It's clear that one cause of the current food crisis is that poorer countries have been pressured into dismantling their food policies, leaving peasant farmers and eaters alike to bear all the risks of the extremely volatile world market. This has left corporations free to ship factory-farmed food to those countries, peasants free to migrate to urban slums, and corporately-dominated economic markets free to ignore those starving.

And we should blame ourselves, not the corporations. Expecting a corporation to give affordable loans to farmers, look out for the urban poor, and cut carbon emissions - unless those are the most profitable things it can do, which they aren't - is like expecting your kitchen stove to go out and join the Missionaries of Charity. (The difference is that, if your stove were a corporation, it would hire lobbyists to make sure that federal policies heavily favored stoves over toasters and George Foreman grills).

But many of the powers that be refuse to admit that our current trade model is a problem; so some are demanding that we respond to the crisis by drinking more corporate-trade Kool-Aid (by extending reach of the WTO, for example). In a move that clearly shows they are lost to common sense, such arguments often blame the food crisis on the only significant farm policy left on the planet: rich-country subsidies for food crops. For example, a story last week announced that U.N. head Ban Ki-moon had asked the world to respond to the crisis by "cut[ting] agricultural subsidies, particularly in developed countries."

Now, there are lots of reasons why U.S. farm subsidies, which push the export-driven factory-farming model, are broken and need to be radically reworked. (And, of course, subsidies for ethanol production, which converts food to fuel, really do drive up the price of food and are a huge problem).

But the crisis is that food prices have become way too high. Subsidies to food crops inherently lower food prices. You do the math.

I believe the underlying argument is that subsidies have dampened "market signals"--i.e., rising prices--that would otherwise have caused farmers to gradually increase production. But, as you may have noticed at the gas pump, some key farm inputs, like fuel and fossil-fuel-based fertilizer, have been anything but gradual in their price rise. On top of genuine supply and demand spikes, there's the still-more-volatile behavior of financial speculators.

And, on a more basic level, farmers often are unable to respond to price increases. In particular, small farmers in the global South don't have access to affordable loans, supplies, or marketing they would need to grow more.

Why? Because poor countries have dismantled most of their food policies as trade agreements decimated the government policy toolbox, and IMF pressure forced many governments to slash their farm investment. Now, there are belated calls for governments in the Global South to invest in farming once again. Amen to that.

Elizabeth Palmberg is an assistant editor of Sojourners.

"Grain Markets Panic Buying, Export Controls, and Food Riots," trumpets the headline of one Web site I read while researching the world food price crisis for Sojourners' July issue. Was the site a moral critique of how our corporation-driven, anything-goes global economy has caused the cost of food to skyrocket, driving 100 million people into poverty?

Actually, the "food riots" headline is geared to telling people how to profit from others' suffering. The next sentence reads: "Long-term global demand and supply trends in the agricultural sector remain very favorable for investors." Morally repugnant as that segue is, the real problem is that speculation probably helped cause the food price crisis (in concert with other factors such as agrofuel production, rising meat-eating, and the gutting of poor-country farm policy).

Speculative markets are innately prone to stampedes, as we can see from the mortgage bubble, the dot.com bubble, etc., etc. Wild price swings are built into the system: It's the job of a money manager to buy commodities that will go up (helping to inflate bubbles) and sell them when they start to go down (helping deflate them).

Turning up the speculative heat is the fact that there's a LOT of money out there chasing investments -- double what there was in the year 2000. A recent NPR program, The Giant Pool of Money, spells out, in human terms, how the pressure that speculative money exerts was a recipe for disaster during the housing bubble.

While that bubble hurt homeowners and investors when prices deflated, food-market speculation hurts the world's poor as prices go up -- way, way up. Incredibly, many voices in the press fly in the face of reality by arguing that speculation somehow decreases the wild swings and bubble pricing of markets. For example, The New York Times recently argued that

... the more money that speculators are willing to put to work in the market, the more liquid it is and the easier it is to buy and sell without causing big ripples in prices.

If you believe that stampedes calm vibrations, I've got some subprime mortgage-backed securities to sell you. A more accurate description of how speculators act can be found in Washington Post humorist Gene Weingarten's interview several years ago with Nobel Prize-winning economist Robert Solow:

[Weingarten]: ... would it be your professional judgment that Wall Street, the principal bulwark of the American financial system, is at the mercy of persons with the maturity of kindergarteners -- or of preschoolers?

Solow: It's at the mercy of very, very nervous people.

Now, the world's poor are more than nervous. They're hungry. Very hungry.

Elizabeth Palmberg is an assistant editor of Sojourners.

The Coalition of Immokalee Workers announced Friday that after a prolonged and often heated campaign, Burger King has agreed to award tomato pickers 1.5 cents per pound of tomatoes picked, the equivalent of a 71 percent increase in wages.

The decision was announced on Capitol Hill last Friday. Watch the press conference:

Sojourners has been involved with the campaign since June 2007, and in little less than a year, more than 25,000 of our activists sent more than 125,000 letters to the fast-food chain and its supporters. Given the slavery indictments in regions of south Florida, the agreement also includes zero tolerance guidelines for unlawful activities of any grower from the Burger King supply chain.

While Burger King’s agreement is a long-awaited victory, their stalling and obstructing other companies from coming on board over the past year is unconscionable. In the end, the second-largest burger chain estimated that the agreement will cost it $300,000 annually, yet last year the company made $2.23 billion in profits.

We must continue to demand justice for workers at all levels of our economy, and we applaud the Coalition of Immokalee Workers for this victory on that path.

To learn more about Friday’s agreement, check out The New York Times and Nation reports.

Elizabeth Denlinger is deputy director for policy and organizing at Sojourners.

I posted last November about legal proceedings against Chiquita for protection money paid to Colombian right-wing paramilitary organizations (AUC) that had been designated terrorist organizations by the U.S. government. Two stories this week shed more light on the situation and are worth checking out.

First, last week's 60 Minutes broadcast included a segment called "The Price of Bananas," which gives a good overview, including the origins of the paramilitaries:

The second comes from Christianity Today in an article titled, "Corporate-Sponsored Terror." It describes the lawsuit against Chiquita brought by former missionaries with New Tribes Mission, widows whose husbands were kidnapped and killed by left-wing guerrilla forces (FARC) when they controlled the region where Chiquita was operating:

When Chiquita Brands International pleaded guilty last year to violating anti-terrorism laws -- and was fined $25 million for its payments to Colombian terrorists -- Tania Julin and Nancy Hamm felt betrayed and angry.

Though Chiquita's plea did not involve the group that murdered their husbands 12 years ago, the women learned through the case that Chiquita had also paid protection money to the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC).

"I believe they need to be held accountable," said Hamm, who retired from New Tribes Mission (NTM) last year. "This affected us in a horrible way, but I think it could affect a lot of other Americans, too, if Chiquita or other American companies continue to blatantly fund terrorists." ...

While Julin said none of the widows are bitter about the dangers that ultimately ended their husbands' lives, she does hope that winning the lawsuit will pose a warning to companies tempted to do business with terrorists.

"Chiquita had a choice whether to deal with the terrorists or not. If they felt they had to deal with the terrorists or not be in Colombia at all, they could have chosen not to be in Colombia," Julin said. "They chose to work with these terrorists."

Ryan Rodrick Beiler is the Web editor for Sojourners. He traveled to Colombia in 2003.

A few months ago, we asked Sojourners' supporters to send messages to Burger King, asking them to join McDonald's and Taco Bell in increasing the sub-poverty wages of Florida tomato pickers. Almost 20,000 people responded, but Burger King's behavior has only gotten worse. Not only have they failed to heed the faith community's call to improve wages and working conditions for tomato pickers - they're working to undermine the Coalition of Immokalee Workers' existing agreements with other fast-food chains.

As Eric Schlosser, author of Fast-Food Nation, explained in the New York Times:

The migrant farm workers who harvest tomatoes in South Florida have one of the nation's most backbreaking jobs. For 10 to 12 hours a day, they pick tomatoes by hand, earning a piece-rate of about 45 cents for every 32-pound bucket. During a typical day each migrant picks, carries, and unloads two tons of tomatoes.

Yum! Brands (owner of Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, and KFC) and McDonald's had agreed to pay a penny more per pound to increase wages by 70 percent per bucket, but this holiday season workers aren't receiving the increase. Why? Because Burger King has refused to pay the extra penny ...

and its refusal has encouraged tomato growers to cancel the deals already struck with Taco Bell and McDonald's. This month the Florida Tomato Growers Exchange, representing 90 percent of the state's growers, announced that it will not allow any of its members to collect the extra penny for farm workers.

A Burger King spokesman responded, "Florida growers have a right to run their businesses how they see fit" - apparently, even if that means putting profits ahead of justice and dignity for their workers.

This Christmas, we're once again asking Burger King to stop being a scrooge and do the right thing. Click here to join us in sending a letter to the fast-food giant.

Michael Sherrard is the online organizer for Sojourners.

In college, I took a cultural exchange trip (read: vacation) to Rome over spring break. Just around the corner from St. Peter's Square, I bought my father, a minister, a crucifix for his office.

Earlier this week, I saw that same souvenir in a report from The National Labor Committee on crucifixes made in Chinese sweatshops.

The report, titled "Today Workers Bear the Cross", documents the oppressive treatment of the workers in the Junxingye factory in Dongguan, China, who make crucifixes and other religious items to be sold to the faithful in the West.

[The] mostly young women—several just 15 and 16 years old—[are] forced to work routine 14 to 15 ½-hour shifts, from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 or 11:30 p.m., seven days a week … and even monthly all-night 22 ½ to 25-hour shifts before shipments must leave for the U.S. …Workers are paid just 26 and a half cents an hour, which is half of China's legal minimum wage (already set at a below-subsistence level) of 55 cents an hour. After fees deducted for room and board, the workers take-home wage can drop to just nine cents an hour … Workers fear that they may be handling toxic chemicals, but they are not told the names of the chemicals and paints, let alone their potential health hazards.

The products are then sold for upwards of $20 in the U.S., in churches like New York's St. Patrick's Cathedral and chains like Family Christian Stores. If God despises praise songs and offerings presented in the absence of justice, as the Hebrew prophets tell us, then crucifixes and plastic Bible covers made on the cheap at the expense of workers must really make God mad.

The image of women toiling away in sweatshops while handling an icon of the suffering body of Christ is quite striking. It brings to my mind a couple of questions. What might it mean for North American and European Christians to bear the cross—that is, to willingly suffer for the sake of justice—rather than participate in the unjust elements of our global trade system? Is it even possible to practice authentic discipleship within the global economy we're all swept up in? How can we, in even the smallest ways, seek to rid our lives of exploitation and be in solidarity with those who are suffering?

I ask these questions not because I have the answers. (Much of this post was written on a laptop built in, you guessed it, China.) I think I have a small picture, though, of what it might look like:

We'd probably buy more local and union made products, even if they cost more. We'd become pretty comfortable with hand-me-downs, and even looking kind of frumpy sometimes. We'd realize we need less than we thought we did, and go without some things previously thought essential. We'd share a lot more with our neighbors. And we'd demand that unjust structures change. Most of all, we'd need a community—to keep us accountable to countercultural discipleship, to forgive us for the impossibility of living lives free of exploitation, and to remind us it is in God and not the global market that we live, move, and have our being.

I pray that the church would be that sort of community and come together in resistance to our present global economy. Then we could begin to free ourselves (and others, like the women in the Junxingye factory) from its captivity.

Tim Kumfer serves as an assistant at The Church of the Saviour in Washington, D.C., and is a former Sojourners intern. He writes occasionally at timkumfer.blogspot.com.

One more reason to take up dumpster diving: I've been finding lots of bananas lately, many of them from Chiquita, and many of them from Colombia. I've been aware of Chiquita's entanglements with right-wing paramilitaries, but at least I can eat the fruit with a clean conscience since none of my dollars have made their way up the corporate food chain and back down to Colombian death squads.

A recent USA Today article summarized the scandal well. This was my quote of the week for SojoMail today:

Chiquita's money helped buy weapons and ammunition used to kill innocent victims of terrorism. Simply put, defendant Chiquita funded terrorism.

That's the U.S. Justice Department, in court filings last month against Chiquita for paying off right-wing paramilitaries in Colombia. Here's the rest of the story, Harpers Index-style:

• $1.7 million - amount Chiquita paid the Self-Defense Forces of Colombia, (Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia, AUC), a right-wing paramilitary organziation responsible for the majority of human rights abuses in Colombia's armed conflict
• $25 million - amount Chiquita was fined after pleading guilty of paying money to a terrorist organization
• $49.4 million - profits reaped by Chiquita from its Colombian operations between Sept. 10, 2001, when the AUC was designated a terrorist group, and January 2004, when its payments stopped. That's a number to keep in mind when Chiquita protests that it was merely trying to protect its workers.
• 173 - Colombians allegedly murdered and in some cases tortured by right-wing militias that received payments from Chiquita, whose families are now suing the company.
• 4,000 - number of people killed in the Uraba banana-growing region during the period when Chiquita admits to paying the AUC.
• 1989 until 1997 - years during which Chiquita paid left-wing guerillas before the region in which they operated was taken over by the AUC

And if this makes you not want to eat Chiquita bananas, here's some more bad news:

A spreading investigation in Colombia into what is being called the "para-politics" scandal may ensnare other corporate targets. Former AUC leader Salvatore Mancuso in May told the newspaper El Tiempo in Bogota that all banana producers had paid for protection, including Dole and Del Monte. Mancuso, who was jailed after turning himself in as part of an ongoing government-backed demobilization, said his group received 1 cent for every dollar of bananas exported. "All of the banana companies paid us. Every one of them," Mancuso told the newspaper.

And one more closing thought:

"It may be true (that) you could not operate in these areas without paying the AUC. If it were al-Qaeda, that wouldn't be a defense," says Terry Collingsworth, an attorney with the International Labor Rights Fund, which has filed lawsuits against several corporations, including Chiquita, over their activities in Colombia.

Ryan Rodrick Beiler is the web editor for Sojourners. He traveled to Colombia in 2003.

When you think of labor unions, do you think of men in coveralls, meeting in dingy buildings late at night, trying to get the public's attention through strikes or maybe a small newspaper clipping? (I'll admit it, I kind of do). Well, it's time to reset that union image—the fight for fair labor practices just got a lot hipper.

They're spoofing the new Harry Potter movie, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, to raise awareness about the evil practices of Lord Waldemart (aka Wal-Mart).

As the Chicago Tribune reports, Wal-Mart Watch (which is backed by the Service Employees International Union) has released a YouTube video and an accompanying Web site, WaldemartWatch.com, to get its serious message across to a new generation, in a lighter way.

As Andrew Slack, a comedian, activist, and actor in the video says: "I'm a big believer in the power of humor to create social change and get the message out there. … We don't want anyone feeling that they're being lectured at. We want to break away from that to what they're interested in, and humans tend to be interested in laughing."

For those humans who adamantly support Wal-Mart's labor practices, the movie won't likely strike a chord. But for fans of Harry Potter who are indifferent or already see a darker side to Uncle Sam Walton's smiley face, this video is a stunning debut for the latest player in YouTube politics: Big Labor.

Laurel Mathewson is an editorial assistant for Sojourners magazine.

A friend recently brought to my attention the July 8, 2007, column by Rod Dreher in the Dallas Morning News. Dreher, famous as a "Crunchy Con"—a conservative who cares deeply about the environment—provides another excellent example of the important shift taking place on the fault line that for too long has polarized and paralyzed "left" and "right." His title, "Evils of Capitalism," and the subhead, "Big business can be as dangerous a threat as big government," tell you that he defies old binary categories.

The greatest challenge facing American conservatives today, he says, is not liberalism but capitalism, which he says, "in its current form, undermines not only the virtues necessary to the kind of society conservatives claim to want, but ultimately risks subverting itself."

He acknowledges capitalism's strengths, but laments that today's capitalism "is defined not by a producer mentality but by a consumer ethos," evidenced by the fact that personal savings—undercut by credit card debt—have slipped into the negative zone for the first time since 1933.

He calls the mentality promoted by consumerism "childishness," quoting Benjamin Barber's recent release, Consumed. When big business promotes consumerism by inhibiting adult judgment and self-discipline, Dreher says, it works against the very family values conservatives cherish, making them "prisoners of their own cravings."

"Childishness" sounds like the mentality that has been reinforced by our political and corporate titans. On one hand, we hear warnings that inspire fear, and then on the other, we hear a lot of "Trust me and don't ask questions." These titans profit if the rest of us act like children, trusting and submitting without thinking and making mature decisions with foresight, self-discipline, and concern for the common good.

Rod Dreher is so right. Consumerism, whether in government or business, sucks.

Read the full entry »

A glimmer of Isaiah’s vision of the peaceable kingdom (Isaiah 11:6-9) – a vision of peace, reconciliation, and justice – is realized in the partnership recently formed between the Coalition of Immokalee Workers (CIW) and the McDonald’s corporation. The CIW, a farmworker organization based in rural Southwest Florida, has led two successful efforts to improve wages and working conditions in the fields, first winning an agreement with Taco Bell, and now with the McDonald’s, the two largest fast-food chains in the world. McDonald’s will now work with the CIW to pay a penny more per pound of tomatoes directly to the farmworkers who harvest its tomatoes, enforce a stronger code of conduct based on the principle of worker participation, collaboratively develop a third-party mechanism for monitoring conditions in the fields, and investigate workers’ complaints of abuse.

For two years, a war of words was waged between the farmworker organization from Immokalee and the fast-food giant. The CIW and Interfaith Action of Southwest Florida, a faith-based partner to the CIW, educated consumers across the country about the sweatshop and slavery conditions facing farmworkers in the agricultural industry today. Florida tomato pickers must pick two tons of tomatoes to earn just $50 in a day, a pay rate that’s been stagnant for almost 30 years. They regularly work 10-12 hour days with no overtime pay, no health insurance, no right to organize, no sick days, and no benefits whatsoever. Recognizing the tremendous market power of fast-food corporations like McDonald’s, Taco Bell, and Burger King to control conditions and push down prices in their supply chains, the CIW focused its “Campaign for Fair Food” on calling these companies to address the inhumane conditions of farmworkers who harvest their tomatoes.

McDonald’s, however, initially chose to view the situation in its suppliers’ fields not as a human rights crisis to be addressed but as a public relations fire to be extinguished. The company responded to the CIW with a public relations campaign, undertaking a series of moves aimed more at quelling the public outcry than changing the underlying exploitation faced daily by workers in the fields.

Christians and people of faith from many traditions joined the farmworkers’ struggle for justice. Interfaith Action’s national network and people of faith across the country took action - clergy wrote letters to McDonald’s, denominational bodies passed resolutions in support of the Campaign for Fair Food, mission committees invited CIW farmworkers to speak in their churches, hundreds of people of faith organized peaceful protests and marched alongside the farmworkers, congregations lodged and fed CIW members during national tours, and Sojourners’ action alert generated several thousand e-mails to the McDonald’s executives.

It seemed, at times, that the day when the CIW and McDonald’s would work together as partners would never come, and that an unjust status quo might prevail. But on April 9 of this year, it finally happened! As a result of the growing call of the CIW, people of faith, and consumers across the country, the farmworkers and the corporate giant McDonald’s reached a historic agreement for dignity and justice for tomato pickers. Now, we’ve seen a glimpse of God’s peaceable kingdom that Isaiah describes – the lion is living with the lamb, the high-power corporate executives are joining together with exploited farmworkers – for justice and dignity.

Today, the CIW is calling on Burger King to do the same, as the movement for fair food and justice for farmworkers continues to grow. You too can be a part of this vibrant movement! Visit http://www.ciw-online.org/ and http://www.allianceforfairfood.org/faith.html for more information and ways to become involved.

Sarah Osmer is co-coordinator of Interfaith Action of Southwest Florida, an ally organization of the Coalition of Immokalee Workers (CIW) that educates and animates people of faith to partner with the CIW in their efforts to improve wages and working conditions for farmworkers and put an end to modern-day slavery in the agricultural industry.

Publishing an independent niche magazine has always been a risky business. Many excellent-but-small periodicals in the faith and justice genre have fallen off the cliff of financial precariousness – Christianity & Crisis and The Other Side are two late-and-lamented notables that come to mind.

One factor that can make or break small publications is the cost of mailing each issue to subscribers. A few-cents-per-ounce increase in the cost of postage costs a magazine tens of thousands of dollars, which can easily be the difference between breaking even and going bottoms-up.

As Bill Moyers points out on his blog, the U.S. Postal Service is about to implement a significant rate increase that threatens to cripple small journals. Moyers says:

An impending rate hike, worked out by postal regulators, with almost no public input but plenty of corporate lobbying, would reward big publishers like Time Warner, while forcing these smaller periodicals into higher subscription fees, big cutbacks and even bankruptcy.

It's not too late. The postal service is a monopoly, but if its governors, and especially members of Congress, hear from enough citizens, they could have a change of heart.

Moyers argues that small publications make “a unique contribution to the conversation of democracy.” Postal increases like these – that in effect punish small nonprofits to the benefit of huge multinational conglomerates – carry the very real risk of making that conversation much narrower in the years to come.

Jim Rice is Editor of Sojourners magazine.

Nine months ago, shortly before the school year began, six evangelical Protestant groups were abruptly de-recognized by Georgetown University and were informed by the Office of Campus Ministry that they would "no longer be allowed to hold any activity or presence (i.e., bible studies, retreats with Georgetown students, mid-week worship services, fellowship events, move-in assistance, SAC Fair, etc.) on campus." They later backpedaled slightly, stating that students could continue to meet under the InterVarsity, Chi Alpha and other banners, but without official connection to the university. The reason given?

... ongoing difficulties in communication and cooperation with these outside organizations. The result has been fragmentation between student groups and the inability to gather our Protestant students on occasion for ecumenical worship and dialogue while acknowledging distinct theological differences.

According to staff and students of the affiliated ministries, the claims regarding lack of cooperation were simply untrue. In response to the flood of more than 400 letters, e-mails and petitions from concerned students, alumni, and parents in the fall, the university convened an advisory committee of Georgetown faculty, students, campus ministers, and off-campus ministry leaders to explore the matter. Finally, Georgetown announced last week that it would again recognize InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, Chi Alpha Campus Ministries and other external Protestant evangelical campus ministry groups, accepting the advisory committee's proposal to re-affiliate all of the ministries and to enhance communications and partnership between the various groups and the Office of Campus Ministry.

This resolution differs from a similar series of events earlier this year at Univeristy of Wisconsin-Superior because no lawsuit was filed against Georgetown. This sets a strong precedent for the use of dialogue instead of court action in settling such matters.

The re-affiliation of these evangelical ministries is also significant because it reaffirms the importance of making room around the table for all voices: If our academic institutions are in the business of teaching students how to think for themselves, then in the spirit of good scholarship, they should promote the free exchange of ideas and expose students to a wide range of viewpoints. As a private university, Georgetown may have the legal right to decide which students groups it will recognize, but along with other private universities, it needs to consider when exercising that right the university may undermine its own mission and values. Georgetown places a high value on interfaith dialogue, diversity, and pluralism - as seen by its support for Catholic, Jewish, and Muslim student groups. Under this framework, it is consistent and necessary to recognize the diversity of expression in the Protestant faith as well.

Reflecting on the situation at Georgetown, InterVarsity staff member Jennifer DeJong commented, "We have seen God answer prayer on many levels; while the advisory committee has been meeting to make the recommendations that would go through official channels, there have been many helpful conversations and steps taken toward reconciliation by students, staff, and chaplains. As staff, we have been encouraged by the many students who have approached these difficult conversations with integrity and grace. Please continue to pray as several of us participate on an 'organizing committee' this summer to work on the logistical aspects of the new plan for university affiliation."

Nancy Chan has served as a volunteer staff member with InterVarsity Christian Fellowship at Georgetown University since the winter of 2002. She is also a 2006 graduate of the Georgetown Public Policy Institute (GPPI), and was the cofounder of the GPPI Forum on Faith and Policy, a student group promoting dialogue on issues where faith and policy intersect. Find related articles here. Or, for more information, contact Gordon Govier.

Who doesn't like a good underdog story? ... David versus Goliath always makes good copy, especially when the adversaries are as polarized as the oft-demonized retail giant and a Jesuit priest. ... But what happens when Goliath wins?"

So says Robert Rowen-Herzog in his article "When Goliath wins," which appears in the upcoming issue of Geez magazine. The priest he is talking about is Father Jim Profit, and the bad rap retailer is Wal-Mart.

I first heard of Father Jim in 2004. I was in a state of distress at the time. Wal-Mart was laying asphalt on a patch of land where I had once picked strawberries. The big bad box retailer was coming to my hometown, and although the town is brimming with Mennonites renowned for fending off encroaching worldliness, I could hardly find a Christian who had a any qualms with the king of commercialization.

So I called Father Jim. For most of a decade he had been trying to stop Wal-Mart from setting up shop right beside the Jesuits' retreat center and 600-acre sanctuary on the outskirts of Guelph, Ontario.

Father Jim spoke about the importance of sacredness and serenity in today's world. “Mega shopping plazas," he told me, "as monuments of consumerism, are the symbolic opposite of these spiritual values.” That's why he had joined the fight against Wal-Mart. (See Wal-Mart comes to Manitoba's Bible Belt.)

Now, three years later, a Wal-Mart sits right next to the Jesuit property.

But that's not the end of the story. So we at Geez magazine asked Robert Rowen-Herzog to interview Father Jim about failure, new life, and what it is like living contemplatively beside a Wal-Mart.

We are a culture defined by development and consumerism, and mega-shopping plazas like Wal-Mart exist as a monument to these forces. Consumerism masks the need we all have to turn inward to encounter God immanent at our core.

Losing this fight with Wal-Mart ... was a death. But in the death we have new opportunities for life.

See the full article: "When Goliath wins."

Will Braun is editor of Geez magazine.