Archives For Relevant Magazine

1. Aid industry vs humanitarian relief
Scott Gilmore of Peace Dividend Trust blogs about a key distinction that all too often gets lost in relief/development debates:

[W]hen aid types whine about new NGOs “crowding the field” and spreading scarce resources too thin, I say balderdash. If your NGO isn’t getting funded because another NGO is, then you need to make your NGO faster, smarter, leaner, and more effective. And, even if there is a short reduction in the overall effectiveness of the NGO sector in a particular country because there are too many, it is offset by the long-term improvement that competition and innovation will bring. But that’s for the aid industry. Not for humanitarian relief. It is called humanitarian relief for a reason. Short-term relief, to save the starving for example, is a public service not an industry.  The immediate threat to life outweighs the long-term need for competitive innovation.

2. Social justice and evangelism
Maggie Canty-Shafer writes for Neue about a theme I’ve explored from time to time here as well:

Social justice is a complex subject for Christians. No one can disagree that Scripture commands to love the poor and oppressed, but what that looks like practically today is largely debated and at times ignored. As the world becomes increasingly more globalized and information more accessible, awareness along with responsibility has grown. This responsibility comes multiple fold. Why, how and even if we combine social justice with evangelism is an ever-evolving discussion that must be considered from a local and global level. Both the individual and the church must play a role for the Body to have the impact Scripture intended—an impact we’re capable of but nowhere near.

3. TV archive from 9/11/01
As we all know, the tenth anniversary of the tragic 9/11 attacks is this Sunday. Here’s an amazing collection of TV coverage from that Tuesday morning and the hours and days after it (HT @brettmccracken):

The 9/11 Television News Archive is a library of news coverage of the events of 9/11/2001 and their aftermath as presented by U.S. and international broadcasters. A resource for scholars, journalists, and the public, it presents one week of news broadcasts for study, research and analysis. Television is our pre-eminent medium of information, entertainment and persuasion, but until now it has not been a medium of record. This Archive attempts to address this gap by making TV news coverage of this critical week in September 2001 available to those studying these events and their treatment in the media.

4. 9/11 and the ‘Christian nation’ question
Gideon Strauss from the Center for Public Justice tackles this issue for the ThinkChristian blog, and he’s astute as always:

9/11 changed many things, but it did not make America a more or less Christian nation. America is not the New Jerusalem. America is not the Whore Babylon. It is a nation among nations. Called, like all nations, to live its political life in pursuit of public justice. Mixed, like all nations, in the composition of its citizenry with regard to religious commitments and convictions. For Christians, this means that we should not seek political hegemony in America, but that we should seek to live faithfully: proclaiming the gospel in word and deed, pursuing public justice and the common good alongside our neighbors who do not share our gospel faith.

5. Intercontinental ballistic microfinance
Here’s a really cool video from Kiva, showing the rise in its total loans and paybacks from the time it started until today, represented by dots bouncing across the globe. What’s especially cool is what happens when Kiva is featured on Frontline in 2006 (HT A View From The Cave).

Rejecting apathy

July 21, 2011 — 3 Comments

I was an early subscriber to Relevant Magazine back in the day, presumably because my twenty-year-old self wanted to be relevant. I was also interested in its tagline: “God. Life. Progressive Culture.” Relevant launched in March 2003, which, incidentally, happened to be when the US invaded Iraq. A lot has happened since then in our country and in our world. A lot of shifts. There have been huge shifts within the North American evangelical church alone. Perhaps most significantly, a shift towards concern for social justice, which has been evident in the magazine’s own evolution over the years.

I welcome this shift and in many ways I’m part of it. But I also worry. I worry because Christians like their trends, and trends are often rooted less in Scripture than in whatever’s marketable, whatever makes us feel good, whatever happens to be en vogue. I think that social justice is a fairly good trend, as far as trends go. If people are going to be passionate about something, it’s great if it’s something other than themselves. But this social justice trend is very much about us too. Compassionate consumerism, as it’s called, probably does some good at times, but it’s also disturbing on a number of levels, not the least of which being when justice becomes nothing more than wearing a t-shirt or a pair of canvas shoes — and pricey, stylish ones at that.

When social justice becomes less trendy, I wonder what will be left. I’m not a cynic who believes it’s all just fluff. The church and the world will be markedly changed, I really believe that. But I’m also convinced that a lot of Christians will move on to the next Christian trend. What will stop that from happening? What will it take for this social justice thing to make it for the long haul, to bear lasting fruit? I can think of a couple of things.

First, as Christians, we need to see how justice is truly woven through the story of the Bible. It’s not The Story in and of itself, but The Story would be terribly incomplete without it. Churches that do a sermon series on social justice and invite guest speakers to address issues like child trafficking and creation care are taking steps in the right direction. But a truly biblical church is one that takes the Bible, the whole Bible, and treats it as if it’s all important, and all one book. Genesis. Revelation. The Minor Prophets. Romans. Leviticus. Proverbs. III John. The whole thing. A pastor would do well to give as much attention to matters of wealth and poverty as the Bible does, no more, no less.

Second, we need to cultivate lifestyles of justice, even (or especially) when no one’s watching. To do that, we’ll need to get informed, because helping can really hurt those we’re trying to help if we act prematurely. We need to understand the context where we live, as well as the broader context in the world around us. And we need to learn from the successes and failures of those who have gone before, and who are even now blazing new trails. And so, in a very roundabout way, I come full circle.

I started by mentioning Relevant Magazine, and now I want to highlight a new magazine it’s publishing, called Reject Apathy. It’s been rumored for a while, and has been a section in the original magazine for some time, but it’s finally its own entity. I’m interested to see how it evolves, as its parent magazine has, but initially it has five key areas of focus: (1) loss of innocents, (2) creation care, (3) preventable disease, (4) poverty, and (5) violence. It has snazzy design, and yes, some shoes and t-shirts make appearances, but it really has some depth and substance too, with a range of solid contributors in the first issue alone. All of this makes me hopeful that the magazine will continue to challenge my generation to seek justice and the common good. If you’re interested in it, you can flip through the whole magazine for free here.

As my generation of evangelicals begins to realize that doing justice, loving mercy and walking humbly with our God is exceedingly difficult and about 99% of the time not at all glamorous, I hope and pray that we won’t give up on it. I hope we will dig into Scripture, seeing where compassion and justice fit into that Story, and then, prayerfully, hand in hand with others, we’ll continue to do the long, slow, joyful work of weaving shalom where we live and wherever God leads us.

Not everyone would agree that the U.S. federal budget is a moral document, but even among those who do, there’s no shortage of disagreement over what ought to constitute budget morality. Relevant Magazine published on Monday two opinion pieces with very different visions of what a moral budget would look like.

The first is by former Democratic congressman and ambassador Tony Hall, head of the Alliance to End Hunger, who is fasting and praying in support of government assistance for the poor, along with more than two dozen members of Congress and over 30,000 citizens as part of HungerFast.org. Hall writes:

Budgets are moral documents by nature. They reflect the priorities of individuals, households and even nations, exposing our real notions of who and what is valuable. As elected leaders in Washington engage in shouting matches over how to solve America’s looming sovereign debt crisis, the voice of the poor is still getting drowned out. They’re obviously not our priority.

In short, according to Hall, a moral budget keeps in place or increases funds for domestic feeding programs and international aid.

On the other side of the debate is Eric Teetsel, with the conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute and Common Sense Concept. Like Hall, he calls us to “end the fist banging and partisan pandering,” but unlike Hall, he emphasizes the need to tackle entitlement programs like Medicare and Medicaid:

If the road to hell is paved with good intentions, the road to serfdom is paved with the pietistic convictions of the uninformed. Serious servants of the public good have recognized the need to fix the entitlements that support Grandmothers and handicapped children. Paul Ryan’s “Path to Prosperity” is one path towards accomplishing sustainable reform. By creating a voucher-like system for seniors and the provision of Medicaid block grants for states to allocate as they see most fit he reduces costs, localizes implementation, and maintains services.

Teetsel’s harshest critiques are reserved, unsurprisingly, for Democrats, but to his credit he admirably calls out Republicans for taking cheap shots at the Democrats’ pet programs rather than tackling the real causes of the budget crisis.

Both opinion pieces are fairly predictable along partisan lines, though, and one gets the impression that were Hall and Teetsel to have an actual conversation, they’d largely be talking past each other. This is unfortunate, because I don’t think the two arguments are necessarily as mutually exclusive as they may first appear. Hall focuses on the need to protect aid programs that constitute a tiny percentage of the budget, while Teetsel focuses on the big picture, sensibly calling for spending not to exceed government revenue.

Neither side will be able to have their way entirely without making some significant compromises. But if we really could get past the shouting matches, the fist banging and the partisan pandering, maybe we could indeed balance the budget without ignoring the most vulnerable.