Gifts That Keep On Giving!

One comment from my previous post raises important questions:

Quote:“…so...what does that say about the we (the US) are relating to the world in 2006? Iraq, non-feeding of the many in Africa, etc, while throwing away tons of food...The so called "greatest generation" raised this generation of politicians and leaders. What's the state of the nation?”

This is an important question in light of what the Bible has to say to Christians and Jews about caring for the poor.

Unfortunately, the giving of gifts is always tricky. (What do you give your mother-in-law for Christmas?) The question of appropriate giving is much easier in the context of community. If my hard working neighbor falls from a drilling rig and is hospitalized for a year, the answer is simple; I visit him, encourage him, help with chores, groceries, rent, and etcetera. It is easy because I can understand the context of the problems and help in ways that are beneficial.

I have a friend who has a gambling addiction and a husband who comes and goes with the paycheck. I still have a responsibility and even a desire to help, but how to help becomes tricky. I cannot give money because of the gambling issue and if I give food or fuel when the husband is around, I enable the husband to be irresponsible. What I have chosen to do is check if the husband is around, if he has left the family in the lurch for some time, I will help with fuel. This seems to me to be help with the least amount of potential damage.

Zimbabwe’s problem is primarily caused by a terrible government. While the government can be cruel (witness the demolition of thousands of homes and small shops and consequent homelessness of many thousand people); the damage it is doing to the people of Zimbabwe appears to be caused by terminal stupidity. How do we help? Aid sent is routinely embezzled by government officials. Aid that reaches the truly needy, in the end enables a corrupt government. In the short term, generous giving helps the poor and in the long term enables a corrupt government to foster the very conditions that causes the poverty thereby forcing the poor into an endless and hopeless cycle of poverty and disease.

The quandary for me is this; I can only intelligently and beneficially help my neighbors within my community. I can only help my neighbors in another community by partnering with someone within that community. In all probability any government (mine or theirs) will be disqualified.

I am currently sitting on a request to help a small community in Zimbabwe to fund a sustainable welding / manufacturing enterprise which would support several extended families. They have a good business plan. I personally know the individuals involved and believe they are capable of implementing the plan. The budget is approximately $20,000 including sending a welding trainer from here. We believe we could raise the funds but have not acted on the proposal for several reasons:
1. The region is very poor and we might endanger the lives of those who would be by their community standards rich.
2. The police are underpaid and often not paid and have developed a culture of bribery. It is very possible the police or other government officials would either require bribes that would remove all profit from the venture or simply confiscate the equipment.
3. Thievery is the norm for that culture. It is rude to steal something that is watched, but it is OK to steal something that is not watched. If one critical component goes missing that could not be replaced by the enterprise, the enterprise would fail.
4. This is a project that could be a huge blessing for a community in a desperate situation or it could result in the death of the very people we are trying to help.

Raising Children and Foreign Policy

What is the relationship between raising children and raising (not razing) a nation? We tend to believe we know what is best for others less blessed than we. If the primary goal of raising children is to help them reach a point where they are fully functional independent adults; is it possible that this principle could also provide a model around which we develop foreign policy?

I recently read a historical novel about the colonizing of Zambezi (now Zimbabwe and Zambia) by Cecil Rhodes and England. Rhodes was not presented in a good light. In fairness, those opposed to Rhodes felt that colonizing was inevitable and that England’s colonizing the Africa would be a lesser evil than any of the other European nations striving for the same goal.

I don’t know African or English history well enough to know how much truth was in the novel, but I was left to speculate about how things might have been done differently. The Darwinian hypothesis of evolution so pervasive at the time allowed for a scientific justification of a common belief that it is the responsibility of the ‘civilized’ nations to bring the benefits of civilization to the African continent.

Cecil Rhodes carved out a nation (Rhodesia) that in some ways still benefits from his efforts; however the current status of the nation (Zimbabwe) is one of poverty, famine, corruption, and disease with the distinction of having the highest level of inflation in the world - currently greater than 1000% and anticipated to increase to something between 2000 and 4000 percent.

If we accept that England was correct in believing that they needed to have a stronghold in Southern Africa to protect the sea lanes to the Orient; what could they have done to prevent the debacle we see in many African nations today?

The difficulty seems to me to be in the original goals. The European nations primary goals in their colonization efforts seemed to be Empire building and getting rich. This strategy has almost universally failed, both in building a sustainable empire and getting rich. Poverty seems to be the result in the African colonies and many of the Empire building nations are currently floundering under the load of refugees and immigrants from the former destitute colonies. The colonies did not become fully functional independent and mature nations.

In hindsight, it would appear that the old nations would now be better off if they had determined that their fundamental responsibility was to help the colonies to become mature, successful, and independent nations.

Is it possible that the best training for a politician is successful parenting?

Freedom and Scraps

Freedom and grace are inseparable, God is free and is our freedom; “l have set you free that you might be free”.

Adam and Eve were free to receive Gods grace and chose the scraps of the tree evidently hoping for something more than the full ride God was giving them. Guilt, duty and obligation become the motivation of the scrap heap.

When we chose the scraps, we get into a sick relationship with the Father where we believe that what we do determines what we receive. We need to be givers and not consumers of grace. Consumers use guilt, duty, and obligation as crowbars to get scraps of grace.

Story of the Prodigal Sons: Both lived on scraps. The oldest son was resentful because he thought he got his scraps of grace because he was so good. He thought to use guilt to get his scraps. The youngest son demanded (obligation, duty?) his share of grace and the father freely gave it to him; but the result was that the youngest subsisted by stealing scraps from the pigs until he asked for grace from his father. This grace was freely given and freely received.

Jesus tells of a servant who was in debt to the king. He asked for and received grace from the king and then refused grace to one in debt to him insisting on an obligation to pay. The king heard of it and immediately denied grace to the first debtor.

Paul tells us to use our freedom for a higher cause than scraps of grace. God allows us the choice to live in His world of grace or to live in our world of guilt, duty, and obligation.