I watched the movie 'The Visitor' sometime ago. After this I read some of the review on this movie. They were all glowing tributes. I was impressed but puzzled by some premises in the movie.
My first question on watching it was if there was any political message in reality in the story. It was made in 2007 during the Bush administration, a period in which filmmakers of a liberal political bent created some very good movies. This one, which tells the story of how Tariq, an illegal immigrant from Syria, a political refugee, came to be deported, tugs at our heartstrings for what it means to him, his girlfriend, his mom and his new friend, widower Professor Walter Vale. It tells the story poignantly, but one is left wondering if there really is any strong admonishing for policymakers who tackle immigration, besides the fact that they (and everyone else in the US) need to show kindness to the alien and the refugee among them. Tariq is eventually deported due to existing immigration laws- the movie does signal the need for change in these, but I'm not sure if it is actually arguing for a relook at the policies with regard to political refugees only. Tariq is a political refugee but I think the movie wants to create a case for a relook at all refugees- economic, political and any other kind. I do not think it creates the case. USCIS officials are portrayed as they are in reality, employees who do their job and may not necessarily be aware of the circumstances of every person they deal with. I know this from experience- from trying to get the status updates on petitions for legal immigrants or people awaiting legal immigration status. I have lost money that I paid upfront to this agency and after they acknowledged the receipt of my petitions they simply lost the petitions and dropped the ball. This portrayal is accurate. The bureaucracy is stifling and long overdue for a radical revamp. Beyond this the movie takes no swipe at any administration or laws.
The movie does portray the sad state of those immigrants who are detained. It is almost as if civil liberties do not apply to them. This must engage our attention. Ultimately the thorn is America's side when we talked about our freedoms may be our failure to care for the marginalized, primarily those cannot afford to fight for basic rights. Laws cannot be different for them from those of us who are privileged.
My second question was, who is the 'Visitor' in the movie? Tariq and his girlfriend are illegal squatters in the professor's apartment in the movie. After his initial shock in finding them there (he returns to his New York City apartment after a long gap), he eventually lets them stay on, shows them more than hospitality, becoming their friend and helper, hiring them an attorney to help them in their plight. He too benefits from this relationship, learning how to play the djembe, finding a release from his bereavement from his wife's death. In a scene, the professor takes Tari's mom and girlfriend to Ellis Island. The mom asks him if he's been to the Statue of Liberty before and he says he hasn't. The girlfriend lets him know he and Tariq often went there, and in the boat Tariq liked to jump up and down on seeing the statue, pretending as if he were coming to America for the first time. This begs my question, who is the real visitor. Those who are born into liberty often tend to lose real freedom by keeping themselves from all that is implied by freedom. Tariq and the other refugees though are fully alive to this liberty and through their music, hard work, strong relationships, social intimacy and genuineness, keep its spirit alive. The professor seems to be a newcomer and therefore a visitor to this liberty. He is the one coming into his apartment after a long gap, like a long lost acquaintance. The squatters are about to leave, but the professor shows them kindness.
This may be the movie's lesson. In the end the professor (in a very understated and convincing performance) tries his best but there are limits to his powers of persuasion and influence. Though he fails he has won the hearts of his friends. As a Christian I think the movie encourages us to take a look at what the Bible has to say about this topic. Here are some verses:
Deuteronomy 10:18-19 – “For the Lord your God...loves the strangers, providing them food and clothing. You shall also love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.”
Deuteronomy 24:17-18 – “Do not deprive the alien or the fatherless of justice, or take the cloak of the widow as a pledge. Remember that you were slaves in Egypt...”
Matthew 25:31-46 – “...I was a stranger and you welcomed me.”
Ephesians 2:11-22 – “So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are citizens with the saints and also members of the household of God.”
There are reminders in both OT and NT that not only are we to show kindness to aliens, but we ourselves are aliens in this world or have been aliens in another country. There is a sense in which we need to seek liberty by being like aliens, because true liberty does not come from this world.
Showing posts with label poverty. Show all posts
Showing posts with label poverty. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Friday, April 16, 2010
Film Review- Born Into Brothels
Last night we watched the 2003 Orscar winning HBO documentary 'Born Into Brothels' on Netflix Streaming. I had seen a similar documentary on an organization that did undercover sting operations to expose and bring to justice coerced prostitution in India and elsewhere. This one dealt with children of prostitutes living in Sona Gachi, one of Asia's largest red light districts.
The film focused in on a dozen kids who are introduced to us in a very personal way through the course of the movie. The filmmakers Zana Briski and Ross Kauffman shot the movie through several months of living and working in Sona Gachi. Briski, a theology major from Cambridge, spent a few years living with the kids, teaching them photography and eventually staging an exhibit of their works in India and elsewhere.
The film traces how the kids lives are slowly changed as they move into schools after months of red tape, social ostracism and concerns about potential HIV infection (as it turned out, non-existent) kept the kids from decent schools. It then traces Avijit Halder (now in his senior year at NYU) is praised for his work in photography and is selected to go to Amsterdam where his work is exhibited among a select group of kids with outstanding skills.
The movie ends with notes about how the kids are faring. Except a couple of kids who mvoed back into the sex trade (primarily due to their family's reluctance to let them study further), the others all fared well and as of today are doing very well in India and the United States.
I liked the fact that the movie stresses the significance of social change as a result of commitment and consensus. The parents of some of these kids earned some money out of the film project but one of them did not want her daughter to move out of the trade. In a recent interview she says, "'At this age, I have a flat, a laptop, costly phones and plenty of money. What do I lack?"
One wonders why these parents did not see far enough to understand the opportunities these kids had before them. They got some cash from the proceeds of the movie, and they had a good reason to keep their kids off the trade. Another kid whose aunt was raising her after her mother's death was pressurizing her to go into prostitution. While she wanted to go to school and learn, she wasn't allowed to; and moved back into the flesh trade.
Of course, cash isn't the issue- but perhaps in Sona Gachi the abilty to understand that life outside of the familiar if hellish street life is something desirable may be limited. Years ago as a summer intern in my second year of MBA I lived in Bombay for 2 months at the YMCA on Lamington Road near the Opera House. Although it is nothing to compare with Sona Gachi, it is a semi-red light area. You turn the corner from a nice-looking street and come up on this crowded area with tired yellow buildings built at the turn of the last century. Many evanglists came to preach at the YMCA, and several good friends who were committed followers of Christ lived there, but everyone (including me) turned our faces away from the griding poverty and the nightly circus that went on on the sidewalks, the women pacing up and down amongst the crowds, shifty-eyed, druken men moving in and out of their tenements. One day in the early hours of dawn we were woken by angry shouts from the streets below. We were on the 5th floor of the building. I looked down and a number of prostitutes were fighiting, presumably over money, screaming at each other, mouthing profanities, pulling each others' hair.
The HBO movie shows us a similar scene inside the brothel (a squalid, dark place which most of us would never see). It is remarkable how these women, all in the same tragic plight, would accuse each other of being filthy and immoral. The film shows us the faces of the listening kids, their expressions showing numbness and distress at the same time. Sometimes a picture like that takes you back to Lamington Road in an instant, shocking you without warning.
Margaret Mead once said, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." The more I live the more I see the truth of this. As I read the book Mountains Beyond Mountains on Dr. Paul Farmer, and understand how the battle over high drug prices in poverty-stricken Lima, Port-au-Prince and Russian prisons were fought, by a committed minority, and won decisively, and I see the pain and heartbreak that accompanies such commitment, the more I realize that a bunch of people promising huge amounts of money in aid through Government programs may not truly realize the insignificance of their actions. You can spend a fortune on the Third World and see the cash disappearing down a black hole without making the slightest difference to anyone's life- unless you know that at the other end are committed people with the ability to connect with people.
This movie was made on a shoestring budget. The kids went to school based on the creative energy unleashed by the filmmaker's commitment in teaching the kids the skills they knew. Who can deny that their lives were changes by the commitment of a few?
Postscript:
I had ended my post with te above paragraph, but I need to end with a nod to the music. Composer John McDowell weaves both Indian melodies, some from Bollywood and others from India's religious tradition, into the movie. The result is outstanding. One of the hooks, Gopala, doesn't leave my mind. As an aside I can appreciate why they chose this song. Gopala is a devotional to Krsna, his childhood as a precocious happy little charmer has captured Indian's imagination and affection for centuries.
You can see a vide of a live performance of this song here:
The film focused in on a dozen kids who are introduced to us in a very personal way through the course of the movie. The filmmakers Zana Briski and Ross Kauffman shot the movie through several months of living and working in Sona Gachi. Briski, a theology major from Cambridge, spent a few years living with the kids, teaching them photography and eventually staging an exhibit of their works in India and elsewhere.
The film traces how the kids lives are slowly changed as they move into schools after months of red tape, social ostracism and concerns about potential HIV infection (as it turned out, non-existent) kept the kids from decent schools. It then traces Avijit Halder (now in his senior year at NYU) is praised for his work in photography and is selected to go to Amsterdam where his work is exhibited among a select group of kids with outstanding skills.
The movie ends with notes about how the kids are faring. Except a couple of kids who mvoed back into the sex trade (primarily due to their family's reluctance to let them study further), the others all fared well and as of today are doing very well in India and the United States.
I liked the fact that the movie stresses the significance of social change as a result of commitment and consensus. The parents of some of these kids earned some money out of the film project but one of them did not want her daughter to move out of the trade. In a recent interview she says, "'At this age, I have a flat, a laptop, costly phones and plenty of money. What do I lack?"
One wonders why these parents did not see far enough to understand the opportunities these kids had before them. They got some cash from the proceeds of the movie, and they had a good reason to keep their kids off the trade. Another kid whose aunt was raising her after her mother's death was pressurizing her to go into prostitution. While she wanted to go to school and learn, she wasn't allowed to; and moved back into the flesh trade.
Of course, cash isn't the issue- but perhaps in Sona Gachi the abilty to understand that life outside of the familiar if hellish street life is something desirable may be limited. Years ago as a summer intern in my second year of MBA I lived in Bombay for 2 months at the YMCA on Lamington Road near the Opera House. Although it is nothing to compare with Sona Gachi, it is a semi-red light area. You turn the corner from a nice-looking street and come up on this crowded area with tired yellow buildings built at the turn of the last century. Many evanglists came to preach at the YMCA, and several good friends who were committed followers of Christ lived there, but everyone (including me) turned our faces away from the griding poverty and the nightly circus that went on on the sidewalks, the women pacing up and down amongst the crowds, shifty-eyed, druken men moving in and out of their tenements. One day in the early hours of dawn we were woken by angry shouts from the streets below. We were on the 5th floor of the building. I looked down and a number of prostitutes were fighiting, presumably over money, screaming at each other, mouthing profanities, pulling each others' hair.
The HBO movie shows us a similar scene inside the brothel (a squalid, dark place which most of us would never see). It is remarkable how these women, all in the same tragic plight, would accuse each other of being filthy and immoral. The film shows us the faces of the listening kids, their expressions showing numbness and distress at the same time. Sometimes a picture like that takes you back to Lamington Road in an instant, shocking you without warning.
Margaret Mead once said, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." The more I live the more I see the truth of this. As I read the book Mountains Beyond Mountains on Dr. Paul Farmer, and understand how the battle over high drug prices in poverty-stricken Lima, Port-au-Prince and Russian prisons were fought, by a committed minority, and won decisively, and I see the pain and heartbreak that accompanies such commitment, the more I realize that a bunch of people promising huge amounts of money in aid through Government programs may not truly realize the insignificance of their actions. You can spend a fortune on the Third World and see the cash disappearing down a black hole without making the slightest difference to anyone's life- unless you know that at the other end are committed people with the ability to connect with people.
This movie was made on a shoestring budget. The kids went to school based on the creative energy unleashed by the filmmaker's commitment in teaching the kids the skills they knew. Who can deny that their lives were changes by the commitment of a few?
Postscript:
I had ended my post with te above paragraph, but I need to end with a nod to the music. Composer John McDowell weaves both Indian melodies, some from Bollywood and others from India's religious tradition, into the movie. The result is outstanding. One of the hooks, Gopala, doesn't leave my mind. As an aside I can appreciate why they chose this song. Gopala is a devotional to Krsna, his childhood as a precocious happy little charmer has captured Indian's imagination and affection for centuries.
You can see a vide of a live performance of this song here:
Thursday, March 25, 2010
The Question of Liberation Theology
It is a comfort to one's soul to fight evil that is outside of us- injustice, oppression, poverty and so on. In a sense this is also a part of fighting evil within ourselves- the evil of apathy, greed and selfishnessness. However the liberation theorists I have encountered usually give up some of the virtues of the more orhotodox Christians in order to uphold the above values. Some of these may be personal values like clean language, grace, sexual fidelity and constraint, faithfulness to the the whole of the Bible in its inerrancy and resisting the temptation to take some of it with a pinch of salt, patience with people who do not readily subscribe to their thinking and so on.
There are people who respond to this by saying that Christians have no business "being nice", rather they need to be righteous, meaning uphold social justice. While it is true that there is a lot of prissy piety out there in Christian circles reflecting in our music, dressing and a list of do's and don'ts that reduce our faith into Pharisiasm, it is equally true that these values stem from a desire not just to do right by our fellow man but to please God in our thinking and actions. While Christians can enjoy a glass of wine, they often decline refills due to a desire not to go overboard.
Orthodox Christians often accuse liberation theorists of trading away this kind of personal holiness for their "causes". As Malcolm Muggeridge once said, it is far easier and more self-sffirming to hold a placard out in a street protest than actually do something righteous. In my view this is only partially true. The fact is, most liberation theology adherents I know have struggled long and hard with personal sin and guilt to the point where they have questioned themselves and the general interpretation of sin in God's Word. This manifests itself in our politics. In North America, the question of gay marriage is a case in point.
Mark Young, Denver Seminary President's point about voting in a way that allows the Gospel the best possible access into people's lives, speaks to us clearly here. Do we think homosexual behavior is sinful? If so, is it anymore sinful than a child stealing a cookie? Are we guilty of anything far wrose or at least, equally bad? I think most Christians would agree that sin, sinful behavior, propensity to sin, ambiguity about sin and its definition are all part of our messed up nature and mental make up. Is it possible for a Christian to lovingly reach out to the gay community with Christ rathern than condemnation, and just let Christ lead him or her into a full understanding of the Truth (which if we are honest we must admit we too are only still learning)? I think it is.
You see, as my friend Mat pointed out in the last blog post, simply because a liberal espouses liberation theology, it doesn't automatically become wrong. Conservatives allowed liberals to corner the market on this thinking. In the meanwhile they have failed to see the essential connection between Christ's message of personal salvation and the idea of opposing sin everywhere- both inside and outside of ourselves. Liberals in turn have also failed to see the connection between the sin or evil that exists out there in the world and the very personal sin in our own hearts (and not just in terms of being able to have more resources while the 'poor' does not).
To the conservative I say, I wonder what you would have done when Jesus whipped the money-changers out of the temple. To the liberal I say, I wonder what you would have done when Jesus let the repentant Mary Magdalene pour her life savings on to His feet in the form of the expensive perfume.
It is telling that Jesus lets Judas know that the 'poor' will always be around. I've often wondered what this means. Could it mean that we are living in a 'Long Defeat', as JRR Tolkien said and Sara Groves sang, and Dr. Paul Farmer believes is the end of all our labor, even his labor of hope in Haiti?
In the book on Farmer's remarkable work of sacrifice and justice in Haiti, “Mountains Beyond Mountains”, author Tracy Kidder uses this phrase, 'The Long Defeat'. Dr. Farmer is quoted in this book:
"I have fought the long defeat and brought other people on to fight the long defeat, and I’m not going to stop because we keep losing. Now I actually think sometimes we may win. I don’t dislike victory…. We want to be on the winning team, but at the risk of turning our backs on the losers, no, it’s not worth it. So you fight the long defeat."
Farmer has made it known in other interviews that there are glimpses of the [final] victory that we get on earth, but our earthly efforts in and of themselves are a series of long defeats that lead up into the final victory that is not of the earth (this is all my paraphrasing).
If this is indeed the case (and Dr. Farmer is an adherent of liberation theology though I'm not sure to what extend he takes it), then is our vision of heaven simply a heaven on earth, where we bring justice to those who do not have it? What is justice after all? If everyone were wealthy will that suffice? Surely not. If everyone were mindful of others and generous will that be it? Will not there by still incidents which are beyond our comprehension- natural disasters, death, severance of relationships? At such a point when we have achieved (this is an assumption) all there is to achieve in terms of social justice and redemption, but we feel the pain of being human, would we then question God as to why He made us this way? Would we then conclude, after all is said and done, that God is simply a social construct, and that He has outlived His purpose? If that is all there is to life, would we feel the pinch of a nagging hope that there is more to heaven than out unidimensional view of earthly justice?
If there is indeed a heaven beyond the earth, then is it in anyway connected to our recreating such a heaven here on earth? What did Jesus mean when he taught us to pray 'You Kingdom come; Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven"? Or, do we simply sigh and say that all injustices will be righted in heaven and do absolutely nothing about earthly injustices? Why are we the 'tweeners' who live between the two earthly advents of Christ? What is our purpose here on earth? If we have none, maybe they should hold us all down in baptism so we would go straight to heaven.
Clearly the liberation theorists and the orthodox Christians have a lot to learn from each other. We cannot offord to trade insults or dismiss each other because there is a lot of work that is still undone.
As someone who came to faith in college firmly among those who hold the orthodox view, I spent about 13 years coming around to respecting liberation theology. It could have taken a far shorter time frame. Let me explain why.
Life in Christ is a journey when we learn more and more about His character and therefore His purposes. It is remarkable that the vast majority of liberation theorists I know actually had a conversion experience that the orthodox Christians would view as a clearly identifiable point of coming into salvific faith- the point at which one prays the conversion prayer and is ushered into the Kingdom. Over the years, especially as they worked with the 'poor', they moved into a theology that is decidedly unorthodox. Very rarely have I encountered someone who was 'born again' into liberation theology. The passion that accompanies personal salvation from personal sin has been key in the vast majority of these cases to their ardent witness and eventual participation in social justice movements. As Sara Groves sang in her characteristic story-song manner, 'I love because He loved me when I had nothing.' This is Biblical. When we are set free we are free to give and set others free. If we have not experienced freedom our passion must be questioned (gently). Some of us may even believe we have always been free simply because we have not experienced the poverty that others do. The fact is, we are all- without exception- slaves until Christ sets us free. Some are economic slaves, others are sexual slaves, yet others slaves of affluence, education deprivation, racial injustice, indifference, passion, addictive behaviors, and on and on. Freedom in Christ is clearly what inspires us to be modern day abolitionists.
In my early years in Christ I encountered many dear and well-meaning friends who tried to talk me into liberation theology. It may have worked if they had helped me connect the dots between personal accountability to God and personal accountability to people. Personal sin and external evil. Personal salvation and social redemption. It may have helped if someone sat down with me and envision for me the radical and radically true idea that personal accountability to people is not simply an option, one of the many 'mionistries', like 'mercy ministry'; but an essential part of the salvation that Christ has won for me. It may have helped if I could only understand then what I understand now- that being incarnatiunal in people's lives is the only way to bring Christ to them; just as Jesus was and is incarnational into the human experience and our own lives. It may have helped if I could only understand that being incarnational necessarily means being sacrificed- whether on the cross or in terms of a life spent with people who need us.
A dear friend who tried to talk to me about liberation theology had a radically unorthodox interpretation of the Bible. He insisted, without any reference to Biblical, traditional, logical or other evidence, that the Antichrist in the Bible referred to us, people who do nothing to oppose injustice in the world. Other liberation theorists try to make the case that sin is only the enjoyment of resources at the cost of others. Broadly this means that those of us who are relatively well off (anyone who has a roof over her head and food to eat is in this category) are well off only because in a direct or indirect way we exploit or have historically exploited or are benefitting from such exploitation of those outside this category. If anyone tried to interpret the whole of the Bible this way, the argument does not go far without encountering serious challenges. What would they say about the apostle Paul's suggestions to Christian slaves? He said in 1 Corinthians 7:20-22, "Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him. Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you--although if you can gain your freedom, do so. For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ's slave."
Lastly, I realize that we are all on a journey to discover truth. We need to keep our eyes wide open to God's visions. I realize of course that orthodox Christians also tend to be obnoxious in their witness to liberation theorists. Who hasn't encountered those of us (and perhaps we ourselves may be guilty of this) who rebuke a fellow believer with a glass of win in his hand but practise fiscal dishonesty in tax returns, property purchases and divisive church politics, not to mention the sex scandals that have rocked both the Evangelical and Catholic leadership? The charge of hypocrisy is the third serious form of sin or evil that we encounter (personal sin and evil that is external and unattached to humans are the others) in the list of (I would also say ONLY) objections to Christianity or belief in God in general.
The fact remains though that we can and must work together. While I see and experience Christianity for the unique experience it is, I also know that the desire for justice is within all of us- atheist, Christian, Hindu or anyone. I wouldn't go so far as to describe it as a spark of the divine in us or anywhere near it, but I would consider it as God-given, and a part of the appeal that draws us to Christ. If there is sin out there we must work together. If people of different persuasions could begin a discussion on the deepest matters in life, I'm convinced that social redemption, and not philosophical debate, is the beginning.
There are people who respond to this by saying that Christians have no business "being nice", rather they need to be righteous, meaning uphold social justice. While it is true that there is a lot of prissy piety out there in Christian circles reflecting in our music, dressing and a list of do's and don'ts that reduce our faith into Pharisiasm, it is equally true that these values stem from a desire not just to do right by our fellow man but to please God in our thinking and actions. While Christians can enjoy a glass of wine, they often decline refills due to a desire not to go overboard.
Orthodox Christians often accuse liberation theorists of trading away this kind of personal holiness for their "causes". As Malcolm Muggeridge once said, it is far easier and more self-sffirming to hold a placard out in a street protest than actually do something righteous. In my view this is only partially true. The fact is, most liberation theology adherents I know have struggled long and hard with personal sin and guilt to the point where they have questioned themselves and the general interpretation of sin in God's Word. This manifests itself in our politics. In North America, the question of gay marriage is a case in point.
Mark Young, Denver Seminary President's point about voting in a way that allows the Gospel the best possible access into people's lives, speaks to us clearly here. Do we think homosexual behavior is sinful? If so, is it anymore sinful than a child stealing a cookie? Are we guilty of anything far wrose or at least, equally bad? I think most Christians would agree that sin, sinful behavior, propensity to sin, ambiguity about sin and its definition are all part of our messed up nature and mental make up. Is it possible for a Christian to lovingly reach out to the gay community with Christ rathern than condemnation, and just let Christ lead him or her into a full understanding of the Truth (which if we are honest we must admit we too are only still learning)? I think it is.
You see, as my friend Mat pointed out in the last blog post, simply because a liberal espouses liberation theology, it doesn't automatically become wrong. Conservatives allowed liberals to corner the market on this thinking. In the meanwhile they have failed to see the essential connection between Christ's message of personal salvation and the idea of opposing sin everywhere- both inside and outside of ourselves. Liberals in turn have also failed to see the connection between the sin or evil that exists out there in the world and the very personal sin in our own hearts (and not just in terms of being able to have more resources while the 'poor' does not).
To the conservative I say, I wonder what you would have done when Jesus whipped the money-changers out of the temple. To the liberal I say, I wonder what you would have done when Jesus let the repentant Mary Magdalene pour her life savings on to His feet in the form of the expensive perfume.
It is telling that Jesus lets Judas know that the 'poor' will always be around. I've often wondered what this means. Could it mean that we are living in a 'Long Defeat', as JRR Tolkien said and Sara Groves sang, and Dr. Paul Farmer believes is the end of all our labor, even his labor of hope in Haiti?
In the book on Farmer's remarkable work of sacrifice and justice in Haiti, “Mountains Beyond Mountains”, author Tracy Kidder uses this phrase, 'The Long Defeat'. Dr. Farmer is quoted in this book:
"I have fought the long defeat and brought other people on to fight the long defeat, and I’m not going to stop because we keep losing. Now I actually think sometimes we may win. I don’t dislike victory…. We want to be on the winning team, but at the risk of turning our backs on the losers, no, it’s not worth it. So you fight the long defeat."
Farmer has made it known in other interviews that there are glimpses of the [final] victory that we get on earth, but our earthly efforts in and of themselves are a series of long defeats that lead up into the final victory that is not of the earth (this is all my paraphrasing).
If this is indeed the case (and Dr. Farmer is an adherent of liberation theology though I'm not sure to what extend he takes it), then is our vision of heaven simply a heaven on earth, where we bring justice to those who do not have it? What is justice after all? If everyone were wealthy will that suffice? Surely not. If everyone were mindful of others and generous will that be it? Will not there by still incidents which are beyond our comprehension- natural disasters, death, severance of relationships? At such a point when we have achieved (this is an assumption) all there is to achieve in terms of social justice and redemption, but we feel the pain of being human, would we then question God as to why He made us this way? Would we then conclude, after all is said and done, that God is simply a social construct, and that He has outlived His purpose? If that is all there is to life, would we feel the pinch of a nagging hope that there is more to heaven than out unidimensional view of earthly justice?
If there is indeed a heaven beyond the earth, then is it in anyway connected to our recreating such a heaven here on earth? What did Jesus mean when he taught us to pray 'You Kingdom come; Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven"? Or, do we simply sigh and say that all injustices will be righted in heaven and do absolutely nothing about earthly injustices? Why are we the 'tweeners' who live between the two earthly advents of Christ? What is our purpose here on earth? If we have none, maybe they should hold us all down in baptism so we would go straight to heaven.
Clearly the liberation theorists and the orthodox Christians have a lot to learn from each other. We cannot offord to trade insults or dismiss each other because there is a lot of work that is still undone.
As someone who came to faith in college firmly among those who hold the orthodox view, I spent about 13 years coming around to respecting liberation theology. It could have taken a far shorter time frame. Let me explain why.
Life in Christ is a journey when we learn more and more about His character and therefore His purposes. It is remarkable that the vast majority of liberation theorists I know actually had a conversion experience that the orthodox Christians would view as a clearly identifiable point of coming into salvific faith- the point at which one prays the conversion prayer and is ushered into the Kingdom. Over the years, especially as they worked with the 'poor', they moved into a theology that is decidedly unorthodox. Very rarely have I encountered someone who was 'born again' into liberation theology. The passion that accompanies personal salvation from personal sin has been key in the vast majority of these cases to their ardent witness and eventual participation in social justice movements. As Sara Groves sang in her characteristic story-song manner, 'I love because He loved me when I had nothing.' This is Biblical. When we are set free we are free to give and set others free. If we have not experienced freedom our passion must be questioned (gently). Some of us may even believe we have always been free simply because we have not experienced the poverty that others do. The fact is, we are all- without exception- slaves until Christ sets us free. Some are economic slaves, others are sexual slaves, yet others slaves of affluence, education deprivation, racial injustice, indifference, passion, addictive behaviors, and on and on. Freedom in Christ is clearly what inspires us to be modern day abolitionists.
In my early years in Christ I encountered many dear and well-meaning friends who tried to talk me into liberation theology. It may have worked if they had helped me connect the dots between personal accountability to God and personal accountability to people. Personal sin and external evil. Personal salvation and social redemption. It may have helped if someone sat down with me and envision for me the radical and radically true idea that personal accountability to people is not simply an option, one of the many 'mionistries', like 'mercy ministry'; but an essential part of the salvation that Christ has won for me. It may have helped if I could only understand then what I understand now- that being incarnatiunal in people's lives is the only way to bring Christ to them; just as Jesus was and is incarnational into the human experience and our own lives. It may have helped if I could only understand that being incarnational necessarily means being sacrificed- whether on the cross or in terms of a life spent with people who need us.
A dear friend who tried to talk to me about liberation theology had a radically unorthodox interpretation of the Bible. He insisted, without any reference to Biblical, traditional, logical or other evidence, that the Antichrist in the Bible referred to us, people who do nothing to oppose injustice in the world. Other liberation theorists try to make the case that sin is only the enjoyment of resources at the cost of others. Broadly this means that those of us who are relatively well off (anyone who has a roof over her head and food to eat is in this category) are well off only because in a direct or indirect way we exploit or have historically exploited or are benefitting from such exploitation of those outside this category. If anyone tried to interpret the whole of the Bible this way, the argument does not go far without encountering serious challenges. What would they say about the apostle Paul's suggestions to Christian slaves? He said in 1 Corinthians 7:20-22, "Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him. Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you--although if you can gain your freedom, do so. For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ's slave."
Lastly, I realize that we are all on a journey to discover truth. We need to keep our eyes wide open to God's visions. I realize of course that orthodox Christians also tend to be obnoxious in their witness to liberation theorists. Who hasn't encountered those of us (and perhaps we ourselves may be guilty of this) who rebuke a fellow believer with a glass of win in his hand but practise fiscal dishonesty in tax returns, property purchases and divisive church politics, not to mention the sex scandals that have rocked both the Evangelical and Catholic leadership? The charge of hypocrisy is the third serious form of sin or evil that we encounter (personal sin and evil that is external and unattached to humans are the others) in the list of (I would also say ONLY) objections to Christianity or belief in God in general.
The fact remains though that we can and must work together. While I see and experience Christianity for the unique experience it is, I also know that the desire for justice is within all of us- atheist, Christian, Hindu or anyone. I wouldn't go so far as to describe it as a spark of the divine in us or anywhere near it, but I would consider it as God-given, and a part of the appeal that draws us to Christ. If there is sin out there we must work together. If people of different persuasions could begin a discussion on the deepest matters in life, I'm convinced that social redemption, and not philosophical debate, is the beginning.
Monday, February 22, 2010
The Demographic Myths of Our Self-Centered Age
The term 'demographic-economic paradox' refers to the inverse relationship between economic progress and birth rates. Education and wealth go up at the cost of birth rates. This has been observed in almost all developed and developing nations. Although countries like China and India have government sposnsored programs to restrict their populations, unbiased population metrics from the Western countries and industrialized Asian nations like Japan and South Korea confirm this.
In my economics and civics classes in high school, India's population growth rates were partly attributed to the farming community's labour-intensive trade, in which more children (especially male) meant more farmhands and therefore more revenue. As agriculture declined as a percentage of the GDP and agricultural income for farming families began to be articificially kept low in India due to the presence of Government intermediaries and established 'fair prices', besides the low per-capita land holding that has been established, more children began to translate into more cost and much less revenue. India was one of the first countries to encourage family planning. This came to an undesirable extreme in the Seventies when Sanjay Gandhi forcefully sterilized, some say up to a million people in an attempt to control population growth. For an economy growing at a snail's pace of 2-3 percent a year from a poor base, more population simply meant fewer resources per capita and therefore a diminished standard of living.
After Gandhi's forced sterilization program met with outraged protests and a change of Government took place, the family planning program has been far more benign, playing the role of an advisor and encourager. China has been another aggressive implementer of family planning, imposing stiff pentalties on couples who had more than one child. Many have written about social problems and future economic problems that this has posed or will pose. Other measures like prohibition of gender determination have led to fewer female child abortions lately, but the gender imbalance in both these countries remains sharp.
The US has no such Government program but has experienced the decline in birth rates that all industrialized countries have. Unlike some other countries like Sweden and Norway which experience declining population growth rates, the US has kept up a rate of over 2 percent due to better population replacement rates internally as well as through immigration. Even so, the US has an aging population who will be supported by the younger citizens in the years to come. This is especially clear in the case of the social security funds which are now being propped up by payments made by those still working to cover the retirees. In 20 years there will be a small section of the population (younger taxpayers) supporting a larger group of aged retirees, meaning that there will be insufficient funds in social security. This is expected to lead to need-based rationing/provisioning of funds as well as a cut in the percentage of per-capita allowance of these funds.
India has a rapid GDP growth rate- even upto 7.5 percent in the recessionary 2009-10 years. China too has not skipped a beat in its blistering growth. However the economic effects a smaller percentage of a younger population are expected to show up in 30 years. This will mean fewer resources to deploy in critical manufacturing and services for export that these countries have specialized in, less availability of specialized labour to meet the growth rates needed to continue growth, a skewed distribution of labour in several fields and of course the dangers of a gender imbalance. At present the danger of a small percent of young people supporting the aged does not seem imminent, as the percentage of younger people is quite high in these countries. One-fifth of the total world population under 20 years of age is in India. As they enter the labour force the opportunities and resources are bound to be stretched, but the market that they represent as consumers in an expanding economy will be sizeable.
Here is the paradox of population economics in simple terms. The world over statistics on population remind us that hunger, disease, malnutrition, unemployment, underemployment, expoitation and other ills stalk the majority of the population. Countries that have sought to implement population controls have mostly been socialistic in the past or continue to be so today to some extend. It is easy to understand why. A socialistic view of population regards it as a partaker of the total wealth of the nation. Thew fewer the people the better the per capita income. This is true for countries in which the buying power of people is less. When GDP rates remain low, resources get divided again and again, translating into smaller populations. Land is one such resource. But standards of living are based on many other 'goods' than simply the limited natural resources of the world. India and China realized several years ago that their populations are an asset to them in an export-oriented, free trading, outsourcing world. Large teams in India could be deployed very quickly to provide application development services or financial and accounting services, while large masses of the rural population in China could find employment in the manufacturing boomtowns on the East Coast. In the past 15 years these workers have also increased domestic consumption in these countries, leading to stronger economies that have so far withstood the assault of the global recession. As income rates grew and national GDP grew consistently over a decade, these countries began thinking along new lines concernig their population, asking who are the employable people within their population.
Indian companies have had to implement stringent recruiting norms to avoid hiring less skilled employees in the face of bugeoning demand. They also began to face skewed labour distributions. Engineers in India wanted to work in IT and less in other fields. In China the long-predicted take over of the services sector has not happened because they have not been able to train enough people in the English language- despite massive Government initiatives. People want to take the shortest route to wealth and do not toe the party line.
As these populations increase, the countries are looking to educate them better. After all sustainable economic growth comes from domestic production, demostic consumption and domestic innovation. When the pie is fixed the impetus to share is limited. As the pie grows in size, the partakers realize that the more the workers the larger the size of the pie. The trick is to ensure better productivity.
This brings us back to the old agricultural paradigm full circle. At one time agriculture was relatively profitable. Indeed it may well have been the oldest profession. As other fields of endeavour eclipsed its position in the economy, its predominance declined and the number of employees/children farm hands also declined. These ex-farm hands moved on to manufacturing or services where the money was.
If one kept aside the limited resources our world offers- land, water, fossil fuels and others- one must ask the question: are all our population control programs barking up the wrong tree? Sure enough, there are several millions who are not part of the economic growth enjoyed by a section of the population of the emerging nations and the majority of the people in developed countries. If this were considered a reason to continue these programs, one must then ask: is there a real redistribution of resources, education, skill and other essentials needed for a safe, healthy and progressing life that is being shared with the have-nots? Of course there is, but only a trickle. Within the emerging nations, the have-nots are part of the economy. In a trickle-down sense, these people survive from the crumbs that fall from the tables of the haves. Despite the revulsion that this image may conjure up in our minds, the reality is that they are better of than the have nots in countries that are laggards in this economic rat race.
Putting this question in another way: if economic jump-starts in the emerging nations worked wonders for them, why are the other nations left behind in this race. The reasons are plenty and obvious- lack of political cohesion, a population that is already riddled with horros of war, AIDS, religious and other strife. It appears that many governments and even some of us may already have classified these people as "unemployable" or worse, dispensable.
It is my view that population control programs in most parts of the world are predatory measures that are set up to eliminate the "unemployables" and the "dispensables", looking for a bigger bite of the pie before them. Perhaps the evil of any economic system is not so much that it exploits the people it employs, but that it leaves out the people it deemes unnecessary. Large well-meaning leaders could take a leaf out of rehabilitation programs that NGOs implement in areas affected by natural disasters. Their goal is to infuse capital into not just rebuilding homes, but creating communities that can rise up from the ashes of destruction into sustainable, skilled people. The direction of capital into future opportunities is the spirit of free enterprise, but it takes visionaries to initiate this into populations deemed the refuse of the earth. Perhaps the failing of capitalism is that it has failed to recognize the ability of people to emancipate themselves and therefore stayed its hand in investing into their future.
In my economics and civics classes in high school, India's population growth rates were partly attributed to the farming community's labour-intensive trade, in which more children (especially male) meant more farmhands and therefore more revenue. As agriculture declined as a percentage of the GDP and agricultural income for farming families began to be articificially kept low in India due to the presence of Government intermediaries and established 'fair prices', besides the low per-capita land holding that has been established, more children began to translate into more cost and much less revenue. India was one of the first countries to encourage family planning. This came to an undesirable extreme in the Seventies when Sanjay Gandhi forcefully sterilized, some say up to a million people in an attempt to control population growth. For an economy growing at a snail's pace of 2-3 percent a year from a poor base, more population simply meant fewer resources per capita and therefore a diminished standard of living.
After Gandhi's forced sterilization program met with outraged protests and a change of Government took place, the family planning program has been far more benign, playing the role of an advisor and encourager. China has been another aggressive implementer of family planning, imposing stiff pentalties on couples who had more than one child. Many have written about social problems and future economic problems that this has posed or will pose. Other measures like prohibition of gender determination have led to fewer female child abortions lately, but the gender imbalance in both these countries remains sharp.
The US has no such Government program but has experienced the decline in birth rates that all industrialized countries have. Unlike some other countries like Sweden and Norway which experience declining population growth rates, the US has kept up a rate of over 2 percent due to better population replacement rates internally as well as through immigration. Even so, the US has an aging population who will be supported by the younger citizens in the years to come. This is especially clear in the case of the social security funds which are now being propped up by payments made by those still working to cover the retirees. In 20 years there will be a small section of the population (younger taxpayers) supporting a larger group of aged retirees, meaning that there will be insufficient funds in social security. This is expected to lead to need-based rationing/provisioning of funds as well as a cut in the percentage of per-capita allowance of these funds.
India has a rapid GDP growth rate- even upto 7.5 percent in the recessionary 2009-10 years. China too has not skipped a beat in its blistering growth. However the economic effects a smaller percentage of a younger population are expected to show up in 30 years. This will mean fewer resources to deploy in critical manufacturing and services for export that these countries have specialized in, less availability of specialized labour to meet the growth rates needed to continue growth, a skewed distribution of labour in several fields and of course the dangers of a gender imbalance. At present the danger of a small percent of young people supporting the aged does not seem imminent, as the percentage of younger people is quite high in these countries. One-fifth of the total world population under 20 years of age is in India. As they enter the labour force the opportunities and resources are bound to be stretched, but the market that they represent as consumers in an expanding economy will be sizeable.
Here is the paradox of population economics in simple terms. The world over statistics on population remind us that hunger, disease, malnutrition, unemployment, underemployment, expoitation and other ills stalk the majority of the population. Countries that have sought to implement population controls have mostly been socialistic in the past or continue to be so today to some extend. It is easy to understand why. A socialistic view of population regards it as a partaker of the total wealth of the nation. Thew fewer the people the better the per capita income. This is true for countries in which the buying power of people is less. When GDP rates remain low, resources get divided again and again, translating into smaller populations. Land is one such resource. But standards of living are based on many other 'goods' than simply the limited natural resources of the world. India and China realized several years ago that their populations are an asset to them in an export-oriented, free trading, outsourcing world. Large teams in India could be deployed very quickly to provide application development services or financial and accounting services, while large masses of the rural population in China could find employment in the manufacturing boomtowns on the East Coast. In the past 15 years these workers have also increased domestic consumption in these countries, leading to stronger economies that have so far withstood the assault of the global recession. As income rates grew and national GDP grew consistently over a decade, these countries began thinking along new lines concernig their population, asking who are the employable people within their population.
Indian companies have had to implement stringent recruiting norms to avoid hiring less skilled employees in the face of bugeoning demand. They also began to face skewed labour distributions. Engineers in India wanted to work in IT and less in other fields. In China the long-predicted take over of the services sector has not happened because they have not been able to train enough people in the English language- despite massive Government initiatives. People want to take the shortest route to wealth and do not toe the party line.
As these populations increase, the countries are looking to educate them better. After all sustainable economic growth comes from domestic production, demostic consumption and domestic innovation. When the pie is fixed the impetus to share is limited. As the pie grows in size, the partakers realize that the more the workers the larger the size of the pie. The trick is to ensure better productivity.
This brings us back to the old agricultural paradigm full circle. At one time agriculture was relatively profitable. Indeed it may well have been the oldest profession. As other fields of endeavour eclipsed its position in the economy, its predominance declined and the number of employees/children farm hands also declined. These ex-farm hands moved on to manufacturing or services where the money was.
If one kept aside the limited resources our world offers- land, water, fossil fuels and others- one must ask the question: are all our population control programs barking up the wrong tree? Sure enough, there are several millions who are not part of the economic growth enjoyed by a section of the population of the emerging nations and the majority of the people in developed countries. If this were considered a reason to continue these programs, one must then ask: is there a real redistribution of resources, education, skill and other essentials needed for a safe, healthy and progressing life that is being shared with the have-nots? Of course there is, but only a trickle. Within the emerging nations, the have-nots are part of the economy. In a trickle-down sense, these people survive from the crumbs that fall from the tables of the haves. Despite the revulsion that this image may conjure up in our minds, the reality is that they are better of than the have nots in countries that are laggards in this economic rat race.
Putting this question in another way: if economic jump-starts in the emerging nations worked wonders for them, why are the other nations left behind in this race. The reasons are plenty and obvious- lack of political cohesion, a population that is already riddled with horros of war, AIDS, religious and other strife. It appears that many governments and even some of us may already have classified these people as "unemployable" or worse, dispensable.
It is my view that population control programs in most parts of the world are predatory measures that are set up to eliminate the "unemployables" and the "dispensables", looking for a bigger bite of the pie before them. Perhaps the evil of any economic system is not so much that it exploits the people it employs, but that it leaves out the people it deemes unnecessary. Large well-meaning leaders could take a leaf out of rehabilitation programs that NGOs implement in areas affected by natural disasters. Their goal is to infuse capital into not just rebuilding homes, but creating communities that can rise up from the ashes of destruction into sustainable, skilled people. The direction of capital into future opportunities is the spirit of free enterprise, but it takes visionaries to initiate this into populations deemed the refuse of the earth. Perhaps the failing of capitalism is that it has failed to recognize the ability of people to emancipate themselves and therefore stayed its hand in investing into their future.
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Christmas and Our Darkness
There are people who have benefitted from hard times. The bootleggers and the crime that was fed by them during the Great Depression, the influx of gambling and the mob into Las Vegas are all examples. In my line of work the erstwhile happy days of IT services are entering and have already entered in many cases into darker terrain. Clients are spending less on streamlining business processes, improving customer and employee experiences with processes and systems and looking not so much at saving costs over a long period of time as at cutting existing cash outflow, thereby leaving no room for arguments of investing into the future.
Who makes money during a depression? There are distinct divergences in the answer to this question depending on what market you are addressing. For our purpose let's address the most basic market of all- the workaday man or woman who has lost a job or is getting paid less due to cost cutting measures or underemployment at their place of work. What do they buy at home? On special occasions like Christmas they try not to merely subsist, because Christmas as an event comes only once a year and even keeping aside the matter of faith, most families want to create memories and look beyond their troubles at this time. They spend cautiously and try to give more meaningful gifts. Peggy Noonan wrote a column about this a couple of weeks ago, asking if we were going to see the first Christmas of restraint in America.
When Christmas is over and the New Year comes in, what would they do? Clearly they need to spend on basic items like food, heating, electricity, schooling- which they cannot do without. But we may see less private school enrolment, less eating out or high end foods (organic, gourmet, imported), lower heating, less usage of electrical appliances and so on. Some may spend money on more nice-to-have items, albeit cautiously. And yes, companies realize this, so many offer financial or other commercial structuring to ease the burden; and of course they make money off it. I received a flyer from AT&T asking us to switch to a convergent product and service offering, giving us unlimited local calls, 120 HD TV channels and high speed internet for less than the price we now pay for our home phone. I have received mais from our bank asking us to consolidate our loans into a single loan, thereby allowing us to pay less on a monthly basis, but reducing our capital in the total value of our home and car. Some of these address our needs very clearly-like AT&T's offer (it didn't come with any unreasonable time commitments), others like that of the bank involve a trade-off which gives one pause for thought.
There are many ideas out there. None are so compelling to a Christian as the idea of losing something yourself so that someone else may gain. We have heard the pithy statement that 'Christmas is about giving, not getting.' Ths message comes in soundbytes from TVs, childrens' books and other media, but the example we have set so far leaves this statement fall with a dull thud.
Why is Christmas about giving? Most of are filled with thanks when someone remembers us enough to give us a meaningful gift. O Henry's story, 'The Gift of the Magi' has been told, retold, caricatured, criticized, spoofed so many times we do not think much about it. I was reminded of it today from RZIM's Jill Carattini writing in the daily devotional. She writes:
Jim Dillingham Young and his wife Della are the subjects of The Gift of the Magi, a short story written by O. Henry in 1906. Struggling to make ends meet in their one room apartment, Jim and Della have but two prized possessions between them: for Jim, a pocket watch given to him by his father, and for Della, her long, beautiful hair, of which even the queen of Sheba would be envious. When Christmas comes, Jim and Della have nothing to scrape together to buy even a simple gift for the other. Yet, longing to give something meaningful out of great love, each, unbeknownst to the other, sacrifices the greatest treasure of the house; Della sells her hair to buy her husband a silver chain for his beloved pocket watch, and Jim his pocket watch to buy Della pearl combs for her beautiful hair. Thus unfolds The Gift of the Magi and “the uneventful chronicle of two foolish children in a flat who most unwisely sacrificed for each other the greatest treasures of their house. But in a last word to the wise of these days,” writes O. Henry, “let it be said that of all who give gifts these two were the wisest.”
Why were these two the wisest? Could it be because the receiver of the gift received much mroe than the gift itself? He/she knew what it cost the other. Could it be because the giver of the gift took a step that demonstrated his/her desire to break free from themselves and love the other sacrificially? What is it about sacrifice that is so sweet and so heartbreaking? How may Jim have felt when he knew that Della couldn't benefit from his gift? Would he have felt better if Della hadn't sold her hair? Della would then have her gift but Jim would not have his. Did he feel better because Della's loss in this situation now was somehow compensated by the fact that she (like him) knew that the other loved her? Is love so strong as to give selflessly and not receive anything at all in return? But both Della and Jim did not do what they did thinking of a reciprocal gift. Maybe we could put this in another context. If we were in either Jim or Della's place, would we be the happier for what we did if the other did not give us a reciprocal gift? I'm inclined to think that we would, but I wonder- with our human inclination to sin- if that happiness would as intense when the rougher patches come up. Perhaps we need to know that acts of compassion will be rewarded, but not in the way we expect. People who do selfless acts with nothing to look forward to may be actually, even subconsciously, looking forward to something. A few years ago I read the story of a millionaire who gave away everything he had, became poor, and driven by guilt and a desire to alleviate pain, gave away his kidney, donated other organs in principle on the event of his death. He still wasn't satisfied with all that he had done. What was he seeking? If it was absolution for his sins, would he be satisfied with these enormously charitable acts? Can he now look back and say with confidence that he had done all he needed to do?
When Jesus came into the world as a baby, he demonstrated a truly selfless act, which too had a purpose that he knew it would accomplish. This was not meant to benefit himself but to fulfill his plan for humanity. Jesus also knew that this would satisfy his desire to enter into his Father's love. What does this mean? He never needed to be loved any more than he was by the Father (and vice versa), but this was a fulfillment of the love, the way by which such a love was worked out in flesh and blood. Indeed, as Hebrews 12:2 says, "Jesus the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising shame, and hath sat down at the right hand of the throne of God."
The joy that was set before him. If Jesus anticipated this joy as he looked to the excruciating death so immediately before him, was the cross an event with no visibility into the future? Are all our efforts to save the environment, feed the hungry, give shelter to the homeless, medical care to the suffering who cannot afford it ends in themselves? What is the joy that drives you? If it has not been defined yet, look to the cross for a possible understanding. The babe in the manger with, as Chris Rice says, his "tiny heart whose blood will save us" was the one in whom "all your hopes and fears are met tonight". Our acts of love and compassion are yearnings to transcend ourselves, to leave this troubling self-serving existence to mean something to "others" (or could it be, to that "Other", who we are often unwilling, even embarassed, to name?). If they are yearnings, but cannot be satisfied even with giving away all of ourselves, like the millionaire did, what can save us? Perhaps O Henry's moral from his story is that giving is indeed what Christmas is about, but nothing meaningful can be given or received without sacrifice. Isn't it remarkable that the most loved Christmas carols have a minor note in them that gives us the taste of what the expectation of Advent means?
Is there joy in the cross? Christmas invites us to find out. "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and the government will be upon his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, the Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David's throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the Lord Almighty will accomplish this. (Isaiah 9:6,7)" "The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light. Those who lived in the land of the shadow of death, on them the light has shined. (Isaiah 9:2)"
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
The Hour and the Man
I lay awake last night, restless and thinking of why our wealth makes us dull to the gospel and soulless. Yes, we hear about Angelina Jolie and Madonna adopting infants from impoverished nations, and Bono spearheading efforts in Africa to combat HIV and AIDS. We anticipate- skeptic and believer alike- the fulfilment of the promises our President-Elect made on his unique and inspiring campaign. These are stories from the wealth of America. But these are remarkable because they are doing something counter-intuitive- and that is, sharing of their time, wealth and indeed of themselves.
I thought of Gandhi, wondering how a man could influence so many and transform the moral direction of a nation. My dad, born in 1941, tells me that when he was 5, before India's independence, people referred to Gandhi as "Gandhi Appooppan" (Grandpa Gandhi). In a remote village in Southern India, which was still a princely state and would continue to remain so until the fifties, they looked with respect to a man from faraway Gujarat and were arguably guided by his principles. Today's India has very little of those principles. Politically India's policies prior to the 90s were socialist im principle. The welfare state it created faces a crisis of epic proportions in the early 90s when policies were dramatically reversed and now has created a consumeristic nation characterized by greed and selfishness. In the turnaround which was necessary and laudable, something else happened which happens all too often- a trading away of values that called for simple living, even austerity, to make way for trumpery and shallow living. India's leadership today bears no resemblance to the one in the 40s. Martin Luther King once remarked on his trip to India, "To other countries I go as a visitor. To India I come as a pilgrim." To King, Gandhi's land held a moral clarity and courage that was unparalleled inthe world then. Gnadhi rose up in the context of an unjust and predatory governance system. Besides him so many Indian leaders then crafted a policy that was exemplary and powerful to oppose the British government with peace and civil disobedience. The hour produced the men.
Ah, but then America had Dr. King himself, a man known for his similar resistance in the face of injustice. The greatest humans in history are known for moral courage, rather than for the power they wielded, the skill they had, the money they made or the feats they accomplished. Mother Teresa, Francis of Assissi, Nelson Mandela, Diertrich Bonhoeffer- are all known for this. Others have had a moral dimension to them that fuelled their specia well-known activities, despite any failing they may have had elsewhere- Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churcill, President Roosevelt. Poets and authors are known much more for their profound thoughts on moral dilemmas and their resolutions- Dostoevsky, Tagore, Tolstoy. Those whose wealth and skills make the world a better place are often known because they make the world a better place, not because of themselves. Thus Alfred Nobel is known more for the prize he instituted than for his fortune in armaments. Bill Gates for now is known for Microsoft, but if he persists at his charity, he may be known much more for it in the future. This brings us to the celebrities who too are known for charitable activities than for their achievements in show business.
Why do we admire moral courage. Why is it so empirically verifiable that true greatness always comes in the face of adversity? In America we face an economic crisis, accompanied by unprecedented loss of jobs, wars in other countries and other worries. RZIM writer Margaret Manning asks in today's 'Slice of Infinity' if it is possible today to sing 'Joy to the World' when there is no apparent joy to be found. Can those of us who are not yet affected by the crisis be legitimately joyful when there are others who are so affected?
The fact is, these conditions are not new to many among the have-nots of this world. For them the crisis has been an ongoing affair. For the rest of us this is a new reality that is scary. Margaret tells us that Christmas means precisely this, that the promised Messiah came to a world that was truly dark- this made all the difference to a people that were on the verge of losing hope. The long-awaited Messiah was just so- he came into a sinful, evil world. To know the reality of this is to have known the reality of evil in our world, and indeed in ourselves.
In yesterday's 'Slice', writer Jill Carattini writes that John the Baptist who came to prepare the way of the Lord, actually exhorts us even today to make his paths straight, in our own hearts. To receive the Messiah, I need to feel my evil and repent from the bottom of my heart.
I mentioned that the hour produces the man- it did so 2000 years ago in Bethlehem. But that was God's gift to us and not the will of man. But isn't it true that every man who is so produced comes out of God's will? Jesus is God's Son, but the prophets were his messengers. My prayer is that we who need a prohet more than ever would get one- even if he calls us to turn away from our most familiar, beloved and sinful ways.
I thought of Gandhi, wondering how a man could influence so many and transform the moral direction of a nation. My dad, born in 1941, tells me that when he was 5, before India's independence, people referred to Gandhi as "Gandhi Appooppan" (Grandpa Gandhi). In a remote village in Southern India, which was still a princely state and would continue to remain so until the fifties, they looked with respect to a man from faraway Gujarat and were arguably guided by his principles. Today's India has very little of those principles. Politically India's policies prior to the 90s were socialist im principle. The welfare state it created faces a crisis of epic proportions in the early 90s when policies were dramatically reversed and now has created a consumeristic nation characterized by greed and selfishness. In the turnaround which was necessary and laudable, something else happened which happens all too often- a trading away of values that called for simple living, even austerity, to make way for trumpery and shallow living. India's leadership today bears no resemblance to the one in the 40s. Martin Luther King once remarked on his trip to India, "To other countries I go as a visitor. To India I come as a pilgrim." To King, Gandhi's land held a moral clarity and courage that was unparalleled inthe world then. Gnadhi rose up in the context of an unjust and predatory governance system. Besides him so many Indian leaders then crafted a policy that was exemplary and powerful to oppose the British government with peace and civil disobedience. The hour produced the men.
Ah, but then America had Dr. King himself, a man known for his similar resistance in the face of injustice. The greatest humans in history are known for moral courage, rather than for the power they wielded, the skill they had, the money they made or the feats they accomplished. Mother Teresa, Francis of Assissi, Nelson Mandela, Diertrich Bonhoeffer- are all known for this. Others have had a moral dimension to them that fuelled their specia well-known activities, despite any failing they may have had elsewhere- Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churcill, President Roosevelt. Poets and authors are known much more for their profound thoughts on moral dilemmas and their resolutions- Dostoevsky, Tagore, Tolstoy. Those whose wealth and skills make the world a better place are often known because they make the world a better place, not because of themselves. Thus Alfred Nobel is known more for the prize he instituted than for his fortune in armaments. Bill Gates for now is known for Microsoft, but if he persists at his charity, he may be known much more for it in the future. This brings us to the celebrities who too are known for charitable activities than for their achievements in show business.
Why do we admire moral courage. Why is it so empirically verifiable that true greatness always comes in the face of adversity? In America we face an economic crisis, accompanied by unprecedented loss of jobs, wars in other countries and other worries. RZIM writer Margaret Manning asks in today's 'Slice of Infinity' if it is possible today to sing 'Joy to the World' when there is no apparent joy to be found. Can those of us who are not yet affected by the crisis be legitimately joyful when there are others who are so affected?
The fact is, these conditions are not new to many among the have-nots of this world. For them the crisis has been an ongoing affair. For the rest of us this is a new reality that is scary. Margaret tells us that Christmas means precisely this, that the promised Messiah came to a world that was truly dark- this made all the difference to a people that were on the verge of losing hope. The long-awaited Messiah was just so- he came into a sinful, evil world. To know the reality of this is to have known the reality of evil in our world, and indeed in ourselves.
In yesterday's 'Slice', writer Jill Carattini writes that John the Baptist who came to prepare the way of the Lord, actually exhorts us even today to make his paths straight, in our own hearts. To receive the Messiah, I need to feel my evil and repent from the bottom of my heart.
I mentioned that the hour produces the man- it did so 2000 years ago in Bethlehem. But that was God's gift to us and not the will of man. But isn't it true that every man who is so produced comes out of God's will? Jesus is God's Son, but the prophets were his messengers. My prayer is that we who need a prohet more than ever would get one- even if he calls us to turn away from our most familiar, beloved and sinful ways.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Truth without Grace
Peggy Noonan's column this Friday (today) on the Presidential elections has an air of defeat, no matter that she has been trying her best to present both sides of the argument for some time now, battling her Republican allegience to give Obama credit where he deserves it.
In this column she makes this great point (among several others):
When the press was hitting hard on the pregnancy of Sarah Palin's 17-year-old daughter, he did not respond with a politically shrewd "I have no comment," or "We shouldn't judge." Instead he said, "My mother had me when she was 18," which shamed the press and others into silence. He showed grace when he didn't have to.
As a Christian Obama's only blip in his campaign came at the time when he had some observations to make about the Bible. I think he was mauled by Conservative commentators, in particular Dr. James Dobson (which may be understandable because Obama singled him out and hinted that he was as far Right as Al Sharpton is to the Left). But Dr. Dobson's comments seemed to me lacking in Christian charity. I have listened to his radio program and certainly it is not all about politics. I think he cares about the family and the values that we cherish. But his blindsidedness has affacted him to a point where his comments in response to Obama's do not reflect Grace.
Besides this I have to say I have not seen a political candidate anywhere in the world take on detractors with the finesse that Obama has shown. The great orators among statesmen- Nehru, Churchill, et al showed at least some hints of arrogance in public. To date except for the blip above I have not actually seen Obama ruffle anyone's feathers. That is not the important thing, though- the most significant point is that he still fascinates with his ideas a nation that is used to listening to short, pithy soundbites meant to excite, anger or polarize.
Dr. Dobson's response to Obama in June brings me to another thought. I have seen Christians debating from both sides. Dobson, Robertson, Limbaugh, O'Reilly and others have crossed the line from civility to ungracious behaviour many times in these debates. Other Christians, rooting for Obama, too have followed the world's way of ranting and raving- with a caveat that we will laugh all about it in eternity anyway. While this is true, it reminds me of what a comedian once said about the American Deep South: You can say anything you want about anyone, as long as you add as a suffix, "Bless his/her soul." It is funny because it is actually true to a large extend.
The fact is Christians, whichever side they have taken, have been largely ungracious. You see it in conversations, in blogs, in emails. It seems to me that we may not be evaluated by the unbelieving neighbour so much for our allegience as our attitude. After all if we simply take sides in a debate, we will be considered simply as part of a voting bloc: Conservative vs. Liberal, Pro-life vs. Pro-choice, Capitalist vs. Socialist, Right vs. Left.
When and how do we get counted as Christians? I do not share the opinion that Christians have no role in politics as such. I think our convictions- the Gospel, the saving grace of Jesus Christ- compel us to act in the social and political sphere. All too often, due to the limited nature of the fallen world, we are forced to take sides, often compromising one value for another. We all become single-issue or two-issue voters in most elections, whichevere side we are on. We assign priorities. We sometimes get the label "nutcases" by those opposing our views. This would not matter so much if it had been just the unbelievers on the other side. But the fact is we squabble about it the exact same way as the secular world does. Though the words used are not usually as severe, I have seen words and phrases used by Christians in this debate which should not be on their minds to use at all. Schaeffer's columns (one of which I had commended on this blog) with respect to Dr. Dobson has been peppered with truths couched in language that is hurtful and sometimes (though rarely) inappropriate for a Christian.
From this and my other writings on this blog, I think it is by now clear that I feel that Christian behaviour that does not reflect Grace (as well as Truth) falls woefully short of the Lord's command. Being Pro-Life is indeed being Pro-Truth. Being Pro-Poor is surely being Pro-Truth. But being crude in our conversations about it is being Anti-Grace. Jesus, as the prologue to John's Gospel says, was full of Grace and Truth.
I have a confession to make. My faith has been shaken a few times in the course of these political debates- not severely, but shaken nevertheless. This has nothing to do with intellectual charges against the Christian worldview. Intellectually I'm convinced strongly of the truth, grace and beauty of the Gospel. I have listened to endless debates and statements from men who want to rip the Gospel apart- men and organizations like Richard Dawkins, Infidels.org, Swami Prabhupada and so on. Besides the fact that I find their positions intellectually untenable, I derive comfort from Christianity that my research into other faiths and worldviews cannot match. Christianity is Truth, and in addition it is also Good News! The comments that Obama had made in reference to slavery, capital punishment for an erring son, et al in the Jewish law are not mysterious elements to me. Slavery in the Old and New Testament were realities that when read in conext were not supported by God or His Law, but acknowledged as extant among the Hebrews as among the other Semitic peoples. In fact the Hebrews were given clear instructions to be humane towards their slaves- and from history we know that this was a benign form of domestic servitude, unlike the economic slavery that the Roman empire and pre-Lincoln America practised. Paul's writings also tell us how he regarded slaves to be free men in Christ and masters to be slaves to Christ. He considered himself to be a slave to Christ. Jesus calls himself as one who serves- quite literally, a slave. The concept of the slave that the Bible refer to is distorted by Obama's implicit suggestions about it, but we cannot hold it against him as a Presidential candidate simply because of his limited theology. After all, if our standards were so stringent, in some sense the theology of most Christian Presidents have been limited enough to warrant our displeasure. Obama's comments about stoning the errant son are derived from actual words in the Old Testament. It is important to note the distinction that Jesus made about Old Testament Law and what God actually desires. When questioned about divorcing a wife, he said, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning." When questioned about stoning a woman caught in the act of adultery, he said, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." Was he contradicting the Law? As He says, "Matt 5:18 "For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled." Jesus thus claims to be the end goal of the Law, that He came to fulfill it. The fulfillment of the Law is not found in its penal code, endless requirements, Sabbath regulations, ceremonial cleansing and so on, but its fulfillment in His Person- including his vicarious death and resurrection and the Christ-life that ensues after a conversion event in a believer's life- the gradual folding away of the flesh and the dominion of the Spirit, in which His righteousness becomes manifest.
None of these pronouncements trouble my theology, though it may trouble me that the Bible is being misinterpreted in the public sphere.
But as the Psalmist says in another context in Psalm 73, "But as for me, my feet had almost stumbled;. My steps had nearly slipped." As I watched debates among Christians, my heart sank as disappointment turned to shame and anger that these brothers would be so influenced by the world that they could address each other in the same way. I wondered almost hiding even from myself, if what the detractors keep harping about Christianity could be actually true. Individually their arguments are easily disproven. But the clamour of voices chip away at one's conviction, especially in moments like this, when one is frustrated with those who one has looked up to as leaders and exemplars. The violence over Christ in history, recent arguments about Christ's alleged non-existence, the scandal of the Da Vinci code and other gnostic writings aimed at draining divinity from Christ, the watering down of the Bible, following the cafeteria mentality of picking and choosing what one likes in the Bible while discarding others... All of these are no match for the theologically sound answers that Christians have come up with over the past 2000 years. But when one sees a community meant to reflect Christ reflecting something (or someone) else, one's faith is troubled.
In John chapter 6, when the people who witnessed Jesus' miraculous multiplication of bread and fish to feed them all were offended at his saying that he was the bread of life and that they must feed on his flesh to be saved, Jesus asked his presumably scandalized disciples if they wished to leave as well. Peter's reply finds an echoe in many troubled hearts: "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God" (John 6:68-69).
The secular humanistic worldview offers a cold world with morals justified only by one's Quixotic imagination and ideals with no purpose to live or die for- a barren wasteland that is embraced with zeal by those fuelled more by indifference, misconception or animosity towards religion than those with conviction. Hinduism, with its view of the world as immaterial and illusory as Maya, a view of life as terrifyingly cyclical, only an abstract understanding of salvation that is called Moksha- and that by a lucky throw of dice in which chance, noble birth, Karma, Yoga (in its different spiritual forms), meditation and so on come together. Buddhism with its escape into the inner world so distant and disconnected with the world we live in and its myriad cries for help, with a non-exitent Deity that changes into a Deification of the Almighty Self, Islam with its rules and regulations, strictures and no hope, assurance or certain way (except by physical or spiritual Jihad) to attain salvation.
Forests of tongues, as Chesterton said:
Forests of tongues, like autumn leaves unshed,
Being not unlovable but strange and light;
Old riddles and new creeds, not in despite
But softly, as men smile about the dead.
Then I realize that I have nowhere to go. Nature abhors a vacuum, and so do our spirits. In Christ there is fullness of joy.
Last week in church a ministry resident talked to us about the letter of James, chapter 3, versus 13-18. He made the point derived from this that spiritual ends cannot be achieved without spiritual means. So better programs, management, more resources and so on cannot save a dying church. The church is after all a group of people into whom God has breathed the Spirit of Life, and is thus inspired by that Spirit. Our engagements in the world are not to be governed by earthly means. When we use earthly frameworks such as governments, employers, law and other organizations, let us be mindful that we cannot push our agendas through manipulation, partisanship or out-arguing each other- if indeed our first agenda is to preach Christ and Him crucified.
As Peggy Noonan notes insightfully in her article, Eras end, and begin. "God is in charge of history." Perhaps the era of some Christian leaders have ended as well, but the era of Christ never ends.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Decoding the Numbers on Poverty
Business Columnist Steve Pearlstein writes in the Washington Post on the latest statistics on US poverty. This is an insightful column in summing up the perspectives from the right and the left.
He acknowledges that both sides have valid arguments but they are carried too far. Yes, the less wealthy have historical reasons as to why they remain that way (slavery) and present reasons (lack of opportunity or resources). And yes, it's also due to Government doing things the wrong way (welfare) and lack of discipline. While one places the emphasis on the responsibility of the society to uplift the poorer sections of itself, the other exhorts the individuals to rise above themselves. Pearlstein also talks about the fact that a very poor individual may find herself givig up any idea of economic or social resurgence because it seems beyond her reach. A $100 bill found on the street, for instance, will not pay for college, so she may blow it up on various intoxicants. The logic outrages most people, but this is true. I've seen this among the slum-dwellers in India and I see it here in the US. The individual is responsible primarily for his upliftment. At the same time, the society cannot sit by and let these people decline. Welfare as we know it may have alleviated some misery but it isn't going to solve the problem effectively. There is merit to the individual emphasis argument.
Interestingly the only non-argument that Pearlstein comes up with is that in order to motivate people to work or learn or pull themselves together into social behaviours that will keep them out of poverty, they need to get into a financial sweetspot between $24,000 and $96,000 median income. Beyond this maxima or minima, he concludes, complacence may set in.
Christianity has of course always focused on the individual. Even the society's role in encouraging the weaker brethren is primarily a role of the individuals within the society, not the role of legislation or force. As a democratic society though, the US legislates (in theory) what the majority of individual citizens want. And hence, it is an indication of the individual inclination to improve the lot of people around the individual. Here lies the rub (as far as I'm concerned): the American dream, the pursuit of "life, liberty and happiness", the motivation to succeed, achieve, earn and spend is often contrary to the ideal to giving money away to someone else. On the one hand we want individuals to behave well, have social, economic and civic goals; on the other we encourage them to be selfish. That dilemma cannot be solved through economic legislation. The human heart needs to be changed. All Christians know that.
What can we do to make sure the Government does the right things to improve the capability or propensity of the people to achieve, succees, learn and be productive? Surely more by providing tools rather than the finished product. The finished products will leave us (as is happening now) with net consumers, not producers. Education is compulsory but sub-par in several poor neighbourhoods, the investment into teaching far less than needed. Opportunities for business reserved for minorities and historically under-utilized businesses, but no pro-active measures to impart business training to them or anyone else. There are no targeted programs for the poorer sections for these issues. No proper counseling for their emotional and mental trauma. A society that cares should count all of this as it legitimate cost in enabling all of us to succeed. Above all, as with 'reservations' in India, affirmative action in the US is more politicized than it is scientifically administered. Is there propoer measurement for how well it is succeeding? Is there a specific timeline for achieving metrics that are defined to eradicate the effect of past injustices? Is there a timeline to phase out affirmative action in the future? If it goes on indefinitely, it will only serve to create a pampered, net-consumer class of people who uneduc ated, un-motivated, uncultured wastrels (no offence meant, here- I'm a minority myself). Such a directionless program will also eventually create reverse discrimination and foster a new inequality.
The same goes for India. The issue of reservations is so shabbily discussed by both ends of the argument, and the rea concerns seldom addressed. And to make it worse, it is purely political. There is no other motivation to it and this makes it more dangerous than the US situation.
He acknowledges that both sides have valid arguments but they are carried too far. Yes, the less wealthy have historical reasons as to why they remain that way (slavery) and present reasons (lack of opportunity or resources). And yes, it's also due to Government doing things the wrong way (welfare) and lack of discipline. While one places the emphasis on the responsibility of the society to uplift the poorer sections of itself, the other exhorts the individuals to rise above themselves. Pearlstein also talks about the fact that a very poor individual may find herself givig up any idea of economic or social resurgence because it seems beyond her reach. A $100 bill found on the street, for instance, will not pay for college, so she may blow it up on various intoxicants. The logic outrages most people, but this is true. I've seen this among the slum-dwellers in India and I see it here in the US. The individual is responsible primarily for his upliftment. At the same time, the society cannot sit by and let these people decline. Welfare as we know it may have alleviated some misery but it isn't going to solve the problem effectively. There is merit to the individual emphasis argument.
Interestingly the only non-argument that Pearlstein comes up with is that in order to motivate people to work or learn or pull themselves together into social behaviours that will keep them out of poverty, they need to get into a financial sweetspot between $24,000 and $96,000 median income. Beyond this maxima or minima, he concludes, complacence may set in.
Christianity has of course always focused on the individual. Even the society's role in encouraging the weaker brethren is primarily a role of the individuals within the society, not the role of legislation or force. As a democratic society though, the US legislates (in theory) what the majority of individual citizens want. And hence, it is an indication of the individual inclination to improve the lot of people around the individual. Here lies the rub (as far as I'm concerned): the American dream, the pursuit of "life, liberty and happiness", the motivation to succeed, achieve, earn and spend is often contrary to the ideal to giving money away to someone else. On the one hand we want individuals to behave well, have social, economic and civic goals; on the other we encourage them to be selfish. That dilemma cannot be solved through economic legislation. The human heart needs to be changed. All Christians know that.
What can we do to make sure the Government does the right things to improve the capability or propensity of the people to achieve, succees, learn and be productive? Surely more by providing tools rather than the finished product. The finished products will leave us (as is happening now) with net consumers, not producers. Education is compulsory but sub-par in several poor neighbourhoods, the investment into teaching far less than needed. Opportunities for business reserved for minorities and historically under-utilized businesses, but no pro-active measures to impart business training to them or anyone else. There are no targeted programs for the poorer sections for these issues. No proper counseling for their emotional and mental trauma. A society that cares should count all of this as it legitimate cost in enabling all of us to succeed. Above all, as with 'reservations' in India, affirmative action in the US is more politicized than it is scientifically administered. Is there propoer measurement for how well it is succeeding? Is there a specific timeline for achieving metrics that are defined to eradicate the effect of past injustices? Is there a timeline to phase out affirmative action in the future? If it goes on indefinitely, it will only serve to create a pampered, net-consumer class of people who uneduc ated, un-motivated, uncultured wastrels (no offence meant, here- I'm a minority myself). Such a directionless program will also eventually create reverse discrimination and foster a new inequality.
The same goes for India. The issue of reservations is so shabbily discussed by both ends of the argument, and the rea concerns seldom addressed. And to make it worse, it is purely political. There is no other motivation to it and this makes it more dangerous than the US situation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
