The End of Poverty

"The End of Poverty" by Jeffrey Sachs was what I would consider a bold book. Basically, Sachs claims that it is possible to eliminate extreme poverty for the 1.1 billion people in the world currently living in it by the year 2025.

The book could be divided into three parts. The first part is what I would call "Global Economics 101" as Sachs paints with broad strokes the issue of global poverty, how it starts, and why it is difficult to fix. The second part is case studies of different nations that Sachs witnessed and even helped to come out of economic turmoil.

The final, and most in-depth part of the book, was Sachs plan to end extreme poverty by the year 2025. He argues that it can be done by the world's richest nations (read United States) donating just .7% of their GNP (Gross National Product). Obviously it will also take a major organizational effort to distribute the funds and to provide clean drinking water, a sustainable source of food, and basic health care, etc, and Sachs briefly touched on this.


I was impressed by Sach's intrepid attitude that extreme poverty is something that could be fixed. I am certainly not intelligent enough to wrap my brain around this huge issue and offer any type of opinion as to the validity of Sach's claims. I do believe that I have to do my part on an individual level to live in such a way that others are able to simply live, which will hopefully have an impact on my family, and then my community, and then hopefully will continue to have a ripple effect that will extend to the entire world.

Next, I will be reading a book, "The White Man's Burden," which I have been told is a response to Sach's, so I will be curious to see how this will bring a new perspective.

the god's aren't angry

A few weeks ago Laura and I went to hear Rob Bell on his "the god's aren't angry" tour. I have heard Rob Bell preach through his podcasts at Mars Hill, and I have read both of his books, so I was excited to hear/see him in person. I came away not disappointed in any way. He spoke for about an hour and a half on the origins on religious thought and how the revelation of the Judaic/Christian God was a radical alternative at every point in history to the "gods" created by humans.

As it has been a few weeks, the following 2 thoughts remain with me:

1. He really explained well this idea of progressive revelation. For example, it is easy for us to read the Old Testament and pass it off as barbaric and oppressive. However, Bell did an excellent job of putting it in its context and showing the ways that the OT was transformative and life-giving. Basically, the OT declares that you can know where you stand with the God of the universe, which was a main problem of the ancient mindset (ie not knowing where you stand with the gods).

2. He also did an excellent job of pulling everything into a present context. He gave examples and stories of how these primal urges and fears are still present today. People are still chasing after invisible "gods" and responding to urges such as self-mutilation and hopelessness.

All in all, it was a solid teaching and I would definitely recommend checking it out once it comes out on DVD.

By far the most interesting part of the evening took place after the teaching. Outside, a few loud "protesters" had gathered, preaching "turn or burn." One guy had a big sign that said "God is Angry with your Sins" and another guy was pounding a bible while telling everyone they needed to repent or go to hell. At first I laughed out loud because I thought it was a joke, but I quickly learned that they were dead serious. It left a really awkward feeling inside of me and I felt embarrassed for them and for myself. If outsiders to the faith are turned off to the concept of being in a relationship with God because of examples like I saw that night, I do not blame them, I was pretty turned off myself.

The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle

"The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle" by Haruki Murakami was another book on my classical literature list. In reading these works of classical literature, I have been really impressed with the writing capabilities of the authors. In the case of this book, Murakami was able to write a 600 page book based on the simple plot of a man whose wife mysteriously leaves him. Even though the plot was simple, it was still really interesting.

Murakami is a Japanese author and the setting of the book is in Tokyo. I was surprised at how similar the characters were culturally to Americans. In fact, I do not recall at all ever being confused about something that could only be understood in a certain cultural context.

I am not sure whether or not I liked the book. It kept me interested the whole time and I really enjoyed the writing style. However, the book ended with too many loose ends. A lot of mystery was created and nothing much was resolved in the end. The more I recall parts of the book, the more I realize that Murakami never gave any resolution to the story lines he developed. Overall, it was a solid piece of fiction and certainly worth reading.

Jeopardy!

I generally despise television game shows, but I have to be honest, I love Jeopardy! I love that players match wits on random subjects. I love that they have to buzz in to answer. I love that they answer in the form of a question. I love the clever categories and questions. I think Alex Trebek is a smooth guy. I love the intangible aspect of the daily doubles. I love that there is a strategy to betting with the money you have earned. I love that you have to put it all on the line in Final Jeopardy! I even love that it has an exclamation point in the actual title!

However, there is one part of the show that drives me bananas. The first commercial break takes place halfway through the first round. After the break, Alex Trebek is waiting to "meet" the players. He spends about a minute with each contestant, and it is always extremely awkward. It has little to do with the debonair Trebek and everything to do with the fact that the majority of the contestants are eggheads with zero personality.

The conversations are always about something that is supposed to be "interesting" about the contestant. I am sure that they have to fill out some card before the show with their name, where they are from, and then there is the spot that says "Something interesting about you..." I can just see the contestant struggling to put something down, recalling that their life has mainly been about reading books and spending time with a computer.

For this reason alone, I will never attempt to be a contestant on Jeopardy! I also feel bad for Mr. Trebek, who has to laugh at their poor attempts at humor and give the appearance that he is actually interested in their coy quips.

This definitely needs to go on my list. Here is how it now stands:

1. Wearing a cell phone on your hip
2. The idea that a nice smile is the "normal" way to pose for a photograph
3. People who cut to the front of a traffic back-up when they know they need to get over
4. Local TV Newspeople
5. Confirmational Reactionist
6. Wearing a blue tooth headset as a fashion accessory
7. Putting Bullethole stickers on your car
8. Placing a fake baseball on your car that gives the allusion that it has shattered your window
9. People who litter
10. Ignorcycles
11. Bumper stickers
12. Cheesy Church Signs
13. The player introduction part of Jeopardy!

god is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything

Christopher Hitchens is an atheist, and he is not shy about it. Unlike some atheist, he is not indifferent toward religion, he is angry about it. This book is a 283 page rant that painfully spells out the ills of religion. Hitchens does not pull any punches on any form of religion, although he does tend to concentrate the most energy on Judaism and Christianity. Each chapter has a loose structure for providing an angle for revealing examples of how religion has destroyed lives and wreaked havoc.

As I was reading, I could not help but think that the same examples that Hitchens was using could also be applied to governments and nation-states. Hitchens solution to the problem of religion is the hope that it will just go away. Should the same be said for governments and nations? The truth of the matter is that every single type of institution that exists has been or will be guilty of some great atrocity.

My biggest problem with this book was that Hitchens never really offers an alternative for living well. He spends a small part of the end hoping for a New Enlightenment where humans will be able to overcome the myth of religion, but he is not able to offer any type of vision for a better world.

My knee-jerk reaction throughout my reading of this book was to argue Hitchens at every point and essentially say, "Yeah, but..." I tried really hard to read with an open mind as I was engaging someone who obviously thinks very differently from me. I think that all too often Christians are quick to argue and debate, while being slow to listen. The more I learn about God, the more I am convinced that God does not need humans to argue for God's existence or defend God's sovereignty. God is perfectly capable of taking care of God's self. Reading this book with this attitude allowed me to come to the conclusion that I think Hitchens may be right - religion has caused unnecessary pain and suffering and grief. Perhaps Christians should begin to focus less on the noise of apologetics and more on the practices of confession and repentance. Perhaps we should more concerned with modeling lives of love than being "right." Just a thought.

Cheesy Church Signs

Last night Laura and I hung out with some friends who live several miles outside of Raleigh. We were hoping to find a grocery store to bring some food, and while we drove for 45 minutes before finding one, we did come across several rural churches. Most of those churches had a sign out front - the type of sign that allows one to spell out a custom message.

I kid you not, we honestly saw the following 3 church signs, right in a row.

1. SOULED OUT - What does this mean? If it is referring to being sold out, does that mean the church has no more room for souls? If you take it literally, does it mean that the church's souls are out, that they have no more soul? I think the church probably meant they are souled out for Jesus, but it did not say that and I am not sure what that means either.

2. BECOME AN ORGAN DONOR: GIVE YOUR HEART TO JESUS - This is a terrible attempt to be witty. If I passed that sign and was in desperate need of a lung or other organ transplant, I would be extremely offended.

3. ALL IS WELCOME - On the one hand, this could just be a poor use of English grammar. If this is the case, you should never be in charge of a church sign if you do not have a basic grasp of the English language. On the other hand, "all" can be used in the singular sense if it is referring to a specific group. In this case, the church is communicating: "Everyone is not welcome, only all of one specific group (which we are not identifying) is welcome." Either way, it is a bad sign.

What compels churches to have these signs? Who takes the time to come up with the "clever" sayings? Has this ever been an effective means of doing anything positive? I think that all these cheesy church signs manage to accomplish is provide people with reasons for avoiding church.

Before I add this to my list, I found this cool website where you can make your own church sign. Check it out here. You can have a lot of fun with this website!

Here is the current list:

1. Wearing a cell phone on your hip
2. The idea that a nice smile is the "normal" way to pose for a photograph
3. People who cut to the front of a traffic back-up when they know they need to get over
4. Local TV Newspeople
5. Confirmational Reactionist
6. Wearing a blue tooth headset as a fashion accessory
7. Putting Bullethole stickers on your car
8. Placing a fake baseball on your car that gives the allusion that it has shattered your window
9. People who litter
10. Ignorcycles
11. Bumper stickers
12. Cheesy Church Signs

Colossians Remixed

"Colossians Remixed" by Walsh and Keesmaat was a bold interpretation of Colossians intended for the 21st century. I was really impressed with the scholarship that went into this book. Walsh and Keesmaat did a terrific job of drawing from a wide variety of solid sources.

The book had several components to it. First of all, it shed light on the context of Colossians and argued that this letter was a subversive and politically charged letter that directly confronted the empire of Rome. The authors then attempted to retell the story of the letter in light of our current global empire of consumerism. The book was written to engage the postmodern mind and even argued that the postmodern desire for choice and diversity is really a false cover-up for the idolatry of global consumerism.

Many of the ideas in the book are pretty heavy, and would take up too much space to try and explain in this blog post. My reading of this book left me with the impression that no Bible study or sermon on Colossians should be done without at least consulting this book.