The era and error of Big Data

Recently I read an article entitled "Big Data, Google, and the end of Free Will." It was quite lengthy, detailed and very persuasive to millennials. The article basically announced the entrance of a new source of authority on what is true. While we are entering a new era, a world being transformed by computing power and the access to vasts amounts of data, the question of whether this is a new era of authority should be challenged. But a bigger question than this, and even a question that is bigger than big data, is - "where is the error in the era of Big Data?" If we think secular humanism has become the cultural enemy of the Gospel, the article makes a case for how "Dataism" pushes aside secular humanism as the authority on truth - on what is good and what is right!

How will this new era, filled with error, shape the minds of the emerging generations? How will the church find a way to penetrate a cultural influence that places authority, not in the Bible, not in human reasoning, but in the algorithms swimming in a sea of data?

When you read the article, and here it is if you are so inclined,

 http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/50bb4830-6a4c-11e6-ae5b-a7cc5dd5a28c.html?siteedition=intl

you can be easily impressed by its organized, rational arguments, It starts with the assumption that secular humanism has already replaced religion and mythology as the source for authority about truth. The author says,

"Humanist thinkers such as Rousseau convinced us that our own feelings and desires were the ultimate source of meaning, and that our free will was, therefore, the highest authority of all.... For the past few centuries humanism has seen the human heart as the supreme source of authority. From infancy we are bombarded with a barrage of humanist slogans counselling us: 'Listen to yourself, be true to yourself, trust yourself, follow your heart, do what feels good.'"

The author then asserts - just like humanism replaced religion, the era of humanism is over and is being replaced by Dataism.

"In its extreme form, proponents of the Dataist worldview perceive the entire universe as a flow of data, see organisms as little more than biochemical algorithms and believe that humanity’s cosmic vocation is to create an all-encompassing data-processing system — and then merge into it."

This is just the beginning of the author's presupposition about reality and man's place in it. There are thousands of more words building this argument. How can the minds of our young people compete with just the defense, "but the Bible says..."? Just like the arguments of secular humanists attacked the role of faith and the authority of Scripture, Worldviews of Dataism is a tsunami of assault on Christian worldviews.

While the arguments of Dataism can be complex and seem mind boggling, the era is quite simple. In fact the era is the same as it was in secular humanism. The error is in the core assumption. Humanism and Dataism both assume that truth about something is determined by knowledge gained rom inference observers can make about it. This core assumption places a priority on eido knowledge over gnosis knowledge. In fact faith, which is unobservable evidence that something is true, is marginalized and discounted. This is and always has been characteristic of the secular argument for finding truth.

There is another core assumption about finding truth that is in direct contradiction with the core assumption of humanism and Dataism. Truth is the disclosure of the qualities of an object to an observer by the originator of the object. In this assumption, authority is not determined by the capability of the observer, but the trustworthiness of the author.

While the era of Big Data ushers in a powerful statistical inference capability to predict behavior, the error of Big Data and humanism is that these worldviews miss the "author" in the word authority.

That is, one thing humanism and Big Data cannot do, is reveal the purpose and intent of the originator of an object. While Big Data may appear to add objectivity to finding truth, the product of Big Data still relies on biased algorithms of observers, not the will of the originator. Dataism cannot find truth about an object until the originator chooses to reveal it.

Oh, and Dataism cannot prove which core assumption is right, faith will always be preeminent, even in science!!

On a side note for the author of this article, "free will" also involves a false assumption about the human condition, but that's another blog.

Probably a lifetime of pondering here .... we need to get our millennials started, don't you think?

when we make something in our image

I have been writing quite a bit about how we know what is true. At the core of finding truth is the degree that we shape the truth about the object based on some image we have of it OR do we accurately receive the image of the object as revealed to us by the object's originator. You may be amazed at how prevalent this issue is in our experiences. I will use two examples that have my attention these days to illustrate what is worth some pondering time .....

We are in the heat of the battle of a Presidential election. The most common view of what is going on is that the campaign is awful. Out of 350 million people, this is the best we can do. The accusations are nasty and the candidates are divisive. The battle is on to make our country into the image of the parties vying for power.


It has been encouraging for me to revisit the politics of our founding fathers. We had many of the same things going on over 200 years ago. The opposing parties had similar vitriol for each other. In fact, they had duels to the death. We are split over the same issues of government, and pretty much equally. We have regional divisions as they did. Often we are close to the whole thing falling apart. Fortunately, in creating this country, the founding fathers were able to forge out an instrument that would provide an objective arbitrator to man's ambitions to have it their way. Even before we had the first President, people were trying to make this country into their image, ignoring the truth established by those who faithfully created our country. Truth about a democratic republic was written into our very existence by its originator for the protection of the virtues on which our country was founded.

On a more personal note, I am pursuing membership in a different church. I very much like some qualities of this church. I take notes during the sermon. I appreciate the organizational dynamics and see leadership as quite effective. There's just one glitch.

This church does not accept my infant baptism as a criteria for membership. Without going into all the details, man has created a requirement for membership in a church that exceeds what is required to be a member of God's Kingdom. The founding fathers of the local church wrote into their Constitution what they believed should be true about the church. In doing so, they made their church in their image. When the church is made in man's image, it becomes legalistic and looks no different than other institutions in our world.

With our country and with our churches, when humans make an object in their own image, they subordinate the beauty envisioned by the intent of the object's actual originator. 

But this point extends well beyond country and church, what about marriage, children, love, calling and careers, and on and on. Creating these objects that have been given to us by their originator is actually a bit of arrogance and pride. Humility is not a weak position, but the source of all blessing!!

We would do well when seeking truth to ponder the intent of the object's Creator more than making things the way we think they ought to be ....    

"Don't go past this point"

As I walked along the beach yesterday I saw a father entering the ocean with his kids. I heard him say, "have fun but don't go past this point." He was referencing the danger of the waves, which were quite turbulent. I thought, "good move dad." BUT, then I wondered how the kids received their father's word. I wasn't near them to see their response, but it did cause me to ponder this simple moment as I wandered on down the beach.

The kids could have responded in at least 2 ways. First, they could think to themselves, or maybe even say out loud, "dad just doesn't want us to have fun, his job is to destroy our dreams, he is so controlling." OR they could think, "Thanks dad for pointing out danger to us and loving us enough to draw boundaries for our good."

What are the chances of each occurring? The response for each actually flows from the child's core assumption about law and whether their father is controlling or loving. We can see law as either the instrument of reward and punishment established by the one who has power to control us. OR, we can see law as information to help us live the best life possible. One role of law is to communicate to us the boundary between prosperity and destruction for our benefit. The problem is that human nature is biased to see law as something trying to control us - to which we should push back or rebel.

The Grace core assumption about law is the latter. Renewing our mind to see law with the eyes of Grace can transform our joy and freedom. BUT, we must see our Heavenly Father as One who loves us, not One whose purpose is to control us and take all fun out of life.

It may be worthwhile to spend a moment testing your core assumption of law, that's what we do with you in b4Worldview, a transformational learning experience......

"Mommy, I'm tired"

Our 3 mile walk to the beach is mostly on a bike path, so there are many people out riding who pass us in the morning as we walk. Yesterday, we saw a young family riding toward us. As they got near us we heard the 6 - 8 yr old daughter cry out, "mommy, I'm tired, will you carry me home?"

There really was nothing unusual about this. Often young children look to their parents to make their world right. However, since I am walking and in blogger mode, my thoughts went to an ageless issue with parenting. Its what parents do at these times that matters years down the road when the stakes are much higher.

Eventually most parents want their children to be ready and able to take responsibility for their lives as they move out to college and then to their career. But, too often parents find their adult kids struggling to do so. We have an increasing entitlement generation, expecting someone to swoop in and fix their life. Its one reason our government has grown so BIG. It partly explains the fixation on Barney by millennials. Often its too late when someone reaches their 20's to all of a sudden produce the insights and skills to make good choices about their life.

This incident reminded me that the journey starts here, with all of the cries, "mommy, I'm tired." Its what parents do at early ages to help their child sort through life issues like these that shape the later years. The parent could say, "I'm so sorry sweetie, why don;t you ride with me and we'll come back and get your bike later." Parents have an instinct to remove all pain from their children;s life, but that may not be what loving the child really involves. Maybe a better response is to stop, hear the child's plea, take a short break to honor the child's concern, but don;t solve the problem for them. Give them choices. "You can do what you need to do to ride on with us until we are home or you can stay here by yourself for a while and come on home later. Your choice." Maybe there are other choices, too. Options should be presented that are situational appropriate, but the point is to coach them to solve their problem and not make it your problem.

However, the major point to ponder from this simple moment is that what comes out in their 20's starts with many little moments in the first 15 years. This is a major issue for pondering for all parents who love their children and want them to grow up to leave, not to stay .....

The Bait Shack burger and a walk to the beach

As Gail and I walked to the beach at Nantucket today, she said, "are we walking to the beach instead of riding so we can eat a burger at the Bait Shack, or are we eating a burger from the Bait Shack because we walked to the beach, or would we walk even if we did not eat the burger or would we eat the burger even if we rode to the beach?" Doesn't sound like a deep question, but every question while I am walking 3 miles produces a blog for me. For Gail this was a rather simple curiosity, but it reminded me of the role of exchange in how we approach truth. I know you are wondering how I got there from this question while walking and even sweating a bit.

Let me explain my thoughts. There were two behaviors involved in this question. One is considered a favorable or right behavior - walking 3 miles to the beach - because walking is considered a "good" thing. BUT, eating burgers, especially from the Bait Shack, which is the best burger in the world because it is so unhealthy, the grease just runs down your arm as you eat it. Thus, eating a burger from the Bait Shack is not a "good" thing.

So here is what happens, and we all do this, even if we are the greatest advocate of absolute truth. We can justify a "bad" behavior if we can put it in balance with a good behavior. In other words, the rationale for doing the "bad" behavior involves balancing it with doing a "good" behavior. The "bad" behavior becomes OK, not because of the absolute truth associated with eating unhealthy food, but because it is placed in balance with a "good" behavior, waking to the beach.

In studying human behavior I am convinced that even principled people can see truth as relative when they can place the bad behavior in equilibrium with a good behavior. Social exchange is the built in process in our human nature that makes this rationalization feel so normal. When we only require the exchange to be in balance for behaviors to be right, we do not tend to evaluate specific behaviors as right or wrong. BTW, when an exchange is in balance, then the behaviors are fair and when behaviors are fair, they are right, regardless if one or both are "bad". This is our human nature, to see fair as the ultimate arbitrator of right and wrong.

There are a gazillion ways we do this. This simple question Gail asks resulted in times of pondering, its what I do when i walk ...    

Sunglasses in the sand

Often I would lose my sunglasses in the ocean when an unexpected wave would overtake me. I kept telling myself to buy a holder that would keep my glasses on in turbulence, but I never would. I just kept losing sun glasses. I don;t know why I would not make the effort to buy the holder. I am a thoughtful, resourceful person. Every reason known to man would suggest that I had a need and I would take a simple action to meet that need. NOPE

So why do I now have sun glasses with s holder to keep from losing them in the ocean? When we were at the beach at Gulf Shores earlier this summer, Gail and I were sitting under our umbrellas as usual. I looked down and there was this pair of sun glasses WITH A HOLDER. At first I ignored the glasses, knowing they were not mine. No one around was obviously the owner, but I didn't feel right receiving something that I did nothing to earn. I sat there - the glasses lay there before me. Just laying there for me to receive for myself.

I left the beach after some time, but Gail stayed longer. When she finally came back to the house, she had the glasses. She said, "I saw these glasses and no one claimed them so I thought you might would want them." So I said, "OK, but I think its quite strange that these sun glasses, WITH A HOLDER, just came to me at no effort of my own."

You know me, there is a life lesson in everything. Here is what struck me about the sun glasses in the sand as I walked to the beach in Nantucket this morning. What seemed like a random event was the appearance of sun glasses, with a holder, laid right before me. All I had to do was receive them. Not only did I not do what was a reasonable thing to do to purchase sun glasses with a holder, I wouldn't even receive them when they were placed right in front of me. In the end I had sun glasses with a holder in spite of my ineptness and because of a seemingly random event.

How similar is the Gospel of Grace. We are so inept at what we can do to meet our needs while the Sovereign act of God places Grace right before our feet, totally unexpected - there to just receive. There are many excuses we have for not receiving blessing that has come to us without any action on our part. It doesn't seem right to our natural mind - dominated by justice, exchange, and cause & effect. Enjoying the sun glasses with a holder that appeared from nowhere, a need I knew all along I had, all mine if I would just receive it, reminded me again of the blessings of Grace that God bestows.

I don't think we can ponder His Sovereignty and His Grace too much and I think many simple things in life can remind us of it. Sun glasses in the sand did so for me ......

"Finding Truth"

The following is an exert from Session Eight in the b4Wolrdview course entitled "Finding Truth". I have researched thoroughly this topic and I believe this course will have the most extensive discussion on steps we must take to know what is true without using an established orientation such as theology and philosophy. Most people may say that the path to truth is too deep, too theoretical, or just too anything to have an excuse to not take it seriously. Many would rather be entertained by "finding Nemo" or "finding Dory". If you focus on what follows and think about it with fresh brain eyes, it could be transforming. That is what we expect from attentive students of b4Worldview.

******************************************************************************
I have a friend in his 70's. He has had a successful life according to the world's standards. While his body is beginning to fail him, he struggles more with emotional angst. When I ask him what troubles him, he responds, "I just want to know what is true." When I ask him what he is doing about that challenge, he says, "I don't even know where to start." At b4Worldview we are passionate about one thing, when you finish this course you will never be able to say that again in your entire life.

 In session 6 we spent a lot of time discussing truth in the various ways people view it. Remember, some see truth as relative and some as absolute. That is, truth about an object can be whatever someone or some culture decides it is based on their inferences from what they observe about the object in certain situations. This is called relative truth. The opposite view of truth is that truth about an object is stable across time and situations and is not dependent on what anyone might physically observe and infer about the object. This is absolute truth and sometimes called “true north.” North is north and it doesn’t matter who you ask or when you ask them. One’s opinion, regardless of how things look and how much they believe otherwise, does not change where north is.

Sometimes, for people like John F Kennedy Jr, which way is up can mean life or death. One night, thinking he was flying his plane up into the sky, disregarding his instrument panel and going on what he felt to be true, John Jr flew his plane into the ocean, killing everyone on board.

We also discussed truth in terms of whether choices we make are right or not. In this instance we said that choices are preferential when the outcomes of each choice have the same effect, like two routes to town that get you there with the same effort and in the same amount of time. We also said choices may be competing. In this case one choice is considered right because it produces a “better” outcome than the other choice.

As we mentioned people take different paths to believe what is true. People who think truth is relative tend to focus more on how using their edio or head knowledge can show them what they should believe is true. While rarely denying their existence, they depend on core assumptions. They tend to trust their ability to create valid arguments about an object by gaining more edio knowledge. Accepting that part of their beliefs is based on evidence they cannot prove (faith), people who depend on truth as relative do not consider it necessary or worthwhile to debate or prove their core assumptions.

While there may be times and situations where our choices are preferential and will seem relative, we see all around us where there are some choices in life where there is only one right answer. It is to these choices that this session is dedicated. That is, when we are faced with choices about what is right or true, how do we determine which are true, since scientific inference from physical evidence can never be 100% conclusive?

Before we look at the ways to examine core assumptions and other beliefs about truth that cannot be proven solely by eido knowledge and scientific inquiry, think a moment about where you think your core assumptions or initial beliefs come from. Let me ask it this way, which of the following best represents where you get your starting point beliefs that you never really think about or question or feel a need to prove.

A. You accept what people in authority tell you
B. You trust what people you love tell you
C. Your use your natural instincts or intuition
D. You accept what is normal for your culture (family and community)

(here the student is taken down a different discussion depending on their answer)

We are going to spend a little time looking at a way to determine and test what you believe to be true when science is not enough to give you conclusive evidence. But before we begin this discussion, let me ask you how important it is for you to know “true north”. Pick the statement about “truth north” that best represents where you are right now relative to the role true north plays in your life.

“Truth north” is 

A. Not necessary for daily life

B. Is always subjective

C. Available for me to know if I sincerely seek it

(again the student is engaged differently based on their answer)

If there was a prescription for finding absolute truth or true north, everyone would be “singing the same tune”, so to speak, and we all would agree on what is right and what is wrong. However, it is not that simple. You see disagreement everywhere on what is right or true. 

The confusion we have over truth starts with the meaning of truth. The simple definition of truth is “fact”. However, when we look at the meaning of “fact” we see that it means “true.” This is a circular argument for the meaning of “truth” and is not helpful. There have been many attempts to define truth in theology and philosophy. While these approaches produce similar outcomes for the definition of truth, they do not clearly and fully say exactly the same thing about truth. So let us look at what we may get for a meaning of truth if we combine the approaches and settle on one meaning.

For our purposes we will say that what is true about an object is

“The rightful disclosure of the object's original design.”

This idea of “finding true north” about some object means that we will have revealed to us a quality of the object that is in accordance with the design of the object. Think about it. A real estate appraiser needs to know the true size of a building. He or she will make attempts at measuring the dimensions, but will ultimately ask if there is a blueprint of the building they can use. Here they would look at the design (or a rightful disclosure) and obtain the dimensions of the building in accordance with the architect’s intent. True size of the building is best known by looking at the plans. Some things about the building are not even in the plans but reside only in the mind of the architect. What is the purpose of the building? How is it supposed to function during different kinds of events in it? The best way to know truth about the building is to know the architect and be able to trust what he/she tells us about the building. Then we can fully know what is “true north” about the building.

This is a simple example and works well for objects that physically exist designed by a person. But what about abstract objects, like love, or aspects of our material world, like the oceans, that have existed for so long we only have ancient accounts of its origination. We may often think, what is “true love?” What are the qualities of love that can be rightfully disclosed and in accordance with the author or originator of love? We may not think about love in that way. We may think that one person creates love for another, but do they really? They may have love for another, but are they the author of the object called “love”? There are many poeple who love. Which person originated it? Does “love’ itself have an originator and a willful design?

Let’s stop here for a minute. You may be thinking, “how do we know that this meaning of “truth” is true?” That’s a very good question. This gets us back to core assumptions. Remember, "everything we believe to be true, but we do not question or try to prove" is a core assumption. This definition is given to us across time by many people who have studied “truth”. But why are they right about truth. We find we cannot even discuss the topic of “truth” if we do not all have the same core assumption about what truth means. The dictionary is full of words that we never prove their definition, but we accept them as true. Instead of just throwing our hands up in futility, which is what many philosophers eventually do, lets’ highlight the different core assumptions about what is truth so you can see for yourself where your core assumption about truth fits in the approaches to finding “true north.” 

These are the questions that sit at the very basis of finding “true north”. 

First, when you want to know “true north” about an object, you must believe either

1. The object has no originator.

OR

2. The object has an originator who has a purpose and design for the object.

Then you must make another choice. Will you infer qualities about the object based on

1. knowledge (both eido and gnosis) you have as you observe the object.

OR

2. knowledge (both edio and gnosis) you have about the originator of the object.

Obviously, if you do not assume there is an originator of the object, you can only infer qualities of an object from knowledge you have of the object. All options involve inferences we make from both kinds of knowledge. The question is, what are we making inferences about, the object or the originator of the object? The point is that what is true will be either a reliance or trust you have in your ability to infer through your observation or a reliance (trust) in the character and competency of the originator of the object. That is the only two choices you have in finding “true north.”

You must believe that you have sufficient vision to see perfectly the qualities of an object or the originator of the object must reveal the qualities of the object to you. This is a key core assumption. The sponsors of b4Worldview agree with Augustine, an ancient scholar who said that even if you have perfect vision, you could not see the beautiful objects in a room if the room is immersed in darkness. Only until light is shown to reveal the objects can we receive their full beauty. We cannot tell you what to believe, but we can tell you that those are the only two choices you have – truth about an object is gained by observation through your efforts or revealed to you through the will of the originator of the object. The choice you make here determines almost every core assumption you have about life and influences whether you live it to its fullest.

No object is more important to know the truth about than the object called “self”. This fork in the road about truth applies here too. You either know what is true about yourself by inferences you make by observing yourself or you know truth about yourself from what the originator of you chooses to reveal to you about you. Of course, you have to first agree on who your originator is. It should be obvious you did not create yourself 

Finding truth requires inferences and 

inferences always involve a combination of eido and gnosis knowledge. 

As we discussed earlier, people are different from each other and are flawed in ways in which they view themselves and objects in the world around them. If we really want to find “true north” about important objects in our life, guidelines for inferences that will make us more objective and less subject to our biases, filters, and limitations would be a good start. So, in this session I will give you some principles for finding true north that can offset some of the flaws in your personal and human nature. You will only get better at knowing what is right as you practice applying these ideas. 

But, before we dive into principles of objective inference, lets revisit your own core assumptions about truth. We can review what you have shared with us so far through your responses to questions we have asked.

(if you have taken the course, we know your core assumptions regarding relative and absolute truth and would discuss them with you here)

We have discussed the importance of whether you typically view truth as absolute or relative. We have explored the degree you rely on physical evidence and science or invisible evidence called faith. Your core assumptions on truth and faith are vital to how you view almost everything. Based on what we have learned about you so far, we can place you on a chart that looks like this, putting you in a spot that corresponds to what you have said you believe about truth and faith. I want to emphasize to you again, this exercise is not about judging you. Our objective in this course is to help you clarify what your core assumptions are that lead to your worldviews. 

Challenging your assumptions highlight the opportunities for change you feel may be helpful in making your life and those around you more successful. Now lets see how your core assumptions place you on this chart.

******************************************************************************

The rest of this Session explores four guidelines to examining your core assumptions about truth. When we have the course all done, maybe its something you can try. It will be a great source of pondering if nothing else ......

Expose and Reveal

Susie was born into a Christian family 23 years ago. She grew up going to Sunday School, Vacation Bible School, youth group, short term missions, and possibly was home schooled or attended Christian private school. She enters college at 18 professing to be a Christian. As she leaves college and enters the world as an educated professional, she now tells others she doesn’t think she is a Christian anymore.

Jemison graduated college 10 years ago and began his career believing Jesus for his salvation. He may have even become a Christian in college through the influence of campus ministries. BUT, he has now grown cynical of his faith because he has noticed it hasn’t really mattered much in his life. As he looks around he notices his Christian friends were more like all of his other friends than they were different. Maybe Christians were even more judgmental, defensive, emotionally fragile, and less successful than those who didn’t care about religion.

What went wrong? What is happening? Why do statistics show that approximately 40% of all freshman, who profess to be a Christian, will deny that they are a Christian when they graduate? Why are divorce rates and pornography as prevalent in Christians as the rest of the world?

Basically we find that when all people are saved and become a Christian, their new heart is not automatically accompanied by a new way to make sense of themselves and the world around them. Paul saw this even in the early church. This may be why Jesus said “repent and believe”, where repent means a massive change of mind, even a complete change of the mind. Maybe it is why Paul said, “be transformed by the renewing of your mind.” What must be changed – renewed - transformed? What about the mind must be different? Completely different!

b4Worldview is a transformational learning experience for people at any age, but especially millennials who are facing college. Expert professionals at b4Worldview have discovered that although someone becomes a Christian, if they maintain carnal thinking about human nature, truth and reality, then they will be vulnerable to the “elementary and worthless principles of this world.” Christians and non-Christians alike ultimately think, feel, and act from a fundamental pattern of thought, which are called core assumptions. These are basic ideas that influence choices about life and living that are rarely, if ever, questioned and proven.

b4Wolrdview exposes the carnal mind and reveals the mind of Christ. After 10 – 12 hours of the b4Worldview course, a Christian will more fully grasp why God’s truths matter and why the assumptions of this world are futile. After 10 - 12 hours of the b4Worldview course a non-Christian will become very uncomfortable with the worthlessness of their own assumptions and be more open to absolute truth and a reliance on faith. The mission of the Christian Worldview industry, such as The Colson Center, The Summit, and the academic products for students in Christian schools, is to equip Christians to defend their faith in our culture, not to transform core assumptions. God’s word is true not because it is in the Bible. God’s word is in the Bible because it is true. b4Worldview provides Christians and non-Christians an investigation of God’s truth without first saying, “because the Bible says so”?

b4Worldview’s mission is to transform carnal core assumptions of believers to Kingdom core assumptions so that they can engage a dying world in more effective ways and more fully benefit in their own lives from the privileges and provisions of The Kingdom in which they belong. The passion behind b4Worldview is for Christians to be the light each has been purposed to be.  Maybe even more importantly, b4Wolrdview disturbs the cynical or apathetic foothold both Christians and non-Christians have typically relied on to turn a deaf’s ear to the Gospel of Grace.

For the sponsoring organization the metrics b4Wolrdview captures to guide each student through the course provides leaders strategic insights into how their actions can collaborate with their members’ transformation. The b4Worldview staff stands ready to share how the statistics provided can highlight opportunities for other supportive forms of intervention sponsors choose to offer their members.

Refugee Relief: a personal perspective

Reports suggest that the number of refugees around the world today is larger than at any time in recorded history. Refugees are basically people displaced due to disruptive oppression that makes it difficult or impossible to remain in their established homes. For most of us, refugees has either been a political football kicked around or just out o sight - out of mind. I recently visited the refugee situation in Uganda where thousands of Southern Sudan people flow into every week. Here is what I saw:

First, I saw that there is great physical suffering in being a refugee. The basics physical needs of life are threatened - safety, shelter, food, sanitation and health care.

Second, these needs of refugees also threatens the same needs of the local people in the territories that the refugees occupy. the land, the food supply, and health care are all put under some form of stress. People "thrown together" elevate how differences in culture and religion can make everyone insecure.

Third, psychological needs are the unseen tragedies of relocating thousands of people into an existing population. Freedom and hope are two fundamental areas where heightened uncertainty can affect motivation to accomplish life's basic necessities. Aid programs disrupt local economies and can create entitlement mentalities that also have negative impact on how a local area survives and thrives.

Fourth, refugee relief is a big business. Billions of government money is "thrown at" relief efforts to provide shelter, security, food, sanitation and health care. The United Nations is a major player. Local governments also provide money and services. Through grants the UN solicits participation from non-government agencies (NGO's). Many non profits apply for grants from the UN to supplement and specialize services. The economies of many third world locations that receive refugees are stimulated  by the influx of people and money from the outside. Hotels, restaurants, and other local businesses are supported by temporary presence of outside money. The downside is that many businesses flourish temporarily while the long term economy and sense of well being of the local population can be damaged by the surge and then withdrawal of economic activity.

The fourth issue is one that struck me the most. Is the way the developed world responds to the first three issues the best we can do? I saw first hand how ineffective and inefficient the current government based approach tends to be. Prolonged aid of food reduces the motivation of the relocated population to seek self sufficiency. Rules and regulations set by government bureaucrats fail to grasp the needs on the ground and spend money automatically and needlessly, while failing to meet needs that are real.

Here's an example in Uganda of this that I witnessed. The UN sponsored health care clinics, many run by NGO's would spend money on expensive vehicles and pay employees more than local wages, while restricting access to care available and being out of many vital medicines the people need. While carrying larger staffs than needed, the clinics set up for refugees would be only open during regular hours of the day and closed on weekends. The UN sponsored clinics would not care for local Ugandans, who lived among the refugees and had to sometimes walk further to get to a Ugandan govt clinic. This created more tension between the locals and the refugees. Temporary latrines were mandated by the UN at the intake and processing camps. When there were a surge of refugees at one time, the facilities became woefully inadequate raising a serious risk of cholera. A cholera out break could quickly wipe out a refugee camp and threaten the locals living in the area.

I visited the work of a private relief organization, Global Refuge International (GRI). With 1/10 of the budget and 40% of the staff size, GRI was provided the most and best health care. The GRI clinic was seeing more than twice the patients of a UN sponsored clinic with less than half the staff. GRI clinic always had the needed medicines, especially for malaria which is the most common cause of illness and death in this part of the world. The GRI clinic could build a permanent latrine at a refugee camp, but only because they do not take government subsidies. The only privately funded service for refugees that also cares for the soul of the refugee are Christian ministries. Using local Christian staffs, GRI clinics give people hope and help them feel respected and valued. GRI attracts the best local healthcare professionals at 1/4 the wages of the UN sponsored clinics because they see the effective and efficient way GRI meets the needs of the people. GRI is not restricted to only refugees so the local people are more integrated with the refugees as they can receive quality care from GRI too. GRI is available 24/7 as the staff boarding is onsite with the clinic.

A sister Christian ministry, Builders without Border, came while I was there and built a new facility. using local workers as helpers. A building was constructed in 2 weeks that will now allow GRI to be the premium health care provider to both refugees and nationals for all of Northern Uganda. This includes the Ugandan hospital in Arua. All care is free to everyone. It is a love gift to the refugees and citizens of Uganda from the hearts of Christians in the US and Canada.

In summary I saw that as an individual, I cannot solve the refugee situation. It will continue to be big business and a political "lightening rod." One thing I can do though is to give to organizations who will never be restrained by government regulations. I saw that while good intended organizations like World Vision and Samaitans Purse are there, they are fully engaged in using grant money to operate in refugee relief and are no different in their operations as the UN. So many organizations have been "sucked into" the big business of relief, resulting in self-serving benefits of UN money. However, there are some, like GRI, who can remain true to their mission of serving the dying and the needy with respect and love. The gift of grace lives well beyond a bowl of food and a prescription of medicine. They believe that lives can be restored out of disaster.

Its certainly worth pondering. I saw it for myself .....