so i received an invite today to join a "cause" on facebook.
it was for ending world hunger in africa. now we can all agree that that would be a great thing. i don't think anyone is stupid enough to say that it would be a bad thing. so let's quickly put it to a vote and make it official.
all those in favor of "ending hunger in africa" signify by saying "AYE"
"AYE!"
all those who are opposed signify by the like sign.
"....silence...."
ok! so it's unanimous. we all would like to see hunger in africa go the way of the dodo bird. now that it's out of the way, i'd like to discuss causes as they appear on things like facebook.
i receive invitations like this on almost a daily basis. invites to "end hunger" and "fight global poverty" or stop oppression of women in _____ country". it seems like there is an endless number of causes one can be a part of this day in age. i'd like to officially go on the record and say that most of these thing are good and noble things to be a part of.
but here's my beef.
every time i look at the "cause" i'm being invited to, it quickly becomes clear that while the group may have several thousand members; the money raised toward the cause is generally under the $200 mark. often time even under the $50 mark.
we have thousands of people who say that they want to end hunger in africa but apparently only 5 of them are passionate enough about it to take action beyond a simple click of "yes, i'll join!"
now i'm fully aware that part of the solution is making more people ware of the problem, but at some point emails and social networking sites have gotten the job done and people are now aware.
it would seem that we've suddenly found ourselves living in a culture where it's trendy to be for something....
it's true.
when i turn down an invitation for a facebook cause i have a strange fear that people will think i'm against that issue.
i'm not a fan of tooting my own horn. mostly because i'm an arrogant person and it seems to happen all too easily for me....
but i've been to africa.
the person who sent me the invite to "end hunger" hasn't.
so why am i still worried?
because more than i think that we live in a culture that finds it trendy to be a part of something, i believe we live in a culture where it's trendy for people to think you're a part of something but secretly we have no compassion at all.
(it should be noted that the definition of the word compassion is to be "compelled to respond with action")
it would seem that more than actually feeling compelled to act, we are a people who are looking for what we get out of the deal. in this case (facebook causes) it's a comfort that the people around us believe we're socially conscious and caring.
we see the same thing in other arenas. AIDs has been around for years. yes it's worse now than before, but there's never been a not-so-shitty point in it's history. never before though, have we seen more public acknowledgement and support than we have the day motorolla teamed up with the (RED) campaign. the day we could receive a sexy cellphone to go with our donation. a physical "thank you" that we could proudly hold to our ear in smugness of anyone who wasn't "supporting the cause".
here's an idea- if you really, honestly want to see AIDs pushed back in africa, how about you not buy a brand new phone for $250 so that you can donate $8.50. (that's the actual amount donated according to motorolla's website. $8.50 per phone sold.) how about you give $250 straight to "global fund" which is the organization that actually uses the money raised by the (RED) campaign.
now, do i think (RED) is a bad thing? no.
do i think motorolla is wrong for marketing a product that they turn around and give away part of the profits to? of course not.
do i think that americans are much less concerned about AIDs in africa and much more concerned about having people believe they are concerned with AIDs in africa?
an emphatic yes.
i'm not sinless in this either.
i'm a proud owner of a pair of TOMS SHOES.
i think they're awesome. if you aren't familiar with them. look them up. for every pair of shoes you buy, they donate a pair to a child in need. i think they're a great company with a great mission.
a pair of toms runs about $48. a pair for me and a pair for a little kid. sounds great.
but i could get 4 pair of kids shoes at walmart for the same price and give it to kids in my area.
it's funny to me that i've never thought that giving shoes to kids was a good thing until i got a really sweet pair of kicks to go with it.
so i'm obviously no different here.
now this is a blog about my frustrations with the church and the differing factions their of. so how does it all tie in?
i'm currently reading "everything must change" by one mr. brian mclaren. he would obviously deny it, but he's the unofficial leader of the emergent movement. in his book (of which i'm nowhere near finished and can only speculate {and can potentially be very wrong.}) he consistently brings up issues that as christians we should be addressing. i don't know much about mclaren or what he's been a part of service wise in the past. i can only assume that he's a very passionate man and serves faithfully the things he advocates, but nowhere do i find him pushing actual movement on his readers.
now some would say that it isn't his responsibility. only to make aware.
but i would disagree.
as influential of a voice as he has in a culture that believes a (RED) cellphone in one of the best ways to spend money on advancing the "Kingdom"; i believe he has a responsibility to hol people accountable for these things.
one of my biggest frustrations of the emergent movement is their fear of stepping on toes.
if mclaren doesn't slap some sense into his readers soon, we'll find ourselves living in a world where it's Christlike to join a facebook group about the hungry in africa rather than going and actually feeding them.
