Now for something different.
I need to admit from the outset that I’m writing here as a citizen of the good old USA and not as a minister. In other words, this post is political in nature and I recognize that. [I never use the pulpit for political purposes.] I recognize also that we all have differing views about political issues. I’m not sure there is a “right” or “wrong” in such things, but I do believe civility in disagreement is both Christian AND a requirement for comments to remain up on this blog. Now that the needed disclaimers are stated, I’ll begin with my somewhat tentative thoughts.
Multiculturalism is a problem in this country and many modern countries that now face immigration problems. It may perhaps be the biggest problem any pluralistic society can face. How a society resolves the difficulties associated with...1) The desire to maintain a distinction some cultural minority communities might obviously have..and.. 2) our encouragement to and need for them to socially integrate with us all as a society... is not an easy thing to resolve. But it is a tension we must face and talk about whatever the difficulties.
It is my firm conviction personally, that, as one Educator of note put it, “The former [A need to maintain a distinction] is a private matter for the individuals of communities involved and the latter [Our need for them to socially integrate] is the only legitimate concern of public education in this country.” It is that conviction which produced so much anguish when the before mentioned Educator spoke those words over twenty years ago in England and was, subsequently, forced to retire and was charged to be a racist, among other things.
In giving a report for “The Telegraph” concerning that Educator, a UK paper a group of reporters jointly produced a lengthy article about a Mr Honeyford, the Headmaster of Drummand Middle School, and I quote...“He [Mr.Honeyford] thought that schools, such as his own, where 95 per cent of the children were of Pakistani or Bangladeshi origin, were a disaster both for their pupils and for society as a whole. He was a passionate believer in the redemptive power of education, and its ability to integrate people of different backgrounds and weld them into a common society. He then became notorious for, among other things, his insistence that Muslim girls should be educated to the same standard as everyone else.” The reporters went on to say..."Mr. Honeyford seems to have been vindicated this week by what British Prime Minister David Cameron said last weekend in Munich...'Multiculturalism has failed,"
My opinion only, but I’m not so sure but that “multiculturalism” has taken root in different societies because people have been led to believe that it is really synonymous with multiracialism and/or pluralism. [It is not, as I think of it.] So, for obvious reasons if that's true, anybody who criticizes "multiculturalism" is immediately held to be a "racist" and has been thought of that way for the past twenty-five or so years.
I am personally opposed to and would not stand for the promotion of a racially discriminatory society. Racism is evil and anti-scriptural for me. I would oppose any societal laws that would promote/permit it in any fashion. At the same time an ethnically pluralistic society is a very good thing as I see it. I believe it enables us to celebrate our roots, when they are known, and is very important for a healthy lifestyle. But being opposed to "multiculturalism" as it is being practiced today is, as I said, neither "racism" nor "antipluralistic" for me.
I mentioned a moment ago that the British Prime Minister [Mr David Cameron became the PM on May 11th 2010] recently spoke out against "multiculturalism." I read Mr. Cameron's speech and it looks to me like he clearly articulated the basic problem with present day “Multiculturalism.” He said it this way... "Under the doctrine of state multiculturalism, we have encouraged different cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and the mainstream. We have failed to provide a vision of a society to which they feel they want to belong. WE HAVE EVEN TOLERATED THESE SEGREGATED COMMUNITIES BEHAVING IN WAYS THAT RUN COUNTER TO OUR VALUES." [Emphasis mine]
I want to give an example which will demonstrate the problem. In England a Muslim bus driver stopped the bus and required the passengers to wait as he rolled out the his prayer rug and, facing Mecca, prayed for five minutes. His employers said that he was due a ten minute break therefore he was not disciplined and retained his job.
But my problem with him retaining his bus driving job is that, adapting to his requirement to pray five times a day, which seems to run counter to the job of bus driving, is the EMPHESIS instead of the socially significant legal rights of the passengers. And, the fact that racial or religious profiling was the claim that ultimately led to that society's inability to require that he cease driving the bus. Further, no laws could be enacted that would restrict that job to those who can drive uninterrupted. There we have it. The problem that must be faced.
Lest you think I’m picking on Muslims, let me get closer to home. Say a Southern Baptist family holds to a patriarchal system in the home. [The man is boss and women cannot lead men as it violates scripture.] But they have sons in High school. They COULD, on what they would see as biblical grounds, REFUSE to allow their teenage boys to be under a female teacher in the high school they attend. Or, for that matter, were that high school to have a female Principal, since there would be male teachers that would be under her authority, it would ALSO create a situation that would be less than tolerable. This is a problem not unlike praying five times a day facing Mecca. What principle rule the day?
My illustrations are ONLY for the purpose of pointing out how difficult it is to create a society that allows for individual freedoms and cultures [Pluralism] But ALSO be able to have workable laws that do not allow for one small [Or even large] group to control the freedoms that have been recognized under the unique culture [America] already created. This is true however, whether the society is England, Germany, Chile, or America.
This is why I believe things like a common language, [English] a common flag, [Old Glory] a common set of societal laws, [State and Federal] an educational system, and a court system [State and Federal] are so important. This is the reason I believe much debate and thoughtfulness must go into what we face as an American society in the days ahead. But our conversation must major on what we are to be as Americans based on our Constitution and heritage culturally with due respect and openness to people of other cultures joining us. But when they CHOOSE to join us it must be seen as more than a new geographical locale. It must be seen as a willingness to become ...."An American."
Paul B.
Update...I just read this significant statement by Douglas Murray of The Wall Street Journal. I believe it speaks to my post.
"Multiculturalism is a deeply misunderstood idea... But the true character and effects of the policy could not be permanently hidden. State-sponsored multiculturalism treated European countries like hostelries. It judged that the state should not "impose" rules and values on newcomers. Rather, it should bend over backwards to accommodate the demands of immigrants. The resultant policy was that states treated and judged people by the criteria of whatever "community" they found themselves born into."
51 comments:
Amen.
That doesn't BEGIN to describe the extent of my agreement with you, but it'll do for now, I guess.
Hi PAUL and BOB,
it's me, L's
My father, of blessed memory, came from St. Armand, Canada (Quebec Province) and spoke only French for the first five years of his life. Thereafter, he was taught English by the nuns in Massachusetts, where the Family settled after immigrating to this country.
I suppose I see this problem from two different viewpoints, but I do understand what has happened in Britain, and perhaps it was originally, not so much of a 'welcoming' of other cultures as one may think. The idea of 'assimilation' of a migrant of one culture into the host country's culture is not something Britain would have done, I think. So, being highly civilized, the British chose another way. Perhaps the immigrants felt like strangers in a strange land too long. I don't know.
In my Pop's country of origin, Canada, there was a similar pattern followed and it has name: "la mosaïque culturelle canadienne", or the Canadian 'mosaic' culture.
It has distinct features, such as two government languages, and sections that are distinctly celebrating a particular culture: for example, Quebec is French, but the Quebecois speak French primarily but also English. This form of 'multi-culturalism' still has not worked out to foster 'good-will' in the way it was intended, I think.
I would love to here Aussie John way in with his observations of the situation with different cultures in Australia.
No easy answers. Has our own 'melting-pot' been a success? If it has, in any way, you can thank our military and our public school systems for contributing to that.
I could go on and on . . this post is a good one, and I understand the concerns which now, in our world, are coming into focus more strongly now than ever before.
Thanks for writing about this, Paul.
Christiane
Bob,
When I read an "amen" from you I feel like I rang the proverbial bell. It's ALWAYS encouraging to me. Thanks.
Christiane,
You know...I think I hear what you're saying and have to admit a kind of agreement with...."The idea of 'assimilation' of a migrant of one culture into the host country's culture is not something Britain would have done, I think. So, being highly civilized, the British chose another way."...
But I have to say that the ultimate end of failing to assimilate would be what they now face and we face also. I don't believe we are as far down a wrong way as are they, but it's going further and faster down the wrong way in America than I would like. That's just my opinion of course.
I'm also aware that I tend to view things through a lens that creates an idealism that is not always longed for by all our citizens. [Mine may not be completely correct or best.]
Some even would see their view as the TRUE idealism in fact. This is oart of the problem that requires us to think and talk deeply and respectfully. You've done so it seems to me and I appreciate it.
Paul,
I can reply to Christiane by swift agreement with what I understand you as saying.
Australia, although the authorities deny it, is facing serious problems as ethnic ghettos have developed. Whole suburbs of our largest cities have become ethnic enclaves. Amongst these ethnic groups, their has developed small groups who wage violence on others of different ethnicity.
Forgive me for slightly amending what you said, "This is why I believe things like a COMMON language, [English] a COMMON flag, [Australian Flag] a COMMON set of societal laws, [State and Federal] educational systems, and court systems [State and Federal] are so important. This is the reason I believe much debate and thoughtfulness must go into what we face as an Australian society in the days ahead. But our conversation must major on what we are to be as Australians based on our Constitution and heritage culturally with due respect and openness to people of other cultures joining us. But when they CHOOSE to join us it must be seen as more than a new geographical locale. It must be seen as a willingness to become ...."An Australian."
At present, many Australians feel they are aliens in the country of their birth, especially when those of ethnic origin break our laws and those same laws are interpreted more leniently than they are with Australian nationals.
If things aren't dealt with quickly,we will have civil disobedience like this country has never seen.
Aussie J,
Quite a response and I think we're all better in understanding because you did. Thanks.
Christiane, please continue to comment as thoughts come and I would appreciate any who read and maybe have never commented weighing in also.
To possible commenters....Bob, Christiane, Aussie J, Rex, Rodney, Chris, Lin, Traveller and many more.... do wonderfully well at abiding by the instructional paragraph just under the "leave your comment" phrase above. Join us in refraining from such language if you would.
Thank you, Paul.
And thanks to Aussie John for that contribution.
It occurred to me that a lot of the difficulty we are now seeing is because the differences in 'merging' cultures is greater than ever before.
My father's culture was French-Canadian, Christian (Roman Catholic, and extremely law-abiding and pro-education and self-reliance, as well as strong family values.
My father 'assimilated' well into America. The Family has 'done well' in this country, and received much and contributed more. We were blessed.
But what Aussie John describes happening is that some immigrants are NOT law-abiding people. And they, because of their immigrant status are given special treatment,
and I, for one, can see that a bad message is being sent to other immigrants that may come to Australia.
Breaking the law is not an option, no matter who we are. It is one of the foundations of a country's stability and and the Law needs to be respected, or if seen as 'wrong', needs to be changed politically in a civilized manner.
But 'breaking the law'?
No way.
I'm sorry to hear that Australia is seeing this trouble. My father spent part of WWII there, and he loved Australia.
Christiane
Paul,
My intention wasn't to imply that immigrants break the law, but simply to say that immigrants who do break the law,are often treated more leniently than other Australians.
The major problem, as I see it, is that immigrants are not dispersed amongst our towns and communities but allowed to form mini countries (suburbs)of their own ethnicity, which certainly doesn't encourage them to relate to nationals, learn the language, or our ways of living (some of which I would rather they didn't learn).
I have met immigrants who state this very problem as being a cause for concern.
Aussie J,
I took this... "especially when those [small groups who wage violence] of ethnic origin break our laws and those same laws are interpreted more leniently than they are with Australian nationals..." to illustrate the very point I was making quite well. It is that refusal to make "those" suffer the same consequences we all face as a society when laws are broken that is weakening that very society.
I can agree.
It sends a bad message to the whole society that a single group is not held to the same standards as the rest of the society.
I'm for consideration and compassion, but with common sense and fairness thrown in.
If one group is 'favored', that builds resentment among the others. No one is being helped in the end.
Christiane
Christiane,
I chuckled at your comment, which I basically agree with, as it reminded me of when our grown children were MUCH younger, they would sometimes really quarrel with their mother and me about our actions toward them and whether said actions were REALLY "fair" and whether one was REALLY being "favored" over the others.
It may be that defining and satisfying all about the meaning of "fairness" and "favor" may be the biggest problem of all.
Hello Paul, first time commentor here.
Where I live in St. Louis we have a diverse immigrant community and the immigrants are very diverse in their attitudes in regards to living in America. Some are very hostile and refuse any attempts at assimilation. We had an emergecny room visit last summer with my son (typical teen age boy) and we witnessed an immigrant family demanding service and demanding an interpretor and claiming the hospital was xenophobic because the staff was not quick enough to help. What we witness in our community is that these particular immigrants want nothing to do with America except what America will do for them. They don't want to be known as xxxAmerican but simply xxx. They hang the flag of their home country and our offended by so many American flags being "forced" on them.
We also have a large population of Bosnian immigrants. These people have come from unspeakable horrors in their home country. They embrace America and are very happy to be here. They have relatives who are desparate to get into the country and are on long waiting lists. They fill the ESL classes and encourage their children to do well in school. They have not given up their culture. We have Bosnian aisles at our grocery stores. There are many Bosnian businesses. The difference is these people are proud to be known as Bosnian American. They don't want to just live as Bosnians in America but to become Americans who still love their Bosnian culture. They proudly hang American flags next to their Bosnian flags. I think that's great. Melting pot America at it's finest.
I don't know why some immigrants come to America and just expect to be given, given, given and some come to America and are so greatful to be here, are willing to work and as a result experience what we used to call the American dream. I just see the difference between the immigrants who are proud of where they've come from and can still embrace the idea of being an American and those who are antiAmerican from the start.
Well that's a long rant! LOL! Perhaps you can get something to forward the discussion out of our experiences here.
Mary
Mary,
Thank you for taking the time to comment. Your thoughts are worthy of reading.
I'm not sure why the difference between immigration groups. I don't think a one attitude covers all can be found in any single group but, that said, I have also seen exactly what you've described in meetings I've done across our country when I'm in churches that minister to various groups of immigrants.
It's much like the "ugly American" thing that so many of the other nations see in the American tourist. When Mary and I travel we want to present a different picture than that.
I honestly don't know what the answer is in it all. But I do know as a Christian my response is to minister to ALL immigrants in any fashion I can. Out local church, HHBC in Edmond, takes that VERY seriously.
However, as a citizen, I have to think through what I believe our culture is to provide in, as the last commenter mention, a legal and safe way that is both favorable to ALL and fair to ALL at the same time.
As I mentioned, with the raising of children that isn't easy to do at all. With the building of a nation it may even be MORE difficult.
Oh, I agree with everything you've said here Paul. I always tell my kids "I don't care what the other guy is doing YOU have to do what you know is right." I think sometimes though Christians can get so caught up with doing what they see as the compassionate thing and miss that some actions actually will lead to more problems. Immigration or multiculturalism isn't always as black and white as some would have it. Not all immigrants are bad just as not all Americans are bad and rude travelers. But it is not xenophobia or even a lack of compasssion to say we have to have laws and they have to enforced.
Mary
Paul,
Good post. Reminds me of an email that said in part:
Eight Ways to Destroy America
by former Colorado Governor Richard D. Lamm.
1. Turn America into a bilingual or multi-lingual and bicultural country. History shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures. The histories of bilingual and bicultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension, and tragedy. Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, and Lebanon all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with Basques, Bretons, Corsicans, and Muslims.
2. Invent 'multiculturalism' and encourage immigrants to maintain their culture. Make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal; that there are no cultural differences. Make it an article of faith that the Black and Hispanic dropout rates are due solely to prejudice and discrimination by the majority.
3. Make the United States a 'Hispanic Quebec'. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. Encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. Replace the melting pot metaphor with the salad bowl metaphor. Ensure we have various cultural subgroups enforcing their differences rather than as Americans emphasizing their similarities.
4. Make our fastest growing demographic group the least educated. Add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated, and antagonistic to our population. Have this second underclass have a 50% dropout rate from high school.
5. Get big foundations and business to give these efforts lots of money. Invest in ethnic identity, and establish the cult of 'Victim.' Get all minorities to think their lack of success was the fault of the majority. Start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority platoon.
6. Include dual citizenship, and promote divided loyalties. Celebrate diversity over unity. Stress differences rather than similarities. Diverse people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other - that is, when they’re not killing each other.
7. Make it taboo to talk about anything against the cult of 'diversity.' Find a word similar to 'heretic' in the 16th century - that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking. Words like 'racist' or 'xenophobe' halt discussion and debate. Having made America a bilingual/bicultural country, having established multi-cultism, having the large foundations fund the doctrine of 'Victim', make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws. Develop a mantra: because immigration has been good for America, it must always be good. Make every individual immigrant symmetric and ignore the cumulative impact of millions of them.
8. Censor Victor Hanson Davis's book 'Mexifornia.' His book is dangerous. It exposes the plan to destroy America. If you feel America deserves to be destroyed, don't read that book
Rex
Paul,
In my view, this issue reflects one aspect of the fact we are in a huge transition worldwide. Historically, these transitions occur roughly every 500 years. In some ways this transition is different because of technology which allows us to travel quickly and to "participate" in, or at least observe, events far away. (Think of Egypt and Tunisia as recent examples of people from around the world literally watching events unfold in these two countries and the events being organized through social networks, mobile phones, etc.) It also results in change happening more quickly than it did in prior transition periods.
Another result is that most institutions, including organized religion, businesses, and governments have lost their credibility with large numbers of people. Even less structured and informal "structures" such as a common culture are weakening.
In my home state of Texas there is no majority group any longer. Everyone is a minority. As the people and cultures of the world move out of their single locations to multiple locations around the world we are faced with the irony that uniques cultural identity generally is being lost everywhere. Admittedly, this is happening more rapidly in some parts of the world than others largely because technology permeates some parts of the world more quickly and deeply than other parts that remain more isolated from the rest of the world.
As this transition progresses it is likely we will have fewer and fewer monolithic cultures. While no one can be certain we are probably moving toward a more global culture with pockets of unique cultures where people are more isolated. How we navigate this process, no matter where it leads, is a significant issue. For many people this will be quite threatening since it creates uncertainty and a sense of loss of identity.
Traveller,
That is quite an assessment. I think you may have hit the proverbial nail on the head.
Especially with your concluding statement..."How we navigate this process, no matter where it leads, is a significant issue. For many people this will be quite threatening since it creates uncertainty and a sense of loss of identity."
I would add that for believers [Christians] it has the added difficulty that our identity is a different one than any national identity we might have at the moment. Our country is of a different nature entirely. Our citizenship is a double one.
This means we live, WHATEVER the path taken politically in our nation, with our hope in another and a responsibility to gossip the gospel to all peoples regardless of the political structures that arise.
This is the truth we must never forget especially when we attempt to discuss and be involved as a citizen in the political debates that may arise as with the present post.
This is perhaps a "Prophetic" statement as well...".As this transition progresses it is likely we will have fewer and fewer monolithic cultures. While no one can be certain we are probably moving toward a more global culture with pockets of unique cultures where people are more isolated."
Perhaps everything that can be shaken will be shaken so that which cannot be shaken will remain. I think that's scriptural and our hope.
Paul,
I am in complete agreement with your assessment that as followers of Jesus we must always keep in mind that God loves all of his creation in its myriad and wonderful expressions. It is ultimately this entire creation (I am not suggesting universalism by this statement) will be renewed and re-created by the Creator. So, our "home" is not one country or state or location but ultimately in that renewed creation. Ultimately, our allegiance is to God himself.
Just to give a personal glimpse of how small the world has become my wife and I hosted a dinner this past Monday. As I have briefly noted we live in Africa now in Cameroon. At this dinner we had people from Cameroon, Malaysia, Japan, UK, Venezuela and the US. We had many things in common and many things not but we had some wonderful conversation and a great connection among us. Some of this group were agnostic, some Muslim, some not really anything and some Jesus followers.
Traveller,
One of my fondest memories is when my wife and I had the privilege of being in London and meeting with the English host of Radio Free Europe and a group much as you described, multiracial and multinational. [This was several years ago during the Cold War.]
We all sang and prayed simultaneously in our native tongue and it was, in truth, a God moment for us all.
We've experienced this in several places overseas in places like the rose garden on the Mt of Olives for example. It IS incredible.
I just read what Adrian Hamilton, the Editor of "The Independent" and an exceptional writer whether you agree with him or not, said about those who oppose "Multiculturalism."....”But it is significant that the language being used is the language of racism of the 1930s – that it contains and implies attitudes of ethnic purity and cultural superiority, alongside xenophobia, which are dangerous in their logic and potentially extreme in their emotion.”
This is exactly my point being made in the post about making multiculturalism synonymous with multiracial and pluralism. I am for neither racial purity nor ethnic purity. Quite the contrary, I am for a blending of both into culture that is accepting of all.
Paul,
What an excellent conversation! I am, and always have been, in agreement with your statement,"I am for neither racial purity nor ethnic purity. Quite the contrary, I am for a blending of both into culture that is accepting of all".
I must applaud Traveller's comments, as well.
I can only comment on our country, where there is no doubt that fear of the unkown, is,I think, a major factor fuelling concerns regarding multiculturalism. The fears are many,some cultural (communication,
habits,etc.), but predominant is the fact that one group of immigrants are publicly being told by some of their leaders,that their culture and religion,must, at whatever cost,and by whatever method, become the dominant national identity.
Sadly,and again from my own experience, observations, what arrives in my mail box,and conversations, fundamentalist Christian groups,are the most active purveyors of this fear.
Outstanding article.
Outstanding comments.
Outstanding responses.
Astounding agreement here!
I shall refrain from commenting further to keep the "Outstanding" status of this blog post!
Smiling,
Wade
Here I go treading lightly.....
I think Traveler is on target with his comments.
Modernism is being replaced with something else and I believe that is Post-modernism.
This shift seems to be a global cultural reaction to the failure of Modernity to provide sufficient answers to life's biggest questions.
Though every generation believes the generation after them is different..It is true the postmodern generation really DOES think differently.
They do not value as highly the same identity markers that we do (language, tradition, nationality, race, myth, symbols, religion, and heritage)
Instead they seem to put a higher premium on
1. Relationship over Task
2. Journey over Destination
3. Authenticity over Excellence
4. Experience over Proposition
5. Mystery over Solution
6. Diversity over Uniformity
That puts those of us in North American Congregations on shaky ground.
Why?
It appears that the “North American church culture” is dying. Of course the church of Jesus Christ will not die and the Church will continue to thrive until the Second Coming. The Bible makes that abundantly clear. Even though the Church will continue to exist, local congregations can and do cease to exist for various reasons.
Yet, there is a big difference between the culture of a local church (language, acceptable behavior, thought patterns, traditions, musical style, etc.) and the church itself.
But in modern church life, they have become increasingly harder and harder to separate.
If the Western church has “appropriated the modern worldview” as some believe and “it is living off of the work, money, and energy of previous generations from
a previous world order” then, in the face of postmodernism many churches are in trouble.
If the world is in a new era as has been suggested, then “the postmodern world will demand a new church expression just as did the rise of the modern world.”
The church learned to communicate the timeless truths of the gospel to generations of people that were ensnared by modernism. But it took time. The Reformation was the natural (or maybe supernatural) by-product of The Enlightenment. Over time, many churches and the message they proclaimed have absorbed the worldview they worked so hard to challenge.
Now, the North American church culture unfortunately reflects the materialism, rationalism, intellectualism, naturalism, and secularism of the modern era.
The greatest threat to the church according to Chuck Colson “comes not from persecution but from the spirit of the age. The spirit of the age does not break down church doors like Communist agents or militant Muslims. It drifts into the side window, largely unnoticed like the air that we breathe. We get accustomed to it, breath by breath, until we do not even recognize its stench.”
Modern, Newtonian, and rationalistic thinking has permeated the church culture.
Reggie McNeal writes “Not only do we not need God to explain the universe, we do not need God to operate the church. Many operate like machines, with church leaders serving as mechanics. God does not need to show up to get done what is being done.”
As modernism has continued to permeate the church, many of her members have become practical atheists. In other words, as Ralph Wood writes, the church is filled with people who have “gladly reduce Christian faith to sociology or culture or personality development.”
Reggie McNeal continues “Just when the church adopted a business model, the culture went looking for God. Just when the church adopted strategic planning (linear and Newtonian) the universe shifted to preparedness (loopy and quantum). Just when the church began building recreation space, the culture began a search for sacred space.”
Wade,
Your comments would never take away from "Outstanding." But they might overshadow something that is just "Outstanding." ;)
Rodney,
Well written, researched and weighty comment. You do address the Church as she relates to a global culture quite well, which I chose not to do in this post. But you've introduced a natural and NEEDED tributary for us to finish our discussion. It will almost be a viewing of the head side of the coin after viewing, in this post, the tails side.
So, next week I'm going to write about my view as a Christian looking at America and our national culture. [As well as a world view] Which will be a unique view that is not understood by many who don't share a faith in Jesus Christ as MANY American citizens do not. Some of what I will be saying will sound paradoxical to what was stated in this post as you well know.
Good comment.
I wonder what the Indians thought about the 'immigrants' in frontier days.
And goodness, the Aborigine peoples of Australia must have been wide-eyed when their continent was 'settled' by people from another 'world'.
I expect how we see immigrants now may we a classic reaction of all indigenous peoples to those who come among them from afar, seeking a new home. We are varied in our reactions, maybe according to our family histories, or our 'identity' as 'the dominant culture' (whatever that is, these days).
There is a teaching about how we must treat the strangers among us in sacred Scripture:
Leviticus 19:34
"The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself,
for you were aliens in Egypt.
I am the LORD your God."
Even Our Lord was 'called out of Egypt' when Mary and Joseph returned with Him, to the Holy Land, after they took refuge in that foreign land.
The early Christian people were described in a letter from Mathetes to Diognetus, in this way:
"“They dwell in their own countries, but simply as sojourners. As citizens, they share in all things with others, and yet endure all things as if foreigners. Every foreign land is to them as their native country, and every land of their birth as a land of strangers. "
We, as Christians, are also 'strangers in a strange land' and we can, as such, extend our hands in compassion to those who come from a far place. We should not fear losing 'our identity' because it lies in the safe-keeping of Christ.
Christiane, daughter of an immigrant father and also a direct descendent through the maternal line of the immigrant William Stafford who came to Jamestown aboard the 'Furtherance' from England in the 1600's.
I, Christiane, am an American and proud of it. :) And I wouldn't be here if it weren't for some immigrants who came to this beautiful land, over a span of many centuries, to make a new life.
Christiane,
Your final two sentences say it about as well as I've ever seen a post and comment section bottom-lined.
that, my friend, is what it is to be for us all as American citizens.
Christiane,
Hello old friend. Thanks for writing in words I could understand. I believe your comment told of immigrants that were glad to jump in the ‘melting pot’ and become Americans.
Paul’s post is about the problem of immigrants WHO DO NOT WANT TO BE AMERICANS, but want to keep their language, their gods, their laws, their way of life etc. They want America to change.
At one time, there was one set of directions on a purchase – now there are two or three in different languages. America has bent over backward in
‘changing’ to whims as ‘no prayer or Bible classes in schools’.
The ‘melting pot’ has turned into a ‘salad bowl’ as Richard Lamm said.
Most nations do not fall from an enemy on the outside. They fall when the enemy becomes the majority on the inside. As President Obama said, “American is not a Christian nation.”
The destruction of American is well underway, and most don’t have a clue.
Rex
Rodney, I agree completely with your assessment. In my view the current institutional expression of church will disappear over the next 50 years. But as you suggest the church will not die.
Rex, although I am not always as clear as I would like to be my original comment was intended to partially state that the issue is that the US is changing in ways that make our culture no longer what it once was, nor monolithic. Because in many parts, if not all, of the US there is no dominant culture group any longer what is the US culture today for one to melt into? Not what was it at one time but what is it today? Is this good, not so good or neutral? There are numerous views on that point.
It is this feeling of shifting sands under our feet that creates the sense of uncertainty and fear. But as Jesus followers we stand on different ground that is not shifting sand so these changes are not something to fear but opportunity to show the world that there is solid ground upon which to stand.
All,
What a wonderful discussion this has been I don't hear anyone being overly dogmatic but all seem to be stating their views with the awareness of fallibility in us all.
I'd like to bottom line this afresh, maybe just for me. In this I'm only attempting to make clear what I've heard, not exactly what each meant. Any response would be appreciated. But do continue to remember our guidelines if you would.
1. Our American culture IS NOT [Perhaps] as it was in times past. Where once we had a monolithic culture, [A single large American identifiable culture] we are at present. as the other nations, moving toward pockets of cultures.
2.The ‘melting pot‘ may not capture the present day concept of the American way of life. [Especially in the minds of younger people perhaps because of faster communication.] This may be resulting in some citizens feeling like “Aliens” in the land of their birth.
3. To think of a.. “monolithic” style culture providing a “legal and safe way that is both favorable to ALL and fair to ALL at the same time.” ..is perhaps an idealistic way of thinking and may not be, in fact, realism. While some Americans may long for and attempt to recreate a “one culture into which all assimilate ultimately,” it is not likely to exist again.
4. Since some citizens wish for the old way and some do not, [Perhaps a generational thing] we have this feeling of shifting sands under our feet as Americans that helps create a sense of uncertainty and fear in us as a nation.
5. But it is also true that, WHATEVER the path taken politically in our nation, as Christians, our hope is in another nation [An holy nation] and as Jesus followers we stand on a different ground that is not shifting sand.
6. So these changes are not something to fear but offer an opportunity for us as Christians to show the world that there is solid ground upon which to stand and we have a responsibility to gossip the gospel to all peoples regardless of the political structures that arise.
7. If the world [Including America] is in a new era, as we are suggesting, [Post modern] then it will demand a new church expression just as did in the rise of what was called" the modern world."
8. Within the next fifty years the Church, as we know it today structurally, will not even be recognizable, if it exist at all. But the TRUE CHURCH will continue and the proverbial gates of hell will not stop her.
Traveller,
Thanks for the response. You said; “It is this feeling of shifting sands under our feet that creates the sense of uncertainty and fear.”
My ‘sands’ go back a little further since I’ll be 79 in next month, and I see the change is bigger than we think.
For example since 2007 at the rally for ‘Martin Luther King Jr. day, NAACP has covered the statue of George Washington. (He had slaves.) NAACP brings out Richard Lamm’s fifth way to destroy America. (Invest in ethnic identity, and establish the cult of 'Victim.' Get all minorities to think their lack of success was the fault of the majority.)
BTW, they never place any blame on those that ‘caught’ and received money for selling their people to slave buyers.
It seems to me that most of what’s been written on Paul’s post has been off-topic. I mean for Christians to have a ‘parachute’ of ‘beam me up Scottie’ when the going gets tough is not our goal.
To solve a problem, it first must be identified. The sad “shifting sands” of today is when the majority can choose a man who attended a church that preached ‘hate American’ for 20 years and instead of ‘God Bless America’ he thinks the most beautiful sound on earth is the Muslim call to prayer.
Rex
Perhaps we, as Americans descended from immigrants, need to allow our new citizens 'time' to 'assimilate' in the ways that are appropriate.
My grand-parents spoke French. My aunts and my father spoke only French when first here in this country. They lived in an 'enclave' of sorts: a French-Canadian-American Roman Catholic parish, where French was the sermon language, and the nuns at the school taught mornings in French, but afternoons in ENGLISH.
So, slowly, the Family began to use English, and even my Memere and Pepere spoke English in later life, when they spoke to us grandchildren.
My Father didn't speak French to us at home, except for a few phrases. I learnt it at age four from my grandparents with whom I stayed when my mom was in hospital and my father at sea.
My father never voiced the reason, but my Mother was a southerner and spoke no French at all. I wished we had been bi-lingual in our home.
Something of our heritage was lost to us, I think.
But other traits of the French-Canadian people were kept: our faith, love of family, and hard-work, and honesty, and dedication to education.
Not so different from the values of some American people, although today education, science, the law, and academics are not respected by some American people, and my Family would certainly never have fit in among them, I know this. America, for my Family, was a land of opportunity, but you had to learn and you had to work hard, as hard as you could, because it was the right thing to do according to our faith ethic.
Time: three to four generations should be permitted to people, and that is a long time. Yes, a 'grace' period.
Americans today want everything NOW. It doesn't work that way. It can't.
People need to be respected and their dignity needs to be recognized.
Change doesn't come easily for the older people. But for the young, it is easier.
Time. Enough time. At least three generations, time.
Assimilation of what can be incorporated is to be expected;
but sometimes the diverse gifts a new immigrant family brings, can produce a flowering of achievement, as in my own family: multiple medical physicians, specialized nurse practiioners, a lawyer who is one of the top five in the state of Massachusetts, a child psychiatrist, teachers and professors, military officers, and serving military, and on and on.
Reject the diversity across the board, you also reject the 'gifts' that diversity may bring to our country.
There are different ways to see this. I know that. The dear old Pepere (grandfather, with the wooden leg, who spoke French, would today be proud of his Family. He would see in them his old values still, I think.
Stronger than ever.
Because of that, I love this country.
Christiane
Rex, I appreciate your thoughts and understand your concerns. I do agree with you that the change in your life time, and mine, has been dramatic. You have about 20 years more than me but when I reflect on the change in my years I am amazed.
Christiane, what a lovely story of your family. My paternal family came to the US in the early 18th century from Germany. They came because of the religious persecution they received in the Palatinate region. On my maternal side they are from Wales. They came for a life with more opportunity. My life is blessed by the choice they made to come to a new country.
While I wish I had time to read all the comments, I am going to have to settle for begging indulgence if I repeat anything already said.
I would, for a moment, play devil's advocate to your position Paul. Arising from the situation Aussie described, we see immigrants treated with deferment (or a bus driver who stops driving busses to pray) and not being subjected to the law of the land in the same way that others are. It only seems fair that these people should be expected to obey the same laws as any natural citizen. After all, these are the laws of the country they have chosen to participate in. However, Aussie suggests that the eventual outcome (I presume this is performed by the Australian people) will be massive acts of civil disobedience. I wonder how we expect a different outcome from forcing assimilation. If that bus driver is not allowed to pray, do we assume that all Muslim peoples will sit by and think, "Oh. That makes sense. The necessity of getting these people to the next bus stop outweighs my need to pray." In truth, that isn't going to happen. If Christians had set times and ways of prayer, we would protest as well should we be prevented from engaging God. If the Muslim prayed after we said "no," then it becomes an act of civil disobedience. He is Martin Luther King, Jr. going to jail for engaging in the outworking of his faith. And eventually, one of two things happen: either the laws change to accommodate the marginalized culture, or we develop a totalitarian nationalism.
We live in a world we can travel around in a day. We can get information and thoughts from other countries in a matter of seconds thanks to the internet. The fact is that our ideas of culture are going to have to be radically altered. They will have to gain a degree of fluidity never imagined. Or they will have to gain a degree of rigidity envisioned only by the likes of Mussolini or Hitler. That is the burden of postmodernism (as Rodney brought out). The group identity is heavily stressed, but it is not a monolithic identity: it celebrates the minority groups which have heretofore had to marginalize their uniqueness preventing them from being authentically whatever they are. In some ways, it is a threat. But in other ways, it is a blessing. After all, that finally gives us the opportunity to be authentically Christian as opposed to culturally Christian.
Chris,
Welcome to the discussion. As always, good thoughtful remarks.
I can personally see by our comments with each other that this whole thing truly does need a "National Debate" if we are any kind of representation of the nation as citizens. Were one to be undertaken, I would wish it would have the same spirit of respect this one has had.
I have to also say that my view of things politically is certainly fluid and I've learned a lot from this comment section. I do hold to a concept as an American citizen that may be more generational I'm sure. But I'm ever learning how to be the right kind of citizen.
I'm also aware that all this is secondary to my Kingdom citizenship and, since I do not hold that America is God's special nation at all, I do not believe because something is "American" that makes it right.. In fact, next week will deal with that.
But I do believe that much sacrifice has been made by many in our history and present day that requires us to be proud of our heritage and not lose what is best about it.
So, I'm for continuing to welcome, sincerely, "The huddled masses yearning to be free..." which we have celebrated in this comment section. [My own is English and Dutch.]
But I would wish that our civil laws would not give up what we've sacrificed to attain such as women being free and equal and young girls able to be educated and all races welcomed at the table whether literally, politically, socially, etc., regardless of whatever changes come about culturally.
Finally, Chris..just one thought. I'm personally convinced the value of Dr Martin Luther King, "going to jail for engaging in the outworking of his faith."... was for the correcting of CIVIL laws that needed changing so the CIVIL liberties of the African-American minority could be attained. I think it would be just as valuable were it necessary for our CIVIL liberties to be protected. Both the changing and protecting of CIVIL laws would be needed no matter the cultural diversity it seems to me.
Paul,
I believe Traveler’s “It is this feeling of shifting sands under our feet that creates the sense of uncertainty and fear” speaks volumes on your topic.
We were promised “CHANGE”, but “shifting sand” indicates:
1. The foundation of our nation has change from a rock.
2. The President ordered the cabinet to cut $100 million from the $3.5 trillion federal budget. That’s cutting 6 cents from $2,000.
3. States are suing against ‘forced’ health-care.
4. Individuals have sued for a birth certificate.
5. Military has refused to obey orders on the belief the Commander-in Chief is not qualified.
6. The latest poll states 25% of Americans believe our President is a Muslim, 43% don’t know what to believe, and 32% believe he is a Christian.
I believe this quote sums up our biggest problem: "The Republic can survive Obama, but less likely to survive a multitude of those who made him their president."
Paul,
I think your response to Chris drives right to the core of the issue we face as a nation and world. How in a diverse country and world do we find common civil rights or liberties?
While it is true that many of the rights in the US and Europe are derived from a Judeo-Christian common history it is also true many of these ideas were heavily influenced by Enlightenment thinking that exalted individual rights over community, that tended to create a division between secular and spiritual, etc. While most of our founders had a background in Christianity much of it was cultural. This was not bad in creating our system of government just not strictly "Christian", whatever that may actually mean.
But some Enlightenment thinking was heavily influenced by Christian beliefs such as we all, no matter our gender, our social/economic status, ethnicity, are image bearers of God and equal. The difference was many of these Enlightenment thinkers wanted the concepts divorced from religion.
This is why those who see our history as black and white: We are a Christian nation or we are not, are both correct and incorrect. Our history is much more complex than many wish to acknowledge.
In a post-Christendom, post-Modern country and world how do we find sufficient commonality to protect both individuals and communities?
I believe Egypt will prove to be a very instructive example in the Arab world of the ability for common ground to be found.....or not.
Traveller,
You are so right. In fact, I've already started my thinking about the next post and the paradoxes that will arise from it being compared to the present one.
For example, if our "civil liberties" as a nation are ever really lost, as a Christian, a citizen of "another country," I will rejoice that my freedom is NEVER taken because I'm free in Christ. I will bless those who curse, pray for those who misuse and abuse, and all the time celebrate the sharing of the gospel.
This is why the condition or culture of my country of origin biologically is never the biggest issue or the final word for me personally.
This will also be a bit of a conundrum for many as they will read what I say in a post from my perspective of being a citizen of this nation without believing it to be a"Christian Nation" which I do not.This is why it is essential for me that I write about my view as a citizen of ANOTHER nation which is the true "holy nation."
I've always walked a fine line in scripturally balancing those two and must say that you, along with my very good personal friend Jon Zens, keep me balanced. [At least to my satisfaction.] ;)
Thanks for that.
Good Sunday all,
it's me, L's (Christiane)
Some Sunday reflections:
Perhaps one answer is to work for the 'common good' in this country.
If the rights and the dignity of the weakest and poorest among us are upheld by all, then we all win.
When special interests are allowed to bring harm on anyone, we are all vulnerable.
How does this apply to our new immigrant populations? Among Christian people, there is a teaching for that in sacred Scripture found in Leviticus:
"The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself,
for you were aliens in Egypt.
I am the LORD your God."
But how completely are we to care for the strangers among us, from our Christian hearts ?
I love how Jean Vanier has put it:
"Love not just those of your own tribe, your own class, family or people,
but those who are different,
those who are strangers,
who are strange to your ways,
who come from different cultural and religious traditions,
who seem odd,
those you do not understand.
Love as the Samaritan loved the man he found
beaten up by robbers,
somewhere on the road between Jerusalem and Jericho."
Paul,
I guess, up to date, I haven't made my own position clear. Immigrants are humans with the same foibles and weaknesses as myself, who have the same needs as myself, especially spiritually. It has been beyond my ability to travel to their countries to share my great gift of God's saving grace in Jesus Christ. God, in His providence has brought the opportunity to me. I'm frustrated because my health doesn't allow me to exercise that privilege, but others can, if they take the opportunity that's been given.
You bring up a matter, which for me, has never existed; Australia has never been regarded as a "Christian Nation".
As a matter of fact, there is a peculiar pride in Australia originally being a British penal colony, populated by convicts, and "heroes" such as Ned Kelly etc.
My own attitude is similar to what you express when you speak of "if our "civil liberties" as a nation are ever really lost".
Evangelical Christianity has, ever since I can remember, been spooked by conspiracy theories, and opinions, promoted by pastors and Christian "experts" who interpret the Bible by current events, and the racial origins of immigrants, some of whom I have found to be "more Christian",if you see what I mean, than some Christians.
In response to Chris: The civil disobedience, I suggest will arise, will not be by national Australians. Already some groups from within the immigrant population, have started to advocate such, and done so on a small scale.
Aussie J,
I think you have been quite clear and very thoughtful in all you've said. In fact, you've addressed the point of the post as well as anyone has in the comment section. I appreciate that.
Who is able to speak truthfully about our fallen culture is anyone’s guess anyway. We are all just adding the light we have and no one has all of it. Your part, however, has been quite clear to me.
All,
I have a niece whom I love deeply that has respectfully disagreed with me on my post. Actually her comment was the first one I received on what I had written. [I posted it on Facebook also.] She has not commented here at all.
She was raised on the mission field and is now working in education stateside and has one of the sharpest mind and spirit of anyone I know.
I've asked her to write a post presenting her thoughts on the subject and she has consented. She's traveling right now but very soon will be able to.
I must say that this has been one of the best give and takes I been privileged to experience on this blog. You have all expressed your views well. There are some differences perhaps in what is believed true, But a graciousness has prevailed through out the discussion.
I've been challenged by what has been said by everyone and accept that challenge for study and research with openness. I owe all of you a "thank you" for the time you've given to commenting. So I DO thank you.
Hi PAUL,
Our respect for the host of this blog is reflected in the way that we comment here, I am sure. Thank you for giving us a 'sanctuary' from 'snark' and verbal abusiveness. If people were to get awards for their blogs, I would nominate yours for civility and Christ-like honesty and graciousness. Thank you, Paul, for making graciousness possible among us commentators. We are blessed here, I think.
Respectfully,
Christiane
Christiane, may I add my agreement to your statement and thanks to Paul for setting such a positive tone.
Paul, I will be quite interested to read the thoughts of your niece.
At the risk of continuing this thread after it has run its natural course I wanted to share an article from today's New York Times that clearly illustrates the change that technology is driving worldwide. As context I would add that 15 years ago when my family returned to the US from the Middle East the only real communication we had was over land line telephones and it was expensive. In the intervening period so much has changed it is hard for my mind to grasp. Today my wife and I, living in Africa, Skype, with audio and video, with our parents and our children in Texas as well as with other family and friends in different parts of the world. We have telephone via VOIP in our home that allows us to call anywhere in the world for little or no cost. When I am traveling it is possible for me to be found anywhere in the world simply by calling on a US telephone number I have with Google Voice. It also means I can call anywhere in North America using this number over my computer/internet at no cost except the cost of an internet connection which is often free. There is email that allows us to send documents. Our sons scan invoices we receive and email to us. We go online to pay the bills either with a credit card or electronic transfer of funds from our bank in Texas. I stay in contact and see videos/pictures of family and friends on Facebook. Oh, yes, there is the ability to read and comment on blogs. None of this existed ten years ago.
Now, to the article from which I quote the beginning:
"As protesters in Tahrir Square faced off against pro-government forces, they drew a lesson from their counterparts in Tunisia: “Advice to the youth of Egypt: Put vinegar or onion under your scarf for tear gas.”
The exchange on Facebook was part of a remarkable two-year collaboration that has given birth to a new force in the Arab world — a pan-Arab youth movement dedicated to spreading democracy in a region without it. Young Egyptian and Tunisian activists brainstormed on the use of technology to evade surveillance, commiserated about torture and traded practical tips on how to stand up to rubber bullets and organize barricades.
They fused their secular expertise in social networks with a discipline culled from religious movements and combined the energy of soccer fans with the sophistication of surgeons. Breaking free from older veterans of the Arab political opposition, they relied on tactics of nonviolent resistance channeled from an American scholar through a Serbian youth brigade — but also on marketing tactics borrowed from Silicon Valley."
Notice the amazing confluence of ideas and concepts from around the world that were used in Egypt and Tunisia. The full article can be found here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/14/world/middleeast/14egypt-tunisia-protests.html?_r=1&hp
May I add my agreement to Christiane's comments about Paul and this blog.
It is with anticipation that I await the posting of your niece's thoughts. I am sure it will challenge all of us.
At the risk of continuing a thread that has probably reached its natural end may I have the indulgence to make reference to an article in today's New York Times? To place it in context 15 years ago my family returned to the US from six years in the Middle East. During the time we lived outside the US the only real form of communication was a land line telephone that was quite expensive. In contrast, today my wife and I, living in Africa, communicate with our family and friends using Skype that allows us to see as well as hear the people we are talking with in a conversation. We have VOIP telephone that allows us to call North America for no cost and anywhere in the world for very little. When I travel anyone can contact me using my Google Voice VOIP number and I will either receive it on my mobile phone or over the internet. Likewise, I can call any number in NA at no cost so long as I have an internet connection which is often free. With email time differences do not impede communication. Our sons scan invoices and email them to us for the ones that are not online. We then go online to pay either with a credit card or by an electronic bank transfer. We stay in contact with family and friends with Facebook and immediately see pictures of what is going on in their lives. Oh, yes, and we read/comment on blogs. Almost all of this dramatic change has occurred in less than ten years.
The story from the NYT's demonstrates the power of technology to fuse together ideas and concepts from around the world. Not only is the world smaller but there is a confluence of "culture" that was not even possible ten years ago.
Here is the beginning of the article:
"As protesters in Tahrir Square faced off against pro-government forces, they drew a lesson from their counterparts in Tunisia: “Advice to the youth of Egypt: Put vinegar or onion under your scarf for tear gas.”
The exchange on Facebook was part of a remarkable two-year collaboration that has given birth to a new force in the Arab world — a pan-Arab youth movement dedicated to spreading democracy in a region without it. Young Egyptian and Tunisian activists brainstormed on the use of technology to evade surveillance, commiserated about torture and traded practical tips on how to stand up to rubber bullets and organize barricades.
They fused their secular expertise in social networks with a discipline culled from religious movements and combined the energy of soccer fans with the sophistication of surgeons. Breaking free from older veterans of the Arab political opposition, they relied on tactics of nonviolent resistance channeled from an American scholar through a Serbian youth brigade — but also on marketing tactics borrowed from Silicon Valley."
The complete article can be found at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/14/world/middleeast/14egypt-tunisia-protests.html?_r=1&hp
May I add my concurrence to Christiane's comment? Further, I look forward to the words of your niece with anticipation we will all be challenged.
At the risk of continuing a thread that has probably already run its natural course I would like to refer to an article in today's New York Times that pointedly supports idea that technology has been instrumental in terms of moving the world toward one culture. To provide some context, fifteen years ago my family returned to the US after six years living in the Middle East. During all the time we lived outside the US the only communication we had was snail mail (not reliable) or land line telephone which did allow for voice and fax communication but was very expensive. Today my wife and I, living in Africa, communicate around the world with family and friends using Skype which allows audio and video. We also have a VOIP telephone that allows us to call anywhere in North America at no cost. When I travel anyone can reach me using my Google Voice VOIP which goes to my mobile phone or over my computer if I am connected to the internet. With email time differences do not impede communication. Our sons scan invoices we receive that are not online. We then pay them online by electronic bank transfer or credit card. We manage all our money online even though it is in a US bank. When we need local currency for living expenses we go to an ATM machine and instantly receive the money from our bank in Texas. My wife and I talk multiple times a day on our mobile phones and using text messages. On Facebook we are able to view the lives of our family and friends including immediate access to videos and pictures. Oh, yes, and we can read/comment on blogs. When traveling I can check the weather, determine if my flight is on time, use the GPS in my phone to find a street location, search for a good restaurant, stay current on news, etc.
It is this almost no cost for global information and communication that pushes us toward one "culture". The story in the NYT's begins this way:
"As protesters in Tahrir Square faced off against pro-government forces, they drew a lesson from their counterparts in Tunisia: “Advice to the youth of Egypt: Put vinegar or onion under your scarf for tear gas.”
The exchange on Facebook was part of a remarkable two-year collaboration that has given birth to a new force in the Arab world — a pan-Arab youth movement dedicated to spreading democracy in a region without it. Young Egyptian and Tunisian activists brainstormed on the use of technology to evade surveillance, commiserated about torture and traded practical tips on how to stand up to rubber bullets and organize barricades.
They fused their secular expertise in social networks with a discipline culled from religious movements and combined the energy of soccer fans with the sophistication of surgeons. Breaking free from older veterans of the Arab political opposition, they relied on tactics of nonviolent resistance channeled from an American scholar through a Serbian youth brigade — but also on marketing tactics borrowed from Silicon Valley."
The full story can be found here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/14/world/middleeast/14egypt-tunisia-protests.html?_r=1&hp
Christiane,
For me, YOU introduced true graciousness in blog commenting three or four years ago when I became aware of your name on Wade's blog and several of my friend's blogs. Those days saw some vicious stuff going on but there you were, in the middle of it, a gracious voice to all. You blazed the trail for me. I do hope I'm walking that way.
Traveller,
My niece was raised in Chile where her family served as SBC missionaries [Her brother and his family remain there to this day.] and her father was President of the Southern Baptist Seminary in Santiago.
We often reflect on how difficult it was to communicate then..sometimes weeks for mail to arrive. .when now we get pictures of events happening in real time. We sent my nephew pictures of his brother's graduation from seminary in Ft. Worth as it was happening.
Mary and I were driving to Kansas City the other day and heard an author interviewed on the radio, In 6o seconds going down the Interstate highway at 70 miles per hour we had the book downloaded on her Kindle and reading it out loud. AMAZING times.
Stunning, isn't it?
One other thought that occurred to me in reading the article from the NY Times. I wonder why the person that helped them understand the power of non-violent protest was not a Jesus follower instead of a secular academician? My answer is that the vast majority of people from my faith tradition and those who think similarly are far too willing to approve of violence to achieve goals instead of follow Christiane's Sunday reflections posted yesterday here.
Traveler,
you wrote:
"the vast majority of people from my faith tradition and those who think similarly are far too willing to approve of violence to achieve goals."
Paul,
I do not intend to hijack this post but I think Traveler may be onto something which correlates to some of what you wrote in the original post.
I am speculating here but I can't help but wonder...
In my faith tradition most of our churches were birthed at the end of WW2.
When we won the war,our boys came home and built homes, families and churches.
For them, war was a necessary evil to promote good (i.e. democracy, freedom etc). In other words sometimes you have to use violence to conquer evil.
Somewhere along the way American exceptionalism developed.
From my perspective, exceptionalism is not a bad thing...unless it breeds arrogance, which at times it has.
We HAVE been one of the greatest forces for good in the world for a long time.
But the assumption also produced the idea that "force (or the threat of force)" is the MOST effective way to keep evil and lawlessness at bay.
Because we were the big boys on the block that eventually morphed into (for some)...the "Biggest stick has the moral right/obligation to wield power/force
But of course "power corrupts" and "might does not alway mean right". and "just because we can does not always mean we should".
Is force, at times, a necessary evil in a fallen world ?...I think so.
But it is morally inferior and not nearly as effective as other means(as taught by Jesus, Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr., and Gene Sharp )
Apparently truth, instant communication, networking, resolve, passion, non-violent protest etc etc are quite powerful and transformative.
The generations before us faced issues raised in our modern world with courage, conviction, and certainty and they found affirmation in our circa WW2 religious institutions
But post-modernity,which is a reaction to the inherent failures of modernity is changing everything
With instant information, rapid technology,a growing global economy, and emerging global culture...the old assumptions and identity markers are being challenged. Thus the "shifting sands that produce fear" you spoke of earlier.
The shift away from modernism is terrifying to many. There are some in denial of the fact that the
shift is occurring. But, those that have taken the time to study its effects have come to also believe that it offers unprecedented opportunity for the communication/application of the Gospel.
This is primarily because many elements of this culture were present in the first
century.
That culture was an extremely pluralistic (multi-cultural?) world-wide empire yet it was conducive to the spread of Christianity not just as a belief system but as a movement.
If Jesus and His followers were able to penetrate the culture of that day, then there is hope for this one.
Rodney,
I hear what you're saying and would agree with most of it entirely.
I do wonder about..." In other words sometimes you have to use violence to conquer evil." I'm wondering if this is not an assumption about what might sometimes happen in the thinking of national leaders when a nation faces the prospect of war rather than in the minds of those soldiers, men and women, Christian and non-believer alike, who have to fight it.
I rather hold, from my Christian world-view that it is the deciding whether a war is a" just war" or not that would settle my conscience as a believer. Several things are true for me...
1) I don't interprete "Thous shalt not kill" as a total restriction to war for Christians.
2) Historically, Two prevailing viewpoints existed.
Pacifism....No participation in war at all as a soldier who kills. Thus service in aiding the health and medical needs of the soldiers were available to believers.
The Just War....When wartime met certain criteria that indicated a war was, in fact, just, some believers believed they could participate.
3) War to advance the Kingdom..is never right or just. for any believer anytime.
But I'm not sure true believers would ever want to automatically hold that "violence" as a tool for "conquering evil" is justifiable either. Some may believe it is simply quibbling over words to draw a line between" just war "and "violence" and it may be a simple gradation of violence to make a distinction. [If nothing else maybe just motivation.] But I think it may be valid.
4) As an American citizen who is a Christian, I would probably struggle with the just war thing. Were I to determine it was NOT just, I would serve as a pacifist. Were it just [To my thinking.] I would serve however I chose.
It is exactly this struggle that I find must happen on the personal level as I do NOT see the NT Christian being told to protest or to demonstrate or to be involved except with the gospel message being taken to every nation and serving [Submitting] to any higher powers over me. When Paul said that..[Rome was his higher power as you know.]..there was nothing godly about his government.
These are issues that have and will be debated forever. I'm just glad we can join in a bit.
I think we are in agreement on basic ideas maybe the issue on my part is ill-chosen words (or too many :) )
For the record,
I believe that "thou shalt not kill" is better expressed "as thou shalt not murder"
I believe that authorities/governments have been given the "use of the sword" for the sake of justice, protection, and punishment. I also believe they are judged accordingly in how that sworded is wielded.
I believe that Christians have a responsibility and calling to protect those that need protecting (as in the case of families) and they should be willing to stand against and willing to defend against evil and injustice in all forms. They are called to protect the vulnerable, abused, victimized, and mistreated with little concern for self-defense and preservation if necessary.
I believe that force is sometimes necessary in a fallen world to defend against evil (i.e. a just war)
I believe is even possible to serve a government and/or cause where the lines between evil and good are blurred (for whatever reasons)and do so with Christian integrity.
Yet, i have never conversed with a person who has seen war up close and personal extol the virtues of it...just the struggle/pain/horror encountered as they tried to do "what is right"
It is only the pundits, politicians, and armchair warriors that can be cavalier about the realities of war.
(Not saying that is what is happening here)
The WW2 generation knew the cost of war. They fought with courage, conviction, and certainty.
The came home and built a better life for all here in this country.
Their children, in many cases, came to see freedom, security, comfort, and prosperity as a birthright.
Many of their children's children experienced all of the perks of living is the country but saw the emptiness,shallowness, and seemingly randomness the American Dream and struggled to find meaning and purpose in it all.
Now the great grandkids of the Greatest Generation live in a world that is marked by rapid change more than anything else. Technology, Travel, transmission of information, and what they know (or think they know) about reality is all in a state of flux.
Geo-politics, Global economics, Massive Cultural shifts effect us all ways virtually unthinkable in 1944.
This generation has chosen to impact a much different reality than existed in 1944 with much different tools/resources/weapons.
But much of the political, religious, cultural, and ideological landscape in informed by modernity (Newtonian, linear, rational understanding) rather than a post-modern (quantum, loopy, relational) reality.
Which produces the fear and shifting sand that we have written of here in length.
The only constants: The purpose and plans of a sovereign God, The reality of evil, the fallibility of humans, and the transformative power of the Gospel.
Rodney,o
Quite a statement and written quite eloquently actually.
This..."The only constants: The purpose and plans of a sovereign God, The reality of evil, the fallibility of humans, and the transformative power of the Gospel."...is a statement I would love to use in my next post if you wouldn't mind. It is as good a bottom line as can be given. Thanks.
You are welcome to use whatever you need.
Post a Comment