Filed under: Church, Culture, Religion, Sports | Tags: Aikido, Christianity, Edward Cho, Jet Li, martial arts, Mixed Martial Arts, MMA, NY Times, Palkeukkwon, Taichi
I love martial arts. It was probably the influence of growing up in Korea. Among the many theological books, evolution, and soccer books, if you browse my library, you’ll notice a handful of martial arts books, mostly on Taichi (태극권) or Palkeukkwon (팔극권). I took Taekwondo in elementary school, Aikido in college, and taught myself some Palkeukkwon forms, secretly desiring to be like Jet Li. In high school, some of my friends and I would go to the weight lifting club, not to lift weights, but to use the mats in the gym to spar each other for fun. Interestingly, never during my perennial interest in martial arts have I found significant relevance of it to my religion: Christianity. For Christians will tell you that fighting is bad and we must be peaceful people, and the Jesus we often envision is this Caucasian man (influenced by all the Renaissance paintings) who is always serene, calm, and never fighting back, with the exception of the temple incident. This serene, maybe even sissy, image of Christianity has recently become more of an issue for evangelistic purposes. The New York Times featured an article on Monday titled, “Flock Is Now a Fight Team in Some Ministries“, about the small but growing use of Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) as a form of Christian outreach to an unchurched demographic, namely men between ages 18 and 34. The article states:
Men ages 18 to 34 are absent from churches, some pastors said, because churches have become more amenable to women and children. “We grew up in a church that had pastel pews,” said Tom Skiles, 37, the pastor of Spirit of St. Louis Church in Arnold, Mo. “The men fell asleep.”
Scholars have said that Islam has been attracting lots of young men because of its masculine face of the religion, something that seem devoid in the feminine image of Christianity. I am not sure if MMA is a beneficial way of attracting converts to Christianity. Actually, I know at least the method is faulty, and what the Quest Church Pastor, Edward Cho, says in the article is a point to be heeded, that is, “What you attract people to Christ with is also what you need to get people to stay.” Christianity is never an attraction, it is attractive, well, Christ is offensively attractive, but it is never just an attraction. But the truth that there is an unreached demographic, better reached by Islam, is a fact that Christianity must face, think through, and engage without being too syncretistic. Whether it statistically attracts more females than males, it is entirely untrue that Christianity is a sissy religion. Anyone who thinks otherwise never read the images of Christ in the Book of Revelation, but the church, whether it is redefining what it means to be masculine or preaching the costly yet adventurous life of following Christ, should do something, like these MMA involved congregations have attempted to do, instead of just waiting in the pastel pews falling asleep, misrepresenting the God who ultimately gives meaning to what it means to be man and woman.
Filed under: Anthropology, Sociology | Tags: consulting, image change, marketing, NY Times
My friend once sarcastically made a jab at consulting as a job anyone can do. He said that all that consultants are are people who take your company’s information and statistics and put it into a nice, visually pleasing powerpoint presentation. When I saw my early twenties, fresh-out-of-college friends take consulting jobs of well established companies, I couldn’t help but laugh in agreement to my friend’s satirical comment. I had a similar disrespect for marketing jobs as well. I used to think, “How hard can it be to come up with some catchy slogan and put it up on some billboard or air it on a television commercial?” Well, now I know it’s hard. Not because coming up with a slogan is hard but because the business of changing an image, which is what marketing essentially is, is very difficult.
For the past four years and a half, I have lived in a house with, at one point, six roommates. All guys, all bachelors. The house, over the years, have collected numerous nicknames, some being “Scary house”, “Bachelor’s pad” and “Ice box”. The adjectives that perennially describe the four-story abode are no better: “dirty”, “freezing”, “sauna”. The residents have on occasion had desires to propose our house up for the show, Extreme Makeover: Home Edition. Because we’ve found that such an image is not conducive to the decisions of prospective tenets, we have since tried to change the image of the house by instituting a cleaning schedule and fixing up parts of the house to be more guest friendly. But such an image change has been quite difficult, thus, the growing respect for workers in the marketing industry. One of the most difficult things to change about the image of the house is the drastic temperatures of cold in the winters and hot in the summers. My former housemate recently sent me a link to a NY Times article titled, “Chilled by Choice” accompanied with the email subject line, “Other people live like you!” Apparently, the image elicited in his mind after reading about these ridiculous people who live in frigid habitats was sadly, the house I currently reside. Fail. To our attempt to change the houses image. Conclusion. Marketing is hard.
So with my newfound respect for people who work in marketing, I can understand why so much money is poured into advertisements and commercials. Hmmm… maybe we should hire a consultant to put together a fancy powerpoint telling us what we’ve been doing wrong…. Nah.
Filed under: Culture, History, Religion, Sociology | Tags: Nicholas Kristof, NY Times, Oppression, Religion, women
I get a jerk reaction of… well, a bit of anger and a bit of defensiveness when Christianity is misrepresented in articles or any sort of public media (especially a widely read one). Couple of weeks ago, Nicholas Kristof wrote a NY Times Op-Ed Column titled, “Religion and Women“. He describes in the brief column the history of oppression that religion caused upon women. Targeted broadly at the world religions, it felt like the bull’s eye was directed right at me. Kristof quotes 1 Timothy 2 and Deuteronomy and interprets the verses outside the context of the Biblical narrative, that is, too literally. But I realized that the primary problem was not Kristof’s hermeneutic (because, quite frankly, He is not trained for that), but it was me and my jerk reaction. Most jerk reactions are never good outside the context of evading immediate danger. When it is not used to dodge a drunk driver or to run from a wild animal, reaction without thought causes harm wrongly in the name of self-defense. We say we are defending our beliefs or faith, but in fact, it is out of our fear (what if Christianity loses out?), out of lack of trust (can the truth of Christianity be understood?), ironically, a lack of faith (is Christ sovereign over His Gospel?) that we “jerk react”. I am not saying that we should not be apologetic about our faith, Kristof should be corrected and informed of the correct interpretation of the verses quoted, but before we react towards correcting and arguing, we have to admit that the history he describes is true. Women were oppressed and women are oppressed. Mind you, Kristof idea of freedom from oppression is incorrect, but his observation of the injustices that exist and existed against women is very much true. And part of the answer will be teaching correct interpretations of the verses that Kristof quoted (and the whole Bible), or realizing what Former President Carter states “The belief that women are inferior human beings in the eyes of God,” as a primary reason for oppression. The the solution will become fuller only when, we realize the nature of ourselves, that the problem is not ultimately religion, or a set of beliefs, or even oppressors, but that the problem is us, that we are the ones with the superiority complex, the inferiority complex, the doers of injustice, and the violators of other’s rights. Religion has oppressed, religion has violated, but not all beliefs lead to oppression. It is not that you believe, but what you believe that will turn you into an oppressor or an emancipator.
Filed under: Anthropology, Sociology | Tags: 2nd generation, BBC News, determination, Korean-American
One of my father’s favorite mantras is, “If there is a will, there is a way.” Knowing his personal history, he is one man who did live out this mantra, and in a way, still does. The 2nd generation Korean-American has a lot to learn from our parents’ generation but this area is a glaringly apparent one. If there was a phrase that would describe our fickle, lackadaisical generation, I would have to go with the Chinese proverb “‘作心三日” (pronounced in Korean reading “jak-shim-sam-il”), meaning one’s heart’s decision lasts only three days. Determination, for whatever reason, is something our generation is very unfamiliar with. To learn from our elders, here’s an interesting (and funny) story on BBC News of a Korean lady determined to get her driving license. Why are we the way we are? Why do we lack such determination and persistence?
Filed under: History, Politics | Tags: 1950, Korean War, North Korea, reconciliation, South Korea
A mini-battle. A continuation of the one war that never ended. One more to the list of altercation years: ‘96, ‘98, ‘99, ‘02. It’s not even a fist fight compared to the 3-year brawl of 1950, but every time something like this happens, reading the news reports (BBC and NY Times), I get nervous. A bunch of ‘what if’s’ pop into my head. The unpredictable, erratic nature of the North Korean government, their capacity for nuclear arms, and the fact that there was never a peace treaty signed in 1953, all make me nervous. Plus, family and friends are in Korea. And in many ways, it’s still my home. Not long ago we celebrated the falling of the Berlin Wall, one of the most unexpected, surprising events in modern history. I wonder how the last divided country will reconcile, or will it ever?
Filed under: Anthropology, Religion, Spirituality | Tags: curiosity, knowledge, NY Times, pride, Stanley Fish
As a youngster, I would often have random thought processes. I would ponder whether the existence of dinosaurs was historical, think of the possibility of extraterrestrial life, or a step further, ponder the logical coherence of assuming that the existence of aliens and Christianity were both true (as an aside, I think I concluded that both cannot be true and to say otherwise is logically incoherent). Maybe I had a lot of time on my hands, but I used to ponder on useless topics quite often (although, more accurately, I liked to try to prove things rather than aimlessly think). I would have made a great Socrates, jobless thinker…
I mentioned this in one of my older post, but one of the most angering moments in my academic life was in my Doctrine of God class when my professor said that I’m not allowed to ask every question, especially pertaining to God. In college, I satiated my curiosity by studying Evolutionary Biology while thinking that I was helping God through educating myself on His enemy. Gaining intel like a spy, so to speak (please do not conclude my current stance on evolution based on this statement, it is more nuanced now and cannot be explained adequately here). But there I was, in seminary now, trying to gain knowledge about God, and my prof tells me that there are certain questions I should not ask. I was angry, and as anger is never purely intellectual and more so a reaction to a personal offense, it felt like an attack on me, not just on an intellectual proposition. It was appropriate to feel thus, as my professor was trying to get at the motive behind such free uncontained curiosity.
Stanley Fish in his NY Times blog entry “Does Curiosity Kill More Than the Cat?“, he compares this free uncontained curiosity to the curiosity of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Curiosity was not the offense, it was the motive to become like God the true offense. Fish goes so far as to call this curiosity sometimes positively name other things like research, unfettered inquiry, progress, academic freedom as a god that we worship, and he does so rightly. As I hope to take a step into the academic world, to forget the limitations of man in relation to God is a capital offense. Us, modern, cultured, metropolitan people would say how to think so is primitive and undeveloped. Well, I’d like to say that that anger you feel when I make such a primitive suggestion is the same anger that I felt in my Doctrine of God class. Such anger is not about logically acknowledging our limitations but more about being personally offended. And such personal offense is felt only in the presence of pride. Pride in the god of curiosity, of unfettered inquiry, of progress, of academic freedom. Pride in the capacity of mankind. I am not saying that we should not try to answer questions that life raises, nor do I want to propose that we think of our intellect and emotions as separate entities, for such a dualistic view does more harm than good to our ability to pursue and answer questions. But the issue here, as mentioned before, is the “true offense.” Fish enlightens us that in our act of upholding curiosity, we partake in an act of worship, not of the real God but of a counterfeit. Where this will take us, we have only to continue in our ways of curiosity that lack self-control, and then we will be able to see, indeed as Fish asks, if curiosity kills more than the cat.
Filed under: Culture, Sociology | Tags: convenience, laundromat, loneliness
I had fun at the laundromat today. Our washer has been broken for a couple of weeks and I was forced to do laundry outside of the comfort of my home. I took a few books along to keep me company, anticipating a rather uneventful time. As I proceeded to fill the washers, a man dressed in a full suit of camo started talking to me about how he watched a Disney animation for two hours while eating cereal. I responded politely, not really knowing what to say or unsure if I wanted to continue the conversation. Turns out he was the guy working that shift at the laundromat and next, he proceeded to show me a joke pic of the side effects of swine flu. It was a crude picture to say the least. While waiting for my clothes to dry, another lady, who also worked there, joined our conversation. She asked me if I was in college. The conversation shifted to me being in seminary and how she was also involved in a rehab organization near Temple. The three of us joked around a little, and chatted until I had to fold my clothes. I said my farewell to them and on the way out, a thought struck me. In the beginning, it was rather uncomfortable listening to their stories trying to carry on the conversation. I just wanted to stick to my book and read. But by the end of my mini escapade, there was very little sense of discomfort. I thought to myself, “Maybe I’ll come back once in a while even when our washer is fixed.” I realized that my laundry time, when conveniently done at home, was a very lonely time. Apart from the benefit of knowing my neighborhood and neighbors better, the inconvenience of the laundromat gave me momentary community. Maybe this is also the experience taking public transportation as opposed to commuting in your own car. The former you can sense a community (although I do acknowledge people rarely talk on the train or bus) and the latter, you have independence and maybe a little loneliness.
Technology, our culture, and our society continues to move towards developing better conveniences, better lifestyles that build our independence and comfort, but at the expense of our community… Facebook/Twitter communication over meeting up, texting someone over hearing their voice, playing video games over the net instead of going to the neighborhood arcade with friends. More and more our human interactions seems more distanced and more infrequent. Yes, community is inconvenient. When you have it, it’s an in-your-face type of lifestyle. But that lifestyle is… oddly nostalgic that you want to come back and get more of it.
Going to the laundromat is inconvenient… but I had fun today, maybe I’ll go back.
Filed under: Anthropology, History, Uncategorized | Tags: 9/11, Duke, NY Times, World Trade Towers
It was my junior year fall semester at Duke. I had never heard of the World Trade Towers before that day and did not expect the gravity of what was to happen that Tuesday morning. As any weekday, I woke up from my central campus apartment and made my way to the unfamiliar Engineering building on Science Drive. Sitting in the computer lab, some of the students in the back started talking in a very panicked tone. “A plane crashed into the World Trade Tower!” We all scrambled to cnn.com to figure out what had happened. Most of us did not realize the magnitude of the event. Maybe just another headline. Personally, maybe I was desensitized by the tragic events of the collapse of Soon-Poong Department Store and Sung-Soo Bridge. I just thought it was just another unfortunate accident. Then in the afternoon, the seriousness of the event gradually sank in. My cell lab professor who is usually jolly and funny, dismissed our class in a solemn tone. I spent the rest of the day glued to the TV familiarizing myself to the event, the towers, and the plethora of sentiments that were being felt around the world that day. Wanting to understand, and maybe to sensitize myself again.
It’s interesting to hear what different people were doing during the morning of Sept 11, 2001. Their reactions, their feelings, their stories. NYTimes exhibits a few stories in “Views of a Day” that remind us that so often we lose sight of the significance of the mundane. So often we subconsciously think ourselves invincible, or at least far from death, that the little repeated activities in our lives lose weightiness. The policemen that Nathan Schneider met that day must have realized this and saw something extraordinary in the ordinary. Beauty in the game play of teenagers. The glimpse of the end of life reminded them of the preciousness of life and the moments we so often forget to cherish. It is good to remember, even eight years after. It is good for the soul.
I was thinking about people who are against “the man”. They come in all shapes, sizes, and forms. I had a high school friend who was a self-proclaimed anarchist. Just today in an episode of ‘Bones’ (yes, I watch that show) they depicted a music subculture of black metal artist who are advocates of violence and ‘music from hell’. There are those adolescents who become defiant of authority because they realize that autonomy is a possibility. There are artists and musicians who don’t want to go main stream because that would be selling out and against that for which their art represents. But my question is this: What are you really for?
Is it really that you are against all organization, conformity, and authority? Are these things really all out bad? The ‘Bones’ episode was enlightening that though these black metal band groups’ message is that of nihilism they are not truly nihilistic because they still in their music create something. Same goes for artists who want to be individual or not involved in music organization, when did conformity (the good kind) lose its place in creativity or even beauty?
It seems to me these anti-’the man’ sentiments and views are manifestations of our overly individualistic culture which subconsciously is just pro-’myself’.
Ok. If there is one thing that I get quite annoyed about it’s people who incessantly check their iphones or blackberries at the meal table, especially if we’re out at a restaurant. Technology is an area of our lives that develops so quickly that our manners which have well developed over long periods of time is always playing catch-up, and losing. Maybe we have to learn our manners all over again with our always developing cell phones, computers, etc. But my annoyance with other people’s poor manners is dismissable. You can just tell me to deal with it, and I will, though I’ll still have a poor image of you as a social being. But when it comes to technology and driving, it is beyond annoyances, it’s lethal stupidity.
Maureen Dowd comments in her NYTimes column “Whirling Dervish Drivers” about how there is little difference in terms of attantion levels between hands-free use of cell phones versus not. Both are very dangerous, and yet we still continue to engage in such suicidal activity. Why? Dowd offers an explanation: Addiction.
As John Ratey, the Harvard professor of psychiatry who specializes in the science of attention, told The Times’s Matt Richtel for his chilling series, “Driven to Distraction,” using digital devices gives you “a dopamine squirt.”
That explains the Pavlovian impulse of people who are out with friends or dates to ignore them and check their BlackBerrys and cellphones, even if 99 out of 100 messages are uninteresting. They’re truffle-hunting for that scintillating one.
Americans woke up one day to find that they were don’t-miss-a-moment addicts who feel compelled to respond to all messages immediately.
The tech industry is our drug dealer, feeding the intense social and economic pressure to stay constantly in touch with employers, colleagues, friends and family.
So will we learn only when it is too late after we have hurt another’s loved one through our irresponsibility? My cynical side answers “yes”. After all it is a matter of looking out for another person’s interest rather than the interest of our own pleasure and thrill of tech usage, and quite honestly, we humans suck at that. But this is one of those things I’d like to be proven wrong, so let’s hope. Let’s hope that we can look outside ourselves and our cell phones, toward other people’s safety and well-being.
