Get creative. Grow up.

I’m not much of an activist.  I don’t make a ruckus about much.  I don’t typically boycott things.  And I don’t often rant on situations or organizations.

But this is ridiculous. My cousin (@inabird) just passed on this article about Skecher’s (@skechersusa) newest shoe line, BOBS: http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/2FQ1cY/www.good.is/post/skechers-s-amazing-tom-shoes-rip-off/

Long story short, they’re ripping off TOMS (@tomsshoes).  Same style.  Same concept.  Roughly the same pricing.  Heck, even a close theft of the name.

I’m all for anything that gets good stuff in the hands of people who need it.  And I’m all for corporate America being a better steward of its funds.  I’m all for pay-it-forward type of industry.

But I’m not for a lack of creativity.  Or theft.  C’mon Skechers.  This is absurd.

Way to go for trying to do good. Way to go for passing on.

But you should be ashamed for your lack of creativity.  Shame on you for even thinking of ripping off the concept.  Shame on you for letting it go to production.  Shame on your for your blatant, obvious attempt at using social good to make money rather than using your money to do social good.

I’m not much of an activist.  I don’t make a ruckus about much.  I don’t typically boycott things.  And I don’t often rant on situations or organizations.  But I kinda hope that there is significant backlash at the greed of Skechers, that they grow up and be original. I wouldn’t call it a boycott, but I won’t be buying any of their products any time soon.

Giving Away Missions

A few days ago I made the following tweet, which prompted several comments on my Facebook feed.  I thought I would take a few minutes to explain in more detail what prompted my commentary.

@kevin_white : KLOVE giving away a trip to orphanage in Haiti. Wha?? This work is a tourist contest prize now?! Puke.

First of all, I am grateful that people want to serve. Period. I also acknowledge that short term missions can have a huge impact on people (those who serve and those who are served). I’m a huge fan of the work of organizations like Adventures in Missions, who take thousands and individuals around the world every year, putting them to work in areas of great need.

So what’s my issue?  Several…

Trusting God’s provision.

I’m fully aware of the fact that there may be people who truly have a heart for Haiti and want to serve but don’t have the financial resources to do it.  But this is one of the points that kind of gets to me. If someone has a heart for the work there – and God is laying it on them to go play their part – will He not provide the resources to make it happen?  If 100 people enter the contest, all with the heart for Haiti, will not only 1 person who wins actually go, while 99 sit at home?  If one’s heart is truly for Haiti, he or she should go. Period. And not wait for a contest prize to send them.

Shared Experience.

One of the greatest potential weaknesses of short term missions is the absence of shared experience — participating in a great program outside of the immediate community of brothers and sisters we fellowship with on a regular basis.  One participates in a ministry, has a life-changing experience, then goes home and doesn’t have immediate support and follow-up from their local body.

Last year, I was involved in organizing a trip to Haiti (pre-earthquake) with individuals from our community group at church. Why? We acknowledge the power of a short term mission experience to impact our lives back at home. And we also recognize that the most powerful way to make sure that the life-change experiences continue is by sharing this experience with those we will be with back at home.

Missiology

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of mission-related needs in Haiti. No shortage of work to be done. I have no idea what the particular project is that KLOVE is giving away. But I do know that we should serve in the place where God has prepared us for. (Ironically, I’m in the middle of a study on serving through our church right now and in our daily studies we’re wrestling with applying our Spiritual Gifts, Heart, Abilities, Personality, and Experiences (shout-out to Rick Warren for the S.H.A.P.E. structure) in serving opportunities. Hands-down God has prepared (and is preparing) us for works of service, which He has prepared in advance for us to do.  (Ephesians 2:10))

So – if we have the heart for Haiti, and God is laying it on us to go serve – should we not find the right program and place to apply our ‘SHAPE’?  If we’re perfectly poised for a construction trip, should we go to an orphanage? If you’re wired for loving on kids, should you do a construction trip? (Before you bash on me for not using people wherever – hear my heart — God can and will use anyone, anywhere. But I believe we could be of much more impact by applying that ‘SHAPE’ in the best place where it’s needed.

Missiology 2

When our team returned from Haiti last year, I recorded a podcast and wrote about the idea of serving in Haiti. (Again, pre-earthquake.) Haiti is often referred to as the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. There are thousands of missionaries doing work on an ongoing basis. There is so much work to be done.

I posed the question as it relates to ministry there:

For those of us serving, do we have a heart for the people of Haiti, or do we have a heart for the idea of Haiti?

It’s not my place to judge hearts, or even motives. I’m only asking the question — for those who are serving, are we doing it because the particular people of Haiti are on our heart? Or are we serving because there’s something seemingly great about serving “the poorest country…”?

Again, not judging, I’m only asking the question – are we entering a contest for a trip because we truly want to serve the needy people of Haiti? Or because we like the idea of going to “the poorest country on the western hemisphere; where the big earthquake happened…”?

(Ironically, the follow-up to this has a lot to do with the relative absence of Haiti on the news these days. In the week or two following the quake, you couldn’t get Haiti off the TV screen. Now you’re hard-pressed to find it. The media as a whole is enamored with news stories – the idea of Haiti. If they were primarily concerned with the people of Haiti, we would continue to see stories, follow-up and impact of the Media’s presence.  It truly is the cycle of shifting from relief to recovery. Many more people want to get involved when it’s the relief stage…when it’s the hot story. But the long road of recovery isn’t nearly as glamorous, so we move on to the next story.)

Sociology

We live in a culture of contests and give-aways. Let’s Make a Deal…The Price is Right…Who Wants to be a Millionaire…etc., etc.  Every week radio stations are giving away CD packs, concert tickets, t-shirts, and so-on. As a whole, our society is conditioned to win things. From a sociological perspective, I’m moderately concerned that this idea of contest winning is about the game. If we don’t win, no big deal – we move on. I don’t have a passionate heartbeat for the CD I’m about to win. If I don’t win the contest and really want the disc, I’ll go buy it.  If I don’t win the concert tickets, I’ll do something else that night.  The effect of the contest is something that’s enjoyable to us, but if we don’t win, does it affect our heart?

Serving the people of Haiti should have everything to do with our heart.  And little to do with whether or not we win a contest.

Sociology 2

Undoubtedly the people of Haiti need love. They need support. They need encouragement. Whoever goes there from the U.S. or anywhere else should be prepared to love on people as much as anything else. But the society there doesn’t just need short-term love. It needs long-term support, partnership, friendship, encouragement. Love.

It’s the very reason our church holds very few mission partnerships around the world. We believe the value of depth and commitment over the long haul.

Groups in developing countries are used to short-term teams coming and leaving. A group of people loving on them for a few days, then going back home – rarely to return.  What does true love look like? Commitment? Or short-term?  Yes, the nature of our world often only allows a short-term impact — but that can be followed up with repeat visits, being able to communicate to those on the receiving end, “I will be back.”  Once again, the heart of the matter prevails — and our heart should draw us back; again and again.  Maintaining our commitment; staying with it, being involved.

So – those are my issues. I don’t hate KLOVE or Meredith Andrews (the artist who the contest winner gets to go on the trip with). I applaud the desire to get people to Haiti. And I’m grateful there is a desire to increase awareness and respond in action.  I’m hopeful that whoever wins the prize does go and serves in powerful ways. And I’m hopeful that he or she comes back and does translate this into intentional and ongoing work in Haiti.  That he or she will trust God’s provision and get back there again and again; that there will be future shared experiences; a greater understanding of missiology and sociology and application of personal ‘SHAPE’ to make a long-term impact.

Paul writes in Philippians about individuals’ proclamation of the gospel – that some do it with poor motives. While I’m not questioning the motives behind this contest (I do believe they are pure), I find myself echoing what Paul wrote (1:18):

The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ Jesus is preached. And because of this I rejoice.

The important thing is that the people of Haiti are being served. And because of this I rejoice.

Interested in broadening your perspective on missions? Check out:

When Helping Hurts: How to Alleviate Poverty Without Hurting the Poor and Yourself, by Steve Corbett and Brian Fikkert

The Poor Will Be Glad: Joining the Revolution to Lift the World out of Poverty by Peter Greer and Phil Smith

Where Have all the Consequences Gone?

In other news…

Mark McGwire admitted a couple days ago that he did use performance-enhancing drugs at the height of his Major League Baseball success.  According to USA Today, “Mark McGwire finally admitted Monday what he couldn’t tell a Congressional committee nearly five years ago: His home-run hitting exploits, including his stirring 1998 run to the single-season record, were fueld in part by steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs.”

In a series of statements to follow, McGwire expresses sorrow for his decisions.

I’m not here to judge McGwire’s intentions or his heart. But I am concerned about what is buried a bit deeper in the USA Today article:

Monday, McGwire said he came to the [2005 Congressional] hearing, “ready, willing and prepared to tell my story and come clean.” But McGwire said an attempt by two of his lawyers to gain immunity from committed co-chairs Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.) and Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) fell through.

“If I didn’t get immunity, I could face prosecution,” he said. “And here I am sitting there and wanting to tell my story. There were two scenarios. But the immunity didn’t come through. So, I sat there and said, ‘I don’t want to talk about the past.’

Monday, Waxman released a statement that said McGwire was “doing the right thing by telling the truth about his steroid use. His statement sends an important message to kids about the importance of avoiding steroids.”

Does anybody else see the gaping holes here? Does anybody else observe the problems?

First of all, McGwire did admit to his use. This is good. But, c’mon, it’s nearly 5 years since he lied to the Congressional committee.  “He didn’t tell them he didn’t use drugs,” you say.  Well, my friends – in my book, not telling the truth is the same as lying. So when he knew what the situation was, and knew he was “prepared to…come clean”, he should have.  Again – not telling the truth, when you know what it is, is the same as lying.

Secondly, avoiding the truth because you’ll face consequences is another huge problem. “Well, if I might get in trouble, maybe I’ll avoid telling the truth.”  What?!  Give me a break.  Life is about choices. And most of us rarely enjoy the consequences of our failures. But that’s part of the deal. You can’t choose what to say and not say because of the consequences.  You lied to a Congressional committee.  Face the music.

So, what are those consequences?

Apparently, he’s keeping his job as the Cardinal’s hitting coach and he’s gained redemption that might get him in to the Hall of Fame.

You’ve got to be kidding me.

Hank Aaron is quoted as saying, “He has asked for forgiveness. He has my forgiveness. If that’s all that stands in the way between him being inducted into Cooperstown we should all forgive him.”

Yes, we should forgive. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t consequences! And let’s not forget that the Hall of Fame is for performance, accomplishment, success in the game. Now we all know, Mark McGwire himself didn’t have that level of performance – the drugs did.  So, why don’t we induct steroids into Cooperstown?  Jeesh.

Commissioner Bud Selig is quoted as saying, “This statement of contrition, I believe, will make Mark’s re-entry into the game much smoother and easier.”

Re-entry?  He cheated the game.  He lied.  Why is re-entry so easy?

McGwire admits, “Performance-enhancing drugs are an illusion. I wish I had never gotten involved with steroids. It was wrong. It was stupid.”

Well, according to the current course of events, there don’t seem to be many ill-effects of your decisions. So, the players you’ll be coaching now know you can use the drugs and 10 years down the road probably still have everything work out okay. The public eye can now see that it’s okay to lie to Congress and come clean five years later.

I’m not implying that McGwire hasn’t had great internal struggles or battles. I’m not implying that he hasn’t faced any consequences for these decisions.  I’m sure he has.

But I’m just saying – he’s right when he says that it was wrong and it was stupid. And, in my opinion, walking right back into the game seems a bit wrong. And induction into the Hall of Fame?  That would be stupid.

Responsibility

So, we know this is a litigious society – we sue over everything.  For whatever reason, our citizens have forgotten personal responsibility and have decided it’s always someone else’s fault for their problem, beef, or their own stupidity.

Here’s the most recent:  A lady sues the Brookfield Zoo (not too far away from us here in suburban Chicago) because she slipped on the floor outside a dolphin area.  Her claim?  That the trainers “recklessly and willfully trained and encouraged the dolphins to throw water at the spectators in the stands making the floor wet and slippery.”

Excuse me?  It’s a DOLPHIN!  They play in the water.  My guess is if the dolphins put on a bad show where they didn’t splash around, she would probably sue because she didn’t receive the entertainment she paid for.  And that would cause emotional damage for her and her kids.  And the only way that they would feel better is to get paid a million bucks.

It almost gets even better.  She claims that the zoo “failed to provide warnings of the slippery floor”.

Uh, water is wet.  And wet things are slippery.  Shouldn’t you sue your high school physics teacher for not explaining the reality of liquids and effects on friction.  Or maybe your teacher should sue you for not paying attention in class and wasting her time.

I don’t know…this is just ridiculous.  It was bad enough when a woman spills HOT coffee on herself and sues.  But this is almost just as bad.  Where have we gone as a society when we can’t take responsibility for anything we do?  Of course it’s no fun to slip and fall and get hurt.  But accidents happen.  And when they do, you move on.  It doesn’t always have to be someone else’s fault.  And you don’t always have to make money on the deal.

Of course, now this lady may stumble upon my blog post and sue me for calling her irresponsible.  I guess I’ll just have to deal with that, then.  In the meantime, note to self: when you’re walking next to a pool of dolphins and they’re splashing water – walk a little more slowly.  The floor is probably wet.  And if you don’t want to walk on a wet floor – DON’T GO BY THE DOLPHINS!

Source article: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-talk-brookfield-dolphin-suitaug20,0,7698064.story

On Iron Chef and Ministry

I’ll admit, I’m a food junkie.  (Some might say junk foodie, but that’s a different subject.)  I find a great deal of relaxation and enjoyment in spending hours in the kitchen playing with food, experimenting, and cooking.  To the point that by the time you actually sit down to eat it you’re almost too exhausted to do so.  From time to time I’ll tune into a program on the Food Network and enjoy living vicariously through some celebrity chef.

Tonight, with chores behind me, I tuned in to catch the last few minutes of Iron Chef America — just when all the crazy action has passed and the judges are dishing out their critiques.  And that’s when it dawned on me.

Too many people in ministry are a lot like celebrity TV judges.

Do you really think the judges on Iron Chef America can cook?  (Or the folks on American Idol can sing?  Or the ones on America’s Got Talent have any of their own?)  Sure, they may have something to bring to the table and they’ve all certainly earned their right to be in the chairs they sit in.  But doesn’t the critique often sound a lot more like “I could do this so much better than you” than it does “here’s what you could consider doing differently.”  It’s criticism, not critique.  (There is a difference.)

Have you met those folks in ministry?  The ones who criticize and pick at anything and everything.  Not with a legitimate observation or statement of how they would do it or what seems to be a legitimate concern (critique).  But with some standoffish approach that their way is better than everyone else’s and that you shouldn’t even bother doing what you’re doing (criticism).  You know…the folks that find something wrong with everything.  They’re just critics.

I don’t know.  There may be some times when these reality show judges provide some positive feedback, a little encouragement, or some legitimate constructive critique.  But oftentimes it seems to be a lot more on the complaining side of things – to the tune of “you are pathetic.”  And it leaves you wondering, “could you do any better?”

So what’s the point?  I guess I’d like to be known in life and ministry more for being an encourager, and equipper.  One who, when I find something I disagree with I engage in a dialogue about my perspective or even about Truth.  (With my share of perspective and experience to bring to the table.)  But never to just rip someone apart and tear them down.  The world has plenty of people to do the bashing and criticizing.  Just tune in to TV – you’ll see them.  So maybe it’s time those of us in the Church build each other up.

For me?  I’m going to start by looking in the mirror.