Wednesday, July 26, 2006
Howsitgonark...
So, I've been realizing in the last month that I have a tendency to try and avoid awkwardness in a pretty ridiculous way. I mean, I know that no one enjoys awkward situations, and that most people try not to create them. But for me, I have this almost innate, systematic response that not only tries to get out of awkward social situations, but also somehow calculates the potential risk of awkwardness developing in situations, and then reacts based on that calculation. Let me give you two actual scenarios that have happenned recently in order to explain what I mean. (The real names of people involved have been omitted...maybe...)
SCENARIO #1: I recently went to a church service with a group of people who will remain anonymous...we'll call them "my immediate family." As we entered the lobby, I saw a friend of a mutual friend whom I'd met and talked with a few times before. Naturally, after we greeted on another, we asked about each other's summers. Now, I was under the impression that this friend of a friend, whom we'll call "Friend of a Friend", had gotten married in the last couple of months, because I had happenned to confuse "Friend of a Friend's" name with another friend of the same friend (phew!) who actually had gotten married. So, with who appeared to be Friend of a Friend's husband standing nearby, I asked the obvious question: "How was the wedding?" "What do you mean?" was Friend of a Friend's surprised response. "Which wedding? (referring to friends of a friend that had been recently married)" Here's where my acute antiawkarditis kicked in. You see, a perfectly reasonable reaction would have been to laugh and say something like, "Oh, my mistake, I thought you had gotten married." But no. In a split second, I realized that she wasn't married, and that I was wrong, and so I quickly and smoothly said, "Well, both of them. 'Friend' said they were fun." I didn't even really think...it just happenned. I basically lied to avoid possible embarassment. And I was good at it.
SCENARIIO #2: I'm currently working in the same bio-tech plant that my father has worked in for the past 15 years, so a lot of co-workers know who I am because of past company family events. The thing is, I don't know who a lot of them are. I'm trying really hard to match names with faces, but there are still a lot of employees who I couldn't feel confident calling by name. So, I'm walking into the plant this afternoon, and a I see a co-worker leaving the plant, who's name I think is Mark. Now, I know "Mark" has called me by my name several times before, so I'm embarassed by the thought of just saying, "Hey...you", or by having to actually ask his name. So once again, my subconscious anti-awkward powers came into play. Instead of not greeting him at all, or greeting him without using a name, or greeting him while confidently guessing that his name was Mark, I did all three at once. I mumbled something like, "Hiowsitgonark." That way, if I was wrong about his name, maybe he wouldn't know. And if I as right, what's there to lose? Except, I didn't consider the fact that what I said sounded nothing like intelligible English.
So, all that to say I feel pretty ridiculous realizing that I've developed an unnatural fear of embarassment. Why? I don't know. But at least now you know to tell me your name if I say something that sounds Russian.
SCENARIO #1: I recently went to a church service with a group of people who will remain anonymous...we'll call them "my immediate family." As we entered the lobby, I saw a friend of a mutual friend whom I'd met and talked with a few times before. Naturally, after we greeted on another, we asked about each other's summers. Now, I was under the impression that this friend of a friend, whom we'll call "Friend of a Friend", had gotten married in the last couple of months, because I had happenned to confuse "Friend of a Friend's" name with another friend of the same friend (phew!) who actually had gotten married. So, with who appeared to be Friend of a Friend's husband standing nearby, I asked the obvious question: "How was the wedding?" "What do you mean?" was Friend of a Friend's surprised response. "Which wedding? (referring to friends of a friend that had been recently married)" Here's where my acute antiawkarditis kicked in. You see, a perfectly reasonable reaction would have been to laugh and say something like, "Oh, my mistake, I thought you had gotten married." But no. In a split second, I realized that she wasn't married, and that I was wrong, and so I quickly and smoothly said, "Well, both of them. 'Friend' said they were fun." I didn't even really think...it just happenned. I basically lied to avoid possible embarassment. And I was good at it.
SCENARIIO #2: I'm currently working in the same bio-tech plant that my father has worked in for the past 15 years, so a lot of co-workers know who I am because of past company family events. The thing is, I don't know who a lot of them are. I'm trying really hard to match names with faces, but there are still a lot of employees who I couldn't feel confident calling by name. So, I'm walking into the plant this afternoon, and a I see a co-worker leaving the plant, who's name I think is Mark. Now, I know "Mark" has called me by my name several times before, so I'm embarassed by the thought of just saying, "Hey...you", or by having to actually ask his name. So once again, my subconscious anti-awkward powers came into play. Instead of not greeting him at all, or greeting him without using a name, or greeting him while confidently guessing that his name was Mark, I did all three at once. I mumbled something like, "Hiowsitgonark." That way, if I was wrong about his name, maybe he wouldn't know. And if I as right, what's there to lose? Except, I didn't consider the fact that what I said sounded nothing like intelligible English.
So, all that to say I feel pretty ridiculous realizing that I've developed an unnatural fear of embarassment. Why? I don't know. But at least now you know to tell me your name if I say something that sounds Russian.
Monday, July 24, 2006
Not about eating bugs...
This weekend I had the opportunity to commemorate the end of my friend Justin's un-wedded life with him and a few other of his friends. The festivities started on Saturday with a trip to Valleyfair (near Minneapolis). I was pretty impressed with the park as a whole - there were a few good roller coasters, and the 125-foot pendulum/swing ride they added this year was a lot of fun.
Anyway, what I want to write about has to do with Sunday morning, so I'll spare you unnecessary details. Basically, after a 10-hour day at Valleyfair, the five of us headed to a nearby campsite (which was right by the Minnesota River), sat around a fire for awhile, and then headed to bed in an almost-big-enough-for-five-people tent. I happenned to forget my sleeping bag and pillow, so, needless to say, I didn't have the most comfortable night of sleep (or lack thereof). By about 8:15 in the morning, I was ready to just get out of the tent. All of the other guys were still sleeping, so I walked outside and found a dead tree that was laying over the riverbank and just sat on it for a long time. The sun was still behind a lot of the trees, birds were still chirping a lot, and there weren't many human noises yet, like cars or radio music. So, I'm sitting on this tree, watching this river, and then I realized that I was experiencing something I usually missed during the week, and wanted to start experiencing everyday. I couldn't quite put my finger on it at first, since I knew I couldn't just wake up every morning and find a serene river scene in the backyard. But what I think I realized is that many times I'll take time to think and pray about things like ideas, or issues, or relationships (all of which is good), and I'll focus on them until there's some sort of resolution, and then I'll move to the next thing. But what I end up missing is the taking of time to actually listen and hear from God. Because as I sat by this river and took in everything that was going on around me, I couldn't help but just be quiet and open to receive.
As I was thinking through this on dead a tree by the Minnesota River, I noticed a few different kinds of birds darting over the surface of the water. Some were flying in pairs, some by themselves, and I saw one that would actually hit the surface of the water every once in awhile. I assumed that most of these birds were flying in order to hunt for insects, and maybe the one that hit the water was hunting for fish. But as I watched the birds more, I began to question my assumption. Instead of thinking, "The birds are flying in order to catch food", which seemed to be a reasonable scientific assumption, it hit me that maybe the birds were flying because they were meant to fly, and they got to eat as a part of fulfilling their purpose. And all of a sudden, I wanted to be like the birds. Instead of living in a way that thinks, "I'm working now for money," or "I'm going to school to become a lawyer," or "I'm reading my Bible to become a better Christian," I wanted to begin living out my created purpose to know and be with God, and work, study, and read as just a part of that life. We're not meant to sleep, eat, drink, walk, talk, cry, sing, think, love, etc. in and of themselves. They (along with any aspect or activity of life) must just be a part of the journey God takes us on to know Him more deeply and completely. And just like it's beautiful to see birds fly because they're meant to fly, it will be a wonderful things for us as humans to live knowing God more each day. Don't fly just so you can eat bugs - fly because you're created to, and maybe you'll catch something along the way.
Anyway, what I want to write about has to do with Sunday morning, so I'll spare you unnecessary details. Basically, after a 10-hour day at Valleyfair, the five of us headed to a nearby campsite (which was right by the Minnesota River), sat around a fire for awhile, and then headed to bed in an almost-big-enough-for-five-people tent. I happenned to forget my sleeping bag and pillow, so, needless to say, I didn't have the most comfortable night of sleep (or lack thereof). By about 8:15 in the morning, I was ready to just get out of the tent. All of the other guys were still sleeping, so I walked outside and found a dead tree that was laying over the riverbank and just sat on it for a long time. The sun was still behind a lot of the trees, birds were still chirping a lot, and there weren't many human noises yet, like cars or radio music. So, I'm sitting on this tree, watching this river, and then I realized that I was experiencing something I usually missed during the week, and wanted to start experiencing everyday. I couldn't quite put my finger on it at first, since I knew I couldn't just wake up every morning and find a serene river scene in the backyard. But what I think I realized is that many times I'll take time to think and pray about things like ideas, or issues, or relationships (all of which is good), and I'll focus on them until there's some sort of resolution, and then I'll move to the next thing. But what I end up missing is the taking of time to actually listen and hear from God. Because as I sat by this river and took in everything that was going on around me, I couldn't help but just be quiet and open to receive.
As I was thinking through this on dead a tree by the Minnesota River, I noticed a few different kinds of birds darting over the surface of the water. Some were flying in pairs, some by themselves, and I saw one that would actually hit the surface of the water every once in awhile. I assumed that most of these birds were flying in order to hunt for insects, and maybe the one that hit the water was hunting for fish. But as I watched the birds more, I began to question my assumption. Instead of thinking, "The birds are flying in order to catch food", which seemed to be a reasonable scientific assumption, it hit me that maybe the birds were flying because they were meant to fly, and they got to eat as a part of fulfilling their purpose. And all of a sudden, I wanted to be like the birds. Instead of living in a way that thinks, "I'm working now for money," or "I'm going to school to become a lawyer," or "I'm reading my Bible to become a better Christian," I wanted to begin living out my created purpose to know and be with God, and work, study, and read as just a part of that life. We're not meant to sleep, eat, drink, walk, talk, cry, sing, think, love, etc. in and of themselves. They (along with any aspect or activity of life) must just be a part of the journey God takes us on to know Him more deeply and completely. And just like it's beautiful to see birds fly because they're meant to fly, it will be a wonderful things for us as humans to live knowing God more each day. Don't fly just so you can eat bugs - fly because you're created to, and maybe you'll catch something along the way.
Thursday, July 13, 2006
No Micronesian Big Macs...
So, before you plan on enjoying any Big Macs or McFlurries on your next trip to Africa, South Asia, or the South Pacific, you better check this list of countries that still don't have a McDonalds. Bummer...just when I wanted to enjoy some of "America's favorite fries" in Djibouti.
List of McDonalds-less countries
Link to map of Djibouti
List of McDonalds-less countries
Link to map of Djibouti
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
What's a motto with you?
Apparently, yesterday was the 51st anniversary of putting the phrase "In God We Trust" on all U.S. currency, and this month is the 50th anniversary of that same phrase being officially made our national motto by Congress and President Eisenhower. What I also just learned is that the phrase "E Plurabis Unum" (Out of many, one) was essentially pushed aside by "In God We Trust" by this act in 1956. A few thoughts...
1) Isn't it ironic that we should state our supposed trust in God with none other than our money? I have a hard time trusting God when I think a lot about money. I also don't know what to think about putting a God-centered phrase on currency that contains the image of one of the founding fathers and their houses or government buildings.
2) I've heard that part of the underlying motivation to make "In God We Trust" the national motto was to separate America from the "godless communism" it was battling in the Cold War. First of all, it seems questionable to invoke trust in God during a conflict that resulted in a build-up of weapons capable of destroying mankind many times over. Secondly, wasn't it the promotion American capitalism and democracy that conflicted with the Soviet agenda, and aren't these two ideas equally embraced by some who don't trust God, or at least don't trust Him as much as they trust capitalism and democracy?
3) I like the phrase, "E Plurabis Unum", and as far as I can tell, it is a more accurate and meaningful description of our country today. I think trusting God is best, but a fair number of Americans believe quite differently than I do, placing trust in many gods, or science, or even themselves. It seems like a national motto (if there is one) should reflect, as accurately as possible, the character and attitude of the nation as a whole. Keeping this in mind, it seems we are much closer (as a nation) to many different kinds of people trying to act as one, than a people who trusts one God.
Should we change the national motto, and remove the phrase "In God We Trust" from our currency? I don't know if it is significant enough of an issue, or if it would be beneficial to do so. But I do think it is important to question why we as a nation would be willing to endorse a motto such as "In God We Trust" while still acting and thinking in a way that is seemingly contradictory most of the time. Some might argue that our national heritage reflects a trust in God, and so there is still value in stating that in a motto and on currency. Fair enough - maybe we should have an "updated" motto then: "In God We Trusted", or even better, "In God We Trusted, Until Our Prosperity And Wal-Mart Seemed Better". At least we wouldn't be lying then.
1) Isn't it ironic that we should state our supposed trust in God with none other than our money? I have a hard time trusting God when I think a lot about money. I also don't know what to think about putting a God-centered phrase on currency that contains the image of one of the founding fathers and their houses or government buildings.
2) I've heard that part of the underlying motivation to make "In God We Trust" the national motto was to separate America from the "godless communism" it was battling in the Cold War. First of all, it seems questionable to invoke trust in God during a conflict that resulted in a build-up of weapons capable of destroying mankind many times over. Secondly, wasn't it the promotion American capitalism and democracy that conflicted with the Soviet agenda, and aren't these two ideas equally embraced by some who don't trust God, or at least don't trust Him as much as they trust capitalism and democracy?
3) I like the phrase, "E Plurabis Unum", and as far as I can tell, it is a more accurate and meaningful description of our country today. I think trusting God is best, but a fair number of Americans believe quite differently than I do, placing trust in many gods, or science, or even themselves. It seems like a national motto (if there is one) should reflect, as accurately as possible, the character and attitude of the nation as a whole. Keeping this in mind, it seems we are much closer (as a nation) to many different kinds of people trying to act as one, than a people who trusts one God.
Should we change the national motto, and remove the phrase "In God We Trust" from our currency? I don't know if it is significant enough of an issue, or if it would be beneficial to do so. But I do think it is important to question why we as a nation would be willing to endorse a motto such as "In God We Trust" while still acting and thinking in a way that is seemingly contradictory most of the time. Some might argue that our national heritage reflects a trust in God, and so there is still value in stating that in a motto and on currency. Fair enough - maybe we should have an "updated" motto then: "In God We Trusted", or even better, "In God We Trusted, Until Our Prosperity And Wal-Mart Seemed Better". At least we wouldn't be lying then.
Friday, July 07, 2006
A playboy for Allah...
The attached article describes a foiled terror plot (allegedly linked to al-Qaida) that was targeting the NYC subway tunnels under the Hudson River. Apparently, one of the main terrorist operatives was arrested in Lebonon, and he eventually confessed about his involvement with the plan, as well as some details about the plan itself.
2 thoughts about this article:
1.) Is it comforting to know what places in the U.S. almost got attacked? I mean - do NYC citizens that use the subway system really want to know that they may have been killed on their way to work one day? Maybe they do. I don't live in a place that has experienced terrorist attacks, and if I did, maybe I would want to know what plots have been stopped. But on the other hand, doesn't it make you wonder what plots aren't being stopped?
2.) In the article, the terrorist operative who was arrested (Assem Hammoud) supposedly "confessed that he belongs to a radical organization ... and that he was told not to show any religious inclinations while in Lebanon and to give the impression of a playboy, which he did perfectly." Now, I'm no expert on the religion of Islam, but from what I gather, even mainstream, "Western" forms of Islam have fairly strict expectations for moral behavior (check out this article for an example), nonetheless radical sects like al-Qaida that are brutal in their treatment of women and members of other faiths. If Hammoud really was a part of a radical group linked to al-Qaida, isn't it interesting that they would encourage "playboy" behavior for the sake of the terror operation? At that point, isn't the religion of the group terrorism, and not Islam, since fundamental moral principles of Islam are sacrificed for the sake of killing Americans? It seems like Islam becomes just a label for these groups, maybe lending them credibility in the minds of their members. Regardless, it seems to be another example of how one end (killing Westerners) will justify seemingly endless means for those who are a part of al-Qaida-affiliated organizations.
Foiled terror plot article
2 thoughts about this article:
1.) Is it comforting to know what places in the U.S. almost got attacked? I mean - do NYC citizens that use the subway system really want to know that they may have been killed on their way to work one day? Maybe they do. I don't live in a place that has experienced terrorist attacks, and if I did, maybe I would want to know what plots have been stopped. But on the other hand, doesn't it make you wonder what plots aren't being stopped?
2.) In the article, the terrorist operative who was arrested (Assem Hammoud) supposedly "confessed that he belongs to a radical organization ... and that he was told not to show any religious inclinations while in Lebanon and to give the impression of a playboy, which he did perfectly." Now, I'm no expert on the religion of Islam, but from what I gather, even mainstream, "Western" forms of Islam have fairly strict expectations for moral behavior (check out this article for an example), nonetheless radical sects like al-Qaida that are brutal in their treatment of women and members of other faiths. If Hammoud really was a part of a radical group linked to al-Qaida, isn't it interesting that they would encourage "playboy" behavior for the sake of the terror operation? At that point, isn't the religion of the group terrorism, and not Islam, since fundamental moral principles of Islam are sacrificed for the sake of killing Americans? It seems like Islam becomes just a label for these groups, maybe lending them credibility in the minds of their members. Regardless, it seems to be another example of how one end (killing Westerners) will justify seemingly endless means for those who are a part of al-Qaida-affiliated organizations.
Foiled terror plot article
Monday, July 03, 2006
Some thoughts on patriotism...
This post comes to you a few days after the events which it concerns, due to the strong emotions connected to the events themselves. I hope that the weekend has allowed me to "cool off" sufficiently to talk about my thoughts in a clear and appropriate way. But if not, I think you'll still get the point. So, here are some thoughts on patriotic activity as we approach Independence Day...
First, last Thursday I read an article in support of a book by Rodney Stark entitled The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success. The title by itself was enough to make me skeptical, but I read on. Basically, Mr. Stark argues that, without Christianity's "reason, progress, and moral equality, today the entire world would be about where non-European societies were in, say, 1800," and that we would live in a world of "despots, lacking universities, banks, factories, eyeglasses, chimneys, and pianos." (These are actual quotations from the book) He goes on to suggest that modernism (economic, cultural, and political) only arose in the "Christian" West, and that the primarily Muslim and Buddhist areas of the world are essentially missing out (econcomically, culturally, and politically) because of the lack of Christian influence in those areas. So, after writing this far, I'm already angry again. But here goes. FIRST of all, does the brutal exploitation of colonialism done by the "Christian" West to people in Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia (which are primarily Musilm, Hindu, and Buddhist), which allowed the West to become economically prosperous, reflect the "moral equality" of Christianity that Mr. Stark thinks is so pervasive in the Western world? And what about the sweatshops of Western corporations that dot the rest of the world today? How is Christianity reflected in economic systems that blatantly allow such practices, such as employing children to work for pennies a day (if they're lucky) - and a day consisting of upwards of 12 hours of labor sometimes? I don't think Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me so that I can exploit their labor for billion-dollar profits". Secondly, if Mr. Stark's argument is extended, does he suggest that Christianity is somehow validated by economic, political, and cultural "superiority"? Was it not Jesus who lamented how hard it was for the rich to find the Kingdom of Heaven? Was it not the earliest followers of Christ who rejoiced in the midst of poverty and persecution? I'm not suggesting that we should abandon capitalism and live in communes, or that Christian's can't be rich, or even that Christian principles applied in business shouldn't be rewarded. I applaud businessmen who do apply Christian ideals of justice, equality, and help for the underprivileged. But, in my best estimation, any such businessmen are the exception, and not the norm, in the Western world.
My second "patriotic" experience that I want to write about happenned at a concert Thursday night. The concert was meant to be a patriotic tribute to veterans, America, and God, as far as I could tell. The choir sang well, and I appreciated the recognition of military men, and emphasis throughout the night on the importance of parents passing on values to their children. What upset me, outside of momentary confusions of whether I was there to worship my country or my God, was the fact that behind the choir loft a cross was displayed...with American flags coming off of it. The cross, symbolizing the death of Christ...decorated with flags symbolizing the United States of America. Now, I'm perfectly aware that intentions were probably innocent in decorating the church sanctuary in which the concert was held, but really - what were they thinking?! The cross of Christ - on which Jesus Christ was crucified for ALL men for ALL time. The cross - which gave way to the resurrection, which allowed the birth of the Church, made up of all peoples. The cross - outside of which we have NO hope. None. It is through death on the cross that Christ once for ALL provided a way for men to know God and be with Him. The cross - which has NOTHING to do with these United States of America other than the fact that Christians live here. The US is not God's chosen nation. Americans are not God's chosen people. And while our heritage does include strong Christian influences, it also includes influences (such as Greek thought and Enlightenment thought) which are very opposed to Christianity in some ways. There is a chosen nation by God - and it is called the Church, consisting of all races, tongues, and peoples. There is a chosen people - and they make up the Bride of Christ, to which He is coming again to know perfectly and be with perfectly. At this point, some might question how big of a deal I'm making out of one string of flags on one cross. But the flags on the cross aren't the real point. It's the arrogant mentality (echoed in the article/book previously discussed) that somehow, in someway, because relatively more Christians supposedly live in the US, and since the US has managed to become economically and politically powerful, that God is blessing the USA more than the "Third World". My heart aches - my outrage is not just that this thinking is prideful and presumptuous, but that it defames Christ, and brutally hurts His Bride, the Church. Instead of gloating in our supposed blessedness, why not seek to be God's blessing to the hurting in the rest of world? I know the Church does much to relieve suffering, and I'm excited when I hear about those in America who would "carry their cross" for the poor and oppressed (check out www.ijm.org for a good example). But I also know that statistics have shown that the Evangelical Church in the US (one of the wealthiest demographics ever to exist on this planet) gives less than 3% of its available income to charity, and less than 10% of that (less the .3% of total income) to international aid/missions. Less than .3%. That's pathetic. And I'm ashamed, because I know I don't do much, either.
I don't hate America. In fact, I'm very thankful to live in a place that usually promotes civil liberties and rights, and that has allowed me relative economic proseperity. I'm glad to be an American - I did nothing to deserve the opportunities I can pursue. But I am not proud of how the Church in America has settled for less in many ways by thinking that America's political success is her spiritual success. There is one great Nation under God - and it consists of those who know God because of Christ's sacrifice. That is where my true allegiance lies, and that is the freedom I truly celebrate. America is a good place to exist for now, but I know that I'm meant to live someplace infinitely more free and abundant. And so are you.
First, last Thursday I read an article in support of a book by Rodney Stark entitled The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success. The title by itself was enough to make me skeptical, but I read on. Basically, Mr. Stark argues that, without Christianity's "reason, progress, and moral equality, today the entire world would be about where non-European societies were in, say, 1800," and that we would live in a world of "despots, lacking universities, banks, factories, eyeglasses, chimneys, and pianos." (These are actual quotations from the book) He goes on to suggest that modernism (economic, cultural, and political) only arose in the "Christian" West, and that the primarily Muslim and Buddhist areas of the world are essentially missing out (econcomically, culturally, and politically) because of the lack of Christian influence in those areas. So, after writing this far, I'm already angry again. But here goes. FIRST of all, does the brutal exploitation of colonialism done by the "Christian" West to people in Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia (which are primarily Musilm, Hindu, and Buddhist), which allowed the West to become economically prosperous, reflect the "moral equality" of Christianity that Mr. Stark thinks is so pervasive in the Western world? And what about the sweatshops of Western corporations that dot the rest of the world today? How is Christianity reflected in economic systems that blatantly allow such practices, such as employing children to work for pennies a day (if they're lucky) - and a day consisting of upwards of 12 hours of labor sometimes? I don't think Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me so that I can exploit their labor for billion-dollar profits". Secondly, if Mr. Stark's argument is extended, does he suggest that Christianity is somehow validated by economic, political, and cultural "superiority"? Was it not Jesus who lamented how hard it was for the rich to find the Kingdom of Heaven? Was it not the earliest followers of Christ who rejoiced in the midst of poverty and persecution? I'm not suggesting that we should abandon capitalism and live in communes, or that Christian's can't be rich, or even that Christian principles applied in business shouldn't be rewarded. I applaud businessmen who do apply Christian ideals of justice, equality, and help for the underprivileged. But, in my best estimation, any such businessmen are the exception, and not the norm, in the Western world.
My second "patriotic" experience that I want to write about happenned at a concert Thursday night. The concert was meant to be a patriotic tribute to veterans, America, and God, as far as I could tell. The choir sang well, and I appreciated the recognition of military men, and emphasis throughout the night on the importance of parents passing on values to their children. What upset me, outside of momentary confusions of whether I was there to worship my country or my God, was the fact that behind the choir loft a cross was displayed...with American flags coming off of it. The cross, symbolizing the death of Christ...decorated with flags symbolizing the United States of America. Now, I'm perfectly aware that intentions were probably innocent in decorating the church sanctuary in which the concert was held, but really - what were they thinking?! The cross of Christ - on which Jesus Christ was crucified for ALL men for ALL time. The cross - which gave way to the resurrection, which allowed the birth of the Church, made up of all peoples. The cross - outside of which we have NO hope. None. It is through death on the cross that Christ once for ALL provided a way for men to know God and be with Him. The cross - which has NOTHING to do with these United States of America other than the fact that Christians live here. The US is not God's chosen nation. Americans are not God's chosen people. And while our heritage does include strong Christian influences, it also includes influences (such as Greek thought and Enlightenment thought) which are very opposed to Christianity in some ways. There is a chosen nation by God - and it is called the Church, consisting of all races, tongues, and peoples. There is a chosen people - and they make up the Bride of Christ, to which He is coming again to know perfectly and be with perfectly. At this point, some might question how big of a deal I'm making out of one string of flags on one cross. But the flags on the cross aren't the real point. It's the arrogant mentality (echoed in the article/book previously discussed) that somehow, in someway, because relatively more Christians supposedly live in the US, and since the US has managed to become economically and politically powerful, that God is blessing the USA more than the "Third World". My heart aches - my outrage is not just that this thinking is prideful and presumptuous, but that it defames Christ, and brutally hurts His Bride, the Church. Instead of gloating in our supposed blessedness, why not seek to be God's blessing to the hurting in the rest of world? I know the Church does much to relieve suffering, and I'm excited when I hear about those in America who would "carry their cross" for the poor and oppressed (check out www.ijm.org for a good example). But I also know that statistics have shown that the Evangelical Church in the US (one of the wealthiest demographics ever to exist on this planet) gives less than 3% of its available income to charity, and less than 10% of that (less the .3% of total income) to international aid/missions. Less than .3%. That's pathetic. And I'm ashamed, because I know I don't do much, either.
I don't hate America. In fact, I'm very thankful to live in a place that usually promotes civil liberties and rights, and that has allowed me relative economic proseperity. I'm glad to be an American - I did nothing to deserve the opportunities I can pursue. But I am not proud of how the Church in America has settled for less in many ways by thinking that America's political success is her spiritual success. There is one great Nation under God - and it consists of those who know God because of Christ's sacrifice. That is where my true allegiance lies, and that is the freedom I truly celebrate. America is a good place to exist for now, but I know that I'm meant to live someplace infinitely more free and abundant. And so are you.
