thailand, family, God

that’s a familiar line in traditional evangelicalism; many “sinners” hated it; i wonder though if some are now trying to “love the soldier but hate the war”? either way…
(and i’m not saying that only “sinners” hate the war; i think war is bad too, and i think of myself as a “saint”!)

in the mission field (or any cross-cultural context, like in most cities around the world), a church leader might feel pressured to distinguish between cultural issues and spiritual issues; for instance, senior missionaries might suggest that believers can do this (eg, eat meat sacrificed to idols) but not that (eg, eat food cooked in blood), and so on.

that’s how i was trained; but right now, i’m not sure if these distinctions or dichotomies help us to love our neighbor and stand for the “truth” of the gospel; i’ll have to think more on it, but i wouldn’t be surprised if this “rational” way of thinking has done a lot of harm in the mission field.

i know it’s a vague question; but i can’t help wondering how “religion” might’ve contributed to this guy’s condition. below is a quote from a recent article on the virginia tech shooting:

Cho — who arrived in the United States as boy from South Korea in 1992 and was raised in suburban Washington, D.C., where his parents worked at a dry cleaners — left a note in his dorm room that was found after the bloodbath.

A law enforcement official who read Cho’s note described it Tuesday as a typed, eight-page rant against rich kids and religion. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media.

“You caused me to do this,” the official quoted the note as saying.

Cho indicated in his letter that the end was near and that there was a deed to be done, the official said. He also expressed disappointment in his own religion, and made several references to Christianity, the official said.

DAVE GIBBONS is visiting bangkok this week, and with a group of newsong bangkok leaders yesterday, shared a little bit of what he thought about magravan’s homogeneous unit principle. Citing the Good Samaritan parable, Jesus’ answer to the religious leader’s question, “who is my neighbor,” gibbons asked us to consider how the HUP squares with the command to love our neighbor; i mean, if a samaritan’s loving of the wounded jew exemplified this commandment, how does our modern church growth movement square with it? i’ll leave it for you to answer yourselves.

You can read what seems to be a pretty balanced discussion of it here , and a short critique here. some background in my previous posts below.

Just watched Mulan with my kids. can’t seem get this chill off my spine when i see these popular children’s movies; in the case of mulan, “duty to my heart” is more important than all other duties; the impression i get from mulan is that the values of the chinese (eastern) culture are ridiculous, while our western values are “true” or “real”. i’m afraid my kids will grow up with these assumptions, and develop their theologies around them; of course, i’m not sure exactly how culture and theology should relate to each other.

after a little over a year in the mission field, i realize that i have a lot more freedom than i did back in the local church; moreover, my financial supporters are thousands of miles away, pretty much clueless except for my newsletters; the thing that bothers me is whether or not there is a difference between the “effective missionary” and the “effective reporting missionary”.

basically, when it comes to compensating someone, we try to measure one’s performance. eg, a congregation might measure its pastor’s performance by increasing or decreasing attendance; missionaries have a very wide range of ministries, including almost everything one can think of in a mission field. so, how can supporters measure our performance?

it seems to me, at least reflecting on when i was an em pastor back home, the primary way of getting a feel for a missionary’s performance was by the newsletters or the personal presentation (w/ power point, of course) during a visit. combined with a time of earnest corporate prayer and a good praise music soundtrack, people are usually moved to think highly of the missionary. but, having crossed over to the side of the “mission field” i see a big gap between the “effective missionary” and the “effective reporting missionary”. i don’t know how we can get around this issue of appearance and actuality.

i think my missionary friend milo cho said it best last nite after an important missionary ceremony, “we know the difference between what we think is best for the mission field and what would make our supporters feel like we’re doing a great job. but we must stay true to our calling and seek only to please God. those who do not support us can drop us, but God will give us everything we need for His work” (paraphrase).

he’s right; there is a temptation or a business instinct for the field people to put on a show for the supporters back home, even if it means something less than what is best for the church in the mission field. but i must be aware of this issue, and be intentional about maintaining a focus on the gospel work that i must do here; the remaining issue, then, is communicating what i am thinking to my supporters; but it’s kinda overwhelming to try to communicate this cross-cultural ministry context to people who are still in usa. yes, i know, that’s no excuse in compromising my work, that is, in sacrificing the thai church to please my supporters; it would be better to quit than to put the cart before the horse.

gave my first thai sermon this week (in language school); i realized something new as i prepared the sermon on Mt 5:43-48; there is no difference between the commands, “love your neighbor” and “love your enemies.”

1. in Luke 10, the expert of the law answered correctly in stating that to love God and our neighbor summed up God’s commandments; but his response to God’s greatest law was not to obey, but more lawyering, “who is my neighbor?”; to that Jesus told the story of the Good Samaritan, which answers his question, “anyone, including your enemies.” in other words, acc to this parable, loving your enemies is what it means to love your neighbor!

2. looking at the context, is the sermon on the mount where Jesus changes the OT laws, or where he clarifies them? the religious leaders had dissected God’s principles to suit their own fancy, whether it was to oppress people or to shrink God’s commands to bite-sized “realistic” bits; so, Jesus had to spell it out to these lawyering religious leaders that, for example, “do not kill” also meant do not hate, do not commit adultery also meant do not lust, etc. people always want to know what they can get away with, what they have to do as a minimum requirement– this is not the attitude of love, but of fear; so, in the sermon on the mount, Jesus points out that to love our neighbor also means to love our enemy! even pagans and corrupt tax collectors love people who love them; even dogs….

as long as i thought that loving our neighbors was one thing, and loving our enemies was another, more spiritual, thing, i was performing the same lawyering that pharisees used to do; maybe it’s too painful for proud pastors to realize that they might not be perfect in the eyes of their congregation; but God’s command is for us to love each other as He did (Rom 5:8, “while we were still sinners”), and only when we love our enemies can we show that we have the love of God. now, who wants to ask, “who is my enemy?”

meditating on this passage in Thai gave me an opportunity to reflect on it afresh, kinda like how i used to get blessed by doing hebrew and greek exegeses in seminary; maybe i should review my biblical languages after i’m done with thai school this spring!

does love really conquer all? in our newsong small group (Underground Verge) yesterday, we discussed the love of God, and how we should even love our enemies. but what does fear have to do with love? does love conquer one’s fear of spiders? maybe it’s that when one trusts in God’s love (and power) one will overcome arachnophobia as well.

looking at Jesus Christ can help put things in a more meaningful perspective; simply put, he conquered death with the love of God, so there’s no need for us to fear death; or, is separation from God our greater fear? well, look at the cross. you name it, he conquered it! with the love of God he came to us, accepted us, and ultimately died for us; that’s how he commanded us to love others with the perfect love of God. so that includes loving our enemies (those who really want to hurt us, not just those who are annoying or weird). so that’s how i must show God’s love to my neighbors: i must live and die for them. Romans 5:8 is one of my favorite verses.

fear is based on hatred; that’s why love drives out fear; we can see it more easily in children; they bully or make fun of each other cuz they’re insecure or afraid. they don’t yet have the peaceful security that comes from understanding how unconditionally God loves them. now, what should i do for valentine’s day? i hate these “hallmark” days…

ps. i like food, but not this much!

the powerful church tried to supress empirical findings of scientists like galileo; and now we laugh (or mourn) at the attempt; today, i’m wondering if theologians and other leaders within the church try too hard to paint over our biblical interpretations with images of modern science. as a science major, one of the things i learned was that theories AND laws change often.

as a teenager i was taught that jonah’s “fish” or ”sea monster” was a fish and not a whale; now i’m wondering if we are reading our current biological categories into the translation (and interpretation) of an ancient text, regardless of the veracity of our current categories. did the ancient hebrew biology distinguish a “whale” from a “fish”? did they laugh at a layman’s interpretation of jonah’s story when he used the word “whale” by rebutting, “a whale is a mammal, silly, cuz it breathes air”?

i actually did a little research and found this site from liberty. but jonah’s fish is just one example. i am also a little bothered by the religious concern or predisposition on the quest for “life” on mars and elsewhere. scientists are looking for “life” as defined by our current science; what is the biblical definition of life? is there one? and if so are they the same? like other biological categories, the fundamental definition of life would also likely change relatively soon. is anyone trying to tell their congregation that there can’t be life on mars or elsewhere (cuz the bible says so, whatever that means)?

one of my early experiences with scientific arrogance was in college with students, more so than professors; professors and other experts are quick to point out the many questions they have on a subject, while a 20-yr old major is quick to claim satisfactory knowledge on a subject; i was wondering out loud about how mysterious it was that a zygote would turn into a fetus (ie, what in the single cell led to a fully functioning human being?). the biology major claimed, “well, modern biology has answered most of your questions.” it hasn’t!

and christian leaders would do well to interpret the eternal bible without being distracted by, or without trying to appease, the temporal theories of science. if i can live long enough, i’d bet that science as we know it (learned in high school) would seem comical to our descendants.

thought i should say something as a cross-cultural minister about some of the westerners’ shock and disappointment with the coup in thailand last week, cuz similar arrogance and ignorance hinder the work of the gospel in cross-cultural settings as well.

the automatic western response is something like, “but that’s so undemocratic!” “where is the will of the people?” etc.
well, judging from the flowers and the celebrations, the obvious will of the people was with the coup; some call it “military democracy”! of course, the celebrations may diminish if the generals don’t keep their word and try to control the government longer than two weeks.

people here are aware of the “undemocratic” form of the coup, and say it was necessary because the traditional (western) democratic process was being restricted by those in power at the time; hence, it was necessary to restore true democracy.

i think if there is any society that values civil dialogue over violence, it’s thailand, the land of smiles; i think the thais are more civil in this aspect than koreans or americans or the korean-americans that i’ve known.
so, what’s the problem? why did they have so many coups?

well, focus on the issue of contextualization; the western form of democracy was designed for a society with western values (individualism, equality, rational discussion, etc.), not a typical asian society with different, nonwestern values. (think also of the old/new wineskin illustration.) so when you impose a western form of gov’t on an eastern society, you get interesting clips for Mad TV (where asian politicians have boxing matches in the congress).
i feel dismay at the trumpeting of many christians that democracy and human rights are biblical values. so, what passage supports locke?
and also we tell laborers in asia that they can’t work more hours per week cuz that would be a violation of some “intenational” standard of human rights– it’s for their own good that we boycott companies that give them the extra work they’re begging for.

w/o wanting to make a judgment on thai politics myself (since i don’t know the inside story), i ask the readers to suspend their judgments for a foreign culture as well by thinking of these three questions; how democratic was the: 1) american revolution in 1776? 2) american civil war? 3) dropping of the two atom bombs in asia?
maybe it’s time to rethink the whole assumption of democracy, even in usa.

there are thai missionaries around the world, about ten of them from what i heard. went to a commisioning service of a couple who are going to taiwan; it was very inspiring, much more so than our own service last fall. maybe if we were only one of ten korean missionaries, instead of 10,000, around the world,…

i am not sure if this couple is going to target the taiwanese or the thai workers in taiwan; but they are going, and are going through the same process of raising support, reporting to churches, preparing for culture shock, loneliness, etc. i’m so glad that the thai church has a vision for global ministry, but i’m also aware of the many issues that sending churches have to deal with when they support a missionary. even the more experienced korean or american churches often betray cross-cultural ignorance and frustrate those on the field. americans are generally seen as more culturally narrowminded than others; i don’t think so, but people from the less wealthy countries do tend to be more humble and less eager to tell everybody how the american way or the “rational” way is the best or even biblical (so “you guys should change your 3,000-yr old tradition today,” etc.).

this couple’s annual budget is over USD 50,000, a staggering amount for an average thai family; i was surprised too, since it’s bigger than ours, but the pastor explained the higher cost of living in taiwan, and the need for an automobile (even a used one) that wasn’t even included in the general annual budget, etc. still, once out on the field, money is less important than one’s sense of peace of being in tune with God’s will, less important than the emotional support of friends and churches back home;

pray for the Khamsiangs.

i just read on yahoo news of the decision by the protestant chaplain in georgetown university to kick out the six evangelical campus ministry groups including intervarsity. here’s a clip that quotes another editor:

First Things editor Jody Bottum writes,
There was something odd going on last year when Campus Ministries demanded that the evangelical groups sign a statement promising not to “proselytize nor undermine another faith community.” And there was something even odder when it was done in the name of the school’s Catholic tradition—by the Protestant chaplains in the official Georgetown office. … There’s an obvious irony here—employed too often to be surprising—in which people begin by protesting in the name of diversity against centralized authority, and later discover, once they’re in charge, how useful those old forms of authority can be in controlling diversity.

hypocrisy is one of the favorite criticisms of the church by those outside, and now they can continue directing the criticism to the liberals as well; although if you look at my previous post (july 22), the gay/lesbian community is getting into it as well.