Choose a representative passage from this novel that holds particular significance to you. Type it in and comment on its significance.



"Reduced to utter dependence upon God, we set ourselves to hope for that key. We could not guess what form it would take. We only knew that it would be from God and would have His blessing."



I love the first part of the passage which states "utter dependence upon God". It is very profound and relates well to experiences I have had with God which has led to a further knowledge, on my part, of the nature on God.



"God is..." is a very popular phrase. We humans have the tendency to put God in a box. God is love("Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love." 1 John ) and at the same time, God hates sin(); those two qualities do not seem to work together, however, His Word, the Bible shows both to be true. God is merciful("But in your great mercy You did not put an end to them or abandon them, for You are a great and merciful God." Nehemiah 9:31), but at the same time He is justice("Yet the Lord longs to be gracious to you; He rises to show you compassion. For the Lord is a God of justice. Blessed are all who wait on Him. Isaiah 30:18), thus He will send people to Hell who do not believe in Him. These examples seem to be oxymorons, but they are in fact paradoxes. Many people do not acknowledge this fact and thus choose to focus on one aspect of God, and in grave danger of stereotyping God. If we don't like to be put into boxes, then how much more appalling should it be when the Lord God Almighty is being stereotyped? This whole paragraph may appear to be a tangent, one may think, "How does this relate to the passage whatsoever?" Well, it is often stereotypes which lead to disappointment which in turn bring about a state of brokenness. This state is frequently used by God to promote "utter dependency" on God. This now brings me to a very personal section of my post.

"I", that word which is used so much by a great many of us. In itself, it isn't bad or evil, but overuse often causes the one using it to focus more on themselves, and that was indeed the case with myself. My struggle with utter dependency on God is long and therefore, I shall limit it to the past year and a half.

I do not think that I "fit in"-so to speak-with the student body at TCIS. I do not think that now, and I didn't think that 18 months ago. There were some people who would tolerate my presence and a small pocket who would probably have considered themselves to be in good company when I was around. Out of that small pocket there were less than a dozen who I would have considered "good friends" and out of that, less than the number of fingers on my hand that would consider "close friends". I trusted the individuals immensely and would tell them nearly everything. At the same time I wanted them to be the type of friends, best termed in the words of Anne of Green Gables, that would be "bosom friend". Neither side was really ready for a friendship of that transparency and thus, not only did I get hurt, but it also made relations between those individuals very difficult during that year. Instead of really enjoying some of the moments which we had together, neither side understood each other and awkward silence was often the companion of such times together. This may seem to be just an issue between my friends and I, but the "wound" that appeared to spring from those encounters was really just the like a scab being torn away from a much deeper wound. I thought that I could rely fully on my friends, as the world often tells us, but that was just a box in which I placed my friends(the promised connection to the second paragraph). The issue went much further than the what I thought and had to do with my spiritual life. I was not utterly dependent upon God and was looking to fill myself up in other places: my friends. My friendships suffered because I was searching for a type of fulfillment that is only found in God. Heartaches later, after a year and a half of stumbling falling down I have finally learned the lesson of dependency that God was trying to teach me. I am still learning more about dependence and I do not rely on Him as much as I should, but the difference is that before I was only trying, but now I feel my whole being desiring intimacy with Him. This is, in a way, a testimony of what God has been doing in my life.

Citations: http://www.flickr.com/photos/cdiferente/2280874155/sizes/m/

What does Jesus want us to do for the Sawi?
Jesus gives specific commands to Christians-whom I shall refer to “us”. There are many commands and lessons which were taught to His disciples, however, among these, there is one command which stands out quite clearly found in Matthew 28:16-20 which states: But the eleven disciples proceeded to Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had designated. When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some were doubtful. And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." This famous passage is known as the “Great Commission” and transparently displays Jesus’ will for his disciples, or followers(as disciple literally means follower). Furthermore, when one looks at Matthew 22:37-40, the commands mentioned in Matthew 22:16-20 are found. It reads: But the eleven disciples proceeded to Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had designated. When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some were doubtful. And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." What does Jesus want us to do for the Sawi? He wants us to go and make followers of Jesus Christ, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. But it doesn’t stop there, He also wants His followers, Christians, to teach others the commands He taught His disciples. Jesus used many parables and illustrations to communicate His message of salvation, however, as stated in His own words, the commands in Matthew 22:37-40 truly do sum up all of His commands. The words from His mouth specify what should be taught to all people, and in this case, the Sawi.
A question now remains, what would the implication of Jesus’ commands look like? Well, I highly suspect it would resemble the work done among the Sawi by Don Richardson. He went to the Sawi and shared the gospel of Jesus Christ with them. Some received this message which created disciples. After these followers were born into God’s family, Don did not just leave them, but rather he taught them God’s Word and commands. According to Matthew 28:16-20, he followed the last commands that Jesus gave while still on Earth. Granted, he is only an example and one should always look to the source(God and His Word) when attempting to discern God, but I would not hesitate to say that he makes a fairly good exemplar when it does come to ministry and Jesus’ desires for not only the Sawi, but for all people.

The call that Don had to the Sawi is depicted in the song "To The Ends of The Earth" by Hillsong. It really captures the spirit of those that do go out and fulfill the Great Commission.

Citations: http://imbresources.org/photos/cs-earth.m.jpg

What should we do when confronted with other cultures?

This is a issue that everyone faces and that I connect to as a TCK. The answer to this question is fairly simple, one should respect the other culture and take advantage of the opportunity to learn about/from the culture and at the same time keep their own culture. Where does one draw the line between keeping and staying true to ones culture and respecting another's culture? In order to answer this question the word "respect" needs to be defined. Respect has several definitions, but when dealing with culture, a definition from Dictionary.com captures the spirit of respect that I believe should be used in relation to the question. It states that respect is "to show regard or consideration for". There is another definition that many referenced unto in their other posts which states "to refrain from intruding upon or interfering with". Through this post, I hope to explain my reasoning for the first definition.

In a world quickly globalizing, the second definition of respect is neither practical nor beneficial. It is inevitable that cultures will be meshed and intruded upon. The growth in "international culture" or the coalesce of cultures that have made a refuge for those who do not align themselves with a culture. The globalization movement has mostly been met with acceptance and enthusiasm in the past decades, but the irony lies within the fact that the same people who cry for globalization often protest against the infringement of cultures when in essence that is the primary goal of globalization. Although it may not claim that goal, it is the product. Some may disagree with my view, however, I would question the reason for its fallacy. This appears to be a very arrogant statement, but I am not accrediting it to myself, but rather to others whom have educated me regarding globalization and mere common sense. Take South Korea, for example, it is a very modern monocultural society, yet all the clothes are of Western style and originally Western technology has now manifested itself in a somewhat Korean version(cell phones, computers, cars, etc). This is due to several factors, one of which is, undeniably, globalization. South Korea needed to change in order to compete with the international community and the world, however, was their culture "respected"? According to the definition that many used in other blogposts, no, but according to the definition put forth in this post, yes. Yes, there may have been times where some were not respectful when dealing with the culture, but there are still many instances where there have been people who have respected the cultures. The reason why I strongly object to the definition of respect put forth by some others is that it does not allow for innovation and the changing times. In order for changes to occur, there must be some interference, some intrusion. The US primarily interfered with South Korea and through the "interference" South Korea gained much of the technology needed to progress to its current state. It is still South Korea, people still eat kim-chee and celebrate traditional holidays such as chu-sok. According to the definition of respect used within this post, the culture still stands and will be allowed to evolve with time.

How does Faith relate to the world in which we live?

There are some who would consider faith a paradox. It is engrained firmly into a society, yet it is embraced by individuals. It is often the base of culture, but it can be detached from the culture and stand, so to speak, by itself. But is this a true description of faith? “Faith” in the ancient Greek, found in the New Testament, means “belief + action” and with this ever important word defined I shall continue my post.

With faith defined it is not difficult to make some observations regarding faith’s relationship to the world in which we reside, such as faith makes people act in certain ways, but I would like to put forth another idea. I entertain the idea that faith is something so powerful that it absolutely requires action. If my theory is correct then it is faith that would drive people to commit actions they normally would not. It would be faith that would cause peoples to condemn that which is considered mainstream and never look back or visa versa. Faith is something associated with religion-and rightly so-but I believe it goes beyond religion and is actually the basis for relationship.

The relationship between faith and the world requires a very important component, and that is trust in both parties. If you watch the first video, you see that the girl had to trust the other individuals in order for her to take the “drop of faith” and allow herself to become vulnerable. In the second video, the guy did not have faith in the other man that was to catch him and was thus able to react when he was not caught. In order to exhibit faith, one must have trust in what they believe in to such an extent that it causes action. This idea of faith and trust can be applied to the Sawi. They had the idea that giving a part of their hair to each other to symbolize trust. This trust then caused the parties to believe and take action-thus have faith in the other party. This was quite unfortunate for some people who were betrayed, as the betrayal of trust was placed higher than actual trust. Trust is a component of faith that often supports the action behind faith and as seen in the Sawi example, it isn’t always for the benefit of the individuals involved.

Video One:

Video Two:

Faith is something that drives people in the world to do a great many things. What would Albert Einstein have done without some faith in physics and the laws of the universe? Would Martin Luther have written his 95 Theses? Would Adolf Hitler have pursued his supremacist ideals? People have changed the world for faith, for the better and worse. It is important to recognize its very prominent role within basic human relations and be able to analyze the actions/responses of others while at the same time not compromising personal ideas regarding faith within our every changing world.

Citations: 

My dad :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u99CnIOgcA0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsurGYKyGiY&feature=related

What do traders and NGOs do for these cultures? 

This question is one that is of particular interest to myself because I have been studying the UN in depth in International Relations and thus I shall be answering what the UN, and the NGOs aligned with it, do for cultures. 

Ideals often reflect a process of thinking or a mindset. Thus, in order to better understand some of the conclusions I draw regarding the UN, it seems best to look at what is possibly their most famous document, The UN Declaration of Human Rights (linked here: http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html), which contains a variety of rights entitled to all human beings. Overall, this document seems to represent a very balanced protection of different aspects of life here on Earth. The Declaration does mention spirituality in that it garuantees the freedom to practice and change religion(Article 18), in reality this right is not promoted or well-held up in many of the UN's operations, in fact, more often than not the UN stays mum on the subject of religion and rather address other social issues such as racism or poverty. Now, both of the example which I just gave are important issues that need to be addressed, but spirituality is an aspect of life that must be faced, and in my opinion, the UN should make a point of addressing that fact more often. Am I saying that the UN is a terrible organization? By no means, although they are far from perfect, they do attempt to secure international relations as well as promote human rights accross the world, but nonetheless because of their lack of religious background(despite the fact that many of their human rights are similar to ideals found within the Bible and other religious texts), I believe they are a hinderance when dealing with people. This is equally applicable to both peoples from modern countries and those from less-developed nations. All people have a need for a spiritual presence in their life, some just don't look for it in, what many would consider, "traditional" locations(e.g. Isalm, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, etc). Even in our world where 16% claim to be non-religious, there is still an element of spirituality in their lives, such as luck, the form in which they express themselves spiritually is just different. Why is all this important? It briefly displays the fact that all peoples do have an element of spirituality in their life therefore it should be well-addressed by NGOs, such as the UN-who is considered a model for the world. 

Now onto the actual question. What do NGOs do for these cultures? Well, frankly, they promote their ideals. For example had the UN gone in before the missionaries, according to the UN Declaration of Human Rights, cannibilism would not be an acceptable cultural practice, which would result in the UN creating policies abolishing cannibilism in the Sawi tribes. Granted this is hypothetical and the UN doesn't technically have the power to stop anyone from doing anything, they would still promote their ideals and attempt to find diplomatic means to stop cannibilism in the country-thus changing the culture, or as some as so fond of saying "destroying" the culture. I really must protest the word "destroy" because destory implies that there is nothing left of the culture, and if one element is taken away a culture is still left with the other elements and therefore not destroyed. Bringing the focus back to the question, although the UN is concerned about human rights, they do have their own agenda and are always concerned about the balance of power-thus they(and any other NGO) are not objective or unbaised. They do educate people and promote equal rights, but at at cost, one that often takes its toll on improvished people groups and thier cultures. Many would consider them a more favorable person to send in first(at least when compared to a missionary), but it is important to recognize that there are hypocrites in all of us and that every organization has their own agenda.There is evidence of this hypocrisy in the fact that there are quite a few cases where UN workers have actually hurt the people they had come to help-intentionally (example one, example two, example three). This is heartbreaking-regardless of one's opinion of the UN-and should serve as a reminder of the fact that no one is perfect. 

Citations:

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

http://www.sikhsangat.org/news/uploads/1/un_logo.jpg

What do mission organisations do for these people?    

    

  This question is of personal interest to me-especially considering that my parents have been missionaries since 1996. After much contemplation, I will be writing specifically about Christian missionaries-as that has been nearly all of my experience. Furthermore, whenever I do refer to "missionaries" or "mission organizations", I shall be referring to Christian missionaries. 

I thoroughly enjoyed reading Don Richardson's "Do Missionaries Destroy Cultures". I most heartily agree with his viewpoints on missionaries and believe he brought up some very valid points including the idea that the most sympathetic person should go first. Honestly, I agree with him that Christian missionaries are the most sympathetic people and although there have been some sporadic cases here and there of a missionary doing something horrid, there are many, many more cases of those who have done extreme good.    

Even if one ignores the religion brought in, the medical aid alone should grant missionaries and mission organizations some respect from people. Missionaries have braved diseases-even in our modern world, going to places in South America and Africa, many which are still disease-ridden. Anyone who claims that medical missionaries have hurt the society in which they resided should go to the people who were given medical aid, the women whose children were birthed at the hospitals built by missionaries, the young lives saved through the access to modern medicine and the thousands who were not destined to life as a cripple because of missionary doctors and the hospitals that were created as a consequence. Take for example the Snells who took their family to the Amazon rain forest to work among the Machiguenga people. They saved many lives through their ministry. Betty Snell helped save many babies in a tribe where previously more than half of all infants died, she and her husband also helped many with Malaria, the flu, and polio in a tribe where the average life expectancy was previously less than forty years of age. They had brought change to a society because of their obedience to God's calling and the burden He placed upon their hearts for the people which they served. Therefore should these amazing people and the thousands of others like them be told that they cannot continue physically helping people?  

Missionaries have also provided an example of something which no other organization could ever give in quantity or quality. This is love. Christians are commanded to love-first God, then everyone else regardless of whether and how others respond. Take Elisabeth Elliot, whose husband, Jim Elliot, was killed by the Huaorani of Ecuador, she could have just been mad at those who killed her husband and gone back to the US, but she went and lived with the very people that killed her husband because she loved them. This may sound crazy to many people, but God had given her such a love for the people that He loved and she saw the people through His eyes and provided a wonderful example of how Christians should love and how God does love. Amnesty International and the United Nations can do a lot of good things for people, but when it comes to loving people, missionaries and missionary organizations are well-known for their love and they would be the first ones to say that the love comes not from themselves or their goodwill, but from God. 

What else do missionaries do for people? They present the gospel of Jesus Christ to these people. Do they force people to accept this message? No, for this is a message that cannot be forced upon anyone but is truly accepted by choice. Do they go against different aspects of the cultures? Yes-when it goes against Christian beliefs. Do they go against the whole culture? No. Have there been missionaries that have made mistakes? Yes. Does that mean that all missionaries are bad? No-there is a much higher percentage of missionaries that do respect the culture and people group with which they live and still are able to share the message of the gospel of Jesus Christ. In regards to the few missionaries that have behaved in a manner not Christ-honoring, I have a quote from my pastor which says: "Don't blame God for man's sin." I believe this is highly applicable to this topic as many are very quick to point out the mistakes in missionaries and use it as a reflection on all of God's people and most importantly God. People are not perfect, and Christians are no exception by any means and this is essential to keep in mind when looking at mission organizations and their works.

 

Citations:

Snell, Ron. It's a Jungle Out There. 1st. Hannibal Books, 1995.

http://www.sbcv.org/data/images/maincontent/imb_logo.gif

http://www.citris-uc.org/files/imce-u10/needle.jpg

How different is your modern culture from the Sawi tenants?

The Sawi culture differs from my modern culture in that the physical embodiment of evil is more obvious. This phrase is seemingly very prejudice and judgemental. Granted, my perspective can never be balanced and I can never be open-minded and thus I will attempt to not put on a facade when I write. 

Take notice of the words "physical embodiment of evil" as they are essential to understanding my point. I specifically chose those words because I believe that no human being is perfect and that all have a sinful nature. It says in Romans 3:23 "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." I believe that all men are capable of evil acts, but modern society does not take the same route to show their evil. For example, it is quite plain that in the Sawi culture they promote violence and uphold treachery. Quotes such as "fattening with friendship for the slaughter" and "What mattered, after all, was not the number of heads taken, but the quality of the treachery that secured them." clearly display their acceptance of cannibalism. 

Going back to my modern culture. Cannibalism is killing, and although my modern society does not justify cannibalism, they do justify certain types of killing. These types of killings are often called "mercy killings" where, usually an elderly person, is killed by injection or the halt in life support. These killings are usually done in the justification that it is better for the person and that it is their will, however if that option is truly better for them, as many state, then I would argue that it is better for all people of the world. Why should we have to live in a world of suffering knowing that in the next life we will be in Heaven-for Christians, or it will "all be over"-for atheists? I believe that these killings are a form of murder and thus forbidden by God. Another example of treachery in our modern society is abortion. Abortion is the killing of an unborn child which is done of the justification of "women's rights", however upon hearing that, ignoring my moral views, I would argue that the woman has just as much as a "right" as the man since the child belongs to both of them. The child is not 100% the woman's and 0% the man's or vice versa, he/she is 50% of the woman's and 50% of the man's, and nothing can change that. I also believe that this is killing and thus forbidden by God. Both of these are prime examples of "treachery" in this "modern" world. 

Onto the final part of my statement which contains the word "obvious", once again essential to the understanding of my idea. Because of the blatant support of the whole tribe to kill and eat people, I would consider the physical embodiment of evil more obvious. As Aristotle states, "Evil draws men together.", this is displayed not only in the combined community effort to insure that the most deceitful way of securing the victims was accomplished but also by the fact that eating human flesh was a "requirement" for the society, evidenced by the by the Sawi word "kerkeriyap" which means "squeamish". That word was used to show that the eating of human flesh is not natural to humans and thus, makes the evil more "obvious" in the sense that it is evil one does not see everyday. Cannibalism is such a degraded tradition upon which to base a society. Thomas Elliot stated that: "It is by no means self-evident that human beings are most real when most violently excited; violent physical passions do not in themselves differentiate men from each other, but rather tend to reduce them to the same state.", the Sawi men want to become legends and legend makers-they want to have that honor, well shown by Maum, Sauni and Mavu's willingness to help Kani in his fateful deed, but do they realize the irony of their actions? The violence that procures their honor dehumanizes them in the process-therefore not really making them different then the man they just killed and/or ate. In the movie, The Matrix, Andy and Larry Wachowski give a great quote, "To deny our own impulses is to deny the very thing that makes us human.". Cannabilism is not natural and affects more than just the individuals that partook of the ritual. This goal of treachery has negative affects on the society as each man attempts to outshine the man before him through using innovative ways to lure someone to kill. If I were to sum up the result of the goal in relation to society, a quote from Randy K. Milholland is quite appropriate, "There are people I know who won't hurt me. I call them corpses.". Although this may be seen as humorous, it is a fairly good portrayal of the severe lack of trust that occurs as a result of the goal. 

Citations:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mari_coan/211198101/

What factors of your native culture have informed your religious world view? Explain the impact of these factors.

Native culture is a word that I would associate with one culture: Christianity. I would consider myself a TCK(Third Culture Kid), a MK(Missionary Kid) and a PK(Pastor's Kid), but I am not the typical PK, MK, or TCK. I was raised with spiritual mentors and being involved with my parents ministry ever since I can remember. My "family" consisted of all the "Aunts" and "Uncles" I had in the mission organization that employed my parents. Everyone I knew in the states were either family or people from church. I had been in Christian schools since fourth grade and grew up with conservative Christian values. "Christianity" was my native culture, and even more specifically, I was "Southern Baptist".

Southern Baptists are often viewed as being "too conservative", "traditional" or even "legalistic". These words were the best way to describe some of the reactions received upon coming to TCIS where I entered a non-denominational Christian school with a large variety of Christian beliefs. My mind was "broadened" by basically having to accept the different views of teachers, staff and students, but at the same time I was losing my faith and identity. My world view was being opened at the expense of my personal ideals and philosophies.

My former "world view" would best be described as nearly total agreement in all Southern Baptist philosophies and ideals as well as a firm belief in God and the Bible. I was close-minded by the world's standards, but I knew who I was. I did not consider other religions at all and was very passionate and unwavering in my faith. Some would consider this "bad" that I was growing up so "ignorant" and "mono-cultured", but honestly I love that I had a life filled with faith.

As I lost my world view I began to question my faith and the Bible-I began to doubt. People on all sides were telling me that my views was wrong. That I shouldn't align myself with an denomination, that my values were too conservative, that I couldn't really have "fun" in life if I didn't compromise-so I did and regretted it. I did not stay true to my conservative nature and my ideals and thus, I felt my relationship with God suffering. But thankfully, He did not give up on me and slowly, but surely He brought me back to Him and my life took on a new chapter and a new world view.

I became a student in the art of understanding but not accepting. God helped me decipher between what I should and should not accept, he brought people into my life that supported me throughout my years at TCIS-both Christian and non-Christian. I learned to listen more to others ideas regarding faith and not immediately disregard them. These lessons taught me tolerance which is very important for a balanced world view. I began to develop a new world view still characterised and dictated by my beliefs as it had been previously, but with more understanding of another's view. This is not, and was not, smooth and consisting of just loveliness. I still find myself struggling with doubt and living up to the ideals of a Christian life more than I had in the past, but I have found myself to be much more effective in communicating my beliefs to people and receiving better responses. I still believe that Christianity is the only way and the right way and if others get offended by that idea, then so be it. I go against many of the ideas of the world and thus describe myself as a anti-conformist and a "revolutionary anti-revolutionary"-meaning that I am against the current culture of the world and also that I reject the revolutionary views of secular society. My world-view does have "narrow mindedness" present, but I am not going to change it because that "narrow mindedness" comes from my Christian beliefs and I have seen what compromising those beliefs entail. One has to give God all or nothing-there is no middle ground. He says so in Revelation 3:15-16 I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot. So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth. I am reminded of a song by Krystal Meyers titled "Anticonformity":

I identify with the song a lot because I agree with what Krystal has to say, especially "I'm anticonformity, I don't try too hard to be". I have made my choice in worldview and I know from where it comes. My family life, the strong presence of Christians in throughout my life, the Southern Baptist ideals and culture all contributed to my world view on religion. I have made up my mind, so to speak, when it comes to my beliefs regarding religion. I am a Christian which greatly affects how I view other religions. I do write them off because I am confident that God is the one and only God. In other words, I AM anticonformity.

The whole theme of this blog is changing perspectives. Peace Child is a book that challenges the perspectives and preconceptions of people. As is tradition of my blog posts, the name and theme comes from a song. The song for this blog is "Just Because" by Christopher Toy. It is not a well-known song, but it is a fun approach to changing perspectives. The video below is about a guy(Christopher Toy) who is trying to break the norm saying that: "just because I'm not the white guy, doesn't mean I'm not the right guy." The stereotypical ideas presented within provide humor while still allowing the profound message to shine through.

Video: