As stated before, Faith and I are movie fanatics. We absolutely love a trip to Blockbuster or to the local theatre. In fact, Faith is out with some friends from our small group right now watching Kicking and Screaming at the dollar cinema. (I opted out so that I wouldn't miss my weekly neighborhood soccer match. More on that at a later date.)

So as I was sitting here, waiting for her to come home, I came across an old article from Relevant Magazine that came out last winter. The author, Gareth Higgins, briefly addresses the modern movie--both documenting all that's good and all that's outright bad about movies nowadays. He opens by saying that the inventors of the motion picture, the Lumiere brothers, would be rolling in their graves right now, if they saw the current slate of movies, complete with "images of men with guns, women with perfectly fake breasts and teens getting intimate with cherry pies."

Afterwords, Higgins gives 5 reasons why "movies are great right now." But what jumped out at me most was the subsequent list, which were the top 5 reasons why "movies are not great right now." The fifth reason is as follows:

The values of the war on terror are being enacted every day in films like Kill Bill and Man on Fire. The idea that the one remaining virtue of morally upstanding people like Uma or Denzel is that they should kill everyone bad to make the world a better place is the prevailing myth of current movies. Violence in the cause of justice has become a fact of movie life and death. But unquestioned facts are all too often just a nicer way of describing idols. I thought idols are there to be challenged, and the last time I looked, idolatry was a sin.

After reading and rereading this. I found myself applauding such a well-put statement on the state of violence in movies. Revenge movies as far back and popular as Rambo and as recent as the soon to be released Four Brothers will seemingly always be a part of our culture. However, my applause soon subsided as I realized that the very movies I now knock are the same ones I , at times, watch over and over again.

Granted, I don't feel that movies such as Kill Bill, Man on Fire, or even Rambo convert pacifists into warlords. But there's a wide appreciation of movies such as these that perhaps speak to the health of our culture as a whole. So that when we can watch and be entertained by Denzel Washington going after a whole city of criminals to kill without giving it a second thought, it eventually begins to lessen the effects of the news of our own military killing indiscriminately throughout various regions of the world. When at one time we may have directly opposed certain policies of our government or agencies, we now quietly sit by and frown on the situation.

No, I'm not calling for a mass boycott of the movie industry, or even of certain types of movies. But as I look at Gareth Higgins' evaluation of today's cinema, I can't help but notice some disturbing parallels between the big screen and reality. If this still provides at least a little discomfort within, then it's up to Faith and me to discern what to allow ourselves to endorse. True, 10 bucks out of a $50 million profit isn't enough to cause any damage, but at least it keeps further callouses from growing. And when we allow our senses to once again become vulnerable and responsive, then perhaps that inward change will spark some sort of outward change.

Tonight, our church held a massive city-wide scavenger hunt for all the small groups. Each group dressed in some unique form or fashion to show spirit and/or unity. Then the hour-long hunt across town began. With dozens of items and tasks to do, groups had plenty to work on! The "to-do" list for the evening included collecting random items like clothing, toys, plants, rocks, etc. Some tasks required were to have a cup of coffee and conversation with a specific couple from church who just celebrated their 51st wedding anniversary, bring back a person from church not involved in small groups, play basketball with some of the neighborhood kids, etc.

Our group did pretty darn good, I must admit. We tackled nearly every item on the list with just under 2 minutes to spare! As we reminisced over the brief evening, the best memories and fondest moments occurred during the tasks in which the objectives forced us into relationship (if even for 5 minutes) with others.

While reflecting on the meaningful conversations, laughter, and strengthened relationships that came out of the evening, I was both rejuvenated and convicted. Rejuvenated by the reminder that true joy comes through relational ministry. Convicted that I so often, especially at work, get caught up in statistics and numbers and "items" that get in the way of true relationship with others. It is so easy to allow ourselves to place value on number of people or amount of money, rather than evaluating relationship. So it's times like tonight that allow me to see how I've gotten off-track, and then re-align myself!

If you think about it, through the Gospels you never come across Jesus preaching about numbers or percentages. True, He did speak to large multitudes, but you're more likely to read about His time in someone's home, or having dinner with low-life, or mentoring the disciples.

As we go about ministry, how refreshing it is to taste from the fruit of relationships sown and harvested!

Can you guess our small group's theme for the scavenger hunt?
I challenge you find a more spirited group of folks!

Last night I finished reading World Hunger: Twelve Myths by Lappe, Collins, and Rosset. World Hunger Relief Inc., the farm that Faith and I are moving to in a month, suggested it as good reading before the big move. It was definitely an insightful read, to say the least.

In World Hunger, Lappe and friends discuss the epidemic of hunger while providing staggering statistics and facts. They propose, investigate, and disprove 12 "common" myths held regarding world hunger. At times they tend to be repititive. There were portions of the book where I felt as if I had read the exact same paragraph a few pages before. Further, a couple arguments aren't as strongly debated as others.

That said, the book is definitely worth a read. Even though I've been involved with the Christian relief non-profit scene for over five years now, Lappe and Co. helped me realize just how naive I was when it came to the world's most wide-scale problem right now. I've found myself believing that the best way to battle hunger was simply to give more cash, donate more unwanted canned goods, or load more ships up with rice and beans. World Hunger exposes this line of thought and points out why exactly this just doesn't work across the world.

The twelve myths of World Hunger that Lappe and Friends point out are:

1. There's Simply Not Enough Food
An excellent opening to the book, as we look at a world that is rapidly approaching 7 billion residents.
2. Nature's to Blame
We often blame drought and famine. The crisis in Niger right now is a prime example. This chapter does well by noting that drought and famine simply shed light on already existing problems.
3. Too Many Mouths to Feed
4. Food vs. Our Environment
5. The Green Revolution is the Answer
I wasn't very aware of the "Green Revolution", but it goes into great detail regarding a topic we're all aware of--biogenetics. You know, the whole "I don't want seeds in my grapes" deal.
6. Justice vs. Production
7. The Free Market Can End Hunger
8. Free Trade is the Answer
In the shadow of this week's CAFTA approval by Congress, this will really cause us to try to figure out why we aren't more vocal towards our representatives.
9. Too Hungry to Revolt
A chapter that should have been better dissected by the trio. In it, they point to striking examples of the poor standing up for themselves across the world, but they didn't really investigate too much into each case.
10. More U.S. Aid Will Help the Hungry
Probably the myth I've been guilty of holding fast to.
11. We Benefit from their Hunger
12. Food vs. Freedom

Each myth deserves more attention than time and space permit right now, but I do hope to revisit at least a few of these in upcoming posts. In the meantime, grab yourself a copy of World Hunger: 12 Myths and be ready to shatter your beliefs.

Wow. Check out this article from CNN. I don't know if I should stand and cheer or jeer this Wal-Mart from my hometown.

Perhaps, in light of all the disdain I communicate regarding Wal-Mart, this is a welcome opportunity to applaud their ingenuity.

Hey, if people can have babies in Wal-Mart, why can't they fall in love there?

At Talitha Koum this week one of our 4 year-old boys, let's just call him "Kevin", and I had one of our usual rumbles, which typically follow this manner:
1. It's time for nap, but Kevin doesn't want to take a nap so he makes whatever noise he can to keep himself awake
2. In order to calm him down, I approach him and try to gently instruct him to quiet down so the others can rest
3. Kevin responds with a varied course of profanities, sometimes hurling toys in my direction
4. So that the other children aren't roused from sleep, I usually carry him into another room until he calms down, all the while he's clawing, screaming, and hitting me
5. After 10-20 minutes, the tirade has subsided like a brief Texas summer storm and Kevin has suddenly turned into a pleasant, almost angelic, little child.
6. Kevin and I spend the remaining hour or so playing and pretending and frolicking (ok, maybe not frolicking) as if we're the oldest and bestest of friends.

This week's rumble was no different really than the other rumbles of past. However, when we got to the 6th phase, our frolicking was replaced by Kevin's request for me to read him the story of Jonah out of a children's book. (Granted, he didn't specifically request for me to read to him about Jonah...but rather the huge whale that was pictured on the cover of the book.)

For some reason, as I was reading the story to Kevin, a totally new concept hit me regarding God, Jonah, and everything in-between. When Jonah was swallowed whole by the whale, it was by God's grace. (This may seem rather obvious to you. Forgive me, I'm slow.) You see, I've always looked at Jonah's intestinal vacation as just the beginning of his troubles. But in reality, the whale provided salvation from his troubles, not to mention certain death. Had the whale not come along, Jonah would have most certainly drowned in the stormy waters.

So as I read the story of Jonah to Kevin, I was comforted by the thought that when things look like they can't get any worse, they actually may already be getting better. I'm sure that the Apostle Paul would agree. I know that being struck blind with God Almighty in front of me would probably have left me feeling as if things are about to go from bad to worse quickly. But Paul's blindness actually saved him from the path he was travelling down.


I can't wait to discover what I get to learn with Kevin this week.

As many of you know, every morning I help teach a class at Mission Waco geared towards preparing the underworked, underpaid, and/or parents hoping to wean themselves off of welfare for full-time employment. The class is designed so that there are 3-4 workshops each day on specific topics, such as interviewing, having the right attitude, what employers are looking for, etc. On top of that, each student is expected to make at least 3 job contacts each day, as well as take part in "personal devlopment" time, where they work on a skill that they could improve to help their chances at finding job--such as typing, computer skills, or studying for a GED.

I'm primarily involved with teaching some of the workshops since I'm only employed part-time. One of my workshops is entitled "Barriers to Employment"...and it's a long one, almost 2 hours! During that time, we identify certain "barriers" (lack of education, no childcare, bad attitude, etc.) that may keep us from landing the job we want. At the end of the workshop, we discuss the importance of having a vision and setting goals for ourselves. It is at this time that I introduce the concept of the povery level, or the Federal Poverty Guidelines.

When I first started incorporating the Federal Povery Guidelines into my class discussions, I found myself confused and shocked because noone had ever heard of the poverty level. And to this day, I haven't had a student know what it is before I introduce it. For some reason, I assumed that these single parents, homeless men, and temp workers realized they were living below the poverty level set by the government. I now recognize such guidelines as middle and upper class institutions that we use to label the poor.

Anyways, so I define the poverty level and tell the class what it is. It's based on 40 hours/week, 52 weeks/year of employment. For one person, it is $9,570/year. For a household of two people, it is $12,830/year. For a family of four, it is $19,350/year. In other words, starting w/ $9570 as your base annual income for a person living alone, you add $3,260/year per person in the household. As we discuss these numbers in class, we look at how much one needs to make to live above the poverty level. Typically our students are single mothers with at least 2-3 children, which means the U.S. Census Bureau says they need to be making between $16,000 and $19,350/year to live above poverty. By the end of the workshop, the students are both angry and motivated. Angry at the fact that if they are lucky enough to find a full-time job at minimum wage, they'd be making approximately $10,000 less annually than they need to suppor their family. This in turn motivates them to aim high when it comes to choosing a career plan.

However, I came across an article this week published by the Center for Public Policy Priorities. In the article, the CPPP defined poverty with more depth. It also gave some interesting stats. The most intriguing part though was reading about how the poverty level is calculated. Come to find out, "the poverty guidelines were originally designed to reflect the minimum amount of income American households need to subsist." Makes sense to me. Makes sense to private organizations and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services as well, since they use the poverty guidelines to determine eligibility for aid.

But things get interesting when the CPPP reveals the Census Bureaus methods. This "minimum amount of income" reflected in the poverty guidelines is derived by multiplying by three the projected cost of food for each family size. This method, established over 40 years ago in the early 1960's, is based on the assumption that the cost of food for each household accounts for 1/3 of all spending. The only changes that occur to the formula are slight updates that take inflation into consideration. The CPPP notes that otherwise, the same formula has remained unchanged for decades, despite the fact that there have been "significant shifts in household expenses". The article points out that the cost of housing has increased greatly since the 1960's. On top of that, potential costs of childcare have skyrocketed with the rise of single-parent homes and homes with both parents working. Yet food costs remain the only expense considered in determining how much income families today need. To make matters worse, except in the case of Alaska and Hawaii, the poverty guidelines take no account whatsoever for geographical differences in the costs and standards of living. So the poverty level is the same between tiny towns of western Texas and New York City.

The CPPP, with the support of the National Research Council, has recently been developing and looking at more accurate ways for measuring economic need. By looking at additional needs on top of food costs, such as housing, transportation, child care, clothing, and health insurance, they were able to come up with wages necessary to meet cost of living within various cities. For example, for a family of three in Houston the CPPP projected that the annual income required to meet basic living costs is $33, 859. That's more than twice the federal poverty level for a family of three, which is set at $15,670 annually!

What does all this mean???

First, as I approach the workshops at Mission Waco now, I feel as if I've been shortchanging the students. For I've been encouraging them to aim well below a level that they can probably live at.

Second, what does that say about our country and it's concern for the poor? We've likely been using outdated methods for determining the poverty level for quite some time now, thus causing millions of people to not qualify for benefits and aid due to low income.

So what do we do?

As Christians, and supposed advocates for the poor, what steps do we take in order to initiate change? I'm not sure I have many, if any answers. But staring at the blazing evidence of the plight of the working poor must institute some change. Right?

The age of the internet has brought on talk of the world being brought to one's doorstep. People who are thousands of miles apart have access to one another at any moment of any day. It's something quite extraordinary, and often taken for granted.

However, over the past couple of years, I've attended various conferences and seminars on Christian community development, missions, reaching diverse demographics, etc. And one thing that I've noticed is that even as this internet boom is bringing millions of people into close contact without even meeting, there is still a massive movement of people going on.

-Until the 1980's, Chicago was the largest Polish city. (Warsaw has reclaimed that title.) Regardless, Chicago still has 100,000 more Polish people than San Francisco has people.

-There are more Irish living in the U.S. than in Ireland. Further, the U.S. is the 4th largest African nation and the 3rd largest Spanish country.

In Queens, New York, there is a zip code with 133 nations represented.

And it's not just going on in America. Sure, there's still oodles and oodles of immigrants crossing our borders, but Europe and South America are seeing just as many. Take these facts for example:

-20% of Amsterdam is Indonesian.

-The largest Japanese community in the world (outside of Japan) is in Sao Paulo, Brazil.

-10% of churches in Buenos Aires, Argentina speak Korean.

-80 million Chinese live outside of China.

-Paris, with the largest metro-population in Europe, is 14% Algerian. Futhermore, 41% of Marseille, France is black.

I first came across some of these factoids about four years ago. Nevertheless, I still find myself doing double-takes when I read through them. It used to be that one had to cross the major oceans to reach an unreached people group or a different nationality. Now, with well over 40 U.S. cities that have a metro population of 1 million-plus, we don't have to even travel outside our own zip code.

In these uncertain times, as we American Christians seek comfort and safety in the form of our ethnocentric churches, suburban homes, and 401k's, there's literally a whole world right outside our door that needs to experience the love of Christ. Regardless if we're called abroad or stateside, there are unreached people groups and nations in our neighborhoods that need us to step out.

CNN had an article today regarding a Christian adoption agency who refuses Catholic couples the right to adopt from them. I mean come on. Really? Are we still at that point ecumenically? Sheesh. While I think it's fine for Christian adoption agencies to "weed out" applicants who don't profess Christ, do you actually draw the line within the Christian faith?

I particularly like the reasoning that the agency, Bethany Christian Services, gave to the couple that was rejected: "It has been our understanding that Catholicism does not agree with our Statement of Faith". Are you kidding me??? It has been our understanding? They might as well say, "We've heard it through the grapevine that we shouldn't be giving you Catholics our babies." ...Or "Rumor has it that Catholics aren't really Christians, so we're sorry that we can't allow you to become parents." Come on now, at least give some reasoning people.

Granted, I could list a few issues I have with the Roman Catholic "statement of faith". However, I could also give a few issues I have with my wife's statement of faith. Does that mean I don't want her having my children?

I'm taking my soapbox and going home.

Over the past several weeks, I've been keeping tabs on the situation in Zimbabwe. Seems that the government is on a mission to rid it's capital city of poverty. Hooray! Right?

Wrong.

The program, officially called "Operation Drive Out the Trash", was aimed at the shantytowns of the capital city Harare. In May, police were authorized to raze homes, "informal markets", and other structures in poverty-stricken areas in both the city and countryside. Recently, the demolition has spread to "unauthorized garages, cottages, and chicken coops". All this going on in the middle of the African winter. Promoted as "urban renewal", Operation Drive Out the Trash has left thousands homeless and forced to squeeze into tents.

The story hasn't received much attention internationally. Why not? True, it's no Darfur or Rwanda. Yet.

Perhaps it's widely overlooked simply because it's a slightly aggressive approach to gentrification, which is widely accepted around the world today. Look up gentrification anywhere on the net and you'll likely first hear about how it's a rehabilitation of low-income housing and deteriorated neighborhoods into high-value communities and business districts. Call it urban renewal if you will. But towards the end of most definitions, you'll find an admission that the whole process displaces the long-time, poorer residents. Go downtown of most cities in America and you'll see examples of it in the form of old warehouses turned into lofts and restaurants, brand new cobblestoned streets, etc.

It's Zimbabwe mirrored in the cities of Waco, Nashville, Houston, Chicago and elsewhere. Maybe the police here in the U.S. didn't rip down poor residents' homes and chicken coops with virtually no notice. But we've made the cost of living so expensive in these areas, that the poorer residents were practically squeezed out. We've forced the homeless to hide or leave town by making it illegal to sleep under bridges, in vacant buildings, and on park benches.

So as I sit here appalled at what's going on across the Atlantic, perhaps it is best that I simply do that--just sit here. For that's what I continue do as our domestic brothers and sisters suffer similar fates.

Today is a monumental day in the history of, well, me. One week ago tonight, I was involved in the worst bicycle accident of my life. (Granted, the wreck would be considered wussy by the riders of the current Tour de France, but that's beside the point. I ride almost daily and am involved in a fair share of crashes.) Travelling home from a late-late dinner with Faith and some friends, Faith decided she'd follow me in the van as I rode my bike. Well, in order to lose her in my dust, I flew down the sidewalks and across parking lots on my usual route home. Unfortunately, I grew distracted in trying to keep an eye on her and lost control of the bike over a speedbump while going full speed. Long story short, I landed about 15 feet ahead of my bike with several scrapes and cuts on my shoulders, elbows, hands, and knees....the worst of which are still very much open and trying to scab over a week later. What makes today so 'monumental' is that I am once again mounting the same bicycle that bucked me a week ago tonight. In an act of sheer willpower and courage, or perhaps idiocy, I will ride again baby.

I was so angry last week at the stupidity and wrecklessness I portrayed in actually trying to race against a vehicle. Furthermore, my rage was fueled by the fact that I wrecked and damaged a virtually brand new bike...that wasn't even mine! It was a gift I had given Faith for her birthday. And I haven't even gone into how badly my knees and hands were bleeding and hurting!

All that to say this--once 24 hours or so passed and my temper began to subside, I marveled for a spell over the fact that I actually survived such an event with no serious injuries. And once the awe wore off and I realized I'd be confined to a bed for a bit longer, I started to try to learn some sort of life-lesson out of the whole ordeal. And what I got was this:

My trip home that night wasn't all that different than any other trip home I take via bicycle. I took the safest route--away from heavy traffic and through as many empty parking lots and subdivisions as possible. Granted, I made a mistake in not paying careful attention, but I was on the right path to where I needed to be going. So with this in mind, I began to wonder about the whole idea of 'path' as defined in the Bible. Psalms has a plethora references...with the 119th Psalm containing a dozen or so. But what jumped out at me the most was the 23rd Psalm, perhaps the most famous one of them all. The passage gives a beautiful comparison of the Lord to a shepherd and humanity to sheep. It talks of God leading us to green pastures and the safety and nourishment of quiet waters, while taking us down "paths of righteousness". Interestingly enough, in the immediate verse after the reference to paths of righteousness, the writer says that "even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for you are with me". This is, of course, one of the most famous lines of the Psalm, but I looked at it in a whole new light during this latest reading of it. The whole opening of the Psalm talks of God leading us as a shepherd leads his sheep. I don't think it changes course when it mentions walking through the valley of the shadow. As I see it, God leads to the pastures, the waters, the paths of rigteousness, and the Psalter makes sure to mention that as he travels through this dark valley, God is with him. How often do we look at that passage with the mindset that God leads us to and through the valley of the shadow of death?

A New Testament example can perhaps be found in Mark 4. Most of the chapter takes place on the side of a lake, with Jesus in a boat teaching through parables to a multitude on the shore. When evening arrives, it says he instructs the disciples to go over to the other side of the lake--presumably to rest, relax, and be alone with his disciples so he could explain exactly what the parables meant. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that to be Peter or James or John in that boat, with Jesus resting a few feet away would mean to be pretty confident in where you're headed. If not confident, then at least comfortable that you're with Who you're with. Well, as you know, the intense squall hit the boat. Things got tense. Folks got wet. The disciples freaked. Jesus immediately got up at the disciples' begging, quieted the storm, and chewed out the disciples: "Why are you so afraid? Do you still have no faith?"

Here we have 2 images:
-a shepherd leading his flock into lushness, safety, and into the shadow of death, and
-Christ taking his closest followers (his flock) to a retreat of sorts perhaps, only to encounter rough waves, wind, and the threat of death.

As I've meditated on these 2 passages this week, it's comforted and compelled me. Being on the right path and headed to where you're supposed to be does not always promise ease, safety, and prosperity. (That's one problem I've had with the big rise of popularity of The Prayer of Jabez, the book, not the prayer on which the book is based.)

Going where God leads can be a daunting task.

As we follow, making stupid mistakes like the one I made last Saturday night only adds to the danger. I guess that's just a part of our humanity. Accidents happen. Poor decisions are made.

But despite all that, our Shepherd is with us through those valleys. Taking this in faith can surely help us in our response.

I heard a news article today on NPR that really got me a-thinking. It was a report coming out of Atlanta. Come to find out, last October the Public Housing Authority of Atlanta set June 30 of this year as the date where you can be evicted out of public housing if you are an able-bodied person and are not working, in a training program, or at school. In other words, if you don't have a job and you're on public housing, then you're liable to get kicked out of your home.

Interestingly enough, most of the interviews NPR performed were with people who objected to the policy--current residents and various officials in Atlanta. The only person they allowed airtime to defend the policy was a representative of the Housing Authority. The arguments against the ruling are pretty obvious--you'll seemingly be creating an epidemic of homelessness, you'll be putting innocent children on the streets, folks will never be able to get a job if they don't have a place to stay, there just aren't enough jobs out there, etc. The representative from the Housing Authority stated that they've had job training programs in place for quite some time in the actual neighborhoods where these people live, so that if they don't take them up on the offer it's their own fault. On top of that, they even offer free childcare!

I've flip-flopped on my opinion over the whole matter today. When I first heard the story, I nearly applauded Atlanta's Housing Authority for their ingenuity and initiative. Then I eased off, knowing that this could end up doing more harm than good. Right now, I'm stuck in the middle. I admire this tough policy designed to get folks off the recliner and behind a desk, but I also realize that a generation of children could end up even more bitter and cold towards today's lawmakers.

I don't know...any thoughts out there?

The Miami Herald reported this week that despite a request by United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan for U.S. troops in Haiti, there will not be a U.S. military presence in Haiti anytime soon. Therefore, in a country without a military or any real police force to manage its 8 million citizens, the U.N. peacekeeping force that totals a whopping 7,400 soldiers will be left to fend for themselves for the time being.

So in othe words, while the U.S. continues to maintain 140,000 troops over 6,200 miles away in Iraq for the purpose of "restoring freedom and democracy", it refuses to send a few hundred to Haiti--an island a mere 600 miles from the U.S. (a distance that would easily fit into the state of Texas driving east-to-west).

Why is the U.S. refusing assistance to Haiti, our second-closest neighbor (other than Mexico and Canada)...in this country that hasn't really experienced any form of sustained "freedom and democracy" in all of it's 200 year history?

Even the Washington Post, a relatively pro-Bush media outlet, states that simply a "few hundred American fighters" are needed to establish security in this poor country that is trying to establish peace and safety so that national elections can be held there this fall.

The similarities between Iraq and Haiti are eerie. Both:

-are countries with extreme poverty,
-struggle with gangs and rebels who strike fear throughout the country,
-suffer from decades of corrupt and brutal regimes,
-have historically been blemished with the fingerprints of the United States all over them, and,
-either have just had or are trying to have national elections to get back on the right footing.

Taking these into consideration, and then throwing in the fact that Haiti is our next-door neighbor, it seems not only logical, but imperative that the U.S. assist the United Nations. (It's not like we haven't done it before to this poor country. The U.S. occupied and virtually ran the Haitian government from 1915 until 1934.)

Sadly, there is another factor at play here as to why Iraq gets an infinite amount of attention when compared to Haiti--and that is the Middle East. In a region of the world so volatile, the U.S. is struggling to make friends with past enemies, while protecting the much-hated state of Israel, and keeping tabs on the oil flow. Haiti has nothing to offer the U.S., and unfortunately that is the obvious reason (in my opinion, and many others') why we are avoiding them. When the U.S. first occupied Haiti in the early 1900's, imperialism and isolationism were paramount on our policy. A nation in turmoil such as Haiti, if left unchecked, could have easily been occupied by Germany, England, or France--countries that we were trying to distance ourselves from as much as possible.

And so, currently, as we occupy one country--a country we were uninvited into and in which the international community (including the United Nations) largely opposed us entering, we ignore a similar country right under our noses. A country that the United Nations itself has asked us to enter.

We seek to dig deep for the speck of sawdust in Iraq's eye, while ignoring this plank in our own.

God forgive us of our motives.

My buddy Lucas has some hobbies I admire...and desire for that matter--guitar playing, web design, & songwriting to name a few. He has another hobby that is quite peculiar to say the least. He keeps a camera with him in his car so that when he's driving through the sticks and brush of central Texas and happens upon a church sign, he can take a picture of it. Lucas has quite the collection I might add. This latest one from Pastor Shaw and First United Pentecostal of Brady is his latest.

As soon as I read it, I became angry. In fact, if you visit Lucas' site, you'll see that the comment I left reflects a desire to bomb the church with water balloons. If you read the other 1o or so comments left behind, most show the same sentiment. Rightly so, I would say. Lucas questions the message well when he writes, So is the command to care for the poor really contingent on the poor’s behavior? Where is that in Scripture? Why are we usually so busy worrying about what other people should be doing instead of obeying what we’ve been commanded? Well said Lucas!

This morning I showed some of my colleagues at Mission Waco the sign. Oddly enough, they began to laugh. For a moment, I began to feel as if I was missing something. Then, as we discussed the sign, it became clear that we see signs like these nearly everyday in the condescension, ignorance, confusion, and apathy of the "white flight" Christians who feel like a garbage bag full of old, wrinkled, balled up clothes is an act of Love towards one's neighbor.

I then realized that as angry as this sign makes me, it is in someway a damning testament to how I approach the needy. In the line of work I'm currently in, I daily cross paths and talk with the needy, the homeless, the poor, etc. And almost as often, I find myself saying 'No' to a request for money. Most of the people I work with do the same. In fact, when I talk to friends and family scattered throughout suburbia and the U.S., they typically refuse assitance rather than offer it.

Why's this? Well, the norm usually goes something like this: "How can I be sure that homeless guy is going to use the $5 I give him on a meal and not alcohol?" We generally want to make sure that we aren't supporting a habit or addiction...or laziness. And as soon as I catch myself thinking that this rationale makes sense, I stand convicted of living out that church sign from Brady, Texas.

So, as I stand armed with my water balloons to toss at those I disagree with, I realize that I'm, in fact, soaking wet. It's now up to me to challenge myself with the words that Lucas wrote regarding the sign in Brady:

So is the command to care for the poor really contingent on the poor’s behavior? Where is that in Scripture? Why are we usually so busy worrying about what other people should be doing instead of obeying what we’ve been commanded?

What we've been commanded.