A Signature Anti-Participation Project? A Review of “A Day Without Dignity”

April 5 witnessed the first anti-participation project we can recall, Good Intentions Blog’s A Day Without Dignity:

A Day Without Dignity is a counter-campaign to TOMS Shoes A Day Without Shoes “awareness raising campaign” (commerial). On or around April 5th – the same date as A Day Without Shoes – we’re asking aid workers, the diaspora, and people from areas that receive shoe drops and other forms of charity to speak up in blogs, on twitter, or at school. Full details of this counter-campaign can be found here.

The page lists dozens of blog postings protesting “A Day Without Shoes,” each of which tends to blast the Tom’s campaign before concluding with the refrain (my paraphrase here), “…and that’s why the only sane, sensible, humane thing to do is to give money to professional aid workers.”

(Never one to shy away from a good controversy, Holden at GiveWell goes so far as to attempt a case for giving money directly to people in need, pointing to a program in London that produced “strong results” by buying homeless people whatever the homeless felt like they needed. Might want to keep digging into the results of that and similar campaigns, Big H.)

Modest counterproposal, anyone?

The Tom’s project is clearly intended to be a Signature Participation Project, not a comprehensive social policy. As such, rather than maligning the project and the motivations, intentions, or intelligence of those who participate in it, why not piggyback on top of it with a P to E move?

Contact Tom’s and work with them to create a campaign called “The Next Step,” in which the vast database of shoeless Participation-level do-gooders they’ve (hopefully) amassed is contacted and challenged to go beyond sending a pair of shoes to address the problem more systemically?

My message to Saundra Schimmelpfennig at the Good Intentions blog, who organized A Day Without Dignity:

Saundra, the shoeless ones who participated in the Tom’s event are not your enemies but your students. Don’t shame them; instead, encourage and challenge them (and Tom’s Shoes) to take the next step to grow to full maturity in the cause in which you both labor. If we ever come to the point where three quarters of the American public is going shoeless in lieu of other more productive forms of aid, then organize an event like “A Day Without Dignity.”

Until then, the greater enemy will always be inactivity, not individuals who by their actions have shown that they care and who probably can be encouraged and challenged to continue to care while continuing to grow in their ability to make a difference.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

What Christian Missionaries and Aid Workers (and Each of Us) Can Learn from the Fukushima Fifty

From the Japanese nuclear tragedy, three excerpts worth our deepest reflection.

(Yes, I know this is a long piece. Please read it anyway.)

The first excerpt, Brett Michael Dykes’ Japanese nuclear plant worker discusses choice to sacrifice his life:

As Japan continues to grapple with catastrophic radiation leaks at the quake-damaged Fukushima Daichii nuclear complex, the plant’s remaining workers have shown heroic dedication in the face of a task that amounts to a likely suicide mission.

The global audience following the Japanese nuclear drama has learned a little about these selfless heroes. But some of the most basic questions about them–who they are and what has motivated them to make the ultimate sacrifice–have gone unanswered. Now, however, the Agence France Press reporter Kimi De Freytas has published an interview with one of the Fukushima workers that sheds considerable light on how they understand their mission–and how they are holding up under under the extraordinary, mortal stress they are facing.

Hiroyuki Kohno, a 44-year-old plant worker who’s been employed in the nuclear industry since he was a teenager, promptly answered the emergency call issued by his employer, a subcontractor for the Tokyo Electric Power Company. Shortly after last March’s devastating earthquake and tsunami produced a power outage at the facility, Kohno’s employers sent out an all-hands appeal via email.

“Attention. We would like you to come work at the plant. Can you?” De Freytas reports the email read. Kohno, who has worked at the Fukushima facility for the past decade, said he knew what the implications of heeding the call would be.

“To be honest, no one wants to go,” Kohno told De Freytas. “Radiation levels at the plant are unbelievably high compared with normal conditions. I know that when I go this time, I will return with a body no longer capable of work at a nuclear plant.”

Kohno told De Freytas that as a single man with no children, he felt obligated to answer the call and join the team that the media has dubbed the “Fukushima Fifty.” Better that he face the risk, he explained, so as to spare his colleagues who have dependents counting on them. Besides, he added, the workers in the plant are his brothers and sisters, and he feels an allegiance to them.

“There’s a Japanese expression: ‘We eat from the same bowl.’ These are friends I shared pain and laughter with. That’s why I’m going,” he explained to De Freytas.

The second excerpt, from Todd Johnson, director of the Center for the Study of Global Christianity at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, quoted via Adelle Banks’ piece in CT, Missionaries Grapple with Leaving Japan:

“Missionaries in general, who are tied very closely to local situations, are often the last people to leave or to evacuate,” [Johnson] said. “Tsunamis and earthquakes and even war or pestilence — they historically have been the very last people to go because this is their home, so to speak, where they work. But radiation is just a completely different thing.”

And finally, from The Whole Life Offering:

Hospitals owe their origin to the plethora of plagues and epidemics that struck the ancient world with alarming regularity and force. Observes author Rob Moll, “When an epidemic struck in the ancient world, pagan city officials offered gifts to the gods but nothing for their suffering citizens. Even in healthy times, those who had no one to care for them, or whose care placed too great a burden on the family, were left out to die.”

The early church responded not only out of compassion, adds Moll citing Christian Medical History Professor Gary Ferngren, but out of a worshipful recognition that every cast-out body bore the Imagio Dei—the image of God. The church sought to restore that image to vitality through the practice of the Works of Mercy, first in private homes and then, as the tide of desperation and disease swamped the ancient world, in “hospitals” designed for comprehensive care. If restoration proved impossible, Christians provided comfort and burial at the cost of their own health, safety, and finances:

When the plague of Cyprian struck in 250 and lasted for years, this volunteer corps became the only organization in Roman cities that cared for the dying and buried the dead. Ironically, as the church dramatically increased its care, the Roman government began persecuting the church more heavily.

Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, wrote, according to Ferngren, “that presbyters, deacons, and laymen took charge of the treatment of the sick, ignoring the danger to their own lives.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

“Dirty Money”: Why More Donations are Dirtier Than We Think

Thanks as always to Kirsten Bullock for her weekly list of must-read blog posts on fundraising. On the list this week, an especially must-read read from PhilanTopic on a topic sadly swept quietly under most nonprofit rugs:

Dirty money.

An article in Monday’s New York Times(“Mexican Church Takes a Closer Look at Donors“) focuses on an issue that’s as old as philanthropy itself. Should a nonprofit’s leadership decline a gift when a donor’s activities run counter to the organization’s mission?

Damien Cave, the reporter who wrote the piece in the Times, begins the article with an anecdote about a shiny, new Roman Catholic chapel in Pachuca, Mexico. Nothing unusual about that in a country which takes its religion seriously, except perhaps for the donor who made it possible: one Heriberto Lazcano Lazcano, leader of the Zetas, a ruthless drug trafficking syndicate. Indeed, the narcotraficante’s support is acknowledged by a bronze plaque on the chapel’s exterior engraved with a line from Psalm 143: “Lord, hear my prayer, answer my plea” — a gruesome bit of irony given that Lazcano is known locally as “the executioner.”

Before we each pat ourselves on the back too quickly for our own spotless records of refusing donations from Mexican narco-terrorists, let’s consider what for the Christian ought actually to constitute “dirty money”.

From The Whole Life Offering book:

Christianity-as-philanthropy contends that comprehensive discipleship is the Scriptural framework for talking about giving. It recognizes that the financial giving of Christians parallels their overall maturity in Christ. If teachers seek to aid students in growing their financial giving in a particular Work of Mercy, teachers must equip the students to grow to overall maturity in Christ in that area. Christians’ financial donations will be roughly the same size as their heads, their hearts, and their hands in relation to a particular Work of Mercy.

Contention: Any donation that is received outside of a discipleship process of growing the donor to full maturity in Christ in the cause is actually dirty money. That discipleship process doesn’t have to occur at the hands of the organization receiving the gift (e.g., the donor may be being discipled in the cause at church but may choose to give to a nonprofit for a specific purpose), but if the recieving organization does not ensure that the gift is part of some intentional discipleship process related to the cause (whether that gift represents the initial or advanced stages of the process is no matter), then the gift is dirty money.

Too harsh?

Back to The Whole Life Offering book to consider what Scripture has to say on the matter:

Scripture itself dwells surprisingly little on questions related to specific numbers, amounts, and percentages. Instead, it dwells on the hows and whys of giving. The focus is on the presentation of the Christian’s whole life as an offering. God is less concerned about the total dollar amount of one’s donations and more about who one is becoming as one makes them.

What do our Christian ministry organizations become when we focus more on donations than on who our donors are becoming as they give?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment