Ok, so the final product was a little short lived, but the process was commendable. Around 15,000 people were involved with the design and build and almost 900 served on board. She was a wage earner for the skilled and the unskilled alike, and she was a common focus for believer and unbeliever to work shoulder to shoulder.
Wherever I have been in the world amongst people who are poor or caught in unhelpful lifestyles, I hear cries for the creation of sustainable employment, cries that have mostly been answered only with acts of short-lived charity.
In an age of The Wise and Frugal Church of I’m Alright Jack, where are the visionaries who will take a foolish business risk to create meaningful work for people who are short on cash and purpose?
And if we are to create neither dens for gambling, nor tools of war, then what should such projects look like?
[416:2168]
13 comments:
can hollywood movies or the olympic games be considered as such projects?
in the western world, substantial commercial projects are important for a number of reasons. they create common goals and a sense of direction and purpose for the participants, an outlet for their talents, abilities or skills and often creating a sense of achievement or belonging.
such projects keep economies spinning. by providing jobs that vary in levels of skill and automation opens opportunity for people from a wide array of demographic backgrounds.
unfortunately, the driving measure behind many such projects is the r.o.i, rather than the number of jobs created, turnover, etc. and when it comes to allocating jobs or contracts most people give work to their own kind.
Christians are notorious for this, and i think we should know better. Jesus said to be "salt and light". surely by creating administrative jobs for the like-minded, or by giving contracts to our mates in the church for no other reason (and of course we devise our own methods of measurement to justify this), we merely expand the salt-pot which is the charismatic evangelical church isolated within it's own culture.
There is a lot in this post and your comments. I thought Jesus came to inaugurate God's kingdom and tell people to turn from their present ways and look to him as the only possible means of salvation. Jesus spoke of salt, because when salt loses it's saltiness it is 'good for nothing'. Salt is hardly every used by itself, but instead added to other substances to change the chemical composition of those things. Just accumulating more salt is of no benefit. If we are to love our brother as ourselves the community revelation of Jesus redemtive love and grace involves engaging others in the kingdom revelation. Church tends to be very good a embracing the vertical aspect of worship but not great at the horizontal aspect of fellowship as far as I can see with the exception of within Christian own circles.
In Acts 4, it speaks of followers of Jesus having everything in common and sharing their possessions. But we still need have a means of putting bread on the table in the first place to share with our christian community. What this looks like I don't know, are there any Biblical models? Jesus was prior to his period of ministry a carpenter, Paul funded his missionary trips by making tents. Did he sell some of these tents to the Romans for military purposes, who knows? As far as I'm concerned any means of putting bread on the table in a honest fashion without sin is permissable. But that opens up a wide debate I suspect.
On a slight tangent and cynical note government spending on defence projects perpetuates the needs for wars or peace-keeping missions. However these countries only engage in wars that they think they can win? Forget about Darfur, Tibet etc.
I really don't think Jesus spoke much on job creation, maybe he thought the second coming would come sooner rather than later and so he focused on the message of repentance?
can salt really lose it’s saltiness? i thought that salt doesn’t expire?
i’m not convinced that the ‘acts 4 concept’ is deserving of replication. didn’t Jesus teach against self-help communities in matt5? “… He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. if you love those who love you, what reward will you get? are not even the tax collectors doing that?…” [bible:niv:nt:matt5]
inevitably, all communities, however small or ideological, are subject to societal qualms, power struggles, economic disagreements etc. and so they require endless internal maintenance. i’m not convinced that having the church tied up in ‘Christian-only’ movements is what Jesus meant regarding His kingdom coming on earth as it is in heaven.
anyway, how does a micro-church community grow economically without trading with the outside world? what does such an interaction tell unbelievers about who we, the church, are? how can it make a tax contribution? what is an honest means of bringing ‘bread to the table’ – if not by stealing, begging, enslaving others or by elevating false value onto desirable things?
Correct, salt can't lose it's saltiness otherwise it wouldn't be salt, right? Salt loses its saltiness if its chemical composition changes, ie through dilution with water. I take that to mean too much worldly interaction and lack of focus on Him.
On the subject of trading and working for people who don't especially recognise Jesus, I'm all for that. Wouldn't it be impossible for us to exist otherwise? We've all got to eat, right. Every worker is worth his wages, so make as much as you can and then give away as much as you can. I'd like to point out that Jesus prior to his ministry period was in a 'normal' job making furniture for his community and probably charging the going rate to whoever. That for me is a Biblical model, setting up christian businesses to trade with christian mates is not. I'm just trying to do life without making money my goal and I find Acts 4 helpful. It could be a model to replicate in certain contexts or not, Karl Marx thought it was.
thought-provoking points nemo.
i also like the idea of earning shed-loads and then giving shed-loads away. some people are more able to do this than others.
an interesting measurement is the length of time between 'accumulating' and 'distributing'. i expect that the acts4 bunch had a much shorter lead-time than today's philanthropists. wealth disparities appear in communities where this period is not agreed or is different between individuals.
how long should this period be? decades, years, months, weeks? Jesus said to pray for 'daily' bread. my experience is that this kind of dependency on God is a great faith-builder, but not a journey that i would chose or would volunteer of others.
interestingly, in one of his book's, shane claiborne explains that, when asked by philanthropists what they can give to, he simply asks them to come and spend time meeting the people in his world. the point being that givers and receivers enjoy a different type of community when the distribution cycle is smaller.
maybe a gift is given with greater love if it has been born out of greater pain?
Very interesting points sputnik.
I wouldn't want to be a philanthropist today. They seem to give out of extraordinary wealth, this tends to imply there has been some degree of accumulation and therefore no great financial pain in their offering. A few Biblical points, the woman at the temple giving out of her poverty and how hard it will be for the rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.
Wasn't it Cain or Abel who gave a pleasing gift to God from his first fruits!
So how different are things in the world culture today. I pray for and thankful for daily bread but have 401(k) plans, insurance, some savings and a long term employment contract to make myself feel comfortable. These are ok I think unless they become a stumbling block preventing me from doing the will of God out of requirement for financial security. What do you think?
yes, i agree with you. Jesus didn't tell the rich man not to accumulate, but instead to hold it loosely enough to be able to give it all away if asked.
the tense in the passage e.g. [bible:niv:nt:matt19] gives it a twist. Jesus says not "it will be ..." but "it is ... easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God". to me, this implies that Jesus is not talking about the man jeopardising his claim to eternal access, but instead that by not being subject to the King on this matter, the man is not being part of bringing God's kingdom into the situation. and also thus forfeiting the benefits of giving wrecklessly?
I agree, and through God's grace and fellowship of the Holy Spirit attitudes can and do change.
As an aside some say that the Camel's eye was one of the many gates in the wall surrounding Jerusalem. The Camel's eye was a narrow one, in which Camels had to kneel down and unburdden themselves of their cargo if they were to pass through. No actual evidence that the gate ever existed though but nice analogy.
but here is a dichotomy: the bible talks about all believers being 'children of God', and that makes us brothers right?
well, if my brother (in flesh) needed help or a job, i would prioritise helping him above helping someone who was not my brother. so should the same apply?
surely such helping 'amongst the brotherhood' is what has perpetuates 'salty clusters'?
When Jesus said who is my family, these are my brothers etc etc..., he was referring to his disciples, not any old Tom, Dick or Sally who goes to church. I sometimes think we infer too much from the Bible. When did Jesus say we should provide employment for fellow church members?
But it sounds like it would be good to be your brother (flesh).
were Jesus disciples his best mates?
surely, in the society that i live in, to give someone a job based on any kind of religious or relational prejudice is a breach of employment law.
Yes, why not? even Iscariot betrayed him with a kiss. On the flip side of the coin I think Jesus probably prayed about who his disciples would be in the the first place.
heathrow terminal 6 might be considered such a project. terminal 5 was :)
Post a Comment