Shaun Groves has been blogging about simplicity lately, talking about why to live simply and things they’ve done to live simply. It’s encouraging because I’ve had similar thoughts rolling around in my head lately (though haven’t taken a lot of action on it). A lot of external sources have been encouraging it, of which Shaun is only the latest, ranging from Shane Claiborne to the Foursquare NextGen Summit ’07 to our rummage sale to our whole adoption process.

Some of it comes from very basic ideas, like trying not to be wasteful. Things like electricity and water and food are cheap right now (a few years ago you could add gasoline to that list, and I’d say it’s still relatively cheap) and we just waste them because they are cheap. It’s evidenced when we leave the lights on or let the water run or throw food away.

Part of my motivation is money: Spending less on stuff makes our adoption more affordable. It also makes it easier to help others and be more generous. It also means I don’t have to work as hard (one of the benefits—and scary things—about being self employed). That’s why we canceled our Netflix subscription. It’s why we probably won’t renew our cell phone contract. It’s why we only have one car.

Of course some things about living simply I have a hard time with. Water is a lot simpler and cheaper (and healthier) than Pepsi, but I have a hard time making that choice. And when I try to eat something cheaper and healthier, that craving for something tasty kicks in.

In short, I’m a long way from living simply. But I’m starting to become aware of the need for it and trying to figure out how to overcome my own addictions and compulsions. We get so busy and all these things begin to consume our lives, but we forget how few of them are necessary and how much could be accomplished without them.

Compassion International booster Shaun Groves recently took a trip to the Dominican Republic and shared a story about an 11-year-old sponsored child named Daniel:

The conversation eventually turned to his sponsor.  Daniel said his sponsor is a man named Benny who has written him once in the last four years.  “Do you write Benny?” I asked.  “All the time,” he said.

After hearing about all the care Benny’s $32 a month provides for Daniel—education, nutrition, friendships, spiritual mentoring, medicine—I asked Daniel, “If Benny were here, what would you tell him?” I expected some variation on “thank you.” Instead, Daniel looked into our camera and said, “Write to me, please.” And that’s all.

Ouch.

I can sympathize with Benny. It’s hard to find time to sit down and write a letter, never mind the complicated issues involved in corresponding with a child in a foreign country who you’re supporting. I’ve talked about that difficulty before. But I think the only solution is to suck it up and do it. It’s going to be hard and awkward to forge a relationship, but that’s the only way to do it.

So if you do sponsor a child, I encourage you to drop them a line. I think building that relationship is a way to open your heart and start to do more than just send your $32 a month. Sending that monthly amount is huge, but we’re in trouble if we think that’s enough. Compassion International even has an online form you can use to send them a note and make it easier.

In this wired world where a not-so-healthy debate is only a click a way, we could all use some help in how to disagree. Which is why I find this disagreement hierarchy kind of interesting. It helps to analyze a discussion a bit and figure out if what you’re arguing about is even worth arguing about.

More often than not, two people arguing passionately about something are actually arguing about two different things. Sometimes they even agree with one another, but are so caught up in their squabble they don’t realize it.

I think that happens a lot. More than we care to admit (because then we couldn’t argue, dammit!). So often I think the argument is over completely separate points. We argue over how it should happen, not realizing that we both want different outcomes, which would explain why we both think it should happen differently. But instead of realizing that and cutting to the chase, we keep going at each other over something irrelevant.

Star Tribune columnist Katherine Kersten has written two columns about the Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy (TIZA) charter school in Inver Grove Heights, Minn. In the first article she alleges taxpayers are paying for an Islamic school and in the other she says a teacher has come forward to ‘break the wall of silence’ about religion at the school.

I’m not trying to argue whether or not TIZA is teaching Islam. It seems like there’s enough evidence to at least raise reasonable questions.

But I think reasonable is the key.

Continue reading Is Katherine Kersten on an Islamic Witch Hunt? →