I’ve been thinking about the term ‘humanitarian’ due to a few people wondering about the use with regard to the Gaza flotilla. Exactly what is and what isn’t humanitarian and how do we decide?

To some (myself included), bags of cement represent what Gazans deserve to rebuild their lives.  Others puzzle how these things can be described as humanitarian when there are other situations where the recipients are in far worse conditions.

And ultimately it boils down to the fact that ‘humanitarian’ usually just means ‘returning people to the standard of living they had before the disaster happened’.

With respect to the Palestinians, I think we have to understand that they actually enjoy a relatively high standard of living, mostly due to benefiting economically from the State of Israel over 60 years.  Whilst it is clearly significantly lower than the average Israeli, most Palestinians are significantly better off (in terms of what stuff they have, their educational opportunities etc) than many of their neighbours in Jordan or Egypt and in particular those refugees still scraping a living in camps in those countries.

So the pressure on the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza has significantly changed the lives they were living before - and so the ‘humanitarian’ urge is to help them to get back to the economic situation they lived in before.

Clearly in a sense this is a form of racism.  If we forget the Middle East for a second and imagine a disaster happening to a small European nation such as Belgium.  Our humanitarian response to them would be significantly greater than our humanitarian urges to victims in Haiti - because in the back of our mind we rationalise that the Haitians never had what the Belgians had in the first place.  The wealthy generally take care of the wealthy in a way that they would never consider taking care of the poor.

It is certainly a lop-sided form of logic.  And one which cannot be justified by any form of agenda based on the rights of the individual.  Maybe it can partly be explained by location, nearness, emotional attachment, sense of political injustice etc.  But in another sense, the justified sense of political outrage caused by the Gaza blockade is not magically more important than the injustice of starvation or disease or lack of education in many countries not so far away.   As a human being, I can’t take on every issue and as I know Palestinians, I listen to their pain and the lives they have lost and want back.  And I’m not really in a position to refuse them because others are in a worse state whilst living in a European ivory tower.

The world is screwed.  You and I are screwed. 

[edit] My wife says that humanitarian should exclusively refer to aid which is to keep people alive.  Other aid (such as cement etc) might be necessary but should not be described as humanitarian.

We are discussing James K A Smith’s book Desiring the Kingdom over on Shelfari, please do come if you’d be interested in his themes of cultural liturgy and formation.

I have been far more challenged by some of the stuff I’ve been reading than the fare I’ve been dished up in church recently.  As David said in that link, today was Trinity Sunday and the service was about Unity (again) with reference to a bit in Revelation.

I go a long way down the road that David walks - I emphatically do not believe in Penal Substitutionary Atonement as I don’t believe it makes any kind of logical sense.  And I have struggled with the notion of a man being God, because by the nature of being God there are certain things you cannot do and still be man.  Indeed, unless you are a cartoon superman, the nature of being man restricts you significantly. 

For me, the notion that Jesus Christ was not God does not really come into the equation (because I’m not interested in a person who calls himself God but isn’t - or even a book that describes someone as being God when they were not) and therefore I am left with the unanswerable question ‘what does it mean when we call Jesus Christ  divine?’.  Again, the only answer that makes any kind of sense is that he had something significant which meant that he was God without having all of the abilities you might ascribe to the Godhead - such as omnipotence, omipresence etc.  So an oxymoron works for me in that he was God whilst not being God.  I like oxymorons, the only problem is identifying them and trying to think about how to live with them rather than trying to pretend they don’t exist.

David is saying something similar - he doesn’t believe in the Trinity but at the same time he does.

I have also been interested to talk to Michael about the notion of ‘strange loops’ - such as Magritte’s image which translates as ‘this is not a pipe’. 

I was then thinking about a sort of loop which operates with giving.  Tales from the hood describes the USAmerican culture of giving which requires an emotional kick-back for the donor, so you give because of how it makes you feel rather than how much it benefits the recipient.  You can then justify almost anything as being acceptable if it makes you feel that you are helping, however minute that potential benefit might be.  Further, you then look for ways to ‘help’ which actually encourage a physical link between a donor and a recipient, even to the extent of giving poor women underwear you no longer need.  It kinda makes you feel better to make you think that you are helping even by throwing something away.

Tales appears to be arguing that giving in order to get the feeling of smugness (I might be over-paraphrasing) is almost inevitably a bad thing.  It strikes me that this kind of religious (and possibly for some quasi-religious) giving is a remnant of religious indulgences (ie medieval donations which ‘guaranteed’ something in the afterlife).  Looking back over the last few centuries, rich people often had the urge to do ‘a bit of charity’ to make them feel that their lives had not been totally worthless, such as setting up a school for ‘ragged children’ or alms houses for the elderly.  Clearly these things were not totally useless, and set in place institutions which still exist today.  Which is strange in a lot of ways.  What happened to the schools where the rich children went?  Almost all of the large prominent private schools in England today are the descendents of this kind of institution for poor children.  That said, how much better would it have been for the rich to use their wealth whilst alive for the betterment of their fellow men rather than giving a tiny fraction of it away after they died?

But what is the alternative to giving emotionally?  Is it to give coldly, discompassionately to any cause you happen to hear about without spending any emotional resources getting involved in the issue?  As my wife said today, giving in a way that your right hand doesn’t know what your left hand is doing isn’t really a good strategy for responsible giving.

It is pentecost, the time in the church calendar when we remember how the disciples are fired up after the ascension to go out and do miraculous stuff by the giving of the Holy Spirit. 

It is a traditional time to consider unity.  This seems to take many forms, depending almost entirely on the individual.

There is a concept relating to solidarity - something I’ve discussed before.  So we might feel unified with those in the faith, those in our country.  Essentially this appears to be a feeling, we feel unified.

There is also a concept of spiritual unity, which we embrace by reflecting on all the theological ideas we hold in common.  But when it comes down to it, we don’t actually have a whole lot in common - most of us believe in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus as God/Man and Messiah, but don’t agree on what that means or what we should then do with that information.  Then there is the lazy comment that we all ‘should’ believe in the Creed - ignoring the vast majority of Christians who have not held to some of the concepts expressed in the creeds over the centuries, nor should they because they’re rubbish.

Third, there is a concept of family unity - either in our blood families or our wider immediate religious circles, which seems to boil down to being nicer to the people we see once a week.

So is that it? Is that what it means to be unified? Honestly, I doubt it.  It isn’t normally too difficult to like the people we love or those who are like us.  It isn’t difficult to express solidarity with people we’re never likely to meet.  It isn’t difficult to suggest that there is a theological standard which would make everyone unified and privately to accept that few hold to it. 

Consider the ants.  Their communities are unified in the sense that there is a unified understanding of what is important and a unified understanding of what must be done to make it work.  Every individual has a role which is accepted by the others and the thing only works because everyone pulls their weight.   Remarkably, there doesn’t seem to be any particular ant telling the others exactly what to do nor setting the agenda.  For an ant, community is key - without the others, the individual is nothing.

Of course, it is hard imagining being an ant and there are things we probably wouldn’t want in human communities.  But if you want an expression of a community acting with a sense of purpose, you could do a lot worse than considering ants.  

how we won the battle for Rochdale’s homeworker support service:

Dear Joe,Thank you for your e-mail. I do understand your concerns about the proposal to discontinue the Homeworking Service. I can assure you that this proposal was not brought forward lightly, but given the need to make significant budget reductions you'll appreciate that we have toconsider whether we can continue to deliver discretionary services. As you know, this is one of a number of efficiency proposals that are currently out for consultation.   When the consultation period ends next month, our Councillors will then consider each proposal and decide whether they wish to go ahead with them in the light of the consultation responses received. I will ensure that your comments are fed into this process.Yours Sincerely,Paul Paul YoungHead of ServiceCustomers and Communications ServiceRochdale Borough Council01706 925535paul.young@rochdale.gov.ukwww.rochdale.gov.uk-----Original Message-----From: Joe Turner [mailto:joe@freedomclothingproject.org] Sent: 05 November 2009 10:44To: Paul Young Cc: Roger Ellis ; Pam Smith Subject: Rochdale Homeworker ServiceDear Paul,I heard with concern about the plans to close Rochdale's Homeworking Support Service.As I am sure you appreciate, homeworkers are some of the most exploited workers in the UK.  The government is said to believe that there are more than 70,000 homeworkers in the UK earning less than the minimum wage.In my conversations with Tanzeem and the homeworkers she supports in Rochdale, I was shocked to hear about low pay, poor conditions and enforced unpaid work.   The women are clearly exploited, their literacy and English is often poor and they need help to support their families. In that respect, Tanzeem's work not only supports the homeworkers but the families which depend on the income.  With the loss of the National Group on Homeworking, the proposed cut by Rochdale Council would leave this group of women entirely alone and at the mercy of exploitative employers. We were so concerned about the plight of homeworkers that we have been working to find a way to bring  work to these people.  We do not have to - indeed, there are an almost infinite number of ways that we could obtain cheaper and easier products.  But as a business based on ethics, we could not hear these reports of abuse - from people in our own country - and do nothing about them. Tanzeem has been extremely supportive of these efforts and without her presence, it would have been impossible to find and work with the homeworkers.Compared to your waste management budget, which I understand is £12,768,000, the cost of a 3 day-a-week Homeworker Support post must be microscopic.  It strikes me that instead of closing the service for what must be a very small financial saving compared to the budget cuts you have to make, there is an extremely strong case for an expansion of the service and for Rochdale Council to partner with social enterprises to find work for these residents. I am sure that with visionary leadership it would be possible to make such a service cost neutral. Thank you for your timeRegardsJoe Turner FRSADirector, Freedom Clothing Project Ltd

“What can we do about the problem of race and racism in American culture?” is what your committee asked of me. And it is encouraging that we still ask the question. But it is terribly discouraging that really none of us want the answer. We don’t want the answer, for we already know the answer. So the question we are really asking is, “What can we do about race and racism in American culture, and keep all this?” And the answer, my brothers and sisters, is nothing!

In my judgment the question no longer has to do with race, as race is traditionally defined by the social scientists. In my judgment American culture has almost but not quite, and I repeat, almost but not quite, forgiven people for being black. What we can’t forgive them for is being poor. And that’s the tough one for us. It’s the tough one because the answer is so apparent. Apparent because the institutional, structured, steepled church stands today precisely where the rich young ruler stood. He was not a bad man. He was a good man. And we are not a bad outfit. We are a good outfit. Listen to us sing. See our programs. We are good people. He was a powerful man. And he was a rich man. Not an ignorant man, a well-educated, sophisticated man. And we as an institution are good, power-
ful, rich, and terribly sophisticated and learned. And yet the man many, if not most of us call “Lord” said, “Never mind all that. Go and sell what you have, and give it to the poor. I have come to proclaim release to captives, turning folks loose, recovery of sight to the blind, seeing-eye dogs, good news to the poor, food, clothing.” And that leads to a new question, “How much is Riverside Church worth?” We’ll just auction it off.”
…
And I think it is true that race as defined by the social scientists is no longer a valid concept. So perhaps we should redefine race in more
meaningful terms. There is the race of the rich, and there is the race of the poor.

Will D Campbell as quoted by unorthodoxology

I think the big shop is a bad shop. I think it bad not only in a moral but a mercantile sense; that is, I think shopping there is not only a bad action but a bad bargain.

I think the monster emporium is not only vulgar and insolent, but incompetent and uncomfortable; and I deny that its large organization is efficient. Large organization is loose organization. Nay, it would be almost as true to say that organization is always disorganization. The only thing perfectly organic is an organism; like that grotesque and obscure organism called a man. He alone can be quite certain of doing what he wants; beyond him, every extra man may be an extra mistake. As applied to things like shops, the whole thing is an utter fallacy. Some things like armies have to be organized; and therefore do their very best to be well organized. You must have a long rigid line stretched out to guard a frontier; and therefore you stretch it tight. But it is not true that you must have a long rigid line of people trimming hats or tying bouquets, in order that they may be trimmed or tied neatly. The work is much more likely to be neat if it is done by a particular craftsman for a particular customer with particular ribbons and flowers. The person told to trim the hat will never do it quite suitably to the person who wants it trimmed; and the hundredth person told to do it will do it badly; as he does.

If we collected all the stories from all the housewives and householders about the big shops nding the wrong goods, smashing the right goods, forgetting to send any sort of goods, we should behold a welter of inefficiency. There are far more blunders in a big shop than ever happen in a small shop, where the individual customer can curse the individual shopkeeper.

Confronted with modern efficiency the customer is silent; well aware of that organization’s talent for sacking the wrong man. In short, organization is a necessary evil—which in this case is not necessary.

Chesterton, The Outline of Sanity

“If someone asks you for something, give it to them” says the Christ of the gospels.  But how the dickens are we supposed to do that?

Exhibit 1: Hearts to Hands International (h/t talesfromthhood) are collecting used underwear to send to a group of women who have requested it.  Assuming there is no local alternative (and I’m not sure that is a valid assumption, but anyway), do you say no because you know the damage that Gifts in Kind can do?  Do you not do something apparently ‘good’ because of a higher knowledge?

Exhibit 2:  Bill Easterly’s blog about a poor child in the USA with leukaemia where I have already been castigated as being heartless because I would not help. 

Exhibit 3: A conversation at church today where we were talking about levels of responsibility which meant that we were ‘most responsible’ to those closest to us.  I wasn’t sure it is possible to reach this conclusion from the gospels.

Exhibit 4: A conversation (via @wvreport) about how we give and emotional attachment.  Basically his conclusion was that we get emotional fatigue as soon as the target of our attention moves beyond the individual.

Now, it is obvious that this is very difficult ground, and I am sure some would say that it is sinful to know about a need and refuse to do something to help.  In my defence on the bone marrow donation issue. it is estimated that there is a 1 in 200,000 chance of a match.  I’m not clear what that means, but if the statistics are designed to be understood in the normal way, it would mean there are nearly 1600 matches in the USA.  Presumably there would be a much greater chance of a match if the efforts focused on relevant social groups.  I know it sounds harsh, but I do not feel responsible for one child who is sick in the most advanced and richest country in the world. 

To be absolutely honest, I think it is an example of the worst kind of Gift in Kind: the trade in human body parts.  It only becomes an option because the child is in the USA, in most of the rest of the world, the child would die.  And if I do not care enough about children who die for the sake of a few pennies/euros/cents, why should I suddenly care about this child, just because I know his name?

If it was down to me, every USAmerican would be on a register and everyone would volunteer to help a sick child.  But if it was down to me, we wouldn’t live in a world where children die of preventable diseases where the medication costs almost nothing.

As it happens, I don’t think the gospels allow us to make judgements about who is and who is not our neighbour - it is a striking misreading of the Good Samaritan to assume this means we just need to be nicer to people in our church community.  On the contrary, it tells us that we are responsible far beyond our social circles.  Unconsciously we know this - hence the numerous links we have to groups within our own religious communities near and far.  Quite often these put is in the position of donor and the overseas groups as recipients. 

But we also recognise that we cannot do everything.  We simply cannot love our neighbour in Bethlehem or Cairo or Istanbul or Cyprus or anywhere and everywhere else as we love ourselves - because they have far too many concerns for us to legitimately take on.  It is unreasonable, impossible, irrational, stupid (couldn’t think of another i-word).

But then again, I don’t think we should have to.  We should not beat ourselves up for the things we cannot do nor that we cannot do everything.  But we can and should do more than we do do.  If we know about a community overseas, we should do everything in our power to help them and expect the same from them for us.  If we are passionate about an issue, we should be consumed about it to the level that it totally takes over our being.  And as churches, we should have passions that we uphold which extend outwith of the passions individuals have - so we can do more together than we could ever do apart.  If there is a spectrum of doing too much to doing too little, the vast majority of people are at the ‘doing too little’ end, usually resorting to throwing money (and/or old underwear) at problems if we do anything at all.

In conclusion, I can only mourn with the family of a child with leukaemia and pledge to try to see if I could help a child in a similar situation in my own community.  But I can’t just drop everything to help someone I hear about on the internet - this is a road to madness.

This short clip is from the recent BBC series called ‘blood, sweat and luxuries’.  It is part of an ongoing collection of tv shows aimed at young adults - the first was called ‘blood, sweat and t-shirts’ and the second ‘blood, sweat and takeaways’.  Basically what happens is a bunch of British young people, most with absolutely no experience of the real world, are thrown into the harsh reality of how the people live that make them the stuff they take for granted.

This week the programme went to the nonsensical gold mines of Ghana, where men and women haul heavy weights up a slope (which surely could have been improved with the most basic of engineering) for the sake of a ridiculously tiny amount of gold.  The Brits meet a man who works as a miner to support his family of 17.

Later they went to a dump where they witnessed children scavenging in British electronic waste for a few components.

It is a bleak watch, far more than the recent Lagos programme, which covered some similar ground. 

What I like about it is that there is some level of realism and understanding of the situation.  Occasionally the participants attempt to help those they meet, by paying for one factory worker to go to night school and buying the street kids a pair of shoes.  But they also recognise that it is a drop in the ocean of the problem and that there isn’t anything that they are doing which is particularly marvellous or that is really making much difference.  They even appreciate that their small actions are more about salving their own consciences than having any real effect on the people they meet.

In days when we see ‘celebrities’ riding into disaster areas to ‘save the day’, in the process riding roughshod over those who actually know what they are doing, it is rare to see this level of sophisticated thought. 

Kids should not be working in dumps burning plastic off wire to get to the copper.  They just shouldn’t. The problem is knowing how to stop it.