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.
Filed under: Culture, Sociology | Tags: David Brooks, Sonia Sotomayor, Tim Keller, time
If someone were to ask me, “What is the most prominent common denominator of humanity?” The answer would be simple. Time. Absolutely speaking, each member of humanity has the same number of days, hours and minutes. There will be variations on how many hours each person is awake contingent on their habits, lifestyles and physical tendencies, but overall, the total amount of time given to each person is the same.
There has been much talk of Sonia Sotomayor, the latest US Supreme Court justice candidate. The media has epitomized her life as the realization of the American Dream as she climbed the ladder of society from a single parent family. But David Brooks illuminates that there is another side to her story, a story that unfolds with the same number of days and hours as any other person. In his column titled, “The Way We Live Now“, he tells of how Sotomayor, even as such an achieved person, has broken relationships and empty aspects of life, a victim of the time constraints that all of us have as beings of time and space. But his column seemed to be commenting on our culture that idolizes the progressively increasing industriousness and the climate of life where everything moves faster and faster as we get busier and busier:
This isn’t the old story of a career woman trying to balance work and family. This is the story of pressures that affect men as well as women (men are just more likely to make fools of themselves in response, as the news of the last few years indicates). It’s the story of people in a meritocracy that gets more purified and competitive by the year, with the time demands growing more and more insistent.
These profiles give an authentic glimpse of a style of life that hasn’t yet been captured by a novel or a movie — the subtle blend of high-achiever successes, trade-offs and deep commitments to others. In the profiles, you see the intoxicating lure of work, which provides an organizing purpose and identity. You see the web of mentor-mentee relationships — the courtship between the young and the middle-aged, and then the tensions as the mentees break off on their own. You see the strains of a multicultural establishment, in which people try to preserve their ethnic heritage as they ascend into the ranks of the elite. You see the way people not only choose a profession, it chooses them. It changes them in a way they probably didn’t anticipate at first.
Time really is money. At least, currency. Currency of value. Understanding where and how we spend our time is another way of discerning what we value, as individuals and as a culture. And when our culture does not value people, children, jobs, recreation, the appropriate way and appropriate amount, then things go awry. As Tim Keller commented once that our big city cultures (especially New York) are not much different from the cultures of old where they used to sacrifice children. He says that we do the same, through overvaluing our careers and undervaluing our families. By neglecting our children, we kill our children, we are sacrificing our children to the god of work. I personally do not know how to slow down this fast culture of ours, but I would like to be enlightened. As Brooks’ title states, this is the world we live in now, will it continue or change? For better or worse? Only our common denominator will tell.
Filed under: Anthropology, Culture | Tags: Carl Trueman, pain, postmodernism
One statement that I intentionally try to comment or correct when used is the above titled, “Please don’t judge me” or simply “Don’t judge.” Yes, being judgmental is bad but these phrases have been thrown around so much that the pointed meaning has been lost and what is left is the ineffective and somewhat unhelpful dulled tool that protects us from pain and hurt. In other words, we use these phrases not in a manner that constructively points out inappropriate, untimely criticism, but primarily to protect ourselves from transparency that will lead to pain and hurt because in our current generation’s culture, pain (not even suffering because they are two different things) is almost labeled an evil and must be avoided at all costs. We forget that pain can be a good thing. Trueman comments in his article “Is Hurt Mail the New Hate Mail“:
pain, as an abstract concept, is not in itself evil or a sin. I run marathons: the training is painful, not to mention the races; but the personal reward at the end is worth it and unattainable without the pain; my dentist regularly causes me a certain degree of pain in order to save me from worse to come; and anyone who has endured cancer treatment can testify to the salubrious effects of physical discomfort. Nor is such good pain just physical: I hated leaving the security of the parental home, but I had to do it if I was to grow up; I disliked having my essays torn apart by my college tutor but it was the only way to improve my intellectual and literary skills; and parenting teenagers can be heart wrenching, but it has to be done. Pain in itself is not bad; rather, it is the cause or the purpose of the pain that provides the good or the evil involved.
In this rather biting article, cringing while reading Trueman’s critique of the soft culture that is ours, the very fact that I cringed seems to prove him right. His distinctions are too separated (aesthetic vs moral; method vs truth), but nevertheless, he does have an enlightening point. Our generation consists of people who are wusses hiding behind the veil of postmodernism. We are so caught up in defending our right to not be offended and the right to feel good that we don’t realize we are all just turning into spoiled brats lacking proper discipline and direction. Our narcissistic culture has truly idolized, as Trueman comments, “my experience, my feelings, my pain.” This culture has become the epitome of the “me-culture” and there is no room for “you” or even “we” in our conversations and interactions. Isn’t it true though that deep down in all of us we are tired of the fluffy relationships and desire truthful correction from our friends when necessary?
But I am reminded that before I judge, I must realize that I am just as soft, just as spoiled. And when I judge, I must do so for the purpose of serving the other, or else it will only be a different manifestation of the narcissistic “me” culture. Let us not say “Please don’t judge me.” Instead, let us not be afraid to say “Please judge, in order that I can be of better service to others.”
Filed under: Anthropology, Culture, Sociology | Tags: Conn, Enns, Groves, McFarland, Ortiz, Powlison, Taylor, Trueman, Westminster, Witmer
When you sit in a class, in one sense, all you are doing is listening to a series of words, letters, and sounds put together by a certain teacher and spoken to a particular group of people. But why do these words, letters, and sounds affect you, influence you, and sometime change you altogether? What gives these words so much weight and power? The quickest response one might give to such a question is, especially if you are philosophically oriented, “truth.” If the words hold in them truth, then it must have power and must hold weight. I do not disagree, per se, but I would like to posit that it is incomplete to view that the sole reason that gives words their power is the conceptual notion of “truth.” It seems that the real power is effected by the person behind the words, the person behind the truth. If either an escaped convict or a close friend were to tell you the same true and wise advice, which would affect you more? I would guess the close friend’s. Though the same set of words, a different person lies behind them, changing the effecting power of the phrase.
Looking back at the education I received at Westminster after graduation, I learned a great deal of valuable information and truths that were taught, spoken and presented in class, but the greater jewel that I cherish incomparably more is having met the people behind the information. What has shaped me to a greater degree is the personhood of the professors at the institution, and I want to share what I have learned as a thank you to these teachers, professors, and mentors.
Prof Al Groves- The first professor I met at Westminster, the professor I never had the privilege of taking a class with and yet have learned so much. The second time I spoke to him, he remembered the details of our first conversation, a great listener. Even when he became terminally ill, he did not seclude himself to just his family but made himself available to all who needed him. A great servant leader, he truly knew what it meant to spend one’s life for others for Christ’s sake, as he would never draw attention to himself, but always pointed towards Christ.
Prof Steve Taylor – A professor who was always available to his students, was not only interested in giving us the plethora of knowledge he had but was interested in mentoring his students. I learned from him that Christianity must never be reduced to a set of principles or a well written document but that it is about a person, the Person of Christ.
Jerry McFarland, Dean of Students – Standing with a cup of coffee at the door way of our lecture building, he is remembered for lovingly shouting, “GET TO CLASS!” His energy and engaging personality was very fitting to be a pastor for future pastors. But more so than his personality, the one thing that stuck in my mind was the statement that he would always press us students to mindful of, which is to always in our speech, actions and thoughts, to remember to honor the name of Jesus Christ.
Prof Tim Witmer – The jolly man on campus. His smile and pastoral demeanor always made him approachable and available. Maybe it’s because he’s experienced much in ministry but he would never be surprised towards a shocking story in a paternalistic sense, but rather always spoke advise in concern that the listener will be directed toward Christ. Also, he also showed with his engagement of other cultures (at church and school) that Christ allows for the crossing of any boundaries.
Prof Pete Enns- He taught that asking questions should not be feared, but that God wants us to direct our questions toward him and struggle towards him because that is what children do. In OTI, he taught us that as Christians we need to know when to fight and for what we need to fight. In short, to know the distinction between dogma, doctrine, and Christian practice. One other thing that I will never forget is his warning in Wisdom & Poetry class where he told us, ‘You guys are not here for money because most of you will not be rich, but what you will have is power, you will all have influence over someone.’ And he warned us of the dangers of power if it is not used in wisdom.
Prof Manny Ortiz – The professor who knew my name before I met him. He would look at the student directory and find the enrolled students in the upcoming class and pray over each of us by name. He would never ask, “How are you?” without willing to listen for a good 30 minutes (and more), and he was always willing to listen. A truly pastoral professor
Prof Carl Trueman – The professor who helped me fall in love with the ancient historian Augustine. His lectures on the Confessions and the pear tree incident coinciding with the Ted Haggard scandal was a great reminder of the depth of our depravity and the importance of Christian accountability.
Prof David Powlison – Not only is he an excellent counseling professor, but he remembered me by name. Whenever I spoke with him, even the littlest thing like his posture and tone of voice showed that he listened with sincere concern. Taught me one of the greatest principle of theology, that ‘All theology must lead to practical theology’ (paraphrased).
Prof Harvie Conn- The man that I’ve never met but owe much to. He was my father’s teacher, a missionary to Korea, was a big reason my father was able to come to the US to Westminster and thus, in effect, allowing me to be a Westminster student and US citizen. His theology of contextualizating of the eternal Word has shaped a large part of the theology to which I hold. A brilliant yet personable teacher, a compassionate minister, and most importantly, a humble servant. Would have truly loved to have share a conversation with this man.
Filed under: Anthropology, Sports | Tags: Benedict Carey, CS Lewis, ESPN, Kobe Bryant, Mere Christianity, NY Times, pride, Shane Battier, Tim Keown
Most of you will glance at the title of this post and give me one of two answers. One will be a result of a quick objective look at the individual basketball prowess of the two players and you will reply, “Hands down, Kobe.” The other answer will be yours if you know my alma mater and you will dismissively reply, “You’re biased.” Maybe so. To both answers. But I know that when you pick Kobe, unless you’re a non-bandwagon Laker fan, you have this heavy unsettling feeling you would not feel if you were picking between, let’s say, Jordan and Lebron. This unsettling cloud is why Kobe has so many haters, but it doesn’t just come out of nowhere. It has a source. Kobe, himself? Well, sort of. But more accurately: Kobe’s pride.
Tim Keown writes in an ESPN column, “Leave the scowl at home, Kobe” how Kobe tries too hard to great an image for himself, most of the time by verbal derision of other players, and rarely lets his talent do the talking, which no one doubts that he has. Keown perceptively comments:
“And that’s the deal about Kobe: None of us is sure. How can a guy with that much talent play with such little joy? Why does he feel he has to put on that phony tough-guy show all the time? Underneath all that pre-fab armor, who is he? Does he even know?
It’s sad, maybe, but Kobe will never be appreciated in a manner commensurate with his ability. He’s in the process of turning himself into an antihero. (In many respects, he is similar to Alex Rodriguez, another tin-eared superstar.) Everything he does reeks of insecurity, which is a really weird trait for a guy who — along with LeBron James — is a once-a-decade basketball talent.”
Now, this lack of joy is present because Kobe does not enjoy playing basketball for basketball, he only enjoys being better at basketball than everyone else. As CS Lewis writes in Mere Christianity, “Pride gets no pleasure out of having something, only out of having more of it than the next man.” And interestingly, Keown describes Kobe as insecure. It reminds me of what religious people do when they try to earn righteousness. That is, they try to do good things in life in order to prove to God (and in a way coerce Him) that God should stamp them with His seal of approval, that in essence they are fit to enter into God’s holy presence. Well, this is what insecure people do. Find security in something. Ultimately, they HAVE to. And when it comes to pride, it’s relative security, that is, you find security in being better than other people.
Benedict Carey writes in the interesting and appropriate NYTimes article, “Stumbling Blocks on the Path to Righteousness” about how religious people tend to have the “holier-than-thou effect.” Though it is a very good psychological analysis, it only begins to grasp at the reason why such “effects” exists and can offer no solution (though maybe Carey is not trying to). It misses that, in a sense, we are all like Kobe. Maybe not in basketball, but in something else. There is something that gives us this sense of security, our pride, but when we see someone have more of it than ourselves, we panic, we lose our pleasure, our pride turns to envy, or worse, hatred. In part it’s worse because we have lost sense of the gravity of the issue, Lewis writes in the same book mentioned above,
“Well, now, we have come to the centre. According to Christian teachers, the essential vice, the utmost evil, is Pride. Unchastity, anger, greed, drunkenness, and all that, are mere fleabites in comparison: it was through Pride that the devil became the devil: Pride leads to every other vice: it is the complete anti-God state of mind.”
I am not saying that Kobe exclusively is like the devil, that would be unfair and uncalled for. What I am saying is that we all are like the devil, in our prideful behaviors. And as we look at others and find joy in having more of ‘that thing of security’ than them, not only do we walk the path of becoming “antihero[s]” but but we are stumbling onto the road of becoming a person with a “complete anti-God state of mind.” And that, my friends, is grave.
