Sabbath 28: Tripp's post, Meeegan's post
In this chapter, Muller returns to a familiar theme. He wants to draw a distinction between sufficiency (having enough) and abundance (having more than enough). Sabbath is about recognizing that enough is enough; a time to focus on what we have, rather than what we lack. "When we are trapped in seeking, nothing is enough. Everything we have mocks us; we see only what is missing, and all that is already here seems pale and unsatisfying."
This is another verse to a familiar tune of Muller's: simplicity. He devoted what I think is an entire section to it earlier in the book. (chapters 17-20, if you want to search back and look at them again) And he's right on target, for me at least, and probably for the vast majority of his intended audience--people who live in the developed world, probably America--who are, by the global standards of the world, incredibly, ridiculously rich.
But for the vast majority of the world, the story is different.
One billion people in the world live on less than a dollar a day--or try to.
Two billion more live on just slightly more than that, two or three dollars a day.
There are people on this Earth right now who will never in their lives have as much food in their home at one time as I have in my refrigerator and pantry right now--and we were just thinking that we needed to make a run to the supermarket, because we're out of a few things.
Yes, I'm ridiculously rich. Yes, I have literally half a garage full of stuff my family never uses. And yes, I am trying to do my part to do something about it. Those of you at St. Thomas heard me mention this in the sermon last week.
I guess that Muller's chapter served not to remind me of the abundance of God's creation (which is true--there is enough food in the world to feed the world) but to remind me of the unequal distribution of wealth. Much of the world doesn't have enough, even as Muller tries to remind me that I do.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
When you have time, I would love to hear more about what your St. Thomas parishioners heard concerning recalibrating the unequal distribution of wealth. The commute to San Antonio is just too much for me...
Nice post. I too am slowly preparing to preach on this kind of thing. This Sunday I preached on the whole Mary and Martha thing...and being "distracted by God."
The trouble in very affluent areas is that redistribution always sounds like "dismantling" to a great number of people.
"You spent $1.5million on your house. Now, think about the redistribution of that same wealth."
The Gospel is tough.
I'm not sure what you said about them in your sermon, but I checked out the "ONE" website, and it seems illogical to me that they want to end global poverty by making food *more* expensive. See: http://www.one.org/news/450.html
Also, while I didn't spend much time there, on the surface it appears to be not an outreach organization but a political/lobbying organization. I think an inclusive church should be very careful about getting onvolved with such organizations, as we run the risk of sending the message: "if you don't support 'progressive' political causes, you're not a Christian."
Hmm... here's how I that last comment:
David (my friend, who is a lawyer, and the only republican in his parish) followed a link, immediately browsed to the "legislative agenda" section, and responded, not to the substance of the post, but about the farm bill (which is currently a news item).
I'm guessing you have something against the farm bill.
yes, it's a political organization, as opposed to an organization created to deliver aid. They don't pretend to be different.
And I don't think my post, and I'm certain that my sermon, didn't say anything like your last sentence.
Megan, the sermon basically went like this:
* people in the world are starving to death. Not right in this neighborhood, but somewhere.
* the story of the good lawyer and the good samaritan (ending with: who is my neighbor?)
* explanation of the millennium development goals, and a challenge to do something to support them. I deliberately didn't give specifics, except to say that Kristina and I have joined the campaign of people pledging to personally support the MDGs (so that I can ask my congregation to join me)
Yes, my comment was more appropriately addressed to the 7/16 post, but I arrived late to the party, so I just responded to the most recent post. I was not trying to say that either your post or your sermon was a political piece, I was more noting that I find it problematic that the Episcopal Church nationally has apparently joined up with this political/lobbying organization.
For the record, I don't support farm subsidies (a point on which "ONE" and I seem to agree), but the reason is not that they make food more affordable to people in poor countries.
I agree with everything in your 7/23 post, especially if "doing your part" means more than writing letters to congressmen (again, obviously didn't hear the sermon).
The whole "who is your neighbor" discussion brings up an interesting dilemma with regard to MDG-related topics that I have never reached a satisfactory conclusion on. I tend to feel that outreach giving is most effective for both the giver and the recipient when financial support is in the context of a real human relationsip (e.g., a church running a program to provide meals to the homeless in their community is more relational than the same church just writing a check to a homeless shelter in a different city with no other involvement. That would argue for keeping most outreach dollars local.
On the other hand, I feel like $1 of outreach money given here gets a homeless person half a cup of coffee, where halfway across the world, that same $1 means so much more (perhaps doubles the person's daily income for that day). So, do we give our money where it is likely to make the biggest difference, or do we give it to the people in need who are actually in our community, where it is more relational, but will only make them slightly better off?
The obvious answer is to say "give to both," but there is always that last dollar you have to decide which to allocate it to.
Any thoughts/insights?
--DEF
Post a Comment