The iPhone challenge

A call from the margins

ell, it looks as though the long awaited iPhone will finally be making its way to Canada.
Oh joy. O bliss.
The saviour has finally come (tongue is now firmly planted in cheek).

How did we manage before its long awaited arrival? We had to carry our bulky ipods, pda’s, and phones as separate entities. One doesn’t have enough pockets in one’s outfit to be able to safely and conveniently handle all of those toys.

But thankfully, those days are over. Our troubles have been taken from us. We thought the Blackberry was the redeemer but Mac is truly the king.

So when I heard the announcement, out of curiosity I went online to find out how much the thing will cost.

The first thing that I realized was that finding the pricing online was going to be quite the challenge. I’m still pretty inept at finding exactly where I want to go when I do Google searches, but I did surf quite a few sites before I could find the slightest hint of its cost. The fact is, the advertisers were adamant that I read every possible spec of this thing in hopes that I’d be completely swept away by it’s majesty that no matter how much they wanted for it, it wouldn’t be too much.

(I must admit, I love this toy. It is truly amazing and has all of the things I like on it. Were I someone to give in to the whims of the doomsday prophet ad-man, he’d have me on this one).

After much too much time online, I think I figured out the pricing here in this country.
You can get the 8G iPhone for the low price of $199, or the 16G iPhone for just $299.
Oh, did I mention you need to sign your life away for three years on top of that? No other options are available.

Then there are the monthly fees that you commit to paying for those next 36 months (with the occasional letter from the phone company telling you that they’ll be generously raising your prices so they could better serve you). $69 + applicable taxes and random arbitrary fees per month for voice services. Then $20 + applicable taxes and random arbitrary fees for data. So $89 + … per month; for THREE years.
So this inexpensive toy will cost each user more than $4,000 over three years.

What else might $4,000 pay for?

it would cover close to 1,500 meals in the shelter I work at for folks who live on the street
it would allow you to sponsor three children per month for three years through World Vision
it could purchase 50 school kits per month through the Mennonite Central Committee, each school kit helps one child in Bangladesh get through school for one year
it could provide the necessary labour and materials needed to provide 10 families per month the clean drinking water they need for the rest of their lives - totaling 360 families.

Or, you could buy a toy that will fill a void in you for a few weeks or months until you grow tired of it and feel empty again or until someone makes a better toy.

I think I’m feeling grumpy about this. Forgive me for sounding pious, but the world is falling apart. We need to stop being seduced by the man and start waking up to the needs of people who are dying all around us.

Shalom

Writer: Dion Oxford is the founding and current director of The Salvation Army Gateway, a 108-bed shelter for single men who find themselves homeless, as well as a drop-in centre for men and women in Canada’s largest city - Toronto. The Gateway has 48 staff who serve close to 10,000 meals each month and help an average of 200 people per year get off the street and into more appropriate housing. Dion has been working amongst Toronto’s homeless community for the past 17 years in a number of different capacities. He has travelled across Canada as a speaker and musician with a vision of informing and educating the church and the public about issues related to poverty and homelessness. He has a Bachelor of Religious Education from Tyndale College and is currently finishing his Masters degree at Wycliffe College. Dion is a member of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada’s Roundtable on Poverty and Homelessness. He is married to Erinn and they have a 4-year old daughter, Cate.

Thursday, June 19th, 2008 Ephemera

25 Comments to The iPhone challenge

Bravo Dion for this posting. Truly many people are living by the dictum ” He who has the most and best toys when he/she dies wins” rather than living by the teachings encapsulated in the Beatitudes.

I don’t know if it is just that I am a fuddy duddy or out of a sense of attempting to live a simple non-materialistic live but in my house we have no answering machines, cell phones or many of the toys people clamor for. I look at my 1994 car and wonder how people can afford the new ones of today. I look at our surroundings (rental 3 br apartment) that we have lived in for 25 years and then look at the new $300,000 plus homes (Winnipeg) or marvel at the prices for such in Vancouver, Toronto and elsewhere.

Even those of us who are Salvationists seem to be in the materialistic race.

Thanks for reminding us once again, Dion.

John Stephenson

John Stephenson on June 19th, 2008

Love the post Dion - what makes me love your post is that there are still those that would choose to buy the phone!
In London - most of the homeless have mobiles better than me and that makes me laugh.
I work as an officer with sex-workers and homeless people in central London!

Estelle on June 19th, 2008

Come on… My cell phone plan already costs me about $55 a month. So, the real cost to me amounts to $34 extra a month which over three years about $1,200 or $400 a year. And the iPhone will very much be worth that price given the extreme portability I will have instead of being chained to my desk.

Following your logic, if we all just gave up our homes, our mortgages, our rent, and gave that to the poor, think of all the mouths we could feed as we joined the ranks of the homeless.

It’s one thing to be charitable … which is laudible … it’s another thing to GET REAL.

We could drive ourselves crazy with all the “what if” we didn’t do this or that. What if we didn’t take our children to a movie - we could give it away. Well, God put me here to live a life - a joyous life. I will help others in a reasonable and consistent way. But God doesn’t want us to stop living happy, healthy lives and focus on how every last penny of our lives could be spent on something more worthy than ourselves and our families.

That’s not the God I know.

Realist on June 24th, 2008

Yes realist, I am sympathetic to your point of view. Much of my ministry involves non-profit and service club governance; engaging those who are off the contemporary communication grid is one of the most trying aspects of this work!

Andrea614Regent on June 24th, 2008

I see the point if the article, but I think it gets kind of hard to draw a black and white line on something like this. I’ve just finished my bachelors degree and, Dion, it looks like you’re wrapping up work on your masters. Taking the logic of this article to its conclusion, the money spent on our education could have been much better used to cure the world’s ills.

For me - disclaimer, I own a iPhone - its more an issue of how I use ALL my money. I think the bigger problem (not just with the iPhone but with any “smartphone”) is the huge chunk of time it ends up occupying…

Phil Laeger on June 24th, 2008

Hey all,
I just noticed this new flurry of activity. Fun stuff.
Realist, if that’s your real name, I actually like where your logic takes us. Perhaps the need to all own homes, have mortgages, and build equity is all a lie that we’ve each bought into. I’m beginning to love more and more the ideas presented by the folks talking about the new monasticism. It means pooling resources, living far more simply, living in more intentional community, and learning to experience that joy in life that God surely did intend us to have right now by being together and not continuing to isolate ourselves with i-phones and so-called kid friendly movies (which by the way will entail at least 15 minutes of brainwashing geared to our kids from the adman before the movie even starts).

I’m merely using the i-phone as the latest example of our willingness to be manipulated into thinking that we actually ‘need’ a product that happens to be the trendiest thing on the market right now. And so we go ahead and justify the extra $34/month as the extra cost of convenience and productivity. Meanwhile we drift further and further into complacency and numbness of all of the societal woes all around us.

I don’t do this often, but I’ll end with a Bible verse. James 1:27 says “Religion that God the father considers pure and faultless is this: to look after widows and orphans in their distress, and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world”.
I would argue that while we as a church are doing much better at caring for widows and orphans, we continue to let ourselves be lied to and manipulated and polluted by the world; and we don’t even know it. In fact, we continue to rationalize it.

Phil, I’ll admit you’ve hit a nerve with your comment but my gut says it’s not the same issue. At this point I can’t articulate why so until I do, I’ll be left to think about it.

Anyone else out there have thoughts on any possible differences between paying for an education as opposed to paying for an i-phone?

Dion Oxford on June 24th, 2008

Realist, I’m not entirely sure you are not being satirical, but still I can’t resist a response.
You call charity laudible- surely it isthe bare minimum? I’m pretty sure there are some stella words from Jesus about this… losing your life and finding it… I reckon Gods idea of a happy, healthy life is one lived in committment to the happiness and health of our neighbour- perhaps even our most vulnerable neighbour?

The education one is sticky, although possibly not on a par with an unnecesary piece of technology. Perhaps the bar is set for elite and expensive activities/products by how it effects our must vulnerable neighbour? The iphones (and other similar things) impact is two pronged- it locks wealth into a tiny pocket of society preventing the fair distribution of resources and it’s production has long term impact on the poorest by promoting environmental catastrophe which the most vulnerable are little able to deal with.
Education on the other hand has the potential to promote the well being of our neighbour, and I would argue is just as unjustifiable if that is not our intention.

Sorry if this sounds a bit trite…

Lucy AR on June 25th, 2008

Well said , Dion. You’re absolutely right - “.. the world IS falling apart.” Is not part of the “seduction of the man ” feeling compelled to keep up with all these technological advances which aparently testify to our world’s “progress” and so-called advancement? Time may not be money , but we still decide how it gets spent.

Peter Eason on June 25th, 2008

Hi Lucy,
I too wondered if ‘realist’ added his/her comment to stir up a discussion.
Peter, you’re one of my favorite guys that I barely ever get to see but who gives me great hope to know that you’re out there keeping it real and doing the right thing.

There’s a wonderful discussion on the value and potential inherant issues that come with academics and education, which relates in many ways to our discssuion around the legitimacy of paying for an education, on my good friend Dan’s blog.
http://poserorprophet.livejournal.com/141987.html
It’s quite academic but powerfully articulated. I’d highly recommend checking it out (and highly suggest the link be added to the Rubicon’s links for fellow travellors)

Dion

Dion Oxford on June 25th, 2008

No “realist” is not my real name! But it’s my point of view. Yes I’m an interloper. And, I am not a salvationist.

To my mind “love they neighbour as thyself” implies loving yourself too, and not at the expense of, your neighbor.

I also don’t define gifts of money as being the only means of being charitable. I give very little money to charity. But I give an enormous amount of my time to others. Assisting in innumerable ways, usually hours every day.

I understand that the iPhone was only a metaphor, an example of ‘faddish’ items that most don’t need. I DO need my communication tools and I spend a large portion of money each year. They make me extraordinarily efficient at what I do. Too some they may very well be a toy - a high priced fashion statement. But to others they are essential tools.

Now, if the example was high priced jewelry, fancy cars, designer labels - things people truly do not need, I would have passed right by and not said anything.

But the iPhone allows me to access my email and the web from anywhere. It allows me to get an enormous amount of work done without being locked to a single location. It allows me to access voicemail in a new, efficient and intuitive visual ways that cell phones before it did not do.

Apple is doing something important with the cell phone. It has wrestled away control of the mobile computing from telcos that are reluctant to provide innovative products to consumers. Before the iPhone, in most cases if you wanted new programs or functionality on your device you couldn’t have it. The carriers decided what tools to give you and that decision was always based on what was most profitable to them.

The iPhone (with the application store) creates a new paradigm in mobile cell phones where the user controls what services they want on their devices. You probably are noticing that for the first time in generations all the other carriers are scrambling to improve their products to match the iPhone. We are finally starting to see innovation and services to average users that were never available before.

It used to cost about $300 a month to have unlimited data on a mobile device in Canada. That amount is about to fall dramatically.

This is net net good for everyone - including the poor. Why? Because cell phones and rate plans become cheaper and more accessible to the less fortunate around us.

So, ya … if someone is purchasing an iPhone for the cool-hip factor. I agree with the original post - money best spent elsewhere. But I don’t see it that way. I see it as an innovation that will result in greater good for everyone - including the poor and those mobile users who are out on the street helping the poor. The cost of their mobile devices (including those funded by the Salvation Army) go down as the functionality goes up.

Realist on June 26th, 2008

I agree that education and technology are not the same. They are, however, interrelated, wouldn’t you say? Why stop at the iPhone? Aren’t computers a waste, too? Surely that money that was just used to buy my refurbished dishwasher could have been better spent on sponsoring a child? …….

What for some may be extravagance may, for others, be moderation. Again, I think it’s hard to draw a black and white line on these kinds of things.

I had a professor at in Bible college that drove a Lexus. I was disgusted. How could he possibly be following Jesus and driving that thing?! I found out later that what he used the rest of his money for (child sponsorships, building schools in foreign countries where kids were taught the gospel, supporting several missions organizations, etc, etc, etc…) far outweighed the percentage of his income he had spent on a new car.

Phil Laeger on June 27th, 2008

But, Phil, isn’t the whole point of the story about the poor women who gives her pennies to the Temple that, when it comes to ‘charity’, the question isn’t ‘how much are we giving?’ but, rather, ‘how much are we holding back?’

A Lexus, a dishwasher, an iPhone. Why are we so keen to justify our possession of these things?

Do you recall the end of “Schindler’s List” (I have the movie, not the book, in mind)? Once they are free to go, Schindler’s Jewish workers give him a gold ring as a sign of their gratitude to him (he saved their lives). However, at that moment Schindler has a break-through — he looks at the ring and thinks, ‘the value of this ring would have saved a certain amount of lives’, he then looks at his car and thinks, ‘if I had sold my car, I would have been able to save another amount of lives’, and so on and so forth. Instead of seeing each object as it is, he sees the number of lives he could have saved in place of those objects. Thus, just as he is being praised for doing so much, he is realizing, ‘if only I had done more!’ I suspect, when we stand before our Lord, those of us well-situated in places of comfort and privilege will come to the same realization.

dan on June 27th, 2008

If you’re choosing to spend on a tool, a charity or education, I don’t necessarily think “tool” is the wrong choice. An ipod for me would be more of a distraction than an asset (plus I’d drop it in the washing machine within a month, surely: been there done that!), but a lot of degrees are just ego-enhancements, a lot of charities exist to serve their employees and the right tool can change your life. So who is to say Realist is wrong?

Catherine W. on June 28th, 2008

Dan, I thought the widow’s mite story was about her heart?

Rather than “feeling the need to justify” my possession of an iPhone - and, as it appears now, a dishwasher too! - I think what I’m trying to do is provide a different perspective that takes more factors into account. I’m not advocating a karma-like mentality, where its ok to indulge in worldly pleasure, so long as you’re giving outmore than you’re taking in. What I’m saying is that its just as bad to judge a man by what he has as it is to judge him by what be lacks.

Phil Laeger on June 28th, 2008

Well, Phil, it looks like you thought wrong! That’s okay though, I used to think that way, and I reckon most Christians in North America are taught to think that way. Can’t blame a person for a mistake that has been pounded into them since birth, you know? If you want a fuller exegesis of the parable of the widow’s mite, I suggest that you look up the relevant passages in Jesus and the Victory of God, by N. T. Wright.

That said, I believe that one of the biggest errors made by Christians within our contemporary context is the whole argument that it is ‘our hearts’ or the attitude therein, or whatever, that truly matter. One hears this time and again when it comes to the issue of our possessions — “It doesn’t matter what, or how much, you have; what matters is the attitude you have towards your possessions.” Of course, Jesus’ response to this goes something like this: “Are you out of your minds? ‘Where your treasures are, there your heart is also’ so stop kidding yourselves!”

Or, to put things another way, in an expression that goes back at least as far as Bernard of Clairvaux, “hell is paved with good intentions.”

The point is that our ‘hearts’ cannot be divorced from our actions. That the widow gives all that she owns, reveals that her heart is dedicated to God, and this is expressed in her refusal to hold anything back from God. Consequently, whatever we choose to hold back, might suggest that our hearts are not as nearly dedicated to God as we think they are. Just sayin’.

However, I should make it clear that I’m not looking to “judge” anybody by saying this. As I stated in my prior comment, it is God who will judge us. However, that some people work so hard to justify their possessions suggests to me that they might be bracing themselves for that judgment!

Grace and peace.

dan on June 28th, 2008

Dan, can you please send me a list of the things I am and am not allowed to have, as well as a price cap on the items that are necessities?

Phil Laeger on June 28th, 2008

Hey Dan,

Think you’re right on with the heart thing. The heart (the will, not the emotions) matters of course, but our will is expressed through our actions, not just our intentions. The proper will alignment will be accompanied by the proper actions.

Hey are you in Vancouver like me? From your live journal it looks like we’re involved in some similar stuff. It would be good to connect with someone who’s trying to live it out and think it out at the same time.

Grace,

Aaron

aaron on June 29th, 2008

Aaron, I think that is probably the soundest statement in the comment section thus far:

“The proper will alignment will be accompanied by the proper actions”

My only contention with Dion’s (and Dan’s) argument is the singling out of a particular device as evil (or at least a bad choice). There are all manner of things we use on a daily basis that could be deemed unnecessary. Isn’t there a better way to construct an argument in support of fiscal conservatism and heartfelt bias towards the poor? Or must we categorically condemn all those among us who use technology as tools in the fight? That kind of thinking, to me, sounds almost nihilistic.

Phil Laeger on June 29th, 2008

Hi all,
I love this back and forth.
Regarding education, I’m pasting a quote that I read on Dan’s blog;
“The Scholars’ academic endeavors are either to: 1. educate to maintain the present status of a society or to, 2. educate to liberate the people from oppressive systems of the present status of a society.”
While I don’t think of myself as a scholar, I think those of us responding to this blog can all agree that we want to use our education to fulfill option 2 here.

There’s lots I’d like to say but I’ll respond to Phil’s last comment as I think this is a place where we can tend to go off the rails.
Phil, you seem to have read stuff into my post that I did not say, and rather than nihilism becoming an issue, I fear legalism creeping in.

You have me saying that a device (in this case the i-phone) is evil, and scarier than that you have me down as condemning “…all those among us who use tools in the fight.”

I’m responding mainly because I can’t own that accusation.

On a personal note, I actually have a cell phone. I run a shelter and part of my committment to the staff is that I’d be accessible to them at all times in case of an emergency. I actually hate carrying it but feel it is a necessary evil in light of what I do. And on that phone I have software that keeps my calendar. Before I got that phone I really had no decent system of keeping track of when and where I was supposed to be and I kept screwing things up regarding my calendar. Now that I have this ‘tool’, I find that I drop a lot less balls than I used to. I have no problem with ‘tools’.

On another personal note, as I admitted in my original post, I really love the i-phone. I hate that I love it, and when I write a piece like this, I am challenging myself as much as anyone.

The fact is, I like toys and I waste money. But I’m challenging us (including myself) to like toys less and waste less money. I know for certain that striving for simplicity is a journey towards a deeper understanding of the kingdom.

And more importantly, I totally believe it’s not my place to condemn anyone for anything. The piece is called ‘the i-phone challenge’ not the ‘i-phone condemnation’ or as you seem to have concluded me to be saying ‘all people with i-phones will go to hell’. I don’t condemn my Christian friends who use crack any more than I condemn my Christian friends who will buy an i-phone or who are addicted to pornography or gossip or have a huge savings account or …
(Having said that, I feel safe to say that no seminary professor should be driving a lexus and that I find it difficult not to feel repulsed by that. But I drive an old sedan with a kids seat in the back and some of my friends who get this stuff better than me are repulsed by that. They still love me and don’t think for a minute that this means I’m doomed for hell)

It’s a journey we’re on and we need to challenge each other. But when we get to a place where we read legalistic condemnation into a challenge, or ask questions like “send me a list of the things I am and am not allowed to have…”, even if they’re asked with the purpose of making a point, we slip into the same old legalistic faith we all want to leave behind.

I guess it’s time for me to shut up again.
Peace,
Dion

Dion Oxford on June 29th, 2008

Apologies, Dan. After re-reading your article, I realized that what I was really responding to (these last couple of times) was Dan’s comments, which I still contend are legalistic and condemning. My tongue-in-cheek request for a list was only in response to Dan’s comment, “It looks like you thought wrong.” That smells self-righteous to me.

I agree with you that legalism is seeping in and I was actually sincerely looking for a well-thought-out reasoning on how to deal with money without saying that ALL of us are called to give away everything and live in poverty. Unless that IS the argument, in which case I think we all have a lot of explaining to do.

I desire to live a godly life - a life that shows my son that he doesn’t need more toys to be happy, a life characterized by a joy money can’t buy, a life that testifies to Jesus and His all-sufficiency. I just don’t think it’s as easy as saying “X is true for all people.”

Grace and peace.

Phil Laeger on June 30th, 2008

Sorry, that should have been “Apologies, Dion.”

Phil Laeger on June 30th, 2008

Phil, a few comments.

(1) If you read my comments a little more carefully, you’ll notice that I am not “singling out of a particular device as evil”. I try to choose my words carefully, and simply request that the reader also read carefully.

(2) To say that you’re engaging in a faulty reading, is not to engage in an act of “self-righteousness”. I mean, come on, we’re both doing the same thing — I’m saying I think you’re confused, you’re saying you think I’m wrong. Okay. We can both handle this like grown-ups, can’t we? Granted, calling me self-righteous, or condeming, or legalistic, or whatever else you want to call me, conveniently allows you disregard the actual content of my argument, but if that’s the way you want to handle this discussion, there isn’t much point in engaging in a dialogue is there?

(3) More tangentially, I find it amusing that you praise Aaron for being so sound… when Aaron is voicing his agreement with me!

(4) Speaking of being “condemning”, care to back up that assertion? I have nowhere condemned anybody… but if you feel convicted by what is written here, well, that’s a different story (not that I’m saying you should feel convicted, after all I don’t even know you!).

(5) You’ve asked for a a more thoroughly thought-out response to these things. Okay, I’ll give you one. I wrote a series of posts on this topic. You can begin at this post — http://poserorprophet.livejournal.com/126168.html — and then page your way through the next thirteen or so entries (until you get to Part V). I hope that gives you enough to go on. (To be honest, I’d be surprised if you made it through the series, but I guess you never know!)

Grace and peace.

dan on June 30th, 2008

Dan, let us both cease with the petty arguments. If I misinterpreted your comments, I apologize. With any written word, I’m sure you would agree that tone is difficult both to convey and to perceive. I promise to read your series on your blog thoroughly. I have already begun.

Phil on July 1st, 2008

And so the evolving Rubicon gets a taste of life in forum-ville! Well meaning people upsetting other well-meaning people owing to the inability to see the person’s expressions or hear their emotions as they type. We often read what wasn’t typed or type what we don’t really mean.

The iPhone pricing is out and I for one am very upset with the greed inherent in Rogers dataplan rates. It’s still going to be an essential tool in my arsenal. The significant discrepancy between U.S. and Canadian pricing is still an apt example of how the greater competition inherent in the U.S. economic model (while fueled by greed) most often results in a greater economic good for its citizens than when there is a distinct lack of competition for the same product or service - as is the case in Canada.

Realist on July 4th, 2008

Hi folks,
Well it looks like the local media liked my i-phone piece and printed much of it in today’s Toronto Sun.
Here’s the link for your interest.
http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Bonokoski_Mark/2008/07/11/6124896.php

Dion

Dion Oxford on July 11th, 2008

Sound and Fury

Does Power Corrupt? 19 Charlee, Errin Hogan, Errin Hogan
With God on our side 19 Hank Harwell, Robert Deidrick, John Stephenson
What The Hell? (Part One: Bell's Hell) 13 Phil, Jim, Jim
Officers - "The shrinking pool" 41 Thimon, David Hutchinson, Rob
Resurrected writers: Catherine Booth 1 Michelle Townsend