With a couple more free days of vacation to burn before returning to work, I thought I'd spend a little quality time with Daniel and do a little day trip into the city. At the suggestion of my wife, I decided to also invite my father to tag along. I called my dad and extended the invitation, and he initially declined, telling me that he had to run some errands with my mother.
About five minutes later, I received a phone call from my mom telling me that she thought that it would be a great idea if my father went with Daniel and me (i.e. please get your father out of my hair). Lest I pick on my poor father, Sarah also encouraged us to stay in the city through dinner. Hmm... you think the women were interested in getting the men out of the house?
Our plan was to go to the MTA Transit Museum in Brooklyn, which seemed like a slam dunk for Daniel to enjoy. Three generation of Kuo men got onto the NJ Transit train in Millburn and made our way to the city in a train that was actually quite full of families who were presumably doing some holiday week city visiting as well. Daniel, as always, loved the train ride, and my father continued to rave about the convenience of the commuter train. We caught up on some small talk about family friends and such while Daniel stared out the window, thoroughly enjoying his train ride.
The museum wasn't bad. It detailed some history of the development of the New York City subway as well as tunnels and bridges in the area. The museum itself is actually a retired subway station, and on the tracks are vintage subway cars. We walked through multiple generations of subways cars, going back to 1906, and then had a chance to other exhibits around buses and reduced emission vehicles. Daniel, however, was quite disappointed as he had anticipated seeing more trains (not just subway cars) and working models as we had in our previous visit to a train museum in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. His disappointment was somewhat assuaged when we had an opportunity to ride on one of the new double-decker NJ Transit double-decker trains on the way home.
What I appreciated most was the chance to spend quality time with my son and my father. I think my relationship with my dad has actually improved a great deal (despite some typical first-generation Asian father foibles, one of which I related in a previous blog), and I think there's a number of reasons for this.
For one, being a father of a son has given me an appreciation for the difficulty for being a dad. I think my father also sees my parenting and things well of my efforts. By the grace of God, we're also both changing and I think our shared love and affection for Daniel, which was evident on this day trip, also has helped our relationship. Seeing my father's kindness and encouragement towards Daniel could tempt me to resentfully wonder why such tenderness was rarely given to me as a child, but it doesn't bother me in the least. I believe that (1) the relationship of a grandfather is much different than a dad and (2) my father might very well be a better grandfather than father, and that's okay to me. I'm extremely grateful and happy of his affinity towards my son, and I know that this has been a win-win-win for all of us.
Saturday, January 3, 2009
Monday, December 29, 2008
Faith and Africa
I read a couple of fascinating articles about faith and Africa today, one which was forwarded over to me from my pastor and friend, the other which I stumbled upon while looking through the New York Times online. The articles don't necessarily contradict each other, but one focuses on Africa being an exporter of faith, and the other being an appeal for Africa's need for God.
The first is an interesting column by Times Online writer Matthew Parris, who states plainly that "As an atheist, I truly believe Africa needs God." That seems paradoxical doesn't it? But on the surface this could easily be addressed by a supposition that while the concept of God is mythical, the zeal that (albeit misinformed) Christians bring to the table in terms of their charitable works. The argument goes, let the Christians believe in the tooth-fairly if they want to, the important thing is that their belief system is spurring them to care for poor and needy people.
But surprisingly, it's the atheist, Parris, who debunks that very argument. He states, "Faith does more than support the missionary; it is also transferred to his flock. This is the effect that matters so immensely, and which I cannot help observing." He goes on to observe, "their faith appeared to have liberated and relaxed them. There was a liveliness, a curiosity, an engagement with the world - a directness in their dealings with others."
As a Christian, there might be a temptation of pompous reactions such, "Of course, Matthew. Why would you expect anything less from Christians who have received such amazing grace from God?" I'm actually more humbled and challenged - because I'm both convicted and concerned that an objective observer, like a Matthew Parris, could watch me for weeks and not see the same characteristics as was seen in my breathren in Africa. So the questions I ask myself are: Does this faith of mine tranfer to my flock, my family, or at least those under my care at church? Has my faith liberated me from the anxieties of the rat-race, parenting and the financial crisis?
As for Matthew Parris, it's amazing how he captures and appreciates much of the power of the Christian faith. He is eloquent in differentiating the results of that faith with those of well-intentioned humanism and even the fruits of faith from faith itself. I only wonder if he lacks the critical link that the Christian faith is not an optimal human philosophical contruct, but rather something is engendered and cultivated by a God that at present he doesn't believe exists. I hope that those dots are connected in the future.
The other article that I read with great enjoyment was the story of Rev. Chrispin Oneko, a Kenyan priest who tended a flock in Kentucky (after ministering for a short time in Jamaica), reflecting a growing trend of priests from other parts of the world covering the shortage of priests in the United States.
It's simply a wonderful true story of how faith has transcended a myriad of differences and how incarnational ministry really works. It's a story of love received and returned many times over - from an American missionary going to Kenya to a Kenyan missionary going to Kentucky; from a priest caring for a flock to a flock caring for their priest.
I am grateful for brothers like Rev. Oneko. I do find it interesting how seeds planted in the past end up feeding those who had harvested them. Who knows? Someday a young man in Rev. Oneko's church may grow up to find himself a missionary in Africa.
The first is an interesting column by Times Online writer Matthew Parris, who states plainly that "As an atheist, I truly believe Africa needs God." That seems paradoxical doesn't it? But on the surface this could easily be addressed by a supposition that while the concept of God is mythical, the zeal that (albeit misinformed) Christians bring to the table in terms of their charitable works. The argument goes, let the Christians believe in the tooth-fairly if they want to, the important thing is that their belief system is spurring them to care for poor and needy people.
But surprisingly, it's the atheist, Parris, who debunks that very argument. He states, "Faith does more than support the missionary; it is also transferred to his flock. This is the effect that matters so immensely, and which I cannot help observing." He goes on to observe, "their faith appeared to have liberated and relaxed them. There was a liveliness, a curiosity, an engagement with the world - a directness in their dealings with others."
As a Christian, there might be a temptation of pompous reactions such, "Of course, Matthew. Why would you expect anything less from Christians who have received such amazing grace from God?" I'm actually more humbled and challenged - because I'm both convicted and concerned that an objective observer, like a Matthew Parris, could watch me for weeks and not see the same characteristics as was seen in my breathren in Africa. So the questions I ask myself are: Does this faith of mine tranfer to my flock, my family, or at least those under my care at church? Has my faith liberated me from the anxieties of the rat-race, parenting and the financial crisis?
As for Matthew Parris, it's amazing how he captures and appreciates much of the power of the Christian faith. He is eloquent in differentiating the results of that faith with those of well-intentioned humanism and even the fruits of faith from faith itself. I only wonder if he lacks the critical link that the Christian faith is not an optimal human philosophical contruct, but rather something is engendered and cultivated by a God that at present he doesn't believe exists. I hope that those dots are connected in the future.
The other article that I read with great enjoyment was the story of Rev. Chrispin Oneko, a Kenyan priest who tended a flock in Kentucky (after ministering for a short time in Jamaica), reflecting a growing trend of priests from other parts of the world covering the shortage of priests in the United States.
It's simply a wonderful true story of how faith has transcended a myriad of differences and how incarnational ministry really works. It's a story of love received and returned many times over - from an American missionary going to Kenya to a Kenyan missionary going to Kentucky; from a priest caring for a flock to a flock caring for their priest.
I am grateful for brothers like Rev. Oneko. I do find it interesting how seeds planted in the past end up feeding those who had harvested them. Who knows? Someday a young man in Rev. Oneko's church may grow up to find himself a missionary in Africa.
Friday, December 26, 2008
Religious and Rich... in Turkey
A recent New York Times article reported the emergence of a new class of rich, yet devoutly Muslim Turks in Istanbul. Most of these people have risen of the rural and religious merchant class and looks to emerge as a significant social force at the surprise of the urban upper class "White Turk" establishment. This has led to some frictions between a strong tradition of secularization and a devout new class which is gaining influence.
I found it interesting that many of these "nouveau riche" describe them as Muslims with a Protestant work ethic, and say hard work deepens faith. Similar to wealthy Christians in America, they struggle with contextualizing their personal abundance with a faith that commands them to care for the poor, and how tasting luxury becomes an intoxicating addiction to other forms of greed. Like their devout Christian counterparts in the West, they are often distrusted and scorned by their wealthy secular counterparts. But they continue to press on and embrace their faith.
I can't help but wonder if this is a snapshot of America's past or the future? Is what we're seeing in Turkey an analogy of the generation of Christian businessmen and their families in the 19th Century like D.L. Moody? Or is it a forshadowing of what we'll someday see as a generation of evangelical Christian leaders grows older and gains influence in business and society? If the next generation (which might include me) doesn't step up - it won't be because we lacked the pedigree or opportunties. Many of us have had the Ivy League degrees, the experience at top companies, and the support and training of churches and even exclusive groups such as Christian Union at our disposal. Time for the next generation to answer the call.
I found it interesting that many of these "nouveau riche" describe them as Muslims with a Protestant work ethic, and say hard work deepens faith. Similar to wealthy Christians in America, they struggle with contextualizing their personal abundance with a faith that commands them to care for the poor, and how tasting luxury becomes an intoxicating addiction to other forms of greed. Like their devout Christian counterparts in the West, they are often distrusted and scorned by their wealthy secular counterparts. But they continue to press on and embrace their faith.
I can't help but wonder if this is a snapshot of America's past or the future? Is what we're seeing in Turkey an analogy of the generation of Christian businessmen and their families in the 19th Century like D.L. Moody? Or is it a forshadowing of what we'll someday see as a generation of evangelical Christian leaders grows older and gains influence in business and society? If the next generation (which might include me) doesn't step up - it won't be because we lacked the pedigree or opportunties. Many of us have had the Ivy League degrees, the experience at top companies, and the support and training of churches and even exclusive groups such as Christian Union at our disposal. Time for the next generation to answer the call.
Turning Away From Profit and thus Performance
Another interesting piece by Nicholas Kristof which discusses the self-inflicting wounds that charitable organizations place on themselves when they eschew such standard business tools as advertising, risk-taking, competitive salaries and profits to lure capital. I can sympathize with Dan Pallotta's angst and frustration with what he sees as a ludicrous self-limiting policy which hamstrings organizations with the most important missions to wallow in what he sees as mediocrity at the expense of the end goal.
But what is the "end goal"? In some of the examples given in the article, fundraising amounts seemed to be the solitary metric. If it's clear that a firm was producing fundraisers that did a phenomenal job of bringing donations into the coffers of a client organization, it seems reasonable enough that a firm and its employees would be rewarded accordingly for that good work. It's a matter of aligning objectives and incentives.
However, such an "end goal" is not always clear. As a church, we keep an eye on our finances, which help fund our general operations, discipleship programs, overseas missions work, and charitable donations to those outside the church, but it would be wildly inaccurate to categorize our balance sheet as the singular metric for the health of our church. I would shudder to consider making attendance a primary variable for incentive compensation for a pastor of a church. Why? Because the danger of incentive compensation, when misaligned, might trigger negative behaviors which may adversely contribute to the overall health of the church. Using an absurd example, a pastor could project illegal recently-released movies and NFL games during on a huge screen and sell beers and snacks while charging a nominal fee as a proxy for Sunday Service. Membership and revenue may increase, but surely you wouldn't say that the pastor is doing a good job.
I do think that charitable organizations and churches can learn a great deal from corporate best practices and disciplines. As for Mr. Pallotta's argument, I tend to agree that there's no harm in making a profit while helping people as long as there's clear line between organizations which profess to be non-profits and those that are not. If you run an organization that primarily aspires to make a profit to the benefit of the employees and stakeholders, go for it and play by the same tax rules and employee churn that other for-profits experience - plus I'm probably not going to cut you a check to help support you. In other words, your reward has already been paid in full. For a non-profit which is primarily focused on the need of the mercy recipient, I consider my donations to be my way of rewarding the selflessness of the company and employees who have opted to put others first. I think there's a place for both models.
Mr. Pallotta also makes this point which I wholeheartedly agree with:
“We allow people to make huge profits doing any number of things that will hurt the poor, but we want to crucify anyone who wants to make money helping them,” Mr. Pallotta says. “Want to make a million selling violent video games to kids? Go for it. Want to make a million helping cure kids of cancer? You’re labeled a parasite.”
I know this all too well. Work for an investment bank, and you're allowed to make as much as you want because you're smart and you've earned it. Work for a pharmaceutical and suddenly you're preying off the misery of other people. Why the double standard? A bank isn't expected to give away money or free loans to people in the third world - but drug companies are presently doing this. Automobile manufacturers aren't expected to give cars away to people who can't afford them - but drug companies are presently doing this. As I mentioned earlier, non-profits and for-profits should be held a different standards. I'm less convinced that there should be a different standard for companies within those bands.
But what is the "end goal"? In some of the examples given in the article, fundraising amounts seemed to be the solitary metric. If it's clear that a firm was producing fundraisers that did a phenomenal job of bringing donations into the coffers of a client organization, it seems reasonable enough that a firm and its employees would be rewarded accordingly for that good work. It's a matter of aligning objectives and incentives.
However, such an "end goal" is not always clear. As a church, we keep an eye on our finances, which help fund our general operations, discipleship programs, overseas missions work, and charitable donations to those outside the church, but it would be wildly inaccurate to categorize our balance sheet as the singular metric for the health of our church. I would shudder to consider making attendance a primary variable for incentive compensation for a pastor of a church. Why? Because the danger of incentive compensation, when misaligned, might trigger negative behaviors which may adversely contribute to the overall health of the church. Using an absurd example, a pastor could project illegal recently-released movies and NFL games during on a huge screen and sell beers and snacks while charging a nominal fee as a proxy for Sunday Service. Membership and revenue may increase, but surely you wouldn't say that the pastor is doing a good job.
I do think that charitable organizations and churches can learn a great deal from corporate best practices and disciplines. As for Mr. Pallotta's argument, I tend to agree that there's no harm in making a profit while helping people as long as there's clear line between organizations which profess to be non-profits and those that are not. If you run an organization that primarily aspires to make a profit to the benefit of the employees and stakeholders, go for it and play by the same tax rules and employee churn that other for-profits experience - plus I'm probably not going to cut you a check to help support you. In other words, your reward has already been paid in full. For a non-profit which is primarily focused on the need of the mercy recipient, I consider my donations to be my way of rewarding the selflessness of the company and employees who have opted to put others first. I think there's a place for both models.
Mr. Pallotta also makes this point which I wholeheartedly agree with:
“We allow people to make huge profits doing any number of things that will hurt the poor, but we want to crucify anyone who wants to make money helping them,” Mr. Pallotta says. “Want to make a million selling violent video games to kids? Go for it. Want to make a million helping cure kids of cancer? You’re labeled a parasite.”
I know this all too well. Work for an investment bank, and you're allowed to make as much as you want because you're smart and you've earned it. Work for a pharmaceutical and suddenly you're preying off the misery of other people. Why the double standard? A bank isn't expected to give away money or free loans to people in the third world - but drug companies are presently doing this. Automobile manufacturers aren't expected to give cars away to people who can't afford them - but drug companies are presently doing this. As I mentioned earlier, non-profits and for-profits should be held a different standards. I'm less convinced that there should be a different standard for companies within those bands.
Brutally Honest, and Lacking a Little Grace
Daniel is starting to become a little more familiar and polished when it comes to the Christmas holiday. He's fully aware that Christmas is a time of gift-giving, and his excitement around gifts encouraged Sarah and I to continually reinforce the true meaning of Christmas: "Why do we give gifts for Christmas?" "To remember Jesus." "And Who was the most important gift that God gave to us?" "Jesus."
Something that we need to teach Daniel is how to be gracious when he receives gifts that he doesn't like. A few weeks ago, he received gifts from cousins of mine. With anticipation he tore into the wrapping paper with relish, only to find to his chagrin that the box contained clothes. To our horror, he quickly tossed the box aside and walked away to play with his trains. The next day, Daniel received a harsh rebuke and lecture from both Sarah and I. Sarah firmly said, "No matter what you get, you need to say 'thank you' because the person was doing a nice thing by giving you a gift," which was probably more effective than my, "If I ever catch you again being rude when you receive a present, I'm throwing your trains into the garbage." Okay, I'm kidding about that last part.
A couple of days ago, we opened presents at my parents house. Daniel opened numerous boxes of clothing for which he said "thank you" (albeit prompted at times) and then opened an Crayola art set for which he quietly said, "I don't like this one" (but still said 'thank you'), and then got a Thomas Tank Engine bicycle helmet and bicycle, for which there was joy and completely earnest and sincere gratitude. As for Sophia, she was too busy playing with the wrapping paper.
For better of for worse, Daniel's speaks honestly about what he likes and doesn't like. He'll say outright whether he doesn't like a particular gift or excitedly exclaims "this is just what I wanted!" as he did when he received a Thomas the Tank Engine DVD and toy. I can't be too hard on the boy. After all, he's not even four years old yet, and Lord knows I hated receiving clothes even more than Daniel did. Plus, it's not as if I'm looking forward to the day my son turns into disingenuous two-faced phony.
Something that we need to teach Daniel is how to be gracious when he receives gifts that he doesn't like. A few weeks ago, he received gifts from cousins of mine. With anticipation he tore into the wrapping paper with relish, only to find to his chagrin that the box contained clothes. To our horror, he quickly tossed the box aside and walked away to play with his trains. The next day, Daniel received a harsh rebuke and lecture from both Sarah and I. Sarah firmly said, "No matter what you get, you need to say 'thank you' because the person was doing a nice thing by giving you a gift," which was probably more effective than my, "If I ever catch you again being rude when you receive a present, I'm throwing your trains into the garbage." Okay, I'm kidding about that last part.
A couple of days ago, we opened presents at my parents house. Daniel opened numerous boxes of clothing for which he said "thank you" (albeit prompted at times) and then opened an Crayola art set for which he quietly said, "I don't like this one" (but still said 'thank you'), and then got a Thomas Tank Engine bicycle helmet and bicycle, for which there was joy and completely earnest and sincere gratitude. As for Sophia, she was too busy playing with the wrapping paper.
For better of for worse, Daniel's speaks honestly about what he likes and doesn't like. He'll say outright whether he doesn't like a particular gift or excitedly exclaims "this is just what I wanted!" as he did when he received a Thomas the Tank Engine DVD and toy. I can't be too hard on the boy. After all, he's not even four years old yet, and Lord knows I hated receiving clothes even more than Daniel did. Plus, it's not as if I'm looking forward to the day my son turns into disingenuous two-faced phony.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Your 2009 Suncoast League Champion Millburn Mustangs
In a dominating performance, I'm pleased to announce that my Fantasy Football Team, the Millburn Mustangs, have won the Suncoast League Championship by a score of 120.50 to 76.50.
Millburn Mustangs (8-5)
QB Jay Cutler - 18.00
WR Hines Ward - 11.00
WR Antonio Bryant - 10.00
WR Wes Welker - 9.00
RB DeAngelo Williams - 29.00
RB Pierre Thomas - 8.00
TE Jason Witten - 10.00
K Rob Bironas - 8.00
D DeMeco Ryans - 5.00
D Lance Briggs - 3.50
DB Quintin Mikell - 3.50
DB Kerry Rhodes - 2.50
DL Justin Tuck - 1.50
DL A.J. Hawk - 1.50
The PlayMakerZ (7-6)
QB Tyler Thigpen - 20.50
WR Calvin Johnson - 3.00
WR Braylon Edwards - 1.00
WR Donald Driver - 3.50
RB Steve Slaton - 4.00
RB Brian Westbrook - 5.00
TE Dallas Clark - 11.00
K Ryan Longwell - 5.00
D Calvin Pace - 1.00
D Chad Greenway - 1.50
DB Cortland Finnegan - 2.50
DB Nick Collins - 6.00
DL Barrett Ruud - 3.50
DL DeMarcus Ware - 9.00
I had written in a previous post of how your rooting interests can get crossed up when you play fantasy sports, specifically when you have a player on your team (who you want to do well) is playing against your favorite team (who you want to win). My stud running back was DeAngelo Williams of the Carolina Panthers, who was up against the New York Giants in an important game which would determine home-field advantage for the playoffs. When push came to shove, I definitely was rooting for the Giants win, but the outcome couldn't have been better: DeAngelo Williams rushed for four touchdowns but the Giants still won the game in overtime after a clutch performace by Derrick Ward, and thus clinched home-field advantage for the playoffs.
But naturally I'm going to savor this great fantasy football championship, my second in the past three seaons I've played.
Terry Bradshaw, Former Quarterback and NFL Announcer: Suncoast League Champs! How does that sound?
Mike Kuo, GM and Owner of the Millburn Mustangs: It feels great, Terry. I want to give glory to Jesus Christ for our great season. It was a tough league and these guys really played their hearts out. I really want to give a nod to some of our new guys who joined the team midway through the season and became true Mustangs... DeAngelo Williams, Antonio Bryant and Rob Bironas all were fantastic down the stretch. Of course, I'd like to thank myself for those shrewd pickups. The Mustangs are blessed to have such a brilliant GM.
Terry Bradshaw: Uh, right. What can say about the performance of DeAngelo Williams?
Mike Kuo: DeAngelo was phenomenal as he has been in the past but today he really put on a performance for the ages. You couldn't keep that young man out of the end zone and it was indicative of just how important this team felt this game was. We also had a contributions from everyone on the offensive side of the ball - our receivers and backs each found their way into the end zone and Jay Cutler was solid as well. I just would again like to point out that yours truly was the sharp mind that started Cutler over a Kurt Warner who did absolutely nothing against the Patriots this weekend. Was that a stroke of genius or what? Kudos also to the GM for...
Terry Bradshaw: (Interrupting) So now that you have the trophy and the champagne has been opened, what's next for you and the rest of the team?
Mike Kuo: I'm going to Disneyland! Oh, who am I kidding? I'm going to put the kids to bed.
Millburn Mustangs (8-5)
QB Jay Cutler - 18.00
WR Hines Ward - 11.00
WR Antonio Bryant - 10.00
WR Wes Welker - 9.00
RB DeAngelo Williams - 29.00
RB Pierre Thomas - 8.00
TE Jason Witten - 10.00
K Rob Bironas - 8.00
D DeMeco Ryans - 5.00
D Lance Briggs - 3.50
DB Quintin Mikell - 3.50
DB Kerry Rhodes - 2.50
DL Justin Tuck - 1.50
DL A.J. Hawk - 1.50
The PlayMakerZ (7-6)
QB Tyler Thigpen - 20.50
WR Calvin Johnson - 3.00
WR Braylon Edwards - 1.00
WR Donald Driver - 3.50
RB Steve Slaton - 4.00
RB Brian Westbrook - 5.00
TE Dallas Clark - 11.00
K Ryan Longwell - 5.00
D Calvin Pace - 1.00
D Chad Greenway - 1.50
DB Cortland Finnegan - 2.50
DB Nick Collins - 6.00
DL Barrett Ruud - 3.50
DL DeMarcus Ware - 9.00
I had written in a previous post of how your rooting interests can get crossed up when you play fantasy sports, specifically when you have a player on your team (who you want to do well) is playing against your favorite team (who you want to win). My stud running back was DeAngelo Williams of the Carolina Panthers, who was up against the New York Giants in an important game which would determine home-field advantage for the playoffs. When push came to shove, I definitely was rooting for the Giants win, but the outcome couldn't have been better: DeAngelo Williams rushed for four touchdowns but the Giants still won the game in overtime after a clutch performace by Derrick Ward, and thus clinched home-field advantage for the playoffs.
But naturally I'm going to savor this great fantasy football championship, my second in the past three seaons I've played.
Terry Bradshaw, Former Quarterback and NFL Announcer: Suncoast League Champs! How does that sound?
Mike Kuo, GM and Owner of the Millburn Mustangs: It feels great, Terry. I want to give glory to Jesus Christ for our great season. It was a tough league and these guys really played their hearts out. I really want to give a nod to some of our new guys who joined the team midway through the season and became true Mustangs... DeAngelo Williams, Antonio Bryant and Rob Bironas all were fantastic down the stretch. Of course, I'd like to thank myself for those shrewd pickups. The Mustangs are blessed to have such a brilliant GM.
Terry Bradshaw: Uh, right. What can say about the performance of DeAngelo Williams?
Mike Kuo: DeAngelo was phenomenal as he has been in the past but today he really put on a performance for the ages. You couldn't keep that young man out of the end zone and it was indicative of just how important this team felt this game was. We also had a contributions from everyone on the offensive side of the ball - our receivers and backs each found their way into the end zone and Jay Cutler was solid as well. I just would again like to point out that yours truly was the sharp mind that started Cutler over a Kurt Warner who did absolutely nothing against the Patriots this weekend. Was that a stroke of genius or what? Kudos also to the GM for...
Terry Bradshaw: (Interrupting) So now that you have the trophy and the champagne has been opened, what's next for you and the rest of the team?
Mike Kuo: I'm going to Disneyland! Oh, who am I kidding? I'm going to put the kids to bed.
Monday, December 22, 2008
A Responsibility For All Of Us
Great column by New York Times writer Nicholas Kristof, who in his self-confessed transparent attempt this holiday season to shame liberals into being more charitable, makes a number of interesting and good points which ultimately lead to an imperative for all of us.
The article outlines a number of facts and figures provided by Arthur Brooks, author of "Who Really Cares" and a study by Google, some which I was aware of and some which I was not. Liberals tend to push for government spending which benefits the poor both here and abroad, but tend to not be generous as individuals. There are a number of other cuts of data that are shown, such as taking into account how "religious" or the income level of the givers, and the destination of the charitable contributions.
It's a responsibility for all of us to care for the needy. Regardless of political leaning or socioeconomic class, providing clothes for those who are naked and food for those who are hungry is not a matter of charity, it's a matter of fundamental human rights. If you count yourself as a Christian, the charge as seen the parable of the Sheep and the Goats (Matthew 25:31-46) makes this even more compelling. If we're not caring for the poor, we're not simply being lazy - we're being disobedient. Need ideas? Consider giving to or volunteering at the Goodwill Rescue Mission or Bowery Mission.
I also find it amazing and humbling that the working poor are the most generous segment of our population when it comes to giving as a percentage of income. I wonder if part of that is due to the blindness of so many of us who are upwardly-mobile, upper-middle class and above, who are so self-focused in our perspective that we can only see how "poor" we are in comparison to the people who we sometimes aspire to be - those who we believe are "really rich". Could it be that contentment and not having eyes fixed on achieving the next income band might free us to be more charitable and generous?
Now whether charity should be a matter of government coersion or personal liberty is another issue altogether. I can appreciate the arguments on either side, and I touched on some of this on a previous post around the purported immorality of Social Security.
Kristof also writes, "When liberals see the data on giving, they tend to protest that conservatives look good only because they shower dollars on churches — that a fair amount of that money isn’t helping the poor, but simply constructing lavish spires." Whether this is what Kristof believes or his representation of what liberals think, it's a gross cynical misreprentation of the truth. Having visibility into our own church's finances, we don't spend money constructing lavish spires or any sort of analogous lavish spending despite my continued efforts to get us to purchase a foosball table for the church office (kidding). We do devote significant amounts of funds (as well as time) for mercy towards those inside and outside our church and a core tenet of our theology admonishes our members to do likewise.
The largest bulk of our funds goes to making and growing disciples inside and outside our church - helping people to grow in faith and become disciples who are loving their God and their neighbor in word and deed. Is this helping the needy? I think so - I'd argue that there is no greater need to be addressed.
The article outlines a number of facts and figures provided by Arthur Brooks, author of "Who Really Cares" and a study by Google, some which I was aware of and some which I was not. Liberals tend to push for government spending which benefits the poor both here and abroad, but tend to not be generous as individuals. There are a number of other cuts of data that are shown, such as taking into account how "religious" or the income level of the givers, and the destination of the charitable contributions.
It's a responsibility for all of us to care for the needy. Regardless of political leaning or socioeconomic class, providing clothes for those who are naked and food for those who are hungry is not a matter of charity, it's a matter of fundamental human rights. If you count yourself as a Christian, the charge as seen the parable of the Sheep and the Goats (Matthew 25:31-46) makes this even more compelling. If we're not caring for the poor, we're not simply being lazy - we're being disobedient. Need ideas? Consider giving to or volunteering at the Goodwill Rescue Mission or Bowery Mission.
I also find it amazing and humbling that the working poor are the most generous segment of our population when it comes to giving as a percentage of income. I wonder if part of that is due to the blindness of so many of us who are upwardly-mobile, upper-middle class and above, who are so self-focused in our perspective that we can only see how "poor" we are in comparison to the people who we sometimes aspire to be - those who we believe are "really rich". Could it be that contentment and not having eyes fixed on achieving the next income band might free us to be more charitable and generous?
Now whether charity should be a matter of government coersion or personal liberty is another issue altogether. I can appreciate the arguments on either side, and I touched on some of this on a previous post around the purported immorality of Social Security.
Kristof also writes, "When liberals see the data on giving, they tend to protest that conservatives look good only because they shower dollars on churches — that a fair amount of that money isn’t helping the poor, but simply constructing lavish spires." Whether this is what Kristof believes or his representation of what liberals think, it's a gross cynical misreprentation of the truth. Having visibility into our own church's finances, we don't spend money constructing lavish spires or any sort of analogous lavish spending despite my continued efforts to get us to purchase a foosball table for the church office (kidding). We do devote significant amounts of funds (as well as time) for mercy towards those inside and outside our church and a core tenet of our theology admonishes our members to do likewise.
The largest bulk of our funds goes to making and growing disciples inside and outside our church - helping people to grow in faith and become disciples who are loving their God and their neighbor in word and deed. Is this helping the needy? I think so - I'd argue that there is no greater need to be addressed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
