© 2014 The Wired Word
www.thewiredword.com
Sometimes it's important to hear the other side of the story.Just over a week ago, several news outlets reported that apple growers in Washington state had dumped nearly $100 million worth of apples in their fields to rot and serve as compost after a West Coast port slowdown resulting from a labor dispute prevented the growers from getting all of their record harvest to markets and processors.
Once that story broke, trade groups representing the Washington apple industry received a flood of emails and comments lamenting the waste, accusing the state's apple farmers of greed and insisting that the unsold apples be given to food banks.
One such message read, "Your farmers are selfish, and it's going to come back to haunt them someday."
But then, the apple growers and packers responded. In an article by the Yakima Herald, representatives from the apple industry explained that the growers had indeed lost an estimated $95 million in overseas sales because of the labor slowdown that jammed up ports in Seattle and Tacoma, but they did not dump anywhere near that value of apples on the fields.
Wherever they could, packers sent more apples to domestic markets, where the crop could be delivered by trucks. And they did send apples -- lots of them -- to food banks.
According to Sheri Bissell, a spokesperson for Northwest Harvest, a food bank that operates statewide in Washington, growers and packers regularly donate apples to food banks. In fact, Northwest Harvest's Yakima warehouse received nearly 65,000 pounds of apples over two days last week. The warehouse is running out of room and will soon have to turn apples away, Bissell said.
Other food banks in the area are experiencing a similar scenario.
In the end, because apples don't keep indefinitely, some had to be dumped. The industry reps said that every year, some rotten apples are dumped for compost or cattle feed. This year, due to the record harvest and the port labor problems, a larger number no doubt ended up on the fields, said the reps, but nothing like $95-$100 million worth.
More on this story can be found at these links:
Washington Farmers Dump Millions of Apples After Ports Dispute. NBC News
Apple Growers Dispute Dumping $95 Million Worth of Fruit. Yakima Herald
The Big Questions
1. How do you define "surplus" in terms of your own possessions and finances? Is there a biblical standard that can help you arrive at a definition?
2. What obligations, if any, do one's excess belongings and finances place on one? Why? Answer in terms of obligations to God, to one's family, to others.
3. Is there a point at which the amount of one's belongings and finances becomes sinful? Why or why not?
4. Think of incidents regarding utilization or waste of food in your area. What was done? Were churches involved in decision making and/or distribution? In what ways does your church help to channel food to the hungry?
Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
Luke 3:11
Whoever has two coats must share with anyone who has none; and whoever has food must do likewise. (For context, read 3:7-18.)
This is one of the answers John the Baptist gave to the crowds who asked him what they should do in the way of reordering their lives to prepare the way of the Lord.
TWW team member Stan Purdum offers the following personal perspective on the text: "Those words from John stand in judgment of me because I have two coats. In fact, if we are talking about winter coats, I have four of them. One is a dress coat I wear over a suit. One is a short jacket that I wear most of the rest of the time in winter, and then I have two parkas.
"I purchased the first parka for about $30 back in the 1980s. It is very warm, but it's too bulky to wear when I am just hopping in the car for a run to the store. For those kinds of errands, I just wear my winter jacket. This coat is more for when I am going to be outdoors for extended periods. Although it's more than 30 years old, it is still in good condition and still keeps me warm. There's nothing wrong with it.
"But recently, I bought a new parka. This one cost me about $100, and frankly, it doesn't keep me warm any better than the old one did. When it comes to functionality, either one will do the job.
"But here's the thing: I can't really give you a good reason why I purchased the new parka. Obviously, I didn't need it. All I can tell you is that I was in a store where the parka was displayed, and I decided to buy it. And afterward, I wondered why I had. I suspect I was simply in a shopping mode and, on impulse, I made the purchase.
"Now here's where John's statement about having two coats really bites me: A local agency has a box where they collect used winter coats in good condition to donate to people in need. So I went through our closets and rounded up winter coats that are not being worn. Most were from our kids who left coats behind when they left home. I ended up taking six coats to the collection, but I did not include my old parka. I realized that I actually like it and will possibly still wear it sometimes. I even thought about sending my new parka, but I didn't do that either.
"Yet John says, 'Whoever has two coats must share with anyone who has none.'
"I realize that John lived in a different era. In his day, there was not much of a middle class. There were some who were very well off, and most of the rest were relatively poor. Among that group, anyone who had two coats was fortunate indeed, and John urged them to share. What's more, there were no social-welfare programs in that time.
"In acknowledging the differences between our times and John's, I can also point out that in buying the new coat, I was supporting the economy -- not an insignificant act in a capitalist society. If all of us purchased a new coat only when our existing one was fully worn out, we'd likely put the coat industry out of business. What's more, the money that I spent on the new coat was not money that I would have otherwise given to charity. My wife and I already give to several charities and to the church, so this was so-called disposable income.
"But you know what? None of that rationalization helps very much. The purchase feels unwarranted, shopping for shopping's sake." (Update: Stan eventually gave one of his parkas to a just-released prisoner, who needed a winter coat.)
Questions: Does something you possess cause you to feel a bite from John's words in the verse above? Why? What do you think you might do regarding extra possessions your conscience pinches you about?
Luke 12:16-18
The land of a rich man produced abundantly. And he thought to himself, "What should I do, for I have no place to store my crops?" Then he said, "I will do this: I will pull down my barns and build larger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods." (For context, read 12:13-21.)
This is from a parable Jesus told to illustrate his instruction to "Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; for one's life does not consist in the abundance of possessions" (v. 15). In the parable, a rich man had a bumper crop -- far in excess of what he needed or could use -- but he decided to keep it all. No giving to food banks for him. But he died that night, "not rich toward God" (v. 21).
We're not suggesting that parable applies to the apple growers; they aren't hoarding their excessive crop. But it does cause us to examine what we do with unexpected excess. Also, this passage is not a warning against preparing for the future. It does, however, suggests we should not assume the goods we have stored for the future are just for our benefit.
Questions: Might unexpected excess be a divinely given opportunity to become "rich toward God"? Why or why not? What provisions have you made so that part of what you own or have saved will benefit not only family members, but the church, charities or other causes that are dear to your heart?
Leviticus 19:9-10
When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the very edges of your field, or gather the gleanings of your harvest. You shall not strip your vineyard bare, or gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and the alien: I am the LORD your God. (For context, read 19:1-18.)
The Hebrew scriptures teach that charity is part of living righteously. The Leviticus verses quoted above give a specific way in which charity can be given: by leaving the gleanings of the harvest for the needy to gather for themselves. Two things are notable about this command: First, God wants his people who have resources to provide helpful, need-meeting charity for those who don't have resources. Second, the charity isn't a direct handout, but something the needy were to gather for themselves.
Notice also that last phrase: "I am the LORD your God." God is driving home that charity is part of serving him.
Questions: Are gleanings surplus? Why or why not? If you are not a farmer or vineyard owner, what might count as gleanings in your circumstances? How much of the "crop" of your labor, regardless of your profession, do you regard as rightfully yours? Do you look upon giving to others as your choice or your obligation, or would you describe it in different terms?
2 Corinthians 8:13-14
I do not mean that there should be relief for others and pressure on you, but it is a question of a fair balance between your present abundance and their need, so that their abundance may be for your need, in order that there may be a fair balance. (For context, read 8:1-15.)
Second Corinthians 8 provides a good perspective from which to define surplus. In that chapter, Paul is urging the Corinthian Christians to give generously to a collection for the impoverished Christians in Jerusalem (there was likely a drought and famine in Jerusalem at the time). In the verses above, he urges his readers to think of the giving as a matter of balance between their "present abundance" and the need of those in Jerusalem.
The Greek word translated here as "abundance" is perisseuma, which can also be rendered as "surplus," but Paul wasn't implying that the Corinthians were especially well off. He simply meant that in comparison to the Jerusalem Christians, the Corinthian believers were better off, and thus, out of that "surplus," they should give.
In the 19th century, John Wesley, the founder of what became the Methodist Church, told those who looked to him for guidance in the spiritual life that regarding giving to others, they should think in terms of extremities, necessities, conveniences and superfluities. Wesley scholar Sarah Heaner Lancaster explains, "This scale allowed all Methodists, whether rich or poor, to consider what they had to give. The language of extremities indicated not having enough for subsistence. Necessities meant having enough to survive, preferably of decent quality (enough nutritious food, proper clothing, adequate shelter). A few conveniences to make life easier were allowed. Having more than necessities and a few conveniences brought you to the level of superfluities, where the dangers to the soul and the danger of waste were a pressing problem.
"Wesley expected Methodists to do all the good it was possible for them to do. While they were to do all they could without doing injury to the well-being of themselves or their dependents, this expectation did mean giving up some comfort and pleasure to help others. He expressed how this giving should work: 'Let our superfluities give way to our neighbor's conveniences (and who then will have any superfluities left?); our conveniences to our neighbor's necessities; our necessities to his extremities.'
"No matter what your place on the economic scale, Wesley's scale for giving calls you to consider whether expenditures are necessary for carrying out your obligation to yourself or your dependents, or whether they can 'give way' to someone else's need. This kind of reflection moves us from thinking about how to have more and allows us to recognize when we have enough." (From Cynthia Bond Hopson and Sarah Heaner Lancaster, Created for Happiness: Understanding Your Life in God)
Questions: Regardless of your denomination, how might Wesley's scale of extremities, necessities, conveniences and superfluities prove useful in defining what is surplus in your life? How might it guide your giving?
What is your experience with well-off and not-so-well-off people giving to others? Is a certain reserve or skepticism in giving healthy or unhealthy? When have you pledged to give something and failed to do so? Why? Was it helpful for you to be reminded of your commitment?
For Further Discussion
1. Respond to this, from TWW team member Shelly Turner: "As I love to think we 'bless others with our mess,' there comes a point when we have to realize that our excess is an obstacle in our lives."
2. In France, a recently passed law bans supermarkets from discarding or destroying unsold food. It mandates that all unsold but edible food should be donated to charities for immediate distribution to the poor. Food that is unsafe to eat is to be donated to farms for agricultural purposes. Supermarkets that exceed a certain square footage are required to sign contacts with charities by July 2016; penalties for failing to do so include fines of up to roughly $81,600 or two years in prison. What is your reaction to this? What positives and negatives do you think may result from this law?
3. Comment on this, from TWW team member Doug Hargis: "In the last small urban church I served in Merchantville, New Jersey, one of the members commented to me that she had always wanted the church to have a 'food cupboard' at the church for the poor. I did some research, and within a matter of six weeks or less we had started the following distribution of viable food to the poor.
"The church became a 'partner agency' with the Food Bank of South Jersey. Yes, there was some paperwork and hoops to jump through, but nothing prohibitive for a small, struggling church like ours to handle. Being a partner agency entitled us to 'buy' from the Food Bank viable food that was safe and secure for pennies on the dollar. $350 would buy literally a ton of food. We put out the word and dollars showed up from everywhere. We distributed the food using volunteers from our little congregation who were gifted for service and motivated to provide this service. The poor were screened for legitimacy (a federal regulation for some of the federal surplus food), and an orderly means of letting the poor select for themselves the 'free food' they were taking home was created. Hungry people received free food and starving children were fed."
For more on this, see "Responding to the News," below.
4. Name some way in which we might identify surplus in our lives. Here are a couple of ideas to get you started: We buy food and then fail to make use of it before it goes bad, so we have to throw it out. We buy clothes we like in the store, but then don't so much as clip off the price tags at home.
5. Consider who was hurt and helped by the port slowdown. Those hurt include:
•apple growers, who were unable to sell their crops at fair market prices
•those overseas who were denied the opportunity to purchase apples at a good price
•other port workers who were denied work
•people desiring to work at unionized jobs but who were not allowed to due to legal prohibition or other forms of intimidation
•transportation infrastructure people (e.g., shippers, receiving-end workers, etc.) who lost work opportunities
•consumers in general who are harmed by the post-slowdown increase in prices due to the increase in the price for shipping
Those helped include:
•those in apple-growing regions, or in areas where apples could quickly be shipped, benefited from the increased supply (and, hence, lower prices) -- not merely "the poor," but all apple-eaters.
•the unionized port workers (at least, union upper management) may also have benefited in the long run, although that's not a given.
TWW team member Mary Sells, who works for a business-to-business publishing company, comments, "I have customers who lost millions of dollars in sales over a few months where the goods intended to be sold off of their warehouse shelves were sitting on ships offshore. Some tried to redirect shipments through Vancouver (import laws don't always permit that, and/or double duties are not affordable) or even east coast U.S. ports, but if a customer wanted goods in January and they did not arrive until March -- they were of zero value. So some now sit with more inventory on their shelves than they can sell in a reasonable period of time, which can cause a cash flow problem for smaller companies. After the strike ended, the port of Los Angeles (in Long Beach, CA), the busiest U.S. port, received too many containers at one time. As of a few weeks ago, last I checked, they were still trying to get enough trucks in and out of the port to move goods, but trucking companies cannot meet the demand."
Have we missed any others who were hurt or helped?
6. In the United States, most people living "in poverty" (per federal guidelines) have an actual standard of living comparable to the average American in the late 1960s. Compared to the average American, they mainly lack a computer, Internet access, a dishwasher and a computer printer, while having more living space than the average European (see "How Rich Are Poor People?"). This masks somewhat the truly destitute. How might we -- or should we even -- ensure that our aid to "the poor" goes to those lacking in the "extremities and necessities" of life?
Responding to the News
Consider using Wesley's extremities, necessities, conveniences and superfluities to determine what you might share with others out of what you have.
If you would like to start a food cupboard for the poor of your own community, here's one place to begin: Feeding America Food Banks. The Feeding America nationwide network of food banks secures and distributes more than 3 billion meals each year to communities throughout the United States and leads the nation in engaging in the fight against hunger. Enter your zip code, and the Food Bank serving your locale will show up.
Closing Prayer
No comments:
Post a Comment