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.