The Menno Melange

Ana’s updates are usually full of both of our experiences, but over time I, Will, have developed a few opinions about things, and I thought this would be a good outlet for those kind of ramblings.

One of the many strange dualities I experience here has to do with my impressions of time. As we wander around Korea doing our various tasks and side-trips, I sometimes see things that make me feel like I’ve slipped back in time, and there are other times I feel like I’m living in the future. I don’t mean this in a critical sense, either of our hosts here or of our worlds back home, these are just observations. Also, I think it’s arrogant for people to think that something newer is by definition better, or that we as a society are smarter, more civilized or more humane now than we were a generation ago.

The future
As a former pastor, I have a tendency to always makes lists of three, so here are three of the ways that I feel that my life in Korea feels futuristic.

Technology
A ridiculously high percentage of Korean homes have high speed Internet access. The causes or results of this are that 1.) Korean websites require a greater than average amount of bandwidth because of their flashy content, etc. 2.) Koreans are much more open/calloused about illegally downloading movies, 3.) people buy everything from clothes to groceries over the Internet. The only thing preventing us from doing more Internet shopping is that these web sites are almost always entirely in Korean.
Another sign of the high level of technological advancement is that cell phones are much more prevalent than they were back in Canada. It is quite common to hear someone’s phone going off during meetings, on the train or during a church service, either with a trendy/annoying/unnecessarily loud/funny ringtone or the buzz of the “silent” vibrate mode. We even have a cell phone when we would have opposed their intrusive presence back home. The Korean alphabet makes sending text messages much easier and quicker. Also, the only time I’ve ever had less that four full bars of connection is when I was working with a friend of mine near the North Korean border.

Language
This may sound strange coming from someone who is still a long ways away from having a functional ability to speak or understand the language. I think this language is in many ways more advanced than English. There are almost no irregular verbs, the alphabet is quite simple to read (Korea has almost 100% literacy rates). There is always a structure for everything and people’s ability to explain nuances of the language to us is limited only by their ability to speak English to me, not by the complexity of the language. Of course, one of the beauties and curses of learning languages is that they were not developed by think-tanks taking simplicity and universality into consideration. The Korean language developed in a small peninsula, while the English language developed as the British Empire grew and became exposed to and absorbed other languages and cultures. Over time people have theorized that a newly invented language would take over the world, and while various attempts have failed, I imagine if it were possible, that language might look a lot like Korean.

Land use
Korea is a small land with lots of people. They barely have room for their own people, let alone immigrants. That’s why, when Koreans build, they build up, not out. Futuristic books when I was a kid always talked about a time when people realized there was only so much land they could use for buildings before food production became more important. Korea is that place. People understand that having an apartment may not be better than having their own house, but accept that it is the most feasible thing to do.

Blasts from the past
Cars
When I was a kid, there were basically three car makers, and anyone who drove something made by someone else was either showing off their money or could be suspected as being a communist. Those three companies each had one compact car, one sedan etc, and each model had maybe four or five colours, so if you drove a tan coloured Taurus, odds were you weren’t the only one in any given parking lot. In Korea, almost everyone drives a Kia, a Hyundai, or a Daewoo. Our light blue Hyundai Avante is never the only one of its kind that we will see in a day. It reminds me of the Ford pickup my dad drove, or the various family vehicles we had over the years.

Racial Homogeneity
If you grew up in a small town, an ethnic community or, like me, you grew up in a small town ethnic community, your exposure to people of other races was limited. I had a certain trepidation about approaching foreigners and an over-sensitivity about not offending them. Foreigners are still relatively rare in Korea, and while most people still have a trepidation about approaching us, not everyone worries about what is offensive to us. Groups of school girls will say “hello” to me, and then when I say “hello” back, they giggle as though either my voice cracked or my fly was open (and I’ve experienced both enough to know those distinctive laughs). People laugh at us when we mispronounce Korean words, they tell us we’re too fat to buy clothes at their store, or do anything to avoid talking to us, even if it’s their job as a service personnel. I know these are very natural reactions, but they can be quite offensive if we allow ourselves to be offended.

The North
I was too young to appreciate the significance of the falling of the Berlin Wall or the end of the Cold War, but I remember how people talked about the communists, as though it were some kind of ever-present threat. The Cold War is not over in Korea. Some people are hopeful for a reunification with the North while some people live in constant fear of the war reigniting. The combination of mandatory military conscription and a highly militarized border with their only land neighbour leaves an interesting impact on the society.

They were dicussing on CBC this morning whether or not there should be a by-law against drive-thru’s. Here is my two cents about that.
I think drive-thru’s are a bad idea, and should all be removed. Here’s why:

1) From a traffic stand-point: Sometimes the line gets so long, it causes traffic congestion, in the parking lot and more seriously, on the road.
2) From a quality of living stand-point: For those people who live near drive-thru’s, they have to hear the various orders being made all day long.
3) From a discipline stand-point: Drive-thru’s only foster the sense that we are too busy in our lives to stop for just a few minutes, we have to GO GO GO, and only encourages us to be lazy, as does much of our latest technology
4) From a practicality stand-point: The whole point of drive-thru’s is CONVENIENCE and QUICKER SERVICE, and yet how many of us have found it to be quicker to go inside? (I’m raising my hand)
5) From an environmental stand-point (this is last because it is MOST important: TOO MUCH IDLING! If we really cared about our environment, we would stop our cars, and take the extra 2 minutes (and in some cases LESS time than the drive-thru), take those much needed steps for exercise, maybe interract with other human beings, rather than a computer, and get our order.

The only positive thing I can think of with drive thru’s is for safety. If you’re a woman driving alone at night, whether in the city or secluded area, you might choose the drive-thru over getting out of your car. I know I would.

Other than that, let’s say “We’re through with drive-thru’s!”

Maybe you’ve seen the same movie as me. A president is trying to appoint a vice-president. With a few notable candidates jockeying for position, and a few vocal critics speculate on who will be chosen. He ultimately choses a woman senator, and the movie takes off from there. Some speculate that he is trying to leave a progressive legacy, others simply think she’s grossly under-qualified, not to mention lacking moral fiber. She had an affair with her campaign manager, and, in digging into her past, the press and her opponents discover that she allegedly took part in a group sex session at a college frat party. All she would offer as a defense is that she fell in love with her campaign manager and subsequenlty married him, and that even commenting on the allegations would legitimize the asking of those kinds of personal questions. She claimed that there was a double-standard; nobody cared what was in the sexual pasts of male politicians, why should hers matter.

That’s the movies. Then I read the story about Tie Domi’s divorce proceedings, where his ex-wife alleged that he had an affair with Belinda Stronach. The next day there is a news story that Belinda Stronach is accusing this country and its media of having a double-standard.

Quoting her in a canoe.ca article, she says “I’d really like to say in a country like Canada that there isn’t, but I do believe there is a double standard,” Stronach said on Tuesday. “And it’s unfortunate for other women in this country that want to seek political office and to make a contribution.”

Until I read these statements, I thought this issue was about Tie Domi, a man, and his moral misgivings. Does she really think that men are exempt from public scrutiny? If that were true, wouldn’t Clinton’s escapades been ignored? If the entire USA goes into an uproar because of the concealment of oral sex, aren’t we allowed to be concerned about an extended affair that helps to destroy a marriage?

Now I generally don’t care about the private lives of public people. I’ve seen enough to know that there is a lot of broken families in the general public. With all the sacrifices celebrities and politicians have to make to attain success in their field, I even expect there to be more brokeness in their own personal lives.

So why did this catch my eye? Partly because I was already not a big fan of Tie Domi, and partly because I’m not a big fan of people hiding questionable activity behind their right to have questionable activity kept secret.

As far as the double-standard goes, I am convinced that as long as people can benefit from complaining about a double standard, they will, whether that double standard exists or not.

As if this whole issue deserves any more print, but I had a flashback the other day that I thought was worth sharing. During a call-in show on the radio about the topic, I heard the oft repeated comment that similar cartoons about Christianity and its sacred figures are printed all the time.

During my second year of University, our student newspaper printed a cartoon of Jesus, wearing a straight-jacket, and being wheeled through the halls of an insane asyllum. The next issue of the paper printed an angry, poorly-written reply, penned by yours truly. I voiced my displeasure with the newspaper and its editor for printing it. I also challenged them to print a similar cartoon disparaging the prophet Muhammed. It angered me then that an obvious double standard existed, with one religion, mine, open for rebuke, and all others untouchable. My challenge was not meant to encourage intolerance of others, but to highlight that double-standard. The editors response was that it was to demonstrate how society has rejected the teachings of a man advocating love and forgiveness. I insisted that there were better ways of making that statement.

He never did respond to my challenge though. In a way I’m glad. I certainly wouldn’t want to have instigated this whole cartoon fiasco myself through a letter to the editor. It would weigh heavy on my conscience if Canadian embassies were attacked because a newspaper responded to my challenge.

Since then, I have seen many more unflattering artistic depictions of Christianity and its historic figures. Some I have appreciated as valid critiques, such as the “She of Little Faith” episode of the The Simpsons, and some I have despised as tasteless, such as the film “Dogma” even though it mocks the Catholic a lot more than it does me. In that same amount of time, I haven’t seen anything in the artistic world that critiques Islam, Judaism, etc. Perhaps we’re easy targets, but ours is not the only religion whose history is littered with illegitimate violence, hypocrisy and intollerance.

Various reasons are given each time a Western news outlet re-prints the cartoons such as exercising freedom of the press or just reporting the basis of such a newsworthy event. Nobody is printing them with the intention of offending Muslims, at least not overtly. Heck, they’re not even all that offensive (yes, I have seen them). Another interesting reason has been used lately to publish them, bravery. Certain news outlets have refused to cower in fear of Muslim extremists and ar re-printing the cartoons to demonstrate. Now it’s easy to be brave this far away from the middle east, but it’s a valid concern. We in the west as well as the Muslim world are not well served when this kind of violence dictates what gets printed and what doesn’t. Civilized discourse usually doesn’t sell a lot of newspapers, but it’s what is most needed in times like this, and it is what should decide what gets printed and what doesn’t.

Like most of you, I’m quite overwhelmed by the growing international violence in response to a series of cartoons. There are those who see it as a blatant attack on a particular religious group while others see it as a legitimate expression of freedom of the press. The rest of us fit somewhere in between and have trouble justifying either the series of seemingly insensitive reprints that we’ve seen or the series of senseless violent attacks that have followed.

I know that myself and others would love to hear Muslim leaders condemn the violence rather than condemn the printing of the cartoon (I’m sure there are leaders making public condemnations of the attacks, but those voices aren’t penetrating the media). I’m sure that many Muslims would love to see other religious groups stand with them and oppose the extent to which the freedom of the press has been abused here. There are a few things that are perhaps too sacred to be mocked in the press, but few if any of them exist within Christianity.

What strikes about the situation is the absolute hypocrisy of it. The offensive aspect of it according to some is that a fundamental teaching of Islam has been violated, that it’s forbidden to make images of Allah or The Prophet. Now, I didn’t grow up learning a lot about Islam, but ever since I started my education, mostly in a liberal arts university setting, I have been taught nothing about Islam so forcefully except that it is a religion of peace. I understand the effort to reassure the West/Christians that violence isn’t a fundamental part of the religion given the headlines coming out of the Arab world. I don’t understand however that offending such a peaceful religion has such violent repercussions.

The uproar began when a few non-Muslims broke Islamic law. In response to that, Muslims all over the world (once news got out and various more extreme elements highlighted it) responded with violence, breaking another Muslim law.

Now I’m no advocate of freedom of the press, and I think the various reprints are totally insensitive, and I’m no expert on Muslim law, but it seems extremely hypocritical to me. Shouldn’t a religious leader’s first response be to criticize hypocrisy within their own ranks before they expect non-adherents to follow their own religious law?

In response to the issue, and as a tribute to a friends’ new blog venture, I’ve compiled a few hypothetical newspaper headlines that would seem to be in keeping with the double-standard.

Amish Clicked Off
Local Amish, offended by tourists driving cars, respond by taking pictures of those driving by and emailing the digital files to the local civic authorities and television stations.

Pin the Needle on the JW
All over the area, Kingdom Hall’s that are usually used as places of worship for Jehovah’s Witnesses are being used as blood donor clinics. Parents in the community were upset that their neighbours have birthday parties for their children, and the blood drive was their way of showing solidarity.

Ste. Antoinette?
Oliver Burke, an outspoken community leader and the pastor has resigned his post at the local Gospel Truth Assembly church, a congregation of proud adherents to Biblical inerrancy and literal interpretation. He was upset that town council refused his petition to change the name of the town from St. Anthony to something else. “The old Catholic system of beatification is not Biblical and I refuse to live in a town that ignores that,” Rev. Burke was quoted as saying in his departure. The congregation will continue their outreach in the community said their head deacon. “We cannot let this political opposition stop us. In the mean time, we have hired and ordained a woman pastor.”

Tomorrow is the deadline given by the Swords of Righteousness Brigade for Iraqi prisoners to be released or they will kill their four hostages. This is a sadly common reality. Idealistic gunmen holding idealistic prisoners ignored by idealistic governments and disenchanted law enforcement authorities. What makes this situation uncommon is the tragic irony involved.

Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT) opposed the war in Iraq and opposes the continued US (et al) military presence in Iraq. They have been very vocal in their opposition to the war and very active in their support of people they deem as victims of the conflict. As members of CPT, the four men, Briton Norman Kember, American Tom Fox, and Canadians Jim Loney and Harmeet Singh Sooden, make terrible hostages.

- They oppose the war and the ongoing western military presence in Iraq. Their captivity means that less opposition is being voiced and demonstrated.
- They have no loyalty to the USA, Bush or capitalism. What ideologies will their captives try to beat out of them?
- They oppose a violent/military rescue. So the only help the military can give is unwelcomed.
- The US military doesn’t like them. CPT has been documenting abuse allegations in Iraqi prisons, creating human shields, and making accusations of war crimes and Geneva treaty violations ever since the bombing began. They have been a thorn in the side for the US military, so they wouldn’t want to rescue them, even if it was wanted.
- They have close friends in the Muslim community. High level muslim clerics are voicing their support of CPT and their work. Muslims all over Hebron are denouncing the kidnapping. Unless the strategy was to create disunity, it doesn’t seem to be working.

There are prayer vigils all over the world for the hostages today. Tomorrow will bring news of any developments. We can only pray that they will be positive.

CPT had hoped that this news wouldn’t reach the mainstream media. I don’t blame them. With this news getting out, it means more unnecessary attention to the anxious parents, and a slew of unwarranted opposition.

Here is a collection of articles related to the events:
News
Hostage family holds out hope

Sympathetic
CPT Home
Why are we here?
Un-Sympathetic
“Part of me likes this” - Rush Limbaugh
“Reaping what they sow” - FrontPageMagazine

As Christmas approaches, we’ll begin to hear about commercialization, greed and materialism. Various groups, including Christians from everywhere on the spectrum, will bemoan the loss of what once was.

Reading through a recent denominational publication, I read through two articles which had similar tones but seemingly contrasting messages. The first talked about how the mall had now become the place of modern worship. Apparently people everywhere are catching on to this trend, including Christians. To cash in on this movement, new churches are even being designed to look like malls. Food courts have replaced the communion table, sales promotions have replaced Advent, Lent, etc., and the Almighty Dollar has replaced God Almighty. The second article also talked about how the mall had now become the place of modern worship. This author’s point was instead that new malls are being designed to look like medieval cathedrals, with the special windows, paintings and statues.

Both writers pointed toward the commercialization of Christmas, but in different ways. I was slightly baffled though; which writer was correct? Are new churches looking like old malls, or are new malls looking like old churches? Perhaps both statements are true which would negate the legitimacy of either article. If new churches look like malls, which look like old churches, then new churches look like old churches, regardless of the level of materialism in the surrounding society.

Recently there was some fear that malls were losing their relevance and would eventually be empty as a result of increased online shopping. While e-commerce has increased, malls are still full to overflowing leading up to Christmas. Some malls with struggling chains, with aging buildings or placed in increasingly poor neighbourhoods are whithering into oblivion, but many malls are thriving in their glitz and glamour. Similarly, the downfall of the church is much publicized and seen by many as inevitable in this postmodern climate of intellectualism, etc. Little however is being said about church growth in its various forms. New churches are springing up in Canada. Some groups are starting to rent out movie theatres to accommodate their swelling attendance. Old vacated church buildings are being rented or purchased outright by newer, younger and more vibrant congregations.

Sure, churches are like malls, malls are like churches. They each have their own enemies, things that threaten to bring irrelevance. Both can blame a changing climate on their decline, or they can simply continue to be relevant.

Christmas is coming, and I’m tired of hearing people complain about it. If you don’t like mall atmosphere at this time of year, don’t go. If you think materialistic greed has overcome the traditional goodwill of the holiday, don’t buy anything, nothing at all. We have the power to make Christmas what we want. The government still gives us a day off. Random people still extend random well-wishes at random times throughout the season. Whether you’re celebrating the birth of Christ or the feast of Saturn, celebrate! Don’t complain about how the unfriendly climate around you ruins your holiday.

I grew up in a non-musical environment. I always listened to my own favourite music, but the concert experience is still quite new to me. I was at a concert last night, and as often happens, the band played their “last” song, went off the stage, and then crowd applauded for a long time, and the band returned for a few more songs. When I first heard about the idea of an encore, it sounded pretty good; the audience, overwhelmed by the performance, insists on cheering until the group returns to play another song or two.

That’s what it meant once anyway. Now, concert goers know ahead of time that they are going to demand an encore, and musicians know that they’ll be called out again, so they prepare extra music. They go off-stage after their “last” piece, wait for a second off-stage and then come back on stage and pretend to be pleasantly surprised and the show goes on. This really bothers me. Why would you even go off-stage in the first place?

This is similar to tipping. Nobody tips based on actual service provided, it’s based on what is customary in that region, and/or on the attractiveness of the server. The waiter/waitress then pretends that the tip is an actual compliment on their abilities and they express their appreciation.

I would prefer that the group state early on that their final song will be their final song. I would also prefer that my tip be mandated by the restaurant, so that all staff, cooks, servers, hosts, etc. would get a fair wage (appearance and personality aside). I guess I’m weird like that. I’m just not a fan of institutionalized insincerity.

I’m usually not the first of my friends to see a movie, and I rely on their reviews when I decide what to watch. When a movie gets good reviews, I’m more likely to watch it. However, if it gets tremendous reviews, I become a little more reluctant to see it. Too much hype spoils a movie. For that reason, I have avoided various movies out of principle. I almost did the same thing for Napolean Dynamite. It couldn’t possibly be as good as people told me it was.

I decided that I did want to see it, but that I wanted to see it alone or with other people who hadn’t seen it before. An easy way to ruin a movie, is to watch it with other people who are quoting it and laughing really hard purely in anticipation of the joke.

I ended up watching it at a sleepover, with other people who loved it, but many of us were quite tired and drifting in and out of consciousness. I slept through some parts, and wasn’t all that sure why it was supposed to be so funny, but I caught my second wind and was awake for the last half of the movie. I wasn’t sure what to think about the movie, until one particular point, when it all came together, and I realized the genius of the film. For some people, it’s the dance. For me, it was the moments after the dance; the eruption of the crowd, the smile on Pedro’s face.

[Warning: spoilers included]
Until then I had been trying to figure out why this was the cult phenomenon that it was. But then I realized, it isn’t supposed to be a cult movie, it’s a critique of high school culture. Napolean isn’t the loser, we all are/were. Obviously Pedro doesn’t win the election because of his promises of Holy Santos in the hallway, or because of the FFC programming they had lined up. Napolean’s dance endears the crowd to Pedro’s campaign and makes them realize that they were only going to vote for Summer because they thought they had to. Popularity is such a fickle thing; a person with only one or two good friends can be the most popular person in the school, and a group of 6 friends can all feel socially neglected. At the climax of the film for me, Napolean is not elevated from the bottom of the social ladder to the top, but the entire social pyramid is levelled out. Embracing him as an equal with every one else made me love the movie and enjoy it more the second time. I now own the movie, and we just watched it again last night. I love the movie for its critique of high school society, but for the same reason I don’t understand how it’s so popular among the popular kids it so aptly criticizes.

In my community, we don’t get door to door mail delivery. Each resident has a Post Office box at the center of town, and we are responsible to pick it up ourselves. I have no problem with this obvious cost cutting measure. I walk to the post office with the same anticipation I used to walk to the mailbox. I am still however, quite upset with the myriad of junk mail that I receive. Especially frustrating is the personally addressed letters advertising anything from credit cards to life and death charities. They look like real mail, but they’re not.

I’ve finally decided that I’ve had enough. A while ago I read some email spam (ironic as it is) which planted the seed of vengeance in my mind. It seemed that the best response to receiving their garbage was to send them my own garbage. It’s easier and cheaper than you might think. Most often, these personally addressed promotions include a postage paid envelope. What I do, usually right there in the post office after I get my mail, is put all the papers they just mailed to me (plus some other stuff if it fits: flyers, candy bar wrappers, other junk mail), lick it, seal it, and send it back to them.

I think it’s a healthy protest. It gives money to Canada Post they wouldn’t otherwise get. My name is already on the papers I’m sending back to them, so it’s not anonymous (you don’t have to put your name on it if you don’t want to). It’s an obvious expression of displeasure, so I’m not just being a nuisance.

Now, I know that the CEO of Capital One doesn’t open my junk filled envelopes and become ridden with guilt. It’s likely someone paid minimum wage who reads my personal information from the application into the computer and opens the next letter. I doubt this person communicates my protest to their superior. They might though, and their superior might tell their superior. Even if my opinions aren’t expressed to key decision makers by word of mouth, it is communicated financially. Their advertising campaign becomes more expensive, and that little bit less worthwhile.

I know that I won’t single-handedly take down the practice of advertising via unrequested mail. If lots of other people starting doing the same, we might. Even if we don’t, it still feels really good, therapeutic even, to stuff their return envelopes and mail their garbage back to themselves. Checking my mail is fun again.