If being a Christian leader means loving our enemies and acting with benefit for all, how can we possibly protect all people when there is violence? How can we prevent harm from happening?
The most basic principle is that we need to realize that we cannot, ourselves, prevent all harm to those under us. Everyone, ultimately, is in the hands of God, and there can and will be harm done at times. For this reason, we must pray for protection for those under our care. And we must pray for the Holy Spirit to create peace in the place where we minister. Ultimately, it is up to God to create a place that is safe for everyone.
But there are things we can do, in the midst of being Christ-like that would provide protection, while causing to harm to anyone. Below are step by step ways to prevent violence in our places of worship and service, where we can practice our love of our neighbor.
First of all, in whatever context we are in, whether worship, service or benevolence, we need to let it be known that this is a place of safety for everyone. That our church is going to be a place in which everyone has the opportunity to be safe, which means that no one will be allowed to participate in actions that harm others, whether a church leader, a church member, a guest, a police officer or anyone else. All are to follow the same rules of safety.
In that, the church needs to adopt a set of simple rules that will allow the most basic level of safety and respect to others. Anawim—our church of the homeless and the mentally ill— and their programs have adopted five simple rules that everyone can remember and respect, especially in a church setting. Our rules are these:
1. No threats or violence
This includes not only the acting out of harm, but the verbal or non-verbal threat of harm.
2. No illegal drugs or alcohol on the premises
This allows those who are inebriated to participate in services, as long as they abide by the other rules. But the church is not to be a place in which one becomes inebriated.
3. No stealing or borrowing other’s possessions without permission
4. No sexual harassment
This allows all members of the community to feel safe from unwelcome sexual advances, whether verbal or non verbal.
5. No blasphemy
This is out of respect of the Owner of the property as well as the community that manages it. This is not a rule against low brow language, but rather using God’s name in a demeaning way.
If the rules are simple, then they can be remembered. Also, they should make sense to people that the rules would be imposed in any of God’s sanctuaries, not special to that facility.
Finally, to build a context of safety in the building, there must be trust built between the leaders of every service and those who are participating in it. This means that the leaders should attempt to get to know all the regulars of the service, so that if the rules need be enforced, there is a relationship on which one can build such enforcement on. If there is a place of communication and trust between the leadership and the participants, then when conflict does occur, then the leadership will know immediately and will be called upon to help deal with it. If no trust is built, then the leadership will be the last place where those involved in or observing conflict will go to, because they fear how the leadership will deal with conflict.
Friday, March 12, 2010
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Dealing With Violence in a Church Context
As a Christian leader, we often have to deal with security issues, conflict and sometimes belligerence within the church. As a church does serious outreach and attempts to connect with cultures outside the church culture, there are more opportunities for conflict and more possibilities that violence might erupt in or against the church.
Our first impulse is to protect and defend the church community, and this impulse is good. We all want to do our best to protect God’s people and we all hate to see violence in a house of God. When these issues come to the forefront, however, we find that we are often unprepared to deal with conflict, belligerence or violence, not only because we have rarely had to deal with it, but because we have never really thought about such events happening within a church. However, churches need to think about these issues now, the more so as anti-Christian sentiment rises.
It is important for us to consider what we would do as leaders in our church if belligerence or violence occurs in our church, how we can best prevent such situations from occurring, how to de-escalate such situations and what is the best way to deal with these situations as followers of Jesus.
The Foundation of Dealing With Conflict
There are three passages that can offer a foundation for our dealing with conflict as leaders with those whom we have in our churches as guests. These ancient texts—two from Jesus, one from Paul—can help us know to deal with conflict as followers of Jesus, not in the everyday manner.
1. A Different Kind of Leadership
And He said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who have authority over them are called 'Benefactors.' But it is not this way with you, but the one who is the greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like the servant. For who is greater, the one who reclines at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at the table? But I am among you as the one who serves. Luke 22:25-27
First of all, our leadership style is to be like Jesus’ not like the world around us. The world focuses on security or on how leadership can benefit themselves. Jesus says that imitating Him in leadership means that we always are looking to the benefit of those whom we are leading. A leader is not just to prevent anxiety in themselves or others, but to act for the good of those whom they lead, primarily. If Jesus is our servant, willing to accept any humiliation so that we can obtain all the benefits he has to give, even so are we, as church leaders, supposed to allow ourselves to be humiliated, even hurt for the sake of others, as long as it is for their benefit.
This is a difficult concept to accept for oneself, but it is the basis of Christian leadership. Not to do things for one’s own sake, but to sacrifice all for the sake of the other.
2. Benefiting Those Who Hurt Us
But I say to you who hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. Whoever hits you on the cheek, offer him the other also; and whoever takes away your coat, do not withhold your shirt from him either. Give to everyone who asks of you, and whoever takes away what is yours, do not demand it back. Treat others the same way you want them to treat you. If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. If you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. If you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners in order to receive back the same amount. But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for He Himself is kind to ungrateful and evil men. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful. Luke 6:27-36
Again, in general, dealing with those who harm us, we must act like God and His Son Jesus. An “enemy” is not one whom we declare to be enemies, but those who do us harm, for whatever reason. Jesus is saying that instead of giving harm back to those who harm us, we are to love. Love, simply stated, is acting for the benefit of those in need. So when someone harms us, we are to look at them as someone in need. Someone who is deficient in some way. Someone who could use our help. The question is, what is the best way that we can benefit a person who has done us harm?
Jesus then associates this one characteristic—benefiting those who do us harm—with God’s behavior that we should imitate. And He associates it with a basic characteristic of the Christian life. If all people love, then what greater command does Jesus give to those who follow Him? He commands us to love all those who are the most unlovely, to love without exception. So if someone threatens us, hits us or even shoots us, we are to consider their benefit, as well as the benefit of those whom we are protecting.
3. Not using the world’s methods
Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men. If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY," says the Lord. "BUT IF YOUR ENEMY IS HUNGRY, FEED HIM, AND IF HE IS THIRSTY, GIVE HIM A DRINK; FOR IN SO DOING YOU WILL HEAP BURNING COALS ON HIS HEAD." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. Romans 12:17-21
Finally, Paul points out another issue that is associated with Jesus’ command to love all: that we are not to use the methods of the world against those who do us harm. It is perfectly natural to want to do harm or violence to those who do us harm or violence. As people of Jesus, those guided by the Spirit of God, we are to be led by peace and not harm. To “do evil” is to harm another, and that is not what we are to do. Instead of acting with violence, inflicting harm, we are to do good.
Overall, we can see a distinct philosophy of how we are to deal with the belligerent or violent in our congregations. First of all, we need to protect our people, but we can exclude no one from that protection, even the one who is being violent. Secondly, we are to find methods to protect all without causing harm to any. Thirdly, in order to benefit others, we might have to make sacrifices ourselves, which is part of what we accept if we take on leadership in the church.
Our first impulse is to protect and defend the church community, and this impulse is good. We all want to do our best to protect God’s people and we all hate to see violence in a house of God. When these issues come to the forefront, however, we find that we are often unprepared to deal with conflict, belligerence or violence, not only because we have rarely had to deal with it, but because we have never really thought about such events happening within a church. However, churches need to think about these issues now, the more so as anti-Christian sentiment rises.
It is important for us to consider what we would do as leaders in our church if belligerence or violence occurs in our church, how we can best prevent such situations from occurring, how to de-escalate such situations and what is the best way to deal with these situations as followers of Jesus.
The Foundation of Dealing With Conflict
There are three passages that can offer a foundation for our dealing with conflict as leaders with those whom we have in our churches as guests. These ancient texts—two from Jesus, one from Paul—can help us know to deal with conflict as followers of Jesus, not in the everyday manner.
1. A Different Kind of Leadership
And He said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who have authority over them are called 'Benefactors.' But it is not this way with you, but the one who is the greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like the servant. For who is greater, the one who reclines at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at the table? But I am among you as the one who serves. Luke 22:25-27
First of all, our leadership style is to be like Jesus’ not like the world around us. The world focuses on security or on how leadership can benefit themselves. Jesus says that imitating Him in leadership means that we always are looking to the benefit of those whom we are leading. A leader is not just to prevent anxiety in themselves or others, but to act for the good of those whom they lead, primarily. If Jesus is our servant, willing to accept any humiliation so that we can obtain all the benefits he has to give, even so are we, as church leaders, supposed to allow ourselves to be humiliated, even hurt for the sake of others, as long as it is for their benefit.
This is a difficult concept to accept for oneself, but it is the basis of Christian leadership. Not to do things for one’s own sake, but to sacrifice all for the sake of the other.
2. Benefiting Those Who Hurt Us
But I say to you who hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. Whoever hits you on the cheek, offer him the other also; and whoever takes away your coat, do not withhold your shirt from him either. Give to everyone who asks of you, and whoever takes away what is yours, do not demand it back. Treat others the same way you want them to treat you. If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. If you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. If you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners in order to receive back the same amount. But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for He Himself is kind to ungrateful and evil men. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful. Luke 6:27-36
Again, in general, dealing with those who harm us, we must act like God and His Son Jesus. An “enemy” is not one whom we declare to be enemies, but those who do us harm, for whatever reason. Jesus is saying that instead of giving harm back to those who harm us, we are to love. Love, simply stated, is acting for the benefit of those in need. So when someone harms us, we are to look at them as someone in need. Someone who is deficient in some way. Someone who could use our help. The question is, what is the best way that we can benefit a person who has done us harm?
Jesus then associates this one characteristic—benefiting those who do us harm—with God’s behavior that we should imitate. And He associates it with a basic characteristic of the Christian life. If all people love, then what greater command does Jesus give to those who follow Him? He commands us to love all those who are the most unlovely, to love without exception. So if someone threatens us, hits us or even shoots us, we are to consider their benefit, as well as the benefit of those whom we are protecting.
3. Not using the world’s methods
Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men. If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY," says the Lord. "BUT IF YOUR ENEMY IS HUNGRY, FEED HIM, AND IF HE IS THIRSTY, GIVE HIM A DRINK; FOR IN SO DOING YOU WILL HEAP BURNING COALS ON HIS HEAD." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. Romans 12:17-21
Finally, Paul points out another issue that is associated with Jesus’ command to love all: that we are not to use the methods of the world against those who do us harm. It is perfectly natural to want to do harm or violence to those who do us harm or violence. As people of Jesus, those guided by the Spirit of God, we are to be led by peace and not harm. To “do evil” is to harm another, and that is not what we are to do. Instead of acting with violence, inflicting harm, we are to do good.
Overall, we can see a distinct philosophy of how we are to deal with the belligerent or violent in our congregations. First of all, we need to protect our people, but we can exclude no one from that protection, even the one who is being violent. Secondly, we are to find methods to protect all without causing harm to any. Thirdly, in order to benefit others, we might have to make sacrifices ourselves, which is part of what we accept if we take on leadership in the church.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Why Are The Poor Punished For Being Poor?
Some might disagree with the question I have posed. "The poor aren't punished! If the poor just do what they are supposed to do, then there's no reason for any punishment." While I agree that there is no good reason for them to be punished for the reason of being poor, it is certainly true that this is the case.
From the most ancient times, this has been true. If a peasant was unable to pay their taxes in ancient Egypt, they were whipped. If someone was unable to pay their debts, from ancient times to only a hundred years or so ago, they would be imprisoned. Today, interestingly enough, the poor are charged for their debt-- to make the debt go deeper.
For instance, in looking at my water bill that I was unable to pay until this week, I added up the charges they put on me for being unable to pay it-- 90 dollars total. This is all because I wasn't able to pay on time, not because I didn't pay my debt. Am I a bad person? No, I just run on donations and donations don't always arrive when we want them to. I can't call someone up and say, "Hey where's your check?"
I could just say that I would go without utilities until I can pay for them. Unfortunately, that isn't a possibility as well. It is illegal to have a house-- especially if you have children-- without running water or electricity. You can have your children taken away from you, in fact, if you live in such a condition. Because if you are poor, then the state considers you unworthy to care for children.
Then there's the banks. They offer "free" checking accounts. Well, they are free if you have an account that is well over the line of going under. But if your account is close to the edge-- you have a tendency to only have a few dollars in the account because you are poor-- then all it requires is an accounting error and you have a 35 dollar fee and five dollars a day. Then the banks keep changing the system every once in a while to make it easier to overdraw the account if you are close to the bottom. It's only for the poor to pay fees. And people wonder why the rich get richer and the poor get poorer?
But back to my original question. Why is this? Why does society allow this? Why do people feel justified to insult homeless people or consider single women on welfare "unworthy"? Many reasons:
-It used to be that no one was truly considered "poor", because everyone is connected to a network. A debtor would be thrown in prison because even if they had no money, their family and friends did, and so they considered the family and friends responsible for the debt. We don't follow that line of thought today.
-Today, the main line of thought goes like this: If anyone is poor, it is their own fault. This is especially the thought in the U.S. I just had a conversation with someone who considers that if one lives in the U.S., then there is no reason why someone should be poor. Well, if that is the case, then why are so many people poor, even living in third world conditions? Well, it must be their own fault. Perhaps they are disabled in some way-- mentally ill, etc-- or they are addicts or have some other moral failure. So society punishing the poor is simply a way to give the poor their just due: punishing them for whatever moral lapses they have.
-Another reason for punishing the poor is because of their lack of contribution to society. If the poor are poor, it means that they consume far less than others. This also means that they do not contribute their share to the economic pool. Somehow, they must be forced to do so.
-Another reason is because the poor "steal" from others. If the poor are sick, they can go to the hospital and get free medical care (if they don't pay for it), which means that other people are paying for them, through insurance, or whatever. If a person isn't paying for enough electricity, it means that others are paying for the infrastructure that benefits everyone, including the poor. Everyone has to have a bank account to cash checks, but the poor aren't keeping a sufficient amount in the bank for the bank to use. The bank is giving the poor something that others are paying for. Thus, the poor are resting on the benefits others give them, thus they should be punished, or at least forced to pay their fair share.
I'll talk about the misconceptions of the poor later. I just want to remind people of God's words to societies that refuse to assist the poor:
God takes His stand in His own congregation; He judges in the midst of the rulers.
How long will you judge unjustly And show partiality to the wicked?
Vindicate the weak and fatherless; Do justice to the afflicted and destitute.
Rescue the weak and needy; Deliver them out of the hand of the wicked.
They do not know nor do they understand; They walk about in darkness; All the foundations of the earth are shaken.
I said, "You are gods, And all of you are sons of the Most High.
"Nevertheless you will die like men And fall like any one of the princes."
Arise, O God, judge the earth! For it is You who possesses all the nations.
Psalm 82
From the most ancient times, this has been true. If a peasant was unable to pay their taxes in ancient Egypt, they were whipped. If someone was unable to pay their debts, from ancient times to only a hundred years or so ago, they would be imprisoned. Today, interestingly enough, the poor are charged for their debt-- to make the debt go deeper.
For instance, in looking at my water bill that I was unable to pay until this week, I added up the charges they put on me for being unable to pay it-- 90 dollars total. This is all because I wasn't able to pay on time, not because I didn't pay my debt. Am I a bad person? No, I just run on donations and donations don't always arrive when we want them to. I can't call someone up and say, "Hey where's your check?"
I could just say that I would go without utilities until I can pay for them. Unfortunately, that isn't a possibility as well. It is illegal to have a house-- especially if you have children-- without running water or electricity. You can have your children taken away from you, in fact, if you live in such a condition. Because if you are poor, then the state considers you unworthy to care for children.
Then there's the banks. They offer "free" checking accounts. Well, they are free if you have an account that is well over the line of going under. But if your account is close to the edge-- you have a tendency to only have a few dollars in the account because you are poor-- then all it requires is an accounting error and you have a 35 dollar fee and five dollars a day. Then the banks keep changing the system every once in a while to make it easier to overdraw the account if you are close to the bottom. It's only for the poor to pay fees. And people wonder why the rich get richer and the poor get poorer?
But back to my original question. Why is this? Why does society allow this? Why do people feel justified to insult homeless people or consider single women on welfare "unworthy"? Many reasons:
-It used to be that no one was truly considered "poor", because everyone is connected to a network. A debtor would be thrown in prison because even if they had no money, their family and friends did, and so they considered the family and friends responsible for the debt. We don't follow that line of thought today.
-Today, the main line of thought goes like this: If anyone is poor, it is their own fault. This is especially the thought in the U.S. I just had a conversation with someone who considers that if one lives in the U.S., then there is no reason why someone should be poor. Well, if that is the case, then why are so many people poor, even living in third world conditions? Well, it must be their own fault. Perhaps they are disabled in some way-- mentally ill, etc-- or they are addicts or have some other moral failure. So society punishing the poor is simply a way to give the poor their just due: punishing them for whatever moral lapses they have.
-Another reason for punishing the poor is because of their lack of contribution to society. If the poor are poor, it means that they consume far less than others. This also means that they do not contribute their share to the economic pool. Somehow, they must be forced to do so.
-Another reason is because the poor "steal" from others. If the poor are sick, they can go to the hospital and get free medical care (if they don't pay for it), which means that other people are paying for them, through insurance, or whatever. If a person isn't paying for enough electricity, it means that others are paying for the infrastructure that benefits everyone, including the poor. Everyone has to have a bank account to cash checks, but the poor aren't keeping a sufficient amount in the bank for the bank to use. The bank is giving the poor something that others are paying for. Thus, the poor are resting on the benefits others give them, thus they should be punished, or at least forced to pay their fair share.
I'll talk about the misconceptions of the poor later. I just want to remind people of God's words to societies that refuse to assist the poor:
God takes His stand in His own congregation; He judges in the midst of the rulers.
How long will you judge unjustly And show partiality to the wicked?
Vindicate the weak and fatherless; Do justice to the afflicted and destitute.
Rescue the weak and needy; Deliver them out of the hand of the wicked.
They do not know nor do they understand; They walk about in darkness; All the foundations of the earth are shaken.
I said, "You are gods, And all of you are sons of the Most High.
"Nevertheless you will die like men And fall like any one of the princes."
Arise, O God, judge the earth! For it is You who possesses all the nations.
Psalm 82
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Poverty is Expensive
Today we just had our water turned off at the Anawim house. Donations have been down and we've been praying for the Lord to supply, and we've never had anything switched off before. Enough excuses-- we just didn't have enough money. We're poor, and we run it close, and we've been late often enough. So, it happens. We prepared ourselves for the loss of water, so we're good for a while, with enough water to do what we need to.
It is interesting, though, how our society punishes the poor. And it makes sense. In our case, a utility looks at our lack of payment and they say, "These people have defaulted! And now we have to go and turn their water off!" Obviously, we're bad people. If it were a human being, I could maybe talk to them and say, "Look, we're going to pay, we're good for it. I'm a pastor and donations have been down, but it won't stay that way." But a utility isn't a person that you can talk to. It's an entity, a corporation. This means that they have policies. And policies mean that there is no give, no compassion, no give and take. And some of the policies make sense. Turning off the water because you don't have money to pay for it makes sense.
But in every utility and most corporations, if you are unable to pay, then there is an additional penalty. Of course, the penalty is financial. In our case, it's sixty dollars. And the amount plus the penalty must be paid before the water is turned back on. This is a "disconnect fee". It could also be called "punishment for being poor."
Even so, with the water companies, they have to send someone out, and so it makes sense that they expect the poor person to pay for that. Not compassionate, but it is reasonable. But for other companies to do the same thing-- a phone company, for example, where all they have to do is type in something in the computer-- their charge is simply a penalty for not having enough money. And the only penalty that makes sense to them is a financial one.
Poverty is always expensive when the poor lives in capitalism. The reason is because the society is focused on making money, therefore those who don't make money are bad and deserve to be punished. People who don't make money, for example, can only afford the food that makes their body run poorly-- high carbs, high fat. They also get the health problems that go with it. But, because poor people are ethically bad, then they also don't get adequate health coverage, if any at all. So people who either can't make money or don't make money are caught in a cycle of debt they can't pay.
Suppose a poor person wanted to get out of the debt. Great, many people are there to help them. But, because they are poor, they don't get the decent interest rates. Only rich people get those, because they have proven themselves worthy. So a poor person finds themselves in a difficult time to get out of the debt that is a minimum requirement of poverty.
To be poor means you can't take advantage of the savings of the larger quantities.
To be poor means you live with money anxieties and the depression that goes with it.
To be poor means that all the books on helping you be financially stable aren't written for you, because the publishers wisely know that poor people can't buy their books.
I'm not whining. But I wouldn't mind if some of the corporations that provides services for the poor and the government and the churches might, on occasion, think about the implications of poverty, and what it means to be excluded and disrespected simply because money isn't available.
Us poor are, for the most part, a proud people. We pray for help, but we rarely ask for it. It would be good if someone would recognize that we are trying to make ends meet and not punish us for having a bad month. Or a bad life.
It is interesting, though, how our society punishes the poor. And it makes sense. In our case, a utility looks at our lack of payment and they say, "These people have defaulted! And now we have to go and turn their water off!" Obviously, we're bad people. If it were a human being, I could maybe talk to them and say, "Look, we're going to pay, we're good for it. I'm a pastor and donations have been down, but it won't stay that way." But a utility isn't a person that you can talk to. It's an entity, a corporation. This means that they have policies. And policies mean that there is no give, no compassion, no give and take. And some of the policies make sense. Turning off the water because you don't have money to pay for it makes sense.
But in every utility and most corporations, if you are unable to pay, then there is an additional penalty. Of course, the penalty is financial. In our case, it's sixty dollars. And the amount plus the penalty must be paid before the water is turned back on. This is a "disconnect fee". It could also be called "punishment for being poor."
Even so, with the water companies, they have to send someone out, and so it makes sense that they expect the poor person to pay for that. Not compassionate, but it is reasonable. But for other companies to do the same thing-- a phone company, for example, where all they have to do is type in something in the computer-- their charge is simply a penalty for not having enough money. And the only penalty that makes sense to them is a financial one.
Poverty is always expensive when the poor lives in capitalism. The reason is because the society is focused on making money, therefore those who don't make money are bad and deserve to be punished. People who don't make money, for example, can only afford the food that makes their body run poorly-- high carbs, high fat. They also get the health problems that go with it. But, because poor people are ethically bad, then they also don't get adequate health coverage, if any at all. So people who either can't make money or don't make money are caught in a cycle of debt they can't pay.
Suppose a poor person wanted to get out of the debt. Great, many people are there to help them. But, because they are poor, they don't get the decent interest rates. Only rich people get those, because they have proven themselves worthy. So a poor person finds themselves in a difficult time to get out of the debt that is a minimum requirement of poverty.
To be poor means you can't take advantage of the savings of the larger quantities.
To be poor means you live with money anxieties and the depression that goes with it.
To be poor means that all the books on helping you be financially stable aren't written for you, because the publishers wisely know that poor people can't buy their books.
I'm not whining. But I wouldn't mind if some of the corporations that provides services for the poor and the government and the churches might, on occasion, think about the implications of poverty, and what it means to be excluded and disrespected simply because money isn't available.
Us poor are, for the most part, a proud people. We pray for help, but we rarely ask for it. It would be good if someone would recognize that we are trying to make ends meet and not punish us for having a bad month. Or a bad life.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Good Food For The Poor
(This post is copied from "Food Inc" which I wrote on my Steve Kimes, Anawim Esq blog)
My daughter, Nikki, was radically offended by a movie they showed in school a couple weeks ago. I would have thought that my son would have been offended by his school showing Sweeney Todd to his stagecraft class (I know I was), but he was fine by that. But my daughter had a real problem with the film Food Inc.
Honestly, she had problems with food, as it is, because she's such a picky eater. She doesn't eat most meat, not because she has a moral problem with it-- she does eat hot dogs and chicken nuggets-- but because she doesn't like it. Well, this movie sent her right to the edge of being a full vegetarian. She decried the abuse of chickens and was horrified at the brief shots of slaughterhouses.
I went ahead and watched Food Inc. myself, with the rest of my family going in and out of watching it with me. I hope that doesn't come back to bite me. So to speak.
Food, Inc. is a documentary that is basically presenting some of the more radical points of two books, Fast Food Nation by Eric Schlosser and The Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan. It is a shame that some of the more interesting points of the second book weren't presented, but the documentary was more focused. It was concentrating on how the incorporation of the food industries have caused problems for both animals and humans.
It presents it's points well, having extensive interviews with the authors of the books as well as farmers and organic food producers. Interestingly, it isn't completely against incorporation, giving a more balanced perspective of the relationship between the organic dairy company Stoneybrook Farms and Wall-Mart. It shows that it is possible for customers to vote with their pocketbook, by purchasing food that is raised better.
However, and more realistically, it also shows that purchasing good food that is healthy for both humans and animals isn't possible for a large percentage of Americans. It shows a family who is just making ends meet because of health costs and time constraints, and so they are forced to eat fast food and cannot buy vegetables. If you've only got a few dollars and you want to feed your family in a hurry, you can either get each of them a hamburger-- made from unhealthy beef, encouraging horrible animal care practices-- or you can buy your kids Little Debbies and soda.
This is my family's reality. I've had doctors and others tell us what we should be eating, but the fact is, we can't afford it. Vegetables are expensive, even your basic lettuce. Last night, I wanted to buy a salad for the meal we were serving to the homeless, so I figured I could pick up a couple heads of iceberg lettuce and a bunch of romaine to mix it up. However, when I got there I found that this store switched to all organic produce and it carried the organic price tag. Smaller heads of lettuce cost twice as much as they would have regularly, and to add romaine to that was out of my price range. I ended up paying more for bagged lettuce, but at least I had a salad. But this means that I have fewer options for other meals.
Donated food is also problematic. The far majority of donated food is bread and other high carb options. Protein is difficult to get, and organic options are laughable. The non-profit groups, like our own, do our best to serve healthy, balanced, and tasty meals, but our resources are limited.
People wonder why the poor are fat. It's not because they are lazy or because they make terrible choices with their limited food dollars. It's because their food dollars won't allow them to eat nutritionally.
And why is that? Primarily because the government subsidizes corn products, but not more nutritious items like broccoli or spinach. They regulate meat to a certain degree, but not with an eye to the over all health of their nation. The government nutrition guidelines are a joke-- they recommend way too much carbs and way too little veggies. Now, I know why they do that. They are trapped between the two pincers of the reality of what is available to most Americans and the powerful food industry lobbies.
But until the government makes serious practice changes, the food industry won't change. The food industry, honestly, is giving us what we buy. We are addicted to addictive foods, which are bad for us. And so our addictions are controlling the market, making the bad foods cheaper and the good foods more expensive.
If the government subsidizes healthy food, then the poor will be required to change their eating practices. If the poor have more veggies and fewer carbs, then their systems will be less stressed and they will make better life choices. The whole of society will benefit.
However, we know how government works. They don't do anything unless they are demanded of. They continue to vote for immigration bills that they know-- both Republicans and Democrats-- that are bad for the economy. George Bush presented a balanced immigration bill to a Republican congress, but it failed because of the outcry of the American people. Healthcare will continue to be stalled because the American people are nervous about losing what they have. If the Farm Bill-- the main policy map that determined government subsidy of food-- isn't changed by the voice of the American people, it will be determined by the lobbyists. The American people must demand better food for all the people, not just those who are able to afford it.
For this reason, I wish that every American could see this documentary, Food Inc. Not because all of it's points are good, but until people realize there is a problem, they will never try to create solutions.
My daughter, Nikki, was radically offended by a movie they showed in school a couple weeks ago. I would have thought that my son would have been offended by his school showing Sweeney Todd to his stagecraft class (I know I was), but he was fine by that. But my daughter had a real problem with the film Food Inc.
Honestly, she had problems with food, as it is, because she's such a picky eater. She doesn't eat most meat, not because she has a moral problem with it-- she does eat hot dogs and chicken nuggets-- but because she doesn't like it. Well, this movie sent her right to the edge of being a full vegetarian. She decried the abuse of chickens and was horrified at the brief shots of slaughterhouses.
I went ahead and watched Food Inc. myself, with the rest of my family going in and out of watching it with me. I hope that doesn't come back to bite me. So to speak.
Food, Inc. is a documentary that is basically presenting some of the more radical points of two books, Fast Food Nation by Eric Schlosser and The Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan. It is a shame that some of the more interesting points of the second book weren't presented, but the documentary was more focused. It was concentrating on how the incorporation of the food industries have caused problems for both animals and humans.
It presents it's points well, having extensive interviews with the authors of the books as well as farmers and organic food producers. Interestingly, it isn't completely against incorporation, giving a more balanced perspective of the relationship between the organic dairy company Stoneybrook Farms and Wall-Mart. It shows that it is possible for customers to vote with their pocketbook, by purchasing food that is raised better.
However, and more realistically, it also shows that purchasing good food that is healthy for both humans and animals isn't possible for a large percentage of Americans. It shows a family who is just making ends meet because of health costs and time constraints, and so they are forced to eat fast food and cannot buy vegetables. If you've only got a few dollars and you want to feed your family in a hurry, you can either get each of them a hamburger-- made from unhealthy beef, encouraging horrible animal care practices-- or you can buy your kids Little Debbies and soda.
This is my family's reality. I've had doctors and others tell us what we should be eating, but the fact is, we can't afford it. Vegetables are expensive, even your basic lettuce. Last night, I wanted to buy a salad for the meal we were serving to the homeless, so I figured I could pick up a couple heads of iceberg lettuce and a bunch of romaine to mix it up. However, when I got there I found that this store switched to all organic produce and it carried the organic price tag. Smaller heads of lettuce cost twice as much as they would have regularly, and to add romaine to that was out of my price range. I ended up paying more for bagged lettuce, but at least I had a salad. But this means that I have fewer options for other meals.
Donated food is also problematic. The far majority of donated food is bread and other high carb options. Protein is difficult to get, and organic options are laughable. The non-profit groups, like our own, do our best to serve healthy, balanced, and tasty meals, but our resources are limited.
People wonder why the poor are fat. It's not because they are lazy or because they make terrible choices with their limited food dollars. It's because their food dollars won't allow them to eat nutritionally.
And why is that? Primarily because the government subsidizes corn products, but not more nutritious items like broccoli or spinach. They regulate meat to a certain degree, but not with an eye to the over all health of their nation. The government nutrition guidelines are a joke-- they recommend way too much carbs and way too little veggies. Now, I know why they do that. They are trapped between the two pincers of the reality of what is available to most Americans and the powerful food industry lobbies.
But until the government makes serious practice changes, the food industry won't change. The food industry, honestly, is giving us what we buy. We are addicted to addictive foods, which are bad for us. And so our addictions are controlling the market, making the bad foods cheaper and the good foods more expensive.
If the government subsidizes healthy food, then the poor will be required to change their eating practices. If the poor have more veggies and fewer carbs, then their systems will be less stressed and they will make better life choices. The whole of society will benefit.
However, we know how government works. They don't do anything unless they are demanded of. They continue to vote for immigration bills that they know-- both Republicans and Democrats-- that are bad for the economy. George Bush presented a balanced immigration bill to a Republican congress, but it failed because of the outcry of the American people. Healthcare will continue to be stalled because the American people are nervous about losing what they have. If the Farm Bill-- the main policy map that determined government subsidy of food-- isn't changed by the voice of the American people, it will be determined by the lobbyists. The American people must demand better food for all the people, not just those who are able to afford it.
For this reason, I wish that every American could see this documentary, Food Inc. Not because all of it's points are good, but until people realize there is a problem, they will never try to create solutions.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Health Drive for the Homeless!
There have been requests by some of the homeless on the streets of Gresham and Portland to have some health items for their use. Some items that are simple for most of us to pick up for ourselves can accumulate to a lot of money for those on the streets. Perhaps you or your church would be interested in having a drive for these needed health and hygiene products? Some of these items would be given directly to people on the streets, while some would be kept in first aid kits for use when they are needed. Any items donated would be given to Anawim and if we have excess of any of the items, we will pass them on to other organizations in the Portland area that are serving other parts of the homeless community.
The list is put in order of need:
Hand warmers
Disposable razors
Q-tips
Cold medicine-- decongestant, antihisthemine, cough medicine
Individual packs of tissue
Packs of alcohol swabs
Anti-bacterial ointment
Ibuprofen
Tylenol
Asprin
Gauze pads (all sizes)
Hand sanitizers
Chapstick
Socks
Toothbrushes
Toothpaste
Please contact us if you want more info:
stevekimes@aol.com or
503-888-4453
The list is put in order of need:
Hand warmers
Disposable razors
Q-tips
Cold medicine-- decongestant, antihisthemine, cough medicine
Individual packs of tissue
Packs of alcohol swabs
Anti-bacterial ointment
Ibuprofen
Tylenol
Asprin
Gauze pads (all sizes)
Hand sanitizers
Chapstick
Socks
Toothbrushes
Toothpaste
Please contact us if you want more info:
stevekimes@aol.com or
503-888-4453
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Who Is The Alien?
I had a surreal experience yesterday. I watched District 9.
Well, watching a movie, no matter how insane, is almost never a surreal experience (Eraserhead is an exception, but I don’t necessarily recommend that to anyone, either). District 9 is a good film, using aliens who have faced a disaster who are then moved into refugee camps by people of Johannesburg, South Africa, as a way of speaking of humans inhumanity to other humans, although of different kinds. It is science fiction social commentary at its best—working at the level of a compelling story and a coherent commentary on the myopic nature of our culture.
Just before I plugged the movie in, I received the latest news in a terribly tragic story of one of the homeless community in Gresham. Mike Bighaus is a man who has been schizophrenic for years, with little or no help. Without any housing or nurses, he would go into a clinic to get his medication only as he was mentally stable enough to go through the extra effort. He knew he needed his medication. He would see things no one else could see, and sometimes had self-aggrandizing visions. He would occasionally be so irrational as to be threatening, but the homeless community knew how to deal with him, and there were few problems.
Over this last holiday season, he had failed to get his latest medication before the clinics closed for Christmas, but he already had plans to stay at his parents’ house over the holidays, so he figured all would be well. His mother was a caring nurse practitioner, and his father was retired. They would care for him.
Christmas night, he took the rifle he parents kept in their home and shot his mother to death. The police were called immediately but Mike had wandered about the Oregon community with the rifle. They blocked roads, sent out alerts, sent police cars all over the community. Many hours later Mike comes walking back home with the rifle as if nothing had happened. The police surrounded him and Mike surrendered the rifle with no resistance. He was immediately arrested.
He had his first hearing, where he was strapped down, both head and body, and his mouth gagged. He muttered throughout the arraignment, possibly not even knowing what was going on. In his second arraignment, where he was indicted for murder, he was not even present, being in the hospital for a leg infection.
Last night, I found out that the infection was one of the antibiotic resistant infections. So they amputated his leg, without consulting family. His other leg also has an infection and so they are looking to amputate this leg as well.
This was all running through my mind as I watched District 9, and I thought of the mentally ill. The mentally ill are often placed in homes or camps, apart from the rest of humanity. There are ways to solve some of their issues—granting housing where helpful medication can be offered, or providing employment that would work around their mental weaknesses—but few seem to be thinking of how the mentally ill can actually be helped as individuals. They are seen as a pathetic, stupid, dangerous group. They are rarely dangerous, and in fact, they rarely use the capacity for violence they have—they are statistically less likely to use violence than “normal” groups. But because they need some extra attention and thought, they are rather just ignored, cast aside. Eventually policies will be made against them “for their own good”, which is really for the comfort of society. If this means more end up in prison, or locked up in mental health facilities, even though preventative care could mean a semi-productive life, then so be it.
The mentally ill truly are the aliens in society. And yet the difference is, they didn’t come from a spaceship, hovering over our homes, but they are part of our own families, we grew up with them. But when they become homeless, although they’ve lived in our communities all of our lives, they become “transients.” When they are seen at soup kitchens, they become “bums” although they’ve done all they can do to survive. Even though legal medications didn’t help their ailments, or they couldn’t afford them, when they use illegal drugs to help them feel better they are “addicts.” And when they are unable to fill out the complicated paperwork for assistance from the government because of their social weaknesses or depression, it is considered that they didn’t “ask for help.”
Of course I have no sympathy for Mike being arrested. He is clearly dangerous and needs to be restrained. What I am saying is that this tragedy could have been averted, if Mike had been cared for by more than just his family. He needed a community with resources to get behind him, giving him the medications on a regular basis that he did not resist taking, and his mother could be alive today. He wouldn’t be in prison. He wouldn’t have his leg amputated because care would have been given ahead of time. Or, if he hadn’t been in jail at the time of this severe infection, they might have tried alternative treatments—of which there are many—instead of jumping to amputation.
Mike has been dehumanized. And it could be said that he deserves it because he shot his mother, and I could understand that perspective. But he was dehumanized long before this crime, when he had to live with his severe mental illness, with little or no help. When he needed assistance, he was blamed for that which he could not control.
And I think the best lesson I learned in watching District 9 at the same time of hearing of Mike’s amputation is that dehumanization of the poor and needy do not dehumanize the one being treated poorly. It ultimately makes the authorities less than human. In District 9, it is clear that it was not the aliens that were unhuman—they had very human responses to their situation. Rather it is the police, the system, the family that judges that becomes less than human.
In the case of Mike Bighaus, who is less than human? Mike, who has been struggling with his illness and left to his own devises? Or the system who ignored Mike until he had become so ill that he killed his mother? The system that takes away his legs without searching for other treatments? The system who treats Mike as little more than an animal?
I have great sympathy for Mike’s family. They didn’t know what to do with Mike and then they face this tragedy. It was Mike’s cousin, who sent me a message about his amputated leg, horrified at the treatment Mike has been given.
I also pray for this system that treats the poor like semi-human. May God teach the “justice” system how to be fully human.
Well, watching a movie, no matter how insane, is almost never a surreal experience (Eraserhead is an exception, but I don’t necessarily recommend that to anyone, either). District 9 is a good film, using aliens who have faced a disaster who are then moved into refugee camps by people of Johannesburg, South Africa, as a way of speaking of humans inhumanity to other humans, although of different kinds. It is science fiction social commentary at its best—working at the level of a compelling story and a coherent commentary on the myopic nature of our culture.
Just before I plugged the movie in, I received the latest news in a terribly tragic story of one of the homeless community in Gresham. Mike Bighaus is a man who has been schizophrenic for years, with little or no help. Without any housing or nurses, he would go into a clinic to get his medication only as he was mentally stable enough to go through the extra effort. He knew he needed his medication. He would see things no one else could see, and sometimes had self-aggrandizing visions. He would occasionally be so irrational as to be threatening, but the homeless community knew how to deal with him, and there were few problems.
Over this last holiday season, he had failed to get his latest medication before the clinics closed for Christmas, but he already had plans to stay at his parents’ house over the holidays, so he figured all would be well. His mother was a caring nurse practitioner, and his father was retired. They would care for him.
Christmas night, he took the rifle he parents kept in their home and shot his mother to death. The police were called immediately but Mike had wandered about the Oregon community with the rifle. They blocked roads, sent out alerts, sent police cars all over the community. Many hours later Mike comes walking back home with the rifle as if nothing had happened. The police surrounded him and Mike surrendered the rifle with no resistance. He was immediately arrested.
He had his first hearing, where he was strapped down, both head and body, and his mouth gagged. He muttered throughout the arraignment, possibly not even knowing what was going on. In his second arraignment, where he was indicted for murder, he was not even present, being in the hospital for a leg infection.
Last night, I found out that the infection was one of the antibiotic resistant infections. So they amputated his leg, without consulting family. His other leg also has an infection and so they are looking to amputate this leg as well.
This was all running through my mind as I watched District 9, and I thought of the mentally ill. The mentally ill are often placed in homes or camps, apart from the rest of humanity. There are ways to solve some of their issues—granting housing where helpful medication can be offered, or providing employment that would work around their mental weaknesses—but few seem to be thinking of how the mentally ill can actually be helped as individuals. They are seen as a pathetic, stupid, dangerous group. They are rarely dangerous, and in fact, they rarely use the capacity for violence they have—they are statistically less likely to use violence than “normal” groups. But because they need some extra attention and thought, they are rather just ignored, cast aside. Eventually policies will be made against them “for their own good”, which is really for the comfort of society. If this means more end up in prison, or locked up in mental health facilities, even though preventative care could mean a semi-productive life, then so be it.
The mentally ill truly are the aliens in society. And yet the difference is, they didn’t come from a spaceship, hovering over our homes, but they are part of our own families, we grew up with them. But when they become homeless, although they’ve lived in our communities all of our lives, they become “transients.” When they are seen at soup kitchens, they become “bums” although they’ve done all they can do to survive. Even though legal medications didn’t help their ailments, or they couldn’t afford them, when they use illegal drugs to help them feel better they are “addicts.” And when they are unable to fill out the complicated paperwork for assistance from the government because of their social weaknesses or depression, it is considered that they didn’t “ask for help.”
Of course I have no sympathy for Mike being arrested. He is clearly dangerous and needs to be restrained. What I am saying is that this tragedy could have been averted, if Mike had been cared for by more than just his family. He needed a community with resources to get behind him, giving him the medications on a regular basis that he did not resist taking, and his mother could be alive today. He wouldn’t be in prison. He wouldn’t have his leg amputated because care would have been given ahead of time. Or, if he hadn’t been in jail at the time of this severe infection, they might have tried alternative treatments—of which there are many—instead of jumping to amputation.
Mike has been dehumanized. And it could be said that he deserves it because he shot his mother, and I could understand that perspective. But he was dehumanized long before this crime, when he had to live with his severe mental illness, with little or no help. When he needed assistance, he was blamed for that which he could not control.
And I think the best lesson I learned in watching District 9 at the same time of hearing of Mike’s amputation is that dehumanization of the poor and needy do not dehumanize the one being treated poorly. It ultimately makes the authorities less than human. In District 9, it is clear that it was not the aliens that were unhuman—they had very human responses to their situation. Rather it is the police, the system, the family that judges that becomes less than human.
In the case of Mike Bighaus, who is less than human? Mike, who has been struggling with his illness and left to his own devises? Or the system who ignored Mike until he had become so ill that he killed his mother? The system that takes away his legs without searching for other treatments? The system who treats Mike as little more than an animal?
I have great sympathy for Mike’s family. They didn’t know what to do with Mike and then they face this tragedy. It was Mike’s cousin, who sent me a message about his amputated leg, horrified at the treatment Mike has been given.
I also pray for this system that treats the poor like semi-human. May God teach the “justice” system how to be fully human.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)