As a follow up to my post a couple of days ago regarding toys made in sweatshops, I want to point out other recent news regarding children being held in slave-like conditions to produce clothing for The Gap. An article Sunday in the London Observer revealed that children as young as ten years old have been subjected to work long hours without pay and regular threats and beatings in an Indian textile factory subcontracted to produce clothing for Gap Kids. This clothing was destined for American and European markets this Christmas. Children were being held in slavery to we could buy a $30 sequined t-shirt.

Gap of course did what it could to save its own butt and severed ties with the factory and is withholding the clothing. That makes them look good as a company, but does nothing to help the children. What is the Gap doing to assure that these kids won't be harmed because now their slaver isn't getting income? What is Gap doing to stop illegal indentured servitude that they found themselves a part of? Just severing ties saves face, but it doesn't solve the problem

This isn't the first time Gap has faced negative press because of its usage of sweatshops. Just last year reports came in of Gap clothing being made in sweatshops in Jordon where young teenage girls were trafficked in, stripped of their passports, held in slavery, beaten and raped by the factory owners. Over the last few years, Gap has attempted to overcome those damaging reports (as if the public cares anyway) by participating in token acts of charity and justice. Gap featured prominently in the Red Campaign by selling $50 t-shirts of which a portion would be donated to AIDS relief work. My favorite token gesture is the one Charles Kernaghan, Executive Director of the National Labor Committee, mentioned in his recent interview with Democracy Now!. Gap apparently created a Code of Conduct for their factories - voluntary compliance of course. It was printed on treeless paper using non-toxic soy based ink, all perfectly environmentally friendly and sustainable. The problem was that it was just a PR job, it had never actually been translated into a language besides English. The document about caring for people that itself cared for the earth never made it to the people it was meant to protect. The document was only to calm the fears of English speakers wanting to know that their clothing was ethically produced.

So while all token gestures are not just complete BS like Gap's Code of Conduct, they still remain mere token gestures. When coffee companies can pay their farmers below living wage and put production demands on them that force the farmers to use unsustainable practices, but by building one school near one of their coffee farms they can appear caring and just to their customers, why bother with anything more than token gestures? When a church group can volunteer once a year at a soup kitchen or fill up a couple of shoeboxes for Operation Christmas Child and feel like they have helped the poor, token gestures are really all we see. Acting justly has become for many a one time event and not a day to day lifestyle. We have settled for token gestures instead of holistic approaches in our lives, and so let companies get away with token gestures instead of true reform. No wonder things have gotten so out of hand.

Labels: Ethical Consumption, Social Justice

It's that time of year again. Halloween is so over and the store shelves are being cleared for Christmas. Time to start your Christmas shopping. Unfortunately recent news has highlighted that the "Santa's little helpers" making the toys for our children are actually young Chinese women forced to work 90 hour work weeks for pennies an hour and trafficked children held in slavery forced to work in factories. Wow doesn't that just make you feel all warm and fuzzy with holiday cheer?

In a report released this past week by the National Labor Committee in Support of Human and Worker Rights, the atrocities committed by companies like Gap and Mattel were revealed. Mattel has been in the news a lot these past few months because of revelations of excessive amounts of toxic lead paint in their toys. I find it very interesting that after the lead paint scandal hit the news, my inbox was flooded with emails from other concerned moms spreading the news that our children could be exposed to hazardous conditions. So far no public service emails from moms concerned that people were abused and kept in slavery to make our children's toys. Guess it's the old, "if it doesn't affect me and mine, then I don't give a shit."

You can read the full report here and a good interview transcript summarizing the report at Democracy Now!. The horrific conditions at these factories are detailed in these reports. Basically young women making Barbie Mattel toys for Walmart are paid just 53 cents an hour and $21.34 a week. "Forced to work excessive overtime, the toy workers are routinely at the factory 82 to 87 hours a week, while toiling 66 to 70 hours. The standard shift is 14 ½ hours a day, from 7:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., six days a week. Mandatory overtime at the Xin Yi Factory exceeds China’s legal limit by 260 percent! Workers are routinely cheated on nearly 20 percent of the wages legally due them – resulting in the loss of two days wages each week. After deductions for primitive dorms (12 workers share each room sleeping on double-level bunk beds) and company food that the workers call “awful,” the workers’ take-home wage is just 46 cents an hour. Managers routinely yell and curse at the workers, and it is common – nearly every day – to see young women workers crying. Workers who are insulted have but two options – to bow their heads and remain silent or to quit and leave without the back wages due to them. Workers can be fired for having an “inattentive attitude” or for “speaking during working hours.” Workers falling behind in their mandatory product goal will be punished with the loss of five hours wages. Workers are prohibited from standing up and must remain seated on their benches at all times during working hours. Workers report that the factory is overcrowded and extremely hot, and that everyone is dripping in their own sweat.Workers in the spray paint department who cannot tolerate the strong acrid stench of the oil paint are immediately fired. Failure to properly clean the shared bathroom in the dorm will result in the loss of one and a half day’s wages."

What I find most interesting in this whole thing is Mattel's behavior. This is the Mattel that recently apologized to China for the "excessive" recall of so many lead tainted toys. So if they are apologizing for attempting to make toys safe, then I don't have much confidence in their treatment of workers. This is also the company that sues someone on average once a month for Barbie copyright infringement. Apparently Barbie has more rights than the 14 year old girl who made her in a sweatshop. This is the Mattel that "sought and won special “waivers” from the government of China to pay below the legal minimum wage in its factories. Mattel also received waivers to unilaterally extend allowable working hours to seventy-two hours per week, which exceeds China’s legal limit on overtime by 295 percent." Oh and this is also the Mattel whose CEO paid himself $7,278,178 last year in wages and other compensation—which is 6,533 times what he pays his toy workers in China.

So who wants to go Christmas shopping?

Labels: Ethical Consumption, Social Justice

Yesterday in church I led the conversation on the Great Commission. We have been making our way through the book of Luke for the last couple of years and have finally arrived at the end, which of course just means we are diving straight into Acts next. For many of us who grew up in the evangelical church, the Great Commission involves nothing more than convincing other people to believe in Jesus. Preaching forgiveness and making disciples simply meant getting people to intellectually assent to a certain set of ideas. We've left out the whole part about training people in everything Jesus taught.

So yesterday we looked at the mission Jesus sent his followers on (with the help of the Spirit) in light of how Jesus himself described his own mission in Luke 4 (to preach good news to the poor, to proclaim freedom for the prisoners,recovery of sight for the blind, and to release the oppressed). The Spirit of the Lord was on Jesus to fulfill his mission and Jesus promised the Spirit so that the disciples could fulfill theirs as well (which included training others in the way Jesus trained them to follow). But sometimes doing that mission - spreading the message of forgiveness and freedom through our words and deeds - is hard. We obviously have failed at the whole setting the oppressed free and bringing good news to the poor (since there is still oppression and poverty), so there is a lot more work that needs to be done to fulfill the Great Commission. That's where the Spirit comes in to kick out butts.

I love the example Sarah Dylan Breuer gives as she compares what the Spirit does to a washing machine -

Washing machines don't work if the load is stagnant; without motion, there's no transformation. So the washing machines that I grew up with had something at their center that bounced around to push what's at the center out to the margins and bring what's at the margins in to the center such that the whole load could be transformed.

We call that thing at the center of the washing machine an 'agitator,' and I can think of no better word for what the Spirit does for us. The call of God's Spirit pushes those of us at the center of our world's all-too-concentrated power and wealth out to the margins to welcome the marginalized to the center. If we stay where we are and let the rest of the world stay as it is, we're not fully experiencing the presence and work of the Spirit, and we won't benefit as fully from the transformation that the Spirit is bringing.

We need that agitation, that kick in the butt, to actually be out there engaging in the mission Christ called us to. Our discussion yesterday concluded with a time of brainstorming of everyday practical things we each could do to engage in that mission followed by us having to list the excuses we give for why we don't actually engage. Here's a sampling of some of the stuff we came up with.

Ways we can engage in Mission

• - Be a volunteer


• - Get to know our neighbors


• - Live more frugally and simply


• - Take the time to be educated on justice issues


• - Learn Spanish


• - Buy Fairly Traded items


• - Do chores for your elderly neighbor


• - Go to student's soccer games


• - Write actual letters to lawmakers


• - Visit the "unseen" in our culture

Our Excuses for Not Doing Anything

• - I'm too shy


• - I won't make a big difference anyway


• - It's too expensive


• - I don't know where to begin


• - There is always something better I could be doing to help others, so I end up doing nothing at all

What would you add to either of these lists?

Labels: Church, mission, Social Justice

I was browsing Amazon earlier and stumbled upon John Perkins' new book With Justice for All: A Strategy for Community Development. This is the John Perkins who help co-found the Christian Community Development Association, but apparently Amazon has got him confused with another John Perkins (not a Christian) who also promotes justice issues. Now I haven't read the book yet, but the description sounds interesting - With Justice for All is Perkins s invitation to live out the gospel in a way that brings good news to the poor and liberty to the oppressed (from Luke 4:18). This invitation is extended to every racial and ethnic group to be reconciled to one another, to work together to make our land all God wants it to be. And it is a blueprint a practical strategy for the work of biblical justice in our time.

But apparently the Amazon mix-up has really pissed a few people off. While that is somewhat understandable, what I found to be really intriguing are how the disgruntleds' comments convey negative cultural perceptions of Christianity. For example, they write -

I saw the email from Amazon encouraging me to buy at a discount the "latest" book from John Perkins, author of "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" and other fantastic eye opening books. If he had, instead of a book that preaches about how Christianity and the Churches of Christ will be our Saviour, it would have been a fantastic book about how we as people in our local communities need to take care of our communities through active involvement in buying sustainably grown and produced products, avoiding purchasing from the various corporate entities like WalMart etc. and manufacturers that have products produced by sweatshops and to instead reduce consumption and to care for one another in our communities with local action. Guess if anybody doesn't figure out that this book is NOT from the John Perkins who we all know and love, that this book will be a big disappointment and extremely confusing.

and

The John Perkins we all know and love is the one who confessed his sins to mankind. this other guy, whoever he is, sounds alright i guess, but being Christian, it is doubtful he is really truly interested in the betterment of mankind.

Yes, yes I know they should have taken the time to discover this John Perkins' beliefs and perspectives before they dismissed the book as generally being anti-justice. But their gut reaction was that it could not be about helping people or doing justice because it is Christian. That is disturbing. So even though certain people are claiming that we don't need to talk about biblical justice because all people are decent and support justice anyway, this perception (which is the true reality) begs to differ. Not that I was planning on stopping talking about justice issues, just that the implications are bigger than I thought.

Labels: Social Justice

Today is Blog Action Day for the environment. The idea is to get bloggers all blogging about a single topic (this year the environment) to help raise awareness and funds for that issue. Part of it is to donate the proceeds from your blog that day to the cause, but I guess that would assume you get proceeds from your blog to begin with. Nevertheless, I decided to add my voice and join in.

In some ways I really don't get why we still need to raise awareness for environmental issues. It just seems like a no-brainer - do what we can to take care of the planet. Al Gore just won the freaking Noble Peace Prize for crying out loud. But then I step back into reality. Even beyond those who think global warming is a hoax (and they are out there, in droves) and those who think it is our God-given right to destroy the environment (shockingly too many of those out there too), the bigger problem comes from those who just don't care enough to do crap. Sure they don't want the world destroyed, they like the idea of swimming in the ocean, and they aren't too eager to get cancer - but none of that is motivation enough for them to change the way they live. Convenience, cheapness, and sheer laziness win out over conviction any day.

Which is why I really appreciated the call in the Emerging Church to live holistically and put our beliefs into action. Makeesha just posted a reaction to the recent Emergent Gathering in which she debunked and affirmed popular stereotypes of the emerging church. One stereotype she affirmed is the "hippie" vibe one finds at such gatherings. She writes, "all you had to do was step into the room with the food and notice the almond butter, gluten free granola, sprouted bagels, quinoa salad and organic fruit." Our food was healthy and organic. Sure that gets us labeled "hippie" but I see in that a true commitment to the values of the Kingdom.

For many of us in the emerging church, our faith isn't just a set of beliefs we affirm by talking endlessly about how blessed we are to have them and by singing songs about why they make us so happy. It is instead a commitment of our whole life to living in the way of Christ. And that includes the areas of how we eat, shop, and treat the environment. If we care for the poor and the oppressed we are not going to buy food from systems that keep them in poverty or that expose them to unhealthy working conditions. If we care for God's creation we are not going to buy food that dumps poisons into the environment or is unsustainably grown. If we care for our bodies (as temples of the Holy Spirit) we aren't going to fill them with chemicals and high fructose corn syrup. Living holistically as followers of Christ changes that.

So call me a hippie. Call me a freak. Call me emergent. I am just trying to follow Christ.

And yes that means I care about the environment.

Labels: Emerging Church, Environment, Social Justice

So I find myself wondering what to do about Halloween this year. No, not the typical Christian "should I celebrate it or not?" dilemma (more on this on a couple of weeks), but more of a quandary as to what sort of candy to hand out. Unless you are an evil grinch (or a fundamentalist Christian) you give out candy at Halloween. It's the one night of the year when you are guaranteed to actually meet your neighbors as people get pulled out of the safety of their suburban fortresses by the munchkins dressed as pirates, superheros, and the cast of High School Musical. So I can't not give out candy.

But I'm facing an ethical dilemma. What do I give? I refuse to support human trafficking and child slavery by buying chocolate from one of the big name distributors. And as the buzz around the new documentary The Price of Sugar raises awareness of slave conditions inflicted on Haitians in the production of our sugar, I don't want to just go with pure sugar stuff either (and of course trying to avoid high fructose corn syrup as well). I mean, just a few days before Halloween I will be attending a fundraising banquet for relief work in Haiti, how can I then turn around and support systems that cause poverty and oppression in Haiti? It would be easier to be a hypocrite, but that's not sitting well with me. So that means I need to find fairly traded organic Halloween candy to give out this year.

So once again I set out on a quest to discover if I can engage ethically in my consumption. I go to Trader Joe's, Whole Foods, Fruitful Yield. I even look at my local grocery story that just recently made a big deal about the new half aisle of organic stuff they put in. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Oh, Whole Foods had nice autumn boxes of 6 truffles for $7 and Trader Joe's carries the new chocolate larabar for $1.50 each (super yummy btw), but no bags of individually wrapped easily distributable Halloween candy. I had a bit better luck at Fruitful Yield, they at least carried candy, but not in bulk. I would have to buy each piece individually (at their insane mark-up) if I wanted candy from them. Sorry, but the budget can't handle that.

Halloween is a $2 Billion dollar a year industry for candy and the average household spends around $17 each year on the candy supply to give out. To break it down - each piece of mini brand name candy costs you between 8-13 cents and the "fun size" pieces are between 20-30 cents each. Depending on the size of your neighborhood, that adds up. Given that the cheapest stuff I found in my search was $.50, I realized that attempting to have an ethical and green Halloween could really cost me. So having no luck visiting actual stores (although on an unrelated note I discovered that Whole Foods carries Shiner beer, in Illinois - much happiness there) I turned to the ever faithful internet.

Thanks to the groundwork done by the wonderful Candy Blog and green LA girl I found what I was looking for. While there doesn't appear to be loads of options out there, there are some pretty good choices available. Apparently Global Exchange carries an entire Fair Trade Halloween Kit full of candy, decor, and info postcards. Pretty spiffy. I'm also a fan of their fair trade gold coins which will go well with the pirate theme Emma is insisting upon this year. Also available are Endangered Species Bug Bites. These mini-chocolate bars come in milk and dark chocolate varieties and are high on the yummy scale. I let Emma try one and asked if if she thought other kids would like them. She said, "no, just Emma, I eat them all." We're working on the sharing thing. Plus each piece comes with a bug trading card which I think are rather fun. If you are looking to avoid chocolate altogether, Yummy Earth carries organic lollipops and hard candy in a variety of interesting flavors (watermelon, pomegranate...). But you have to get orders in now to guarantee delivery by Halloween.

So all of this stuff sounds good to me and are things I can buy without feeling like a hypocrite. I guess the real test will be if the kids like them. But then again, if they don't, I'll at least be contributing to the ever necessary "parent's stash." So here's to a green (and ethical) Halloween. Now we shall just see how my attempts to create organic whole wheat pumpkin muffins go over...

Labels: Ethical Consumption, Social Justice

Does believing in the mission that Christ gave us imply that one has liberal Utopian leanings or progressive delusions of grandeur? It's a question that I seem to encounter quite often these days. Generally the argument proceeds something like - all you emergent types are too tied to progressive liberal politics so therefore you think the government will save you and usher us into a perfect Utopian future (which is really a modern conception of progress anyway...). Or something similar along those lines. This is generally followed by some sermon on how we as Christians a should not corrupt ourselves (or the gospel) by getting involved in politics. Or at least about how we should only focus on trying to help those we have a personal relationship with - in our local community.

Don't get me wrong - I don't think the government can save us or bring about a perfect world. No one political party has all the answers or will automatically make this world a better place. But I don't think that is reason to just abandon politics or give up altogether. And (as I've mentioned before) I don't think working to bring God's Kingdom "on earth as it is in heaven" can just be written off as the modern myth of progress either.

To take to heart Jesus' command to "go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you" - would imply that one actually believes that it can be done. If we are following in the way of Christ, living out the Kingdom values, and teaching others about the things Jesus taught then part of the idea is that we are attempting to make this world a better place. If we follow in Jesus' footsteps to "preach good news to the poor, to proclaim freedom for the prisoners, and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor" then we should be actively working for those things believing that God has the power to make them happen. So in seeking to feed the hungry, to heal those with AIDS, to stop sexual exploitation of children, and to end slave like conditions in the factories we are not just buying into liberal ideas of progress through science, we are following Christ's commands.

But apparently to think that any of that will actually work is wishful Utopian thinking. And to think that the government or technology might assist in bringing those things about is to place our faith for salvation in such organizations. At least, so I have heard. But I'm not buying it.

The world is broken - God's kingdom is not on earth as it is in heaven. And often it has been the very people who claim to follow Christ that have caused the brokenness. If there is something that can be done to bring healing and reconciliation to the World, is it not a good thing to do it? And if a big organization or a government (many of whom caused the problems to begin with) are in a position to help heal the ills of the world, why the hell would I not support that? Even Jesus when the disciples reported that they had seen a man driving out demons in his name said, "Do not stop him, for whoever is not against you is for you."

I don't think the government will save us or that they have all the answers. I don't think that the world will just get better and better because of the wonders of technology. I am not deluded into thinking that Utopia will just appear if enough people vote a certain way and start recycling. But I do believe in Jesus and the mission he has called us to. I do believe that as Christians we are expected to care for others and to stop the injustices in this world. And I have no problem using the government or technology to help make that happen if that is what it takes. The mission is bigger than the fear of being consumed by an secular agenda of progress. And if working to make Kingdom values a reality gets dismissed as an Utopian delusion, I really don't care. I'll just keep on following Jesus.

Labels: Emerging Church, Politics, Social Justice

I've posted on the amazing photography of Chris Jordan before. Now he has a challenging piece up called "Building Blocks" which depicts nine million wooden ABC blocks, equal to the number of American children with no health insurance coverage in 2007. (HT - Justice and Compassion). It is a sobering thought and as always his visual representation drives home the enormity of the problem. As our President threatens to veto the bipartisan bill the House passed yesterday which would expand health care insurance for children, this number is even more frightening. As Bush said in a press conference recently, he believes that healthcare decisions are best made between a patient and their doctor, without government interference. As Jon Stewart so aptly pointed out on The Daily Show - these kids don't have doctors because they don't have health insurance. So Mr. President we await your giving the children of America the finger and pray you develop some semblance of a conscience instead.

Labels: Politics, Social Justice

Every September 22, people across the globe get together to swear off their cars, if only for one day, in a collective reminder that we don't have to accept car-dominated societies, cities, or personal lives. Since its earliest incarnations in the 1970s and '80s, WORLD CARFREE DAY has grown into a massive global celebration of human-centric communities and people-powered transportation.

Carfree Day 2007 could turn out to be the biggest yet. For the first time, China's government is hopping on board, with official events talking place in more than 100 cities, including Beijing and Shanghai. (Officials will reportedly be trading in their famed black sedans for public transportation.)

As the world tunes in to the fact that the climate is heating up, this is the perfect opportunity to take the heat off the planet, and put it on city planners and politicians to give priority to cycling, walking and public transport, instead of oil-hungry automobiles.

Check out the links below for global resources on going car-free, first on September 22, and then in your everyday life. Let World Carfree Day be a showcase for just how our cities might look, feel, and sound without cars - 365 days a year.

Nice idea. Now I'm fine with walking to basic places that day, but I know my town is like most of the USA and has zero public transportation. That is the most basic thing that needs to change before we get to the point when people can cut back (or stop) using cars.

Labels: Environment, Social Justice

So I really like shopping at IKEA. If you visit my house that fact would be obvious since almost all my furniture, curtains, and decor come from IKEA. It's not that I just really love assembling my own furniture or furnishing an entire room for the cost of just one item anywhere else, it's the way the company respects its customers, its workers, and the environment.

I know that IKEA is a business and they do business very well. But while most businesses are cutting whatever corners they can to increase their profits, IKEA seems to go out of its way to provide amenities for its customers. Free childcare while you shop, nursing rooms, diaper dispensers in the bathrooms, bottle warmers, babyfood for sale, and free milk and cookies for kids in the afternoons (not to mention a fantastic cafeteria) - can you tell I'm a mom?. Sure they are all gimmicks, but it makes being there a pleasant experience.

But beyond that, IKEA has committed to being socially and environmentally responsible. As Emma and I ate lunch there today (she calls it the "meatball store"), I noticed that all of their trash cans (as opposed to recycle cans) were labeled "Landfill Waste." I like that. Where else will you be reminded of the end result of what you are throwing away? But they also are committed to creating furniture from sustainable sources and not using unfair labor practices. You can read their environmental reports on their websites. I'm sure that they aren't perfect, but its nice to see a company that cares about these things. A company that (as they put it) is committed to "low price but not at any price." They say -

For more than 60 years IKEA has been working on ways of creating low prices – purchasing as inexpensively as possible, building our own stores, flat-packing furniture for customers to put together themselves.

But our ambition doesn´t stop there. We also want the products we sell to be free from hazardous substances. And we don´t want the wood in bookcases, tables or other products in the store to come from areas where forests are being devastated.

All IKEA suppliers must follow certain fundamental rules. Working conditions must be acceptable, child labor is not tolerated and suppliers must adopt a responsible attitude to the environment.

I am the first to admit that their furniture isn't the nicest out there and easily shows wear and tear. It won't last generations to be passed down as heirloom furniture. I hear a lot about buying stuff that will last or getting good used stuff. I see the logic there, but comparatively the ethical choice isn't always so clear. So I buy cheap furniture at IKEA that was made in a socially and environmentally responsible way, but it won't last forever. I could have bought really expensive hardwood antique furniture that was made from US companies barging into countries like Haiti and clearcutting their hardwood forests. Haiti still hasn't recovered economically or environmentally from the US sanctioned rape of their land and resources. Give the bigger picture, which is the more ethical choice?

And so I shop at IKEA. I like supporting business practices I agree with. And where else can you get meatballs and gravalox for lunch?

Labels: Culture, Ethical Consumption, Social Justice

As summer winds down and I am harvesting insane amounts of organic heirloom tomatoes from my garden (and have the fruit flies in my home to prove it!), I came across this fascinating article. One of the most common objections to organic farming is that if everyone switched to organic farming then there would not be enough food in the world for everyone. The logic goes that it takes intensive farming using fertilizers and pesticides to produce enough food for people to eat. But a new study coming out of the University of Michigan proves that excuse wrong. The study shows that "organic farming can yield up to three times as much food on individual farms in developing countries, as low-intensive methods on the same land—according to new findings which refute the long-standing claim that organic farming methods cannot produce enough food to feed the global population." Nice.

So why is this a good thing? As the article points out, "organic farming is important because conventional agriculture—which involves high-yielding plants, mechanized tillage, synthetic fertilizers and biocides—is so detrimental to the environment...For instance, fertilizer runoff from conventional agriculture is the chief culprit in creating dead zones—low oxygen areas where marine life cannot survive. Proponents of organic farming argue that conventional farming also causes soil erosion, greenhouse gas emission, increased pest resistance and loss of biodiversity." Basically we are screwing over the world and our health with what have become common farming practices. Organic farming seeks sustainable and healthy methods of providing food. It cares for the environment, the consumers' health, and the health and well-being of the farmer. (and yes, the health issues of the migrant farmer who makes $7000 a year with no health insurance who has to breath pesticides and fertilizers in mass quantities are a serious issue if you even remotely think life is precious and sacred).

So what's the catch? Why aren't people jumping on the organic bandwagon? I'm sure they don't say - "because we enjoy destroying the environment, getting cancer, and killing migrant farmers" (at least I hope they don't). No those issues are usually ignored in favor of - "because organic is inconvenient and expensive." And boy does that reveal what our values really are.

Labels: Culture, Environment, Social Justice

I received my Wheaton Alumni magazine in the mail the other day. Usually I just flip through it and skip to the gossip pages in the back - who got married, who had a baby, who wrote what book, the fun stuff. This issue though intrigued me. It sought to examine why student activism is on the rise.

When I was at Wheaton in the nineties, I knew nothing about social justice. Oh there were a few activist groups on campus that would do things like picket abortion clinics, but the concept of helping the oppressed really wasn't on my radar. I had friends who would go off about public health issues or American injustices in Latin America, but they were on the fringe. It took my own post-college personal study to realize that caring for the needs of others is a Biblical value.

So, to have student activism highlighted in the Wheaton magazine surprised me. Then I actually read the article. While it does applaud the students for their idealism, it takes a rather apologetic tone in doing so. The section on students for peace devotes a good portion of the space to how those students learned to understand the convictions of those in the army after a panel discussion on campus. The activism article was followed not so subtly by an article about Wheaton alumni serving as Chaplains in the military. Apparently the college wants to make sure that rich alumni don't get the impression that the school officially supports these rogue activist students. (and before you tell me I'm too cynical, I worked for the Wheaton Advancement department for a few years and know the posture one must assume when wealthy alumni are involved.) But the equivocating and the apologies were nothing compared to college President Duane Litfin's back page editorial.

Litfin addresses the rise of student activism by asserting that "we must never allow our activism to eclipse our verbal witness... the temptation to reduce the contribution of the church to the so-called 'social gospel' is always before us." Apparently we are tempted to help others so that we can hear the applause and respect of the world, but they should be hating us because of Jesus. Litfin writes, "feed the poor, heal the sick, stand up for the oppressed and the world will often approve. But name the unique name of Jesus and it will often not be applause you hear." Does he really think that students are following the command of Jesus so that they can be approved by the world? Apparently to Litfin, those commands of Jesus are insignificant parts of scripture that obedience to does nothing to proclaim Christ.

The editorial then goes on to quote and reject the famous saying of St. Francis, "Preach the Gospel at all times. Use words if necessary." Litfin claims that this saying is false, "the gospel cannot be "preached" nonverbally. The gospel is inherently a verbal thing. It requires verbal expression. Social activism can never take its place." No wonder I never heard about social justice at Wheaton. All that is deemed acceptable there is the truncated gospel of Christ's economic exchange. What matters is verbally confessing Christ so that we get into heaven when we die and not following the way in which Christ taught us to live. If Christ was sent to preach the gospel of the kingdom of God and all we focus on is his death on the cross (and condemn his actual message) there are some serious issues going on here. I am reminded of this quote I came across in a Christianity Today interview with Ruth Padilla DeBorst.

When Christianity came into Latin America, many of the indigenous groups simply changed the names of their gods: They gave them Christian saints' names. But they really continued worshiping their original gods. Churches were built on top of temples. Seventy-five years ago, John Mackay wrote a wonderful book, The Other Spanish Christ, which asks whether Latin America could discover the Christ who was incarnate, who walked the streets and died and rose from the dead and is powerful today. This Christ was not widely portrayed in the first evangelization of Latin America. Christ was either a helpless baby, toward whom we feel affection and compassion, or a corpse, a dead body with no power or ethical demands. This is what happens when religion is too closely linked with power: The problem is not just that religion underwrites oppression, but that the gospel itself is lost. If Christ is just a baby or a dead body, I can keep on living and not allow Christ's lordship to shed light on all dimensions of my life."

So can the evangelical church and places like Wheaton College accept not just the Christ who dies, but the living Christ who makes ethical demands? Will the full Christ be allowed to be known within those institutions or will a hollow Christ used merely as God's sacrificial pawn be all that is allowed to be taught? I know I've traveled a long way since my time at Wheaton, but I also know (as this article attests) that there are students at Wheaton now who are embracing the full gospel no matter what protestations the administration makes to the contrary.

Labels: Social Justice, Theology

I just finished reading The Ethics of What We Eat by Peter Singer and Jim Mason. Even though the book deals with issues that I already cared and knew something about, I was still overwhelmed and greatly challenged by what they wrote. I'm still processing most of it and examining my philosophy of ethics in response to the really hard questions they ask in the the book. This is a disturbing and necessary book. If we are to be truly ethical people, our ethics must apply to how and what we eat. I think this book should be required reading for anyone who, well, eats food.

To comment on one small aspect of the book - the general complaint that to eat ethically (or healthy for that matter) is just too expensive. The average person can't afford to be ethical excuse. Here are a few quotes from the book that put that into perspective -

"The cult of low prices has become so ingrained in the consumer culture that the deep discounts are no longer novelties. They are entitlements. Bargain-seeking seems to be such a basic aspect of human nature that to question it can appear quixotic. But... the bargains hide costs to taxpayers, the community, the animals, and the environment."

"Organic food costs more partly because ... intensive industrial agriculture leaves others to pay the hidden costs of cheap production - the neighbors who can no longer enjoy being outside in their yard; the children who cannot safely swim in the local streams; the farm workers who get ill from the pesticides they apply; the confined animals denied all semblance of a life that is normal and suitable for their species; the fish who die in the polluted streams and coastal waters (and the people who previously caught and ate those fish); and the unknown numbers of low-lying lands in Bangladesh or Egypt who will be made homeless by rising sea levels caused by global warming. It is understandable that people on low incomes should seek to stretch their dollars by buying the lowest-priced food, but when we look at the larger picture, the food produced by factory farming is not really cheap at all."

"Americans spend far less of their income on food than people in other countries ... we spend a smaller proportion of our income on food now than we used to - on average, only 6 percent of our total income goes toward buying groceries, down from 17 percent fifty years ago. In fact, we probably work for fewer hours to feed ourselves than people have anywhere, in all the millennia of human existence... if Americans want to eat better quality food, most of them have the means to pay for it."

"The price of food should reflect the full cost of its production. Then consumers can choose whether they want to pay that price. If no one does, the market will ensure that the item ceases to be produced. Meanwhile, if the method of producing food imposes significant costs on others without their consent - for example, by emitting odors that make it impossible for neighbors to enjoy living in their homes - then the market has not been operating efficiently and the outcome is unfair to those who are disadvantaged. The food will only be cheap because others are paying part of the costs - unwillingly. Any form of food production that is not environmentally sustainable will be unfair in this respect, since it will make future generations worse off."

Someone somewhere is paying the cost for low price. If we care about being ethical (instead of just saying screw you), we have to be willing to pay a fair price for our food. That may mean getting over our sense of entitlement to a certain lifestyle (meat at every meal, or even everyday) in order to afford better food. And it isn't just about passing the costs on to others, they do eventually catch up to people. Tax dollars that go to cleaning rivers, insurance costs that rise as more people get sick from the toxins used to produce our food. For example, I personally have spent thousands of dollars this past year (above insurance) to figure out what is making me ill (I have had a constant swollen throat for 7+ months). Having gone through the "it might be cancer" or it "might be this" tests, the thought is that since moving to a rural area, I have developed chronic allergies to the massive amounts of pesticides and fertilizers I am surrounded with. I am constantly sick so that cheap corn can be grown so Americans can eat more crap full of high fructose corn syrup. And I am just one small example of the collateral damage of cheap food where the full cost isn't assumed by the producer or the consumer but is passed on to others. Can we really be ethical and continue to do that?

Labels: Environment, Social Justice

If you are at all aware of the news or have children and have received emails from 50 different friends about it, you have heard about the recent recall by Fisher-Price and Mattel of over 1 million toys due to excessive lead content. Then today the Chicago Tribune reported on some toys that are just now being recalled even though the company has known for over 5 years that the lead content in them was 40 times the safe limit. I looked at the Fisher-Price list, given that most of the toys on there are Sesame Street and Dora toys, we own a number of the ones on it. But since we got them all before May 1, 2007, they are apparently perfectly safe. Sure, whatever.

One of the most common responses to my recent justice bra story was that it was absurd for me to care about chemicals used to make my clothing. The comments ranged from stating gross misconceptions like if we don't use fertilizers and pesticides people will starve to the old adage that everything causes cancer so why bother caring. The everyday exposure to dangerous chemicals has become so accepted that people no longer care. We expect it to be plastered all over the news if really dangerous stuff (lead in our child's Elmo karaoke machine) gets out. Then there will be an outcry, a full recall, and we can all be safe. No need to worry, no need to care. But as the book Fast Food Nation pointed out, just because there are no reports of danger does not mean the danger doesn't exist just that they aren't bothering to test for it. Which is what gives me so much confidence that our copious Elmo and Dora toys are "perfectly safe."

But how does one proceed? I don't think that I'm going to throw away Emma's favorite toys. And I know that there are tons of other unhealthy items in my home - toys and otherwise. But I am also not a fan of the type attitude that states, "well everything causes cancer (or whatever), so why waste your time caring?" If "everything" is harmful why in the world would I just want to expose myself (or my child) to as much of it as possible? Wouldn't it be smarter to avoid what can be avoided and advocate to reduce the use of poisons in other areas? There are alternatives and contrary to popular belief those alternatives aren't that hard to find (or that much more expensive). So perhaps getting rid of everything one already owns isn't the best response, but changing one's habits from this point forward is. It just takes being willing to stop exposing oneself to poison. But as I am discovering, that isn't something that most people are willing to do. It's too much work or something like that.

Labels: Environment, parenting, Social Justice

It has been an interesting experience the past few days to read the reactions to the "My Search for a Justice Bra" article (posted here and here at the God's Politics Blog). There are a couple of things that I want to respond to here, but first the part that caused the most controversy - why did I write about bras for the whole world to see?

Most simply because it was true. It was a true story based on the fact that I really needed a new bra, but it became amusing because of the oddity of writing about a bra. I expected people to smile at the situation and move on. But that proved too difficult for some. Apparently there are a lot of men out there who have the maturity level of a junior high boy when the subject of women and their bodies is brought up (no offense to jr. high boys intended...). Bras are for breasts and the only purpose of those is for sex - or so some seem to believe.

I think I should clarify before I go much further. I have issues with the way the secular media and the Christian church have oversexualized the female body. Of course the body has sexual aspects, but that is a limited and not holistic view. Our bodies are wonderful creations that should be appreciated and cared for. Too often we see them only as shells to be starved and carved into cultural definitions of sexual attractiveness. If the natural functionings of the body don't aid our sexiness, we hide (or seek to eliminate) them. As discussed recently over at Emerging Women, our menstrual cycles have become a thing to be feared and despised rather than celebrated and accepted. Same thing with breasts. They have become so associated with being a sex object that their natural function for breastfeeding has become taboo for many. Hence the issue with bras. For me a bra is just a part of everyday life. Oh, yes, they can serve a sexually charged function, but as one of the basic everyday parts of life I found it appropriate to see if I could bring environmental stewardship and ethical consumption into that area of my life.

But as a few of the reactions to the story demonstrate, there are some who do not think such a thing is possible. Oh there were those who resorted to cleavage and support jokes - lighthearted attempts to deal with the uncomfortable, but there were others who assumed that I could not possibly be serious about justice issues because I was talking about a bra. Some went so far as to claim that I was a right-wing critic who must be making fun of people who care about justice since I dared to talk about bras. Apparently anything remotely sexual cannot be taken seriously. (which is kinda the whole problem with women only been seen as sex objects and therefore not being taken seriously...).

The point of my search for a justice bra was to see if I could live holistically. To see if I could care for the environment, care for the poor and the oppressed, and be a conscientious consumer. Doing such things requires one to be aware - to consider where and how plants are grown, to think about the long term impact of dyes on the environment and our health, to care for the people who had to work with those chemicals or make my clothes. Our food and clothing does not magically appear in the stores - it all has a story, often a tragic and painful story. Being aware of that story and seeking to improve it is just part of what it means for me to let Christian values influence all areas of my life. But I also see living holistically to include accepting and being comfortable with my body. To care for its needs and not to fear the parts that men have defined in ways that divorce them from their natural function. I do not want to clothe myself with harmful chemicals or dump unnatural hormones into my system. I also don't want my body to be commoditized by men who think it is only useful as a sex object. So I will not shy away from discussing natural and normal aspects of life. And that includes bras.

Labels: Culture, Environment, Personal, Social Justice

Part 2 of My Search for a Justice Bra is up over at the God's Politics blog if you are interested in reading the conclusion to the story! (read Part 1 here). I'll post some of my responses to the comments here tomorrow.

Labels: Social Justice

I came across this blog quiz and thought it looked fun. So apparently my blog is rated -

Mingle²

The most amusing part about this is that the assessment was determined based on the presence of the following words on my blog: * hurt (3x) * pain (2x) * steal (1x). Really bad stuff there. It reminded me of those parental movie review sites (like Screenit) that list for concerned parents every curse word, innuendo, short skirt, disrespectful attitude, or "liberal value" (like environmentalism) present in a given movie (so that they don't have to profane their minds by actually engaging with it or something like that). It's the type thing that gives great movies that deal with deep spiritual themes negative ratings because some woman in it has a low-cut top on. Stuff like this gets classified under my heading of further adventures in missing the point (with apologies to McLaren and Campolo).

Where does this (generally Christian) tendency to focus on the trivial instead of the meaningful come from? Why do we care so much about silly thinks like language (omg she uses the word "pain") and how people dress and completely ignore the extreme injustices in the world? Like how Christians got behind efforts to boycott Abercrombie and Fitch because good looking guys in their catalogue weren't wearing shirts but who could care less that the clothes were made in sweatshops. Apparently American Protestant immaturity and inability to have a healthy acceptance of our God given bodies takes precedence over the lives of underpaid, overworked, and exploited laborers (who often have to deal with real sexual exploitation). I just don't get it. How did our priorities get so messed up and far away from the kind of lifestyle Jesus called us to? When will we care more about rating exploitation, sex slavery, and starvation as not suitable for anyone instead of freaking out if the new Disney movie has a character that might be gay?

So here's to doing what I can to deal with the real crap in the world and to laughing at the labeling of such as being inappropriate for certain audiences (and to wondering what random words I need to include to bump my rating up to 'R').

Labels: Culture, Entertainment, Social Justice

If you are regular reader here you are probably used to my ramblings on trying to be an an ethical consumer. It's something I am just beginning to explore and figure out for my life. Well earlier this year I embarked on a quest to try to purchase an ethically made bra (yes, I said bra). The process was humorous in many ways and taught me a lot about justice as it relates to retail. I wrote about the whole experience and Part 1 of my story has just been published over at the God's Politics Blog (Part 2 should be up on Monday). So head over there, read the story, and add your comments (and yes I did expect the cleavage jokes). Enjoy!

Labels: Personal, Social Justice

This year marks the halfway mark for the Millennium Development Goals. The eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) – which range from halving extreme poverty to halting the spread of HIV/AIDS and providing universal primary education, all by the target date of 2015 – form a blueprint agreed to by all the world’s countries and all the world’s leading development institutions. They have galvanized unprecedented efforts to meet the needs of the world’s poorest.

Well it's 2007 and we are halfway to 2015. As aid groups are saying, "its halftime and this isn't a game we can afford to lose." But even though we are halfway there in regards to time, the goals are not halfway met. There has been progress, but not of the leaps and bounds kind. What is being found though is that we are seeing advances in Goal #3 - promoting gender equality and empowering women. That's not to say that rampant oppression of women doesn't still exist, but that in certain areas women are being empowered.

From reports I heard at the Jubilee Conference what is occurring is that in so-called developing nations women are becoming a more visible presence in politics. They are taking seats in Parliaments, being appointed to government positions, and occasionally even ruling countries. In fact the percentage of women in high level government positions is the same in sub-Saharan Africa as it is in the USA. Granted that percentage is still under 20%, but apparently that is huge progress. What is even more interesting is that it is being reported that the general population's acceptance of women in positions of authority is much higher in those countries than it is in the USA. Over here we are still quibbling over whether or not a woman or a black man can be president and these other countries are just doing it.

So here's to empowering women. May this goal be met and surpassed around the world and here in the States.

Labels: Gender Issues, Politics, Social Justice

I've been following the story the past couple of days of the kidnapping of Margaret Hill in Nigeria. A three year old girl was kidnapped on her way to school and is being held for ransom. Officials are decrying the act as evil and calling for the immediate return of the girl. And while I fully agree that this is an atrocious act, I wish the full history behind this kidnapping would be part of the typical news story. This isn't just about a random kidnapping for money. This was done by what is assumed to be a disposed tribal group demanding reparations for ruined land and stolen resources. The child is the daughter of a UK citizen who has profited from the oil business in Nigeria.

Brief history here. Very, very brief. The British Empire colonized what is now Nigeria and often used force to do so. They eventually formed Nigeria from pieces of four independent kingdoms. After Nigeria gained independence, the remains of those ancient tribes vied for power and survival. Series of dictators made themselves rich by selling land belonging to other tribes but with new found oil reserves to large multinational companies. These companies (Shall, Chevron) were known to support the military regimes of these dictators and are implicated in the deaths of activists who opposed the path being taken by their country. These oil companies devastated natural environments and often (with government help) imposed forced relocations of native peoples off of oil rich lands. In the 1990's protest groups formed to speak out against the rape of the land by the oil companies. The native tribes wanted to continue in their way of life, but their fishing economy was ruined by pollution or they were forced to move to land with poor soil. They also received no wealth from the oil taken from their native lands. Early protest was peaceful and focused on diplomacy and discussion. Much of it was led by women as well. It was generally met with violence. Then more militant groups formed that used violence to end the control of the land by the oil companies. Kidnappings of oil executives involved ransom demands - so that the people of Nigeria could share in the wealth taken from their lands. Then there were bombs to destroy pipelines and cripple the multinational companies. This is the story that this kidnapping is situated in. I don't condone the violence of that act just like I don't condone the violence perpetrated by the oil companies or the dictators or the British Empire - I just want the full story told. Everything is connected as the saying goes. This event must be understood as part of a long chain of events. Perhaps then the cycles of violence can end and a better world be formed.

We are discussing this issue in church today as we examine the Parable of the Tenants and the life of Samson. In those stories we see the ugly cycles of unbroken violence. One offense is met with violence which leads to more violence and so forth. Excuses are given and revenge is demanded. It is an ingrained concept in our culture. We cheer in movies like Braveheart or The Patriot when revenge is consummated. We care less about the defeat of evil than we do about extracting punishment on someone who has hurt or offended us. And we care even less about trying to resolve differences without resorting to violence. Our imaginations are so limited and our hatred so strong that to hurt others far too often is the first and only response. Cycles are hard to break. And often those who seek a better way are silenced with violence. Christ warned his followers that they could expect as much, but still urged them to pursue the way of peace. Perhaps if his followers had listened to his words a couple hundred years ago as colonization of Nigeria began or fifty years ago when oil was discovered there, a little three year old girl would not be in such dire circumstances right now.

Update - Margaret has been released

Labels: Culture, Environment, Politics, Social Justice