Continuing the thought process from yesterday, I can’t help but think that I am often oblivious to how much my comfortable lifestyle depends on other people. Like it or not, there is a correlation between my prosperity and the poverty of others. I won’t claim a direct correlation, but the two are related.
I think that’s part of the point being made in the Hunger Games books (and movies). The people of The Capitol* live lives that go beyond abundance; they are lives of gluttony and excess. Those lives are made possible by the slavery of the peoples in the other districts. I won’t claim to know the author’s mind, but I couldn’t help but see parallels to our world situation. The gulf between haves and have nots grows by the day.
I mentioned going to the Hermitage last year, seeing Andrew Jackson’s amazing plantation. While there, they told us how this extravagant lifestyle was made possible by the work of 150 slaves, with lives of hardship and struggle. That seemed normal to them, something that was to be defended and preserved. Some fought the Civil War for that very privilege.
All I know is that there are people in Bangladesh and other places who lead lives of misery, working in horrid conditions, producing cheap goods for me to consume. There are farmers on the brink of starvation so that I can have a variety of foods from around the world and eat myself into obesity.
And I don’t like to think about it nor to want to think about it. But I do need to think about it.
*I write that one while gritting my teeth. Mrs. Crenshaw drove home to us in 5th grade English the point that “capital” is the city while “capitol,” with an O, is the place with the offices. My son, who is an English major and a writer, claims this is a stylistic device, so I’ll just grit my teeth and write it as written in the book.
Mat 19:23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 19:24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
This statement must be pretty important, since he felt the need to repeat it with inference.
I don’t think it is the riches that keep the man from heaven, but how he acquired those riches, and what he will do to keep them.
emphasis, was the word I was intending to use, but either one works quite well.
Now I feel bad when I eat thinking somewhere, someone is not.
While Jesus’ great compassion for the poor helped him to feed the thousands and protest the injustices, he also “came to seek and save that which is lost”. How do we balance these two: “social” compassion and “metaphysical” salvation? We seem to entrench our camps and slide towards either end to the minimalization of the other end.
Secondly, how might I live “content with what I am” and still live compassion towards others? Living a continual guilt trip will treadmill me to frustration and anxiety that are harmful for fruitful work in submission to the Lord.
Harland,
I don’t think guilt trips do anything to help those in need. Being aware of the principles of fair trade could do some good.
I also think the church needs a basic priority shift, moving away from what’s good for us and our country and moving to a more global point of view. What’s good for everyone. Not just The Capitol, but the Districts too. Not just the slaveowners, but the slaves as well. Not just the United States, but the world in general.
Grace and peace,
Tim
The argument that buying goods made by the poor in other countries might be sinful seems illogical to me. The assumption is that the poor person in Bangladesh would be better off if he or she wasn’t working in a sweatshop. That, sadly, is often not the case. The alternatives to sweatshop work are often worse in the most impoverished parts of the world. To many of the world’s poor, the global economy is a miracle that is lifting the most desperate of them of poverty. Economic transformation that began with the exploitation of cheap labor has happened, in my lifetime, in the southern U.S., Japan, then South Korea and other parts of Asia, and now in China and India — where most of the world’s people live. These countries were once considered hopelessly poor. Yet Bangladesh is even poorer than they were. To me, the Christian response to the Bangladeshi factory’s collapse should not be closing factories that for many desperate people are the only hope of a better life for their families. (We wouldn’t stop buying from all factories in, say, Alabama because one factory there collapsed, would we?) Instead, if companies based in rich nations can be shamed into demanding improvements for workers in Bangladesh — as they were shamed into improving conditions for U.S. and European workers in the early part of the 20th Century — then Bangladeshis as a whole will be better off than if foreign companies refused to buy from factories there. Am i mindful that the very poor in other countries are suffering? Yes. Do I contribute to that suffering by buying goods made in those countries? In most cases, I don’t believe that is true. To the contrary, buying goods from impoverished countries is demonstrably the best way to help their poorest residents.
First off, let’s not add words. I don’t know that adding the adjective “sinful” helps the discussion.
I don’t know all the answers. I’m sure there’s no easy fix for the supply system problems.
I do know that the poor get poorer, the rich get richer, and everything that I do to prolong that status quo hurts them and helps me. My efforts to maintain my lifestyle help insure that their lifestyle is maintained as well.