 |
| Source. |
A couple of evenings ago I was at a Friends World Committee event with staff and donors. Someone asked about fundraising in a time of crisis. As a donor, how do I choose between FWCC and the children in the Gaza Strip?
In the ensuing discussion, another participant brought up the River Story. (If we see babies drowning in a river, we rush to rescue them, but at some point we must also go upriver to find out how the babies got tossed into the waves, and address that cause.) We support FWCC and our Quaker congregations, along with the rescue work we all want to accomplish, because with these contributions we're helping both goals: we're nurturing our communities' capacity to make our care more systemic and confront the sources of the problem. At the same time we're continuing to support relief and rescue, but not putting all our energy there. In any case, the more we share with each other about our choices and reasons, the more complete our answer will be to the central query before every Quaker congregation: In this time and place, what does God want to say and do through us?
Martin Luther King, Jr., had his own version of the River Story. He used Luke's story of the Good Samaritan (whose setting is not far from Gaza) and applied it to us:
On the one hand we are called to play the Good Samaritan on life’s roadside, but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho Road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life’s highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar. It comes to see than an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring.
Following the Web's rabbit trails in pursuing the history of this River Story, I found many references, almost all of which agreed that upstream investigations and interventions should claim a greater share of our resources. But I also appreciated Libby Willcomm's honesty about her own inclination:
Just as it's important to address immediate needs (babies in the river), it's equally important to seek policy reform for long-term, sustainable change. This is where I see the role of MLK's "inescapable network of mutuality". In order for everyone to thrive, everyone must work towards a just and equitable future, yet everyone can have a unique role in this "network of mutuality." And that's where High Road principles come in. By valuing and centering grassroots efforts and community voices while calling for collective, transformational change we're rescuing babies and keeping them out of the water.
Personally, I am much more of a "rescue babies" kind of person. I prefer to work on the ground, in communities, but I applaud those working at a higher level to make changes on a much larger scale. My passion lies in youth development. ... I truly believe that the reallocation of funds (starting with police budgets) to youth-based initiatives could radically change our world. Youth are our future, and based on the young people I've met, especially my High Road peers, it's a hopeful and optimistic one. Whether you prefer to pull babies out of the river or address where they come from, remember that we all hold critical roles in this "inescapable network of mutuality."
"... We all hold critical roles...." Exactly. And here's what I would love to see: that "mutuality" would also become mutual accountability and mutual trust. The next time the question of how to prioritize our resources comes up, I hope I'll remember (or better yet, someone else will remember!) to invite us to go around the group and ask how we arrive at our priorities, and how we make our contributions accordingly.
Maybe you have ways I've never heard of, to address the systemic causes or the most effective methods of direct relief. Unless we talk, I might never know. Even if I don't sign on to your priority, I can pray for you, and support you in the direction you've chosen, knowing that our whole community will then be more effective in keeping God's promises ... rather than one-upping each other on which of us have chosen the better path. I think it's also good to let each other know how we arrive at the amounts or forms of giving that we choose.
At Camas Friends Church, the elders and stewards are collaborating on ways to help us overcome our traditional reluctance to talk about money. Maybe these questions could be part of the conversation:
- Which approaches to relief, rescue, and reparation align with our gifts and temperaments: direct aid to those who are suffering, or prophetic challenges to structures? (Not that these two are the only choices!)
- Having reflected on what we are best equipped for, how have we chosen to direct our resources of money and property and time, as well as our spiritual focus?
- Do our churches and meetings have space for us to exchange our ideas, proposals, and questions?
A blessing and curse of getting older is realizing that many conversations that seem vital for today have been going on for generations. Talking about money, faith, and priorities reminds me of such ancient books as Elizabeth O'Connor's Letters to Scattered Pilgrims (1979, with a foreword by Douglas Steere), and John Alexander's Your Money or Your Life: A New Look at Jesus' View of Wealth and Power (1986).
Among the most powerful books of that era on these general themes is, in my mind, Charles Elliott's Comfortable Compassion?: Poverty, Power and the Church (1987). Among Elliott's observations that made an impact on me were the consequences of the separation of mission and service paths in the church. When service (relief and development, for example) lost its immediate connection to theology and spirituality, it took on the trappings of Western secular agencies and their modernizing agendas and conceits.
Friends World Committee for Consultation once held Mission and Service Conferences. Maybe we need to find sustainable ways to renew those consultations.
Related posts:
Speaking of things I'd not heard of, this Washington Post article, dated today, was the first I'd heard of Ms. Rachel and her videos, continuing the humane legacy of Fred Rogers. Idealists of the world, unite!
Kristin Du Mez on DEI or CEI? The dangers of Conformity, Exclusion, & Inequality.
The Israel-based human rights groups that are charging their country with genocide.
Friends Journal covers the story of Robert Jacob Hoopes, his arrest in Portland, Oregon, last Friday, and his preliminary hearing. He is charged with violent acts at a June 14 demonstration at an ICE facility here in Portland.
Wilmington College receives a carefully crafted $23 million gift from the late Jerry Scheve.
The Bremerton (Washington) Friends worship group will gather this coming Sunday. There's information on the Web site of North Seattle Friends Church.
Racism: an informal five-question survey.
Rest in peace, versatile mathematician Tom Lehrer. We used some of Tom's songs in our classes in Russia. Students particularly liked the Lobachevsky song (or at least they said they did!), for which I couldn't find a video.) The song in the video below, "Send the Marines," also led to some interesting conversations.
1 comment:
I have moved from being a Quaker and am now in the Church of the Saviour (CofS) tradition at Dayspring Church, one of a network of 7 small churches. Central to our tradition, and something that should be familiar to Friends, is call. There are both individual calls and corporate calls. In our tradition, individuals sensing a call they believe may be something for the church "sound a call" and if at least one other person is moved to join in that call, a mission group is formed to carry out the call.
Mission groups are central to our church life. Each core member is in one. These not only carry out a mission of the church, but they are also a place of spiritual growth (such as devotional reading together) and accountability. Each has a spiritual director and each person sends the spiritual director a weekly report, as well as reporting orally in the weekly mission group meetings. This was developed in the CofS as a way to avoid the traditional spiritual/activist divide common in churches and integrate the inward journey with the outward journey (this integration is so central to the CofS that the CofS website is named inwardoutward.org). Before we had that, our founder sensed that our missions were not as deeply rooted as they needed to be.
The missions are all considered missions of the whole church. The work of the church is focused on its missions. We consider ourselves a peace church, so Gaza, Congo, and other conflict areas come up all the time in our corporate prayer time and often in messages in worship, but the church does not do anything corporately on them (other than include donations to help in these areas as part of our Easter and Christmas offerings, and we also have had a School of Christian Living class on Israel/Palestine) because we don't currently have a mission group focused on peace.
To focus on either direct aid or addressing the causes or some mixture, then, is a matter of one's call, not a rejection of aspects to which one might not have a particular call. And this applies to our individual financial giving, as well.
Post a Comment