Engaging with Others in the Everyday

Chiara Lubich reflected in 1959:

“In this world we are all brothers and sisters and yet we pass each other as if we were strangers. And this happens even among baptized Christians. The Communion of Saints, the Mystical Body exists. But this Body is like a network of darkened tunnels. The power to illuminate them exists; in many individuals there is the light of grace, but Jesus did not want only this when he turned to the Father, calling upon him. He wanted a heaven on earth: the unity of all with God and with one another; the network of tunnels to be illuminated; the presence of Jesus to be in every relationship with others, as well as in the soul of each. This is his final testament, the most precious desire of a God who gave his life for us (2007, 99).”

I was in the grocery store today, and there were a number of individuals who were shopping. Today for some reason I seemed to find opportunity to make more eye contact with people and one of us would smile first, and then the other, sometimes followed by ‘hi’ or ‘how are you?’. Now I know I live in Nebraska, and people are nice, but people are busy and self involved here like they are anywhere nowadays, and Covid also seemed to somehow make people less sociable in some ways– so it was really a blessing to have those simple engagements in the grocery store. When I got to the car, I was smiling, because I felt that I had had some nice human interaction with others, even if not in conversation, and even if with complete strangers– because those strangers were all human, and they acted humanely. It was beautiful.

Thanks be to God.

AG

How to lead others in prayer

Leading others in prayer is a skill, and some forms of praying are much more conducive to communal prayer than others. This is a really great list of concerns which one should be aware of when leading a congregation in prayer:

1.Prepare

2. Use Formal prayers with freedom

3. Pray Scripture

4. Don’t footnote

5. Leave the preaching for the sermon

6. Share some details of congregational life, but not all of them.

7. Pray in a way that others can follow you easily.

8. Keep it relatively brief.

9. Remember you are praying with and on behalf of others.

10. Order your prayer.

11. Beware of verbal ticks.

12. show proper reverence, confidence, and emotion.

13. Pray before you pray.

Thirteen Tips for Leading the Congregation in Prayer

From Heinz to Acrisure Stadium, From PAC12 to BIG10, Money Is More Important Than Anything Nowadays (Unless you don’t care)

The Pittsburg Steelers just sold naming rights of their stadium to an unknown insurance company from Michigan (no Pittsburg is not in Michigan) and gave up the iconic Heinz name which had been on the stadium for 20 years. Heinz is of course from the Pittsburg area. But they couldn’t compete with the amount of money Acrisure would pay for the naming rights.

Pittsburg fans seem furious. One twitterer vowed “I will be 6ft in the ground before I ever utter the word “Acrisure”” (although he did type it). Another sarcastically said, “Nothing represents the blue collar city of Pittsburgh and the Steelers like the name Acrisure Insurance Stadium.” For those who adore the Pittsburg Steelers and their town, this was a real blow, and demonstrated an utter lack of integrity and concern for the people of Pittsburg on the part of their beloved Steelers team. For those who consider professional sports a business which considers little else but the bottom line, it seemed, well, not very surprising…

A week or two ago there was a huge firestorm regarding the crazy changes going on in college sports conference affiliations. Two of the best PAC12 teams (PAC is for pacific coast, and most of their teams were traditionally from the west coast) the University of Southern California (USC) and the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) will now join Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Illinois, U Ohio and Nebraska among others to help ensure that no one things the BIG 10 is a midwest concern (it already has Maryland and Rutgers in it) and also ensure no one thinks BIG 10 means 10 teams (it will have 16 after the California teams join).

PAC12 fans are furious. Almost as furious as the BIG12 fans were when Nebraska ditched them for the BIG10. Or when Oklahoma and Texas announced they were ditching the Big 12 to join the SEC conference soon. And while there are particular issues involved in each decision, the common reason for each of these decisions to give up tradition and realign with someone else was pretty uniform: it was for the money.

It is hard to argue with following the money. Some will say its impossible to argue– anyone would have done it. Money has an irresistible pull (evidently) which has no countervailing force. Others say one has no right to argue– people and organizations have the right to do whatever they want with their money (or for money). It is money, so there is no way to argue that someone should take less– because all other values are of no account in light of the obvious attraction of money. And anyway, if you don’t take the money, someone else will. Loyalty and tradition are great, but they are not necessarily profitable. And society today (obviously) is not actually very concerned at all with tradition, or loyalty.

What people need to do is they need to get with it. They need to understand that times are changing quickly and you either better catch up or give up. Things move quickly, and you had better get on board or you are going to get run over.

That, of course, is the typical view.

Of course there are a great number of people who have no idea what the BIG10 or BIG12 is, and they couldn’t care less if it is a conference for college sports or for professional bowling or knitting. They do not care, and they do not have any interest in it whatsoever. Whether the 91,000+ UCLA football fans are helping out the PAC12 or BIG10 (16) will be as irrelevant as the stockprice of BYD Chinese electric cars for a whole lot of people in the world.

And so while money dominates a lot of our world, there are still ways to escape its effects– typically by being interested in non-commodified things. But of course those are getting more and more difficult to find these days….

Why (We) The Church Frequently Fails to Help Solve Societal Issues

I recently came across an article written in 1910 explaining why the church was indifferent to child-labor reform (working to keep children from being used in factories as labor). In it the author brings up a set of reasons why the church frequently does not help much with social issues, and I found those points to be relevant even today. The author of the article was unitarian minister John Haynes Holmes, who co-founded the NAACP and later the ACLU. Of course there is always a danger of slipping into either of two ditches– to become so spiritual that you are of no earthly use, or to let your Christianity devolve into nothing more than social activity, unmoored from Christ.

Holmes saw 5 reasons as to why the Church was not active in stopping child labor. I think these can apply to us today. The reasons he puts forward are:

1. Denominationalism
2. Other-Worldliness
3. Religion for Export
4. Church-State separation (Call nothing common or unclean)
5. Tyranny of the Pew

First, Denominationalism: Churches tend to focus on their own internal matters. Holmes says, ” Each church is so absorbed in keeping its own denominational machinery going and in solving its own denominational problems, that it has no time and strength to give to the machinery of society or to the solving of the vexing problems of modern social life (26).” This seems true today, as even with the decline of denominationalism, denominations still spend a great deal of time focused on denominational issues, structure, policy, and procedures and planning for their own church growth or development. Beyond denominationalism, large non-denominational megachurches which can spend a lot of their time focusing on their infrastructure, development of satellite campuses, etc.

Second, Other-worldliness: Holmes points out that “To-day, as for so many generations, the Church is laying the emphasis of its teaching upon the life beyond the grave, and is thus neglecting the life upon this side of the grave (27).” I am afraid that often we do focus on spiritual matters and spiritual development to the neglect of immediate societal concerns around us. We all know Jesus told us to clothe and feed the needy, and the Old Testament constantly says God wants us to help the widow, the orphan and the stranger (those in danger of oppression or neglect) and yet many Christians respond negatively to calls for social justice, assuming that the fact that we will always have the poor with us, the world we live in is full of sin and disrepair, and only a new heaven and earth to come can solve these problems, so there isn’t much point to trying to hard to put lipstick on this pig… This leads to a lot of lack of concern about earthly affairs– Christians frequently have a slash-and-burn approach to environmental concerns since “its all going to be burned up anyway at the final judgement” so why worry about trying to save the planet? God’s providence will govern anyway, and God’s will will be done, so who am I to intervene? But this other-worldliness is problematic not only scripturally (we are to be stewards of the earth (Gen 2:15), and we are called to help the orphan and widow and stranger (Exodus 22:21-24), and to pursue justice (Prov. 24:24-25)) Isaiah 1:17 quite clearly tells us “Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.” So of course Christians believe Christ is returning to judge the living and the dead– and that there will be a new heaven and new earth one day, but we also are clearly called in this life to live it with a strong concern for justice and redemption of the earth, to be stewards of the earth and to help bring redeeming grace to the world, especially to those who are weak and vulnerable– both spiritual and material blessings of grace.

Third, Religion for Export: Here Holmes points out how that the church was spending so much of its resources to spread its influence abroad that it was frequently neglecting concerns closer to home. The focus on foreign missions distracted people from helping in their own backyards. He says, “there is no easier way to arouse the enthusiasm of the churches than to inaugurate a foreign mission campaign, and nothing harder to accomplish than to interest the churches in a campaign for the redemption of our own society (29).” There has been a decline in a focus on foreign missions in recent years by Churches, at least long term missions (short term missions has exploded in the last 30 years of course). But again, sending our church congregation from the US to Tanzania to go help paint a schoolhouse there may not be the best use of our resources, especially if we are not very involved in local misisons close to home.

Fourth, a non-intervening approach to governmental policy or business practices. Holmes titles this section “Call nothing common or unclean” but what he describes is the Church’s focus on spiritual, rather than secular (governmental or business) matters. Such a bifurcation of one’s faith from one’s business or social practices is where the notion of “Sunday morning Christian” arose– where one practices one’s faith on Sunday, and then its back to business as normal M-F (who knows what goes on on Saturday). Holmes says the Church has frequently acted as if “religion, as such, has nothing to do with political or industrial questions of any kind. This idea has its root in that fallacious distinction which has always been made between sacred and secular, and which has consigned to the care of the Church the one, and frankly removed from its control, or even interest, the other. The Church, it is argued, has to do with spiritual, not worldly matters (30).” Of course there have been particular issues that Christians have gotten concerned with politically– one of the biggest for evangelicals and Catholics being the anti-abortion movement. Today there is so much allignment between political and religious affiliation at times that it can be a problem– when it comes to a point where a Democrat, or a Republican (depending on your Church) wouldn’t feel welcome in the pew. But it isn’t clear that we are always focusing on the most important societal issues for Christians.

Firth, the “Tyranny of the Pew” which is the problem that many in the pews who pay the pastor’s salary are benefiting from injustice in society, so they don’t want their practices to be criticized. Holmes says, “the men who are most largely responsible for the labor of children, the men who employ these children and grow rich from the wealth these children create, these men are many of them sitting in the front pews of the churches, occupying offices in parish committees, and paying the salaries of the ministers (30-31).” It is certainly difficult for a pastor to speak things to a congregation which are difficult to hear. When the sermon’s critique gets a little too close to home, people get upset.

So obviously, 111 years later, we live in a much different world, and the Church has learned and grown in certain respects. But it seems to me that Holmes’ criticisms still ring true in many respects. Of course we have learned that there is a “Hole in Our Gospel” (Stearns, 2010) which arises from us spending all of our energy studying scripture, and not acting to apply it practically around us, But while we perhaps know that intellectually, still we frequently remain problematically inactive in living out the gospel in ways to impact our society. Some are much better at this than others of us, but it is a struggle and a deficit which seems to be all too real.

There are many societal concerns the church can help with– not only concerns of abortion or religious liberty, but also concerns having to do with the environment, racism, and fair and even generous treatment of all people. We cannot tackle all of them, and God might have uniquely positioned some of us to help with specific issues more than others, but we each need to ask ourselves if we are fully living out the gospel, and in what ways might we be shirking those callings because of the 5 criticisms Holmes offered to us back in 1910…

May God have mercy on us all.

Andy Gustafson

PS. As an interesting aside in relation to the recent hubub about Dr. Seuss, Holmes was also a pacifist, I understand, and during WWII he called on the US to remember that Japanese were people too and our ‘brothers’. Theodor Geisel (Dr. Seuss) responded with the mocking political cartoon below.

https://library.ucsd.edu/dc/object/bb8499185p/_2.jpg

Holmes, John Haynes. “The Indifference of the Church to Child Labor Reform” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science , Mar., 1910, Vol. 35, Supplement. Child Employing Industries (Mar., 1910), pp. 23-32.

Christian Sharing: $1200 Checks (do I have any obligations to give it away?)

  Andy Gustafson

The way you spend your money speaks volumes about your values, priorities and life.  Almost nothing annoys people more than being told how they should spend their money, except perhaps being told how to give it away.  So let me assure you that I am not in a position to tell you what to do with your stimulus check.   But I am a philosopher who likes to ask questions, and a business ethicist interested in how the way that we practice business and use our money affects society, as well as a Christian who tries to live out my life according to the teachings of Christ.

So many of us are getting $1200, or more soon.  What should we do with it?

“But whoever has the world’s goods, and beholds his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him? (NAS, 1 John 3:17)

First, some people are struggling with new financial challenges in light of the virus– with a lost job, decreased work hours, a new need for childcare, new responsibilities to help family members financiially, etc.  It seems obvious that the $1200 is meant for people in that situation.

But many of us have not lost a job, have no new expenses, and in fact we are needing less money than usual because we have not been going out to eat, not going out for entertainment, and not driving as much.  Quite frankly, we do not need this $1200 that we are being sent by the government.  What should we do with it?

It seems that you could: a. spend it on yourself however you want  b. spend it on yourself, but in a way which might do more to help those in need or c. give it to a charitable organization or a person in need.

Some may say, “if I spend it, I’m helping the economy, which is what the economy needs right now– so it doesn’t matter how I spend it, because I will help the economy as long as I spend it!”  Of course if you spend money in the economy it will help the economy at the macro level.

One of my friends said he intended to pay down some debt, and buy himself something nice at Walmart.  Of course many of us live with way too much debt, so it is likely many have essentially already spent the $1200 long before they get the check, because they live in deep debt constantly.  And paying off debt is great and responsible.  If everyone used their stimulus check to pay down debt, the money wouldn’t have the intended effect, which is to get more people to have money to spend in the economy.

Of course there are people who work for walmart, and walmart and other similar large stores are employers of many.  But walmart has not suffered in the pandemic.  In fact, their sales have jumped 20% in the last month, according to the Wall Street Journal.  And Amazon certainly doesn’t need you to give them more money– they are convenient we all know, but the pandemic has given them an obvious competitive advantage over local stores.

One question you might ask is, “which businesses have been most harmed by the pandemic?” and then consider spending your money there, rather than at Amazon or Walmart or to pay down debt.  Obviously restaurants have been hurt severely, especially local places such as Levenworth’s cafe, Lisa’s radial, and other such local places. Smaller local boutique stores have also been impacted severely.  We have a friend and neighbor who sells tea both retail online and to local coffee shops, and her business has suffered (people tend to like to sit and drink their tea at the coffee shop, so sales are down).  So thoughtfully considering how your money spent might help stores you really care about may be a nice idea.  Of course frequently people don’t spend money with those thoughts in mind, and then they gripe about the effects.  I still remember when McDonalds opened in my hometown and suddenly people started flocking there for the cheaper burgers and cones  instead of the longstanding locally run dairyqueen which had employed generations of teens in Aurora.  And then when Chuck’s drive in closed down, everyone said “oh, I’m so sad Churcks closed” although, of course, we were all responsible for that demise due to our choices…

Finally, you might consider simply giving your money to someone else who is really in need to spend.  This still helps the economy– those people will spend it instead of you.  Or you might give it to an organization who knows who is really in need, to help people who are truly suffering at this time.  In doing so, you are helping the economy, as your money is going back into circulation in the economy.

If you are the kind of person motivated by what the Bible says, I think its pretty clear that if we have enough, we are to give to those in need.

The Bible clearly says that what we make is not simply our own to do with what we want– that is not a Biblical concept. Rather, God says,

“When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the very edges of your field, nor shall you gather the gleanings of your harvest. You shall not strip your vineyard bare, or gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and the alien: I am the LORD your God.” (NRSV, Leviticus 19:9-10)

We are called to give some of what God gives us through our work and blessings to others– particularly the poor and the alien (not our grandkids).

If you have no concern for helping your neighbor, and not being gracious, you are sinning.  This also is clear: “He who despises his neighbor sins, but happy is he who is gracious to the poor.” (NAS, Proverbs 14:21)

What we are called to do is to help those who are in need:

“Feed the hungry! Help those in trouble! Then your light will shine out from the darkness, and the darkness around you shall be as bright as day. And the Lord will guide you continually, and satisfy you with all good things, and keep you healthy too; and you will be like a well-watered garden, like an ever-flowing spring. (TLB, Isaiah 58:10-11)

If we have what we need, then we should give any excess to those who are in need:

“And the crowds asked [John the Baptist], “What then should we do?” In reply he said to them, “Whoever has two coats must share with anyone who has none; and whoever has food must do likewise.” (NRSV, Luke 3:10-11)

Some will say, “I can do whatever I want to with my own money” and of course that is true– you can do whatever you want to do with it.  But there is clear guidance providing some principles for us at Christians to follow, if we intend to use our money as God has called us to.

“But whoever has the world’s goods, and beholds his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him? (NAS, 1 John 3:17)

 

This (pandemonium) Too Shall Pass, Thankfully…

It is natural, I suppose, in the midst of a pandemic for there to be a little pandemonium.  which literally means “wild and noisy disorder or confusion” or simply, “uproar”.  Interestingly, ‘Pandaemonium’ is also the capital of Hell in John Milton’s epic poem Paradise Lost.   While Heaven in the poem is a place of beauty and reason, The games and debates of the demons in hell never have an end, and they are all corrupt.  The analogy may be a bit harsh, but the endless debates I’ve seen recently on facebook seem analogous to this– endless and pointless in many cases.  The pandemic seems to have brought on Pandaemonium– both in terms of noisy disorder and confusion, and in terms of endless pointless debates.

We gain some insight into the causes of the disorder and Chaos from Satan himself when he says, “Which way I fly is hell; myself am hell” and this again seems relevant in the recent endless debates in our contemporary Pandaemonium of facebook etc– frequently I am myself the cause of this wild adn noisy disorder and confusion because I have let myself get sucked into the fear of the uproar.

Of course we have much to be concerned about– thousands are dying, the statistics are going up dramatically, etc.  And there are some opportunities for us to help– including financially at least, even if we feel  obliged to self-isolate.  But what is tempting to do with our spare time and energy is to analyze and pursue knowledge and data to gain control over the situation.  Of course we should be properly informed, and knowledge can be power and help us, but an endless pursuit of knowledge for the sake of trying to settle our souls by giving an illusion of control is actually a source of Pandaemonium which we ourselves create for ourselves (and others via facebook, etc).

The traditional story of the fall is that humans thought knowledge could provide power and make us like God.  As Lev Shestov the Russian existentialist analyzed it though, the certainty which we gained through knowledge left us in chains because we could no longer hope and have faith in what we couldn’t understand.  That which we thought would bring freedom instead brought chains– the opposite of our plans.  So to, our plans to create for ourselves certainty in these difficult times can often bring about the opposite.  All the eurodite proclamations meant to somehow give stability end up becoming part of the inferno of our own Pandaemonium…

So while this is not a call to do nothing at all, I still find that it is very important to be still, to let things be, and to remember that this too shall pass.  To release things into the hands of God and to not take it all upon myself is the very essence of acting in faith in these circumstances.  I pray that I will be able to do that more and better in days ahead.  I pray the same for all of us…

May God have mercy on us.

Andy Gustafson

 

Warning Signs You May Have “Facebook Rabies”

 by Andy Gustafson

If you have recently found that your participation in facebook or twitter or other social media services has led you to feel irritable, angry, frustrated that others don’t see what you see, and even at times paralyzed, it may be that you have contracted facebook rabies.

Lately I have noticed that there are certain people who seem to have contracted this virus.  The virus knows no political or sociological boundaries as far as I can tell– it seems to infect people who are republicans, democrats, libertarians, socialists, Christians and atheists.

I had this hunch about facebook rabies, and went to look up symptoms of rabies, and I’ve become convinced.  I found out what the common symptoms of rabies were, and sure enough, it seems that a number of people on facebook have been acting in these peculiar ways:

• irritability or aggressiveness: most posts are goading, angry, soapbox-style
• excessive movements or agitation: lots and lots of posts on similar issues
• confusion, bizarre or strange thoughts, or hallucinations: wondering frequently how others could not see the world they do, and why their opponents are such idiots
• muscle spasms and unusual postures: suggesting solutions which seem pretty far out there to most normal people, and then ridiculing the masses for being blind
• seizures (convulsions): sometimes going on full blown rants, saying uncivil things about other human beings, and making many feel uncomfortable
• weakness or paralysis: after an extended period of time, rabies can lead those who have it to want to shut down, to feel emotionally exhausted by their social media interactions, and really want to just disengage altogether from society.

If you or someone you know seem to be experiencing these symptoms, it may be cause for concern.  Fortunately, “facebook rabies” does not require a series of shots administered to the stomach.  In many cases, getting away from facebook for a while, trying to engage in others-focused activities, and getting some perspective seem to have helped many who have suffered these symptoms.

The Meriam Websters dictionary suggests this advice for avoiding getting rabies: “Stay away from rabid animals”.   This, too, is good advice.

Andy Gustafson

How to Gain 18 Pounds in 3 Years Without Hardly Trying (How We Lose Our Virtuous Desires) — andy gustafson

It is good to be virtuous, and to be virtuous is to ‘make the mark’– to achieve the golden mean between two vices typically.  The way Aristotle thought about it, virtue was about all areas of life, and to be moral was simply to be a well balanced individual– properly functioning in all respects, with habits proper to ideal human flourishing.  To be appropriately (virtuously) courageous is to avoid being a coward, and also to avoid taking stupid risks (the opposite vice from cowardliness).  To be appropriately (virtuously) humorous is to avoid being a dullard, on the one hand, and a baffoon on the other.   To be generous is to avoid being a miser on the one hand, or a spendthrift/waster on the other.   Even physically– to be prudent in ones eating habits– healthy– is to not be a glutton, and to not be anorexic either.  Being virtuous requires intentionality, effort, and habituation– we fall in or out of the virtuous habits, and we can gain or lose virtuous habits over time due to practice or lack thereof.  It is easy to fall into a vice of one sort or another, and quite difficult to maintain a life of virtue.

Interestingly, virtues are often displayed in our desires.   A strange picture to many of us is a person who is running and smiling– as though they like to exercise.  A person who has developed the good habit of exercise eventually comes to like or even love that exercise– whereas to those of us who are out of shape, exercise seems a burden, and unpleasant.  To someone addicted to smoking, it seems like a refreshing break– but to someone who doesn’t smoke, smoking can seem disgusting and stinky.  To someone who had a habit to drink alcohol regularly it can seem like a nice break– but to someone who doesn’t drink alcohol, it can seem like a silly and perhaps unhealthy way to add empty calories to one’s diet.  To someone who loves sweets a piece of pie with 1,000 calories can seem glorious– whileas to someone who has developed an aversion to sweets, it can seem like a ridiculous indulgence with only bad consequences.

Which brings me to the topic of this short piece– how easy it is to gain 18 pounds in 3 years.

I often ask my seniors how many of them plan to gain 18 pounds in the next 3 years.  Of course few of them plan to.  Then I tell them that it is likely that quite a few of them in fact will– and they seem surprised, if not a bit offended.  But then I break it down– “It is quite easy, you see– that is merely 1/2 pound per month, which  means you only need to gain  just over .016% of a pound per day (a simple task!) and you will soon be 18 pounds heavier!  That is not too hard for you– in fact it can easily happen without hardly trying at all!”  I remember raising pigs in 4-H as a kid.  I would get 40 pound pigs in March, and by August I would have made them 225 pound hogs.  There is something to our making a analogy between eating too much and being a pig!   But in our case, gaining that weight is not part of a plan– far from it– it is typically something which happens over the course of time with a consistent habit of stupid little choices.  And soon a person finds themself quite overweight and surprised as to how in the world it happened.   I remember my doctor once saying– “These people come in and ask me how in the world they are supposed to lose weight, and I ask them how often do they eat pizza, and they say ‘only a couple times per week’ and I tell them that pizza should be an indulgence, at best, not a regular part of their diet!!”  And while of course as we age, most of us find it more difficult to keep off weight, most of us also do more than our fair share to accelerate the dissipation of our health.

So gaining 18 pounds in 3 years is very simple– especially if you have a stressful job, crazy kids, or face boredom, anxiety, stress of any sort, a sweet tooth, a taste for alcohol or snacks, an aversion to movement or exercise, or any number of fairly typical life situations.  To not gain 18 pounds in 3 years is more remarkable really– for most of us.

But fortunately, habits are changeable– for better and worse.  The results of years of habitual misuse of the body cannot necessarily be easily overcome– “use it or lose it!” and as one of my friends and workers, Jeff, recently said, “It is so easy to be irresponsible!”– but with God’s grace and some effort, many things are possible, even reversing stupid habits, and eventually even smiling when you exercise or pass on the fritos…

To God be the Glory…

(andy gustafson)

 

Doing the Most Good

     

Each of us has unique opportunities to impact the world around us.  God gifts each person with unique abilities, resources, and skills, and it is up to each one of us to use them well and do what we feel called to do to transform the world around us.

One thing I’ve been struck by recently is the way that being successful in business enables people to change the world.  Working at Creighton University, I’ve seen very successful business people give money to Creighton to help the school move forward.  I’ve seen similar donations to the University of Nebraska, and we hear of such donations frequently.

Yet, oftentimes, I see students who think that to really do good, they need to become a social worker, or become a teacher or nurse, or perhaps a pastor or missionary or work for a nonprofit.  Somehow these service oriented vocations are more noble– and the more non-profit the better.   And while there is something noble about going into these professions, it is not clear, on the face of it, that going into a profession which does not make much money is either noble or of greater worth to society than going into a profession in which you could make a great deal of money, and then give it away to useful effective causes.

There was an interesting article this week on Monday 12/12 in the wall street journal called “The Mistakes We Make When Giving to Charity“. They compare a hypothetical scenario of two doctors– one lives in L.A., makes 700,000 per year, and gives $50,000 to Doctors Without Borders, and that donation saves 500 lives per year.  A second doctor joins Doctors without Borders after completing his residency, and saves 200 lives per year while making $23,000 per year.  More people tend to think that the one who works for DWB lives a more admirable life, even though he effectively saves less lives per year than if he made a lot of money and gave it to DWB.  The point of the article was that, looking at it from a pure impact perspective, it seems that the first doctor saves considerably more lives per year (of course, one might ask why he doesn’t give more of his salary, but that is a different question).

Peter Singer is a non-religious thinker who has written a great deal on “effective altruism”.  Here is a brief TED talk he did on the topic.  In his book, The Most Good You Can Do, he tells the story of one of his students who wanted to make a huge difference in the world, and although this student was set to go on to graduate school and become a professor, he decided he would be able to do more good by working on Wall Street, because he could save more lives by making lots of money and giving it to effective charities.  Of course this is another important piece of the puzzle– there are plenty of feel-good charities out there which don’t actually give you much bang for your buck.

Now obviously, a couple questions need to be asked.  First, if all the DWB doctors stayed stateside and made lots of money to give to DWB, who would go work for DWB?  In other words, if some don’t volunteer, then who will go?  It seems possible that schools could be started in emerging nations to train locals to become doctors– or something like that.

Second, is saving lives the most important thing?  I don’t know that it is the most important, but the fact that it seems like a fairly awkward question to ask seems to indicate that saving other people’s lives probably is an important priority.

Third, what, if anything, should we take from these considerations?  One thing which makes me especially interested in this question is what I’ve seen over the years at Christian schools I’ve been involved in.  Schools like Trinity in Chicago or Bethel in Minneapolis/St. Paul were known for producing teachers, nurses and pastors– all good things.  But they also struggled financially because although it was never said, there was never a lot of emphasis on being successful ‘in worldly affairs’– i.e. business.  In fact, there was probably some suspicion of it.  I certainly see that as well at the Jesuit schools I’ve been at (Fordham, Marquette, Creighton)– arts and science students sometimes (not always) seem to have the attitude that business students have ‘sold their soul for money’– and of course, some have.  But the largest donors tend to be successful business people. The fact seems to be that those who work hard to make a good deal of money may very well be able to do a lot more good than if they chose to go into a less lucrative field.

My point is that there is a certain martyrdom factor which sometimes influences our judgment in these matters.  We somehow think that if we do something which makes less money it is better, more noble, and more ethical.  I do not think that is in the case.  And we might do well to encourage more young Christian students to go be successful in business.  I think that Catholics tend to do a better job of this than the Protestants I’ve seen.

Finally, I want to make it clear that I am a huge fan of the less lucrative professions and the arts and sciences– I’m a philosophy/english major, and I’m from a family of teachers and pastors (and farmers) who love to discuss theology.  But I know plenty of business people who know theology and philosophy as well.  What I want to ask is, how can we do the most good?  And might that involve encouraging the young people in our churches to go out and be successful entrepreneurs and business people in the world who in turn use their wealth to transform the world for the glory of God?  I think so.

May God have mercy on us all…

A.G.

 

 

 

New Lows in Disrespect of Religious Practices

For those of you who went to Church on Easter, how would you respond to what happened at St. Peter’s Cathedral in New York yesterday?:

About 20 minutes into the Rev. Damian O’Connell’s noon Mass, protester Jacob Martin, 23, rose out of his seat in the center of the church and started to walk down the aisle while shouting into a bullhorn that “only the devil” could create “animals capable of love and joy just so humans can make them suffer and die.”

I’m not for inhumane treatment of animals, although I am not against all and any killing of animals.  But it seems wrong to use religious events (of any religion) as platforms for conducting political protests.

For years now, most people have found the Westboro Baptist Church’s protests at the funerals of veterans uncivil and obnoxious.  This is, at least in part, because people feel that a funeral is no place to hold a political protest– religious personal events like this should be given a certain solemn dignity and respect.  But this Easter evidently more people are increasingly deciding that political statements (even mass bombings) need not respect the sanctity of religious practices.

The first world famous event from this Easter is obviously the Easter bombing in a park in a Christian neighborhood in Pakistan.  Now terrorist bombers have been blowing up mosques and churches for years, so there is really nothing all that novel here, except that it was done on a religious holy day.

A much less damaging but still disrespectful religious service interruption happened in New York on Easter according to the New York Post:

Worshipers attending Easter Mass at St. Patrick’s Cathedral got the scare of their lives when a band of unruly protesters disrupted the event.  “I thought they were going to blow themselves up,” worshiper Carol Forester, 50, confessed.   A group of six animal rights protesters abruptly leaped up from a pew in the middle of the service and shouted, “Easter is a time for love! No more shedding animal blood!” while holding up signs of animals pleading for their lives.   About 20 minutes into the Rev. Damian O’Connell’s noon Mass, protester Jacob Martin, 23, rose out of his seat in the center of the church and started to walk down the aisle while shouting into a bullhorn that “only the devil” could create “animals capable of love and joy just so humans can make them suffer and die.”  Martin, who is a former University of North Carolina student and identifies as a Christian, also had  camera strapped to his chest, which worshipers believed was an explosive.   Martin was arrested and charged with interrupting a religious service, according to police.

Obviously the protesters here have strong moral beliefs about animal rights.  But to disrupt a religious service on perhaps the highest holy day seems, like the Westboro Baptist Church’s protests, and the Easter park bombings, to be entirely disrespectful of religious practices.  I’m not saying that Churches should not be political, but specifically religious services, like funerals and mass, should not be the forums for political protest disruptions, in my opinion.  I don’t think these animal rights activists did themselves any favors pulling off this shenanigan.