It Is Not Just the Politicians

In the last blog post, I described the exploitation of Jesus Christ by politicians to secure electoral advantage.  I wanted to be fair and note that I don't by any means believe only politicians exploit the Son of Man for earthly gain.  I'm a former corporate lawyer and professor of business law.  One of my points of consternation is when Jesus's name is exploited in the marketplace.

Sometimes it is subtle.  Maybe someone uses the ichthys (or "Christian fish") symbol in their marketing.  I did not used to think that was too bad.  But I began to ponder what they were really trying to communicate with such marketing.  I believe it is something along the lines of "I'm a Christian, so buy from me."  In other words, they are trying to gain an advantage in the marketplace through invocation of Jesus.

The advantage chiefly comes through one of two main forms.  On the one hand, it appeals to other Christians to do business within the community: "You're like me, so I'll buy from you."  But that is not appropriate.  Christianity is not a ticket to an elite country club.  The salt of the earth is not supposed to just hang out with other salt.  We're charged to go out into the world. 

Further, the appeal to stick within the community can have bigoted overtones.  Historically, it has been charged that such appeals are anti-Semitic.  As our Lord was Jewish, and as there is a long, violent history of Christian anti-Semitism, we need to be particularly wary of that.  But in the modern era, encouragement to give preferential business treatment to other Christians can be seen as bigotry against entrepreneurs of different faiths--Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists, etc.  We're to be known by our love, not our bigotry and exclusion.

The other way entrepreneurs try to gain an advantage through invocation of the ichthys or other Christian references is to use it as a means to vouch for their business scruples.  In other words, "I'm a Christian, so you can trust me."  In general, my husband is a lot more skeptical and less trusting than I am.  When someone uses symbols or words to express their Christian faith in order to gain someone's trust, alarm bells go off in his brain.  Over the years, I've come to respect this hesitancy of his. 

Some good friends of ours seem to put great emphasis on the Christian label in the way that my husband never would.  That label seems to be one of the reasons they first were drawn to be our friends because at first blush we don't actually have all that much in common.  Though they put a lot of emphasis on the Christian label, I am often puzzled by their faith.  They go to church only very sporadically and never pray before meals, their home doesn't seem to have any evidence of faith, and they often say things that seem to express deeply held secular values in conflict with the Gospel.  Yet, the Christian label means a lot to them.  So much that a while back they entered into a business deal with a man largely based on his representation that he was a Christian.  To them, this meant trustworthiness.  Invoking the label "Christian" was a like a code for "I'm the right kind of person to do business with."  Had my husband been in their shoes, such a representation in that context would have been a huge red flag.  And it turns out, for good reason.  The business deal quickly went bad.  The man had hidden the fact that he was a wanted felon.  There was evidence of illegal drug use, domestic violence and other awful things.  Eventually the man skipped town to evade the police, leaving our friends with a horrible mess to clean up.

Beyond such subtle use of symbols, these days other businesses may use their faith in perhaps more obvious ways.

Chick-fil-A is a high profile example.  The private corporation's CEO, S. Truett Cathy, is a Southern Baptist and that faith has been important in the corporate culture.  Their official statement of corporate purpose includes the goal: "To glorify God by being a faithful steward of all that is entrusted to us.  To have a positive influence on all who come in contact with Chick-fil-A."  In line with his faith, Mr. Cathy has made sure that the company's restaurants are closed on Sundays, which is unusual in the American market place.  To be clear, I personally don't believe the decision was made in order to exploit Jesus to gain an advantage in the marketplace.  However, I do believe that an advantage is nonetheless achieved in this way.  I myself know a lot of folks who favor the restaurant for this business decision, as well as other indicia of being a "Christian business."

Another high profile example is Hobby Lobby, whose website describes the business with a lot of religious references: http://www.hobbylobby.com/our_company/our_company.cfm.  Of four commitments listed, the first is "[h]onoring the Lord in all we do by operating in a manner consistent with biblical principles."  The website also indicates it is closed on Sundays.  However, the business has gain attention recently because it has sued over regulations implementing the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. "Obamacare").  Specifically, the company objects to required coverage of emergency contraceptives (a.k.a. the "morning after-pill"). 

Personally, I respect very much those who value the sanctity of life, and I deeply admire those who would potentially sacrifice financially to be true to their deepest values.  However, the pragmatic attorney side of me is skeptical about this particular lawsuit. 

The reality is that the "morning after pill" is used in just a small number of cases.  Unlike birth control pills or condoms, most women will never use the "morning after pill" because it only works in limited contexts.  It can be taken up to five days after unprotected sex to prevent pregnancy from happening.  Specifically, the pill prevents ovaries from releasing an egg.  If it does not leave the ovary, an egg cannot be fertilized by sperm.  The "morning after pill" is thus appropriately labeled "contraception," and not "abortion." Unlike the former, the latter removes a fertilized egg from a woman's body.  Although there is disagreement over when human life begins, the earliest definition is fertilization of an egg by a sperm.  No one asserts that an unfertilized egg or a solo sperm is equivalent to a human being.

Further, with the exception of the Roman Catholic Church, most Christians would not assert that there is a moral imperative to allow an egg to be released from an ovary such that fertilization might occur.  As a former Catholic, I can vouch that even most practicing Catholics disagree with this official teaching.  Indeed, when my husband and I went through the church's marriage preparation classes, the couple teaching the course professed bewilderment over that teaching and indicated they had not followed it in planning their own family.  This was quite telling as the wife taught in the church's parochial school, the couple were active and well-respected in the church, and they were close friends with the pastor.  These were not casual mass attenders, but the lay backbone of the church.

It is important to note that because of its limited utility, the "morning after pill" is typically intended to be used when a woman's primary contraceptive fails (e.g., a condom breaks) or in the case of rape.  Even many people who are opposed to abortion would allow an exception in the case of rape. 

Due to these circumstances, I myself wonder about the sincerity of the Hobby Lobby lawsuit over the Affordable Care Act.  Perhaps I am wrong, but my suspicion is that the company is raising the issue of religious freedom as a ruse to avoid having to provide costly health insurance to its employees.  Indeed, I've known a number of fans of the store who've been sympathetic to the corporation's position because of the invocation of religious freedom.  These same folks would likely not be as sympathetic if the issue were framed in a different way, e.g., eating into corporate profits to provide health care to workers.

Hiatus

Hello! 

Yes, I'm still here.  Just ended up taking a bit of a break.  Work was particularly hectic.  Family life too.  A lot more on my plate than normal.  Something had to give.  Eventually I had to push the pause button on blogging for a while.  That is over now.  I'm back at it.

Taking a step back from every day responsibilities and routines is deeply entrenched in Christian culture.  Jesus took breaks to spend time alone in prayer with his Heavenly Father.  He encouraged others to do the same.  Throughout the ages, Christians have periodically taken a step out of the hussle and bussle of the world for spiritual renewal and reflection.  Those of us who tend to be more like Martha need to follow Mary's example, at least sometimes.

Taking those breaks can be helpful on many levels.  Our weary souls need a little R&R sometimes.  But those breaks to listen to the Holy Spirit can also lead to epiphanies, both great and small.

During my time away from blogging, I read and listened to a lot of perspectives.  I was exposed to a lot of information relevant to the focus of this blog.  I believe I had at least a few epiphanies while I was away.  Some are going to shape the focus of this blog in the future.

For example, I had some time to get back to why I wanted to start this blog.  During my lifetime, I had been perplexed by the use of Jesus's name and teaching in secular politics and in the shaping of public policy. 

My first exposure to this was in the late 1970s.  Ronald Reagan was divorced, rarely went to church and was passionately devoted to his wife, who was an ardent follower of astrology.  Yet he was embraced so vigorously by the "Religious Right." He was touted by many as a president with "Christian values."  This was particularly perplexing to me because they embraced him over Jimmy Carter, who has tried hard throughout his life to integrate his faith and his politics.  You may not agree with his politics in all cases, but he did seem to be walking the walk, not just talking the talk.  I found Mr. Carter's efforts to use diplomacy over militarism in keeping with the teachings of the Prince of Peace.  His concern for the poor seemed to reflect the thrust of much of the Bible, which emphasizes economic vulnerability over and over again.  Yet I still don't understand where the Bible says anything that remotely endorses increasing military spending, tax cuts and trickle down economics.  I've read and thought about these issues a lot.  I just don't see any Biblical support for these political issues.

Then the use of Jesus for political gain seemed to reach fever pitch in the 2000s.  Based on what I've read, I do believe that George W. Bush had a meaningful conversion experience in mid-life that saved him from a life of drunken debauchery.  But with all due respect, his political life has not shown much evidence of his conversion.  As governor of Texas, he oversaw a racist, error-ridden capital punishment apparatus, which he made no effort to fix.  He apparently lied when he told us that he reviewed each case carefully before determining whether or not to intervene.  It turns out he had no interest in more than cursory reviews; human life was not important enough.  As president, he took us into two disastrous wars that were of questionable legitimacy or utility.  Misinformation and the use of fear enabled him to take us into those wars. Because of his policies, thousands of civilians have been displaced or killed.  He has created power vacuums in which the already vulnerable in society lead an even more perilous existence.  During his reign, we came to use torture--TORTURE--against our supposed enemies.  Instead of being a leader on human rights and setting an example for others to follow, we joined the ranks of rogue nations like Iran and the People's Republic of China.  Finally, to win reelection after all these horrors, Mr. Bush and his political cronies demonized gay people because homophobia apparently entices many to the polls in critical swing states.  In sum, Mr. Bush's political legacy is based on a lack of honesty, fear-mongering and disregard for human life.  I don't believe any of that is grounded in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I grew up inside the Beltway.  I'm not politically naïve.  I know full well that politicians embellish, stretch the truth and outright lie.  Those are sad realities.  But when you go exploiting the Son of Man to achieve earthly political power, that is where I have to draw a line.  I find that deeply offensive, more than I can even put into words.  Blasphemy is the only word to describe it.

But politicians get away with that only because Christians let them.  Shame on us if we fail to study God's word, to really dig deep for ourselves and try to understand it.  Shame on us if instead we let ourselves be duped by politicians who use the name of Jesus Christ to convince us to campaign for issues that have no grounding in Biblical teaching, but have everything to do with exaggerating plutocratic trends that are destroying our nation.  Shame on anyone who uses Jesus's blessed name to justify cutting the rates on capital gains, eliminating estate taxes on the wealthy or opposing meaningful efforts to protect God's creation.  If you support those political positions, that is fine by me.  But don't you dare use my Savior to justify those positions.  Jesus said nothing that would support coddling the rich at the expense of the poor.  Nothing in his teachings can justify our callous disregard for the harm we do to the beautiful planet our Lord gave us.

To be clear, I'm in no way saying one cannot be a Christian and also support politicians like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush or the policies they've championed.  Both Messrs. Reagan and Bush were Republicans.  I'm certainly not saying you cannot be a Christian and a Republican.  I'm also not saying that the Democratic Party is more in line with the Gospel.  What I am saying, however, is that it is blasphemy to use Christ as the rationale for endorsing politicians or political positions when what they advocate is not supported by the Bible.  The Bible was written at different times several centuries ago, and unfortunately it does not speak to every issue we face in modern America.  We have to do our best in the gray areas.  But call a spade a spade.  Acknowledge the gray areas, don't propagate misinformation by saying the Bible supports things that it does not even address.

In that vein, I've decided that I'm going to get back to what I saw as the original focus of this blog.  Many of the hot button issues that have attracted some modern American Christians to the polls are complex.  I've shied away from them to some extent.  Not because I was afraid of wading into such areas of controversy, but because their complexity merits in-depth study and consideration.  In many areas of life, Christianity does not offer easy, quick answers.  Things are not always as clear cut as some of our brethren assert.  In the past, however, I have not had time to really dig deep to explore some of these issues.  I anticipate I will finally have some time this year, so that is the direction this blog will be going.

The New "Gilded Age" and a New Pope

I have been focusing on economic issues in recent posts.  The last few focused on an author who has flagged economically polarized access to technology.  Her book’s title incorporated the idea of a “new gilded age.”  That phrase is actually something I’m hearing more and more lately.

 

We as a nation tend to be uncomfortable with class distinctions, so we tend to ignore them and act like they don’t exist.  But in recent years, the income and wealth gap has drastically widened to the point that it is being noticed even in the mainstream. 

 

Beginning in 2004, former senator John Edwards a few years ago adopted the rhetoric of the “Two Americas” when campaigning for the White House.  The notion was that some Americans are rich and powerful, while others are economically vulnerable, living paycheck-to-paycheck. 

 

More recently, the Occupy Movement attempted to raise awareness of the divide between the very privileged and powerful, as opposed to the rest of us.  The terms “the 1%” and “the 99%” have been adopted into the wider culture, not just the few who camped out in urban centers to protest economic polarization.

 

Years of de-regulation of industry, a concentration of tax cuts for the most affluent, government bail-out of businesses deemed “too big to fail,” and legal developments like the Supreme Court’s Citizen’s United opinion are all cited as reasons for this emerging focus.

 

As I was doing a little research for this post, I found an interesting website:  http://www.hermes-press.com/gilded_age.htm.  I don’t agree with everything in it, but it is thought-provoking. 

 

Further, former Secretary of Labor under President Clinton, Robert Reich also wrote an interesting article on Mitt Romney as the epitome of plutocracy and the new gilded age:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/mitt-romney-bain-capital_b_1644856.html.

 

Last week, the Roman Catholic Church (the largest Christian denomination in the world) elected a new pope.  He comes from a developing nation, Argentina.  And he is the first pope to take the name “Francis.”  He has indicated he chose that name due to inspiration by St. Francis of Assisi, who ministered to the poor and the outcasts of his day.  Pope Francis I has said he “would like a poor Church, and for the poor”

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/16/us-pope-poor-idUSBRE92F05P20130316

 

I am encouraged by this new pope.  In the last American presidential election, both candidates vigorously fought to be viewed as the champion of the middle class.  In recent years, however, it has become passé and out of fashion to speak of the poor.  Politicians typically don’t even mention them.  Out of sight, out of mind.

 

I am hopeful that this new pope, however, will bring attention to the plight of the poor worldwide.  I am encouraged by his emphasis on simplicity and humility, and hope that he is a prophetic role model to the affluent of the world to not overlook the needs of the poor.

 

 

Leviticus 23:22

When you harvest your fields, do not cut the grain at the edges of the fields, and do not go back to cut the heads of grain that were left; leave them for poor people and foreigners. The Lord is your God.

Captive Audience: The Telecom Industry and Monopoly Power in the New Gilded Age

As mentioned in the prior post, I became aware of Ms. Crawford’s book recently when I caught part of Moyers & Company where she was interviewed.  It was a fascinating dialogue and I look forward to reading her book. 

 

To begin, I think Ms. Crawford’s title is fascinating.  The concept of a new gilded age with monopolies, dramatic disparities in standard of living, and unfettered power of the rich is one that seems to be discussed more and more in recent years. I will elaborate on that concept in a coming post.

 

However, beyond references to a “new gilded age,” Ms. Crawford several raises interesting points.  She notes the monopoly that internet and cell phone carriers enjoy.  She describes the economic disincentives such monopolies create to upgrade the existing infrastructures to give us all faster, more reliable services. She compares internet and cell phone service to traditional utilities to argue for more government involvement to ensure more widespread access to these services that have become so important to modern life. 

 

Ms. Crawford observes that the United States really helped create these modern communication technologies, but through complacency and governmental neglect, we as a country have really fallen behind.  She gives specific information of how other industrialized countries have made internet and cell phone access an infrastructure priority.  Such countries recognize that cheaper, faster, widespread access is critical to economic development.  We thus risk falling behind in terms of economic development because we don’t have such infrastructure.

 

Moreover, beyond economic issues, Ms. Crawford also makes a good argument that such access is also becoming critical to a functioning democracy since technology has become more the norm for modern communication.  She points out that those who don’t have access to those communication media are shut out of participation in civic discourse.

 

 

 

 

Luke 9:46-48

 

They started arguing over which of them would be most famous. When Jesus realized how much this mattered to them, he brought a child to his side. “Whoever accepts this child as if the child were me, accepts me,” he said. “And whoever accepts me, accepts the One who sent me. You become great by accepting, not asserting. Your spirit, not your size, makes the difference.”

 

 

 

 

Technology and Poor Kids

Another concern I have about the role of technology in our modern communications is quite distinct.  As many have noted, there is a growing technological divide based on socioeconomic status in this country. 

 

The affluent have all kinds of gadgets.  They are deeply enmeshed in electronic communication.  But the less affluent are not.  If technological communication is the new norm in how we interact in our professional and civic lives, then the poor are at a huge disadvantage in terms of professional attainment and participation in civic discourse.

 

I had heard about this problem for well over a decade, but it started to become less abstract to me over the years as I have worked with at-risk teens in various ministries and nonprofits.  In various contexts, I have seen a pattern.  One reason these teens were labeled as “at-risk” to end up in these programs was that they had stolen cell phones or smart phones, or they had appropriated such devices that the owners had lost.  They were considered to have engaged in various forms of theft, a criminal activity.

 

Let me acknowledge that in the base case I don’t tend to have a lot of sympathy for theft of non-essential items.  In Les Miserables, Jean Valjean stole bread to feed hungry children.  Inspector Javert is relentlessly unforgiving, but most readers (or members of the audience) believe Javert’s heartless approach is not deserved or appropriate.  I too appreciate the desperation of a man trying to feed starving children.

 

But when we are taking about non-essentials like electronics, I just don’t understand.  I have been a victim of property crimes at different points in my life.  It is not fun.  It is not fair.  When you don’t have a whole lot, it is particularly tough when what you do have is stolen.  It is easier for me to sympathize with the victim rather than the perpetrator of property crimes.

 

Perhaps I’m hard-hearted, but I have not been inclined to be sympathetic when the teens I’ve met have stolen or misappropriated the cell phones or smart phones of others.  But I’ve worked with so many teens who have engaged in such behavior that I’ve at least become aware that it is not an uncommon phenomenon.  And I’ve tried to understand the mindset and the emotional difficulties of a teen who would engage in such activities.  I have listened to their perspective.  It is not easy for me to understand, but I try. 

 

It has to be acknowledged that the teens with whom I’ve worked have been from economically deprived families.  These are not kids from affluent families taking someone else’s cell phone or smart phone though they have access to one through legitimate means.  Instead, these are kids who live in cramped, ugly apartments.  Their parents have dead-end jobs or are unemployed.  There is not always food in the house.  Health care is available only if the state budget guidelines are inclusive enough.  In these households, luxuries like electronics are non-existent.  On some level, I can conceptualize that it is tough to not have the ability to text or e-mail or get information from the web when it feels like everyone else in our society has that ability.

 

Recently, I caught the tail end of a program Bill Moyers did on this issue of the high price of access to mobile phone and internet.  Mr. Moyers interviewed Susan Crawford who had been a special assistant to President Obama for science, technology and innovation.  She has written a book: Captive Audience: The Telecom Industry and Monopoly Power in the New Gilded Age.  The interview is accessible at the link below

 

http://billmoyers.com/segment/susan-crawford-on-why-u-s-internet-access-is-slow-costly-and-unfair/

 

In the next few posts, I will discuss some thoughts about Ms. Crawford’s ideas.

 

 

Matthew 7:11

As bad as you are, you know how to give good things to your children. How much more, then, will your Father in heaven give good things to those who ask him!

 

Technology and Relationships

A related, but separate issue is the role of technology.  So many people today spend so much time interacting with other humans via various electronic devices, that face-to-face interaction is becoming a lost skill.  I recently heard an interesting radio program that covered that issue:  http://www.npr.org/2013/02/10/171490660/we-need-to-talk-missed-connections-with-hyper-connectivity.

 

Professor Sherry Turkle of MIT described how communications in even familial relationships are “truncating” and becoming “briefer and briefer.”  She notes that relying on such electronic communications has benefits, but fails to allow us “to experience the humanity” of our relationships.  Technology makes relationships “less messy” because electronic communication is “less involved” thanks face to face or even telephone communication.

 

The same program looked at the impact of electronic communication from the perspective of families:  http://www.npr.org/2013/02/10/171598750/raising-personable-children-even-if-theyre-glued-to-phones.

 

One apparently affluent, tech savvy family was studied.  The parents described the biggest challenge as being that they had to make sure “that our kids still interact with each other, and articulate in conversations with adults.”  They had concerns about an older son who didn’t necessarily know to make eye contact on job interviews.  During the journalist’s interview with the family, they were apparently not even all paying attention to the interviewer.  The dad was channel surfing and one son was texting.

 

Such trends worry me greatly.  In my experience, they are not aberrational.  As a parent myself, I would really like to raise children who have deep and meaningful relationships, who are intimately connected to the world around them, and who can interact with (and minister to) others who are experiencing pain.   When Jesus walked this planet, he spent a lot of time developing deep relationships with those around him.  He got to know them intimately.  That seemed to be important to his ministry.  Truncating communication without being face-to-face and looking people in the eye would not seem to hit the mark.

 

 

John 11:33-36

 Jesus saw her weeping, and he saw how the people with her were weeping also; his heart was touched, and he was deeply moved.  “Where have you buried him?” he asked them.

“Come and see, Lord,” they answered.

Jesus wept. “See how much he loved him!” the people said.

Giving Gifts v. Experiences

Towards the end of the Diane Rehm show on shopping addiction, one guest shared something that I found really encouraging:

 

“So I created a new tradition in my family that I don't actually give gifts. We give experiences. So about five years ago when I first finished my master's in financial planning, I really learned that my family had a lot of these issues that I've come to know quite a bit about now. I knew nothing about them then. And so I created a new tradition. I don't give gifts at all for birthdays, Christmas, anything. But what I do is we give experiences. And so we spend more time together. We do things that really build relationships. And I've now taught my grandchildren the same thing. It was rough the first couple of years.”

 

The person who shared that new tradition was a recovering shopping addict, and was finding a new way to cope with holidays and other gift-giving occasions.  Like a recovering alcoholic trying to navigate employer cocktail parties, that must be a very tough situation on many levels.  Dealing with addiction while juggling social expectations must be a challenge.

 

It was also fascinating to me that this same person realized her family also had a lot of the same issues.  So often in life, one of us will hit rock bottom with a particular problem that wrecks our life.  As we get a handle on that problem, we look around us and realize others have the very same problem.  But as this speaker seems to suggest, others may not yet be cognizant of their problem, let alone trying to take productive steps to deal with it.

 

The speaker said she no longer gives “gifts” for Christmas and birthdays, but she gives “experiences.”  I’ve heard plenty of people say that in other contexts, but often times what they mean is they give a gift card for AMC Movie Theatres, Massage Envy or for Applebee’s.  I don’t think that is what the speaker meant. 

 

Giving gift cards is nice in the sense that it doesn’t clutter up the recipient’s home.  Gifts do that.  Even when they are wonderful gifts. 

 

When my husband and I got married many years ago, we did so in his small hometown.  Everyone knows one another.  And it is deeply entrenched custom that everyone is invited and everyone gives a gift.  Some of the gifts might be small.  Indeed, like many small towns, my husband’s hometown has not had a lot of economic opportunity and most folks are not affluent.  At weddings a gift might be one single fork from a pattern of cutlery or one single tea cup from a place setting.  But everyone gives something.  My husband and I were so generously gifted on the occasion of our wedding, but we only had a tiny one bedroom apartment where the kitchen/living room blurred together without a dining room.  It was already cramped getting into that apartment once both of us had our stuff in it.  But with the arrival of wedding gifts, we literally had stacks all over the place and couldn’t even enjoy what we’d been given. 

 

Obviously, that is an extreme case, but every time any of us gives gifts that happens on a smaller scale.  Tangible gifts take up space.  George Carlin did a funny monologue once where he said “That’s all your house is: a place to keep your stuff.  If you didn’t have so much stuff, you wouldn’t need a house…Sometimes you gotta move, gotta get a bigger house.  Why?  No room for your stuff anymore.”  (It was much funnier when you heard Mr. Carlin say those words; he had great intonation and timing.)

 

Anyhow, I don’t think the speaker of the quoted language from the Diane Rehm show was talking about gift cards.  She said, “But what I do is we give experiences. And so we spend more time together. We do things that really build relationships.”  I love that idea.  But it is hard to give experiences without engaging in the materialistic consumer culture all around us.  It is so deeply entrenched. 

 

But as my kids get older, I treasure those types of experiences and hope they do too.  Taking walks.  Reading aloud.  Cooking together.  Cleaning up the back yard.  Having a picnic.  Just last week, my kids were so thrilled to show me a “book” of art projects they had been working on.  Last night, my older daughter read me a “novel” she is writing in a spiral notebook.  Each time I had work that I would have liked to have done, but I thought about this quote from the Diane Rehm show and gave them the “gift” of my time.  Last week, we all got in bed and cuddled as they explained each drawing in their “book.”  They are easily amused, so they were cracking up at some of the drawings’ quirks, e.g., a missing arm, legs twice as long as the trunk of the person, etc. 

 

I worry sometimes that because of our consumer culture we are collectively losing our ability to spend time together without consuming products or services together, without spending money.  It is like consuming is all we know anymore.  We don’t know what to do if we aren’t consuming. 

 

So often when I visit with other middle class mommy friends, what they share is essentially a laundry list of consumer activities, e.g., we ate at Chili’s, then we had to go shopping for the Lego set for the next birthday party, then we had to get new Sketchers and there was a problem with a smart phone, so that had to be fixed.  My mind reels.  

 

We visited some relatives several years ago and it was so nice because we never get to see their family.  Our family was content hanging out at the local playground and playing at their home, but they kept wanting to take all the kids to the movies or go out to eat in very fancy restaurants.   

 

A sweet friend of mine recently lamented we never get to visit.  Her solution was that we ought to block out time to go out to dinner just the two of us. 

 

To me, just hanging out with people I love and enjoy is fun.  To spend time with people, it is not necessary to go spend money on movies or fancy restaurants.  I worry that in our culture most of us have lost sight of the simpler things in life.  Most of us seem to be stuck on a conveyor belt of consumeristic activities.  What’s more, most of us don’t seem to realize it.  To me, that realization is critical.  Most of our brothers and sisters on this planet do not live such extravagant lifestyles.  A majority of the human beings on this planet are just struggling to feed themselves and their loved ones.

 

2 Corinthians 9:8

And God is able to bless you abundantly, so that in all things at all times, having all that you need, you will abound in every good work.