One Day Without Shoes

The purpose of this entry is to bring some clarification to a thought I posted on Facebook last night regarding TOMS’ “One Day Without Shoes” Campaign:

“TOMS’ One Day Without Shoes = advertising disguised as activism. Sad.”

This statement stems from two convictions that I have. The first is my own skepticism concerning TOMS’ business model. The second is a trend toward easy activism (“slacktivism”) in my own life and in my peers as well.

UP FRONT:

1.) I am reminded again of the difficulty of communicating my opinions accurately and succinctly in social media (Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, whatever).

2.) My goal isn’t to antagonize, or to indulge in a debate, but rather to expand on what I admit was a relatively vague and provocative statement, and to organize my thoughts on the matter.

3.) I own a pair of TOMS, although they are more or less destroyed as a result of my recent trip to Uganda.

4.) Shoelessness is a real problem.

 

Here’s where i’m coming from:

I believe that college students like myself (especially the Christian ones) are prone to what’s been called “Slacktivism” (I can’t remember who coined the term. I want to say it was Don Miller). What this means is that we are prone to respond to our internal, innate desire to see justice, fairness, and equality, in the world by aligning ourselves with–and possibly participating in–social justice movements. TOMS represents a response to a real need that real people have across the globe. I do not fault TOMS for responding to that need.

I do take issue with TOMS concerning the following:

1.) Their product is low-quality. If the shoes that they distribute to children are of the same quality as those that they sell in the market (and I suspect that this would be the best-case scenario; it’s more likely that they are of poorer quality), then I wonder whether TOMS is simply providing a band-aid for a bullet wound, so-to-speak.

2.) TOMS doesn’t provide any kind of financial records to the public beyond the vague 1:1 ratio of shoes bought to shoes distributed. Granted, TOMS is not a non-profit organization, nor do they claim to be (although their activism-based marketing strategy has been misinterpreted as non-profit), but for a company whose clientele buys their product on good faith that the money they spent is going to a good cause, I think TOMS should be up-front about how they use the money they take in, regardless of whether they’re legally obligated to do so.

3.) TOMS doesn’t execute shoe drops in an admirable way. TOMS’ policy is that shoes must be ordered in massive quantities and distributed in less than one year (one of our contacts in Uganda was told by TOMS that he needed to order 17,000 pairs of shoes and distribute them in less than one year, and if he failed to distribute all the shoes in less than one year, he would owe TOMS the balance of the remaining shoes). Additionally, TOMS does not deliver shoes directly to the community in need, but rather to the nearest coast, at which point the responsibility to transport and distribute the shoes (which arrive in enormous cargo bins) falls upon someone else. This failure to follow through on the “giving” portion of the TOMS business model is less than impressive to me.

That said, I think One Day Without shoes accomplishes more to raise awareness for TOMS than it does to provide tangible, lasting solutions for children without shoes the world over.

I do believe that spending a day without shoes is a noble thing. Kyle Lent, someone in the Austin community that I admire and respect, said it this way: ”The idea is that our momentary hardship would become a lasting reality of what children go through daily.” The practice of fasting is a Biblical way to experience solidarity with people in need, and also an opportunity to connect with God in an experiential way, and to pray for others (in this case, those without shoes), and while I find no fault in that, I can’t help but be apprehensive about fasting that promotes a business and a business strategy. Additionally, I will point to Jesus’ command in Matthew 6 that fasting should be done in secret, and One Day Without Shoes is built upon the idea that going without shoes draws attention to one’s self.

Personally, I fall into Slacktivism because it is easier for me to promote a cause or movement than it is for me to love my neighbor. It is easier for me to go a day without shoes than it is for me to give something truly sacrificial. Slacktivism provides me the illusion of having loved my neighbor, or cared for the needy, but in reality is a Christless exercise in self-esteem, and does not yield Gospel change in my own heart, or in the world.

In 2 Samuel 24, King David is preparing to make a burnt offering to The LORD, and a man named Araunah offers to provide the materials for the offering to King David, free-of-charge. David, faced with the option of giving an offering to the LORD that didn’t cost him anything, but rather cost another man a great deal, insists on purchasing all of the materials from Araunah at a price, saying, “I will not offer burnt offerings to the LORD my God that cost me nothing” (v. 24). Slacktivism is just this–offering sacrifices to the LORD that cost me nothing, and even possibly cost someone else something.

I hope to always be driven and prompted by the Holy Spirit to give sacrificially, to fast appropriately, to communicate effectively, to love unconditionally, and that the words of my mouth, whether spoken or typed out, would be acceptable in God’s sight.

 

-mt

Advertisement