Welcome to Carnivorous Caribou

Tuesday, June 07, 2005

Pitt of Poverty

We were flipping through the channels tonight (and kept flipping) yet stayed there just long enough to see something that sparked my mind.

this news show was talking about how political superpowers were collaborating to assist empoverished Africa. it was described as the kind of revolutionary aid similar to that which America gave europe after the second world war. i know nothing about this proposal, but i do think africa is a continent that has long been ignored. while the topic had my attention, something else caught my eye (and honestly, also convinced me to keep flipping.)

the story was turned over to brad pitt.

right off the bat, mr angelina jolie makes the statement that "we could be the generation to end poverty." i don't want to nitpick, but bradley could not be more wrong. Jesus said, "The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me" (Matthew 26:11). Don't get me wrong, we are to constantly reach out to the needy and the poor, in fact, doing so is as if you've ministerd to Christ Himself (Matthew 25:40). The religion that God desires includes looking after widows and orphans in their distress (James 1:27). Our hearts should break for the poor, and we should do something about it! however, to have the goal of eliminating it is impossible. philisophically, poverty and riches are subjective standards. is the homeless man with the most possessions rich in comparison to those who have even less? is the person in the with the least amount of things in a lucrative neighborhood poor? furthermore, don't riches and poverty involve so much more than tangible possessions?

ultimately, i see the elimination of poverty as a vain attempt, for if it were possible, then Jesus' statement (and thus Himself) is seriously flawed.

but a second thought was, why is brad pitt sharing this information with us? what is our obscession with celebrity? i think brad is a good actor (though jeremy bear can do a much better job of judging that than i can). yes, brad is one of those guys that forces us manly men to look at our wife and admit, "ok, so maybe i can see that that guy is attractive." it's safe to say he's a good looking man. why does that make him credible to present this story? did he major in history, sociology or even anthropology? has he been working in these fields and only moonlighting as an actor?

the easy answer is "the show put pitt on the air because people would listen." sure, and again, why?

i truly hope the world does something to join the many Christian efforts taking place to help with the poverty of Africa. i hope they don't contaminate the effort with humanist thought.

i hope they don't have brad pitt in charge of the effort.

25 Comments:

  • At 4:34 PM, Blogger Jeremy Bear said…

    Hi, I'm Jeremy Bear and, lately, I'm the guy who harasses Danny Wright online.

    Shall we begin? Do let's!

    Firstly, Carey and I see ONE as a worthwhile campaign and have contributed our signatures. We'd encourage anyone and everyone who's in favor of the United States taking a formal, aggressive stance against extreme international poverty to do the same.

    Second, it seems a slight reach to view this effort or any statements from Brad Pitt as a vain attempt that runs contrary to the instruction of Christ. This isn't an attempt to end the reality that some are poorer than others. It's an attempt to eliminate "extreme poverty" on an international scale.

    It might not sound possible (and maybe it isn't), but it's a good goal. If I purpose to raise $1,000,000 next year for cancer research, I probably won't be able to get there... but I'll come a lot closer than I will if my goal is to raise $20 or, more appropriately to this discussion, if I don't set any sort of goal at all.

    As for the credibility of celebrities... well, Machiavellian as it sounds, celebrities get results.

    Carey is a member of PETA (which means I get to jot down a lot of phone messages when Carey isn't home that say things like "Call Claudia before tomorrow night if you're interested in leading a demonstration against KFC in Hollywood next weekend"), and PETA pisses people off. They're not concerned with trotting out medical specialists and veterinarians, giving impassioned pleas and statistics to win the hearts of carnivores. No, they hire Pam Anderson to slut it up, push her boobs into the camera and say, essentially, "if you eat meat, you suck."

    Might sound ridiculous, but PETA's getting a lot more people to go vegetarian than Ingrid Newkirk ever could with a heartfelt letter and a killer PowerPoint presentation.

    (By the way, if you just said "Ingrid Who?" it kind of proves my point.)

    PETA doesn't care about professional credibility. Well, okay, they do, but not as much as the public thinks they should. Instead, PETA just wants people to STOP TORTURING AND KILLING ANIMALS. These people are serious. They love and believe in their message. They want to get it out to as many people as possible and damned if they won't use Pam Anderson to help them out if they have to.

    It reminds me of a conversation I had with my Dad a couple of years ago:

    "Hey, Jer, did you hear about this wacko in South America? She's been living in a tree for the past 9 months and she hasn't come down."

    "Why would she do that?"

    "Because she's a nutcase! She wants to stop deforestation in South America and she thinks THIS is the way to prove her point! Can you believe that?"

    "Whoa. It's true, though, deforestation is a huge problem."

    "Yeah, but come on. That's not environmentalism. That's just crazy."

    "So what should someone do about the problem?"

    "I don't know! Write letters! Send an article into the paper! Boycott companies that do it! Anything!"

    "I guess. I don't know, Dad, she seems pretty bright to me."

    "What? How can you say that?"

    "Well, how many other dads are talking about how to save the environment right now with their sons because of this news-making 'wacko'? We certainly wouldn't have had this conversation if not for her. That sounds like Mission Accomplished to me."

    At the end of the day, you can say whatever you want about Brad Pitt and the Right Methods to reduce poverty... but this effort is an organized group of people that know how to get the world's attention. They know how to make people talk about it.

    They know how to make pastors in Ohio write blog entries about it.

    And, also at the end of the day, there are people in desperate need of food, water, shelter and medical care immediately. We can speculate, pontificate, criticize and laud, but it only means something if we're doing what we can to help. Humanist / Christian / Atheist / Theist / Communist / Capitalist / Republican / Democrat? Might seem important to us, but it doesn't matter much to a hungry kid.

    (PS - I agree: Brad Pitt is a good actor)

     
  • At 7:00 PM, Blogger danny2 said…

    jer,

    it's cool that you actually read my blog. i know your busy, and i sure can think of better things for you to do...but it' means a lot that you check in here faithfully. (i will think of you whenever i see cufflinks now).

    i never meant to imply that i see ONE (didn't even know it's name) wasn't a worthwhile endeavor. Jesus commands us to care for the poor. if i realize my spiritual poverty when God was willing to grant the riches of his grace, how can i cling to my possessions and not be willing to share them with those in need?

    to borrow from your final paragraph...i believe my worldview will matter to that child. maybe not now, maybe not for 50 years. but when that child stands before God, it will matter to him is he was just giving water by one who merely felt compassion, or if he was also given the message of forgiveness of sin.

    that doesn't mean that the christian should only give to those charities that are Christian run (i am not saying that) but i do have to understand that if i give to a humanist effort, i am ONLY meeting a temporary need of that child. (at least that person is helping with something, sadly, many don't even give to the temporary need.) however, that child has a much greater need; one that a bag of rice, a roof over his head, or even an education and job training can't fill. he has a need for Jesus Christ to be his personal Lord and Savior. as far as i know, brad pitt isn't offering that.

    (by the way, if i may, i would encourage you and carey to also consider a charity that meets people's temporal needs, as well as shares with them about Christ. Cornerstone right there in Simi Valley offers such a ministry.)

    as for the celeb thing. i get that it works...i guess i wonder what it says about our society that it works.

    pitt is not a economist, sociologist or anthropologist. i offered a direct quote from him ("we could be the generation to eliminate poverty") only to illustrate this fact. the elimination of poverty is an impossible goal. give everyone on the planet one million dollars. guess what, those with only one million dollars become the poor people.

    ONE is wise to use celebrities, so is PETA (which you very colorfully used as an example!). my quesiton is me. am i aware that's happening to me. we saw this in the last election. should i care how a singer wishes to vote? are they somehow an expert on politics? no they aren't. but yes, people (myself) included care.

    that's why celebrities do commercials. wow, lebron drinks sprite. so because he can do amazing physical feats with a basketball, he should be influencing my beverage choice?

    i let it happen some times. all i'm saying is that we can all probably be more aware when it's happening.

    (brad pitt reminds me of some cabana boy i saw once in an independant film i saw called "passion fruits." what did you think of that actor's skills?)

    love ya bro!

     
  • At 7:10 PM, Blogger danny2 said…

    by the way, i am firing myself as editor for letting that last post go through before proofreading it!!!!!!

    ugh.

     
  • At 8:40 PM, Blogger Gary Underwood said…

    Man, you guys sure make for some great conversation. I should be sleeping, but I'm reading Danny and Jer's thoughts on poverty, PETA, and Pitt.

    Since I like to boil things down into lists (read: Top Ten Taco Salads, etc.), here is my latest list of summary points in your discussion.

    10. "Poverty is bad." - I think you guys both agree on this. So does God, so does Pitt. We have quotes to support both of those statements.

    9. "Pitt can act." - Jennie and I will probably see Mr. and Mrs. Smith this weekend, Pitt's new movie that opens Friday. Directed by the same guy who directed Bourne Identity, I can't resist. Whoever has seen Brad Pitt act, knows that he, indeed, can. (12 Monkeys, Fight Club, Oceans 11 & 12, Meet Joe Black, The Devil's Own, etc.)

    8. There is no #8.

    7. "We all have better things to do than to blog." - I think you guys could agree on this, but then again, I think blogging is pretty great, especially since it has stimulated some great discussions lately. Also, we could make countless statements about the things that are better to do than those things which we actually sometimes do. Not sure this point matters.

    6. "Celebrities sell stuff." - I guess we all know that, but Danny wonders why it happens. Fair enough, I guess. Each of us thinks some people are attractive, and others are not. Each of us knows people, and admit that there are people we do not recognize. I think we see marketing companies focusing on appealing to the eye and to the heart - who is attractive, memorable, and even trustworthy? Let's get them to pitch our product. Is that still confusing? I don't even think it's a moral issue, but one of recognition.

    5. "Celebrities' opinions don't matter." - Danny mentioned that the last election was proof that the celebrities's voices are involved and think they have an impact. Well, the results of that election proved pretty much the opposite. Just because Michael Moore doesn't like "W" doesn't mean the rest of America has to vote for John Kerry.

    4. Question: Is it a noble goal to want to eliminate poverty in Africa?

    Answer: Absolutely. Not sure why Danny has a problem with it and throws Scripture at it. Besides, the point of Jesus's statement that Danny uses was NOT to establish the permanence of poverty, but the temporariness of Christ's stay on earth. "You will always have the poor with you, but you will not always have me."

    The thing about PItt's statment - "eliminating the poor" - it's a lofty goal that speaks with VISION and INSPIRES people.

    How many people would "rally around" a statement from Pitt like, "Hey, let's go feed a few hungry people. Maybe, if we're lucky, we'll feed a couple thousand!"

    Not going to cut it. The commercial (and, presumably, Brad Pitt) is trying to inspire - cast the vision - challenge - set the mission and bar high. In other words, "Our work is not done here until poverty is eliminated." He's right. You keep giving until the world is fed and healthy, which leads me to the next point in my list.

    3. Danny mentions that if everyone on earth had a million dollars, then those with the least would be poor. Well, the issue here isn't about being "poor." The issue here is about "poverty" or worse - about people dying of starvation, disease, and thirst. The elimination of this kind of textbook poverty is not only ideal, it is possible! But it requires all of the Rich Young Rulers (starting with Brad Pitt - and Sandra Bullock who gave $1 million to Tsunami relief) to become GIVERS rather than TAKERS. If it is impossible, it's because of the selfishness of the rich, not because of economics.

    2. Why are we picking on Brad Pitt, American celebrities, and whoever else is trying to help poor people? If we're going to "nit-pick" someone, let's leave Brad Pitt alone, cause he's apparently on the same team as anyone whose heart is actually breaking for the poor.

    Instead, We should be nit-picking ALL of the affluent American churches who have been called to reach the poor, but are for some reason afraid of getting involved in "social action." For some reason, we'll protest at an abortion clinic but not offer to help the homeless. We'll argue about Harry Potter and not make friends with black people. We'll spend millions of dollars creating mediocre Christian music, movies, and literature and neglect the first part of our call to be "in the world."

    I wonder if Jesus might say to Christians today, "Why aren't more of you like Brad Pitt? He takes my call to serve and give to the poor seriously."

    1. Danny does have a point about giving somebody something eternal. That salvation in Christ is more important than a kid's next meal. That eternity is more important than today.

    I think we could all see the value of Brad Pitt and Compassion International teaming up. I just don't see why it has to be one or the other.

    In other words, if a kid lives for another decade because Brad Pitt gave him some food... why is that a bad thing?

    Brad Pitt isn't "ONLY" giving him food for the now. He's also prolonging that kid's life, while God waits for one of us Christians to care enough to go over there and share this eternal Good News with Him.

    Great discussion, guys - I love you both!

    - Gary

     
  • At 9:01 PM, Blogger danny2 said…

    when did i say helping the poor was bad? i thought i've said in two posts that it is a noble thing...a God honoring thing!

    yes, Jesus' statement was that He wasn't going to be on earth forever. however, Jesus also weighed His words carefully. if He said the poor will always be around, the poor will always be around.

    you're right, being poor and impoverished are different things. however, i don't think eliminating either is possible. gary, that's a great goal to eliminate impoverished conditions. it's a beautiful picture to imagine all the world supporting one another in selfless action. it's a great dream. the same kind of dream for eutopia that the world had before the world wars reminded us of man's depravity.

    apart from Jesus Christ, it will never happen. does that mean we don't try, no. did i say we don't try? no. but i think the christian should be a realist to.

    i have no argument for point 8. you've got me there.

    you bring up a great point about recognizability. we see a face and recognize it, we're more comfortable with whatever they are selling. maybe it's just me, but i like being in touch with whatever it is that is motivating me...whether it's star power, information, or just emotional connection. and i find some reasons to be better than others.

     
  • At 7:23 AM, Blogger The Commish said…

    I think that Danny's point is still correct. Give every person in this world a million dollars and there will still be extreme poverty. First of all, then a million dollars won't be able to buy squat because the cost of living would go through the roof and a million dollars would be like $100 today. Secondly, many many people with a million dollars would simply squander it away before they had the intelligence to set themselves up for the long haul and would go back to the position they were in prior to that.

    I think another point to this discussion is the "means justifying the ends" subject. I think of Deep Throat in this situation. This man wasn't a great hero. His purpose was noble (to show that the White House was hiding the whole Water Gate scandal), but his means were cowardly and, in some instances, illegal.

    I think that if ONE, PETA or others don't use the correct means to go about the cause, then it ruins it. I'm not saying that using a celebrity spokesman is the incorrect means, but I think this discussion is beginning to head in a larger direction.

     
  • At 3:17 PM, Blogger Jeremy Bear said…

    I don't know, the super-saturation of marketing in our culture has given birth to a sort of marketing paranoia. We're so overly sensitive to how we're being manipulated that we make it out to be a bigger deal than it is.

    Sprite's message isn't "drink this and you will be like Lebron', nor has it ever been. Sprite knows we're pretty stupid, but, cripes, we're not that stupid. Their tarting up the celebs is the same as the guy selling oranges at the farmer's market, who decides to write the word "DELICIOUS!" below the word "ORANGES" on his homemade sign.

    Marketing.

    Associate your product with a positive image... something respected, enjoyable, timely, attractive, clever or stirring. Using celebrities to hawk credit cards is just as shallow and dastardly as "DELICIOUS!". I don't think it's a sad commentary on our culture, either. It's the human condition. People responded to fame and riches long before television or the United States was ever invented and, truly, long before Christ walked the Earth.

    As for the "does it matter why I'm giving" issue... I don't know, I still can't shake the feeling that it really doesn't. What's better? Giving a buck to a homeless guy because you know he's hungry or giving him a buck because you want to demonstrate Christ to him? Is there even a difference? If there is, I don't see it.

    Besides, what if that ONE signature or that UNICEF envelope saves a kid's life? For the time being, isn't that more important than communicating Christ to him, if we're really being honest? Sure, a ministry that does both would be terrific, but those ministries can't save as many lives as George Clooney can.

    Okay, so each of these points were essentially made by Gary already.

    And holy balls, Knavel! Where to begin!

    "The poor'll just squander what we give them anyhow" is one of the more heartless things I've read in awhile. Do you think that everyone or even most people experiencing extreme poverty are doing so because they were fiscally irresponsible?

    It's difficult to separate our experience here in the United States (where, truly, there is the opportunity for financial betterment for nearly everyone) with those of third world nations. Our standard of "poverty" is a joke compared to the conditions in certain areas of Africa, Asia, South America... well, any continent, really. Even our homeless have the luxury of being treated by professionals in an Emergency Room, if need be. Not so for truly impoverished nations.

    And whoever said writing million dollar checks is the answer? The fact is the world is more than capable of sustaining each individual on this planet. If the world collectively chose it, no one would have to starve. The problem exists because selfish people choose for it to exist, and I'm in that mix too. This isn't about morons that squander their big lotto winnings, it's about keeping people alive for another month.

    How is a campaign "ruined" by going about it in the "wrong way"? For that matter, what constitutes a wrong way? If the goal is to feed the starving and the starving are fed... isn't that a success, Christian or otherwise?

     
  • At 9:08 PM, Blogger danny2 said…

    jer,

    how can anything be more important than sharing Christ? i'm not asking you to ignore a person's current condition. and like james talks about, i'm not saying to wish them well but do nothing for their condition, but seriously, how can anything be more important than the eternal destiny of a soul?

    as for knavel. he's half right. the money would be squandered...but not by the impoverished. instead, it would be by those oppressing the people (how many governments have kept the money and supplies intended for their people) or by the giving organization itself (how many fat cats in the u.n. have totally gotten rich with stolen money?). why is this? man is full of sin.

    i'm not saying it's bad to feed people (i have never said that, yet it seems to be a message others think i've said). i'm not saying it's bad that pitt is helping (i don't think it's bad for ONE to take advantage of americans celeb worship tendancy..actually that's quite smart). i am saying poverty can never be totally eliminated...especially by a humanist effort.

    why? because they are depending on man to be good enough to pull the world out of it's mire. ironically, man is the one who put is in this situation, and can never lift us out of it.

     
  • At 9:14 PM, Blogger danny2 said…

    i think the celeb thing is also a minor evidence of how quick man is to replace worship of the Creator for His creation.

    bottom line is that the kid in africa starving is made just as much in the image of God as brad pitt. if pitt has realized this and it's creating his passion for this cause...great.

    unfortunately though, we all care more about pitt. not saying we need to drop to our knees and repent because we take notice when we recognize a face...i'm just saying we should make sure we are aware when we become enamored with someone or something.

     
  • At 10:15 PM, Blogger Mollenkamp said…

    FWIW, Brad Pitt majored in Advertising and left without getting his degree (3 credits short, if I remember by lore correctly).

     
  • At 6:18 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    JUST DONT EVER PICK ON BARRY MANALOW!!!!!

    MA

     
  • At 10:52 AM, Blogger Jeremy Bear said…

    It's more important to save a dying person's life because, if they're dead, it'll be too late to share Christ with them.

    Again, "the money would be squandered anyhow" is an easy cop-out. If we're afraid of corruption sapping the resources meant for the poor, we need to find a way around that corruption. A sizeable task, but that's partly the aim of ONE.

    I don't think we do care more about Pitt. We recognize Pitt, that's all. It sounds like we're decrying the idea of celebrity, which is an inevitable reality. I don't think we need to "overcome" the idea that we will always recognize celebrities and I think there's a big difference between recognition and worship. Instead, let's be grateful that certain celebrities are choosing to do something important and worthwhile with their fame.

     
  • At 8:11 PM, Blogger danny2 said…

    you're missing my point jer. i'm not saying don't give because the money would be squandered anyway.

    i'm saying that a goal that is motivated by a belief that man kind is inherently good is doomed to fail. i'll spare you Scripture this time (due to an overload of texts to make my point) and only encourage you to look at history.

    the oppression in africa is not merely due to a drought, but due to governements and people taking advantage of one another.

    now, i have to admit, my mom is right: brad pitt should be more like barry manalow

     
  • At 11:03 PM, Anonymous ~d said…

    um, it's "Manilow"

     
  • At 10:43 AM, Blogger danny2 said…

    it is with great joy that i confess that i don't know how to spell "manilow".

     
  • At 10:38 PM, Blogger The Commish said…

    I decided to revisit this subject this evening as I was thinking about things a bit. I think it's all good and fine to be attempting to fix the problems of poverty in this world, but here are my thoughts.

    Give everyone a million dollars and within a week, you'd have a lot of people with 2 million dollars and a lot of people with nothing. It's the same way with poverty. Regardless of what we try to do, poverty will be impossible to fix.

    The only way to fix poverty is through a Communist society and we all know that doesn't work. In a world filled with sin and in a world in which everyone has their own agenda, poverty is impossible to even attempt to fix, in my opinion.

    As Christians, we should be trying to give others the only thing that is eternal and life sustaining -- and that is Christianity. Food is only temporary and, in my opinion, poverty will never be fixed. However, the Living Water is eternal and lasts forever.

     
  • At 10:53 PM, Blogger The Commish said…

    Just a couple more crazy thoughts from me:

    First, I think that trying to cure poverty is noble. For people who do not know Christ and do not understand the saving power, there is nothing eternal to offer others, so it makes sense to offer them what they believe is life sustaining. I don't necessarily blame non-Christians for attempting to stop poverty, I just don't think it should necessarily be the focus of Christians.

    Secondly, death is inevitable. This world holds a delicate balance. If poverty were cured, people would die in other ways. We'd have overcrowding, causing us to drive more miles in our cars, causing more pollution, causing more people to die from lung cancer. No matter what you cure, it usually brings about negative side effects. In this case, I think of deer.

    There are times when some states allow hunters to kill more deer than they normally allow to control the population, because if not, then more deer are found along the road dead because they are forced to look for other areas to live (because of overpopulation) and they are hit by cars.

    There is a delicate balance, and I believe that curing poverty is fruitless. The same number of people are going to die (though it may not be the exact same people) due to other influences. As Christians, we can only try to reach people before they die with the Word of God.

     
  • At 8:49 AM, Blogger danny2 said…

    jason,

    to have you compare people with the deer population is not only unbiblical but inhumane as well!

    over population is such a myth...and yes, there is statistical information to substantiate that.

    communism was a great idea, except one problem...people aren't good at the heart of things. communism assumed that man has a good nature. the bible and honest evaluation tells us otherwise.

     
  • At 9:11 AM, Blogger The Commish said…

    I'm not comparing people to deer. The comparison was simply to say that if deer aren't allowed to be hunted, they will be killed in another way, thereby controlling overpopulation.

    It's the same with humans. You are right that overpopulation is a myth because the planet doesn't allow for it. If we cure poverty, other problems (such as more pollution, etc.) would creep up that would kill the same number of people that poverty did to control overpopulation. Therefore, attempting to cure poverty is fruitless.

     
  • At 9:15 AM, Blogger RevPharoah said…

    Here's a perspective from a guy with 4 years of inner city work experience, 1 mission trip to Africa and an aunt who has spent 20 years there.

    1) Causes of poverty. Some people contribute to their own poverty and some do not. Compare the guy who drops out of high school, abuses drugs and alcohol and avoids work like the plague to the child who had the misfortune of being born to that guy. Or compare two men I met while in Africa, one has built an environment of comparitive wealth with a construction company and a fruit farm to support himself as an evangelist while the other guy followed us around for a week waiting for us to leave so he could have the stuff we left. Remember that the Biblical character of Job spent some time homeless and in poverty that was not at all his fault. The cause of poverty are varied and complex, but they must be addressed.

    2) We should talk about a response to poverty as opposed to a cure for poverty. Allow me to revive the concept of "noblesse oblige" (pardon my french) which states that those who have been fortunate in life have an obligation to help those who have not. I would challenge all who claim the name of Christ to live simply and give generously. (and wisely) I have some practical suggestions for anyone who is interested.
    By the way, I currently pastor a church in Centerville, Ohio. Those in the Dayton area can understand that a big part of my job is helping people deal responsibly with affluence.

     
  • At 7:29 PM, Blogger derrak ostovic said…

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

     
  • At 7:30 PM, Blogger derrak ostovic said…

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

     
  • At 9:43 AM, Blogger derrak ostovic said…

    entlemen,

    I have been very fortunate to stumble onto this discusion string. (actually gary underwood directed me to it) This whole topic has been on my heart a lot as of lately and it only serves me better to hear more about it, and to hear different perspectives.

    There is not much that i can say to add to this discusion that has not already been said. However I thought I would summarize what I think has been said in some way or form.

    1. When someone is hungry, and someone else comes along and feeds them, they are no longer hungry.

    2. When someone is lost and set apart from Christ, and someone comes along and helps guide them to Jesus, they are now a jesus follower (assuming they chose that).


    LETS DO BOTH, and stop arguing about what motivates us or wether or not it is possible or not. Not to steal from one of the most famous marketing skeems of all time but. . . lets just do it.

    what do ya think/

    I have really enjoyed this discusion, and look forward to more. thanks for letting me participate.

    derrak

     
  • At 10:23 AM, Blogger danny2 said…

    derrak,

    good to have you on board. i totally agree with your statements. somewhere along the line i think my statement that telling someone about Jesus is more important than giving them bread sent the message that giving them bread isn't important.

    it is, just not AS important. and the two don't need to be mutually exclusive. in fact, giving them bread may open the door to telling them about the Bread of Life.

    i don't think ONE is morally reprehensible. (i do think it has some major political flaws and makes some inaccurate assumptions.)

    nor do i think their using brad pitt was some form of evil (it's wise on their part, i just think america has become a country of celebrity worship.)

    i guess this brings up an interesting discussion of action and motive. if i like an action, but disagree with the motive or it's basic premise (the political aspect of ONE, not the feeding of hungry people...what's to disagree with that?) can i just apply my own motive to their actions and participate, or do i need to find an organization that matches my views?

     
  • At 10:26 AM, Blogger derrak ostovic said…

    danny2 said . . .

    "i guess this brings up an interesting discussion of action and motive. if i like an action, but disagree with the motive or it's basic premise (the political aspect of ONE, not the feeding of hungry people...what's to disagree with that?) can i just apply my own motive to their actions and participate, or do i need to find an organization that matches my views?"

    This is definately at the heart of what I hear you saying, and it a very keen observation. Really it comes down to each of us deciding this for ourselves. Personally I hope that when someone looks at everything that i give my time, energy and money to they will s;ee both people who can't help themselves being helped, and a devoted follower of Christ sharing the gospel.

    You may look at one thing and not see both, but if you look at everything I sure hope you would.

    derrak

     

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home