I flew today afternoon from Boston to Chicago on United, my trusty airline with whom I have flown nearly every week to various cities in this country. This was a one way ticket to Chicago after a multi-city itinirary. I went to the United kiosk at Logan Airport, and printed out my boarding pass and on it was the mysterious legend 'SSSS'. I didn't give it any thought (there are several other mysterious things on the boarding pass). But I found out that I would be screened in a special way at the security line.
The girl right in front of me at the security line was also selected for this random screening. She had blonde hair, blue eyes and a happy smile, but these were now marred by a frown and she was now muttering under her breath, "this is just ridiculous". We both stood in line and after what seemed a long, long time (actually about 10 minutes) came up to the front when we were whisked away by TSA agents.
The TSA personnel are almost always friendly and the guys who patted me down and went through my incredibly jumbled laptop bag (with 4 different adaptors and cords, 1 iPod, 1 earphone, 2 Blackberrys, 1 highlighter, 2 permanent markers, several expense receipts, folders, presentations, mouth fresheners, 1 necktie and many, many other such paraphernalia) did so with patience, directing every now and then a question in my direction as to whether I was doing okay there- which I was.
On parting I was given time to rearrange my laptop bag, and I noticed that my boss who had accompanied me through the line was waiting outside with an expression of weariness on his face. I remarked to the TSA agent that if a person were selected for the pat down, he or she may as well be stepped up to the front of the security line to save him or her some time, as well as alleviate the chagrin that inevitably comes from the extra scrutiny. The agent replied, "well, maybe you should just come ahead of time." I let him know that I was indeed ahead of time, but I came early precisely to get through the checks early. It would be only fair to let these randomly selected patted down folks move ahead in the line. The agent let me know that he didn't have any control over such things (I doubt that he had any control over the random selection- which came out of the United kiosk, but I think he did have the authority to make the call on who should move ahead of the line).
I was also assigned a seat in the last row of the plane. If I'm giving you the impression that I was outraged by all this, the truth is far from it. I was in good humor throughout, and still am. But most people dislike being patted down- the airline could help them by giving them at least first dibs on an Economy Plus seat (with extra legroom) and the TSA by letting them move ahead of the security line. Given such freebies I think people would want to be patted down (I know I would:)).
This is not a rant on a blog site. I've been in touch with executives from United in the past for our company's business- I plan to email them about this. I will post any positive or negative responses right here.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Friday, April 16, 2010
Film Review- Born Into Brothels
Last night we watched the 2003 Orscar winning HBO documentary 'Born Into Brothels' on Netflix Streaming. I had seen a similar documentary on an organization that did undercover sting operations to expose and bring to justice coerced prostitution in India and elsewhere. This one dealt with children of prostitutes living in Sona Gachi, one of Asia's largest red light districts.
The film focused in on a dozen kids who are introduced to us in a very personal way through the course of the movie. The filmmakers Zana Briski and Ross Kauffman shot the movie through several months of living and working in Sona Gachi. Briski, a theology major from Cambridge, spent a few years living with the kids, teaching them photography and eventually staging an exhibit of their works in India and elsewhere.
The film traces how the kids lives are slowly changed as they move into schools after months of red tape, social ostracism and concerns about potential HIV infection (as it turned out, non-existent) kept the kids from decent schools. It then traces Avijit Halder (now in his senior year at NYU) is praised for his work in photography and is selected to go to Amsterdam where his work is exhibited among a select group of kids with outstanding skills.
The movie ends with notes about how the kids are faring. Except a couple of kids who mvoed back into the sex trade (primarily due to their family's reluctance to let them study further), the others all fared well and as of today are doing very well in India and the United States.
I liked the fact that the movie stresses the significance of social change as a result of commitment and consensus. The parents of some of these kids earned some money out of the film project but one of them did not want her daughter to move out of the trade. In a recent interview she says, "'At this age, I have a flat, a laptop, costly phones and plenty of money. What do I lack?"
One wonders why these parents did not see far enough to understand the opportunities these kids had before them. They got some cash from the proceeds of the movie, and they had a good reason to keep their kids off the trade. Another kid whose aunt was raising her after her mother's death was pressurizing her to go into prostitution. While she wanted to go to school and learn, she wasn't allowed to; and moved back into the flesh trade.
Of course, cash isn't the issue- but perhaps in Sona Gachi the abilty to understand that life outside of the familiar if hellish street life is something desirable may be limited. Years ago as a summer intern in my second year of MBA I lived in Bombay for 2 months at the YMCA on Lamington Road near the Opera House. Although it is nothing to compare with Sona Gachi, it is a semi-red light area. You turn the corner from a nice-looking street and come up on this crowded area with tired yellow buildings built at the turn of the last century. Many evanglists came to preach at the YMCA, and several good friends who were committed followers of Christ lived there, but everyone (including me) turned our faces away from the griding poverty and the nightly circus that went on on the sidewalks, the women pacing up and down amongst the crowds, shifty-eyed, druken men moving in and out of their tenements. One day in the early hours of dawn we were woken by angry shouts from the streets below. We were on the 5th floor of the building. I looked down and a number of prostitutes were fighiting, presumably over money, screaming at each other, mouthing profanities, pulling each others' hair.
The HBO movie shows us a similar scene inside the brothel (a squalid, dark place which most of us would never see). It is remarkable how these women, all in the same tragic plight, would accuse each other of being filthy and immoral. The film shows us the faces of the listening kids, their expressions showing numbness and distress at the same time. Sometimes a picture like that takes you back to Lamington Road in an instant, shocking you without warning.
Margaret Mead once said, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." The more I live the more I see the truth of this. As I read the book Mountains Beyond Mountains on Dr. Paul Farmer, and understand how the battle over high drug prices in poverty-stricken Lima, Port-au-Prince and Russian prisons were fought, by a committed minority, and won decisively, and I see the pain and heartbreak that accompanies such commitment, the more I realize that a bunch of people promising huge amounts of money in aid through Government programs may not truly realize the insignificance of their actions. You can spend a fortune on the Third World and see the cash disappearing down a black hole without making the slightest difference to anyone's life- unless you know that at the other end are committed people with the ability to connect with people.
This movie was made on a shoestring budget. The kids went to school based on the creative energy unleashed by the filmmaker's commitment in teaching the kids the skills they knew. Who can deny that their lives were changes by the commitment of a few?
Postscript:
I had ended my post with te above paragraph, but I need to end with a nod to the music. Composer John McDowell weaves both Indian melodies, some from Bollywood and others from India's religious tradition, into the movie. The result is outstanding. One of the hooks, Gopala, doesn't leave my mind. As an aside I can appreciate why they chose this song. Gopala is a devotional to Krsna, his childhood as a precocious happy little charmer has captured Indian's imagination and affection for centuries.
You can see a vide of a live performance of this song here:
The film focused in on a dozen kids who are introduced to us in a very personal way through the course of the movie. The filmmakers Zana Briski and Ross Kauffman shot the movie through several months of living and working in Sona Gachi. Briski, a theology major from Cambridge, spent a few years living with the kids, teaching them photography and eventually staging an exhibit of their works in India and elsewhere.
The film traces how the kids lives are slowly changed as they move into schools after months of red tape, social ostracism and concerns about potential HIV infection (as it turned out, non-existent) kept the kids from decent schools. It then traces Avijit Halder (now in his senior year at NYU) is praised for his work in photography and is selected to go to Amsterdam where his work is exhibited among a select group of kids with outstanding skills.
The movie ends with notes about how the kids are faring. Except a couple of kids who mvoed back into the sex trade (primarily due to their family's reluctance to let them study further), the others all fared well and as of today are doing very well in India and the United States.
I liked the fact that the movie stresses the significance of social change as a result of commitment and consensus. The parents of some of these kids earned some money out of the film project but one of them did not want her daughter to move out of the trade. In a recent interview she says, "'At this age, I have a flat, a laptop, costly phones and plenty of money. What do I lack?"
One wonders why these parents did not see far enough to understand the opportunities these kids had before them. They got some cash from the proceeds of the movie, and they had a good reason to keep their kids off the trade. Another kid whose aunt was raising her after her mother's death was pressurizing her to go into prostitution. While she wanted to go to school and learn, she wasn't allowed to; and moved back into the flesh trade.
Of course, cash isn't the issue- but perhaps in Sona Gachi the abilty to understand that life outside of the familiar if hellish street life is something desirable may be limited. Years ago as a summer intern in my second year of MBA I lived in Bombay for 2 months at the YMCA on Lamington Road near the Opera House. Although it is nothing to compare with Sona Gachi, it is a semi-red light area. You turn the corner from a nice-looking street and come up on this crowded area with tired yellow buildings built at the turn of the last century. Many evanglists came to preach at the YMCA, and several good friends who were committed followers of Christ lived there, but everyone (including me) turned our faces away from the griding poverty and the nightly circus that went on on the sidewalks, the women pacing up and down amongst the crowds, shifty-eyed, druken men moving in and out of their tenements. One day in the early hours of dawn we were woken by angry shouts from the streets below. We were on the 5th floor of the building. I looked down and a number of prostitutes were fighiting, presumably over money, screaming at each other, mouthing profanities, pulling each others' hair.
The HBO movie shows us a similar scene inside the brothel (a squalid, dark place which most of us would never see). It is remarkable how these women, all in the same tragic plight, would accuse each other of being filthy and immoral. The film shows us the faces of the listening kids, their expressions showing numbness and distress at the same time. Sometimes a picture like that takes you back to Lamington Road in an instant, shocking you without warning.
Margaret Mead once said, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." The more I live the more I see the truth of this. As I read the book Mountains Beyond Mountains on Dr. Paul Farmer, and understand how the battle over high drug prices in poverty-stricken Lima, Port-au-Prince and Russian prisons were fought, by a committed minority, and won decisively, and I see the pain and heartbreak that accompanies such commitment, the more I realize that a bunch of people promising huge amounts of money in aid through Government programs may not truly realize the insignificance of their actions. You can spend a fortune on the Third World and see the cash disappearing down a black hole without making the slightest difference to anyone's life- unless you know that at the other end are committed people with the ability to connect with people.
This movie was made on a shoestring budget. The kids went to school based on the creative energy unleashed by the filmmaker's commitment in teaching the kids the skills they knew. Who can deny that their lives were changes by the commitment of a few?
Postscript:
I had ended my post with te above paragraph, but I need to end with a nod to the music. Composer John McDowell weaves both Indian melodies, some from Bollywood and others from India's religious tradition, into the movie. The result is outstanding. One of the hooks, Gopala, doesn't leave my mind. As an aside I can appreciate why they chose this song. Gopala is a devotional to Krsna, his childhood as a precocious happy little charmer has captured Indian's imagination and affection for centuries.
You can see a vide of a live performance of this song here:
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
"Christ-Bearing" Scenarios in Hinduism- Part 2 of 5 (Sudama)
This is the first part of the 3 stories from Hinduism and second post in the 5-part series. This is about Sudama, a Brahmin who is a reincarnation of the immortal sage Narada in Hindu mythology.
Sudama looked up from his bed at his wife and three kids sprawled out on the dirt floor in exhaustion and hunger. Their lean bodies expanding and contracting with labored breaths in their stupor. He looked up at the heavens and wondered why he, a poor devout Brahmin suffered this way when he had given himself to a life of pure devotion. He thought of his childhood with Krsna who was revealed to him as an incarnation of Vishnu the object of his worship, the supreme deity that he lived each day to meditate on. Krsna had moved beyond the squalor and simplicity of the Yadavs, the cowherds he was raised with, and taken his place as a royal ruler at Dwarka in the splendor of a magnificent palace, devoted subjects and riding on the crest of breathtaking military victories against the forces of evil.
Sudama's wife looked up at him and asked him what he was thinking. "About Krsna, my dear. Didn't you hear of his siege of the Kuru kingdom?"
"Yes, I did." said Susheela, tucking the loose end of her tattered saree into its hip. "I was wondering if you could request him to help us."
Sudama was silent. Susheela looked into his face. She knew what he was thinking. "You don't have to, you know."
Tears came into his eyes as he looked at Susheela. They had no clothes except the ones they wore. The food was meagre, the alms they received from people they prayed for. There was little left and if they did not get some soon they will surely die. All this in the middle of a devastating drought in Mathura.
"I will go, my dear." Sudama stood up, his mind made up. Surely if anyone would help, it had to be Krsna. After all he had lived out his days worshipping him.
As Sudama prepared to go on his journey by foot, Susheela tore a part of her saree's end and packed together some crisp rice, mingled with the dust of their house, wrapping it in the worn cloth as a gift for Sudama's friend.
For days he walked through the forests that ranged between the cities of Mathura in Northern India to the Western city of Dwarka. As he approached the citadel, he looked up to see the goldem dome of its palace glittering in the noonday sun. But Sudama's mind was filled with awe on meeting his friend.
He approached the palace doors and the two Yadav guards glanced enquiringly at his appearance. He explained that he was Krsna's friend. The guards looked shocked, but deciding in their minds that this was a Brahmin in whom there is no falsehood, they decided to check with Krsna himself.
As Krsna heard that Sudama was at the door, he came to meet him himself, embracing his long lost friend.
Days passed as Sudama listened in rapt attention to Krsna's telling of his exploits, the lessons he had imparted to Arjun at the battle of Kurukshetra, the moral quandaries he had faced, defined and solved in war, justice, judgment and relationships.
In Krsna's company Sudama forgot his poverty and was filled with joy. As he prepared to return the thought of requesting a gift was far from his mind. Perhaps it was the unalloyed joy of being in Krsna's presence. Perhaps it was that a tiny voice at the back of his head kept telling him not to ask anything while the friendship was still pure and unworldly. Sudama simply did not ask for anything. As Krsna rode out to meet another evil enemy in battle, he packed up his belongings and bade farewell to Rukmini, Krsna's wife, and left for home.
As he walked back, Sudama thinks about his friendship and his heart is filled with gratitude. He finally reached the forested area where he made his home and suddely realizes what he had failed to do. Weeks had passed. Apprehensive as to whether Susheela and the kids were still alive, he turned the corner of the acacia tree that marked the beginning of the clearance which was his frontyard. He looked up and what he saw took his breath away- a magnificent palance in the place of his lowly thatched hut! Susheela had seen him coming up and ran out to meet him, dressed in a fine saree. Sudama realized that his unspoken needs were met in the worship of his Lord. He vowed to continue in his austerity as he felt that it was desirable and good to be away from the transient pleasures of life and to be utterly devoted to God.
Sudama looked up from his bed at his wife and three kids sprawled out on the dirt floor in exhaustion and hunger. Their lean bodies expanding and contracting with labored breaths in their stupor. He looked up at the heavens and wondered why he, a poor devout Brahmin suffered this way when he had given himself to a life of pure devotion. He thought of his childhood with Krsna who was revealed to him as an incarnation of Vishnu the object of his worship, the supreme deity that he lived each day to meditate on. Krsna had moved beyond the squalor and simplicity of the Yadavs, the cowherds he was raised with, and taken his place as a royal ruler at Dwarka in the splendor of a magnificent palace, devoted subjects and riding on the crest of breathtaking military victories against the forces of evil.
Sudama's wife looked up at him and asked him what he was thinking. "About Krsna, my dear. Didn't you hear of his siege of the Kuru kingdom?"
"Yes, I did." said Susheela, tucking the loose end of her tattered saree into its hip. "I was wondering if you could request him to help us."
Sudama was silent. Susheela looked into his face. She knew what he was thinking. "You don't have to, you know."
Tears came into his eyes as he looked at Susheela. They had no clothes except the ones they wore. The food was meagre, the alms they received from people they prayed for. There was little left and if they did not get some soon they will surely die. All this in the middle of a devastating drought in Mathura.
"I will go, my dear." Sudama stood up, his mind made up. Surely if anyone would help, it had to be Krsna. After all he had lived out his days worshipping him.
As Sudama prepared to go on his journey by foot, Susheela tore a part of her saree's end and packed together some crisp rice, mingled with the dust of their house, wrapping it in the worn cloth as a gift for Sudama's friend.
For days he walked through the forests that ranged between the cities of Mathura in Northern India to the Western city of Dwarka. As he approached the citadel, he looked up to see the goldem dome of its palace glittering in the noonday sun. But Sudama's mind was filled with awe on meeting his friend.
He approached the palace doors and the two Yadav guards glanced enquiringly at his appearance. He explained that he was Krsna's friend. The guards looked shocked, but deciding in their minds that this was a Brahmin in whom there is no falsehood, they decided to check with Krsna himself.
As Krsna heard that Sudama was at the door, he came to meet him himself, embracing his long lost friend.
Days passed as Sudama listened in rapt attention to Krsna's telling of his exploits, the lessons he had imparted to Arjun at the battle of Kurukshetra, the moral quandaries he had faced, defined and solved in war, justice, judgment and relationships.
In Krsna's company Sudama forgot his poverty and was filled with joy. As he prepared to return the thought of requesting a gift was far from his mind. Perhaps it was the unalloyed joy of being in Krsna's presence. Perhaps it was that a tiny voice at the back of his head kept telling him not to ask anything while the friendship was still pure and unworldly. Sudama simply did not ask for anything. As Krsna rode out to meet another evil enemy in battle, he packed up his belongings and bade farewell to Rukmini, Krsna's wife, and left for home.
As he walked back, Sudama thinks about his friendship and his heart is filled with gratitude. He finally reached the forested area where he made his home and suddely realizes what he had failed to do. Weeks had passed. Apprehensive as to whether Susheela and the kids were still alive, he turned the corner of the acacia tree that marked the beginning of the clearance which was his frontyard. He looked up and what he saw took his breath away- a magnificent palance in the place of his lowly thatched hut! Susheela had seen him coming up and ran out to meet him, dressed in a fine saree. Sudama realized that his unspoken needs were met in the worship of his Lord. He vowed to continue in his austerity as he felt that it was desirable and good to be away from the transient pleasures of life and to be utterly devoted to God.
"Christ-Bearing" Scenarios in Hinduism- Part 1 of 5
I'm putting together three beloved stories from Hindu mythology to illustrate the idea that Christianity is either the "fulfilment" or the "crisis" of Hinduism. The three stories are based on 3 personalities- (1)Sudama, (2)Harischandra and (3)Arjun. This is in 5 parts, this current post counting for an intro, then the three stories and finally their elucidation in the context of Christianity. Please bear with me as this will be a long term (1-2 months) project as I put the material together. Also do not be surprised if there are other posts in between.
My goal is to present Christ as the end of our desires. He is clearly the fulfilment of the Law and the Prophets in the hitory and tradition of the Hebrews. But if the Law needed to be fulfilled and thereby superceded, then the traditions of the non-Hebrew world could be understood to face a crisis of fulfilment at the end of their questions. This is the way I'm hoping to posit the Christian Gospel. So here goes.
My goal is to present Christ as the end of our desires. He is clearly the fulfilment of the Law and the Prophets in the hitory and tradition of the Hebrews. But if the Law needed to be fulfilled and thereby superceded, then the traditions of the non-Hebrew world could be understood to face a crisis of fulfilment at the end of their questions. This is the way I'm hoping to posit the Christian Gospel. So here goes.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Where's the Love, Arundhati?
In the wake of the Maoists' killing of 75 Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) personnel in India, so many thoughts come to mind. What makes the difference between the shrill desperate voices of rebels and the powerful redemptive works of people like Paul Farmer and organizations like the International Justice Mission?
Writer Arundhati Roy said last year that the Maoists were justified in their violence because the government has been unjust to them. Ms. Roy, no stranger to controversy, has been consistent in placing the blame squarely on the government (and by implication the relatively better off society that supports it) for several ills- capitalism, free trade, military purchases and upgrades (notably on nuclear weapons), large private or government projects that displace thousands of people from their own lands without adequately compensating them, the Kashmir issue and the social and economic inequality in India.
A few weeks ago she published an article in the Guardian about her interview with the Maoists, the first time a journalist received an invitation to talk to them.
A fair reading of Ms. Roy's articles convinces us of the pain she feels in coming to acquaintance with the tragic history of these peoples and the injustice they have been victims of. A writer by profession and "activist" on the behalf of oppressed people by calling, she gets this information and does what she does best- write articles about it. These articles are clearly sympathetic to the oppressed people, and the people they kill are frequently the "emerging superpower" (full of hubris), policemen who are trained to kill in cold blood, fight like a guerilla, use high tech weapons and training from Israel and other countries against the poor.
I wonder, has Ms. Roy ever thought about talking to some of these police men and women, their spouses, their parents, their kids? Some of these are ex-Maoists who help the police in tracking down violent criminals, trying to redeem some of their terrible past. Who are these people who are engaged in a war with the Maoists? Are they simply paid vassals of big government, corporations, landowners, et al- in short, glorified thugs who are only to eager to draw blood? If they were not around, would those of us who are not Maoists exist at all? For it seems to me that the Maoist vision of India- as so many such revolutionaries of the past have envisioned in places like Cambodia, Vietnam, North Korea and other places- that their vision of India is not so much cooperation but a reversal of dominance and power.
Ms. Roy often says that Maoist violence is triggered by events so horrifying that one cannot help but take arms against- case of rape, humiliation, murder, forced eviction and so on. I have worked with people in the slums and others who minister to them in large citites like New Delhi and Chennai. These people are largely peacable, going about their work but thankful for the opportunity to learn from the social workers I was with. We worked with the kids, giving them basic education, sometimes material benefits, support with getting jobs or setting up businesses, medical care and very often emotional and moral support. One of my most abiding memories is that of a little girl who had lost her mother to heart disease, refusing to come out of her tiny hut. When another kid let her know that we were there, she came out hugged one of our woman team members and cried for several minutes. Their trust and pain have changed me as a person. I see that the only answer to their pain is our love and commitment.
Back to my earlier question: what makes an organization like IJM or World serve go quietly about freeing bonded labourers in Tamil Nadu or sexual slaves in the Phillipines? Is it the rush of power that comes from leading them out of the unjust system? Or could it be the promise of a new world order in which every one could be equal?
Dr. Paul Farmer described his remarkable efforts in Haiti as the "Long Defeat"- a series of soul-wrenching battles which often seem destined to be lost. But hope, in his case rooted in his Christian conviction, gives us rumours of other glories and keeps us fighting.
One has to ask as the old Bud Light commercial used to ask- Where is the love, Arundhati? I thought once that you had the love. When you were heriocally and peacefully opposing the dam construction at Narmada. Besides your protest, I wonder what those long years achieved in getting the erstwhile residents of those lands to settle in communities that would have benefiited them. What have you gained for them that our society lost in the process of the dam construction? Yes, I know that the Narmada Bachao Andolan has materially helped them. Have you truly rallied the Indian people to be giving, to be generous and organize to help these people? No, you have simply raised a call to fight the good fight. Isn't it far easier to carry a placard and shout your platitudes from the rooftops than to actually sacrificially give of yourself to help people?
The Maoists can fight until the cows come home and achieve nothing in the process. The Phrase 'cooperation not competition' has been around in social networks for some time now- meaning that small communities organized together, doing things that build societies and economies will win the day. Those who simply want to fight the good fight will end up the way they have been ending up for centuries, whether they win or lose- create other inequalities which yet others will rise up to fight.
Writer Arundhati Roy said last year that the Maoists were justified in their violence because the government has been unjust to them. Ms. Roy, no stranger to controversy, has been consistent in placing the blame squarely on the government (and by implication the relatively better off society that supports it) for several ills- capitalism, free trade, military purchases and upgrades (notably on nuclear weapons), large private or government projects that displace thousands of people from their own lands without adequately compensating them, the Kashmir issue and the social and economic inequality in India.
A few weeks ago she published an article in the Guardian about her interview with the Maoists, the first time a journalist received an invitation to talk to them.
A fair reading of Ms. Roy's articles convinces us of the pain she feels in coming to acquaintance with the tragic history of these peoples and the injustice they have been victims of. A writer by profession and "activist" on the behalf of oppressed people by calling, she gets this information and does what she does best- write articles about it. These articles are clearly sympathetic to the oppressed people, and the people they kill are frequently the "emerging superpower" (full of hubris), policemen who are trained to kill in cold blood, fight like a guerilla, use high tech weapons and training from Israel and other countries against the poor.
I wonder, has Ms. Roy ever thought about talking to some of these police men and women, their spouses, their parents, their kids? Some of these are ex-Maoists who help the police in tracking down violent criminals, trying to redeem some of their terrible past. Who are these people who are engaged in a war with the Maoists? Are they simply paid vassals of big government, corporations, landowners, et al- in short, glorified thugs who are only to eager to draw blood? If they were not around, would those of us who are not Maoists exist at all? For it seems to me that the Maoist vision of India- as so many such revolutionaries of the past have envisioned in places like Cambodia, Vietnam, North Korea and other places- that their vision of India is not so much cooperation but a reversal of dominance and power.
Ms. Roy often says that Maoist violence is triggered by events so horrifying that one cannot help but take arms against- case of rape, humiliation, murder, forced eviction and so on. I have worked with people in the slums and others who minister to them in large citites like New Delhi and Chennai. These people are largely peacable, going about their work but thankful for the opportunity to learn from the social workers I was with. We worked with the kids, giving them basic education, sometimes material benefits, support with getting jobs or setting up businesses, medical care and very often emotional and moral support. One of my most abiding memories is that of a little girl who had lost her mother to heart disease, refusing to come out of her tiny hut. When another kid let her know that we were there, she came out hugged one of our woman team members and cried for several minutes. Their trust and pain have changed me as a person. I see that the only answer to their pain is our love and commitment.
Back to my earlier question: what makes an organization like IJM or World serve go quietly about freeing bonded labourers in Tamil Nadu or sexual slaves in the Phillipines? Is it the rush of power that comes from leading them out of the unjust system? Or could it be the promise of a new world order in which every one could be equal?
Dr. Paul Farmer described his remarkable efforts in Haiti as the "Long Defeat"- a series of soul-wrenching battles which often seem destined to be lost. But hope, in his case rooted in his Christian conviction, gives us rumours of other glories and keeps us fighting.
One has to ask as the old Bud Light commercial used to ask- Where is the love, Arundhati? I thought once that you had the love. When you were heriocally and peacefully opposing the dam construction at Narmada. Besides your protest, I wonder what those long years achieved in getting the erstwhile residents of those lands to settle in communities that would have benefiited them. What have you gained for them that our society lost in the process of the dam construction? Yes, I know that the Narmada Bachao Andolan has materially helped them. Have you truly rallied the Indian people to be giving, to be generous and organize to help these people? No, you have simply raised a call to fight the good fight. Isn't it far easier to carry a placard and shout your platitudes from the rooftops than to actually sacrificially give of yourself to help people?
The Maoists can fight until the cows come home and achieve nothing in the process. The Phrase 'cooperation not competition' has been around in social networks for some time now- meaning that small communities organized together, doing things that build societies and economies will win the day. Those who simply want to fight the good fight will end up the way they have been ending up for centuries, whether they win or lose- create other inequalities which yet others will rise up to fight.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
People, Not Money
My parents always tried to tell me that money doesn't work always in making the most significant changes. I didn't understand this except as a truism that 'money isn't everything'- it was perhaps the way they meant it. But I'm convinced of this truth every day.
I'm convinced that human commitment working in a community is the single biggest conduit to any kind of significant event- economic progress, social redemption, witness to faith, education, reduction in crime and so on. There are too many proofs out there, the latest of which is in a story carried by yesterday's New York Times, titled 'City Will Stop Paying the Poor for Good Behavior.'
Excerpt:
Clearly this did not work. Of course, this is not to say that private or public money should not work for social redemption, but perhaps the way to progress is by educating those who have rather than pushing money into those who have not. In a Sara Groves interview, accessible here, she mentions that IJM does precisely this.
Excerpt:
Again in the case of artists like Bono who by his own admission, uses his celebrity as a currency to enable himself to do what he does in Africa for HIV/AIDS, the key to his appeal is getting through to more and more people. The best things in life truly are free, but certainly not cheap.
I'm convinced that human commitment working in a community is the single biggest conduit to any kind of significant event- economic progress, social redemption, witness to faith, education, reduction in crime and so on. There are too many proofs out there, the latest of which is in a story carried by yesterday's New York Times, titled 'City Will Stop Paying the Poor for Good Behavior.'
Excerpt:
The three-year-old pilot project, the first of its kind in the country, gave parents payments for things like going to the dentist ($100) or holding down a full-time job ($150 per month). Children were rewarded for attending school regularly ($25 to $50 per month) or passing a high school Regents exam ($600).
When the mayor announced the program, he said it would begin with private money and, if it worked, could be transformed into an ambitious permanent government program.
Clearly this did not work. Of course, this is not to say that private or public money should not work for social redemption, but perhaps the way to progress is by educating those who have rather than pushing money into those who have not. In a Sara Groves interview, accessible here, she mentions that IJM does precisely this.
Excerpt:
So, for me, as a stay at home mom - a mobile stay at home mom ... a bus bound stay at home mom (laugh), IJM doesn't just want my money. They say, "You, stay at home mom, you are an abolitionist. Your kids are student abolitionists." And to me, that's empowering. They don't just want my money, they want to educate me about justice - about advocacy, and about worldview - about God's heart for the poor. So, I am fired up! I feel like I have found my place in this world when I met IJM - as far as something I can get behind with all my heart, support. It's just an incredible organization and move of God.
Again in the case of artists like Bono who by his own admission, uses his celebrity as a currency to enable himself to do what he does in Africa for HIV/AIDS, the key to his appeal is getting through to more and more people. The best things in life truly are free, but certainly not cheap.
The Red Headed League
We watched the old Granada episode of the Sherlock Holmes adventure The Red Headed League. We've been watching this series for old times' sake. For a sinister affair masterminded by none other than Moriarty, this one is also a truly flawless comic masterpiece. My favourite quote:
Sherlock Holmes: Now I begin to think my reputation, such as it is, will suffer shipwreck if I am so candid. 'Omne ignotum pro magnifico.'
Dr. John Watson: [explaining this to the clueless Mr. Wilson] Everything becomes commonplace by explanation.
Sherlock Holmes: Watson, that is a very loose translation!
[The phjrase by Tacitus could be translated "we have great notions of everything unknown"]
This link gives the numerous repartees in this superb episode:
Sherlock Holmes: Now I begin to think my reputation, such as it is, will suffer shipwreck if I am so candid. 'Omne ignotum pro magnifico.'
Dr. John Watson: [explaining this to the clueless Mr. Wilson] Everything becomes commonplace by explanation.
Sherlock Holmes: Watson, that is a very loose translation!
[The phjrase by Tacitus could be translated "we have great notions of everything unknown"]
This link gives the numerous repartees in this superb episode:
Thursday, March 25, 2010
The Question of Liberation Theology
It is a comfort to one's soul to fight evil that is outside of us- injustice, oppression, poverty and so on. In a sense this is also a part of fighting evil within ourselves- the evil of apathy, greed and selfishnessness. However the liberation theorists I have encountered usually give up some of the virtues of the more orhotodox Christians in order to uphold the above values. Some of these may be personal values like clean language, grace, sexual fidelity and constraint, faithfulness to the the whole of the Bible in its inerrancy and resisting the temptation to take some of it with a pinch of salt, patience with people who do not readily subscribe to their thinking and so on.
There are people who respond to this by saying that Christians have no business "being nice", rather they need to be righteous, meaning uphold social justice. While it is true that there is a lot of prissy piety out there in Christian circles reflecting in our music, dressing and a list of do's and don'ts that reduce our faith into Pharisiasm, it is equally true that these values stem from a desire not just to do right by our fellow man but to please God in our thinking and actions. While Christians can enjoy a glass of wine, they often decline refills due to a desire not to go overboard.
Orthodox Christians often accuse liberation theorists of trading away this kind of personal holiness for their "causes". As Malcolm Muggeridge once said, it is far easier and more self-sffirming to hold a placard out in a street protest than actually do something righteous. In my view this is only partially true. The fact is, most liberation theology adherents I know have struggled long and hard with personal sin and guilt to the point where they have questioned themselves and the general interpretation of sin in God's Word. This manifests itself in our politics. In North America, the question of gay marriage is a case in point.
Mark Young, Denver Seminary President's point about voting in a way that allows the Gospel the best possible access into people's lives, speaks to us clearly here. Do we think homosexual behavior is sinful? If so, is it anymore sinful than a child stealing a cookie? Are we guilty of anything far wrose or at least, equally bad? I think most Christians would agree that sin, sinful behavior, propensity to sin, ambiguity about sin and its definition are all part of our messed up nature and mental make up. Is it possible for a Christian to lovingly reach out to the gay community with Christ rathern than condemnation, and just let Christ lead him or her into a full understanding of the Truth (which if we are honest we must admit we too are only still learning)? I think it is.
You see, as my friend Mat pointed out in the last blog post, simply because a liberal espouses liberation theology, it doesn't automatically become wrong. Conservatives allowed liberals to corner the market on this thinking. In the meanwhile they have failed to see the essential connection between Christ's message of personal salvation and the idea of opposing sin everywhere- both inside and outside of ourselves. Liberals in turn have also failed to see the connection between the sin or evil that exists out there in the world and the very personal sin in our own hearts (and not just in terms of being able to have more resources while the 'poor' does not).
To the conservative I say, I wonder what you would have done when Jesus whipped the money-changers out of the temple. To the liberal I say, I wonder what you would have done when Jesus let the repentant Mary Magdalene pour her life savings on to His feet in the form of the expensive perfume.
It is telling that Jesus lets Judas know that the 'poor' will always be around. I've often wondered what this means. Could it mean that we are living in a 'Long Defeat', as JRR Tolkien said and Sara Groves sang, and Dr. Paul Farmer believes is the end of all our labor, even his labor of hope in Haiti?
In the book on Farmer's remarkable work of sacrifice and justice in Haiti, “Mountains Beyond Mountains”, author Tracy Kidder uses this phrase, 'The Long Defeat'. Dr. Farmer is quoted in this book:
"I have fought the long defeat and brought other people on to fight the long defeat, and I’m not going to stop because we keep losing. Now I actually think sometimes we may win. I don’t dislike victory…. We want to be on the winning team, but at the risk of turning our backs on the losers, no, it’s not worth it. So you fight the long defeat."
Farmer has made it known in other interviews that there are glimpses of the [final] victory that we get on earth, but our earthly efforts in and of themselves are a series of long defeats that lead up into the final victory that is not of the earth (this is all my paraphrasing).
If this is indeed the case (and Dr. Farmer is an adherent of liberation theology though I'm not sure to what extend he takes it), then is our vision of heaven simply a heaven on earth, where we bring justice to those who do not have it? What is justice after all? If everyone were wealthy will that suffice? Surely not. If everyone were mindful of others and generous will that be it? Will not there by still incidents which are beyond our comprehension- natural disasters, death, severance of relationships? At such a point when we have achieved (this is an assumption) all there is to achieve in terms of social justice and redemption, but we feel the pain of being human, would we then question God as to why He made us this way? Would we then conclude, after all is said and done, that God is simply a social construct, and that He has outlived His purpose? If that is all there is to life, would we feel the pinch of a nagging hope that there is more to heaven than out unidimensional view of earthly justice?
If there is indeed a heaven beyond the earth, then is it in anyway connected to our recreating such a heaven here on earth? What did Jesus mean when he taught us to pray 'You Kingdom come; Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven"? Or, do we simply sigh and say that all injustices will be righted in heaven and do absolutely nothing about earthly injustices? Why are we the 'tweeners' who live between the two earthly advents of Christ? What is our purpose here on earth? If we have none, maybe they should hold us all down in baptism so we would go straight to heaven.
Clearly the liberation theorists and the orthodox Christians have a lot to learn from each other. We cannot offord to trade insults or dismiss each other because there is a lot of work that is still undone.
As someone who came to faith in college firmly among those who hold the orthodox view, I spent about 13 years coming around to respecting liberation theology. It could have taken a far shorter time frame. Let me explain why.
Life in Christ is a journey when we learn more and more about His character and therefore His purposes. It is remarkable that the vast majority of liberation theorists I know actually had a conversion experience that the orthodox Christians would view as a clearly identifiable point of coming into salvific faith- the point at which one prays the conversion prayer and is ushered into the Kingdom. Over the years, especially as they worked with the 'poor', they moved into a theology that is decidedly unorthodox. Very rarely have I encountered someone who was 'born again' into liberation theology. The passion that accompanies personal salvation from personal sin has been key in the vast majority of these cases to their ardent witness and eventual participation in social justice movements. As Sara Groves sang in her characteristic story-song manner, 'I love because He loved me when I had nothing.' This is Biblical. When we are set free we are free to give and set others free. If we have not experienced freedom our passion must be questioned (gently). Some of us may even believe we have always been free simply because we have not experienced the poverty that others do. The fact is, we are all- without exception- slaves until Christ sets us free. Some are economic slaves, others are sexual slaves, yet others slaves of affluence, education deprivation, racial injustice, indifference, passion, addictive behaviors, and on and on. Freedom in Christ is clearly what inspires us to be modern day abolitionists.
In my early years in Christ I encountered many dear and well-meaning friends who tried to talk me into liberation theology. It may have worked if they had helped me connect the dots between personal accountability to God and personal accountability to people. Personal sin and external evil. Personal salvation and social redemption. It may have helped if someone sat down with me and envision for me the radical and radically true idea that personal accountability to people is not simply an option, one of the many 'mionistries', like 'mercy ministry'; but an essential part of the salvation that Christ has won for me. It may have helped if I could only understand then what I understand now- that being incarnatiunal in people's lives is the only way to bring Christ to them; just as Jesus was and is incarnational into the human experience and our own lives. It may have helped if I could only understand that being incarnational necessarily means being sacrificed- whether on the cross or in terms of a life spent with people who need us.
A dear friend who tried to talk to me about liberation theology had a radically unorthodox interpretation of the Bible. He insisted, without any reference to Biblical, traditional, logical or other evidence, that the Antichrist in the Bible referred to us, people who do nothing to oppose injustice in the world. Other liberation theorists try to make the case that sin is only the enjoyment of resources at the cost of others. Broadly this means that those of us who are relatively well off (anyone who has a roof over her head and food to eat is in this category) are well off only because in a direct or indirect way we exploit or have historically exploited or are benefitting from such exploitation of those outside this category. If anyone tried to interpret the whole of the Bible this way, the argument does not go far without encountering serious challenges. What would they say about the apostle Paul's suggestions to Christian slaves? He said in 1 Corinthians 7:20-22, "Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him. Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you--although if you can gain your freedom, do so. For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ's slave."
Lastly, I realize that we are all on a journey to discover truth. We need to keep our eyes wide open to God's visions. I realize of course that orthodox Christians also tend to be obnoxious in their witness to liberation theorists. Who hasn't encountered those of us (and perhaps we ourselves may be guilty of this) who rebuke a fellow believer with a glass of win in his hand but practise fiscal dishonesty in tax returns, property purchases and divisive church politics, not to mention the sex scandals that have rocked both the Evangelical and Catholic leadership? The charge of hypocrisy is the third serious form of sin or evil that we encounter (personal sin and evil that is external and unattached to humans are the others) in the list of (I would also say ONLY) objections to Christianity or belief in God in general.
The fact remains though that we can and must work together. While I see and experience Christianity for the unique experience it is, I also know that the desire for justice is within all of us- atheist, Christian, Hindu or anyone. I wouldn't go so far as to describe it as a spark of the divine in us or anywhere near it, but I would consider it as God-given, and a part of the appeal that draws us to Christ. If there is sin out there we must work together. If people of different persuasions could begin a discussion on the deepest matters in life, I'm convinced that social redemption, and not philosophical debate, is the beginning.
There are people who respond to this by saying that Christians have no business "being nice", rather they need to be righteous, meaning uphold social justice. While it is true that there is a lot of prissy piety out there in Christian circles reflecting in our music, dressing and a list of do's and don'ts that reduce our faith into Pharisiasm, it is equally true that these values stem from a desire not just to do right by our fellow man but to please God in our thinking and actions. While Christians can enjoy a glass of wine, they often decline refills due to a desire not to go overboard.
Orthodox Christians often accuse liberation theorists of trading away this kind of personal holiness for their "causes". As Malcolm Muggeridge once said, it is far easier and more self-sffirming to hold a placard out in a street protest than actually do something righteous. In my view this is only partially true. The fact is, most liberation theology adherents I know have struggled long and hard with personal sin and guilt to the point where they have questioned themselves and the general interpretation of sin in God's Word. This manifests itself in our politics. In North America, the question of gay marriage is a case in point.
Mark Young, Denver Seminary President's point about voting in a way that allows the Gospel the best possible access into people's lives, speaks to us clearly here. Do we think homosexual behavior is sinful? If so, is it anymore sinful than a child stealing a cookie? Are we guilty of anything far wrose or at least, equally bad? I think most Christians would agree that sin, sinful behavior, propensity to sin, ambiguity about sin and its definition are all part of our messed up nature and mental make up. Is it possible for a Christian to lovingly reach out to the gay community with Christ rathern than condemnation, and just let Christ lead him or her into a full understanding of the Truth (which if we are honest we must admit we too are only still learning)? I think it is.
You see, as my friend Mat pointed out in the last blog post, simply because a liberal espouses liberation theology, it doesn't automatically become wrong. Conservatives allowed liberals to corner the market on this thinking. In the meanwhile they have failed to see the essential connection between Christ's message of personal salvation and the idea of opposing sin everywhere- both inside and outside of ourselves. Liberals in turn have also failed to see the connection between the sin or evil that exists out there in the world and the very personal sin in our own hearts (and not just in terms of being able to have more resources while the 'poor' does not).
To the conservative I say, I wonder what you would have done when Jesus whipped the money-changers out of the temple. To the liberal I say, I wonder what you would have done when Jesus let the repentant Mary Magdalene pour her life savings on to His feet in the form of the expensive perfume.
It is telling that Jesus lets Judas know that the 'poor' will always be around. I've often wondered what this means. Could it mean that we are living in a 'Long Defeat', as JRR Tolkien said and Sara Groves sang, and Dr. Paul Farmer believes is the end of all our labor, even his labor of hope in Haiti?
In the book on Farmer's remarkable work of sacrifice and justice in Haiti, “Mountains Beyond Mountains”, author Tracy Kidder uses this phrase, 'The Long Defeat'. Dr. Farmer is quoted in this book:
"I have fought the long defeat and brought other people on to fight the long defeat, and I’m not going to stop because we keep losing. Now I actually think sometimes we may win. I don’t dislike victory…. We want to be on the winning team, but at the risk of turning our backs on the losers, no, it’s not worth it. So you fight the long defeat."
Farmer has made it known in other interviews that there are glimpses of the [final] victory that we get on earth, but our earthly efforts in and of themselves are a series of long defeats that lead up into the final victory that is not of the earth (this is all my paraphrasing).
If this is indeed the case (and Dr. Farmer is an adherent of liberation theology though I'm not sure to what extend he takes it), then is our vision of heaven simply a heaven on earth, where we bring justice to those who do not have it? What is justice after all? If everyone were wealthy will that suffice? Surely not. If everyone were mindful of others and generous will that be it? Will not there by still incidents which are beyond our comprehension- natural disasters, death, severance of relationships? At such a point when we have achieved (this is an assumption) all there is to achieve in terms of social justice and redemption, but we feel the pain of being human, would we then question God as to why He made us this way? Would we then conclude, after all is said and done, that God is simply a social construct, and that He has outlived His purpose? If that is all there is to life, would we feel the pinch of a nagging hope that there is more to heaven than out unidimensional view of earthly justice?
If there is indeed a heaven beyond the earth, then is it in anyway connected to our recreating such a heaven here on earth? What did Jesus mean when he taught us to pray 'You Kingdom come; Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven"? Or, do we simply sigh and say that all injustices will be righted in heaven and do absolutely nothing about earthly injustices? Why are we the 'tweeners' who live between the two earthly advents of Christ? What is our purpose here on earth? If we have none, maybe they should hold us all down in baptism so we would go straight to heaven.
Clearly the liberation theorists and the orthodox Christians have a lot to learn from each other. We cannot offord to trade insults or dismiss each other because there is a lot of work that is still undone.
As someone who came to faith in college firmly among those who hold the orthodox view, I spent about 13 years coming around to respecting liberation theology. It could have taken a far shorter time frame. Let me explain why.
Life in Christ is a journey when we learn more and more about His character and therefore His purposes. It is remarkable that the vast majority of liberation theorists I know actually had a conversion experience that the orthodox Christians would view as a clearly identifiable point of coming into salvific faith- the point at which one prays the conversion prayer and is ushered into the Kingdom. Over the years, especially as they worked with the 'poor', they moved into a theology that is decidedly unorthodox. Very rarely have I encountered someone who was 'born again' into liberation theology. The passion that accompanies personal salvation from personal sin has been key in the vast majority of these cases to their ardent witness and eventual participation in social justice movements. As Sara Groves sang in her characteristic story-song manner, 'I love because He loved me when I had nothing.' This is Biblical. When we are set free we are free to give and set others free. If we have not experienced freedom our passion must be questioned (gently). Some of us may even believe we have always been free simply because we have not experienced the poverty that others do. The fact is, we are all- without exception- slaves until Christ sets us free. Some are economic slaves, others are sexual slaves, yet others slaves of affluence, education deprivation, racial injustice, indifference, passion, addictive behaviors, and on and on. Freedom in Christ is clearly what inspires us to be modern day abolitionists.
In my early years in Christ I encountered many dear and well-meaning friends who tried to talk me into liberation theology. It may have worked if they had helped me connect the dots between personal accountability to God and personal accountability to people. Personal sin and external evil. Personal salvation and social redemption. It may have helped if someone sat down with me and envision for me the radical and radically true idea that personal accountability to people is not simply an option, one of the many 'mionistries', like 'mercy ministry'; but an essential part of the salvation that Christ has won for me. It may have helped if I could only understand then what I understand now- that being incarnatiunal in people's lives is the only way to bring Christ to them; just as Jesus was and is incarnational into the human experience and our own lives. It may have helped if I could only understand that being incarnational necessarily means being sacrificed- whether on the cross or in terms of a life spent with people who need us.
A dear friend who tried to talk to me about liberation theology had a radically unorthodox interpretation of the Bible. He insisted, without any reference to Biblical, traditional, logical or other evidence, that the Antichrist in the Bible referred to us, people who do nothing to oppose injustice in the world. Other liberation theorists try to make the case that sin is only the enjoyment of resources at the cost of others. Broadly this means that those of us who are relatively well off (anyone who has a roof over her head and food to eat is in this category) are well off only because in a direct or indirect way we exploit or have historically exploited or are benefitting from such exploitation of those outside this category. If anyone tried to interpret the whole of the Bible this way, the argument does not go far without encountering serious challenges. What would they say about the apostle Paul's suggestions to Christian slaves? He said in 1 Corinthians 7:20-22, "Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him. Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you--although if you can gain your freedom, do so. For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ's slave."
Lastly, I realize that we are all on a journey to discover truth. We need to keep our eyes wide open to God's visions. I realize of course that orthodox Christians also tend to be obnoxious in their witness to liberation theorists. Who hasn't encountered those of us (and perhaps we ourselves may be guilty of this) who rebuke a fellow believer with a glass of win in his hand but practise fiscal dishonesty in tax returns, property purchases and divisive church politics, not to mention the sex scandals that have rocked both the Evangelical and Catholic leadership? The charge of hypocrisy is the third serious form of sin or evil that we encounter (personal sin and evil that is external and unattached to humans are the others) in the list of (I would also say ONLY) objections to Christianity or belief in God in general.
The fact remains though that we can and must work together. While I see and experience Christianity for the unique experience it is, I also know that the desire for justice is within all of us- atheist, Christian, Hindu or anyone. I wouldn't go so far as to describe it as a spark of the divine in us or anywhere near it, but I would consider it as God-given, and a part of the appeal that draws us to Christ. If there is sin out there we must work together. If people of different persuasions could begin a discussion on the deepest matters in life, I'm convinced that social redemption, and not philosophical debate, is the beginning.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Our Causes Define Our Allegiance
Question: I fight for justice in the world, especially in HIV/AIDS torn Africa. I believe God is just, and his righteousness means justice! Who am I (meaning what do you think of me)?
Question: I think killing unborn babies is wrong and such practices should not be supported by federal funds. I think the delilberate avoidance of this in the new healthcare bill is a shame. Who am I?
Question: India and the US signed a nuclear deal recently. My Facebook update states my take on this: There cannot be an absolute liability for an Indian and lesser liability for Americans! If India wants another Bhopal Tragedy... go ahead and pass the Nuclear Liability Law in the current form. Who am I?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I hope you did not conclude on anything.
But if I were asking these questions separately to three different people who are complete strangers, I think each question will have established a core identification for me that these people will use in their conversation with me. But the fact remains that these are my virtues. So what makes us decide in favour of one when we are pressed to choose, as in an election. There are terms floating about like 'voting one's conscience', but that is rather unhelpful because if it is an honest conscience it would need to agree that there are plenty of Life Issues out there. How do we choose?
I remember Mark Young, current president at Denver Seminary, talking about voting on the basis of what will allow the Gospel the greatest possiblity of access into the hearts and minds of the people. This too is a value and a virtue, one I did not fully understand before, but is now becoming clearer and clearer. As time is of the essence and we are living with little time to spare for fighting any side battles, we have to remain focused on ushering in the Kingdom- by spreading the truth, fighting sin in our lives, churches and the evil that abounds in the world- economic slavery, hunger and other ills.
Here is a conversation I had with a former intern at our church who is now at a church plant in England. I reconnected with a couple of days ago and we had a good exchange of mails. I've hidden the names, but here is the exchange- it gets to the matter quickly:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: M
To: Vijai
Sent: Tue, March 23, 2010 10:14:17 AM
Subject: Re: Reconnecting
Hi Vijai,
Sadly we are not in James Herriott country, but we are only 2 hours drive from it. So it would not be impossible to come and visit us, and see the Yorkshire dales!
How wonderful that you have thrived at __________ Church. What are some of the epiphanies you and Alma have undergone?
And I am very interested in the Justice movements you mention. Can you tell me more?
in his grip
M
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Vijai
To: M
Sent: Tue, March 23, 2010 8:47:46 PM
Subject: Re: Reconnecting
Hey Mat:
I have to stop and think where to begin. There are many angles to this, and it may not be the best way to begin at the chronological beginning. Let me try to sum up my hazy thoughts as briefly and crisply as I can without losing your interest. This is not in chronological order.
After the Haiti incident I read an article by Richard Dawkins in the Guardian- as one could expect it wasn't about any scientific rebuttal against the existence of God, but more about (a) Christian inability to explain the existence of evil, (b) Christian hypocrisy in saying that people like Pat Robertson did not represent them, and (c) the tyranny of Christianity in holding people and the world itself accountable for sin.
It struck me that nearly every conversation I have had with skeptics have turned in this direction. After all there are several scientists out there who do believe in God and many are Christians. Without going into other empirical observations I made, it struck me with pretty blinding clarity that the only real objection in a person's mind/heart to God or Jesus was evil- in 3 different forms: (1) evil in the form of one's own personal sin and the guilt that follows it, exacerbated by the difficulty in getting rid of it; (2) evil in the form of someone else's sin, especially those of faith, especially Christians who are perceived as hypocritical; and (3) evil that cannot be attributed to direct or overt human action- like death, severance of relationships, economic hardship, earthquakes, disease, natural disasters, et al. I'm fairly convinced that other objections are only a smokescreen, or perhaps "the icing on the cake" from the point of view of a skeptic. I suppose one could extend the argument to the believer as well, that scientific, geologic, archaeologic, logical, historical and all other proofs are an afterthought to faith.
Be that as it may, it struck me that if evil is the single stumbling block to an unbeliever, then Christians as the image of Christ, created to revere and reveal Him, must demonstrate holiness.
It then struck me that we tend to explain away our lack of holiness in certain situations when one virtue seems to us to take precedence over others- as in politics, when for instance abortion takes precedence over world hunger. But the fact remains that whatever our politics, these issues- abortion, hunger, poverty, social justice, healthcare, environment, racial healing, charitable giving, sancitity of marriage- are all "Life Issues". Our political grandstanding tends to constrain us from demonstrating, preaching or allowing free access to the Gospel. When I vote, do I consider the stance that will make the Gospel as accessible as possible to people? I think that is also a value, as much as voting one's conscience is.
It seems to me that some of areas of deep need for Christians to pour themselves into are right in front of us- human beings are slaves in every way. Some are slaves of men, others slaves of sin, others slaves who don't realize that they are slaves at all- in fact they believe sincerely that they are free. As Christians we read and teach that being slaves to Christ, slaves to righteousness is true freedom. From reading a book by Michael Card, A Better Freedom, which deals with the same topic, I was surprised to see something I hadn't noticed before- that Christianity is a "slave religion"- out of the 54 or so parables that Jesus told, 34 had to do with slavery. The terms, handmaiden, servant, manservant, 'one who serves', etc are all translated 'slave' in many versions. Card says it is important for us to maintain this translation of the word 'doulos' because in the context of Roman slavery in which these books were written, noone would have had any doubt what this term meant- the kind of economic slavery that they saw in their own lives or others' lives. Slaves were owned. Card connects this with African American slavery in which there are many parallels.
This book is really revolutionary- there are examples in this that took my breath away, I hadn't noticed them before. Another book on the Gospel of John by the same author, Parable of Joy, dealt with similar themes.
It seems to me that if Jesus who was free came as a slave and died a slave's death, then rose again as Master, in order to free us from slavery so that we may be free to offer ourselves as slaves to Christ- then as His slaves who continue His amazing mission, our priority is to free slaves of every kind so that they may be able to offer themselves as slaves to Christ.
It seems to me that we must free slaves of all kinds- economic slaves, sexual slaves, indentured labourers, slaves of affluence... The book by M Card has a 'coda' by Sara Groves, the artist, who also works with IJM. She talks about modern day slavery in many parts of the world. Sshe says there are more slaves today than at any point in history, many of them in Asia. Indentured labourers in India who cannot repay a debt and must work for his master to even keep paying the interest or minimum. The slavery extends to his family as well. Many are brutally treated and exploited. Sexual slaves in Thailand and the Philippines. Children trafficked in other parts of the world as slaves.
International Justice Mission and other organizations are modern day abolitionists. This one area seems to be to be the loudest and most painful call that we hear but choose to ignore. Closer to home, it is important for us to consider those in West, in the cities and towns who are in ghettoes, often of their own making, and others who are systemically denied a good fostering community, education and other benefits. Racial divisions and tensions which are artificially created by the divisions in our society- in terms of good suburbs, gated communities, exclusive schools (not bad things in themselves)- only serve to drive us inward to our own safe havens further. As Christians cut off from those who need us most, we deteriorate in our lives in Christ, unable to live Christ before them, fearing for our lives, our 'culture' and our children's culture when it was Christ who gave us these blessings in the first place and without whose grace, there would we go. We know who these people are- perhaps African American kids in Detroit, Pakistanis in Newcastle (and perhaps Indians as well- I don't know)? Card is part of an organization called the Empty Hands Fellowship that has built bridges with some of these communities in his hometown of Nashville, TN. Too long a narrative to go into here.,
I have friends who work with some of these organizations, particularly one if the trenches working with the International Justice Mission in India. Her stories appear regularly on IJM's website, right up front Their lives are full of challenges from seeing the difficult lives before them and from threats and dangers which come with the territory. But they are also truly incarnational as Christ is; and they seem to know the joy that I once knew- that of seeing as Sara Groves puts it 'a slave awaken to the value of her soul'.
But then I think of my work, family, future, etc.and get cold feet. I'm not looking for any mission agency to sponsor me- there are others who are eager to get into mission- one such couple in _______ Church with whom we are accountability partners are young, faithful and about to go into India. I think of what I can possibly do to move in this direction.
I think our biggest inertia is in thinking that all this is somewhere down the line, in the unforeseeable future when we have enough money saved up for retirement, kids' education and other such things. Given that we all need to support our families and have other responsibilities in life, we make a mistake if we live in perpetual angst about a future mission and not think about the here and now. If there are people in our inner cities who are homeless or refugees in Wheaton or Newcastle who are new to the country and looking for some help, I think it is a good place to begin to demonstrate Christ before we take a step in a larger direction. The couple going to India I talked about moved into a low income apartment in Wheaton, and have developed numerous friendships with the Burmese refugee community there. One particular family has been close to them- they are in fact informal foster parents for a boy who lost his dad to war with the Burmese government.
I also realized that a genuinely lived Christian life- complete with confession, "coming clean", getting rid of the Christianese that our sub-culture bestows us with, connects us with the world out there quickly. I had dinner with an Indian family that was disillusioned with some of the community's Christian leaders who look down on anyone with a glass of win in his hand but practice dubious methods in evangelism, handling finances and other issues. This family had recently discovered __________ Church's Naperville Church plant, pastored by Doug ______. They absolutely loved Doug. Meeting a Christian in that sense is a release for those who are looking for the real thing, a joyful conviction that this is indeed something true.
Mat- I can't claim that I'm anywhere near it. I want to be. There are people at work who are longing for answers. Many are Hindus, several are part of charities like the Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh. When you were here I think I discussed with you India's neo-Nazi movement. This is actually a quasi-nationalistic organization that serves community interests in the States. It seems remarkable now, but they tied up with Calvary Church, a pentecostal organization, to provide food and shelter for the homeless in the Naperville-Aurora area recently. This organization now regularly contributes to Loaves and Fishes, a Christian organization that serves the poor in this area. One of coworkers who is a leader withi the organization confided in me recently that he was deeply impressed by a CEO of a client company who gave up his position to go into Christian ministry fulltime.
In my lifetime I never thought I'd see this rapprochement taking place, but the God we serve is the great reconciler. His Gospel may be offensive to many, but why should *we* be offensive as well?
Plenty of other stuff about contextualization, the potential of Christ-bearing in the Hindu community, etc to talk about, but it must another time. I've not exhausted the extend of epiphanies yet- but it gives you the idea. 'Nuff said, I'm curious to know about your own interest in this topic.
In Him,
VJ
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: M
To: Vijai
Sent: Wed, March 24, 2010 6:42:30 AM
Subject: Re: Reconnecting
Hi Vijai,
Thank you for this. I have just read your email -- and am very encouraged that the Lord has so clearly been challenging you.
I want to respond in greater detail, but don't have time to do that now. Very briefly, I would say that we are in middle of an urban area with enormous need. We have the slaves of religious system, alongside the slaves of economic deprivation, and educational destitution. We also have the slaves of pleasure too. So all of what you say is deeply challengining.
I wish that more of __________ Church were thinking along a similar line to you! Have you chatted to Chris __________ about any of this?
When the Gospel is preached, and believed, it also has to be lived out. And it has to be lived out in every area of life. A visiting speaker was telling us about William Wilberforce. He observed that Wilberforce was not primarily concerned about slavery, even though that was his life's work. Rather, he was primarily concerned that the rule of Christ ought to be lived out, so that the Gospel ought to be preached, and men ought to bow the knee and live for Christ. And *this* is what motivated him to fight slavery. This is getting it right I think.
I could write a lot more, but sadly do not have time.
in his grip
Mat
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Vijai
To: M
Sent: Wed, March 24, 2010 1:22:03 PM
Subject: Re: Reconnecting
I agree. What has kept me from this thinking much earlier was the posture of many well-meaning friends who have tried to talk me into a very narrowly focused liberation theology. It doesn't make sense that simple social or economic liberation is Jesus' mission- that is so uni-dimensional a view!
[This is not part of the email, but I want to add this as a clarification: I also want to add here that the voices that have turned me off have typically been strident, harsh, judgmental of Christians in a way that shut me out from listening to the truth in their words. When artists like Dererk Webb feel the need to rely on profanity to get their message through, people tend to judge them- and this may be hypocritical but it is the way we are wired, to look for faults. When others rant about Christians' political infatuation with the Republican party without connecting other non-Republican values gently and lovingly to the Gospel message, the Christian loses the connection and therefore the interest to continue in this line of thinking. This is what happened to me- I simply did not identify the speaker as being truly Christian except that they mouthed desperate calls for justice, often laced with judgment, profanity and insults. I do not see how this could ever be edifying.]
What finally put it together for me was the consistent message of some of these Christians I trust, that the Gospel necessarily includes embracing the 'poor' of every kind. I haven't talked to Chris- is he thinking along these lines?
VJ
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Reconnecting
Wed, March 24, 2010 9:23:31 AM
From: M
To: Vijai
Hi Vijai,
It's fascinating that you mention liberation theology. In some ways the situation is analagous to old fashioned liberal theology. What happened there was that conservatives allowed the liberals to "corner the market" on social action. But just because the liberals do it, doesn't mean it is wrong!! And the situation is the same with liberation theology. Just because liberation theology says that the sinful institutions of slavery ought to be torn down doesn't mean that it ain't so!! It just has to take its proper place under the Lordship of Christ, and the bringing of his kingdom, which first means proclamation, but must include the fulsome consequences of this proclamation. Sin must be opposed because it is anathma to God.
Regarding Christ -- you will find him very thoughtful, and open to engaging with you. Make an appointment for a coffee with him (best feed him at least one Espresso -- he's Italian!) and you will enjoy his take, and he may even have some ideas about how to take it further within ________ Church.
cheers
M
Question: I think killing unborn babies is wrong and such practices should not be supported by federal funds. I think the delilberate avoidance of this in the new healthcare bill is a shame. Who am I?
Question: India and the US signed a nuclear deal recently. My Facebook update states my take on this: There cannot be an absolute liability for an Indian and lesser liability for Americans! If India wants another Bhopal Tragedy... go ahead and pass the Nuclear Liability Law in the current form. Who am I?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I hope you did not conclude on anything.
But if I were asking these questions separately to three different people who are complete strangers, I think each question will have established a core identification for me that these people will use in their conversation with me. But the fact remains that these are my virtues. So what makes us decide in favour of one when we are pressed to choose, as in an election. There are terms floating about like 'voting one's conscience', but that is rather unhelpful because if it is an honest conscience it would need to agree that there are plenty of Life Issues out there. How do we choose?
I remember Mark Young, current president at Denver Seminary, talking about voting on the basis of what will allow the Gospel the greatest possiblity of access into the hearts and minds of the people. This too is a value and a virtue, one I did not fully understand before, but is now becoming clearer and clearer. As time is of the essence and we are living with little time to spare for fighting any side battles, we have to remain focused on ushering in the Kingdom- by spreading the truth, fighting sin in our lives, churches and the evil that abounds in the world- economic slavery, hunger and other ills.
Here is a conversation I had with a former intern at our church who is now at a church plant in England. I reconnected with a couple of days ago and we had a good exchange of mails. I've hidden the names, but here is the exchange- it gets to the matter quickly:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: M
To: Vijai
Sent: Tue, March 23, 2010 10:14:17 AM
Subject: Re: Reconnecting
Hi Vijai,
Sadly we are not in James Herriott country, but we are only 2 hours drive from it. So it would not be impossible to come and visit us, and see the Yorkshire dales!
How wonderful that you have thrived at __________ Church. What are some of the epiphanies you and Alma have undergone?
And I am very interested in the Justice movements you mention. Can you tell me more?
in his grip
M
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Vijai
To: M
Sent: Tue, March 23, 2010 8:47:46 PM
Subject: Re: Reconnecting
Hey Mat:
I have to stop and think where to begin. There are many angles to this, and it may not be the best way to begin at the chronological beginning. Let me try to sum up my hazy thoughts as briefly and crisply as I can without losing your interest. This is not in chronological order.
After the Haiti incident I read an article by Richard Dawkins in the Guardian- as one could expect it wasn't about any scientific rebuttal against the existence of God, but more about (a) Christian inability to explain the existence of evil, (b) Christian hypocrisy in saying that people like Pat Robertson did not represent them, and (c) the tyranny of Christianity in holding people and the world itself accountable for sin.
It struck me that nearly every conversation I have had with skeptics have turned in this direction. After all there are several scientists out there who do believe in God and many are Christians. Without going into other empirical observations I made, it struck me with pretty blinding clarity that the only real objection in a person's mind/heart to God or Jesus was evil- in 3 different forms: (1) evil in the form of one's own personal sin and the guilt that follows it, exacerbated by the difficulty in getting rid of it; (2) evil in the form of someone else's sin, especially those of faith, especially Christians who are perceived as hypocritical; and (3) evil that cannot be attributed to direct or overt human action- like death, severance of relationships, economic hardship, earthquakes, disease, natural disasters, et al. I'm fairly convinced that other objections are only a smokescreen, or perhaps "the icing on the cake" from the point of view of a skeptic. I suppose one could extend the argument to the believer as well, that scientific, geologic, archaeologic, logical, historical and all other proofs are an afterthought to faith.
Be that as it may, it struck me that if evil is the single stumbling block to an unbeliever, then Christians as the image of Christ, created to revere and reveal Him, must demonstrate holiness.
It then struck me that we tend to explain away our lack of holiness in certain situations when one virtue seems to us to take precedence over others- as in politics, when for instance abortion takes precedence over world hunger. But the fact remains that whatever our politics, these issues- abortion, hunger, poverty, social justice, healthcare, environment, racial healing, charitable giving, sancitity of marriage- are all "Life Issues". Our political grandstanding tends to constrain us from demonstrating, preaching or allowing free access to the Gospel. When I vote, do I consider the stance that will make the Gospel as accessible as possible to people? I think that is also a value, as much as voting one's conscience is.
It seems to me that some of areas of deep need for Christians to pour themselves into are right in front of us- human beings are slaves in every way. Some are slaves of men, others slaves of sin, others slaves who don't realize that they are slaves at all- in fact they believe sincerely that they are free. As Christians we read and teach that being slaves to Christ, slaves to righteousness is true freedom. From reading a book by Michael Card, A Better Freedom, which deals with the same topic, I was surprised to see something I hadn't noticed before- that Christianity is a "slave religion"- out of the 54 or so parables that Jesus told, 34 had to do with slavery. The terms, handmaiden, servant, manservant, 'one who serves', etc are all translated 'slave' in many versions. Card says it is important for us to maintain this translation of the word 'doulos' because in the context of Roman slavery in which these books were written, noone would have had any doubt what this term meant- the kind of economic slavery that they saw in their own lives or others' lives. Slaves were owned. Card connects this with African American slavery in which there are many parallels.
This book is really revolutionary- there are examples in this that took my breath away, I hadn't noticed them before. Another book on the Gospel of John by the same author, Parable of Joy, dealt with similar themes.
It seems to me that if Jesus who was free came as a slave and died a slave's death, then rose again as Master, in order to free us from slavery so that we may be free to offer ourselves as slaves to Christ- then as His slaves who continue His amazing mission, our priority is to free slaves of every kind so that they may be able to offer themselves as slaves to Christ.
It seems to me that we must free slaves of all kinds- economic slaves, sexual slaves, indentured labourers, slaves of affluence... The book by M Card has a 'coda' by Sara Groves, the artist, who also works with IJM. She talks about modern day slavery in many parts of the world. Sshe says there are more slaves today than at any point in history, many of them in Asia. Indentured labourers in India who cannot repay a debt and must work for his master to even keep paying the interest or minimum. The slavery extends to his family as well. Many are brutally treated and exploited. Sexual slaves in Thailand and the Philippines. Children trafficked in other parts of the world as slaves.
International Justice Mission and other organizations are modern day abolitionists. This one area seems to be to be the loudest and most painful call that we hear but choose to ignore. Closer to home, it is important for us to consider those in West, in the cities and towns who are in ghettoes, often of their own making, and others who are systemically denied a good fostering community, education and other benefits. Racial divisions and tensions which are artificially created by the divisions in our society- in terms of good suburbs, gated communities, exclusive schools (not bad things in themselves)- only serve to drive us inward to our own safe havens further. As Christians cut off from those who need us most, we deteriorate in our lives in Christ, unable to live Christ before them, fearing for our lives, our 'culture' and our children's culture when it was Christ who gave us these blessings in the first place and without whose grace, there would we go. We know who these people are- perhaps African American kids in Detroit, Pakistanis in Newcastle (and perhaps Indians as well- I don't know)? Card is part of an organization called the Empty Hands Fellowship that has built bridges with some of these communities in his hometown of Nashville, TN. Too long a narrative to go into here.,
I have friends who work with some of these organizations, particularly one if the trenches working with the International Justice Mission in India. Her stories appear regularly on IJM's website, right up front Their lives are full of challenges from seeing the difficult lives before them and from threats and dangers which come with the territory. But they are also truly incarnational as Christ is; and they seem to know the joy that I once knew- that of seeing as Sara Groves puts it 'a slave awaken to the value of her soul'.
But then I think of my work, family, future, etc.and get cold feet. I'm not looking for any mission agency to sponsor me- there are others who are eager to get into mission- one such couple in _______ Church with whom we are accountability partners are young, faithful and about to go into India. I think of what I can possibly do to move in this direction.
I think our biggest inertia is in thinking that all this is somewhere down the line, in the unforeseeable future when we have enough money saved up for retirement, kids' education and other such things. Given that we all need to support our families and have other responsibilities in life, we make a mistake if we live in perpetual angst about a future mission and not think about the here and now. If there are people in our inner cities who are homeless or refugees in Wheaton or Newcastle who are new to the country and looking for some help, I think it is a good place to begin to demonstrate Christ before we take a step in a larger direction. The couple going to India I talked about moved into a low income apartment in Wheaton, and have developed numerous friendships with the Burmese refugee community there. One particular family has been close to them- they are in fact informal foster parents for a boy who lost his dad to war with the Burmese government.
I also realized that a genuinely lived Christian life- complete with confession, "coming clean", getting rid of the Christianese that our sub-culture bestows us with, connects us with the world out there quickly. I had dinner with an Indian family that was disillusioned with some of the community's Christian leaders who look down on anyone with a glass of win in his hand but practice dubious methods in evangelism, handling finances and other issues. This family had recently discovered __________ Church's Naperville Church plant, pastored by Doug ______. They absolutely loved Doug. Meeting a Christian in that sense is a release for those who are looking for the real thing, a joyful conviction that this is indeed something true.
Mat- I can't claim that I'm anywhere near it. I want to be. There are people at work who are longing for answers. Many are Hindus, several are part of charities like the Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh. When you were here I think I discussed with you India's neo-Nazi movement. This is actually a quasi-nationalistic organization that serves community interests in the States. It seems remarkable now, but they tied up with Calvary Church, a pentecostal organization, to provide food and shelter for the homeless in the Naperville-Aurora area recently. This organization now regularly contributes to Loaves and Fishes, a Christian organization that serves the poor in this area. One of coworkers who is a leader withi the organization confided in me recently that he was deeply impressed by a CEO of a client company who gave up his position to go into Christian ministry fulltime.
In my lifetime I never thought I'd see this rapprochement taking place, but the God we serve is the great reconciler. His Gospel may be offensive to many, but why should *we* be offensive as well?
Plenty of other stuff about contextualization, the potential of Christ-bearing in the Hindu community, etc to talk about, but it must another time. I've not exhausted the extend of epiphanies yet- but it gives you the idea. 'Nuff said, I'm curious to know about your own interest in this topic.
In Him,
VJ
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: M
To: Vijai
Sent: Wed, March 24, 2010 6:42:30 AM
Subject: Re: Reconnecting
Hi Vijai,
Thank you for this. I have just read your email -- and am very encouraged that the Lord has so clearly been challenging you.
I want to respond in greater detail, but don't have time to do that now. Very briefly, I would say that we are in middle of an urban area with enormous need. We have the slaves of religious system, alongside the slaves of economic deprivation, and educational destitution. We also have the slaves of pleasure too. So all of what you say is deeply challengining.
I wish that more of __________ Church were thinking along a similar line to you! Have you chatted to Chris __________ about any of this?
When the Gospel is preached, and believed, it also has to be lived out. And it has to be lived out in every area of life. A visiting speaker was telling us about William Wilberforce. He observed that Wilberforce was not primarily concerned about slavery, even though that was his life's work. Rather, he was primarily concerned that the rule of Christ ought to be lived out, so that the Gospel ought to be preached, and men ought to bow the knee and live for Christ. And *this* is what motivated him to fight slavery. This is getting it right I think.
I could write a lot more, but sadly do not have time.
in his grip
Mat
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Vijai
To: M
Sent: Wed, March 24, 2010 1:22:03 PM
Subject: Re: Reconnecting
I agree. What has kept me from this thinking much earlier was the posture of many well-meaning friends who have tried to talk me into a very narrowly focused liberation theology. It doesn't make sense that simple social or economic liberation is Jesus' mission- that is so uni-dimensional a view!
[This is not part of the email, but I want to add this as a clarification: I also want to add here that the voices that have turned me off have typically been strident, harsh, judgmental of Christians in a way that shut me out from listening to the truth in their words. When artists like Dererk Webb feel the need to rely on profanity to get their message through, people tend to judge them- and this may be hypocritical but it is the way we are wired, to look for faults. When others rant about Christians' political infatuation with the Republican party without connecting other non-Republican values gently and lovingly to the Gospel message, the Christian loses the connection and therefore the interest to continue in this line of thinking. This is what happened to me- I simply did not identify the speaker as being truly Christian except that they mouthed desperate calls for justice, often laced with judgment, profanity and insults. I do not see how this could ever be edifying.]
What finally put it together for me was the consistent message of some of these Christians I trust, that the Gospel necessarily includes embracing the 'poor' of every kind. I haven't talked to Chris- is he thinking along these lines?
VJ
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Reconnecting
Wed, March 24, 2010 9:23:31 AM
From: M
To: Vijai
Hi Vijai,
It's fascinating that you mention liberation theology. In some ways the situation is analagous to old fashioned liberal theology. What happened there was that conservatives allowed the liberals to "corner the market" on social action. But just because the liberals do it, doesn't mean it is wrong!! And the situation is the same with liberation theology. Just because liberation theology says that the sinful institutions of slavery ought to be torn down doesn't mean that it ain't so!! It just has to take its proper place under the Lordship of Christ, and the bringing of his kingdom, which first means proclamation, but must include the fulsome consequences of this proclamation. Sin must be opposed because it is anathma to God.
Regarding Christ -- you will find him very thoughtful, and open to engaging with you. Make an appointment for a coffee with him (best feed him at least one Espresso -- he's Italian!) and you will enjoy his take, and he may even have some ideas about how to take it further within ________ Church.
cheers
M
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Music Review- 'Fireflies and Songs' by Sara Groves
I can't review Sara Groves' December 2009 album 'Fireflies and Songs' any more eloquently than this interview with her does.
While this is the best confessional songwriting I've come across it is also the best songwriting that adapts to any artist's vocal style that I've seen.
I've been listening to this album for over 2 months, and some songs have been difficult to listen to because they question me at my deepest levels- on my marriage, the level of confession in my life- the "coming clean", the freedom of letting "light shine to the very inside", the idea that there are "different kinds of happy" in our relationships, the haunting picture of asking for forgiveness in "It's Me" and finally to my relief and infinite comfort the song 'Joy Is In Our Hearts', reflecting on a passage of Scripture from Paul's epistles that was one of the earliest bookmarks of my Christian experience, the chorus finally praising God for suffering, "Alleluia, Alleluia, Christ our Joy and Strength."
I talked about a series of epiphanies in my previous post. This has been one.
While this is the best confessional songwriting I've come across it is also the best songwriting that adapts to any artist's vocal style that I've seen.
I've been listening to this album for over 2 months, and some songs have been difficult to listen to because they question me at my deepest levels- on my marriage, the level of confession in my life- the "coming clean", the freedom of letting "light shine to the very inside", the idea that there are "different kinds of happy" in our relationships, the haunting picture of asking for forgiveness in "It's Me" and finally to my relief and infinite comfort the song 'Joy Is In Our Hearts', reflecting on a passage of Scripture from Paul's epistles that was one of the earliest bookmarks of my Christian experience, the chorus finally praising God for suffering, "Alleluia, Alleluia, Christ our Joy and Strength."
I talked about a series of epiphanies in my previous post. This has been one.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Book Review- A Better Freedom- Michael Card
Once every few years a book comes along that questions everything we know about ourselves, God, reality, work and life. When we read these books we are confronted with the heady elixir of unchartered territory and the sweet familiarity that this rings true.
Michael Card's new book 'A Better Freedom' is truly Biblical orthodoxy, and is empirically verifiable in our lives. There is little that we could question in this volume, but it stirs the pot and gives us a breadth of perspective that either provokes old defenses to action or lays our contentions to rest.
For me this has been the latest in a series of epiphanies that have confronted old dragons and slayed them with the Truth. The marvelous aspect of this has been that the words of this book appeal not only to my desire for Biblical, logical, linguistic and historical accuracy, but it blunts the non-arguments that the 'St Paul versus Jesus' school of thought has been putting forward.
In contemporary American experience, prejudice is a dark, sinister motif to be avoided at all costs. When we hear about Michelle Obama's ancestry which includes a great great grandmother who was a former slave girl (even in her childhood) and gave birth to a mixed race boy, we cringe- rightly so- but we heave a sigh of relief and self-congratulation that it is the progeny of this former slave that now graces the White House as First Lady. Yes- that is indeed beautiful and we need to feel the pride of the moment. But the Bible's references to slavery often ring against our ears and hearts with annoying vagueness. Paul in his writings has pieces of advice for both slaves and masters, but we do not see a William Wilberforce in Paul rousing slaves to action against their masters, Christian or not- and we feel the irony. Didn't Christ come to set us free from the yoke of all bondage?
Michael Card's look at slavery is instantly sensitive and affirming of Jesus' call for us to be slaves of righteousness or slaves of Christ. His insistence that those of us who are in situations of slavery are indeed in a dark place but those who are not owned by Christ are in worse slavery is a transforming truth. This theme resonates through his illustrations of Christ's parables, over 60 percent of which have to do with the theme of slavehood, often translated "servant-hood" in English versions. It brings up people who identified themselves as slaves- Paul, Mary ("handmaiden" in the KJV actually makes the word milder than it should be), Stephen, John and others who also exemplified with their lives what it meant to be owned. He also illustrates through Jesus' life and specific actions that our Lord himself considered his life as a slave's life. He, the Master, came as a slave and died a slave's death, served us so that we who are in bondage might be freed to become his slaves. The Master becomes the slave to be the Master. The slaves die to be free to be slaves to the Master.
What struck me most was the parable of the prodigal son which Card talks about. Perhaps this should be called the parable of the Legalistic Son, as it is as much about the 'good son' as it is about the prodigal. Consider the setting. Jesus is talking to a motley group of sinners and lawyers. He tells three parables- the parable of the sheep that was lost and is found, the parable of the woman who searched for and found the lost silver coin, and finally the parable in question- that order. The first two end with a feast, a celebration because the lost has now been found. The final parable ends with a celebration to which the 'good son' is invited, but we are left with the father's invitation and no answer from the son. There is no closure. The explanation is clear enough. Card says, with Jesus nothing is as it seems. While the prodigal speaks to the wretch that was lost and now is found, the good son is the archetype of the Pharisees and lawyers who are invited and need to respond to Jesus' call. The prodigal prepares a lame speech that he will deliver to his dad on returning home, but he never gets a chance to say it all. He says, "'Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son." But he also wanted to say, "make me like one of your hired men." He never gets the chance because the father showers him with kisses, covers him with the best robe, puts a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. He then throws a big party- and as Card points out parables with this extravagant celebration and kindness (and there are several that Jesus told) are clear indications of our Father's attitude towards repentant sinners. The prodigal hoped to be a slave to the father, but he becomes as a prince. The 'good son' says, "All these years I've been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends."
Card asks us, Who was the slave between the brothers? Those who would be slaves in humility and brokenness find that true freedom comes from slavery to Christ. Those that think they are free are in reality slaves.
Michael Card's new book 'A Better Freedom' is truly Biblical orthodoxy, and is empirically verifiable in our lives. There is little that we could question in this volume, but it stirs the pot and gives us a breadth of perspective that either provokes old defenses to action or lays our contentions to rest.
For me this has been the latest in a series of epiphanies that have confronted old dragons and slayed them with the Truth. The marvelous aspect of this has been that the words of this book appeal not only to my desire for Biblical, logical, linguistic and historical accuracy, but it blunts the non-arguments that the 'St Paul versus Jesus' school of thought has been putting forward.
In contemporary American experience, prejudice is a dark, sinister motif to be avoided at all costs. When we hear about Michelle Obama's ancestry which includes a great great grandmother who was a former slave girl (even in her childhood) and gave birth to a mixed race boy, we cringe- rightly so- but we heave a sigh of relief and self-congratulation that it is the progeny of this former slave that now graces the White House as First Lady. Yes- that is indeed beautiful and we need to feel the pride of the moment. But the Bible's references to slavery often ring against our ears and hearts with annoying vagueness. Paul in his writings has pieces of advice for both slaves and masters, but we do not see a William Wilberforce in Paul rousing slaves to action against their masters, Christian or not- and we feel the irony. Didn't Christ come to set us free from the yoke of all bondage?
Michael Card's look at slavery is instantly sensitive and affirming of Jesus' call for us to be slaves of righteousness or slaves of Christ. His insistence that those of us who are in situations of slavery are indeed in a dark place but those who are not owned by Christ are in worse slavery is a transforming truth. This theme resonates through his illustrations of Christ's parables, over 60 percent of which have to do with the theme of slavehood, often translated "servant-hood" in English versions. It brings up people who identified themselves as slaves- Paul, Mary ("handmaiden" in the KJV actually makes the word milder than it should be), Stephen, John and others who also exemplified with their lives what it meant to be owned. He also illustrates through Jesus' life and specific actions that our Lord himself considered his life as a slave's life. He, the Master, came as a slave and died a slave's death, served us so that we who are in bondage might be freed to become his slaves. The Master becomes the slave to be the Master. The slaves die to be free to be slaves to the Master.
What struck me most was the parable of the prodigal son which Card talks about. Perhaps this should be called the parable of the Legalistic Son, as it is as much about the 'good son' as it is about the prodigal. Consider the setting. Jesus is talking to a motley group of sinners and lawyers. He tells three parables- the parable of the sheep that was lost and is found, the parable of the woman who searched for and found the lost silver coin, and finally the parable in question- that order. The first two end with a feast, a celebration because the lost has now been found. The final parable ends with a celebration to which the 'good son' is invited, but we are left with the father's invitation and no answer from the son. There is no closure. The explanation is clear enough. Card says, with Jesus nothing is as it seems. While the prodigal speaks to the wretch that was lost and now is found, the good son is the archetype of the Pharisees and lawyers who are invited and need to respond to Jesus' call. The prodigal prepares a lame speech that he will deliver to his dad on returning home, but he never gets a chance to say it all. He says, "'Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son." But he also wanted to say, "make me like one of your hired men." He never gets the chance because the father showers him with kisses, covers him with the best robe, puts a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. He then throws a big party- and as Card points out parables with this extravagant celebration and kindness (and there are several that Jesus told) are clear indications of our Father's attitude towards repentant sinners. The prodigal hoped to be a slave to the father, but he becomes as a prince. The 'good son' says, "All these years I've been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends."
Card asks us, Who was the slave between the brothers? Those who would be slaves in humility and brokenness find that true freedom comes from slavery to Christ. Those that think they are free are in reality slaves.
Monday, February 22, 2010
The Demographic Myths of Our Self-Centered Age
The term 'demographic-economic paradox' refers to the inverse relationship between economic progress and birth rates. Education and wealth go up at the cost of birth rates. This has been observed in almost all developed and developing nations. Although countries like China and India have government sposnsored programs to restrict their populations, unbiased population metrics from the Western countries and industrialized Asian nations like Japan and South Korea confirm this.
In my economics and civics classes in high school, India's population growth rates were partly attributed to the farming community's labour-intensive trade, in which more children (especially male) meant more farmhands and therefore more revenue. As agriculture declined as a percentage of the GDP and agricultural income for farming families began to be articificially kept low in India due to the presence of Government intermediaries and established 'fair prices', besides the low per-capita land holding that has been established, more children began to translate into more cost and much less revenue. India was one of the first countries to encourage family planning. This came to an undesirable extreme in the Seventies when Sanjay Gandhi forcefully sterilized, some say up to a million people in an attempt to control population growth. For an economy growing at a snail's pace of 2-3 percent a year from a poor base, more population simply meant fewer resources per capita and therefore a diminished standard of living.
After Gandhi's forced sterilization program met with outraged protests and a change of Government took place, the family planning program has been far more benign, playing the role of an advisor and encourager. China has been another aggressive implementer of family planning, imposing stiff pentalties on couples who had more than one child. Many have written about social problems and future economic problems that this has posed or will pose. Other measures like prohibition of gender determination have led to fewer female child abortions lately, but the gender imbalance in both these countries remains sharp.
The US has no such Government program but has experienced the decline in birth rates that all industrialized countries have. Unlike some other countries like Sweden and Norway which experience declining population growth rates, the US has kept up a rate of over 2 percent due to better population replacement rates internally as well as through immigration. Even so, the US has an aging population who will be supported by the younger citizens in the years to come. This is especially clear in the case of the social security funds which are now being propped up by payments made by those still working to cover the retirees. In 20 years there will be a small section of the population (younger taxpayers) supporting a larger group of aged retirees, meaning that there will be insufficient funds in social security. This is expected to lead to need-based rationing/provisioning of funds as well as a cut in the percentage of per-capita allowance of these funds.
India has a rapid GDP growth rate- even upto 7.5 percent in the recessionary 2009-10 years. China too has not skipped a beat in its blistering growth. However the economic effects a smaller percentage of a younger population are expected to show up in 30 years. This will mean fewer resources to deploy in critical manufacturing and services for export that these countries have specialized in, less availability of specialized labour to meet the growth rates needed to continue growth, a skewed distribution of labour in several fields and of course the dangers of a gender imbalance. At present the danger of a small percent of young people supporting the aged does not seem imminent, as the percentage of younger people is quite high in these countries. One-fifth of the total world population under 20 years of age is in India. As they enter the labour force the opportunities and resources are bound to be stretched, but the market that they represent as consumers in an expanding economy will be sizeable.
Here is the paradox of population economics in simple terms. The world over statistics on population remind us that hunger, disease, malnutrition, unemployment, underemployment, expoitation and other ills stalk the majority of the population. Countries that have sought to implement population controls have mostly been socialistic in the past or continue to be so today to some extend. It is easy to understand why. A socialistic view of population regards it as a partaker of the total wealth of the nation. Thew fewer the people the better the per capita income. This is true for countries in which the buying power of people is less. When GDP rates remain low, resources get divided again and again, translating into smaller populations. Land is one such resource. But standards of living are based on many other 'goods' than simply the limited natural resources of the world. India and China realized several years ago that their populations are an asset to them in an export-oriented, free trading, outsourcing world. Large teams in India could be deployed very quickly to provide application development services or financial and accounting services, while large masses of the rural population in China could find employment in the manufacturing boomtowns on the East Coast. In the past 15 years these workers have also increased domestic consumption in these countries, leading to stronger economies that have so far withstood the assault of the global recession. As income rates grew and national GDP grew consistently over a decade, these countries began thinking along new lines concernig their population, asking who are the employable people within their population.
Indian companies have had to implement stringent recruiting norms to avoid hiring less skilled employees in the face of bugeoning demand. They also began to face skewed labour distributions. Engineers in India wanted to work in IT and less in other fields. In China the long-predicted take over of the services sector has not happened because they have not been able to train enough people in the English language- despite massive Government initiatives. People want to take the shortest route to wealth and do not toe the party line.
As these populations increase, the countries are looking to educate them better. After all sustainable economic growth comes from domestic production, demostic consumption and domestic innovation. When the pie is fixed the impetus to share is limited. As the pie grows in size, the partakers realize that the more the workers the larger the size of the pie. The trick is to ensure better productivity.
This brings us back to the old agricultural paradigm full circle. At one time agriculture was relatively profitable. Indeed it may well have been the oldest profession. As other fields of endeavour eclipsed its position in the economy, its predominance declined and the number of employees/children farm hands also declined. These ex-farm hands moved on to manufacturing or services where the money was.
If one kept aside the limited resources our world offers- land, water, fossil fuels and others- one must ask the question: are all our population control programs barking up the wrong tree? Sure enough, there are several millions who are not part of the economic growth enjoyed by a section of the population of the emerging nations and the majority of the people in developed countries. If this were considered a reason to continue these programs, one must then ask: is there a real redistribution of resources, education, skill and other essentials needed for a safe, healthy and progressing life that is being shared with the have-nots? Of course there is, but only a trickle. Within the emerging nations, the have-nots are part of the economy. In a trickle-down sense, these people survive from the crumbs that fall from the tables of the haves. Despite the revulsion that this image may conjure up in our minds, the reality is that they are better of than the have nots in countries that are laggards in this economic rat race.
Putting this question in another way: if economic jump-starts in the emerging nations worked wonders for them, why are the other nations left behind in this race. The reasons are plenty and obvious- lack of political cohesion, a population that is already riddled with horros of war, AIDS, religious and other strife. It appears that many governments and even some of us may already have classified these people as "unemployable" or worse, dispensable.
It is my view that population control programs in most parts of the world are predatory measures that are set up to eliminate the "unemployables" and the "dispensables", looking for a bigger bite of the pie before them. Perhaps the evil of any economic system is not so much that it exploits the people it employs, but that it leaves out the people it deemes unnecessary. Large well-meaning leaders could take a leaf out of rehabilitation programs that NGOs implement in areas affected by natural disasters. Their goal is to infuse capital into not just rebuilding homes, but creating communities that can rise up from the ashes of destruction into sustainable, skilled people. The direction of capital into future opportunities is the spirit of free enterprise, but it takes visionaries to initiate this into populations deemed the refuse of the earth. Perhaps the failing of capitalism is that it has failed to recognize the ability of people to emancipate themselves and therefore stayed its hand in investing into their future.
In my economics and civics classes in high school, India's population growth rates were partly attributed to the farming community's labour-intensive trade, in which more children (especially male) meant more farmhands and therefore more revenue. As agriculture declined as a percentage of the GDP and agricultural income for farming families began to be articificially kept low in India due to the presence of Government intermediaries and established 'fair prices', besides the low per-capita land holding that has been established, more children began to translate into more cost and much less revenue. India was one of the first countries to encourage family planning. This came to an undesirable extreme in the Seventies when Sanjay Gandhi forcefully sterilized, some say up to a million people in an attempt to control population growth. For an economy growing at a snail's pace of 2-3 percent a year from a poor base, more population simply meant fewer resources per capita and therefore a diminished standard of living.
After Gandhi's forced sterilization program met with outraged protests and a change of Government took place, the family planning program has been far more benign, playing the role of an advisor and encourager. China has been another aggressive implementer of family planning, imposing stiff pentalties on couples who had more than one child. Many have written about social problems and future economic problems that this has posed or will pose. Other measures like prohibition of gender determination have led to fewer female child abortions lately, but the gender imbalance in both these countries remains sharp.
The US has no such Government program but has experienced the decline in birth rates that all industrialized countries have. Unlike some other countries like Sweden and Norway which experience declining population growth rates, the US has kept up a rate of over 2 percent due to better population replacement rates internally as well as through immigration. Even so, the US has an aging population who will be supported by the younger citizens in the years to come. This is especially clear in the case of the social security funds which are now being propped up by payments made by those still working to cover the retirees. In 20 years there will be a small section of the population (younger taxpayers) supporting a larger group of aged retirees, meaning that there will be insufficient funds in social security. This is expected to lead to need-based rationing/provisioning of funds as well as a cut in the percentage of per-capita allowance of these funds.
India has a rapid GDP growth rate- even upto 7.5 percent in the recessionary 2009-10 years. China too has not skipped a beat in its blistering growth. However the economic effects a smaller percentage of a younger population are expected to show up in 30 years. This will mean fewer resources to deploy in critical manufacturing and services for export that these countries have specialized in, less availability of specialized labour to meet the growth rates needed to continue growth, a skewed distribution of labour in several fields and of course the dangers of a gender imbalance. At present the danger of a small percent of young people supporting the aged does not seem imminent, as the percentage of younger people is quite high in these countries. One-fifth of the total world population under 20 years of age is in India. As they enter the labour force the opportunities and resources are bound to be stretched, but the market that they represent as consumers in an expanding economy will be sizeable.
Here is the paradox of population economics in simple terms. The world over statistics on population remind us that hunger, disease, malnutrition, unemployment, underemployment, expoitation and other ills stalk the majority of the population. Countries that have sought to implement population controls have mostly been socialistic in the past or continue to be so today to some extend. It is easy to understand why. A socialistic view of population regards it as a partaker of the total wealth of the nation. Thew fewer the people the better the per capita income. This is true for countries in which the buying power of people is less. When GDP rates remain low, resources get divided again and again, translating into smaller populations. Land is one such resource. But standards of living are based on many other 'goods' than simply the limited natural resources of the world. India and China realized several years ago that their populations are an asset to them in an export-oriented, free trading, outsourcing world. Large teams in India could be deployed very quickly to provide application development services or financial and accounting services, while large masses of the rural population in China could find employment in the manufacturing boomtowns on the East Coast. In the past 15 years these workers have also increased domestic consumption in these countries, leading to stronger economies that have so far withstood the assault of the global recession. As income rates grew and national GDP grew consistently over a decade, these countries began thinking along new lines concernig their population, asking who are the employable people within their population.
Indian companies have had to implement stringent recruiting norms to avoid hiring less skilled employees in the face of bugeoning demand. They also began to face skewed labour distributions. Engineers in India wanted to work in IT and less in other fields. In China the long-predicted take over of the services sector has not happened because they have not been able to train enough people in the English language- despite massive Government initiatives. People want to take the shortest route to wealth and do not toe the party line.
As these populations increase, the countries are looking to educate them better. After all sustainable economic growth comes from domestic production, demostic consumption and domestic innovation. When the pie is fixed the impetus to share is limited. As the pie grows in size, the partakers realize that the more the workers the larger the size of the pie. The trick is to ensure better productivity.
This brings us back to the old agricultural paradigm full circle. At one time agriculture was relatively profitable. Indeed it may well have been the oldest profession. As other fields of endeavour eclipsed its position in the economy, its predominance declined and the number of employees/children farm hands also declined. These ex-farm hands moved on to manufacturing or services where the money was.
If one kept aside the limited resources our world offers- land, water, fossil fuels and others- one must ask the question: are all our population control programs barking up the wrong tree? Sure enough, there are several millions who are not part of the economic growth enjoyed by a section of the population of the emerging nations and the majority of the people in developed countries. If this were considered a reason to continue these programs, one must then ask: is there a real redistribution of resources, education, skill and other essentials needed for a safe, healthy and progressing life that is being shared with the have-nots? Of course there is, but only a trickle. Within the emerging nations, the have-nots are part of the economy. In a trickle-down sense, these people survive from the crumbs that fall from the tables of the haves. Despite the revulsion that this image may conjure up in our minds, the reality is that they are better of than the have nots in countries that are laggards in this economic rat race.
Putting this question in another way: if economic jump-starts in the emerging nations worked wonders for them, why are the other nations left behind in this race. The reasons are plenty and obvious- lack of political cohesion, a population that is already riddled with horros of war, AIDS, religious and other strife. It appears that many governments and even some of us may already have classified these people as "unemployable" or worse, dispensable.
It is my view that population control programs in most parts of the world are predatory measures that are set up to eliminate the "unemployables" and the "dispensables", looking for a bigger bite of the pie before them. Perhaps the evil of any economic system is not so much that it exploits the people it employs, but that it leaves out the people it deemes unnecessary. Large well-meaning leaders could take a leaf out of rehabilitation programs that NGOs implement in areas affected by natural disasters. Their goal is to infuse capital into not just rebuilding homes, but creating communities that can rise up from the ashes of destruction into sustainable, skilled people. The direction of capital into future opportunities is the spirit of free enterprise, but it takes visionaries to initiate this into populations deemed the refuse of the earth. Perhaps the failing of capitalism is that it has failed to recognize the ability of people to emancipate themselves and therefore stayed its hand in investing into their future.
International Dog and Pony Shows- Psywars
Here are some opportunities for an aspiring chest-thumper of a nation to proclaim its greatness and to use it as a lever to hopefully achieve greatness at some point in its future:
- Winning Olympic medals, having an Olympic program to create world class athletes even if sports at the individual level may not be as admirable.
- Economic Growth, celebrated at Davos and other such fora as a coming out party
- Large, widespread, successful, wealthy and local 'diaspora'
- Image of a 'knowledge economy', 'emerging market/giant', superpower
- Image of a future threat to take over economic leadership
- Political grandstanding over territory disputes
- Political psywar, mindgames, give and take in energy or other resource deals internationally
- Image of a grand history and heritage, preferably concerning a past empire, military might, martial techniques
- Image of a past civilization that was at some time the 'greatest', 'wealthiest', 'most powerful', etc.
- The ability to get mindshare from the incumbent grand daddy, viz. in our day and age, the United States.
If this brings to mind any country or countries it is not intentional on my part to draw such particular attention. Fill in the space with almost any medium sized or large country and it will still be true.
- Winning Olympic medals, having an Olympic program to create world class athletes even if sports at the individual level may not be as admirable.
- Economic Growth, celebrated at Davos and other such fora as a coming out party
- Large, widespread, successful, wealthy and local 'diaspora'
- Image of a 'knowledge economy', 'emerging market/giant', superpower
- Image of a future threat to take over economic leadership
- Political grandstanding over territory disputes
- Political psywar, mindgames, give and take in energy or other resource deals internationally
- Image of a grand history and heritage, preferably concerning a past empire, military might, martial techniques
- Image of a past civilization that was at some time the 'greatest', 'wealthiest', 'most powerful', etc.
- The ability to get mindshare from the incumbent grand daddy, viz. in our day and age, the United States.
If this brings to mind any country or countries it is not intentional on my part to draw such particular attention. Fill in the space with almost any medium sized or large country and it will still be true.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Intellectual Friends and Our Scandal of Faith
In CS Lewis' satirical book, 'The Screwtape Letters', the senior devil Screwtape writes to his stalwart nephew Wormwood, who is focusing his energies on a person, the "Patient", to keep him away from God, refereed to by Screwtape as the "Enemy". The tenth letter, reproduced here, is a gem:
I wonder how many times I have fallen for this temptation. Friendship with the world is enmity with God in more ways than one. We may sin overtly by subscribing to the more visible sins, the sins of the flesh, world and self. But the ideas of the world- the temptation to take Scripture with a pinch of salt, the desire to distance oneself from 'ill-informed or simpleton Christians', from the noisy, happy-clappy people of faith who need no reason to believe- these appeal to one's vanity.
In my conversations with people, both of faith and others, the temptation to matter to them has been enormous. Especially concerning scientific opinions dressed up to look like theological objections, the desire to counter this with my own scientific or logical opinions (again dressed up similarly) is quite immense. Given that scientific objections are only a pretext to justify what people already believe to be true, this is not just a sin, but entirely uselss as a defense of our faith.
MY DEAR WORMWOOD,
I was delighted to hear from Triptweeze that your patient has made some very desirable new acquaintances and that you seem to have used this event in a really promising manner. I gather that the middle-aged married couple who called at his office are just the sort of people we want him to know—rich, smart, superficially intellectual, and brightly sceptical about everything in the world. I gather they ore even vaguely pacifist, not on moral grounds but from an ingrained habit of belittling anything that concerns the great mass of their fellow men and from a dash of purely fashionable and literary communism. This is excellent. And you seem to have made good use of all his social, sexual, and intellectual vanity. Tell me more. Did he commit himself deeply? I don't mean in words. There is a subtle play of looks and tones and laughs by which a Mortal can imply that he is of the same party is those to whom he is speaking. That is the kind of betrayal you should specially encourage, because the man does not fully realise it himself; and by the time he does you will have made withdrawal difficult.
No doubt he must very soon realise that his own faith is in direct opposition to the assumptions on which all the conversation of his new friends is based. I don't think that matters much provided that you can persuade him to postpone any open acknowledgment of the fact, and this, with the aid of shame, pride, modesty and vanity, will be easy to do. As long as the postponement lasts he will be in a false position. He will be silent when he ought to speak and laugh when he ought to be silent. He will assume, at first only by his manner, but presently by his words, all sorts of cynical and sceptical attitudes which are not really his. But if you play him well, they may become his. All mortals tend to turn into the thing they are pretending to be. This is elementary. The real question is how to prepare for the Enemy's counter attack.
The first thing is to delay as long as possible the moment at which he realises this new pleasure as a temptation. Since the Enemy's servants have been preaching about "the World" as one of the great standard temptations for two thousand years, this might seem difficult to do. But fortunately they have said very little about it for the last few decades. In modern Christian writings, though I see much (indeed more than I like) about Mammon, I see few of the old warnings about Worldly Vanities, the Choice of Friends, and the Value of Time. All that, your patient would probably classify as "Puritanism"—and may I remark in passing that the value we have given to that word is one of the really solid triumphs of the last hundred years? By it we rescue annually thousands of humans from temperance, chastity, and sobriety of life.
Sooner or later, however, the real nature of his new friends must become clear to him, and then your tactics must depend on the patient's intelligence. If he is a big enough fool you can get him to realise the character of the friends only while they are absent; their presence can be made to sweep away all criticism. If this succeeds, he can be induced to live, as I have known many humans live, for quite long periods, two parallel lives; he will not only appear to be, but actually be, a different man in each of the circles he frequents. Failing this, there is a subtler and more entertaining method. He can be made to take a positive pleasure in the perception that the two sides of his life are inconsistent. This is done by exploiting his vanity. He can be taught to enjoy kneeling beside the grocer on Sunday just because he remembers that the grocer could not possibly understand the urbane and mocking world which he inhabited on Saturday evening; and contrariwise, to enjoy the bawdy and blasphemy over the coffee with these admirable friends all the more because he is aware of a "deeper", "spiritual" world within him which they cannot understand. You see the idea—the worldly friends touch him on one side and the grocer on the other, and he is the complete, balanced, complex man who sees round them all. Thus, while being permanently treacherous to at least two sets of people, he will feel, instead of shame, a continual undercurrent of self-satisfaction. Finally, if all else fails, you can persuade him, in defiance of conscience, to continue the new acquaintance on the ground that he is, in some unspecified way, doing these people "good" by the mere fact of drinking their cocktails and laughing at their jokes, and that to cease to do so would be "priggish", "intolerant", and (of course) "Puritanical".
Meanwhile you will of course take the obvious precaution of seeing that this new development induces him to spend more than he can afford and to neglect his work and his mother. Her jealousy, and alarm, and his increasing evasiveness or rudeness, will be invaluable for the aggravation of the domestic tension,
Your affectionate uncle
SCREWTAPE
I wonder how many times I have fallen for this temptation. Friendship with the world is enmity with God in more ways than one. We may sin overtly by subscribing to the more visible sins, the sins of the flesh, world and self. But the ideas of the world- the temptation to take Scripture with a pinch of salt, the desire to distance oneself from 'ill-informed or simpleton Christians', from the noisy, happy-clappy people of faith who need no reason to believe- these appeal to one's vanity.
In my conversations with people, both of faith and others, the temptation to matter to them has been enormous. Especially concerning scientific opinions dressed up to look like theological objections, the desire to counter this with my own scientific or logical opinions (again dressed up similarly) is quite immense. Given that scientific objections are only a pretext to justify what people already believe to be true, this is not just a sin, but entirely uselss as a defense of our faith.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Dumbing Down of India
Here are some observations I have made about Indian Americans and Indian expats in the US.
• My expat Northern Indian friend doesn't think Delhi is the right place to raise kids or live because it is a far more liberal place (in terms of morality) than the US.
• Far more expats than Indian residents are conscious of their heritage, many take religion seriously even if they had never given it a thought in their past in India.
• Many are conscious of the good things in US culture as they are of the good things in Indian culture.
• The US smoking population has come down in large numbers, the tobacco industry never recovered from the body blow it received in the mid-Nineties. Litigation that won user reparations of $248 billion from the US tobacco industry meant that some of the largest producers went into bankruptcy, were acquired or simply diversified into other businesses. TV ads over the past decade have abounded with ways to kick the habit. The Indian expat community has not yet adapted to this good development as the rest of the US population has; but chain smokers are a rarity.
• The stereotypical image of the binge drinking college student may or may not be relevant any more, but people into their Thirties do not behave this way in general. The odd exceptions prove this rule.
• Raising kids is serious business. Most parents teach their kids some kind of sexual modesty, regardless of their wild youth. One may call this hypocrisy, I prefer to see it as living vicariously a life of purpose through their kids.
• Indians who believed that family was for life viewed the US lifestyle with disdain because of the incidence of divorce in the country. Despite the common notion that America remains plagued by a divorce epidemic, the national per capita divorce rate has declined steadily since its peak in 1981 and is now at its lowest level since 1970. The rate peaked at 5.3 divorces per 1,000 people in 1981. But since then it’s dropped by one-third, to 3.6. That’s the lowest rate since 1970. Most people are convinced that marriage problems are not reasons enough to divorce- they are interested in learning how to stay married.
You see, when I left India over 10 years ago, many people I knew talked about the US as a morally lax and directionless society. Several believed the stereotypes about US culture as being crude, unsophisticated, rude, brash, boorish, arrogant, too wealthy for anyone's good, lustful, ignorant of true faith, making a mockery of religion by selling it to crowds of the needy with loud music, manufactured excitement and fake miracles.
Several years ago many Americans believed that India was a land of snake charmers, snake oil salesmen, evil tantriks mouthing mumbo jumbo and half naked beggars.
If stereotypes defined us all, I wonder if we'd have any love lost for each other.
Here are some of my observations of people living in India that I know or know of:
• On my wife's Facebook page a friend and her husband are on vacation in Goa. A picture proudly displayed shows their 8 month old baby holding a bottle of whiskey. Another shows the dad and baby lying next to each other, dad with a bottle of beer in his mouth and the baby with a bottle of milk in hers.
• Smoking in India continued unabated; many friends are not just heavy drinkers but they talk about their sordid binge drinking weekends proudly on social networks. Smoking in public spaces has been banned- but as far as I have seen, among the thirty-to-forty-somethings this does not necessarily translate into reduction in smoking.
• Several of our friends are divorced. Many have no kids. Some have one child and do not want another child. Most marry late, though they can afford to marry at an earlier age. Many have kids closer to 40 years of age. Some support the notion of passing laws like China's one-child policy.
I don't need to make too many observations for a reader to understand where I'm going with this. You see, I see India dumbing down. I see adults who simply have not grown out of college. I see a bunch of pot-bellied, graying boozers and chain smokers cockily walking about in bermudas with a smirk on their faces, teaching kids to behave likewise and learning or teaching nothing of value to the youngsters, least of all anything of true moral or spiritual worth. Their politics leaves far more to be desired. From clueless but spirited 'citizens' who support Narendra Modi's proposal to make everyone "vote by force" to borderline fanatics who support the gunning down of lawyers who represent terrorists in India's judicial system, we have people utterly without perpsective.
Am I exaggerating? I may have taken all of this a bit more kindly. Why am I so rattled? When I talk to many friends I hardly raise these topics. But too many audaciously claim bizarre things about the US. Arrogance radiates from these self-assured know-it-alls on so many levels- arrogance of economic growth, social issues, US political failures, the so-called 'superiority' of India's educational system (which is a myth that is believed lock, stock and barrell by gullible Indians). One could be blind, but when the blind believe they can see, the blindness is serious indeed.
One must ask, what of the older generation, the parents and grandparents whose culture was far more praiseworthy, those who raised these young turks, this brat pack that has fallen pretty far from the trees? It seems to me they are scared stiff to contradict their kids. After all, this is the internet generation, the kids who are the seven figure income earners that their parents never were. The new technologies- the iPhones, the Kindles, the Youtubes, all scare the wits out of the older, gentler folks. They don't understand it. If they did, they would wonder why the brat pack was so cocky about it all. Technology doesn't make us better people. They usually entertain us or save labour. And as anyone who is wise could tell us, labour saving devices do not make us happy by themselves. Much less do they make us better people.
Do we want to really know where this is leading us? Where does unabated pleasure lead us? Social critic Neil Postman writes this in his book 'Amusing Ourselves to Death' about two views of the future- one of a strictly controlled life, by George Orwell in his book 1984; and the other by Aldous Huxley in his book 'Brave New World', that of a world where irrelevance, pleasure and indifference to reality make up the future:
"We were keeping our eye on 1984. When the year came and the prophecy didn't, thoughtful Americans sang softly in praise of themselves. The roots of liberal democracy had held. Wherever else the terror had happened, we, at least, had not been visited by Orwellian nightmares.
But we had forgotten that alongside Orwell's dark vision, there was another - slightly older, slightly less well known, equally chilling: Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. Contrary to common belief even among the educated, Huxley and Orwell did not prophesy the same thing. Orwell warns that we will be overcome by an externally imposed oppression. But in Huxley's vision, no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity and history. As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think.
What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions". In 1984, Huxley added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us.
This book is about the possibility that Huxley, not Orwell, was right."
— Neil Postman (Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business
• My expat Northern Indian friend doesn't think Delhi is the right place to raise kids or live because it is a far more liberal place (in terms of morality) than the US.
• Far more expats than Indian residents are conscious of their heritage, many take religion seriously even if they had never given it a thought in their past in India.
• Many are conscious of the good things in US culture as they are of the good things in Indian culture.
• The US smoking population has come down in large numbers, the tobacco industry never recovered from the body blow it received in the mid-Nineties. Litigation that won user reparations of $248 billion from the US tobacco industry meant that some of the largest producers went into bankruptcy, were acquired or simply diversified into other businesses. TV ads over the past decade have abounded with ways to kick the habit. The Indian expat community has not yet adapted to this good development as the rest of the US population has; but chain smokers are a rarity.
• The stereotypical image of the binge drinking college student may or may not be relevant any more, but people into their Thirties do not behave this way in general. The odd exceptions prove this rule.
• Raising kids is serious business. Most parents teach their kids some kind of sexual modesty, regardless of their wild youth. One may call this hypocrisy, I prefer to see it as living vicariously a life of purpose through their kids.
• Indians who believed that family was for life viewed the US lifestyle with disdain because of the incidence of divorce in the country. Despite the common notion that America remains plagued by a divorce epidemic, the national per capita divorce rate has declined steadily since its peak in 1981 and is now at its lowest level since 1970. The rate peaked at 5.3 divorces per 1,000 people in 1981. But since then it’s dropped by one-third, to 3.6. That’s the lowest rate since 1970. Most people are convinced that marriage problems are not reasons enough to divorce- they are interested in learning how to stay married.
You see, when I left India over 10 years ago, many people I knew talked about the US as a morally lax and directionless society. Several believed the stereotypes about US culture as being crude, unsophisticated, rude, brash, boorish, arrogant, too wealthy for anyone's good, lustful, ignorant of true faith, making a mockery of religion by selling it to crowds of the needy with loud music, manufactured excitement and fake miracles.
Several years ago many Americans believed that India was a land of snake charmers, snake oil salesmen, evil tantriks mouthing mumbo jumbo and half naked beggars.
If stereotypes defined us all, I wonder if we'd have any love lost for each other.
Here are some of my observations of people living in India that I know or know of:
• On my wife's Facebook page a friend and her husband are on vacation in Goa. A picture proudly displayed shows their 8 month old baby holding a bottle of whiskey. Another shows the dad and baby lying next to each other, dad with a bottle of beer in his mouth and the baby with a bottle of milk in hers.
• Smoking in India continued unabated; many friends are not just heavy drinkers but they talk about their sordid binge drinking weekends proudly on social networks. Smoking in public spaces has been banned- but as far as I have seen, among the thirty-to-forty-somethings this does not necessarily translate into reduction in smoking.
• Several of our friends are divorced. Many have no kids. Some have one child and do not want another child. Most marry late, though they can afford to marry at an earlier age. Many have kids closer to 40 years of age. Some support the notion of passing laws like China's one-child policy.
I don't need to make too many observations for a reader to understand where I'm going with this. You see, I see India dumbing down. I see adults who simply have not grown out of college. I see a bunch of pot-bellied, graying boozers and chain smokers cockily walking about in bermudas with a smirk on their faces, teaching kids to behave likewise and learning or teaching nothing of value to the youngsters, least of all anything of true moral or spiritual worth. Their politics leaves far more to be desired. From clueless but spirited 'citizens' who support Narendra Modi's proposal to make everyone "vote by force" to borderline fanatics who support the gunning down of lawyers who represent terrorists in India's judicial system, we have people utterly without perpsective.
Am I exaggerating? I may have taken all of this a bit more kindly. Why am I so rattled? When I talk to many friends I hardly raise these topics. But too many audaciously claim bizarre things about the US. Arrogance radiates from these self-assured know-it-alls on so many levels- arrogance of economic growth, social issues, US political failures, the so-called 'superiority' of India's educational system (which is a myth that is believed lock, stock and barrell by gullible Indians). One could be blind, but when the blind believe they can see, the blindness is serious indeed.
One must ask, what of the older generation, the parents and grandparents whose culture was far more praiseworthy, those who raised these young turks, this brat pack that has fallen pretty far from the trees? It seems to me they are scared stiff to contradict their kids. After all, this is the internet generation, the kids who are the seven figure income earners that their parents never were. The new technologies- the iPhones, the Kindles, the Youtubes, all scare the wits out of the older, gentler folks. They don't understand it. If they did, they would wonder why the brat pack was so cocky about it all. Technology doesn't make us better people. They usually entertain us or save labour. And as anyone who is wise could tell us, labour saving devices do not make us happy by themselves. Much less do they make us better people.
Do we want to really know where this is leading us? Where does unabated pleasure lead us? Social critic Neil Postman writes this in his book 'Amusing Ourselves to Death' about two views of the future- one of a strictly controlled life, by George Orwell in his book 1984; and the other by Aldous Huxley in his book 'Brave New World', that of a world where irrelevance, pleasure and indifference to reality make up the future:
"We were keeping our eye on 1984. When the year came and the prophecy didn't, thoughtful Americans sang softly in praise of themselves. The roots of liberal democracy had held. Wherever else the terror had happened, we, at least, had not been visited by Orwellian nightmares.
But we had forgotten that alongside Orwell's dark vision, there was another - slightly older, slightly less well known, equally chilling: Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. Contrary to common belief even among the educated, Huxley and Orwell did not prophesy the same thing. Orwell warns that we will be overcome by an externally imposed oppression. But in Huxley's vision, no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity and history. As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think.
What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions". In 1984, Huxley added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us.
This book is about the possibility that Huxley, not Orwell, was right."
— Neil Postman (Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Dawkins on Haiti and Robertson- At Long Last
Ah, here it is, the long aawited piece on Christiaanity and Haiti by Richard Dawkins. Over ht past past many months, talking to agnostics, I've understood that no amount of reasoning is sufficient reasoning for the existence of God. A friend and relative who I have chewed the fat over this one issue admitted as much a month ago. He said even if there was a good indication of 'design' existing in the universe, if every avenue of scientific discovery was covered by Biblical history, explanation , theology and logic, he would still look for a reason to disbelieve rathern than believe. He strongly affirmed this as being objective, while I let him know that this was also a form of prejudice rather than true objectivity.
I also shared with him my own feelings on this subject. I felt he was being truthful. As a matter of fact I would say that science is only a pretext for prejudice in theological discussions, even at the highest levels. This is of course hypocrisy in a way, which is what Dawkins accuses people like me of, by saying that we have no right to criticize Pat Robertson for his comments on Haiti, and that hje was simply being theologically consistent and true to his beliefs.
You see- I believe the problem of evil- in the form of internal evil (sin), evil in other people, especially those of certain faiths which affirm that sin is a reality and merits undesirable conssequences, and finally evil that is attributed to no human being (animal attacks, natural disasters, accidents, dealths of relatives, loneliness, depression, health problems, et al)- is the *only* objection ever to arise against God in the human heart.
Dawkings refuses to debate anyone other than ones with PhDs in the sciences. I don't know the reasons- it could be that he believes science is the only reliable guardian of truth, or that logic, rhetoric, theology, history and other such sources of truth are not his forte, or simply because he will not deign to debate people outside of the scientific community. But he does delve into theology in this article and many others. Of course, it is no surprise- a scientist who is also an activist for atheism is necessarily getting into theological waters.
The problem of evil confronts us with many questions, most of which Dawkins asks:
1. How can a loving God allow these things to happen?
2. How can a loving God destroy human beings?
3. How can a loving God destroy innocent people, or putting this in another way, how does he decide between Haitians and say, the Americans?
4. How can Jesus overlook the sins of Christians, especially the sin of hypocrisy?
5. When there are so many religious manipulations, so obvious and prevalent in recent and distant history, how could God allow such malpractice to continue unabated?
6. Isn't all religious persuasion only a tool for manipulation?
7. And if an atheist/Christian is honest with himself, he will also ask the question: how about my sins that I struggle with? Yes, I feel the guilt, but I can't believe God will judge me for these!
Of course, from a Christian's point of view, all of these questions have been answered by 'experts' and some which the Christians have answered for themselves. As a last point, a Christian would add that his own personal experience with Jesus negates all of this. You see, Malcolm Muggeridge had seen mostly evil in himself and around him (as he has admitted), but his encounter with Mother Teresa shook his skepticism changed his perspective. How does that happen? A hardened atheist sees reason for God's existence in a single act of a few acts of love, compared with the weight of immense evil he has seen in the wars, politics and lives around him?
This is a mystery, but a very real one. If one has felt the love of God in his heart as a believer, one reflects to an extend the same love to others. Arguably this love has changed the world.
I also shared with him my own feelings on this subject. I felt he was being truthful. As a matter of fact I would say that science is only a pretext for prejudice in theological discussions, even at the highest levels. This is of course hypocrisy in a way, which is what Dawkins accuses people like me of, by saying that we have no right to criticize Pat Robertson for his comments on Haiti, and that hje was simply being theologically consistent and true to his beliefs.
You see- I believe the problem of evil- in the form of internal evil (sin), evil in other people, especially those of certain faiths which affirm that sin is a reality and merits undesirable conssequences, and finally evil that is attributed to no human being (animal attacks, natural disasters, accidents, dealths of relatives, loneliness, depression, health problems, et al)- is the *only* objection ever to arise against God in the human heart.
Dawkings refuses to debate anyone other than ones with PhDs in the sciences. I don't know the reasons- it could be that he believes science is the only reliable guardian of truth, or that logic, rhetoric, theology, history and other such sources of truth are not his forte, or simply because he will not deign to debate people outside of the scientific community. But he does delve into theology in this article and many others. Of course, it is no surprise- a scientist who is also an activist for atheism is necessarily getting into theological waters.
The problem of evil confronts us with many questions, most of which Dawkins asks:
1. How can a loving God allow these things to happen?
2. How can a loving God destroy human beings?
3. How can a loving God destroy innocent people, or putting this in another way, how does he decide between Haitians and say, the Americans?
4. How can Jesus overlook the sins of Christians, especially the sin of hypocrisy?
5. When there are so many religious manipulations, so obvious and prevalent in recent and distant history, how could God allow such malpractice to continue unabated?
6. Isn't all religious persuasion only a tool for manipulation?
7. And if an atheist/Christian is honest with himself, he will also ask the question: how about my sins that I struggle with? Yes, I feel the guilt, but I can't believe God will judge me for these!
Of course, from a Christian's point of view, all of these questions have been answered by 'experts' and some which the Christians have answered for themselves. As a last point, a Christian would add that his own personal experience with Jesus negates all of this. You see, Malcolm Muggeridge had seen mostly evil in himself and around him (as he has admitted), but his encounter with Mother Teresa shook his skepticism changed his perspective. How does that happen? A hardened atheist sees reason for God's existence in a single act of a few acts of love, compared with the weight of immense evil he has seen in the wars, politics and lives around him?
This is a mystery, but a very real one. If one has felt the love of God in his heart as a believer, one reflects to an extend the same love to others. Arguably this love has changed the world.
Syriana- A Late Review
I've had an overdose of political and espionage thrillers, thanks to Netflix's online streaming into our TV. I hadn't watched the 2005 landmark Syriana before, but I did a few minutes ago; and as usual I emerged with a feeling of having learned little.
Syriana is a brilliant film. It effectively traces connections between the Middle Eastern "Great Game(s)" and the strong motives behind US meddling in this region. If Clooney's goal was to inform Americans about their own culpability in the social, political, religious and economic lives of Middle Eastern people, I think he makes a good attempt at it. While it may not change minds (I'm reminded of a very dear Michigan pastor who in 2003 decried the idea that the US was possibly after Iraq's oil) it gives enough reasons to speculate on possible theories.
I'm no collegiate placard-holder one finds posting on websites like Democratic Underground. Some of my evangelical pals have surprisingly turned out to be among these shrill voices brimming with emotion and less with sense. But I can appreciate that the sinfulness of human beings, perhaps different in form in different cultures, are not different in essence. Greed here, lust there, pride elsewhere. They all originate from the same sources.
But the plot got me thinking. If sins are so endemic, why do we fixate on certain sins? For the above-mentioned bleeding heart liberal it may be a matter of US profit-motive. For a dyed in the wool neo-con the greatest sin may be someone's lack of love for America, as evidenced by her sympathetic opinions for the Iraqis. How often have I cringed on hearing the phrase, 'if they don't like (something the US did) they should live in Afhanistan'. How many times have I sighed on hearing the phrase, 'It's all because of Bush'. When these phrases come from Christians- and they have, from both sides of the opinion- they demonstrate a lack of love, both for the US and for the others.
Well- back to my question. The movie does portray the US as pulling the strings on every abominable deed. A cursory look at any ugly incident in the Middle East reveals that there are no good guys there- at all. Why then, the fixation? Perhaps because the US has more resources, influence, dominance? Perhaps because everyone (as the neo-cons say) hates us? Perhaps because we all think we are Americans and we have the right to criticize the US? Who knows?
So if Syriana made me think, it gave me no closure. In my theological blogposts I've mentioned that I like to stir the pot often even if I have no answers. But usually there are some overarching answers- like the truth of the Gospel, the reality of God's love and beneficence, despite seeming paradoxes. But besides a self-loathing attitude, I'm not able to penetrate the thinking behind this movie. Is it patriotica, in an introspective way? Maybe- but I'm missing something. There really is no gentleness in the narrative, no moral, no worldview that is apparent.
What I've always looked for is a worldview to inform our stories. As Muggeridge once said, it is far easier to feel righteous standing out on a street holding a protest sign than actually living a moral, righteous life. You see- I see a story without a worldview, and I see no human interest.
Syriana is a brilliant film. It effectively traces connections between the Middle Eastern "Great Game(s)" and the strong motives behind US meddling in this region. If Clooney's goal was to inform Americans about their own culpability in the social, political, religious and economic lives of Middle Eastern people, I think he makes a good attempt at it. While it may not change minds (I'm reminded of a very dear Michigan pastor who in 2003 decried the idea that the US was possibly after Iraq's oil) it gives enough reasons to speculate on possible theories.
I'm no collegiate placard-holder one finds posting on websites like Democratic Underground. Some of my evangelical pals have surprisingly turned out to be among these shrill voices brimming with emotion and less with sense. But I can appreciate that the sinfulness of human beings, perhaps different in form in different cultures, are not different in essence. Greed here, lust there, pride elsewhere. They all originate from the same sources.
But the plot got me thinking. If sins are so endemic, why do we fixate on certain sins? For the above-mentioned bleeding heart liberal it may be a matter of US profit-motive. For a dyed in the wool neo-con the greatest sin may be someone's lack of love for America, as evidenced by her sympathetic opinions for the Iraqis. How often have I cringed on hearing the phrase, 'if they don't like (something the US did) they should live in Afhanistan'. How many times have I sighed on hearing the phrase, 'It's all because of Bush'. When these phrases come from Christians- and they have, from both sides of the opinion- they demonstrate a lack of love, both for the US and for the others.
Well- back to my question. The movie does portray the US as pulling the strings on every abominable deed. A cursory look at any ugly incident in the Middle East reveals that there are no good guys there- at all. Why then, the fixation? Perhaps because the US has more resources, influence, dominance? Perhaps because everyone (as the neo-cons say) hates us? Perhaps because we all think we are Americans and we have the right to criticize the US? Who knows?
So if Syriana made me think, it gave me no closure. In my theological blogposts I've mentioned that I like to stir the pot often even if I have no answers. But usually there are some overarching answers- like the truth of the Gospel, the reality of God's love and beneficence, despite seeming paradoxes. But besides a self-loathing attitude, I'm not able to penetrate the thinking behind this movie. Is it patriotica, in an introspective way? Maybe- but I'm missing something. There really is no gentleness in the narrative, no moral, no worldview that is apparent.
What I've always looked for is a worldview to inform our stories. As Muggeridge once said, it is far easier to feel righteous standing out on a street holding a protest sign than actually living a moral, righteous life. You see- I see a story without a worldview, and I see no human interest.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Apology for Pat Robertson
I didn't want to add yet another blog article on Pat Robertson's insensitive and illogical comment on Haiti suffering because of its 'pact with the devil'. God's soverignity is absolute- and so is His love for all peoples, including Haitians. Don Wallace at the Parchment and Pen blog says it articulately.
As the author notes, many people see Robertson as the voice of Christians in this country. He goes on to say for the record that Robertson does not speak for him- and let me add for the record- nor does he speak for me or the millions of Christians who feel only pain for Haiti- and try to atone for it with their resources, prayers and time.
As the author notes, many people see Robertson as the voice of Christians in this country. He goes on to say for the record that Robertson does not speak for him- and let me add for the record- nor does he speak for me or the millions of Christians who feel only pain for Haiti- and try to atone for it with their resources, prayers and time.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
New Year- Frances R. Havergal, 1874
From MCC in 1995 when I first believed, I have read this poem nearly each new year.
Another year is dawning, dear Father, let it be
In working or in waiting, another year with Thee.
Another year of progress, another year of praise,
Another year of proving Thy presence all the days.
Another year of mercies, of faithfulness and grace,
Another year of gladness in the shining of Thy face;
Another year of leaning upon Thy loving breast;
Another year of trusting, of quiet, happy rest.
Another year of service, of witness for Thy love,
Another year of training for holier work above.
Another year is dawning, dear Father, let it be
On earth, or else in Heaven, another year for Thee.
Another year is dawning, dear Father, let it be
In working or in waiting, another year with Thee.
Another year of progress, another year of praise,
Another year of proving Thy presence all the days.
Another year of mercies, of faithfulness and grace,
Another year of gladness in the shining of Thy face;
Another year of leaning upon Thy loving breast;
Another year of trusting, of quiet, happy rest.
Another year of service, of witness for Thy love,
Another year of training for holier work above.
Another year is dawning, dear Father, let it be
On earth, or else in Heaven, another year for Thee.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
O' Hare airport musings- waiting on a delayed flight- Facebook, Friendships and my usual self-loathing
I wonder why we have so many friends on Facebook. Oh, I'm not the only one who is wondering, I know. Our pastor today mentioned a NY times columnist who invited his 700 odd FB friends for a party and after receiving 60 RSVPs only 1 showed up.
I have about 170. Many have been good pals in the letsaytimes. I add them on but never post any updates. I do read many updates; but I ask myself- why do *I* add friends on FB? Besides the updates could it be that I would just like to be connected without actually reaching out to some of them? I may desire their presence but perhaps not yet a refresh of the acquaintance.
Wonder if I've made God just such a Facebook friend. He is always there, and when I don't feel his presence I get spiritual angst and simply make sure he is just there.
Wonder if I've made my wife and daughter just such FB friends.
Oh, I'm exaggerating, aren't I? Surely God, Alma, Emma, and my nearest and dearest are closer to me than that! If things aren't that bad, do they not resemble a Facebook relationship when we crave their presence but not their living in our living? Lives entwined but are we truly living them together? Sharing them?
Please, Father God, keep me from the sin of indifference and the sin of lukewarmness to your longing.
I have about 170. Many have been good pals in the letsaytimes. I add them on but never post any updates. I do read many updates; but I ask myself- why do *I* add friends on FB? Besides the updates could it be that I would just like to be connected without actually reaching out to some of them? I may desire their presence but perhaps not yet a refresh of the acquaintance.
Wonder if I've made God just such a Facebook friend. He is always there, and when I don't feel his presence I get spiritual angst and simply make sure he is just there.
Wonder if I've made my wife and daughter just such FB friends.
Oh, I'm exaggerating, aren't I? Surely God, Alma, Emma, and my nearest and dearest are closer to me than that! If things aren't that bad, do they not resemble a Facebook relationship when we crave their presence but not their living in our living? Lives entwined but are we truly living them together? Sharing them?
Please, Father God, keep me from the sin of indifference and the sin of lukewarmness to your longing.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
The Tie That Binds- Sandra McCracken
I found this song on Sandra McCracken's Youtube account. As this was written to share the grief of a friend, it resonates with me as well. Sandra McCracken, The Tie That Binds, lyrics and video of her playing the song from her home:
Video:
The sorrow of a friend
From a long way we stand
Grief is second hand
But I’ll send my tears in a locket
Amelia smiles under lights & wires
Thorns for every flower
We number every hour
And live the days we are given
Oh, the pain
It makes you feel alive
Oh, the broken heart is the tie that binds
And I pray to God, these things will be made right
When the morning shines
On tear stained eyes
Oh we shall overcome
The Father gave the Son
To break the curse we are under
Oh the pain that no man can escape
Oh the sting of death, the empty grave,
And I pray to God where comfort has no place
When our tired eyes look through the veil
The colors are so pale but we raise high the sail
And call the winds to carry us home
Call the winds to carry us home.
More of her songs:
Video:
The sorrow of a friend
From a long way we stand
Grief is second hand
But I’ll send my tears in a locket
Amelia smiles under lights & wires
Thorns for every flower
We number every hour
And live the days we are given
Oh, the pain
It makes you feel alive
Oh, the broken heart is the tie that binds
And I pray to God, these things will be made right
When the morning shines
On tear stained eyes
Oh we shall overcome
The Father gave the Son
To break the curse we are under
Oh the pain that no man can escape
Oh the sting of death, the empty grave,
And I pray to God where comfort has no place
When our tired eyes look through the veil
The colors are so pale but we raise high the sail
And call the winds to carry us home
Call the winds to carry us home.
More of her songs:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
