Skip to content

ELCA Blogs

The young and hungry: The reality of food insecurity for many American children

Teri Mueller

No one likes to be hungry, but for many American families, food insecurity is a regular part of life. Currently, one quarter of American children are at risk of hunger (See Table 12 in Bread for the World’s 2014 Hunger Report). In 2012, the prevalence of food insecurity among U.S. households was 14.5%. Children were hit even harder as 21.6% faced life with food insecurity.The last six years have been tough on American children. Food insecurity jumped up after 2007, which corresponded with the economic recession of 2008. To be specific, there was 16.9% prevalence of food insecurity among children in 2007 and 22.5% prevalence of food insecurity among children in 2008. (See Table 12 in Bread for the World’s 2014 Hunger Report). That is an increase of 5.6% in solely one year.

Young people especially suffer as a lack of food can jeopardize more than immediate health. For instance, frequent food insecurity can affect the development and educational attainment of children. Hungry children are more likely to be late to school or miss altogether.1 If they do arrive, they struggle to focus on learning.

Children who do go to school often rely heavily on the food provided through programs like the National School Lunch Program (NSLP). Sometimes the lunches provide students with the only actual meals they receive all week. The NSLP provides families that are under or at 130% of the poverty level with free school lunches for their children. Families who fall between 130 and 185% of the poverty level qualify for reduced-price lunches.

As summer continues, many children who relied heavily on school lunches must find other ways to get food. Because of this, programs like the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) have been established. The week of June 2nd-6th served as the kickoff of SFSP for Summer 2014.  However, significantly fewer children are reached by the SFSP in comparison to the NSLP. Specifically, a USDA report mentioned in a Milwaukee Wisconsin Journal Sentential article says that only 2.3 million of the 30 million children that receive reduced price meals during the school year continue to receive meals over the summer.

The problem of food insecurity among children has not gone away in the United States, but federal programs like NSLP, SFSP, and others help young Americans receive food and nutrition. However, danger has arisen as many of these programs are up for reauthorization in the near future. The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 permanently implemented the NSLP and the School Breakfast Program, but other programs are set to expire in 2015. They must be renewed in order to continue. The SFSP and the Special Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) are two examples of programs that need to be reauthorized soon. The continuation and strengthening of these programs along with the work of many community organizations is important for the future of American youth. With time and effort, we will hopefully begin to see a decrease in food insecurity among children in the future, which will result in improved conditions for the growth and development of America’s young people.

Teri Mueller is an intern with ELCA World Hunger.

  1. Mariana Chilton & Donald Rose, “A Rights-Based Approach to Food Insecurity in the United States. American Journal of Public Health 99:7, 2009: 1203-1211
Share

Region 6: Ethics of Eating Announcement – UPDATED

Henry Martinez

​

Ethics of Eating

Region 6

Thursday – Sunday, Aug. 14-17, 2014

​It seems obvious that food is essential to our lives and communities. But what we see on our plates is part of a complex process that involves a confluence of lives, communities and systems. The Ethics of Eating event presents an opportunity to explore issues of food production and our response to this process as it relates to hunger, the environment and daily life. As people of faith, we approach the topic from a theological lens, while listening to those who are involved in this system for their livelihood. Join us as we consider this topic through some hands-on experience at a farm, a variety of speakers and engaging discussion.

ELCA World Hunger is inviting approximately 25 participants from various contexts in the region to attend the Ethics of Eating event in the Mansfield, Ohio, area Thursday, Aug. 14 – Sunday, Aug. 17, 2014. ELCA World Hunger will underwrite the cost of participation. To ensure the best stewardship of ELCA World Hunger’s investment in this event, participants must commit to attendance of the entire Ethics of Eating event.

Application Due: Monday, July 14, 2014

For this event, participants will be invited from Region 6, which includes the following synods:

6A  ̶  Southeast Michigan

6B – North/West Lower Michigan

6C – Indiana-Kentucky

6D – Northwestern Ohio Synod

6E – Northeastern Ohio Synod

6F – Southern Ohio Synod

 

Please email ELCA World Hunger (hunger@elca.org) to request the Ethics of Eating application. Your completed application AND letter of support are due by July 14, 2014, if you wish to be considered for participation. Applicants will be notified of invitation decisions shortly thereafter. After June 30, applications will be approved on a rolling basis until all openings are filled.

After this event, each participant will:

  1. Enrich their understanding of a just and sustainable food system and gain perspective on a theological response to hunger.
  2. Implement a follow-up project, action or activity.
  3. Participate in the ELCA World Hunger Leader Network and online community.
     
    If you have any questions, please contact ELCA World Hunger (hunger@elca.org) or 800-638-3522, ext. 2616. We look forward to receiving your Ethics of Eating application.
Share

Angola: Providing assistance as the drought continues

Megan Brandsrud

Food distribution in a village in Cunene district.

Food distribution in a village in Cunene district.

Angola has been experiencing a prolonged dry spell since 2012, resulting in a food and water crisis. Agriculture is the primary source of income in Angola, and the drought has decreased the country’s agricultural production by more than 400,000 tons. Because of this, more than 365,000 households have faced a loss of income, food shortage and water shortage. During the past year, Lutheran Disaster Response has been working with Lutheran World Federation as we accompany people in Angola who have been impacted by the drought.

Even though the region has experienced some rains as the farming season comes to an end, food shortage is still a major issue.  More than 12.5 tons of food items and non-food items are being transported for distribution in Cunene province.

Sanitation and hygiene conditions in the region have also been impacted by the drought. Hygiene kits have been distributed and spare parts are being used to rehabilitate 16 broken hand water pumps. In addition, 24 people, including health workers, local government representatives and church leaders, have been trained on hygiene and sanitation programs. The education that these people will be able to provide in the villages will help decrease health risks. Water and sanitation activities will also help curb and eliminate the risk of cholera, a waterborne illness.

Although rehabilitation work is being done, there is still much more to be done to help restore livelihoods and create sustainability. We as the church will continue to advocate for these vulnerable populations, and we ask you to join us in prayer for our brothers and sisters in Angola who are being impacted by this extended drought.

If you would like to support Lutheran Disaster Response’s work in Angola, please visit the Lutheran Disaster Response giving page.

Share

“How much should I give?” – A lesson from Zacchaeus

Henry Martinez

Before we get too far into this, it’s worth pointing out that Zacchaeus is not asked the question “How much do you give?” or anything like it, and yet his story can’t be told without considering how entangled his identity is with this concern. It is an uncomfortable question that typically doesn’t make its way into our conversations, but before we bristle too much we should ask Zacchaeus what wealth meant to him.

Zacchaeus (Luke 19:1-10) presents a curious case for Luke, who offers chief tax collector and rich man as primary descriptions. The former implicates him, by default, in a system of corruption and on the margins of acceptance according to religious authorities (see the Pharisees’ reaction to Levi in Luke 5:30). The latter places him in a group that stands out in this gospel for its unwillingness to give to the poor. Biblical scholars observe that the name Zacchaeus means “pure” or “innocent,” neither of which fit Luke’s descriptions. But what makes Zacchaeus all the more curious is that in Luke’s gospel we don’t expect a man of his reputation to be so intrigued by Jesus or even responsive to his mission, “to bring good news to the poor” (Luke 4:18).

Luke’s uses both teaching parables and narrative interactions to portray the rich. The most notable parables are of the rich man who decides to have bigger barns built for himself so that he can retire and enjoy life (12:13-21) and the rich man and Lazarus (16:19-31). The first encounter we see between Jesus and a rich man ends with the rich man feeling sad after learning that he would have to sell his possessions and give the money to the poor in order to have eternal life (18:18-30). From these stories we get the sense that wealth leads one to a tragic end. But just when it looks like the rich are out of hope, Jesus hints there is another way of looking at things: a way that is possible only for God.

In addition to the unexpected announcement of Jesus’ visit, Zacchaeus hears the grumbling crowd. At the heart of their grumbling is an accusation that is just as much against Zacchaeus as Jesus. This prompts the first words we hear from Zacchaeus, who addresses the concerns about his character by offering an explanation of his charitable contributions and financial intentions, which is not unreasonable given the assumptions regarding his reputation. He says:

“Look, half of my possessions, Lord, I will give to the poor; and if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I will pay back four times as much.” (NRSV; emphasis mine)

It is worth noting that some translate his words to “I will give,” and “I will pay back” suggesting a future plan that he has not yet enacted (NRSV, CEV). Other translations chose the present tense for both verbs, suggesting actions that he is currently doing and plans to continue (NIV, RSV, The Message). Both are possible translations of the Greek verbs, but regardless of which we opt for, the power in this statement is the challenge of the common assumptions about identity and wealth. No one expects this rich man, let alone tax-collector to say that he gives or will give to the poor.  Biblical scholar David Tiede finds similarities between the Zacchaeus story and a healing story, where it is not a physical condition which he suffers, but a spiritual one.[1] However, the spiritual condition is not just a personal one.

In this context, the healing comes in the form of Jesus’ announcement that Zacchaeus is a “son of Abraham” (no longer just a “tax collector”) and salvation has come to his household. The declaration of salvation is not just a personal experience, but indicates wholeness and healing in a broader sense. Theologian Fred Craddock observes that salvation has personal, domestic, social and economic dimensions.[2] Knowledge of the social implications of his wealth distinguishes Zacchaeus from the other rich men in Luke. He recognizes that wealth is a dangerous thing, and he uses his wealth to make up for social and economic disparities.

In an overview of how wealth is presented in Luke and Acts, scholar Joel B. Green finds that wealth is certainly used as an economic measure, but that it is also woven into issues of status, power, and social privilege. He writes of the significance of Zacchaeus’ decision, “According to the cultural script of Luke’s world, Zacchaeus behaves toward those who make their lodging at society’s margins as if they were his friends, his neighbors, his kin.”[3] If numerous other factors are involved in wealth, implicit in the question of how much should we give is the issue of how we relate to others. Zacchaeus shows us that wealth is a central matter for our spiritual health, identity and personal relationships. It is a dangerous thing to be sure, but one that can’t be ignored.

Henry Martinez is an education associate for ELCA World Hunger.

[1] David Tiede, Luke, (Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament), 320.

[2] Fred Craddock, Luke, (Interpretation), 220.

[3] Joel B. Green, “Wealthy…Who? Me? Surprising Perspectives on Faith and Wealth from Luke-Acts,” The Living Pulpit(2003), 18-19.

Share

Living Earth Reflections: Do We Really Need to Choose?

Mary Minette, Director of Environmental Advocacy

June 2014​

“Neither economic growth that ignores environmental cost nor conservation of nature that ignores human cost is sustainable.  Both will result in injustice and, eventually environmental degradation.  We know that a healthy economy can exist only within a healthy environment, but that it is difficult to promote both in our decisions.”

Caring for Creation: Vision, Hope and Justice (1993) 

In early June, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency proposed a rule that will require states to work with power companies to reduce the emissions of carbon dioxide from power plants.  Power plants are a major source of carbon pollution, which scientists say is causing the earth’s climate to change, posing a danger to the future of God’s people and to all of God’s creation.

ELCA Presiding Bishop Elizabeth Eaton joined with Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts-Schiori of the Episcopal Church in issuing a statement praising the new rule, noting that it will help to protect many of our neighbors and ensure a safe and healthy world for future generations.  The ELCA Advocacy office is also working to engage our network over the course of this summer to speak out in support of these rules by sending comments to the EPA, speaking at a hearing, sending a letter to the editor of a local paper, or teaching others about the importance of this rule.

But we’re getting some questions about the potential impact of this rule on the economy and on jobs.  Some groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, argue that this rule will eliminate jobs in the power sector and in fossil fuel industries, particularly coal mining.  They say that electricity prices will increase dramatically, harming low income people and businesses.

Their argument is not a new one: frequently when new environmental rules are announced business and industry representatives claim that the harm to the economy will be enormous and that the cost is not worth the impact.  The power industry made that claim in the 1990s, when the EPA moved to regulate power plant emissions to reduce acid rain.  They made that claim two years ago when the EPA finalized a rule to reduce mercury emissions.  These arguments are based in a belief that we need to choose between a healthy future for our children and economic growth.

But this is not only a tired argument, it also poses a false choice.  For example, between 1970 and 2011, emissions of common air pollutants dropped 68 percent, primarily due to the federal Clean Air Act.  At the same time, U.S. gross domestic product grew 212 percent and total private sector jobs increased by 88 percent. Because of the Clean Air Act, our air is cleaner, our economy has grown, jobs have been created in new and innovative industries, and dire predictions about the high cost and economic impact of environmental regulation have proven to be false time and time again.  In fact, according to a report from the Economic Policy Institute, historically the cost of complying with environmental regulations is nearly always less than estimated at the time the regulation is proposed.

Under this proposed rule, states will have flexibility in meeting the emissions standards for carbon dioxide—they will have the option of investing in renewable energy sources, promoting energy efficiency measures, and switching from coal to less polluting fossil fuels (such as natural gas) to generate electricity.  They will be able to work regionally to reduce emissions, which will help states with a heavy reliance on coal to reduce their emissions over time.  And many states are already taking these steps to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, such as California and many of the northeastern states.  Many of the states that are already reducing their emissions have actually seen their economies grow since taking those steps, even in the midst of a global recession.

Arguments that energy costs for low income Americans will increase dramatically are equally questionable—one way that power companies will be able to comply with the carbon rules is by increasing the energy efficiency of homes and businesses.  This means that they will need to provide incentives for landlords to make rental properties, including those in low income neighborhoods, use less electricity.  Businesses, including manufacturers, will also have incentive to reduce energy use, which will keep costs to consumers from rising significantly as well.  Under the rules it’s certainly possible that electricity could cost somewhat more, but we will be using less, and our air will be cleaner.

Assertions that these regulations will be too costly today also ignore the future economic costs of climate change.  A recent, bipartisan report outlines the significant future economic risks associated with climate change and extreme weather.  Sea level rise, changes in temperature and rainfall, and increases in hurricanes and other extreme events will wreak havoc on the economies of coastal states and farm states alike; increased heat across the U.S. will reduce worker productivity and require significant investments in increased energy production.  Failure to act now is a recipe for billions in economic impacts in the future.

Finally, the E.P.A. estimates that the carbon rule will have significant public health benefits, worth an estimated $55 billion to $93 billion per year in 2030. This includes avoiding 2,700 to 6,600 premature deaths and 140,000 to 150,000 asthma attacks in children. These climate and health benefits far outweigh the estimated annual costs of the plan, which are $7.3 billion to $8.8 billion in 2030.

Climate change poses a threat to our most vulnerable neighbors, as well as to the future of God’s children and all of Creation.  Unless emissions of carbon dioxide are reduced dramatically and soon, the threat of climate change will only grow worse; power plants account for nearly 40 percent of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, and the U.S. is the second largest emitter of carbon dioxide in the world.  Unless our country acts, along with other major emitters, the rest of the world will suffer the consequences, and so will our children.  This rule is a key way to show leadership on a critical problem and deserves our strong support.

Tell the EPA what you think! Register your comments in our Action Center​!​

—–

Want to learn more about ELCA’s commitment to advocating for public policy that supports the care for creation?  

Visit our website

Like us on Facebook

Follow us on Twitter​

Share

My 7- and 9-Year-Old Gurus

Rev. Stacy Martin, Director of Advocacy

June 23, 2014

“Mom, are you mad at me?” my 7-year old asked, a little cautiously. The way I’d been communicating – terse sentences in a not-so-warm tone – her question was a legitimate one. And she was a brave little soul to even ask the question.

Except I wasn’t angry. And certainly not with her.

Stacy

In answering, I apologized for making her feel that way and told her that I wasn’t angry, just annoyed. “At me?” she asked with worry. “No, no, love bug.” “At what, then?” she asked in an exasperated tone that reminded me a bit too much of myself.

This second question gave me more pause than the first. For the life of me, I couldn’t put my finger on the source of my general state of annoyance. And, well, that just annoyed me all the more.

Why was I so annoyed? After all, it was the weekend.  The weather was perfect and the forecast promised pleasant weather for the remainder of the weekend. I’d gotten most of the tasks I’d set out to do accomplished.

And then it occurred to me. I’d gotten my list accomplished at an expense. Both of my girls had asked me at some point over the weekend to play with them. There had been a time when I took playing with them for granted, but as they have gotten older, I’d thought I knew better than to squander those precious opportunities, as they get fewer and fewer.

I was annoyed that I had chosen to use my time in the opposite manner I had hoped I would.

When my daughter pressed me, I realized I had yet to heed the advice of the wise grandparents in our lives — who constantly remind us to slow down – to take those opportunities as they come. Even if it means a few more dust bunnies in the corners of the living room and a few more chores left undone on Sunday evening.

It occurred to me that I let the momentum of the too-busy work week get the best of the days set aside to rest, rejuvenate, reconnect. I try to make up for lost time, just not with the most important people in my life. It’s cliché, I know. But I suppose it’s cliché for a reason.

So, I went from feeling annoyed to feeling guilty. And guilt does very little in the way of making one more amicable.

I happen to be a member of a Lutheran church and it was at this point in our weekend that I reminded myself how grateful I am for my faith heritage and life. Lutherans have a thing or two to say about guilt. Mainly that guilt makes for bad company, so get over yourself and move on so that you can love and serve. Lutherans also have something to say about the fullness of the human experience. In short, Lutherans say you’re more than your profession and certainly more than a perfectly-kept house, so, again, get over yourself so that you can love and serve.

At my most frail and selfish moments, I find that my children lead me with the kind of perceptive and valuable questions I’d expect from a guru. I just hope I don’t let the frenzy of the work week and all those bothersome dust bunnies keep me from hearing and learning from them over and over again.

This blog was originally posted by the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism​. ​

Share

The Entanglement of Conflict and Hunger

Teri Mueller

​Where there is violence, hunger often lurks in the shadows. Though not always apparent, food scarcity can serve as a catalyst of conflict as well as a consequence of violent outbreaks. In many ways, the complex relationship between conflict and hunger is a bit ambiguous. Either one may cause the other. Wars may result from the desperation of the hungry or the greed of resource owners, but hunger may also be created from the devastation of war.

Functioning as a catalyst, hunger can fuel conflict due to either an overall shortage of commodities or the exploitation and selfish use of commodities by those in power. Additionally, inflation of food prices can cause high tensions and even riots.1People compete over land and resources. Hunger provokes conflict as it can be used as weapon. Sieges can damage food supplies. Land and livestock are often destroyed.2 Economic sanctions can also severely hurt the food stability in a region as we have seen in Syria. The list goes on and on.

Hunger also functions as a consequence of conflict. An article from a 2012 edition of New Routes: A Journal of Peace Research and Action explains that conflict and social instability impact the “core elements of food security” which areavailability, access, and utilization.1 Damaged equipment, destroyed farmland, closed markets and displaced farmers and herders all cause the availability of food to be jeopardized. Access to food is impeded when roads are destroyed, which leads to supplies being cut off. The utilization of food is not executed properly when there is a lack of clean water or shortages of certain nutrient-dense foods.1 Prolonged conflict can cause prolonged hunger. Even after the conflict ends, suffering continues due to hunger.

The intertwined nature of conflict and hunger is evident in our world today. A clear example can be seen by looking at the Central African Republic (CAR) where conflict has been heavily present since December 2012. According to the World Food Programme, around 1.6 million people in CAR are currently food insecure. They additionally reported that the 2013 agricultural production rate was approximately 40% lower than in 2012 and that food stocks in the main market in Bangui (the capital city) were only 20% of pre-crisis levels. Children have been hit especially hard by malnutrition. It is clearly evident that people are suffering due to conflict-related hunger. The ELCA is deeply concerned about the situation in CAR and supports the work of our companions in the region in an effort to combat poverty and hunger. (Read more about the work in CAR on the Lutheran Disaster Response blog.)

Hunger and conflict are not new problems, and there is no doubt that the two are closely connected. God has provided abundantly, but humans have created scarcity through the abuse and inefficient use of resources. Scarcity becomes especially prevalent around times of conflict. As Christians, we are called to acknowledge the reality of hunger and conflict in our world today. We are called to love our neighbors who are halfway across the world as well as the people who live next door or down the street. We are called to do our part to combat scarcity by advocating for food in a needy world and encouraging non-violent mediation in the midst of conflicts as we look forward to the day when God welcomes us to the eternal peace of our heavenly home.

Teri Mueller is an intern with ELCA World Hunger.

  1. Pedro Conceicwo  & Sebastian Levine, “Breaking the Cycle of Conflict and Hunger in Africa,” New Routes: A Journal of Peace Research and Action 17:3, 2012: 31-33
  2. Marc Cohen & Per Pinstrup-Andersen, “Food Security and Conflict,” Social Research 66:1, 1999, 375-416
Share

Nicaragua: Providing support and recovery materials after the earthquakes

Megan Brandsrud

​From April 10-14, Nicaragua experienced three earthquakes, with magnitudes ranging from 6.2-6.6 on the Richter scale. More than 3,700 homes suffered damage, of which 1,035 collapsed, and more than 1,600 people had to evacuate their homes and reside in temporary shelters. The most impacted communities are the municipalities of Nagarote, Mateare and Managua.

 

While the government has responded to needs within the city, there is an urgent need for assistance among rural populations. Lutheran Disaster Response, working with the Nicaraguan Lutheran Church of Faith and Hope, is providing assistance to the most vulnerable populations through food distributions, psychosocial support, hygiene kits and roof replacement materials.

 

Psychosocial Support

The magnitude of the tremors and the many aftershocks that occurred over the following days had an adverse effect on people’s health, causing anxiety and emotional stress. We will be providing psychosocial support to accompany people who were impacted and who could benefit from spiritual and emotional care.

 

Hygiene Kits

Hygiene kits will be distributed to families who have had to leave their homes and are residing in the temporary shelter centers. Mattresses will also be provided.

 

Roof Repair

Part of the recovery activities will include assisting with the improvement of 40 homes by providing zinc sheets to be used for roofs. The roofing sheets will provide protection from the rainy season that the region is now experiencing.

 

We will continue to work with the Nicaraguan Lutheran Church of Faith and Hope to help those who were impacted by the earthquake recover and rebuild, and we will hold our brothers and sisters in Nicaragua in our prayers.

 

Lutheran Disaster Response’s activities in Nicaragua were made possible thanks to your generosity. We are church together and your support allows us to provide hope and healing when people around the world are impacted by disaster. If you would like to support our work in Nicaragua, please visit the Lutheran Disaster Response giving page.

Share

Book Review: Peter Singer’s The Life You Can Save

Henry Martinez

​

Peter Singer, The Life You Can Save: How to Do Your Part to End World Poverty.  New York: Random House, 2010.

life you can save

I imagine it takes a good amount of restraint (and/or editorial skill) for a philosopher to present an argument, offer supporting anecdotes, and still manage to deliver an accessible read that comes in under 200 pages. In this account Singer makes the case for charitable giving, specifically charity that is directed toward the most vulnerable people. The argument, as Singer outlines, provides enough of a hook that readers could find themselves intrigued by his case even if they disagree with his underlying assumptions. It can be summed up in this way: “in order to be good people, we must give until if we gave more, we would be sacrificing something nearly as important as the bad things our donation can prevent” (140).

Singer shapes the claim and its premises on a utilitarian philosophy that appears demanding and unsustainable, but coalesces into a realistic approach by the end of the book. Before he gets there, Singer identifies and counters some common objections to giving.  In a section entitled “Human Nature,” he tackles some psychological factors for why we don’t give more. Singer uses moral dilemmas to explore these, then highlights examples of philanthropic efforts to explain how cultures of giving are created. Having made the case for giving, Singer turns his attention to the state of aid, providing examples of the work of certain aid organizations. Even here, Singer doesn’t shy away from some of the challenges and difficulties aid organizations face. Of these challenges, he states, “the uncertainty about the impact of aid does not eliminate our obligation to give” (124). His main argument in this section is that significant life-improving work can be done at a relatively minor cost.

In the final section of the book Singer presents “A New Standard for Giving.” Perhaps recognizing one of the deep-seated rationalizations for not giving, he turns his attention to parents’ concern for their own children. He presents a challenge by stating that when we consider moral imperatives we don’t always assume that parents ought to put their children first. This works on a philosophical level, but Singer then points out that if an obligation is going to be accepted widely, we have to recognize that parents will meet the basic needs of their own children before that of strangers. Singer, by looking at how we defend moral obligations, though, argues that luxuries spent on one’s children are not justifiable ahead of the basic needs of others.

Singer avoids sounding prescriptive throughout the book until it comes to laying out his realistic approach to charitable giving. He suggests that people give 5% of their annual income, recognizing that some could comfortably give this amount and more, while others would find it difficult. He goes on to apply a progressive suggested donation based on the income tax bracket, which would, he calculates, raise eight times the amount of money required to meet the Millennium Development Goals. Singer’s recommendation is mainly for those making over $100,000 per year. For those who find themselves under this amount his message is essentially to think about the extra spending money we have and to cut back on luxuries. He demurs at defining this, but the logical conclusion of his philosophy is that a luxury would be anything more than what would be considered a basic need.

Those who are looking to make a case for charitable giving may appreciate the directness and consistency of the argument in this book. It may also appeal to those who appreciate debate, since Singer relies on his premises to pursue his main argument. But it is in the terms of the argument where we see the greatest contrast between Singer’s philosophy and a faith-based one. Singer acknowledges that there is evidence for charitable giving within the teachings of the major world religions, but his argument is not made on religious terms. As a result, his case progresses on a universalist approach, which runs the risk of undermining the efficacy of faith traditions and their competing, contextualized ethics.

Singer’s argument begins, “in order to be good people…” His argument is built on the assumption that charitable giving, specifically to the poorest and most vulnerable, makes us better people. Lutherans would reverse course, arguing that we are justified in Christ, which leads us to be giving. Even though we would start from an entirely different foundation or central claim than Singer, this does not mean his argument is irrelevant. Singer’s presentation essentially points out the reality of sin and injustice: some are very wealthy, many people are suffering, many more can do at least something about it. After reframing his argument, our efforts are better spent answering his challenge from within our own tradition. This book can be helpful in a study of what it means to “be good,” or as a discussion starter for groups looking to study stewardship. From a Christian perspective, one book that raises similar questions is Ron Sider’s Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger. Like Singer, he points out the disparities between the affluent and impoverished but builds the case for charitable giving from within the Christian tradition. Another book that Lutherans would appreciate for the theological connections is Samuel Torvend’s Luther and the Hungry Poor.

 

​​Henry Martinez is an education associate for ELCA World Hunger.​

Share

Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina: Cyclone Results in Record Flooding

Megan Brandsrud

​On May 13, 2014, a cyclone hit the areas of Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. During the next few days, the region received more than three months’ worth of rainfall, which resulted in record flooding. More than 80,000 people had to be evacuated, tens of thousands of homes were destroyed or severely damaged, and 53 people were reported dead. Overall, an estimate from the United Nations says that 3.1 million people were impacted by this domino-effect disaster.

Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina have been affected by the cyclone Tamara on May 13. Later on came extremely heavy rain, strong wind and low temperatures. Waters continue to rise rapidly. Severe damages have occured, peole died and many had to be evacuated. ACT members focus on immediate life-saving actions.

Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina have been affected by the cyclone Tamara on May 13. Later on came extremely heavy rain, strong wind and low temperatures. Waters continue to rise rapidly. Severe damages have occured, peole died and many had to be evacuated. ACT members focus on immediate life-saving actions.

Lutheran Disaster Response is providing immediate and long-term assistance with our partners, Church World Service and Ecumenical Humanitarian Organization.

 

As part of the emergency response, Lutheran Disaster Response is providing food, personal health and hygiene supplies, disinfection equipment and tools. These elements are essential since water supplies, and therefore food supplies, have been contaminated as a result of the damage to power and drainage systems caused by the disaster.

 

Once the emergency response phase is over, there is still work to be done to restore housing and agricultural livelihoods. Lutheran Disaster Response will assist in the reconstruction of buildings and homes, as well as in the rehabilitation of agricultural land and livestock.

 

Many bridges and roads have been severely damaged or collapsed as a result of the disaster, making it difficult for resources to be delivered. We are committed to providing for those who are most vulnerable in this post-disaster situation, and we will target our resources to those living in the semi-rural locations who are less likely to receive the most immediate attention from other response organizations. During distributions, particular attention will also be focused on people over the age of 60, people with disabilities, female heads-of-households and children.

 

Flood waters are slowly receding, but the need for assistance is long from over. Lutheran Disaster Response is committed to a long-term response to help impacted families move out of evacuation centers and back into their homes.

 

If you would like to contribute to Lutheran Disaster Response’s assistance in Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, please visit the Lutheran Disaster Response giving page.

Pictured: An evacuation center in Serbia for people who had to leave their homes as a result of the flooding.

Share