(I'm posting this first so that the continuity flows better, as I feel the post is simply too big for one entry. Please read 2-1 before reading this.)
Just like the Republicans we’ll begin the Democratic Party with their guiding philosophy. (I apologize if I mess this up a bit, as I have only taken interest in Democratic policies in recent years.) My understanding of the Democratic philosophy and guiding principle is the government should take more control so as to take care of her people and give less power to the Corporate Machine. Here’s how that fits…
Economics
Like the Republicans, the philosophy pretty well drives the Economics. “It’s not fair that people make billions of dollars while some people go hungry. We should tax more so that people can be taken care of instead of abused. We’ll be responsible for collecting and distributing the money, so the power will reside here in the Federal.” Seeing the failure of people being taken care of they decide to take matters into their own hands.
Environment
The Earth’s resources are slowly dwindling, and who’s protecting it? “Nobody,” is the Dem’s response, “So we’ll step in and do it ourselves.” The Democrats push for more Federal control to restrain the Corporate Machine and make them more responsible for their actions. They promise stricter observance of the rules and that the environment must be protected.
War/Diplomacy
Most Democrats will argue left and right against war. My understanding is that while they do believe in good reasons for war, these are rare and that diplomacy should reign. We should continue trying to talk to people to convince them when they’re wrong.
Life
“We believe all life is precious!” cry the Democrats, too. They argue against war because of the lives lost (foreign and domestic). They argue against the death penalty (for the most part) for the value of life is precious. We should help the suffering, the poor, the sick and the orphans because all life is precious.
Religion
I know it’s hard for some people to believe, but plenty of Democrats call on the name of Christ just like the Republicans. (I mean that in respect to the Democrats, not as a joke. Remember, this is positive time.) What’s neat about the Democrats is that they seem more willing to accept other religious perspectives as well. From a political standpoint in a country that claims the importance of all faiths, that’s really impressive. Plenty candidates and such will still argue fervently for their membership in the Church, but nevertheless, the point is interesting.
Barack Obama
Now here is a man for the history books. At just over the age required by law to be president, he is practically there. Not only is his young age incredible but the man is African-American! It is not only a testament to his motivation of the public or his courage but also of the growth of our country that he has made it this far. Regardless of whether or not he wins, Kudos to him for being willing to take the fight this far. He also seems to be holding a good sense of humor when teased by his opponent McCain at a dinner recently. And while he may be inexperienced, maybe that’s just what the country needs – someone not so tied to the way the system works.
If nothing else speaks for this man’s credibility, it would be this one thing: Colin Powell has endorsed the man. Now if Colin Powell was a Democrat, you could simply push it aside as party politics. But Powell is a registered Republican!! What a blow! And it wasn’t just because “he’s black.” Powell has said that it was because after talking with both men about the economic crisis and how to handle it, he felt Obama had a better chance. Colin Powell is a man most of this country would vote for in a heartbeat if he ran. American trusts him, and many countries respect him. If he’s got Colin Powell’s endorsement, he’s at least got my ear.
But I showed the bad for the Republicans, it’s only fair I do the same for the Democrats. So here it goes.
Barack Obama
Maybe his inexperience will help, but he’s just that: inexperienced. Sure, he’s had some time as a Senator, but 5-7 years in a Senate seat isn’t much compared to 20-30 years of watching the political machine move. From a political standpoint, you tie that together with the fact he doesn’t have any military experience and it’s a bit concerning. Again, maybe that’s precisely what America wants and needs right now, but if we’re talking negatives let’s get these out in the open. Also, let’s be fair and remember that while Obama may not be throwing much mud right now, he threw enough mud of his own at Hillary during the Democratic convention.
Religion
Again, maybe they are more diverse, but they play the game just like the Republicans. As soon as candidacy time comes the question becomes who is more Christian and who has the better Church connections? They pander to the Church like a man with money walking down a neon-lit street.
Life
Just like the Republicans, let’s see some consistency here. If we’re going to claim that every life is precious, then why are we so eager to claim that unborn babies are not alive and give them up to abortion? Maybe the idea is simply putting more government control on a situation that is occurring anyhow, but if life is precious then it is precious – period.
War/Diplomacy
Forgive me if I’m mistaken, but I believe after 9/11 we saw all the politicians were voting for strikes. We were mad, we wanted justice… No, we wanted revenge. We had been hurt and we wanted to put the hurt back. My personal experience of Democratic officials is that they will pander to what the people want here. They will make the promises to whatever the people want.
Environment
While the Democrats do seem pretty steady on this issue, it is strange. If they truly are so adamant about the health of the environment through government control, why not push harder for alternative energy methods and pushing the energy companies to work with the car companies to provide faster methods of obtaining alternative energy solutions? And how odd is it that we value the life of a tree over the life of a child?
Economics
Here is where much of the Democratic power loses its sway on me. Because the Democrats need the Corporate Machine just as much as the Republicans do. Because while they don’t want to admit it they rely on the Corporate Machine just as much for their campaign money so they can stay in office. They rely on the Corporate Machine to provide jobs for the people that vote for them just as much as the Republicans. And at least the Republicans admit they pander to the Corporate Machine. The Democratic officials simply smile and make promises to the guy on the assembly line while they just talked to the owner twenty minutes prior to promise just the opposite.
In general, like the Republicans, while I believe the Democratic philosophy is good in theory it fails in practicality.
That will really have to be the end of my evaluation of the Republican and Democratic parties for tonight. I’m sure you’re relieved, but before I close completely I want to end with this:
Both parties have good and bad aspects to them. But I don’t want you to come away from this looking at Republicans OR Democrats thinking that they’re despicable people, or how dare they claim faith in Christ and pander us the way they do? Because the fact of the matter is that a) we’ve let them do it and b) they’re children of God. As much as it may frustrate us on one party or the other of the terrible things we view either party to have done, or whether they truly believe in Christ or are only using his name to promote themselves, the fact of the matter is that they are God’s children and we are called to love them as Christ loved us. We are all shattered and broken and it’s only through Christ that we are made whole again. For those of us that have put on Christ we must remember that we, too, once lived a life very similar to that. We have to remember that it is only because of Christ that we have any hope at all, and we have to show them that as well. Our response cannot be like the Unmerciful Servant but like that of Christ. Faithful and loving to the end, even throughout all the tragedy, brokenness and horror. Because Christ has loved us through all of ours.
I know today’s post has been long, and I hope I haven’t scared you off. I hope you’ll return tomorrow for the role of government, because we’ll go from there to what a Christian nation might look like…
*I apologize if some of these entries were shorter than what they probably deserved. The fact of the matter is that I am typing this late at night and have to be in to work early in the morning for a long work day. Again, I'm not targeting specific people with this, simply the political machine. Also, sorry if I get some of my information wrong as far as party policies to certain matters, but this is my general opinion of politicians right now from watching the way the parties act.*
Friday, October 31, 2008
Thursday, October 30, 2008
On Being a Citizen, Part 1 of 5
It’s that wonderful time of the year again. Time when a nation turns against itself to learn who would lead the country for the next four years. Isn’t it a great time? People argue over who is more Christian than the other, and at the same time argue why the other candidate is a complete idiot compared to him/her. People argue over which is more right, to have the government regulate how much income you make or to let corporations regulate how much income you make. Either way, both people smile and make claims of just wanting to help the little guy, all the while stabbing him in the back. They argue over how precious they value life. One values the life of the unborn while deeming the life of foreigners and our own forfeit while the other deems the unborn as less than human. They will agree on one thing though, and that is that the one thing we need our people to do is spend, spend, SPEND!! We can’t stop spending or else this whole thing falls apart. “What if I don’t have the money to spend?” says the middle-income family. “Why then we’ll get you a credit line so you can spend money!!” shout the politicians. “What about me? I can’t afford to feed my kids!” cries the low-income single mom. “You’re not important,” is the response they get from one, while another says, “I’ll work to get you help sometime in the future…”
What a nation we are. We worry and fret about what will happen if this person is elected or that. We worry about how others will view us if this person is elected or that one. We consider economics, homosexuality, and all sorts of things. So who do we vote for? Half the country says to vote one way, the other half says to vote the other way. It’s even more stressed this year (whether the stress is actually greater or not) because of the economic issue, because of war issues, because of racial issues, because of gender issues. It’s always a call that is of such grave concern that it demands our utmost attention. This is a problem I’ve been debating for some time and one that I’ve finally had to come to some workable conclusion to in the past month. Because for me it’s not simply a question of who do I vote for as an American citizen. The bigger question is who do I vote for as a Christian? I wish I could just make this a quick and easy statement, but unfortunately this is gonna take some time. It’s not a simple question, and so the answer itself isn’t simple either. I hope you don’t mind joining me for a few days while I show you the process I’ve been going through. Because in going through this process I’ve had to consider the Democrats, the Republicans, the role of government as it was intended and where I personally believe it stands today. I’ll have to show you what I think a Christian nation looks like, and what I believe the Christian response for today is. It’s been an intriguing journey for me, so I hope you don’t mind it also. If you are interested, then grab a cup of coffee come tomorrow, because I’ll be posting one part each day leading up to the election day.
What a nation we are. We worry and fret about what will happen if this person is elected or that. We worry about how others will view us if this person is elected or that one. We consider economics, homosexuality, and all sorts of things. So who do we vote for? Half the country says to vote one way, the other half says to vote the other way. It’s even more stressed this year (whether the stress is actually greater or not) because of the economic issue, because of war issues, because of racial issues, because of gender issues. It’s always a call that is of such grave concern that it demands our utmost attention. This is a problem I’ve been debating for some time and one that I’ve finally had to come to some workable conclusion to in the past month. Because for me it’s not simply a question of who do I vote for as an American citizen. The bigger question is who do I vote for as a Christian? I wish I could just make this a quick and easy statement, but unfortunately this is gonna take some time. It’s not a simple question, and so the answer itself isn’t simple either. I hope you don’t mind joining me for a few days while I show you the process I’ve been going through. Because in going through this process I’ve had to consider the Democrats, the Republicans, the role of government as it was intended and where I personally believe it stands today. I’ll have to show you what I think a Christian nation looks like, and what I believe the Christian response for today is. It’s been an intriguing journey for me, so I hope you don’t mind it also. If you are interested, then grab a cup of coffee come tomorrow, because I’ll be posting one part each day leading up to the election day.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
That's Just the Way It Is
I was having a discussion with a friend here the other day about the status of the church in America. A lot of different things came up, but one of the things that came up that stuck with me was the comment, “It may not be all that good right now, but what can we say? That’s just the way things are right now.”
Maybe this is where our churches in America are right now. I don’t want to make it out as if I think that the churches in America are just completely wrong and there is nothing done right, because this is simply not true. There is a lot of good in our churches, just as there is a lot that we’ve done wrong. But when we say as a body that it’s just the way we are right now is self-defeating, but more than that it denies the power of Christ to work through his Bride to make it what he intended it to be.
Suppose that five years ago I had simply decided that the person I was then is simply the person I would be, and that’s just the way it is. I shudder to think of the person I would be today if I had not changed because of the work Christ has done in me today. I can see how I would have remained judgmental, with a very short temper. I would have remained in a very sad and lonely place. I thank God for the change He’s made in me through the power of His Son. I love the person that I am becoming now and the person He continues to shape me into being, because with each change and each day He makes me less of myself and more like Christ. Each day he sheds another piece of my worldly self and reveals more of Christ in me. I look forward to that day when I can just be a man of love and so far from the man I used to be.
But there is a critical piece to all this change. Confession is just as much a part of the healing process as anything else. I called my dad sometime ago and told him that I was thankful to him for teaching me how to apologize. Not just the form of it, but the necessity of it. That being a man isn’t simply about being strong and taking the lead, but being willing to realize when you’ve made your mistakes and putting away your pride. My pride should always be only in Christ. My dad taught me to confess when I’ve done wrong, and it’s one of the greatest lessons he gave me. But it is by far the easiest.
I know from experience.
I don’t just mean in confessing to God when I’ve messed up in my walk. But confessing to my brothers and sisters of my folly. I once lost my temper to my brothers in Christ because of a joke they wanted to pull on me. They meant it to be fun, and I lost my temper in such a terrible way. I lashed out not only during the instance, but for a day or so afterwards. After taking some time to cool down, I realized just how foolish I had been. I could have just sat there and confessed it to God of my anger. But I had done wrong to more than just God on that. I needed to confess my guilt to my brothers that I offended. It wasn’t easy to do it at all. It was, by far, one of the toughest things to do in my life. But it was necessary. And that’s where the true healing began.
As the Church I know there’s a lot we can still accomplish as we are. But I think we need to look over our actions. We need to realize how far we’ve strayed from God’s design for the Bride. When we’re willing to accept what we’ve done wrong, we need to be willing to make a public statement of humility and confession to the communities around us for the wrong we’ve done. When we are willing to put aside our pride, Christ will make his Bride what he wanted. The Bride will still have problems, as she always will being made up of humans. But no longer will she be resigned to let the wedding dress be torn and say, “That’s just the way it is.” She will be willing to say, “Christ can mend me once again.” Isn’t that the hope of salvation? If Christ can do it for the whole world, why can’t we believe he could do it for his Bride?
I don’t have any illusions that every church all across the world will make a public confession, but what a Church we could be… And that’s where the healing could really begin, for us and the world. When the Bride is willing to make the confession and be changed for the better by Christ, not only will we experience his love greater, but we will be able to show his love better.
That’s just the way it is.
Maybe this is where our churches in America are right now. I don’t want to make it out as if I think that the churches in America are just completely wrong and there is nothing done right, because this is simply not true. There is a lot of good in our churches, just as there is a lot that we’ve done wrong. But when we say as a body that it’s just the way we are right now is self-defeating, but more than that it denies the power of Christ to work through his Bride to make it what he intended it to be.
Suppose that five years ago I had simply decided that the person I was then is simply the person I would be, and that’s just the way it is. I shudder to think of the person I would be today if I had not changed because of the work Christ has done in me today. I can see how I would have remained judgmental, with a very short temper. I would have remained in a very sad and lonely place. I thank God for the change He’s made in me through the power of His Son. I love the person that I am becoming now and the person He continues to shape me into being, because with each change and each day He makes me less of myself and more like Christ. Each day he sheds another piece of my worldly self and reveals more of Christ in me. I look forward to that day when I can just be a man of love and so far from the man I used to be.
But there is a critical piece to all this change. Confession is just as much a part of the healing process as anything else. I called my dad sometime ago and told him that I was thankful to him for teaching me how to apologize. Not just the form of it, but the necessity of it. That being a man isn’t simply about being strong and taking the lead, but being willing to realize when you’ve made your mistakes and putting away your pride. My pride should always be only in Christ. My dad taught me to confess when I’ve done wrong, and it’s one of the greatest lessons he gave me. But it is by far the easiest.
I know from experience.
I don’t just mean in confessing to God when I’ve messed up in my walk. But confessing to my brothers and sisters of my folly. I once lost my temper to my brothers in Christ because of a joke they wanted to pull on me. They meant it to be fun, and I lost my temper in such a terrible way. I lashed out not only during the instance, but for a day or so afterwards. After taking some time to cool down, I realized just how foolish I had been. I could have just sat there and confessed it to God of my anger. But I had done wrong to more than just God on that. I needed to confess my guilt to my brothers that I offended. It wasn’t easy to do it at all. It was, by far, one of the toughest things to do in my life. But it was necessary. And that’s where the true healing began.
As the Church I know there’s a lot we can still accomplish as we are. But I think we need to look over our actions. We need to realize how far we’ve strayed from God’s design for the Bride. When we’re willing to accept what we’ve done wrong, we need to be willing to make a public statement of humility and confession to the communities around us for the wrong we’ve done. When we are willing to put aside our pride, Christ will make his Bride what he wanted. The Bride will still have problems, as she always will being made up of humans. But no longer will she be resigned to let the wedding dress be torn and say, “That’s just the way it is.” She will be willing to say, “Christ can mend me once again.” Isn’t that the hope of salvation? If Christ can do it for the whole world, why can’t we believe he could do it for his Bride?
I don’t have any illusions that every church all across the world will make a public confession, but what a Church we could be… And that’s where the healing could really begin, for us and the world. When the Bride is willing to make the confession and be changed for the better by Christ, not only will we experience his love greater, but we will be able to show his love better.
That’s just the way it is.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Thoughts from the News
10/20/2008
On economics
Gathered from reading the following articles at csmonitor.com
• A Financial New World Order? By Howard LaFranchi, from October 20, 2008 edition.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1020/p01s01-usec.html
• Credit Crisis Driving Global Cooperation, By Peter Grier, Robert Marquand and Mark Rice-Oxley, from the October 14, 2008 edition.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1014/p01s04-wogn.html
The world governments are starting to realize that in this new day and age they will need to be willing to not only work together and have a global regulatory economy, but be willing to work with groups they have left out in the past, such as China, South America, Latin America, Africa – and maybe even other groups like Iran and North Korea (if the North is actually contributing anything to the global market…). And while this is good, I still think it’s not acknowledging the coming economy. This convention and reorganization of the global market should have been done long ago. Now I think they will need to just redo it again in a couple decades, or they’ll just continue to encounter the same problem.
I say this just because of the fact that I still believe an open market is somewhere on the horizon. Even if it’s not, the problem will remain: pirating media is just the beginning of the problem, but it’s still a significant economic problem. There are billions in any country’s currency being lost because people are pirating the movies, music and media business. Some are doing it strictly for a profit, some are doing it out of spite. Whatever the reason the effect is still the same: potential billions are lost. I just think that the global leaders need to at least start acknowledging that it’s on the way and they need to start making plans for it…
On NGO’s
Gathered from reading the following article
• Afghanistan’s Emerging Anti-war Movement, By Anand Gopal, from the October 20, 2008 edition.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1020/p07s02-wosc.html
• Development: South America Fights Poverty in its Own Way, By Daniel Estrada, October 17, 2008.
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=44323
It seems that NGO’s (non-governmental organizations) are going to be a new major player in politics. Then again, they may also just be another name for “lobbys.”
In either case, it was neat reading the article about how the Afghanistans are starting to work on peace on their own, and recognize the need for it to come from themselves not wanting interference from other countries. More should follow suit. Of course, maybe more have, and I’m just now noticing.
10/21/2008
On US Relations
• Politics: New Cuba Policy in Sight?, by Patricia Grogg, October 20, 2008
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=44356
The article notes how Obama has talked about starting talks back up with Cuba, but at his time, under his conditions. I think this Morales guy has a point. If Obama wants to talk with Cuba, he should be willing to work it out on both leaders times, and should allow for a joint decision on what will be discussed. And he shouldn’t even think about talking about the “freedom of the people of Cuba.” That’s just rude.
But in all honesty, shouldn’t this be the way American leaders handle all relations with foreign countries? Where we don’t take the “leading role” that’s gotten us into so much trouble before and allow for joint control? It’s hard to say we have the “most influence” any more when we exist in a global economy and political machine.
On economics
Gathered from reading the following articles at csmonitor.com
• A Financial New World Order? By Howard LaFranchi, from October 20, 2008 edition.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1020/p01s01-usec.html
• Credit Crisis Driving Global Cooperation, By Peter Grier, Robert Marquand and Mark Rice-Oxley, from the October 14, 2008 edition.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1014/p01s04-wogn.html
The world governments are starting to realize that in this new day and age they will need to be willing to not only work together and have a global regulatory economy, but be willing to work with groups they have left out in the past, such as China, South America, Latin America, Africa – and maybe even other groups like Iran and North Korea (if the North is actually contributing anything to the global market…). And while this is good, I still think it’s not acknowledging the coming economy. This convention and reorganization of the global market should have been done long ago. Now I think they will need to just redo it again in a couple decades, or they’ll just continue to encounter the same problem.
I say this just because of the fact that I still believe an open market is somewhere on the horizon. Even if it’s not, the problem will remain: pirating media is just the beginning of the problem, but it’s still a significant economic problem. There are billions in any country’s currency being lost because people are pirating the movies, music and media business. Some are doing it strictly for a profit, some are doing it out of spite. Whatever the reason the effect is still the same: potential billions are lost. I just think that the global leaders need to at least start acknowledging that it’s on the way and they need to start making plans for it…
On NGO’s
Gathered from reading the following article
• Afghanistan’s Emerging Anti-war Movement, By Anand Gopal, from the October 20, 2008 edition.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1020/p07s02-wosc.html
• Development: South America Fights Poverty in its Own Way, By Daniel Estrada, October 17, 2008.
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=44323
It seems that NGO’s (non-governmental organizations) are going to be a new major player in politics. Then again, they may also just be another name for “lobbys.”
In either case, it was neat reading the article about how the Afghanistans are starting to work on peace on their own, and recognize the need for it to come from themselves not wanting interference from other countries. More should follow suit. Of course, maybe more have, and I’m just now noticing.
10/21/2008
On US Relations
• Politics: New Cuba Policy in Sight?, by Patricia Grogg, October 20, 2008
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=44356
The article notes how Obama has talked about starting talks back up with Cuba, but at his time, under his conditions. I think this Morales guy has a point. If Obama wants to talk with Cuba, he should be willing to work it out on both leaders times, and should allow for a joint decision on what will be discussed. And he shouldn’t even think about talking about the “freedom of the people of Cuba.” That’s just rude.
But in all honesty, shouldn’t this be the way American leaders handle all relations with foreign countries? Where we don’t take the “leading role” that’s gotten us into so much trouble before and allow for joint control? It’s hard to say we have the “most influence” any more when we exist in a global economy and political machine.
The Mystery of God...
It occurred to me the other day that even if we were to at some point understand God in practically every regard, there is one aspect of God that no human can possibly ever understand. Caedmon’s call phrases it pretty well. “It’s the mystery of mercy…” I’ll never understand that… That He has so many reasons to just walk away and leave me in the mess I make. Yet He has mercy. That will be impossible for me to understand….
The Importance of the Article
“You forgot to use ‘a’.” “Say, ‘I’m going to the park today.” “Don’t forget your articles!!!”
In case you’re just tuning in, I am teaching English to elementary students at a private school in South Korea. I just learned today that one of the reasons that Koreans have such a hard time learning to add articles in their sentences has to do with the fact that apparently they don’t have articles in their language. Intriguing, but I’m still going to jump on them when they forget it in my class, because that’s the reason they are here: to learn English. Articles are a part of the language just as much as the vocabulary.
Yet as much as I get onto my kids because they forget to add the article, how many times do we in the church forget our articles? “I’m going to church.” What are we saying? Is church a noun or a verb? If we are thinking “church” as in our destination of where we are going, than the answer is noun, but we are forgetting the article to declare it as such. Without the article to define “church” in a statement such as that as a place it sounds like a verb, like something we are doing. If we are leaving it as a verb, what does that mean? What does it mean to “church”? Are we referring to the repetitious pattern of going to a building to meet with people of similar belief to sing songs and hear a small lesson to remind us to be closer to God? What do we mean? It seems silly to refer to “church” as a verb. I think there would be general agreement because of our years of hearing this that the church is not a building but the body of believers.
Ah! A body of believers! Then the word we are using is a noun, as it refers to a group of people. So why do we still speak of it as a verb? I read an article recently recommended by a friend about the development of the word, “FAIL.” (You can read the article for yourself here.) The author points out how it is common for verbs to become nouns. He cites examples such as lock, bike, and meet. These can both act as nouns and verbs. But here we see just the reverse action: a noun that has become a verb. What a confused word! It knows itself to be a noun, but is used like a verb. Imagine having a child who knows his name to be Todd only to begin hearing people call him Bill. The confusion would be unbearable.
So while it could be said that “church” has simply changed from a noun to a verb, the problem is simply that the word “church” simply makes no sense as a verb. It’s definition then is confusing. How do you describe that? What definition do you give? It is best left as it was intended to be – a noun. Listen to the sentence again, now with the article in place as it should be: “I’m going to go to the church.” Understanding the word “church” as a body of believers, it makes more sense with the article.
From here it is simply a matter of actually reminding yourself to change your vocabulary this little bit. It will likely take some time. For me it’s taken a year or more just to finally get an even mix of “I’m going to go to service at…” and “I’m going to church.” We simply have to be patient and constantly check ourselves.
It seems such a trivial point to fix, yet our language holds such power, sway and meaning within it. We treat it so carelessly and flippantly – oftentimes even more so in our church language. We cause those outside the church to become so confused by what we say because we are so used to speaking among Christians that we forget the vocabulary of the world, or we forget that words have taken on new meaning in the body of believers.
If we are to serve the people around us, it would benefit us all greatly if we watched how we said things, and what we said around others.
In case you’re just tuning in, I am teaching English to elementary students at a private school in South Korea. I just learned today that one of the reasons that Koreans have such a hard time learning to add articles in their sentences has to do with the fact that apparently they don’t have articles in their language. Intriguing, but I’m still going to jump on them when they forget it in my class, because that’s the reason they are here: to learn English. Articles are a part of the language just as much as the vocabulary.
Yet as much as I get onto my kids because they forget to add the article, how many times do we in the church forget our articles? “I’m going to church.” What are we saying? Is church a noun or a verb? If we are thinking “church” as in our destination of where we are going, than the answer is noun, but we are forgetting the article to declare it as such. Without the article to define “church” in a statement such as that as a place it sounds like a verb, like something we are doing. If we are leaving it as a verb, what does that mean? What does it mean to “church”? Are we referring to the repetitious pattern of going to a building to meet with people of similar belief to sing songs and hear a small lesson to remind us to be closer to God? What do we mean? It seems silly to refer to “church” as a verb. I think there would be general agreement because of our years of hearing this that the church is not a building but the body of believers.
Ah! A body of believers! Then the word we are using is a noun, as it refers to a group of people. So why do we still speak of it as a verb? I read an article recently recommended by a friend about the development of the word, “FAIL.” (You can read the article for yourself here.) The author points out how it is common for verbs to become nouns. He cites examples such as lock, bike, and meet. These can both act as nouns and verbs. But here we see just the reverse action: a noun that has become a verb. What a confused word! It knows itself to be a noun, but is used like a verb. Imagine having a child who knows his name to be Todd only to begin hearing people call him Bill. The confusion would be unbearable.
So while it could be said that “church” has simply changed from a noun to a verb, the problem is simply that the word “church” simply makes no sense as a verb. It’s definition then is confusing. How do you describe that? What definition do you give? It is best left as it was intended to be – a noun. Listen to the sentence again, now with the article in place as it should be: “I’m going to go to the church.” Understanding the word “church” as a body of believers, it makes more sense with the article.
From here it is simply a matter of actually reminding yourself to change your vocabulary this little bit. It will likely take some time. For me it’s taken a year or more just to finally get an even mix of “I’m going to go to service at…” and “I’m going to church.” We simply have to be patient and constantly check ourselves.
It seems such a trivial point to fix, yet our language holds such power, sway and meaning within it. We treat it so carelessly and flippantly – oftentimes even more so in our church language. We cause those outside the church to become so confused by what we say because we are so used to speaking among Christians that we forget the vocabulary of the world, or we forget that words have taken on new meaning in the body of believers.
If we are to serve the people around us, it would benefit us all greatly if we watched how we said things, and what we said around others.
In All Fairness...
There have been a lot of people that were really upset with John McCain for having thrown done so much mud and garbage at Obama during the debates. I agree that during debates candidates should be civil with one another and not throw around so much dirt to try and show the other guy as such a terrible person. What McCain did was wrong. But let’s be fair here: I remember before the DNC where Barack Obama was flinging just as much garbage at Hillary Clinton as McCain has thrown his way. Is it OK for Obama, but not for McCain? If we’re going to get mad at one, let’s keep it consistent here folks…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)