Equality is a Moral Issue

In our world today God's name and identity are still defaced. They are slandered by poverty, by injustice, by corruption, by disease, and by human exploitation and suffering. And God's name is defiled when his people willingly and apathetically accept the status quo, lacking the vision to lift up God's holiness, goodness and justice in a crumbling world.

                                                     Richard Stearns in The Hole in Our Gospel

I continue to be troubled by statements I heard earlier this year (about which I wrote previously) to the effect that inequality and poverty are simply the reality of our world which we must live with. In fact, the person who made these statements argued that in fact inequality is good, that we wouldn't want to live in a world where everyone is the same. But this confuses equality with being identical. Just because people are equal doesn't mean they are all the same. Equality recognizes and affirms distinctions in people, in their characters and personalities and in their gifts and abilities. But equality denies that those differences should allow one person to have authority or privilege over another simply because of a particular characteristic. For example, why should I have the right to utilize an excessive amount of the world's resources simply because I happen to have been born in the United States? Why should the fact that I happened to be born with an X and a Y chromosome make me acceptable for certain roles, while my wife and other friends who have two X chromosomes are not, by virtue of that fact? Obviously there are real differences between a person who lives in the United States and one who is raised in a poor country in the world, just as there are biological differences between men and women. But these differences do not justify inequality.

The fact that inequality does exist in the world doesn't mean we should be content with it or accept it as an unchangeable condition. We can choose how we will respond to the advantages and benefits given to us by virtue of our background. We can determine that, because we happened to be born in the United States and therefore had access to great opportunities and privileges not currently available ot the larger portion of the world's population, that we therefore have the right to take full advantage of that position, whether we consciously choose to exploit the rest of the world or not. We can say that we have a right to keep all our money and resources and use them for our own benefit (perhaps, if we feel generous, doling out a small portion to the needs of the world's masses). After all, inequality is just a fact of life and while we may feel sorry for the poor of the world, well, in the end that's just the way the world is.

I can choose as a white man that my biological sex and my skin color entitle me to privileged treatment. I can fight vigorously against any attempts to encroach on my power and privilege and complain vociferously whenever any portion of it is taken away from me. I can insist on my right to keep my hard-earned money and use it for the benefit of my children and those who are like me, preserving the privilege that I received for the next generation. I can maintain a wall between men and women that designates certain, limited environments as the acceptable spheres for women to conduct their lives. Sure, I affirm them as equal, as long as they don't try to actually live that out too fully. After all, inequality is just the way the world is.

Or maybe I could recognize that inequality reflects the fallen nature of this world. I could acknowledge that the power, privileges and benefits I have do not come to me so that I can keep them for myself, but so that I can surrender them. I can give away power and privilege. I can affirm the dignity and worth of others. I can invest the resources God has given me (however great or small they may be) so that others might have more opportunities and choices and over time experience greater equality.

I've been reading Richard Stearns' book The Hole in Our Gospel, which is a bit of a biography but even more a call for the church of Christ to embrace God's call to act on behalf of the poor, marginalized and oppressed of this world. In the book Stearns points to Paul's words to the Corinthian church in his second letter as a reminder (among many others in Scripture) that God cares deeply about equality—that in fact equality is “a justice issue or, stated more bluntly, a moral issue in which those of us who have plenty seem willing to allow others to have nothing.” In his letter Paul writes:

“Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there may be equality. At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need.”

God calls us to work to eliminate inequality, using any benefit we may have to serve those who are in some manner disadvantaged. Stearns and Paul both address the issue of economic equality, but the issue of equality goes far beyond economic equality. If those of us who have privilege and power cling to it when we could and should be giving it away, we may some day find that the tables have turned on us despite our efforts and our own unwillingness to treat others as equals now will in that day come back to haunt us.

I acknowledge with great sadness that inequality does exist in our world. One would have to be blind not to see this. But I refuse to accept that this is simply the way things are, much less to affirm that somehow inequality is a good thing. Equality is, as Stearns states, a moral issue and as a disciple of Jesus Christ, who affirmed the dignity, worth and equality of all people, I want to work and speak for equality in the name of Christ. To do otherwise would be to deny the very name of the God I claim to serve.

He Defended the Cause of the Poor and Needed

While reading in Jeremiah 22 yesterday I encountered these words:

"Woe to him who builds his palace by unrighteousness,

his upper rooms by injustice,

making his people work for nothing, 

not paying them for their labor.

He says, 'I will build myself a great palace

with spacious upper rooms.'

So he makes large windows in it,

panels it with cedar

and decorates it in red.

"Does it make you a king 

to have more and more cedar?

Did not your father have food and drink?

He did what was right and just,

so all went well with him.

He defended the cause of the poor and needy,

and so all went well.

Is that not what it means to know me?"

declares the LORD.

These do not strike me as the words of a God who does not care whether we pursue justice and economic equality or not. What do you think?

Economic Inequality Harms Societies

In light of my recent post concerning our response to poverty and inequality, I find this TED video very enlightening and challenging. In the past couple years as people have protested economic injustice within the United States (and elsewhere), some have responded by pointing out that compared to the rest of the world, almost all Americans are in the wealthiest 1% of the population. This is largely true and we should not forget that. However, in this video Richard Wilkinson uses data on a variety of issues to show that the level of inequality within a given society has a significant impact on a number of areas, including social relations, health, childhood well-being, math and literacy scores, trust levels, murder rates and much more.

He points out that we cannot just speak of the relative wealth level of a country on a global scale. We must consider the economic distribution within a society. If we want to have a healthier society, we must seek to reduce economic inequality; that is to say, we must strive to reduce poverty. We must do what we can to level the playing field. It is not enough to say simply that the poor will always be with us.

I don't call attention to Wilkinson's video in an effort to ignore the significant issues of global poverty and economic inequality, but to point out that economic inequality affects us here at home in America as well. As followers of Jesus Christ, called to work with God to realize the Kingdom of God on earth, we cannot simply accept inequality as an unavoidable part of the status quo. We can and should seek to reduce economic equality as a matter of spiritual and social responsibility.

The Poor Will Always Be With Us

While in a conversation last week about the sermon I wrote about a couple weeks ago my conversation partner quoted the words of Jesus in Matthew 26:11—“The poor you will always have with you.” These words upset me because they were quoted in such a way as to excuse us from making serious efforts to reduce or eliminate poverty. They were a cop out and I don't think that Jesus meant them to be used as such. (In fact, I would argue exegetically that the issue of the poor being with us or not isn't really the focus in the passage, but that's another discussion.)

Our conversation that day centered on the Christian response to poverty and economic inequality. The man with whom I was speaking—a brother in Christ—sees the issue much differently than I do. He said that the playing field will always been uneven and that we need to accept that fact. Going further, he argued that our efforts to level the playing field are in fact sinful, because in making such attempts we presume to take the place of God. While I am quite sure that this brother and his wife do a lot to help people in need in various ways, I was astounded to hear him argue that we just need to accept economic inequality as an unavoidable part of human life, that in fact to work to counteract this constitutes sin. To quote Jesus' words in defense of this simply went over the top.

When I read the Bible, I find a lot of verses telling us as God's children to care for one another; to look out for the poor, the widows and the orphans and those who have been trampled by the powerful and wealthy in the world. I read the words of Isaiah in chapter 58 and hear a call to action, to work for change, not a statement that only God can level the playing field.

Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen:

to loose the chains of injustice

and untie the cords of the yoke,

to set the oppressed free

and break every yoke?

Is it not the share your food with the hungry

and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter--

when you see the naked, to clothe them,

and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?

Elsewhere in Isaiah (chapter 1) we read a similar exhortation:

Learn to do right; seek justice.

Defend the oppressed.

Take up the cause of the fatherless;

plead the case of the widow.

I read the words of Jesus recorded in Matthew 25 and hear that the way I respond to those in need indicates clearly the condition of my faith.

Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.

I don't see how anyone who chooses to follow after Jesus Christ can argue that we have no right or responsibility to work to reduce or eliminate the inequalities and injustices in our society and globally. To not do so goes against the very exhortations of Scripture.

I imagine that my conversation partner that day would acknowledge at least some personal obligation to respond, and as I said I believe that he and his family do what they are able. But I believe that this obligation goes beyond us as individuals and even beyond God's people as the Church. I do not accept that it is sinful to seek to remedy injustice and inequality through government action. I acknowledge that this will never fully resolve or eliminate the problems, but we can certainly do something. Ellen Painter Dollar presents some strong examples for the role of government in addressing poverty and injustice in this blog post.

We can drive a sick, uninsured child to a hospital, but if a long hospitalization or surgery is required, that child’s parents will have to either scrape together thousands or dollars (and perhaps eventually lose their home or declare bankruptcy as a result) or hope that the hospital has charity funds available. We can help an immigrant learn English and a marketable skill, but if the law doesn’t offer him a reasonable avenue toward legal work status, we can’t help him get a job that will support a family.  We can provide pregnancy counseling and baby supplies to a young unwed mother, but if that mother is unable to afford groceries, decent housing, quality daycare, and additional education for herself , she and her child will likely end up in unsafe housing, poorly nourished, un- or underemployed, and stuck in a cycle of poverty that isn’t just a problem for that family, but (in God’s economy) for all of us. Without government safety nets such as subsidized housing and daycare, food stamps, education grants, health insurance, and support for immigrants, private charity can only do so much to ease the burden of poverty.

She acknowledges, as do I, that our government is far from perfect. No government is perfect (neither would a more socially conservative one be closer to perfect). But we are better to undertake some effort to level the playing field and reduce poverty where we can than to say that it's just a reality we have to live with. I don't think that's how Jesus saw it when he walked the earth and I don't think that's how he sees it today. Yes, the poor will always be with us, but we don't have to accept that a statement that we can't and shouldn't do anything to improve this.

Finally, my conversation partner last week made an appeal to the right of people to not have their wealth “stolen” from them by the government. This argument struck me as more American than Christian, although he tried to base it on the ten commandments. The underlying issue seems to be whether it is “fair” to surrender part of your hard-earned (or not-so-hard-earned) wealth to care for others. To me this isn't even an issue, because we should gladly do so for the sake of caring for others. But even if one doesn't accept that, one must consider whether “fairness” is a concern for God. As Dollar points out elsewhere in her article:

God is not about fairness. God is about justice. God is about all people being treated with dignity as those made in God's image, about extravagant generosity regardless of merit.... It may be unfair for the wealthy to be taxed at a higher rate than the middle class, but in God's economy, it is just.

Christians may take different views on how we can address poverty, injustice and inequality in our society and globally, but we cannot take an attitude of indifference, reasoning that the poor will always be with us so we might as well just accept that fact. My conscience certainly will not allow me to do so.

First World Problems Anthem

Danielle at From Two to One shared this video today on Facebook and it caught my attention. I think it's an interesting juxtaposition of what some Americans think are problems with the reality of poverty. What do you think? You can read more about the goal of the video and the organization that had it created in this article.

The Girl Effect

In the book Half the Church by Carolyn Custis James, which I wrote about yesterday, the author makes reference to The Girl Effect. If you haven't heard of this, take a minute and watch this video.



What do you think? Studies and practical evidence indicate that indeed investing in girls and women has a profound effect on a society. I fear that the potential impact may be overstated in this short video, because I think it underestimates the inherent sexism in most societies, where men will hold on to their power and prestige even in the face of clear evidence that the whole society benefits when girls and women are empowered and treated as equals. Despite this potential obstacle, I believe in the girl effect and have shifted the investments I make into charitable projects accordingly. While I don't exclusively support projects that promote the girl effect, I do actively seek to promote such work because I believe in the inherent dignity of women and I believe that when we affirm their worth and give them opportunities to succeed, entire societies benefit.


Consider this video:


 
Most of us don't have to worry about the future of our daughters. We keep them in school and provide them with good healthcare and opportunities for life. The girl effect isn't apparent to us because we already experience many of the benefits that it brings. Of course there are far too many exceptions to this even in North America, but it's nowhere near the situation that exists in much of the world.


What can you do to promote the girl effect? There are many ways you can invest in the development of girls around the world. Consider sponsoring a girl through an organization like Compassion or World Vision. You can also support women as they develop businesses to support their families, so that they can experience some of the benefits and pass them on to their children. Consider making loans through Kiva or Global Giving. These are only a few ideas. Find someone who works in a developing country and see if you can't directly sponsor a girl's education (because in much of the developing world even "free" education isn't really free and most poor families lack the resources to educate their children, particularly girls.) Check out the Girl Effect website for more ideas. 


**********************
I'll be off-line for the rest of the month. Look for new posts beginning again in August.

In Time

On my recent flight across the Atlantic I had the opportunity to watch a film that my daughter has been encouraging me – pressing me really – to watch since she saw it last year. She was right. I was not disappointed (even on that tiny little screen in the back of the airplane seat).

The movie In Time presents us with a future earth in which all humans stop aging at 25 years old. From that point, they all have the potential to live forever in the same physical condition they have at that age. They can die from things such as murder and physical accidents, but their bodies do not face natural aging and no one dies of old age. As we would expect, this situation comes with a catch. Each person also has a built-in clock (in their forearm). When a person turns 25, that clock begins to count down. At age 25 each person receives one more year of life. In order to prolong her or his life, a person must accrue additional time. This can be done through working, through theft or other means. There are even shops that lend time (at usurious rates, of course). If your clock runs out of time, you die instantly. It should also be noted that in this world everything is paid for with time off your individual clock. If you want a drink or something to eat, you pay with time. If you need to ride the bus, you pay with time. Rent – paid with time. So the people of earth are in a continual battle to earn enough time to meet their needs and stay alive.

We also learn that in this future world, people are divided into different time zones. Ostensibly people are free to travel between different zones, except that at each time zone border there is a fee (in time) to cross. As one moves from the lower zones into the upper economic zones, that fee grows increasingly expensive. By this means the wealthy keep the poor safely distant. In the wealthy center zone, people have so much time that they cannot possibly use it all. They are, essentially, immortal. These are the people who control the global time system. They are the ones who lend time to the poor and profit from their misery. The whole system is exploitative and injust – but it is set up so that the wealthy maintain their power and control.

That is, until our hero Will Salas arises. He decides to challenge the system and as he does so finds an unexpected ally in Sylvia Weis, the daughter of one of the world's wealthiest men. Together they undertake various activities to try to empower the poor and break the control of the wealthy. They are a classic Robin Hood pair and I won't write any spoilers that give away what they do and whether they accomplish their mission. I will say that I found the journey they take compelling and captivating. I certainly cheered for them to succeed.

This movie addresses a key issue of our time, but by framing it in terms of the effort to control time, it provides us with a different perspective. After all, the difference between time and money isn't that great, but having or not having money doesn't strike us as a matter of life and death – although in fact for many in the world it is exactly that. This movie challenges that idea that in order for a few to enjoy the full benefits of life – in this case immortality – the majority must suffer, scrounge to get by and, ultimately, die. It also challenges the significance of the life that the wealthy lead, portraying it as devoid of meaning and purpose. After all, once a person has accumulated so much wealth, what can one possibly do with it? Life becomes a mundane pursuit of banal pleasure, especially in a world where one knows that one will never die of old age. Being immortal, it turns out in this world, really isn't all that it's cracked up to be.

Nonetheless, as the film shows us, those in power will go to great lengths to preserve that power. Although underdeveloped, the film touches more than once on the idea that those in control continually manipulate both wage and price scales so that the poor remain perpetually poor. The system works inherently against them and in favor of those who possess power.

In a stark manner the film then confronts us with a reflection of our own society, doing it in a way that can motivate us to think and question and challenge the status quo. I can't imagine anyone who, watching the film, would take pity on Sylvia's father rather than rally to her battle against the system that privileges her against the majority. I saw in the film an echo of what the “Occupy” movement represents in its finest aspects. It's not just entertainment, but social critique. The film also challenges the viewer to think about the purpose of her or his life. As Sylvia asks: "Do I really want to spend my life trying not to die by mistake?" Surely life is worth more than that and society can be about more than the wealth preserving their power at the expense of the majority.

Have you seen the movie? What are your thoughts about it?

What We Eat

A friend of mine sent me a link to this video yesterday. I found it powerfully disturbing. Rather than comment further, I'll let you watch it.

View this movie at cultureunplugged.com

How does this video make you feel? What response can we have as believers living in one of the wealthiest countries on earth?

Life on a Dollar a Day

Although the debt ceiling crisis has passed (at least temporarily), I continue to think about what the future will look like. I see a growing divide between the haves and have-nots of this world, with North Americans in general falling into the category of haves in comparison to the majority of the world's population. In light of this, I recommend the following blog on what it means practically to live on a dollar a day, which is considered to be the standard of extreme poverty, as the author explains. The author considers the topic in two separate blog entries, part one being here and part two here.

Responding to Poverty

Many years ago, when I was still in high school, I had the opportunity to travel to Haiti with a group from my church. It was my first encounter with extreme poverty and it profoundly impacted the course of my life. In my present line of work I often encounter poor people as well. On a recent trip we passed through many remote villages where people live much as their ancestors probably lived 100 years ago or more. Driving through one such village I saw two young girls squatting by the side of the road. Their clothes and faces were dirty and my heart was moved with compassion for them. I try to imagine what it must be like for them. Do they have any hope for the future? Do they have any hope for eternity? How I would love to take them under my wing and offer them a better life.


At moments like these I return to one of the issues I have wrestled with throughout my life. What can one person do in the face of such conditions? What can I do? I cannot lift everyone in this country out of poverty. I cannot even deliver the fundamental message of hope to all of them. At times the immensity of the need overwhelms me and I am tempted to throw up my hands in despair.


Even if I had the resources, would it be truly beneficial for me to just give to everyone I see who is in need? Or by doing so am I perpetuating their poverty and instilling an attitude of dependency? In talking with a good friend about this recently, she mentioned a woman she knows who, despite being a believer, has developed this type of attitude. She expects that others will give her whatever she lacks and regularly makes requests for things. Surely this is not a healthy situation. At the same time I don't think we can just turn our backs. Scripture makes it quite clear that merely offering words of comfort counts for nothing. As James wrote:


"Suppose you see a brother or sister who needs food or clothing, and you say, 'Well, good-bye and God bless you; stay warm and eat well'--but then you don't give that person any food or clothing. What good does that do?"


And through the prophet Isaiah God said:

"Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen:
to loose the chains of injustice
and untie the cords of the yoke,
to set the oppressed free
and break every yoke?
Is it not to share your food with the hungry
and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter--
when you see the naked, to clothe him,
and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?"

I want to take these words seriously, but I am overwhelmed by the immensity of the task. I could give away everything I have and still not begin to reduce the need around me. So what does God ask of me? I am learning to seek his voice every time a situation for giving presents itself. I am trying to walk in the Spirit, seeking to give freely as he leads but not feeling like I must meet every need around me. But I do want to learn to give more and more freely, not trying to determine from my own perspective whether the recipient is "worthy" or not, but simply to listen to the direction of the Spirit. Even after all these years I feel I still have so much to learn in this area. I don't think there is a simple answer or a convenient set of guidelines that one can refer to. But maybe this is part of what I am supposed to gain in the process--to learn to walk step by step with God and let him direct my actions.

Climate Change--An Inconvenient Truth

I wrote a few days ago about the initiative called Earth Hour. At that time I mentioned that I might write more about my take on global climate change. This is an important issue, one that I think conservatives, particularly conservative believers, too quickly dismiss and disparage. I think this is because many of those who promote the issue of climate change tie it into a lot of peripheral issues that deny basic Scriptural teachings, like the uniqueness of humans in the created order. But I don't think we should throw out the baby with the bathwater. While disagreeing with many (most?) of the peripheral issues that get associated with it, I agree with the basic premise that global climate change is a significant concern that demands our attention.


I recently watched Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth. While the overall message of the film was not new or enlightening, much of the data he presents was certainly challenging and eye-opening. I didn’t appreciate the parts of the film that seemed to be more about Al Gore than the issue of climate change, but that doesn’t mean that I should ignore the facts and the call to action that the film presents. I am aware that many people are skeptical about the idea of climate change and tend to mock those who call attention to it. There is a mindset that rejects the whole worldview of the environmental movement and therefore is unwilling to consider any argument it presents. 


Some argue that God has given us dominion over creation and interpret this to mean that we can do whatever we want with it. I don’t think that is sound biblical theology. God has given us responsibility to be good stewards of creation. Precisely because we are made uniquely in God’s image we bear the burden of making wise and responsible decisions about how we will live, especially as it impacts other humans and the rest of the natural world. The inconvenient and uncomfortable truth is that we, particularly as Americans, have chosen a lifestyle that is making the continuation of life increasingly difficult and which deprives a large portion of the inhabitants of this planet of the opportunity to meet even the basic needs of life. Why are we as believers so resistant to altering our lifestyle in order to be both better stewards of God’s creation and to be better servants towards those in the world whose situation is far worse than our own?


The thing that swayed me most about the film were the various facts he presents. I call them facts because they are backed up with verifiable data. The one in particular that comes to mind is the graph he shows of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. I have heard arguments that this level regularly fluctuates, rising and falling over the years. The film doesn't dispute that. In fact it demonstrates it with the data. What it also shows with the data though is that both the peak and lowest levels are growing steadily higher and that the current trend is pushing the levels to never-before-experienced heights. So while the data in any given year or situation may seem to contradict the trend toward global climate change, the overall data are steady. This was pretty convincing evidence.

At one point in the movie Gore makes reference to the glaciers and snowpack of the Himalayas, commenting that something like 40% of humanity draws its freshwater from the rivers that begin in those mountains. He calls our attention to the potential impact on that significant portion of human population should the climatic conditions change. This caught my attention because the countries in that region depend exclusively on the runoff from those mountains for water, electricity (through hydropower) and food (using water for irrigation.) If those rivers should fail to flow or even be significantly reduced, it will have a significant impact on the people of the region. Furthermore, these are poor countries. Many do not have the technology and the financial resources to avert, mitigate or compensate for a radical change in the environment. Wealthy countries like the US or the European nations would be better equipped to deal with changes resulting from climate change, but the poor countries of the earth will be in a bad situation. 


As Americans this may not overly concern us (though I believe it should.) As believers in a compassionate, merciful and loving God I certainly think it should. We may not be able to do anything to change the immediate conditions in the poor countries, but by changing our lifestyle here in America we can help to mitigate or even avert potentially disastrous climactic changes.

Some may say, “God is sovereign. These things are in his hands and the earth is going to pass away anyway.” Agreed. But God has also given us responsibility to care for the earth and particularly for its people until the day when he chooses to bring history to an end. I don’t think he asks us to live irresponsibly and selfishly in order to hasten that day. I for one will continue to look for ways to live such that my lifestyle does not negatively impact the poor of the earth. It’s the least I can do.