I subscribe to a few email lists for Pro|ENGINEER, the CAD software I use at work. It's mostly folks from the US, though we do get posts from all over the world.
This week, one came through from India requesting someone, preferable also from India, to come train them in plastic part design. As you might expect, more than one person in the US took issue with this, coming down pretty hard on the guys English and complaining, indirectly, about the jobs going there.
It got me thinking. This Indian guy is just thinking, "Our company is growing, we need help. I'll ask the Pro|E guys." He's enjoying the new found opportunities in his country, he has little or no clue what his prosperity may mean for some here in the US.
Then I though, here is this poor nation, beginning to find some wealth. And here we are, with our 2,500 square foot houses, 2.5 cars, HD TV's, boats and what not, complaining about them trying to get a little piece of it.
So I wondered, what would the world be like, if in the last 50-60 years of prosperity, the Christians in America had decided that maybe 1,800 square feet was enough, I don't need the new wide screen or maybe I won't buy the boat. What it instead we used that new wealth and had given it to the poor, 3rd world countries that are now chasing their own version of the American dream at our expense? Imagine, 50-60 years of giving 15%, 20% or 25% of out money to help the poor of the world.
Now, I'm no economist or expert in human behavior or charitable giving, but I have to wonder.
If we had really given to them along the way, shared our wealth with them in their need, would they be trying to take it from us now?
Spoken like a true socialist-leaning liberal democrat, Doug! I'm proud of you! (really!) But don't let your Republican friends catch wind of such nonsense. By their standards, the poor--American or foreign--are poor because they can't compete in the free market--and we don't want to reward laziness incompetence, do we? That would erode all sense of personal responsibility and make us all dependent on handouts!
Shh! Mom read this sometimes! :-)
For the record, I didn't say "what if America had given more" I said "what if American Christians had given more". Less big 'L' Liberal Democrat and more just little 'l' liberal.
The issue to me is less what we as a nation could have done and more how we as Christians failed to act according to what we profess - that is that we follow Christ. I wonder what opportuity to change history we missed.
Actually, "a true socialist-leaning liberal democrat" doesn't trust the individual to do their part and seeks to legislate & force the wealth sharing (unless it's their wealth).
The sad thing is we may have proven them right.
I started to comment then I realized Oh you hate the political blast. I'm a registered Democrat my brother is a politician and my dad worked in the social work field. I vote my conscience.
It's a nice idea bro.
I will now stay quiet about how I feel.
Interesting to me how this is turned political. You're right Milly, I don't like politics, but this is not a political issue for me. It's less about our nation doing more and more about the Christians of our nation doing more of what I think Christians should do.
It's hard. I say that on my wireless laptop (1 of 3 PC's in the house) in my La-Z-Boy, in my 1,750 square foot house with central air, overlooking my patio and with my 3 shiny cars.We do give, but are we really sharing our wealth? Hard question, but one we ought to keep asking. The pleasures of this American life call to me. I'd like an HD TV and a 3 car garage, but I want to desire more to do what Jesus would do.
There's part of me that wants to sell the house, move into a modest apartment and double or triple our charitable giving. I do not live in a vacuum, however, and I'm not sure if that's being responsible to my family. I do know that chasing the ever bigger house and nicer and more plentiful toys is not responsible to my family.
To be fair, I should point out that many over the last 50-60 years have given of their wealth. I do not mean to suggest that no one does. However, as a nation that is known as 'Christian', in large part because we have said we are, have we lived up to that? If we had spent less on our pleasures and more on others, would we feel less threatened now?
Perhaps we have shown them an example, live for yourselves, never mind others. If they now pursue that path at our expense, who are we to complain?
Every now and then, I daydream about what I'd do if I won the lottery big time. And yes, I did buy a ticket once.
I decided that the best thing I could do would be to move to a third world country and provide employment for some folks, paying them enough to actually improve their lot in life. Even if the company was not economically viable and lost money every year, a couple of hundred million in the bank could keep such a company floating and providing jobs for a very long time.
IOW, while I do believe we are the most like Jesus when we are giving unconditionally, and that we must do so, it's better to heal the actual problem if we can. It was arguably better in the long term to heal the blind and lame than to give them alms.
People here who complain about jobs going oversees are looking in the wrong place if they're looking at the folks over there. The people who are making the decisions to move those jobs are taking home millions and millions of dollars every year from the very companies they claim to be trying to save money. And guess who benefits from those savings? Certainly not the consumers of their products. For a long time, I've been mulling over the concept of how to mandate some sort of cap on the ratio between the highest compensated and lowest compensated employees (and this would have to include their vendors). Off the top of my head, I believe it's averaging around 400 to 1 in the U.S. these days, ONLY counting actual employees.
This is an interesting concept, and one that I find quite compelling. I think that if we gave 10-15% of our income, no matter what level, then we would undoubtedly solve world hunger and the whole poverty thing itself. I'm not just talking over sea's, but everywhere.
To me it is a horrible shame that any "Christian" would take a political view of what we as American Christians should or should not do internationally. Why would any poor person in America take precedence over one in India? Why would we care, only that it would be an expression of our own humanistic motivations? American's get fierce when talking about infringing on their creature comforts. One example of this is the current immigration situation with Mexican's and the 11 million person illegal working force. Personally, I have to correct my thinking on both of these issues, and force a more biblical application of my thoughts.
As Christians, we are bound to treat the poor and unfortunate with special attention. If we hold on to the Law of Christ, then the poor are our priority. I consider often the story told by Jesus in Luke about the rich man and Lazarus. I wonder if this whole nation will be judged as the rich man was judged. I think how our neighbors are everybody, and this nation lives in comfort, while so very many go without any at all. I know that there is an awful amount of sin and demonic influence that manipulates the politics of the whole thing, but ideally, as First world Christians, there really shouldn't be any poor people.
But then I look at my own life, and ask what I am doing about this? I don't have much, but for what I have, I don't want to loose. In fact, I want just a little bit more (isn't that always the case?). Every once in a while I give to an international charity, but rarely more than $20. We give at church when we can, and go from there. Granted, three or four months out of the year, we have to ask the church for help, but I know on those other months, there can be found something to give. I mean, where there is a will, there is a way.
Actually I meant I hate politics myself. It's good to know that I'm not alone. I hate it on blogs I come from a very politically minded family. I voice my opinion a lot.
As for giving more I do have to say I'd need to win a lot of money. I'd be happy to increase my giving then. As for letting go of luxuries honestly we work hard for what we have. I'm sure I can do without more. We can have one less soda and such.
It's funny. When I read the post, I didn't think politics was part of the thinking. I thought you were saying, "Hey! Wouldn't it have been cool if the US Christians showed that we have a Christlike compassion for the poor"?
Silly me... ;-)
I agree, in concept, Doug. And that concept could be applied to almost any nation. Not every nation would repsond favorably to the US Christian hand of help. But I, like you, hafta wonder if we would at least have a different world-wide reputation.
Good thought, bro.
BTW: As far as a 1900 sq. ft. house is concerned? I'd settle for 1000 with a basement!