Monday, May 18, 2009

the rich are different from you and me

in bangkok recently i was having dinner with a friend working with the poor and oppressed. we got to talking about our distaste for american materialism and how it distances americans from the world at large. at a certain point, doesn't it seem like the stuff we buy becomes almost unethical? let's face it, the american dream is unbiblical; god does not desire for us to work independently towards comfort and success and retire in our pile of stuff. non-christians get this too. the stuff we accumulate insulates us from the suffering of others and makes the realities of the world- war, death, disease- seem more remote. but where to begin? it's not that buying a porsche is unethical, but it's tempting to brand it as such when that $80,000 could otherwise provide clean water for thousands of africans. but really, those comparisons are moot. if i buy gum, sure, that money could have gone to the poor, but the gum company employs people, etc. i have friends that completely disavow labels and materialism and try to live as ascetically and humbly as possible. i have other friends that insist they have worked hard for their wealth and they deserve to spend it as they see fit. how do you reconcile the two?

i've struggled with this for years traveling to and from places i've worked in developing countries back to my life amongst wealth and privilege in texas and never really come to a satisfactory answer. all i know is that it doesn't quite sit right with me that there is such a disparity, an injustice, between what i see overseas and what i witness at home. but how do you determine what is just and what is excess? it obviously is not as easy as blame the rich (by the way, if you are reading this from the US, you are the rich). the rich drive economies, provide jobs, fund important social and charitable functions, and i suppose they're people too. and as for the poor it isn't that they are simply "so happy and have so little." i hear this often from people in the states and it's true to a degree, but it makes me want to throw up. sure, poor people are happy, but they aren't merely happy savages. the poor people i know are often tired, hungry and beaten down and desperately want their kids to be able to go to school and have access to healthcare. yes, people who are poor have the capacity for happiness, but why does this surprise us so much? i think americans confuse happiness with resiliency. the poor can be happy or sad, but most of all they continue on despite hardships because they must.

if you are rich or super rich or spend or don't spend what truly matters is that you engage suffering and poverty. are you meaningfully engaged in the reality that life is tortured and difficult for the majority of the world? are you engaged in the fight for social justice? can you empathize with the poor? to be sure there is poverty in america- emotional, spiritual and financial. and i'm not condemning people that don't live as i do, but simply hoping that no matter where anyone is, they are engaging the world around them. i can't say that spending x amount of money on a car is a sin or condemn anyone for it, but if you have little regard for others, i'm pretty sure you're going to hell. just kidding. expenses are relative- i get that. as much as i am tempted to vilify american consumerism, i am guilty of it. but i would encourage anyone, no matter how much they have or how much they deny themselves, to become engaged in their world through knowledge, relationships, donations or volunteerism, be it local or foreign.

the have nots will always blame the haves and the haves will always spend money on unnecessary stuff for their dogs (don't get me started), but so long as the rich are meaningfully engaged in the lives of the poor and have an understanding that they are still connected to the world of human suffering, i suppose they can buy clothes for their dogs. just because you live in america and have a comfortable life does not mean that you're not accountable for the well-being of the poor or that you are too far removed from the oppression, diseases and famines of the world. you are human. you can thank your lucky stars that you were not born a woman in iran or a boy in the congo or anyone in burma. with that gratitude that comes something much stronger than noblesse oblige or even guilt: a common humanity.
photo

12 comments:

Leticia Ana said...

that was a really great read. Thanks!

Stewart Perry said...

Hey Con.

Nice post. That's why our friend Ash Barker's Book "Make Poverty Personal" is so profound. Check it out on Amazon. Ash works with Rod in Klong Toey (I think you've met Rod at church, not sure if you met Ash. He was at AM worship Sunday. He founded the group Urban Neighbors of Hope (www.unoh.org)

As for the consumerism thing... I used to think owning a sporty new car was a sin, then I bought one. And now it feels normal. :-)

robin inks said...

i love this post. thanks, con...i'm feeling convicted in a really good way

kurt said...
This post has been removed by the author.
kurt said...

i just thought of a delightfully cynical quote to summarize my thoughts ... "if it becomes impossible to change people's hearts, use their hearts!"

kurt said...

you knew this was coming. obama only gave 1% of his income to charity between 2000 and 2004. i'm sure he was always aware of problems in other countries, just didn't care until he knew his giving would affect his own life favorably once he began running for office. nothing wrong with that, same with most people. if we really want people to be involved with helping people in other countries, we have to make it either more convenient or more rewarding. somehow. that's why ideas like toms are good. we'll help people, but only if we get something too. even knowing that people like others to see that they give is important. ppl that are suffering in other countries won't care what the motivation is for the aid they're receiving. the more the better, right? this idea has been proven to be the ultimate reason for helping others, both in people and animals. reciprocal altruism or social exchange theory, something like that. christianity employs this. if you give, you will get rewards in heaven. but the sooner the reward is given, the better. the afterlife is too far away! we need rewards now! its just the way we're wired. it shouldn't be ignored. this idea is already prevalently used in the area of giving, i just believe if used more extensively, it will prove very powerful. giving needs to become more fashionable, more rewarding, more convenient. more more more. mine mine mine. if that won't move americans to give, i don't know what will!

Scott said...

Kurt,

what you have said is so true it disgusts me. I cant argue with your logic as, most people wont give unless they get something out of it (although I did hear that the eBay for profit micro-finance site where people make a certain rate of return on their money has far less money flowing through it than Kiva does, where people make no return on their investment).

As Constance has said we are all self centered and materialistic, and i suppose taking advantage of that, such that the less fortunate benefit is a good thing. But to hear it said makes me cringe.

Also as Christians, the reason we serve and give isnt because of the rewards stored up for us in heaven...it should be because of the fact that Christ loves us so much, we cant help but have that love spill out of ourselves and into others (IMHO).

The reality is that a gift given for selfish purposes is a gift, but it isnt a pure gift. Probably impossible to give any gift without any selfish purpose (ref: Phoebe's doing something nice experiment from Friends, that's right i referenced the TV show Friends), but it seems like we should strive towards that...

Once again, I dont disagree with the reality of what you are saying, it just disturbs me deeply, and speaks to a major problem within ourselves.

Peace,
Scott

kurt said...

as far as using the rewards in heaven example, i was just showing that religions, even christianity have some form of reward for doing good things. while it is true that in christianity, it shouldn't be the ultimate reason that christians do good things, there is still a reward in place. i struggle with this, since i would think god would be against such a system (heaven/hell/treasures/finding favor with god), but ya know ... i don't know. i agree with your points and appreciate the discussion. it was just something i was thinking and typing rashly ... maybe incorrectly and unbiblically as well. i just sometimes think there is too much emphasis on trying to change people to do good things rather than accepting another method that might prove to be much more effective at achieving the ultimate goal (kinda like the u.s. insisting on preaching abstinence and refusing to teach safe sex in africa) the area of spiritual needs is very different, but physical needs come first and should be addressed as completely as possible no matter what the motivation/reason. one thought i had was that especially in these uncertain economic times, people are less likely to give to charity because they are worried about their own security. what if there was a charity that pledged to give the money back to the benefactor if requested. it would expose that person as not having pure biblical motivations for helping others, but whether or not it would be wrong, i don't know ... people's lives would still be saved that otherwise wouldn't if this "charity insurance for nonbelievers" was not in place. again, i am rambling ... but basically, is it possible that biblical principles can keep people from being helped? if my motivation for giving money, for example, has nothing to do with god even though the bible instructs that anything outside of god is a sin ... would it really be better if i not give at all like the bible implies?

kurt said...

oh, and as far as the "major problem within ourselves", i think it is dangerous to refer to it as such. i think of it as a very valuable part of human nature. it is what makes us work together and help others whether we are religious or not. children learn to be nice to others because it is rewarding. when you help those around you, you help yourself. you share and expect to be shared with. the golden rule would not be as powerful as it is if we did not have this "problem within ourselves". see what i mean? of course, once we turn to what the bible says, then i get confused ...

Scott said...

Hey Kurt,

Appreciate the conversation...I agree with everything you have said...but like i said i struggle with the way that it "sounds" or something...I wasnt trying to call you out or anything at all...just commenting...

Peace

kurt said...

haha yeah i understand completely. if no one responded, i would have felt stupid, so i'm glad you did. i like elaborating on stuff like this. we could go on forever. lots of different angles can be taken on the whole "change the world" premise. i change my mind all the time. con can be pretty deep on this blog of hers, and i'm glad she is because it makes me think ... and sometimes respond, especially if i can find a way to interject something bad about obama. she loves that.

Andrea said...

Very good stuff. Thank you for sharing this!