http://www.amazon.com/Why-Men-Hate-Going-Church/dp/0785260382/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211427196&sr=8-1
Not that I do or anything...
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Friday, May 16, 2008
Mountains Feedback
My wife surprised me yesterday when she came home from the grocery store with a bag of Marshmallow Mateys. I was so excited that I had them for lunch. Now after re-reading your posts, freshman year doesn't seem like so long ago.
It's so nice to have smart friends with similar values. I really appreciated your comments, since I'd been needing to discuss this book ever since I read it. I wanted to make a few comments in response to all of the other posts.
It's so nice to have smart friends with similar values. I really appreciated your comments, since I'd been needing to discuss this book ever since I read it. I wanted to make a few comments in response to all of the other posts.
Peter
Please thank Cami for making the virtual snacks. They're great, and I hope you don't mind if I take one for Tammy.
Good point about needing faith as well as charity. I take comfort in knowing that even if my charity isn't what it should be, at least it is proportional to my faith.
Pres. Monson is indeed more Christ-like than Farmer. (Plus, he can wiggle his ears...the video is now on YouTube!) But I still feel like Farmer is more Christlike than I am.
I saw that you only gave the book 2 stars on your goodreads list. I chose it more because I needed to discuss it than because it was great literature, but thanks for humoring me.
Jesse
I had no idea Farmer's brother was a professional wrestler. That's awesome. It's settled; my children aren't getting any sign of approval from me.
Thanks for putting this all into an equation. I'm embarrassed to say that I often have a negative beta. I love to play games, and I don't just like to win. I like to destroy my opponent. For this reason, my wife and I have stopped playing certain games together. Instead, we will work on word puzzles together or play games that don't involve hurting your opponent.
I would love to hear a debate about whether or not beta=1 is ideal or not, but I think the real point is that, as you said, I need to increase my beta.
Paul
Lots of good points. While it's not a new idea, I especially appreciated the thought that "Christ changes men, who then change their environment." I think this is the justification for serving two years as a proselytizing missionary instead of two years as a humanitarian missionary. With this perspective, there is as much meaningful work to do here in the US as there is to do in Haiti. Now, I just have to find a way to do it.
Glenn
First, thanks for doing your part to stimulate the economy. I am impressed that your career decision was influenced by wanting to have a greater impact on the world.
I loved how you included your favorite quotes. I enjoy listening to books, but this is one of the things I miss by not having the book is the ability to write down and remember good quotes. I think your quote summed up the way I felt after reading this book, "I imagine that many people would like to construct a like like Farmer's, to wake up knowing what they ought to do and feeling that they were doing it. But I can't think that many would willingly take on the difficulties, giving up their comforts and time with family."
I don't think going to Haiti is necessary, but for my life to be in line with what I wake up feeling I ought to do, it would take a great number of sacrifices that I haven't yet decided I'm willing to make. I'll keep you posted.
The next book
I am very much in favor of the idea of reading a variety of books: non-fiction and fiction, religious and secular, etc. But I'm strongly opposed to choosing a book by committee. Peter can set up a rotation, and we can each choose in our turn and everyone else can decide if they want to read it or not. If it's your turn, you can try to keep the idea of a variety of books in mind, but I don't think you should be forced to choose a certain type of book on your turn. Of course, if we read 5 of the same books in a row, we can rethink this. After reading the summaries of some of the suggested books, please note that if you choose a book you have not read yet, you are responsible for the moral content of the book.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
And the next book is ...
not for me to choose.
I know we've just recently started discussing Mountains, and perhaps I am speaking out of turn of something (don't know, never been in a book club before), but when will next month's book be announced?
I'm not the speediest reader (does anyone here remember the character Speed Reader from the TV show "The Great Space Coaster?") and it's nearly the middle of May.
BTW, I configured the email notification feature, so you should be receiving this via your inbox. If you don't want the extra clutter, let me know and I will take you off.
[edit by Peter]
I'm going to put my comments in line, rather than in the comments section, since I think things have a tendency to get lost when they have to be clicked-through to. And yes, I did just end that sentence with two prepositions; wanna make something of it?
The original post I made was that we would take turns, based on who responded to the most recent book, choosing the next book. I think the best way to do this is randomly (since that's pretty much the best way to do anything). Therefore, I'm now going to flip a four-sided coin to see if Glenn, Peter, Paul or Jesse gets the dubious distinction of choosing the next book. And the winner is...
Jesse!
So, the only book selection rule (and it's hardly a fast rule at this point) is that we want to alternate between fiction and non-fiction, and we want non-fiction to alternate between secular and religious material. So, if Jesse hasn't chosen something by the weekend, we'll fall back to a default position and solicit proposals from any interested party and try to anneal to some consensus.
I know we've just recently started discussing Mountains, and perhaps I am speaking out of turn of something (don't know, never been in a book club before), but when will next month's book be announced?
I'm not the speediest reader (does anyone here remember the character Speed Reader from the TV show "The Great Space Coaster?") and it's nearly the middle of May.
BTW, I configured the email notification feature, so you should be receiving this via your inbox. If you don't want the extra clutter, let me know and I will take you off.
[edit by Peter]
I'm going to put my comments in line, rather than in the comments section, since I think things have a tendency to get lost when they have to be clicked-through to. And yes, I did just end that sentence with two prepositions; wanna make something of it?
The original post I made was that we would take turns, based on who responded to the most recent book, choosing the next book. I think the best way to do this is randomly (since that's pretty much the best way to do anything). Therefore, I'm now going to flip a four-sided coin to see if Glenn, Peter, Paul or Jesse gets the dubious distinction of choosing the next book. And the winner is...
Jesse!
So, the only book selection rule (and it's hardly a fast rule at this point) is that we want to alternate between fiction and non-fiction, and we want non-fiction to alternate between secular and religious material. So, if Jesse hasn't chosen something by the weekend, we'll fall back to a default position and solicit proposals from any interested party and try to anneal to some consensus.
Monday, May 12, 2008
Linda and Ryan Larsen (background post)
Hi Everybody. Thanks to Peter for finding us and inviting us to join. It's good to connect to all of you.
In case you didn't know, we are one of those special inter-freshman ward marriages. We fell in love at the very end of the freshman year, and both went on missions (Ryan: Paris, France, Linda: Vienna Austria.) So we didn't see each other for over 3 years, but now we've been married for nearly 8 years.
We got Master's degrees in (Ryan: Mechanical Engineering, Linda: Composition and Rheotoric) at BYU. Then we graduated, had our first baby, Samuel, and moved across the country, and started a PhD all in the same summer. We spent 5 happy and exciting years in the Boston area where I earned a PhD in Applied Physics from Harvard. We also had our 2nd boy, Alden, during game 3 while the Red Sox were breaking the curse. (We stole the name idea from Jesse and Laura soon after they had their Alden.) Here's a picture of us at Mount Auburn Cemetery about 18 months ago.
Last summer we finished the PhD and moved to Urbana, IL, where I'm doing a post-doc in the Department of Chemical Engineering at University of Illinois, and Sam started kindergarten. We like it here but miss Boston. Hopefully before long I'll be applying for faculty jobs.
I work a lot, and Linda just got a part time job doing some tutoring at a reading center. We enjoy reading books, trying to make friends in this new place, and being outside in the springtime weather!
Global Health, from a dog's-eye-view
OK, so I just finished watching the little clip from 60 minutes that shows Dr. Paul Farmer in action. It was interesting to hear his conversation with the press and with the people in Haiti. The video made him seem less marble statue of a great historical figure than what I created in my mind while reading Mountains Beyond Mountains. I can't imagine myself doing what Farmer has done. It brings to mind all that Joseph Smith did during the relatively short period of time that he was on the earth.
The discussion on the "Farmer religion" causes me to think of the passage in the old testament (Matthew 19:16-22) where the rich young man, who has kept the commandments, asks the Savior, during what may have been a PPI, what he needs to do to gain eternal life. Jesus tells him to live the law of consecration and follow Him. The young man sorrowed because he had "great possessions." We have committed to live the law of consecration, or at least be willing to live that higher law. I still feel at times like a poor college student (though we will be getting a LCD HDTV this week to help "stimulate the economy") so though I think I would be able to give up all my material possessions, I don't think I would be able to give up so much of my time and talents as Farmer has. Especially when it comes to family time, like several of you have mentioned.
My desire to do more and have a greater impact on a larger population prompted me to walk away from private practice, where I was helping individual families by taking care of their pets and livestock, to research, where I hope my efforts can positively affect the lives of millions of people and animals. I think it is great that Farmer is able to have that world-wide influence and also still have that one-on-one interaction with his patients; I miss that.
The idea of difficult/interesting circumstances building strong families is an interesting one. Stress can certainly help strengthen an organism, though it can also kill it. I think it depends on the type and degree of stress. In general, it seems like mothers are very protective while fathers allow, often encourage, the freedom and exploring kids, or at least my brother and I, seek out and often get bumps and bruises from.
So, enough of my random thoughts. I'll close my comments by listing a few random quotes from the book that I really liked, and the page number from the paperback edition.
The discussion on the "Farmer religion" causes me to think of the passage in the old testament (Matthew 19:16-22) where the rich young man, who has kept the commandments, asks the Savior, during what may have been a PPI, what he needs to do to gain eternal life. Jesus tells him to live the law of consecration and follow Him. The young man sorrowed because he had "great possessions." We have committed to live the law of consecration, or at least be willing to live that higher law. I still feel at times like a poor college student (though we will be getting a LCD HDTV this week to help "stimulate the economy") so though I think I would be able to give up all my material possessions, I don't think I would be able to give up so much of my time and talents as Farmer has. Especially when it comes to family time, like several of you have mentioned.
My desire to do more and have a greater impact on a larger population prompted me to walk away from private practice, where I was helping individual families by taking care of their pets and livestock, to research, where I hope my efforts can positively affect the lives of millions of people and animals. I think it is great that Farmer is able to have that world-wide influence and also still have that one-on-one interaction with his patients; I miss that.
The idea of difficult/interesting circumstances building strong families is an interesting one. Stress can certainly help strengthen an organism, though it can also kill it. I think it depends on the type and degree of stress. In general, it seems like mothers are very protective while fathers allow, often encourage, the freedom and exploring kids, or at least my brother and I, seek out and often get bumps and bruises from.
So, enough of my random thoughts. I'll close my comments by listing a few random quotes from the book that I really liked, and the page number from the paperback edition.
- "We're asked to have tidy biographies that are coherent. Everyone does that. But the fact is, a perfectly discrepant version has the same ending." (p.54)
- "I imagine that many people would like to construct a like like Farmer's, to wake up knowing what they ought to do and feeling that they were doing it. But I can't think that many would willingly take on the difficulties, giving up their comforts and time with family." (p.213)
- "You know, people from our background...we're used to being on a victory team, and actually what we're really trying to do in PIH is to make a common cause with the losers. Those are two different things. We want to be on the winning team, but at the risk of turning our backs on the losers, no, it's not worth it." "I don't care if we lose, I'm gonna try to do the right thing." "But your going to try to win." "Of course! We're not, you know, masochistic."(p.288, 289)
- "the idea that some lives matter less is the root of all that's wrong with the world."(p294)
Thursday, May 8, 2008
"Give" -The little stream
This is what I liked: fighting drug resistant TB: Doing what is right regardless of the cost. "screw what's practical...it's the right thing to do, so do it." Its interesting that Peter mentioned President Monson, who has always struck me as someone who has been attentive to the one. I believe he would have a higher beta than Farmer as well, but I don't think that's the point. I think Jesse said it right. I think we all fall short of B=1. I think that's the point of the book—it should motivate us to give more (time, money, whatever).
One thing that bugged me: The author's worship of Paul Farmer—the creation of a modern Saint. Of course, I was amazed that someone could do so much, and maybe I'm just jealous because I'll never have a book written about me or save so many lives. I don't feel like what I do is trivial, but I'm obviously not doing as much good. I don't feel the need to move to Haiti, however.
On the neglected family: From my read, it sounds like he visits his family occasionally. In fact, I wished the author would have addressed this. Since I have a “hermeneutic of generosity” for Farmer (I really liked that—Margaret Miles' hermeneutic of generosity but not suspiscion), I'll assume this superman is a great family man as well, and that Farmer made his family was off limits to the author.
What the book did for me: If I feel like I need to justify how little I'm doing to help others, I'm probably not doing enough. I feel guilty when I think that over a 1/3 of the world lives on less than $2 a day. I did feel the desire to set up a microcredit establishment (you economic people, help me out), like the church's PEF.
Looking at Alvin's question:
How much are Farmer's clinics really helping when the root causes are bad governments? Is it really worth the monetary and emotional effort to save a couple lives when there are so many poor and hurting people that it is impossible to save them all? Isn't it like putting your hand up to stop a river?
Without discussing the root causes of poverty and illness, I think that the answer to the question gets at the solution to the guilt complex the book succeeds at creating: each of us should decide where we can do the most good. Forgive me for getting religious, but I believe in the statement by Ezra Taft Benson: “The Lord works from the inside out. The world works from the outside in. The world would take people out of the slums. Christ takes the slums out of people, and then they take themselves out of the slums. The world would mold men by changing their environment. Christ changes men, who then change their environment. The world would shape human behavior, but Christ can change human nature.”
So I feel that while each of us can do some temporal good for others, the real good that we can do is share the good news—I don't mean by donating to the missionary fund or by setting a good example, but by helping people come to Christ. I don't think our world is going to get any better collectively, but if I'm going to dedicate more time to others, I believe the time I have should be spent sharing the thing I have which is of most value to me—the Gospel. I know I can do more; right now we've got Strange Brew playing in the background, so obviously I have more discretionary time to make a difference.
One thing that bugged me: The author's worship of Paul Farmer—the creation of a modern Saint. Of course, I was amazed that someone could do so much, and maybe I'm just jealous because I'll never have a book written about me or save so many lives. I don't feel like what I do is trivial, but I'm obviously not doing as much good. I don't feel the need to move to Haiti, however.
On the neglected family: From my read, it sounds like he visits his family occasionally. In fact, I wished the author would have addressed this. Since I have a “hermeneutic of generosity” for Farmer (I really liked that—Margaret Miles' hermeneutic of generosity but not suspiscion), I'll assume this superman is a great family man as well, and that Farmer made his family was off limits to the author.
What the book did for me: If I feel like I need to justify how little I'm doing to help others, I'm probably not doing enough. I feel guilty when I think that over a 1/3 of the world lives on less than $2 a day. I did feel the desire to set up a microcredit establishment (you economic people, help me out), like the church's PEF.
Looking at Alvin's question:
How much are Farmer's clinics really helping when the root causes are bad governments? Is it really worth the monetary and emotional effort to save a couple lives when there are so many poor and hurting people that it is impossible to save them all? Isn't it like putting your hand up to stop a river?
Without discussing the root causes of poverty and illness, I think that the answer to the question gets at the solution to the guilt complex the book succeeds at creating: each of us should decide where we can do the most good. Forgive me for getting religious, but I believe in the statement by Ezra Taft Benson: “The Lord works from the inside out. The world works from the outside in. The world would take people out of the slums. Christ takes the slums out of people, and then they take themselves out of the slums. The world would mold men by changing their environment. Christ changes men, who then change their environment. The world would shape human behavior, but Christ can change human nature.”
So I feel that while each of us can do some temporal good for others, the real good that we can do is share the good news—I don't mean by donating to the missionary fund or by setting a good example, but by helping people come to Christ. I don't think our world is going to get any better collectively, but if I'm going to dedicate more time to others, I believe the time I have should be spent sharing the thing I have which is of most value to me—the Gospel. I know I can do more; right now we've got Strange Brew playing in the background, so obviously I have more discretionary time to make a difference.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Farmer Smackdown
How is it that no one has yet brought up Paul's brother, Jeff: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Farmer_%28wrestler%29
Alvin, you think you feel like you should be doing more...can you imagine how little brother Jeff (aka nWo Sting) must feel? As to your question of parenting...maybe children desperately seeking their parents approval just end up high variance---either a selfless humanitarian or a professional wrestler?
This book raised some difficult questions for me. Fundamentally it reminds me of conversations I've had with an atheist friend of mine recently. One point we return to frequently is "loving thy neighbor as thy self." Both being trained in economics we refer to this as the "beta = 1" problem. If I read that commandment literally it means my utility (happiness) function should be U = (things that make me happy) + B * (things that make my neighbor happy), with B = 1. That is, we are commanded to care (or act as though we care) as much about others' welfare as our own. My friend claims that B = 1 is impossible, that no one ever gets anywhere near it (B much less than 1). His conclusion, that one should give up trying, does not, I contend, necessarily follow.
It's pretty clear Paul Farmer has a higher B than I do. There's just no two ways about it. As others have noted, I could do much more for others at relatively mild cost to me. Sure I can justify that I have good reasons for not running off to Haiti, but I can give more and do more than I do right now. Without question it is helpful to be reminded of that by stories such as Dr. Farmer's.
At the same time I struggle with the idea of B = 1. This precludes favoring my own welfare over my neighbor's. Does it also preclude favoring the welfare of one neighbor over another? I think it must. Then how about my wife? My children? There is no question I favor their welfare far more than others. In some instances you might argue there is an exception made here as I have a responsibility to care for them. But what does caring for them really mean? I mean, my kids will enter life with great advantages: stable home life, health, education, loving parents, etc. If I, for example, gave money I had saved for their college education to kids without these advantages, wouldn't my kids still get along just fine? Then how can I justify favoring them so much more than others? Shouldn't I give them the necessities and give the rest away? If I really think about it I probably give my kids more than they absolutely need of just about everything...material goods, my time and attention, education...
Part of me wants to believe B = 1 is not what Christ means after all. Another interpretation could be that "love thy neighbor as thyself" = empathy. The "as" here might just mean "in the same way/style" and not "in the same magnitude." Maybe that "style" is really "unconditionally", or "as naturally/permanently/instinctively as your love of self". I'm not sure whether that's very different from B = 1 or if it's just semantics.
In any case I'm certainly not "too far" toward loving others, so whether I'm expected to have B = 1 or B = .1 I have plenty of room to increase it. This actually seems to me the point to underline here. Is there any question that I should do more than I'm currently doing to help others? Do any of the other questions matter?
Alvin, you think you feel like you should be doing more...can you imagine how little brother Jeff (aka nWo Sting) must feel? As to your question of parenting...maybe children desperately seeking their parents approval just end up high variance---either a selfless humanitarian or a professional wrestler?
This book raised some difficult questions for me. Fundamentally it reminds me of conversations I've had with an atheist friend of mine recently. One point we return to frequently is "loving thy neighbor as thy self." Both being trained in economics we refer to this as the "beta = 1" problem. If I read that commandment literally it means my utility (happiness) function should be U = (things that make me happy) + B * (things that make my neighbor happy), with B = 1. That is, we are commanded to care (or act as though we care) as much about others' welfare as our own. My friend claims that B = 1 is impossible, that no one ever gets anywhere near it (B much less than 1). His conclusion, that one should give up trying, does not, I contend, necessarily follow.
It's pretty clear Paul Farmer has a higher B than I do. There's just no two ways about it. As others have noted, I could do much more for others at relatively mild cost to me. Sure I can justify that I have good reasons for not running off to Haiti, but I can give more and do more than I do right now. Without question it is helpful to be reminded of that by stories such as Dr. Farmer's.
At the same time I struggle with the idea of B = 1. This precludes favoring my own welfare over my neighbor's. Does it also preclude favoring the welfare of one neighbor over another? I think it must. Then how about my wife? My children? There is no question I favor their welfare far more than others. In some instances you might argue there is an exception made here as I have a responsibility to care for them. But what does caring for them really mean? I mean, my kids will enter life with great advantages: stable home life, health, education, loving parents, etc. If I, for example, gave money I had saved for their college education to kids without these advantages, wouldn't my kids still get along just fine? Then how can I justify favoring them so much more than others? Shouldn't I give them the necessities and give the rest away? If I really think about it I probably give my kids more than they absolutely need of just about everything...material goods, my time and attention, education...
Part of me wants to believe B = 1 is not what Christ means after all. Another interpretation could be that "love thy neighbor as thyself" = empathy. The "as" here might just mean "in the same way/style" and not "in the same magnitude." Maybe that "style" is really "unconditionally", or "as naturally/permanently/instinctively as your love of self". I'm not sure whether that's very different from B = 1 or if it's just semantics.
In any case I'm certainly not "too far" toward loving others, so whether I'm expected to have B = 1 or B = .1 I have plenty of room to increase it. This actually seems to me the point to underline here. Is there any question that I should do more than I'm currently doing to help others? Do any of the other questions matter?
My family versus the world
Sorry I'm late. *hands out snacks*
Farmer's religiosity reminds me a lot of Barack Obama's religiosity. Not coincidentally, Rev. Wright is an active voice in the "liberation theology" movement (too active, probably, if you ask Mr. Obama). I find the idea of liberation theology good as a corrective to the sort of self-centeredness that I think pervades a lot of Christianity today (including within the LDS church). However I'm leary of adherence to a morality without a professed belief in the underlying structure and principles; as in everything I suppose its a question of balance. Religion should be more than doing good; it should be belief. Faith, hope and charity.
As for WWJD, I think you're more right than wrong. I doubt Christ would spend nearly as much time watching House, MD as me. But if I think about what Christ would be doing were he on the earth today, I think a better model than Paul Farmer is Pres. Monson. And while Pres. Monson is not unconcerned with visiting the sick, the lonely, the lost, he also spends significant time in meetings. Similarly, Christ spent time teaching as well as healing, and I think we need to strive to find that balance.
The question of materialism is fascinating. After reading the book, I found myself feeling guilty about every purchase I made. I felt like Oskar Schindler at the end of Schindler's list: how many could this ring save? this new camera? Is the benefit of 10 megapixels over 2 megapixels the same as the benefit if that money was spent in Paul Farmer's clinic? When we were looking at houses, we chose an expensive town so I could be near work. What if we'd bought somewhere further away? I'd have extended my commute, but we could have donated the mortgage differential to the Church's Humanitarian Aid fund, or perpetual education fund, or fast offerings. Was it worth it?
But there is the flip side of that coin. My parents just got home from serving a two year humanitarian aid mission in Brazil. They would not have been able to go if they hadn't looked after their financial well being for the last 40 years. More interesting, Farmer's statement to his moneybags donor (forget his name) that for him to quit working would be a sin is indicative. For all of the romantic idealism of Farmer's lifestyle, it would not be possible without a significant source of financial support. If we are to do good works, we can either hope to hook up with a sugar daddy who will finance our charitable lifestyle, or we can do the work ourselves. In essence, we become both Paul Farmer and [insert donor's name here].
For me, the most interesting personal question raised by the book was how to balance my duty to my family versus larger communities (my town, my country, the whole of humanity). Alvin said that "...I know that raising a family is important, but Farmer is doing that, too." But what does that mean? The only time his family makes a cameo in the book is when he sees his daughter for one evening on her birthday; other than that, they are out of the picture. Is he "raising a family?" I mean, I would feel a huge amount of guilt if I let anything take me away from my family that much. So are all the lives Farmer saves worth the (inevitable) neglect of his wife and daughter? David O. McKay said "No success outside the home can compensate for failure in the home." What does that mean if not that the best way (in an eternal sense) for us to spend our time is to put family first? And for me I find it hard to say Paul Farmer is putting family first. But there are certainly limits, too. Perhaps putting family first sometimes means leaving them (a la the early church missionaries) to do good throughout the world. All I know is it would take a pretty obvious act of God to separate me from my family in that way. And not a whispering in my conscience like Nephi and Laban; I mean a bona fide, mouthpiece-of-God-on-earth statement that this was the right thing to do.
Farmer's religiosity reminds me a lot of Barack Obama's religiosity. Not coincidentally, Rev. Wright is an active voice in the "liberation theology" movement (too active, probably, if you ask Mr. Obama). I find the idea of liberation theology good as a corrective to the sort of self-centeredness that I think pervades a lot of Christianity today (including within the LDS church). However I'm leary of adherence to a morality without a professed belief in the underlying structure and principles; as in everything I suppose its a question of balance. Religion should be more than doing good; it should be belief. Faith, hope and charity.
As for WWJD, I think you're more right than wrong. I doubt Christ would spend nearly as much time watching House, MD as me. But if I think about what Christ would be doing were he on the earth today, I think a better model than Paul Farmer is Pres. Monson. And while Pres. Monson is not unconcerned with visiting the sick, the lonely, the lost, he also spends significant time in meetings. Similarly, Christ spent time teaching as well as healing, and I think we need to strive to find that balance.
The question of materialism is fascinating. After reading the book, I found myself feeling guilty about every purchase I made. I felt like Oskar Schindler at the end of Schindler's list: how many could this ring save? this new camera? Is the benefit of 10 megapixels over 2 megapixels the same as the benefit if that money was spent in Paul Farmer's clinic? When we were looking at houses, we chose an expensive town so I could be near work. What if we'd bought somewhere further away? I'd have extended my commute, but we could have donated the mortgage differential to the Church's Humanitarian Aid fund, or perpetual education fund, or fast offerings. Was it worth it?
But there is the flip side of that coin. My parents just got home from serving a two year humanitarian aid mission in Brazil. They would not have been able to go if they hadn't looked after their financial well being for the last 40 years. More interesting, Farmer's statement to his moneybags donor (forget his name) that for him to quit working would be a sin is indicative. For all of the romantic idealism of Farmer's lifestyle, it would not be possible without a significant source of financial support. If we are to do good works, we can either hope to hook up with a sugar daddy who will finance our charitable lifestyle, or we can do the work ourselves. In essence, we become both Paul Farmer and [insert donor's name here].
For me, the most interesting personal question raised by the book was how to balance my duty to my family versus larger communities (my town, my country, the whole of humanity). Alvin said that "...I know that raising a family is important, but Farmer is doing that, too." But what does that mean? The only time his family makes a cameo in the book is when he sees his daughter for one evening on her birthday; other than that, they are out of the picture. Is he "raising a family?" I mean, I would feel a huge amount of guilt if I let anything take me away from my family that much. So are all the lives Farmer saves worth the (inevitable) neglect of his wife and daughter? David O. McKay said "No success outside the home can compensate for failure in the home." What does that mean if not that the best way (in an eternal sense) for us to spend our time is to put family first? And for me I find it hard to say Paul Farmer is putting family first. But there are certainly limits, too. Perhaps putting family first sometimes means leaving them (a la the early church missionaries) to do good throughout the world. All I know is it would take a pretty obvious act of God to separate me from my family in that way. And not a whispering in my conscience like Nephi and Laban; I mean a bona fide, mouthpiece-of-God-on-earth statement that this was the right thing to do.
Mountains...Discuss
OK Men. Time to put your muscle tees on (with pimp shirts, if necessary). Let's get this book club started. I was waiting for the person in charge of snacks to show up, but I'll start the discussion and maybe he'll show up before we're finished.
The Real Paul Farmer
As a sign that this was the right time to read Mountains Beyond Mountains, CBS 60 Minutes did a piece on Paul Farmer last week. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/01/60minutes/main4063191.shtml
If you haven't read the book, the following video will give you the basic ideas behind Paul Farmer's life and work, but you'll miss out on the depth of how difficult his work was and the philosphy that has driven this man. If you've read the book, you'll see some updates from when the book was published. After reading the book, I expected a man that walked faster and talked faster than the Paul Farmer in this clip. While I still have no doubt about the enormous amount of energy required to do what Farmer did, he seems more real, less super-human than in the book.
The Farmer ReligionOK, so here's the part that's really been bugging me since reading this book. Paul does not seem to be religious in the traditional sense of attending church services every week, but he is extremely religious in a more practical sense. Remember the scripture in Matthew 25:
"34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: 36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. 37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."
Well, Paul takes this stuff very, very seriously and spends all of his time and energy visiting the sick, the hungry, and people in prison. James called this "pure religion". Farmer is one of the few people in this world who always seems to do what his conscience tells him to do.
It's easy to come up with a lot of excuses for not being more like Paul Farmer. After all, not everyone can head off to Haiti. It takes lots and lots of donors to fund what he is doing. OK, on the subject of money, couldn't I/shouldn't I donate half my income to such causes? Paul Farmer goes to prestigious conferences in the same old black suit he wears everywhere. His concern for physical luxuries is minimal. I certainly have more money than I "need". But the budgeter in me and the dad/provider in me, won't allow for huge monetary sacrifices.
I have a family to raise. I have no skills that would be useful to the people in Haiti. I have a million other excuses. What Paul Farmer does just isn't practical, right? The whole premise of what Paul Farmer has done/is doing screams "screw what's practical...it's the right thing to do, so do it." He has spent his whole life fighting bureaucrats in the World Health Organization and other places that said is wasn't practical.
If Christ were on this earth, I imagine him acting as much like Paul Farmer as anyone else I can think of, visiting the sick and imprisoned, living on much less than he could, tirelessly working for others, though perhaps with less swearing. On the other hand, I could never see Christ in my lifestyle, working in an office for 8 hours a day, spending 5 hours on Sunday in meetings, or going camping with the Young Men and playing games around the campfire. Not that all of these things aren't good things. It's just that when put in perspective, they seem trivial.
Now, the author of the book isn't suggesting that everyone can or should be like Paul Farmer, which is nice because I couldn't be like him even if I wanted to. But I did feel like I should be doing something more "important", more world changing. Yes, I know that raising a family is important, but Farmer is doing that, too. My questions are: Given my current skill sets and circumstances, how do I find something important and meaningful to do? Why, despite giving 10% of my income and 10% of my time, do I not feel like my church contributions are important or meaningful? Or since I am unlikely to change my comfortable, lazy ways, can any of you help me justify my current lifestyle by assuring me I'm on the fast track to heaven, etc.?
Other Topics for Discussion
- What are the merits of raising large families under difficult/unusual circumstances? (Farmer was one of 8 kids and raised on a bus and then a boat.)
- As a child, Farmer yearned for his father's approval. If I keep my children always looking for my approval, will they be more or less likely to be successful? (My intuition seems to say that on average they will be less successful, but the chances of one of them becoming famous will increase.)
- How much are Farmer's clinics really helping when the root causes are bad governments? Is it really worth the monetary and emotional effort to save a couple lives when there are so many poor and hurting people that it is impossible to save them all? Isn't it like putting your hand up to stop a river?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)