal system of the state, and this is a law to, in its own words, “eliminate” that “right.” This is an issue of legal rights, not of some imaginary LGBT conspiracy out there conspiring to erase our values and beliefs.

No one is pushing their beliefs on you. I read on a friend’s post on this issue that only 3% of the population is gay and is “forcing their beliefs” on the other 97% of the population. Now, leaving aside those HUGE assumptions (that that percentage is accurate and that 100% of that 97% of straight people oppose gay marriage) it’s just not true that “they” are forcing “their” beliefs on “us.” Judges, appointed officials who administer the law, acted to protect rights for an alternative lifestyle. One of the problems with California’s referendum laws is that anyone in the state can do things like hang the rights of a minority group (up to 49% of the population) on a simple popular vote (which any veteran of the civil rights or women’s rights struggles would tell you is a bad idea).

But let’s talk about why you shouldn’t vote yes in this popularity contest. Since it’s a change to the California state constitution, there should be a good reason to pass it. I’m arguing against this proposition and not FOR anything other than letting the Constitution stay as it is now, so these will all be reasons why you should vote “no,” not necessarily in support of gay marriage as an institution or homosexuality as a lifestyle choice.

1. It doesn’t protect marriage. How will redefining a civil marriage under the law protect marriage? The institution of American marriage is not under assault today, at least not more than it has been by its rising divorce rate for the past few decades. (50% of first marriages!) American marriages have been in trouble for a while; the culprit is not homosexuality and never has been. I’ve heard the argument that male or female roommates might get married to each other out of convenience to get lower taxes or health benefits; marriages of convenience happen between heterosexual couples as well, and we’ve never cared before.

2. No one’s forcing YOU to get married or condone being gay. This is where that 97%-3% argument falls to pieces. The fictional 3% aren’t forcing the fictional 97% to get married to people of their own gender, they just want to be able to choose for themselves. No one is forcing you to legitimize homosexuality as a lifestyle, or admit that it comes from genetic rather than environmental factors. It is entirely about the same rights under a country that bills itself as free of religious influence.

3. Here’s a big one. No one is forcing you to deny your Christian belief that homosexuality is a sin. Your church will not be forced to marry same-sex couples or hire same-sex employees, unless MAYBE you somehow receive state funding. (Which I don’t think tax-exempt churches are allowed to do, but I’m not 100% sure)

4. Your kids will NOT be taught that homosexuality is ok in public school if Prop 8 fails. (It has nothing to do with that!)

5. From a strictly legal point of view, marriages offer far more legal benefits to a same-sex couple than a civil union. Power of attorney, legal right of kinship, joint federal income tax filing, etc. Civil unions are NOT the same and this proposition does actually deny people their legitimate rights, for living outside the majority opinion of a marriage (whether or not you want to classify gay marriage as a “right,” you have to agree that THOSE are rights).I can’t tell you that I know how Jesus would vote. That would be presumptuous on my part, especially given what I’m about to say. I’ll just have to go with what I’ve come to after a lot of prayer and thinking about the issues in the light of what Scripture says. Your religion can and should influence your vote. THAT isn’t what the separation of Church and State is about. It comes down to voting to specifically forbid someone else a right that’s been extended to them (when it in no way affects you, your beliefs, or your relationship with God) to let those who disagree with the Bible live with all the rights we have, and I can’t in good conscience do that.

If Jesus could vote in a secular state like ours, would he vote to force others to live by his moral code? From what I’ve seen, he led by example and personally called people to follow Him. He gave commandments to “sin no more” and to “pick up [your] cross and follow me” to individuals, as God on Earth. He had a more nuanced and complex relationship with the religiously based Jewish law of his day than simply legally forbidding behavior at odds with his teachings. He hung out with and preached to Samaritans and prostitutes, contact with them forbidden or at the very least looked down upon by the believers of his day. He called them to a personal choice to change their lives and to enter into a relationship with Him.

Would he have looked at a ballot in a country that is explicitly non-religious and thought, “Since these people sin, I will enact laws to make their life more difficult?” I have a hard time visualizing that.

If the gay rights struggle begins to conflict with religious rights, I’ll be up in arms. If the thought police come after Christians for saying apolitically from the pulpit that the New Testament teaches that homosexuality is wrong, a lot of people will get angry. But that’s not what this vote is about. It isn’t about anything near that. It does not directly affect communities of faith, for gays & lesbians to get married, somewhere in the state, so I don’t really feel compelled to stop it. The apostle Paul wrote a lot about sexual immorality in the church. You know what he said about sinners outside the church?

“For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? But those who are outside, God judges.” (1st Corinthians 5:12-13a, NASB) Paul is always adamant about urging Christians to expel unrepentant sinners from their churches, but here he talks about how it’s not our place to judge an unrepentant world.It’s the church’s job to live as an example to that unrepentant world.

It’s the church’s job to protect marriage by having good marriages, not by forbidding the formalization (and equal recognition under the secular law) of thousands of longstanding gay and lesbian relationships. If you want to protect marriage, don’t get married until you’re really ready. If you want to protect marriage, work on having good spousal communication, on spending time and energy on your kids, on your relationship with, and understanding of God, together. Go do some sit-ups or buy those flowers or cook that romantic surprise dinner.

That's what a REAL "Protect Marriage" law would require.