Normally, my first instinct would be to grab the cheaper pack. There would be no hesitation. The choice is easy, based on years of programming: “Look for the best deal. Buy what is cheapest.” But on this day, I hesitated. Why are the Fruit of the Loom t-shirts cheaper? Is it possible that the FTL’s are made in a sweatshop? (I did a little bit of research later and found out that FTL had indeed been involved in a sweatshop controversy in Honduras in 2009). I had the unsettling thought that the reason I can buy cheap underwear is because manufacturers like FTL (and Hanes) pay their workers - primarily Latin American and Asian workers - next to nothing.

Over the next few days and weeks, the thought kept coming back to me: my whole life I have been taught to seek out the best possible price. But at what cost? Is it possible that someone else actually pays for my bargains?

It sounds so simple, but the truth is that everything that I buy is made by someone. In today’s global economy, manufacturers generally move to wherever labor is cheapest, putting distance between producers and consumers. We (consumers) demand the lowest possible price, and so companies oblige – setting up production facilities in poverty-stricken countries where workers are lucky to earn 20 cents per hour. Because I refuse to pay more than $1.50 for a t-shirt, a worker in Indonesia that I have never met cannot earn a decent wage.

Many economists say that people are happy to have jobs that pay them 20 cents/hour - it’s better than the alternative. But, as a Christian I cannot accept this idea. Just because a bad job is better than no job does not make it right or moral. In our global economy, it is often the poorest who are hurt by forces outside their control.

A couple of years ago, I was in a small village in El Salvador just outside of San Miguel. As I talked with leaders in this community, I learned that many of the families used to be coffee growers. When global coffee prices collapsed in the 1990’s, hundreds of families in this village were thrown into abject poverty. Higher coffee prices would have allowed many of these families to continue to survive, send their children to school, and build a better future for themselves.

I don’t think I noticed that the price of coffee changed in the 1990’s. But I’m sure that I would have been happy if I discovered I could buy a pound of coffee for $6.50 instead of $7. I would never have realized that saving 50 cents meant that thousands of coffee farmers went broke.

It’s easy for me to think that I can’t do anything about the global price of coffee or the price of a t-shirt, but the reality is that I can. When I shop for whatever is cheapest, I am contributing to the low wages that coffee farmers earn for their coffee. When I shop for the lowest price on t-shirts, I contribute to the poverty of cotton growers and textile workers on the other side of the world. As the good people at Better World Shopper (www.betterworldshopper.com) say, “Every dollar you spend is a vote for the kind of world you want to live in.”

That’s where Fair Trade comes in. Over the past couple of years, my wife and I have started looking for Fair Trade products – coffee, chocolate, and even apparel. A product that is Fair Trade certified means that the workers that produce it earn a fair wage for their work.

Fair Trade allows me to vote with my dollars. I want to vote for a world where a coffee farmer earns enough to pay for education and health care for his children. I want to vote for a world where chocolate is not made by slave labor (many chocolate companies kidnap children and force them to work in the fields in order to reduce labor costs). I want to vote for a world where those who work to produce goods reap the benefits of their hard work.

Buying Fair Trade is an opportunity for me to stop and think about practical choices on a daily basis. It forces me to consider whether I serve the god of consumerism or the God of Scripture who calls me to love my neighbor (even my neighbor that lives on the other side of the world). Without a doubt, it’s hard. Something deep and instinctive wells up inside of me when I am at the store and I am looking at brand-name coffee for $6.99 vs. Fair Trade coffee for $7.99. But I believe that my simple (and small) acts of sacrifice help to create a world that is more just, a world where we catch glimpses God’s coming Kingdom, described in Isaiah 65:

They will build houses and live there.
They will plant vineyards and eat fruit from them.
They will not build homes and have others live there.
They will not plant and have others eat from it.
My people will live as long as trees,
and my chosen ones will enjoy what they’ve done.
They will never again work for nothing.
They will never again give birth to children who die young,
because they will be offspring blessed by the LORD.

As I read the concerns that people raised over Mr. Wallis and the ‘social gospel’ message that he represents, they seem to be centered around two main issues: humanism and evangelism.

Many church leaders claim that social justice is humanistic – that we are seeking to change the world or eliminate injustice in our own power. But in reality, isn’t this is giving entirely too much credit to government and society’s ability to transform the world without God? Are we afraid that people will actually succeed in eliminating poverty and injustice in the world, and therefore people will have no need for Jesus?

The truth is that people, regardless of their faith, can and should seek to do good for others. As Christians, we should support this. But we should also remember that God is the one who will ultimately redeem and transform the world.

Second, some voice concern that people would receive aid without hearing the Gospel. One statement read, ‘Feeding the poor with no ability to share the gospel message is at best an incomplete solution… Doing so might indeed help them in this life, at least while the food and water lasts, but what about their eternal souls?’

My first thought is that this is easy to say if you are not hungry. I think those who lack food, water, or shelter may disagree with this statement.

My second thought is that radical statements about government getting out the aid business MUST be followed by a radical commitment to the poor. Many Christians object to government caring for the poor, but at the same time do very little to actually love, serve, and engage with these issues. If you take seriously the idea that government should not care for the marginalized because they may receive aid without hearing the Gospel, this means that every church and every Christian must radically and sacrificially give of themselves to serve those who are trapped in poverty. Perhaps it would mean 50-75% of church budgets going toward ministries that reach out to the least. It almost certainly would mean that individual Christians give significant money and time (perhaps 30% of our income and 10 hours/week as a starting point?) to poor families, poor communities, and Christian organizations that serve them.

If Christians and churches would take this kind of radical action, sacrificially giving and loving the least, caring for physical needs so that we might effectively communicate the love of Jesus, I would absolutely support that. But to say ‘government must get out’ and for churches and Christians to not step into these issues is unacceptable. We cannot trap people in poverty on the off chance that someday we might get around to loving them. It essentially means that the poor will continue to be marginalized and forgotten.

Certainly, government is not the answer to the world’s needs – only Jesus is. And I agree that for some Christians and churches, social justice has become a false idol. But this does not mean that social justice is not compatible with Christian faith. Regardless of what government does, there will always be a role for the church to love and serve the poor and to tell them the Good News that God loves us and wants to redeem us. But I also believe that Christians can and should advocate for justice, which includes supporting government initiatives that help the poor.

Check out the Forgotten Shirts website.

1) Politics without principle
2) Wealth without work
3) Commerce without morality
4) Pleasure without conscience
5) Education without character
6) Science without humanity
7) Worship without sacrifice

For more information, visit the Trade as One website.

Much of the fighting is for control of natural resources. Billions of dollars of diamonds, copper, gold, and other minerals are illegally exported from Congo each year, and rebel soldiers fight for control of this resource-rich land.

Over the past years, much of the conflict has been fueled by a mineral called Coltan. Coltan is used in cell phones, laptops, and other small electronic devices. Some estimate that 85% of the world’s coltan reserves are in Congo. And with the demand for electronics skyrocketing, Coltan mining has become a lucrative business for many rebel groups in Congo. ‘Conflict coltan’ is coltan that is illegally mined and exported - funding violence and keeping the people of Congo from using the sale and export of natural resources to improve their lives.

An Australian reporter recently traveled to Congo to tell the story of conflict coltan. It’s a compelling piece, which you can find here.

A bill was introduced in the US Congress last year that prohibits companies from importing conflict coltan, but this bill never became law. Please write to your representatives, and ask them to re-introduce the conflict coltan bill. It’s a simple way that we can advocate on behalf of those whose lives are being devastated by circumstances beyond their control.

There is also a website, where you can find more information and links.

It’s really a beautiful Bible and I am proud to be a contributing writer. If you want more information, you can find it at Amazon.