From Facebook: Three Worlds
Is the USA very racist? As a minority, I've always argued that the answer is a strong "no." Race relations in the United States are far better than they are in other places around the world. I used to live in South Korea--and there, all minorities were discriminated against, including me. Many other countries are the same way. Even in brown-skinned countries, a lot of time the prejudice is against darker brown-skinned people. The lighter the brown skin, the better off you are. Racism is a human problem.
Now a survey has been done exposing the racial intolerance of countries. Notice that most of Europe looks good and the US and Canada are very tolerant. India scores very poorly, so does South Korea, and some Arab States. Homogenous populations (S. Korea, Japan), places of ethnic tension (Nigeria, India), and Confucian societies are pretty intolerant.
Societies that have a lot of mixed ethnicity (Brazil, Columbia) or a strong belief in liberal democracy (Canada, UK, Sweden) and/or a Christian heritage that emphasized the value of all human beings did well (the big exception being France).
You could definitely pick through these. For instance, Brazil does have a lot of prejudice against blacks, but people are fine living next to each other (which is the question that was asked in the survey to illicit responses that gauge discomfort with people from other races.
This is not to say that the USA and Europe are perfect (Ukraine and Poland come to mind), but most Western societies are very OPEN about their race problems which makes them seem more concrete. This is particularly true of the USA. On the flipside, there has never been a Korean Martin Luther King critiquing racism in Korea. Racism is not a moral issue in some societies. It is understood to be natural and right. "We ______ are the superior people in the world." The same goes for many other countries. A true movement against racism has been absent in many countries around the world.
I do think that the Christian value of the individual has been internalized in many countries around the world because of the Gospel impacting culture--even if the culture moved away from the Gospel.
At Three Worlds we support a variety of project throughout the Middle East region. Donors can give to the Cedar Home Orphanage in Lebanon, the new Church plants in Russia, assist the church in Egypt during these difficult days, help the Church of God in Athens, Greece as it helps the less fortunate during the worst crisis since the 1930's, or support the Next Generation of leaders in our region (and our interns from around the world) through the NextGen Fund. These are just some examples of projects we have open in the region.
Some Problems with Money on the Mission-Field
In general, however, 3W is careful with money because missions and money don't often go together well. It's very easy to create dependencies--where churches or countries don't grow on their own. Instead they just wait for the next check from the U.S. Because the Christian culture is a high-trust culture, it's easy to have people in the system that abuse that trust and not use money as donors intended. It's also easy for people to think that money will solve all of their problems, when often it just compounds them in new more divisive ways. It is also a problem when things are constructed (such as buildings or schools) and there's no one there to really manage the property adequately. Many countries can become extremely unhealthy very quickly if the floodgates are opened and money just pours in from North America. Power battles can ensue, a sense of entitlement can be formed, and the church's mission can be more about sustaining its facilities and remittances than it is about actually doing evangelism. Unfortunately, we have seen this too often.
Real Relationship First
At Three Worlds, we do not think the flow of funds from North America to Europe/Middle East should be our core purpose. That, in fact, is low on the list. We do not have many projects in the region on purpose. New project proposals must meet certain requirements and we are only willing to open two a year for the entire region, and even that is not guaranteed. We prefer to spend our time ministering in churches, training, encouraging and empowering the next generation of leaders, as well as reaching out to the young, and creating a regional sense of unity and purpose. Relationship and ministry comes first. The flow of funds from North America to our region is the lowest priority. We have seen time and time again (especially in the Church of God), the more money a mission-field gets over the years, the less ministry you see happening. While those countries that learn to do with what they have, tend to stay focused and grow in a healthier manner.
There is a place for financial support. Often certain projects need to be kick-started, or an infusion of cash can help a ministry come to life or survive a turbulent time. Or assistance for a pastor can help a church plant to get launched. But these should be taken on a case by case basis and the deeper, structural realities should always be examined before the checkbook is pulled out. A need is not enough. There needs to be health underlying that need.
At 3W, we go by an internal plan that we call "RAISE NUT (R-A-I-S-E-N-U-T). The "Raise"principal comes from Jonathan Martin's "Giving Wisely." However, those principles are pretty common-sensical. Why was that book such a hit? It's because the Church of God in North America got so careless, that it started violating even those common-sense principles in their support for missions. Many people got burned time and time again.
WHAT IS RAISE-NUT?
R=Relationship First: This means that it's vital to have a real relationship first that's based on friendship and partnership in ministry, not just an arrangement to enter into a financial agreement to transfer funds from North America to some country overseas.
A=Accountability: There obviously needs to be some pro-active oversight over the funds with the recipients demonstrating clearly that they are using the funds as designated. The missionaries and mission-agency must be very transparent in how they are delivering the funds.
IS=Indigenous Sustainability: The funds given should enable the mission-field to continue operating on its own and not create dependence on foreign funds. It something new is starting, there should be a clear explanation of how this ministry will be funded without outside help in the near future.
E=Equity: The money must not be distributed in a manner that is unequal (one village church gets a lot, the other village church gets nothing), or which begins to separate the recipient from the living standards of those they work with and serve.
At Three Worlds, we also added three more key pieces in 2011 based on our observation that these things can also be problems:
N=Next Generation. Is the country empowering the next generation? Are they putting emerging leaders into positions of influence? Are they doing the things that it will take to make sure that the country will have churches 20 years from now? In some cases, leaders intentionally block young people from leadership (and by younger I mean under 50 even)!. We are very intentional about partnering with countries that are serious about reaching young people and having a future, not just preserving and protecting the past.
U=Unity: Does the project bring unity to the country or the churches? Or does it cause division? Furthermore, if a country is already suffering from a lot of division and divisive behavior, we are highly unlikely to start a project there, which will only exacerbate the problems. There's no reason countries or churches should get money when they have no interest in being united in fellowship with each other. We only work with countries and churches that are committed to unity or willing to work toward unity in humility.
T=Timeline: We want a concrete time-line that tells us when the project will end. We have phased out open-ended projects because it becomes too tempting for mission-fields or churches to become dependent on those funds. In special circumstances, the project may be extended, but only after a careful review; and that review will happen with someone on the OUTSIDE of 3W to give us better perspective and objectivity.
Of course none of these guiding principles mean anything if they are not taken seriously or enforced. A non-profit organization must have standards that it insists on if it is to protect its donors, not create dysfunction on the mission-field, and stay on the right side of the law. But it's easy to get wobbly in the knees when people are making personal pleas. There's a place for compassion, but there's also the need to be fair, ethical, and not become enablers.
For 3W, having standards that we all agree on (donor, missionary, national) makes things run far more smoothly. All of us must be challenged to some extent and reigned in at times. A system designed to do that is going to work better than a purely subjective, unplanned process. Ultimately the thing we value most at Three Worlds is health, because once you lose that, it really damages your witness.
We're happy to be working in this region and happy to see that we are all doing our part in a healthy, accountable way.
I'm back from a whirlwind trip to the USA where I had 3W presentations to make in Ohio and New York City. Both of them went very well and the trip was so worth it. I was on the move constantly, and greatly enjoyed catching up to some of the 3W boys (Kelley Philips, Daniel Kihm, and Zach Langford) in Columbus. We had a lot of good laughs, and as always there's great chemistry and synergy. My drive took me past the homes of some friends in Connecticut and New Jersey. And because of the jet-lag, I didn't drive later than 6PM at night, so I made Pittsburgh my stopping place.
As you two diary readers know, I absolutely love Pittsburgh. This time I saw new areas I hadn't seen before, and fell in love with it even more. I had one evening to myself just walking across the bridges of the city. It was so relaxing. So many parts of the United States are just so beautiful. The Southwest, New England, Pacific Northwest, amazing California, and the hills of Pennsylvania. And then there was the joy of driving through downtown Manhattan as I used to in the old days when we lived in Connecticut. The city looked wonderful.
And then there was that fatty American food!!! So delicious. Congratulate me as I only drank water on the trip. And tea. Unsweetened except for once. And I'm glad to see that a lot of the healthy stuff on the restaurant menus is actually getting really good. I really like Applebees lemon shrimp and rice dish. Oh America....you are such a delicious, saucy, tart.
Now I'm back and jet-lagged (which seems to get worse with age), so before I get to writing on the diary again, here's one more laugh. A video poking fun at Millenial charity works. Enjoy.
I'm off to the USA for a very short trip. I have a meeting in New York City and a meeting in Columbus, Ohio. I'll be flying into NYC, picking up a rental car, and then driving back and forth. Since I have friends in Connecticut and New Jersey, just outside of NYC, I hope to get to see them this week. It's been quite a while.
Meanwhile this week, I will be meeting up with 3 of the 3W gang of boys (Kelley Philips 3W-Berlin, Zach Langford 3W-Liverpool, and Daniel Kihm 3W-The Netherlands. Should be a great time as we kick it South-Central Style.....in Central Ohio.
Well, it's time to laugh again. The other day Marco was asking me why sports mascots are so stupid? I don't know, but here they are being stupid. Enjoy and take time to laugh.
I posted a comment about an incident involving porn over on my personal Facebook page. I did it because I thought it was important to share, so I am posting it over here at the 3W Diary as well.
Feel free to "friends" me over at Facebook: Patrick Nachtigall
Remember 3W is also on Facebook and is the best place to hear what is currently happening in the region: Three Worlds.
We are also on Twitter: 3WCHOG
(From my Facebook page)
Well, it happened. A 10-year old friend of Marco tried to show him pornography when they were having a play-date. Marco has never seen porn before, but we had told him about pictures of girls on the internet that should not be seen. So he said to his friend he wasn't interested and told him to stop. He went to the other side of his room, but his friend just thought it was funny and kept trying to find images. Fortunately, his friend couldn't get the images to come up on the screen. Marco came home and immediately reported it to us. We knew that the average age for children today to be exposed to porn for the first time is 10, so that's why we had told him some basics. But now it was time to have THE porn-talk, which I've been dreading.
While it's natural for boys and girls to be curious about sex, today's internet pornography is extremely dangerous--particularly for children who have not reached a sexual age and for teenagers. The abundance of images now available in private is dangerous to the brain. That's not religious, puritanical talk. It's science (and the TED talk below goes into details).
Marco and I had a special father-son talk. I wanted him to understand a little bit about addiction and the dangers of being exposed to internet porn. I wanted to talk about the re-wiring issues (dopamine/brain malleability issues) that scientists are identifying, so I used a computer cord as an example. I showed him a plug on the wall with two sockets and said that one was a normal plug that was good. It's natural to be curious, sexuality is human, and puberty is a fact of life etc. But what internet porn can do to children, or teens (or anyone) is plug the cord into the wrong socket and it can be extremely addictive and difficult to fix. Maybe that sounds silly, but Marco and I have already talked about drug addiction and alcoholism (and watched episodes of Dog the Bounty Hunter to emphasize the point), so he's familiar with that concept and the plug was a visual tool to solidify it. (I don't know what I'm doing here folks!!! Just a first-time parent with one child in a world of triple X porn available on cell phones!!).
Of course we also talked about the moral/spiritual problems and how inappropriate it is to objectify women. But, I wondered if there was a video that would explain the science in a way he would understand--since Marco likes science. I found this TED talk which is excellent and I recommend everyone watch it. So many of my Facebook Friends have children between the ages of 5 and 15, and they are growing up in a world of excessive sexual iopportunities that no generation of humans has ever had to deal with. Is it normal? No. Is the human body wired for this kind of excessive sexual imagery? No. Should this issue be taken seriously be parents of children that are under the age of 10? Absolutely. So I'm posting this to help others.
I don't have the answers. I'm humbled by all of this. Maybe I've already gotten some things wrong. I'm just trying to navigate this new world as a parent. I'm not interested in preaching fear and condemnation to my son. I want him to alway feel free to share with his parents and to know that they will respect him and provide a safe place to process life's challenges. I want him to avoid these things, but also have compassion for people. Most of all, I love him and want him to know I'm here no matter what.
As for Marco's friend--it's not one of his close friends at all, but I'm worried about this kid. It's not about being judgmental or acting self-righteous. As the video shows, it's a mental health issue. I know I have friends on Facebook from all 6 continents, different faiths, atheists, agnostics, different world-views, cultures, and such. I respect that. You know I do. But I really worry about our teenagers and children, and some of the biggest problem areas are in countries and communities where you wouldn't expect it. Feel free to post comments, criticisms, suggestions, or experiences you have had talking with your kids. Just be respectful of others in your comments. We're all trying to make our way through this complicated thing called life; imperfectly, but sincerely.
PS--I'm not really comfortable talking about this on Facebook (or anywhere), but maybe it will help some people out there. And maybe the video can be a helpful teaching tool. Oh, and yes, I am proud of my Son.
Over at Facebook: Three Worlds we've opened a discussion about this article by Juan Cole.
Professor Cole of the University of Michigan argues that Muslims are no more violent (and in fact less violent in the 20th Century) than any other religion. Cole is a well-known apologist for Islam and the Middle East, but he also has a lot of important things to say, and gets things right quite often. He states:
I don’t figure that Muslims killed more than a 2 million people or so in political violence in the entire twentieth century, and that mainly in the Iran-Iraq War 1980-1988 and the Soviet and post-Soviet wars in Afghanistan, for which Europeans bear some blame.
Compare that to the Christian European tally of, oh, lets say 100 million (16 million in WW I, 60 million in WW II– though some of those were attributable to Buddhists in Asia– and millions more in colonial wars.)
No, I do not completely agree with Professor Cole, but...
First of all, I like the article (but have issues with it) because Muslim violence is exaggerated in the Western media. There are about 1.6 Billion Muslims and many of them live in places like Indonesia, Malaysia, India, Senegal, Niger, Kenya etc. where they have peacefully lived with their neighbors for years. These Muslims (that I have met in my travels) are never written about. They are hospitable, kind, and want to live normal, peaceful lives like everyone else. Like most human beings, they want to see their children have a better life than they did, as opposed to say, blow them up or strap explosives to them.
Furthermore, many Muslims have a faith that is different from the more militant strands of Islam that we see the terrorists adhere to. In fact, in many cases, not only might they be from a different major branch of Islam, but they may also have infused their Islam with a lot of local African or Asian folk beliefs. So they are labeled Muslim, but may actually follow something that has little resemblance to Islam.
And then there are those Muslims who are born into a Muslim country, and get labeled Muslims simply because they were born in a Muslim country. Much the way people were born "Catholic" in many Latin American countries. They have not really accepted or rejected Islam but can be called "Muslims."
So there is a peaceful side to Islam that is not written about. At the same time, Western/Christian violence is often not counted or remembered. And Cole does a good job of reminding the reader that the 20th Century was filled with Christian religious violence. And he's right when he suggests that the Nazi's, Franco, and Communism all co-opted the Christian church for their evil deeds and there was much silence from Christian communities.
If we take World War I and II as having happened primarily by "Christian nations" (and to be fair, if it had been Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Egypt leading World War II wouldn't we label it an Islamic problem?), then clearly, the Christian West has been very comfortable with violence. Even if you argue that these were post-Englightenment, post-Christian societies, you could just go back 300 years in Western history and find that they were still just as violent, just with weaker weapons. Or if you discount Europe completely (too secular), and just focused on the United States--you would still find a country incredibly comfortable with violence--often at war, invading nations, or settling land with guns at hand. Truly, the West (and the USA in particular) has always been comfortable with violence. And then in the essay, he outlines examples of political terrorism from non-Muslim religions.
Issues with Professor Cole's Claims:
So is Professor Cole totally right? Well, he makes some important points that non-Muslims need to deal with. However, there are some other things that need to be mentioned.
1) The size and scale of WWI and WWII were indeed massive, but that was because modern weaponry was becoming more lethal at an exponential pace. Christian societies through the reformation and then the secular Enlightenment advanced quickly and modernized while many Islamic societies languished. Cole is right in suggesting that all societies with access to weapons can become violent. It's a human thing. But it's also then true that Islam may have been more violent had they had the technology to act out on it.
2) The upheavals of Western Civilization in the past 500 years had a lot to do with the death of Christendom (the mixing of politics and religion in statehood) and the birth of more secular nation-states. In other words, Christian civilizations seemed to be learning about the limits of religion and what it can achieve politically. Christianity was going through a reformation that allowed for some secularization. Islam doesn't seem to have gotten to this point. It lacks a Martin Luther-like moment, it lacks a secular Enlightenment, and a clear separation of church and state. It also lacks a state like The United States which models the separation of church and state (though oddly, some Evangelicals wish it weren't that way). Some are looking toward Turkey to be the first example (or perhaps a second example since Ataturk's Turkey was supposed to be a truly secular state) of a healthy, modern, Islamic country. But even there, Islamism is making big inroads into Turkey and threatening the most well-rounded economy in the Islamic sphere. Why? The reformation has not happened.
3) Another point is that unlike the other religious faiths, Islam's leader was both a religious leader and a military leader. Born in the very violent cultural atmosphere of 7th Century Arabia, Islam prophet (who is the final prophet) clearly did not agree with Jesus' "turn the other cheek" mentality. He waged Holy War against idolatry and that included violence. Islam, unlike Christianity, is far more culturally bound to a specific culture (Bedouin Arab culture) than Christianity or the other major faiths. This has limited its ability to reject violence.
4) Political violence isn't the only violence problem in Islam. The chances of any of us, or anyone we know, being killed by an Islamic terrorist is remarkably slim. I'm more concerned about the violence against women and the mass subjugation and the misogynistic tendencies of Islam. Subjugating half of the population is a stupid idea for any society. But even worse is when women become treated like property, and violence is allowed, all sanctioned by a religion. That is something that is being abandoned in most religions of the world. Islam and Hinduism still struggle in this area quite a bit and to great cost of their societies. An India or Saudi Arabia that was more empowered by women would be far more advanced than those countries are today. Yet, Islam, more than anything, holds women back and allows a violent and misogynistic culture to keep Islamic countries underperforming around the globe.
Having said all of that, however, it is important not to paint with broad brushes regarding Muslims. The vast majority of Muslims in the United States, in Europe, and in other places are peace-loving people, who love their children, like McDonald's, and just want to watch a good movie and eat some popcorn. It's dishonest to think this is not true. I've met many Muslims. I have yet to meet one that was anything but polite and trustworthy. I can't say the same for the Christians I've met and worked with.
Here is the video that made Professor so Cole that he wrote the article defending Muslims. In this context, I think Bill Maher in the video definitely gets the better of the argument. Islam is in a category of its own.
Warning: Some bad language included, but an important argument to hear nonetheless as it relates to this article.
Some thoughts on U2's Bono...
Aside from being a big U2 fan, I've always appreciated lead singer Bono's thoughtful reflections. He has always been a deep thinker. As his fame was taking growing, he ditched everything and went to Central America to see the Civil Wars first-hand. Not many self-absorbed Rock Stars would risk their life to head into mid-1980's Central America. He was the one who introduced a generation of us to Amnesty International. After the Live Aid performance in 1985 (which along with Queen's, was the best of the massive extravaganza), he devoted himself to learning more about Ethiopia. And he didn't do what a lot of celebrities do---hire a publicity firm to put them in good photo-ops, memorize a few key facts, and exploit suffering as a way to build up their image (their are entire agencies that specialize in doing that for celebrities).
No. Bono, a ridiculously passionate person, became an expert in these subjects. He became a student, a learner, and an evangelist about the power that people could have to make a difference. Sometimes it seemed laughable to people---Bono in his black "fly" outfit in some poor village in Africa telling us that we could see infant mortality rates plummet if we would only do our part. But sure enough, that is what has happened in Africa and other parts of the world. Bono met with Presidents, Prime Ministers, and the head of corporations and tried to make giving to charity cool--which he did. Bono did the very non-rock star thing of hanging out with George W. Bush and got a pledge for US assistance against the fight with AIDS which has been a serious-game changer. And he quickly credited Bush with having gotten that right. That took guts. He put the cause ahead of the coolness, although he always self-consciously points out that he's a "rock star." "You may be wondering what a Rock Star is doing at a meeting of the G8?" etc.
His band certainly struggled with the amount of charity and long-winded sermons he would give. They eventually ended up in U2's concerts: The lights dim and Bono gives some speech about saving the crustaceans instead of launching into a blistering "Sunday Bloody Sunday." Some fans have turned away tired of the pomposity and piety, but most have stayed.
Most remarkably to me, it was Bono, long before any academics wrote about this, predicted that the end of the Cold War would make Berlin a hub of experimental art and freedom, and that the downside would be that society would get lost in virtual reality. The themes found on the 1993 album Zooropa, which was basically formulated in Berlin during the making of "Achtung Baby," pointed to the world we now live in. During the first Gulf War in 1991, he discussed the effects technology would have on war and how soldiers could be disconnected from the damage they wrought through new weapons--which today can be exemplified by drones. In the marvelous book "U2 at the End of the World" Bono's prophetic thoughts are captured as he camps out in this new unified city of Berlin. Bono once met John Paul II and the Pope put on Bono's "fly shades." It was perhaps the most remembered photos of JPII's papacy outside of the assassination attempt. The Pope and Bono had very similar views of the upcoming 21st century. Both of them were eager to put the ideological warfare of the Cold War aside, but both harbored skepticism as to whether humans could handle the freedom that would be unleashed through globalization. They were oddly kindred spirits in many ways.
I think he also put his finger on the "Clash of Civilizations" idea long before Harvard's Samuel Huntington wrote the famous Political Science book which caused so much controversy and, itself, became viewed as prophetic after 9/11.
Although I'm a huge Beatles fan and love John Lennon, Bono is John Lennon 2.0. He's not a lazy, idealist mostly lost in self-absorption and dysfunction as Lennon was. He does his homework and his ideas are rooted in reality. Many of his insights in "U2 at the End of the World" are true, profound, and simply brilliant.
Long before the Post-Christendom emerging movement began taking the stage, Bono was a symbol of what a post-modern Christian could be. Back in the late 80's, he challenged the church to be less about dogma and more about experience. Less about concrete theology and more about mysticism ("Mysterious Ways".) Most of all, he was pretty emphatic that Jesus would have been with the AIDS sufferers and the poor. This was about 15 years before Evangelical Christians started using this same language. Perhaps it was because he grew up in Ireland in a Protestant-Catholic environment and he had plenty of time to mull the ineffectiveness and hypocrisy of the institutional church in Ireland. Whatever the reason, one could easily look at interviews from the mid-1980's and find that Bono sounds like a Gen-X preacher talking to Relevant Magazine. No matter how you cut it, that's pretty remarkable. It's no coincidence at all that many Gen-X pastors grew up on U2 music. Perhaps they might have given up if someone like Bono had not talked of a new way, and then mostly walked his talk.
Bono will be the first to tell you he's no saint. But even that is a pretty big break from where we were in the old days. Bono has always been fascinated by the concept of Grace "Grace makes beauty out of ugly things," primarily because of what it means for him. He has once said that this is the reason he doesn't become a follower of other religions: because he hasn't seen anything like the concept of Christian grace.
Nobody is arguing that Bono should be your pastor or your spiritual hero. But it's worth noting that in the world of rock n' roll, we've never seen anything like him, and that often, he is worth listening to when he speaks, not just when he sings.
(In this video, Bono discusses an epiphany he had as he watched his father die of cancer):
The images from Boston were horrific. What could be worse than seeing athletes in their prime have their bodies torn apart for no reason at all. This is a national tragedy and an important moment in U.S History. However, over at my twitter account (3WCHOG) I asked the question: "Will the USA experience terrorism fatigue?" By that I mean, is it really possible for us to continue to stay in such paralyzed fear about terrorism in the United States? I wonder if it's psychologically sustainable for a free society to do that for another decade.
One Nation Under Fear?
No matter how dangerous terrorism is, we're going on Year 12 of this hyper-vigilance and climate of fear. It's interesting to compare the USA with European countries (and others) that have sustained much more serious waves of terrorism: The UK, Northern Ireland, Spain, Sri Lanka etc. After the 2005 7/7 bombings, London continued to flourish without expressing much concern about security in their local psyche. To be sure security has gotten even tighter in the UK--but the Brit attitude as always was "Keep Calm, Carry On."
I very much admire how London/UK went back to normal after 2006 Bombings. Part of winning against terrorism is not living in constant fear.
Why does America panic so easily? I think its paradoxically because it is a country that has never faced an existential threat like Russia Germany, China, The Koreas, Japan, or the UK. Protected by 2 large Oceans and 2 peaceful, not well-armed neighbors, the US geographically has never faced anything like the Napoleonic Wars or Stalingrad or the air raids over britain. All of which were at the end of centuries of war, threats, and counter-threats. The USA has had it relatively easily--it's wars have been mostly by choice and far from American shores. Pearl Harbor happened before Hawaii was a state.
The TSA is an example of extreme over-reaction as were the multi-colored threat levels that we lived with for 10 years even though nobody knew which color was what threat level on any given day and I think we were always on only yellow or red.
Yes, it's true that there have been several plots foiled since 9/11 on US soil and some attacks like the Fort Hood incident. But what we've also learned since 9/11 is that terrorist attacks are not easy to pull-off, and they often attract troubled people who don't execute them well. We have found that normal citizens are often very alert about unusual activity and law enforcement officials in America are very, very good at their jobs (not the TSA, however). Furthermore, the average human being (that includes Muslims) is just not interested in blowing apart cute children or themselves. We have greatly over-estimated how many people are evil in this world, and under-estimated how many people are willing to rush toward an explosion in Boston to help the neighbors in need.
In my first two books (Passport of Faith & Faith in the Future), I argued that 9/11 was a truly significant moment and that assymetrical terrorism is a very real threat. After a decade of seeing the benefits of globalization, 9/11 showed the other-side: how a newly, globalized world could create networks of global evil. Threatened by modernization and secularization, fundamentalist groups of all types arose, in what I call the counter-reaction to globalization. Part of that counter-reaction has been Islamic militancy and a desire for Islamic fascism in parts of the world. The same innovative technology that is making the world a more connected place, creating longer life expectancies and bringing down poverty rates to levels never seen in human history; will have another side to it. Assymetrical terrorism will not go away and it will be quite lethal at times.
But as we look closer, there are a few things we must notice. Not only have the bulk of terrorist attacks been perpetrated by Muslims killing other Muslims in places like Iraq, but terrorism has actually gone down since 9/11 and nothing has spiked terrorist attacks quite like the Iraq War (within Iraq). The Boston attacks, on the other hand, show us how something like social networks in an organized society like the United States, have the power to quickly corner villains. An entire nation quickly mobilized on the internet to protect a city. Suicide bombings may be the only "attractive option" in the future if this is the kind of national mobilization that can take place at a moment's notice.
And then we return to the fact that most people simply don't want to kill themselves. Most humans, regardless of religion, are afraid of death and their body tries to avoid it at all costs. As I argued in an article I wrote entitled "the Future is Singapore," I do think that it is possible that in the future assymetrical threats like bio-terrorism, environmental terrorism, and other dangers will create highly-regulated "First world" societies that are pretty cut off from the more anarchic, underdeveloped world. It would be a world in which the wealthy would trade civil liberties for security. I believe this may happen, however, we are not there yet and when that happens, it may be generated more by a desire to protect wealth than fear of death. Our current threats are not the ones that get us to that place.
A Tale of Two Explosions
It was jarring to see the destruction in Texas at the same time as the Boston attacks. One was accidental and seemed to have destroyed an entire town, caused 200 casualties and killed more people. The other one, so far, is had less damage but seemed to be taken as a more symbolic and existential threat--more dangerous. What was jarring was the huge number of injured and killed in Texas. We've seen big numbers before 9/11. More people were killed by the Southern California Quake in Northridge and by the San Francisco Earthquake of 1980 than were killed and injured in Boston. Then there was Hurricane Katrina which nearly wiped an entire American city off the map!! Yet Boston may somehow be harder on the American psyche.
The American psyche is not fatalistic. Neither is it comfortable with the idea that many other cultures have which is that: "things happen. If it's your time, it's your time." America is deeply offended by the idea that something wrong, or someone wrong can take our life. Death seems far away from America, even though it's not. Cancer rates are high, rates of people killed by guns (no matter where you stand on the issue) are extremely high daily, and auto fatalities are very high daily. All of these kill more people annually than a few 9/11's. Yet it is being attacked by a foreign power (of which there really are none that can truly compete with us--and yes, that includes the radically over-estimated China and the deeply impoverished North Korea), that most disturbs the American psyche. Once again, this seems to be a complex that comes from a nation that was blessed with a geography and only 2 militarily weak neighbors which have enabled it to live far more peacefully than most every other country in the world. Nevertheless, the United States spends more than the next Top 10 military powers combined. We outspend China 6 to 1 and our military hardware is far more advanced than theirs. So the 6 to 1 ration doesn't even do our military superiority over China justice. The bulk of China's military spending is to prevent internal rebellions (of which there are more than 100,00 each year), not have show-downs against other world powers. China has never, in its 5,000 year history showed much of an interest in being a territory expanding global power the way the U.S. has. Even their push for natural resources is not an effort to gain satellites, but to secure raw materials. The Chinese have alway been quite China-centric; something that the Founding Fathers of the United States would have applauded fearing excessive foreign entanglements as they did.
The true "Clash of Civilizations" occurring right now is a clash within a civilization: Islam. And the other great clash of our time is that of Fundamentalism against modernity. Elections all over the world show this trend--part of that counter-action I wrote about in 2006. With 2 long wars winding down, a huge debt, and a lot of domestic challenges, one wonders whether the United States will really be into going into a hyper-vigilant state of alertness against terrorism. Or will the tide start to turn as Americans realize that some forms of terrorism are here to stay and unless you want to cancel the Super Bowl, stop flying on airplanes, or go outside, some form of risk will be required.
The media has been sensationalistic and irresponsible. One CNN reporter complained about getting yelled at by a police officer while the officer was trying to do his job to protect the reporter! The other networks are no better. Fear sells and we are a society that rewards hype. Only in the United States could an inane, drama queen like Kim Kardashian become a multi-million dollar industry (not just a millionaire, but an industry with sibling franchises). But let me make it clear: the law enforcement officials in Boston are stellar. And this is further reason to have our fear in the USA reduced a notch or two in the coming years. In the post-9/11 world, America's first responders, different policing agencies, hospitals, and cities and towns are prepared to make difficult judgement calls under duress and provide a rapid response. We saw this at Sandy Hook. Americans are prepared for whatever comes our way. We should feel comforted by how amazingly mobilized our law enforcement officials were, not paralyzed by panic.
The great image of Boston and of 9/11 is not of Americans running in fear from evil madmen. The great image of both tragedies is of Americans running toward each other to help. Americans of all sizes, colors, and creeds who care about their neighbors. That is what the terrorist fear; societies that can skillfully navigate the complicated 21st Century. They cannot, so they seek to destroy it. But it's a losing battle. They are not hardwired to win this battle.
Why should we be afraid of them? As FDR once said: "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." Never has that been more true than today.
This month, Park Place Church of God in Anderson, Indiana is having a special focus called "The Three Worlds of Park Place." During this month, they will be examining the three worlds in their neighborhood and how they can reach outside the church walls to touch the people around them.
As part of this month's focus, Pastor Markle is preaching about the Three Worlds of Park Place and some of our 3W team will be speaking as well. Christy Kihm (3W The Netherlands) was interviewed this past week in a Sunday Service. Daniel Kihm (the Netherlands) spoke on 3W yesterday, and Kelley Philips (3W-Berlin) will be speaking soon.
We're grateful to Park Place for their support of 3W team members as well as their support of the NextGen Fund. And we're thrilled that they are looking at the 3W concept and using it to frame their own local context.
Their sanctuary was decorated with the 3 colors of the Three Worlds logo. We have a page on our website that explains the colors, but let me refresh your memory.
RED: Represents, the Persecuted Church and Evangelism. This means that our work will entail working in Evangelical efforts and in assisting the persecuted church, which in our region can meet very intentional, dangerous persecution--or more subtle forms of persecution/obstruction as you find in Eastern Europe. Red is like the fire of danger/persecution and the fire of the Gospel. 3W already works with both these areas, however, we plan on expanding our work helping the persecuted church in the very near future.
GREEN:The Environment and Health. This refers to work we may do that helps the environment and care for our creation (which the Bible commands us to do in Genesis), and work in the area of health concerns. Currently, 3W does not work in these 2 areas but when 3W was created in 2010, our aim was to expand into the Red, Green, and Blue between 2010-2016. We are currently in discussions about possibly beginning to expand our health work.
BLUE:Education, Discipleship, and Business.We have certainly been doing a lot of the blue. Our internships, our educational ministry trips, and our 3W Seminars are all part of "Education." Through mentoring of our 3W team-members and our 3W team-members mentoring others, we also do discipleship. We also support churches in their discipleship work as our new partnership with Italy shows. Business we hope to expand, but we had one Business as Mission Seminar in Bulgaria in conjunction with County-Line CHOG.
3W was designed to expand, and it is expanding rapidly. By 2016 we should be working in every area. After that, we could even have specialists in each area. The future looks very bright for Three Worlds and we thank you for joining us on our multi-colored journey. You'll be hearing a lot more about the colors in the coming years.
I just got back from Rome where I was visiting the Church of God in Ostia. As always, I had a wonderful time with my friends there. On this visit, the primary purpose of the trip was to discuss how 3W can continue to support the Italy church-plants in partnership with Ostia. Both the Ostia church and 3W have been making regular visits to support the Lovaglio family as they launched these 2 new churches in Northern Italy: Arco and Treviso. The Ostia CHOG has been sending some of their top leaders to regularly help out--taking the long car drive or train trip up to the North. And we have taken a 3W intern, the 3W Care-a-Van, and Greg Wiens (State Director of Florida, HGC) to the churches, in addition to numerous visits by Jamie and me.
All of this has been very helpful to the 2 church plants as they go through the challenging first phase. Now we are wanting to expand our support and bring a higher level of coordination. So Pastor Daniele Santonocito and I spent quite a bit of time talking about how we can continue the expansion of the Church of God in Italy. Currently, the Church of God is registered provincially in 3 provinces. If we get to 4 provinces, then the Church of God can be recognized nationally. But our main priority is not that, but rather making sure these new churches are not isolated and alone.
We will be unveiling more in the coming year, but these are some 3W-Rome Partnership works coming up that we are all very excited about.
*Arco & Treviso: Global Gathering-Europe: June 21-23 (with 3W intern Jessica MacDonald).
*Rome: 3W Seminar ("Organization in the Church" led by Rod Stafford of Fairfax Community Church, Washington DC) September 21-22.
*Rome: 3W Italy Expansion Team Celebration: Nov. 27-Dec. 1
*Rome: First Ever 3W Women's Conference with Christian Women's Connection (Jan/Feb) TBA
That's a lot of stuff, and there's more to come. We're waiting on board approval for other projects, and we're brain-storming about even more--including a basketball camp in another CHOG country.
The Ostia church has such wonderful people in it. Thanks to all of you for always making my stay so wonderful!!
Note on Video: After all the talk about supporting Arco, my plane home happened to fly EXACTLY over Arco, Italy. I pulled out my phone (and did my usual bad job of filming) and caught the moment. The snow capped mountains in the center of the picture are on Arco's East Side. The other side's 3,000 foot cliffs were without snow. Not very visible in the middle is the northern part of the giant lake where Arco sits. It was a very special moment considering the time in Rome. Let's go forward on this!
This month, Park Place Church of God in Anderson, Indiana is having a special focus called "The Three Worlds of Park Place." During this month, they will be examining the three worlds in their neighborhood and how they can reach outside the church walls to touch the people around them.
