Showing posts with label culture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label culture. Show all posts

Sunday, February 20, 2011

We all have our roles in life . . .

There was a brief piece in this week's The Week about princess-to-be Kate Middleton. She's "starting to channel Princess Diana," said the author.

Two months before the April 29 wedding, we’re already seeing “that familiar coquettish glance at the camera,” coupled with some “rather dramatic weight loss.” But if Kate “has any sense,” she won’t model herself on her true love’s mother but rather on his stepmother, Camilla.

“When it comes to handling a royal husband,” Camilla is far savvier than Diana ever was. She has internalized the most important lesson for royal brides: “You always come second.”

Diana stole the limelight from Charles. She attended every gala, premiere, and awards ceremony she was invited to and “reveled in the attention.” What the prince needed, however, was a consort “by his side, or in the wings,” not standing in front.
And Camilla, by contrast?

She "has never tried to upstage her husband." She "even plays dumb when necessary, as when she famously pretended she couldn’t work a video camera and let Charles demonstrate it for her."

"Sure," the article concluded, "such behavior is old-fashioned, even anti-feminist. But if you want a marriage of equals, don’t marry a royal."

--Whew, boy!

It reminded me of something Sarita and I discussed with someone in southeast Asia. We were talking about the astonishing cooperative, "I'll do anything to please you" (or, at least, make you feel good), "let's all work together" spirit in that part of the world.

Our source has taught at the university level. He said students in his classes would find friends who would work like slaves, in awful--I mean, truly awful--circumstances for hours and days (and days!) on end . . . to help their friends complete certain creative projects.

He said he never heard them argue or bicker or fight. There was no ego involved. They simply did everything necessary to get the job done. Excellently.

Such a culture has real strengths that ours in the west lacks.

Wow! If you need massive manpower to complete a task, you will find it and the task will get done.

But at what cost?

I mean at what cost to the participants?

And, ultimately, to society as a whole?

With all the astonishing technical excellence and productivity, these Chinese/southeast Asian students, our friend said, just--for some reason (probably related to the sublimated ego, the almost non-existent "I")-- . . . they just seem to lack some of the artistic excitement, the creativity he has seen elsewhere.

Sometimes it's hard, even, to put your finger on.

But that portion of the conversation eventually wound around to talking about the differences between (most) American and (most) Chinese women: "If you want a partner, marry an American woman. If you want a servant, marry a Chinese woman."

I have been so blessed to be married to an American woman partner--someone who is willing, ready and able to stand up against me, call me on my foolishness, suggest better, smarter, more effective ways of going where we (together) have agreed to go.

How grateful I am for such a relationship! Instead of the almost obsequious, "Oh, my master! I will do whatever you say! Oh! You are so smart! You are so strong! You are so ______! Whatever you say, my dear!" complaisance of the supposedly ideal southeast Asian woman!

*******

PS: Much as modern American evangelicals--and especially women--would like to suggest the Bible does not present us obsequiousness as "the" model taught in Scripture, isn't it taught?

Oh, yes! We can find plenty of counter-examples of the women who don't seem to fit the model--Deborah, Jael, Mary, Jesus' mother (and Mary, the sister of Martha, who sat with the men to listen to Jesus while her sister did all the kitchen work [and who got criticized?]!), Lydia and Priscilla and Junia and the Proverbs 31 woman, etc., etc.

But then we're stuck with the obsequious verses and passages as well: Ephesians 5:22-24; Colossians 3:13; 1 Peter 3:1-6; and so forth.

It does strike me that there is a big difference between being strong and obnoxious on the one hand, or between being obsequious and holy (or non-obnoxious) on the other! (Put another way: Just because you are obsequious doesn't guarantee you're not obnoxious. And just because you are strong doesn't mean you must be being offensive! Strong does not have to be obnoxious. And being a doormat doesn't mean holy.)

--Just a little side-thought . . . because, I'm afraid, I've met too many women who think they have to lay themselves down as doormats for their men to step all over or they won't be "godly"!

Forget it!

Maybe you will be most godly when you encourage your man--by standing up to him!--to quit being such a [jerk].

Afraid you might hurt his feelings?

He's a man! He needs to get over it!

Saturday, April 11, 2009

The passing of a culture

Today I read the end of 2 Kings (23-25) and the first three chapters of 1 Chronicles (1-3).

I "know" just enough Hebrew to enable me to use the standard tools . . .
Look up a verse in the Blue Letter Bible, then click on the "C"
and you'll see all kinds of lexical aids, including hotlinks to Strong's Concordance . . . and more:
. . . and also to be curious about the meanings of such things as some of the names we run across.

That's why I took the time to check Eliakim and Jehoiakim in 2 Kings 23:34 where we read that "Pharaoh Neco made Eliakim the son of Josiah king in the place of Josiah his father, and changed his name to Jehoiakim." What do those names mean?

I knew Eli-akim or El-yakim had to be "My God akim" [Eli-akim] (whatever akim might mean) or "God yakim" [El-yakim] (again, whatever yakim might mean; El means "God").

And Jeho-i-akim (or, more likely, Jeho-yakim) had to be something about "Yahweh (or Jehovah) ________akim or yakim." But what does akim or yakim mean?

I looked up the names.

Eliakim--pronounced El-yah-KEEM; ah! Correct pronunciation leads to correct split: El-yakim--means "God raises" or "God sets up." And, as one might then expect, Jehoiakim--pronounced Yeh-ho-yah-KEEM--means "Jehovah (or Yahweh) raises up."

Once I recognized that, however, it raised a question in my mind: Why would Pharaoh Neco want to change Eliakim's name to Jehoiakim? --Could it be an attempt at ironic mockery: "Jehovah set you up as king! (Ha-ha-ha-ha!) No, I, Pharaoh Neco, established you as king over against your vaunted 'Jehovah.' --And don't you forget it!"? (That was the best I could come up with.)

Anyway.

You can imagine, after doing this kind of study every now and then, one begins to pay attention to the names and the name forms. If you haven't happened to pay attention, let me point out how common the name forms are that begin with El- or Yeh- or Jeh- and/or that end in -iah. --All related to "God" or "YHWH"/"Jehovah."

So I finished 2 Kings and got over to 1 Chronicles where I got the genealogies going back to Adam and Eve, and, suddenly, it was very obvious I was/we are dealing with a very different culture. None of the names included any of those "El" or "YHWH"/Jehovah pre- or postfixes. Yahweh/Jehovah isn't named.

It got me thinking about how the American culture is shifting. You can see it in "our" names.

It wasn't that long ago, the vast majority of names in the United States were "Christian" or "biblical" . . . or exhibited an affinity for or aspirations toward some kind of biblical relations.

But today?

The biblical books of Kings, of course, focus on the names of the civil leaders in Israel and Judah. I got thinking about the head of government in the United States today. Whether or not he identifies himself as Christian, it struck me that Barack Obama is the first U.S. president whose name [Barack = "Blessed" in Arabic] comes from a cultural stream whose names do not reflect Christian or Biblical roots.

Is that, itself, also a sign of a cultural shift?

Are future American presidents/rulers going to feature Islamic/Qur'anic rather than Christian/biblical roots?

Speaking for myself, may I say that, if I had to choose, I would prefer a Christian over a Q'uranic law system!
NOTE: Despite the Arabic roots for his name, the Luo people, from whom Mr. Obama comes, are, today, 97% Protestant Christian by affinity.


Just before I posted, I happened to note this interesting commentary by Eric Schansberg on a similar (but differently-focused) front.