On Child Sponsorship

_mg_3189-753291

Rob Radtke, the president of Episcopal Relief and Development, has started a rather interesting discussion of child sponsorship on his blog. Although this method of fundaraising is effective (see my earlier reflections on Peter Singer’s book, The Life You Can Save), there are several reasons why such an approach is not ideal.

Radtke offers four reasons for pause: 1) The focus should be on communities, not individuals; 2) Sponsorships run the risk of commodifying children; 3) Such a model is not sustainable and can create a relationship of dependency; and 4) Motives are often mixed (Radtke asks, “Do we want to do good or do we want to feel good?”).

ELCA World Hunger, like ERD, does not offer a child sponsorship program, for many of the reasons that Radtke lists as problematic. I should be clear, too, that I am personally uncomfortable with the idea. That said, I would like to push back a bit on the arguments against child sponsorship. I will do so by asking questions. I hope to spur some conversation so please feel free to comment and offer your insight.

First, what does it mean to say that the focus should be on communities? Effective agencies like ELCA World Hunger and ERD are effective precisely because they focus on communities. Would our work be seriously hampered if we generated support for individuals while still maintaining our commitment on the ground to communities?

Second, is commodification of children really a risk? If so, how? Maybe I trust too much in the benevolence of aid agencies and people who sponsor children, but is there really a sense that these kids are purchased or owned? Would an aid agency that uses this model really be so self-interested that it would see kids as a means to its ends? I understand how this may be a threat, but is it real or simply perceived?

Third, the sustainablility issue looms large. But is not this a threat to all our work? Aren’t all our projects dependent upon sustained interest and support? As to the dependency issue, are the communities supported by child sponsorship somehow more dependent than the communities supported by other means (like our Good Gifts)?

Fourth, is there really any truly altruistic deed? Mixed motives abound in all forms of philanthropy. Even finding joy in giving out of the right motives is a mixed motive.

I write these questions partly as the devil’s advocate, partly as a pragmatist. The fact is that there is a lot of need out there and child sponsorship can be an effective tool for mobilizing people and resources. How often does wanting to do it right lead to inaction? (And yes, I know that action ill-conceived can do far more harm than no action at all–but I really don’t think that will be a problem for ELCA World Hunger.)

David Creech

Staring down the stuff deadline

Have you held a freecycle yet? The one I held in April helped pare down my belongings in advance of my move. But now the realtor says I have to make my place look like a catalog spread—spare, spare, spare. And my 1200 books? “Just keep the pretty ones,” she said. (Oh, how that hurt!)

More stuff has to go—at least into storage, if not into someone else’s hands. That means more decisions. Giving the office table to my church for its basement dinners is easy. Debating whether to keep or release the extra set of plates and flatware for 24 is tougher. And what about those old Legos?

I have one week. One week. On the other side of this intense discernment I hope to find freedom—freedom from too much stuff; freedom of moving closer to a clear sense of what’s enough, for this life stage and the next.

Anne Basye

Review of Peter Singer, The Life You Can Save

singer-book-791556 I just finished reading Peter Singer’s new book, The Life You Can Save. The book is engaging and accessible and argues persuasively not only why we should give but also how much is reasonable for us to give.

I particularly enjoyed Chapter 4, which explored six psychological factors in giving. The studies he cites there make intuitive sense–one is less likely to give outside of their own group (parochialism), if they are simply given statistics (by the way, have you perused our Good Gifts Catalog lately?), or if the responsibility is diffuse. Our sense of fairness (who is shouldering the aid load) and the fear that our efforts are futile (expressed recently in Dambisa Moyo’s book, Dead Aid) can also inhibit giving.

The study I found most fascinating was the effect money has on helping. Quoting Karl Marx, who described money as “the universal agent of separation,” Singer describes a study in which one group of subjects was primed in various ways to think about money (through word puzzles, visual prompts, and so on) then asked to perform various tasks. A second group did not have the money prompts. The “money group” took longer to ask for help, left a greater distance between chairs when asked to discuss things in a small group, and were more likely to choose solitary leisure activities. At the end of the experiment both groups were asked to donate some of the money they had been paid for their participation. The “money group” gave less. I’m not sure what to do with this, but it is intriguing.

I found other parts of the book worthwhile, particularly his discussion on what we are morally obligated to give (the sliding scale idea sounds more or less right to me; see the book’s accompanying website for a calculator: http://www.thelifeyoucansave.com/). I also enjoyed chapters six and seven on how to evaluate the effectiveness of an aid organization (it’s difficult to do!). I found his argument against folks like William Easterly and the afroementioned Dambisa Moyo to be compelling as well. How can we say that infusion of aid won’t work when we’ve never really tried it?

On to a few of my problems. First, I think that Singer is far too materialistic in his understanding of “saving” a life (which, by the way, is a phrase I find quite problematic). I finished the book with the impression that, for Singer, saving a life only involves providing food and shelter. The emotional and spiritual health of a person is not considered. This was especially clear when Singer held up as models Paul Farmer and Zell Kravinsky who both strive not to love their own children more than any other child. The emotional health and well being of their children is somewhat immaterial–they have food and shelter so they are set. Singer really had no argument against this, other than it is difficult for typical human beings to live this way. I would argue that especially strong care and affection that one has for his or her own children is both natural and necessary.

All in all I enjoyed the book and encourage you to spend some time with it. For those of you in the Chicago area, a group will gather to discuss the book on June 11 at 7:30pm at United Lutheran Church in Oak Park (409 Greenfield Street). I invite you to join us for what promises to be a lively dialogue!

David Creech

What’s on the side of your bus?

I ran across a quote today that struck me as really strange. It was in an article about a group of atheists who are putting ads on public buses. They were unable to do so in Indianapolis, due to a “policy barring ads ‘involving or referring to political, religious, moral or environmental issues subject to public debate.'”

Which one of these is not like the others? It seems something of a well-known adage that the topics of politics and religion are to be avoided in polite conversation. And somehow I can pretty easily fit morals into that same general bucket. But environmental issues? Isn’t that on a different level of specificity than the others? I’m mean, sure, it can be a controversial topic just like religion and politics. But so can health care, education, immigration, and many other things. So what about the environment makes it something to be named alongside the old adage stand-bys in municipal policy?

Perhaps it’s because the environment and its impact on people’s lives and livelihoods has become enough of a concern for there to be public debate about it. Perhaps there’s something about Indianapolis’ environment that makes it an especially touchy subject there. But regardless of the exact reason, to have reached this level of taboo, it is clearly a problem. And that being the case, there must be a better policy than avoidance for addressing it.

-Nancy Michaelis

Stacy Johnson on the Inspiration behind Taking Root

I became a mother for the first time in October, 1997. Even though I knew I would love my child, I was unprepared for the completeness and intensity of my love for my son. I was also unprepared for the fact that I began to see my child in the faces and lives of other children, children known to me and children not known to me. I became a better pastor and teacher when I became a mother. I recognized the triumphs and fears in the parents and children around me. They seemed very real and very familiar.

At this same time, it was also hard for me to see pictures of and read articles about children who were hurt or were starving. I knew it happened, of course, but I did not want to see evidence that children suffered so greatly. Those children were no longer abstract children to me. They were children who were someone’s greatest treasure.

My son is now eleven, and he has a brother and a sister. I now make myself read articles and books about hunger and poverty because I know that mothers whose children are hungry, love their children just as I love mine. I feel that I have to keep track of these women and their children in order to fulfill my call to preach and teach the Gospel. It is still hard. I cannot always look at the pictures, but I know that if their stories are not known and told, nothing will change. I work every day to hold on to my hope that hunger will end and that every mother’s treasured child will have enough.

The Rev. Stacy K. Johnson

Stacy Johnson, Ph.D., is an ELCA pastor and the author the new World Hunger curriculum, Taking Root: Hunger Causes, Hunger Hopes.

Stacy Johnson on Taking Root for Younger Children

tr-flyer-799289

I’ve been asked many questions about “Taking Root,” the ELCA Hunger curriculum. Perhaps the most common question is about using the materials with children younger than Grade 3. I think the materials do lend themselves to adaptation for younger learners. To use “Taking Root” with young children, this is what I recommend:

1) Focus on the children’s literature. Children are captivated by stories, especially good stories read well. Some of the discussion questions in the Grades 3 – 6 Leaders’ Guide will work for young children. Stay away from too many content questions, such as What was the man’s name? What did the child do? Instead, encourage children to think about the story with questions like, Why do you think the man did that? If you had been the child in the story, what would you have done?

2) Remember that young children are quite able. It is true that young children are not able to think abstractly about an abstract concept. They can, though, think about an abstract idea, like the justice of food distribution, if it is presented in a concrete way. Several activities in the curriculum including The Peanut Game, and Hunger Footprints would work for young children.

3) Emphasize activities and projects, including Neighbor Cookies, Junk Art Sculptures, Vases from the Recycling Bin, and Upside Down and Right Side Up Birdfeeders. These projects are very workable and enjoyable for young children.

4) Proclaim the focus Bible texts. Young children are just developing a concept of the Bible. It would be good for them to realize that the Bible has a concern for justice and also has much to say about hunger and poverty in our world.

Remember… curriculum is closer to a road map than a specific set of directions. Be creative and flexible!

Stacy Johnson, Ph.D., is an ELCA pastor and the author the new World Hunger curriculum, Taking Root: Hunger Causes, Hunger Hopes. She has agreed to post a couple of times on our blog to answer questions and provide suggestions.

At what age did you get eyeglasses?

I got new lenses in my eyeglasses last week. I had been noticing that distant signs weren’t quite as sharp as they used to be, so I wasn’t surprised that at my annual eye exam, the doctor said my prescription had changed. It wasn’t a big difference, but enough to warrant new lenses. I’ve been through many such adjustments since junior high, when I began wearing glasses.

As I drove away with my newly improved vision, I was thinking about how amazing it is that someone figured out such a simple way to make vision possible. Without my glasses, I can see clearly only about a foot or two away. Beyond that, things get blurry. But by putting some glass in front of my eyes, voila! Such a significant problem so easily fixed. Things snap into perfect focus and I can see the individual leaves on the tree across the street. And the lettering on street signs. And, back in junior high, the chalk board at the front of the room.

At which point it occurred to me: I don’t know how I would have made it through school without glasses. Indeed, so important is vision to school that our kindergartners are required to have an eye exam as part of their enrollment in public school.

If education is a critical component in combating poverty, so too is optometry. I’m fortunate on several counts. First, I live in a country with plenty of eye doctors, and I grew up in a family that had the means to take me to see one. I also was part of an education system that had plenty of books. Being nearsighted, even without glasses I still could have read anything up close. Without glasses, school would have been harder and I surely would not have done as well. But as long as I had access to books, I could have gotten the information I couldn’t see on the board.

But what of children in places that lack both optometrists and text books? Or children who simply lack access to those things? Or children who are farsighted and can’t see their books? I don’t know the percentage of children who need vision correction, but I’m guessing it’s not insignificant. I’ve seen plenty of pictures of children in one-room schools around the world, with or without text books, often without desks or even chairs, looking at a teacher and a board at the front of the room. But how many of the children in those pictures were wearing glasses? One more obstacle I’ve never really considered.

-Nancy Michaelis

Thoughts on Land, Part 2

monument-725857 While we were in West Virginia visiting one of the sites affected by mountain top removal, I saw the stone monument above that, though weathered and difficult to read, quotes Psalm 95:4. In this verse, the psalmist asserts, “In God’s hand are the depths of the earth; the heights of the mountains are God’s also.” This monument seemed to me to be a subtle protest against the hubris of the coal companies (and the government that empowered them) who felt that they had the right to simply lay claim to the mountains and utterly deface them.

Perhaps I was reading my own subversive struggle into the text. But it got me thinking–what does the Christian tradition have to say about the land? What follows are some of my first thoughts, a more sustained (and I think worthwhile) reflection is offered by Walter Brueggemann in his book, The Land: Place as Gift, Promise, and Challenge in Biblical Faith.

First off, to be sure, the sentiments of Psalm 95:4 are echoed throughout the Bible. Take, for example in Psalm 24:1 (“The earth is the Lord’s and everything in it…”) which is also cited in one of Paul’s letter to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 10:26). In short, there is a strong theme of the earth or the land belonging to God. The New Testament, for all its tendencies towards spiritualization, still affirms this earth, and looks forward to God’s kingdom coming on this earth. But it is still God’s kingdom (and God’s earth). Humans cannot lay claim to it.

All of this said, one of the key hopes (or perhaps the key hope) in the Hebrew Bible is the promise of land. It of course begins with God’s promise to Abraham that he will inherit the land “as far as the eye can see” (Gen 15). The Hebrews journey through the desert for forty years, all the while hoping to arrive at the land God had promised, the land “flowing with milk and honey.” Once they arrived in the land, they actually occupied it for only 350-400 conflict-ridden years. The rest of the Hebrew Bible is written in exile away from the promised land or in the promised land to which the Jews can no longer lay claim. During this time the Jews look forward constantly to a time when they will again enjoy the land as their own. In the midst of all this, the land is a gift from God (see especially Deuteronomy 8:17-20 0r 30:15-20).

In the Bible, then, there is a certain ambivalence (and many more texts could be brought to bear on the discussion). The land is possessed, but possessed as a gift. It ultimately belongs to God. Can we bring this perspective into conversation with current land practices? If so, how? What would the Lutheran (or more broadly, Christian) response look like?

David Creech

Thoughts on Land, Part 1

Since my trip to Appalachia, I’ve continued to grapple with the concept of land ownership. As usual, I am still trying to find a coherent way of thinking about it. In the meantime, my son has been meandering around the house singing (with gusto) “This Land is Your Land,” courtesy of his kindergarten choir. So here are some preliminary thoughts.

As noted in an earlier post, this thinking began when Bishop Dunkin of the Western Maryland-West Virginia Synod informed me and my colleagues in Church and Society that coal companies owned the land under his house. In short, if a natural resource was found under his house that a company wanted to acquire, they hold the rights, and he would be forced to move. This is the case for 75% of the land in West Virginia. This felt somehow intuitively wrong.

We also heard the testimonies of two women who were suffering from the effects of land degradation. The biggest issue was water contamination. They were asked by one of my colleagues why they did not simply up and leave. The response was something along the lines of, “My family has lived on this land for 250 years. This is my land. The coal companies should be the ones going.” (While I could sympathize to a certain degree, I also wondered to myself, What about the Native Americans before her? What about the flora and fauna before all of us? Can we really lay claim to something that existed long before us and will continue to exist long after we are gone?)

The director of the Washington advocacy office, Drew Genszler, brought the Israel-Palestine issue into this discussion of land ownership. A key component (perhaps the key component) in that conflict is defining who has the rights to the land. How many other violent conflicts around the world have rights to the land at the center?

These three stories of land ownership highlight for me some of the tensions inherent in our current conceptualization of land ownership. The two big problems for me are 1) The abuses (both to each other and to the earth) that can be justified because of a sense of ownership and 2) The conflicts that inevitably follow a claim to the land.

All of this said, some good can come from a clear definition of who has rights to the land. First, it strikes me as somehow fundamental to our sense of wellbeing to have a “place.” Perhaps it is learned, but the idea that coal companies could kick people out of their houses and off the land on a whim just doesn’t feel right. Second, in the current system, land and property rights make development possible. If someone knows that they own the land, they will make personal investments, knowing that they will be able to reap the benefits. Likewise, outsiders will be more likely to make investments, trusting that the owner of the land will be able to make good on his or (much less often) her promises, and if not, the bank or the lender will receive the collateral.

In this post that is already too long I’ve painted a picture in pretty broad strokes. I will follow up later this week with some theological musings on the topic. In the meantime I welcome your feedback and insight on the question.

David Creech

ELCA scholarships available now for Bread for the World Gathering

Join Bread for the World members on June 14-16 in Washington, DC, for Bread for the World’s Gathering 2009. There will be worship, workshops, meals, music, visits to Congress, and of course, a celebration! Learn more about the event by visiting http://www.bread.org/.

Are you in need of financial assistance to attend this gathering? The ELCA Washington Office is offering a limited number of scholarships for this event. Applications are being accepted now until May 29, 2009. Go to www.elca.org/advocacy to download the application.

Scholarships will be awarded immediately until June 8, funds permitting, and be processed as a reimbursement. The amount reimbursed will be for both the “2009 Gathering that includes 35th Anniversary Dinner and Lobby Day” option and three nights housing on the American University campus.

Questions? Contact Jodi Deike, ELCA Director for Grassroots Advocacy and Communication, at jodi.deike@elca.org or 202-626-7947. David Creech