The question came up, how are we to respond? The ideas floating around the table were a bit pessimistic, ideas like settle for less, don't live to consume, don't add to the problem. I had trouble with their "solution" since it was coming from people who saw the problem as inevitable. If it is indeed inevitable shouldn't we consider a different approach? To not add to the problem yet not even consider that there may be a solution is submission to the problem, you are basically fleeing from it. After explaining the trouble I had with their ideas (by the way this was all I said all night) I raised the question, "is there no way that globalization can be manipulated, steered in a different direction, toward benefit or equality?" it got quiet fast.
Isn't globalization rooted in a good concept? "A world without borders" as Andrew (one of the members of the discussion) defined it. If a principal is rooted in good why can't we find the good? Can we not be the "influencers" instead of the "influencees?" The reason I am posting about this is it caused me to examine myself. How often do I submit, flee from a problem? My mentor Robin gives a good description of what Jesus meant when He called us to be salt of the earth. Back in the day Jews didn't have allot of fire wood so instead of wood for fires they would use dung, yes poop. They'd cover the poop with salt and the salt would act as a combustible that would ignite the poop and set it to flame. We are to be combustibles, explosive devices that influence culture. We are to be revolutionaries. (I totally ripped off Robin in that whole paragraph, sorry)
So when we see problems we need to find the good. We need to dive right in and steer a different direction, not run away and have nothing to do with that. Because in running you are not only submitting, giving away all your power to the problem, but you are neglecting the call from God. Let us not be those who run but may we fight, may we be salt.
See: Matthew 5:13, 1 Timothy 6:12