No Way Out But Democracy

Ongoing events in Thailand point to one incontrovertible fact concerning modern societies around the world: the best way, often the only way, to achieve a measure of social peace and justice in any given nation is through a democratic political process.  This is proving to be true in the nations of northern Africa and western Asia, however painful the process itself is.  In the United States, the influence of tea party movement is apparently receding because it is losing its power at the ballot box.  However one might view the tea party's agenda, it has been important in getting past its influence to give that movement all of the voice it could muster in the public arena.  Whenever a military takeover silences popular voices, it only postpones the democratic resolution of political divisions; winners at the ballot box must be allowed to rule, so long as the rights of the losers to keep talking and keep trying to turn things in their direction is protected.

It has become commonplace to quote Winston Churchill's famous observation in 1947 that,"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."  The fact that his epigram is commonplace, however, does not make it wrong.  Democracy is a sloppy way to do things.  It is always open to manipulation and corruption.  The return of big-money politics in the U.S. is but one example of how apparently fragile the process can be at times.  Even so, it remains the one way we have to ensure long-term political and social stability however chaotic it can seem at times.  Whether it was Abraham Lincoln or someone else who first voiced the thought, it does remain true that politicians can fool us all some times and fool some of us all the time, but they are hard-pressed to fool all of us all the time.

Each time the military intervenes in Thailand, the nation is denied the chance to work out its differences in the only way that will ultimately resolve them—open public debate leading to free and fair democratic elections.  Here is one more epigram: you can't win if you aren't willing to lose.  As in all competitive sports, so in politics losing is in fact an important part of winning.  Losing is a teacher.  It is a test.  It is a foundation, usually indispensable, to eventually coming out on top.  Until the yellow shirts in Thailand learn this lesson, they cannot win however often they are able to frustrate the will of the majority.  Winning by forcing the other team off the playing field is not winning.  Amen.

Boundaries, Imagined and Real

In his outstanding book, Siam Mapped (Hawaii, 1997), Thai historian Thongchai Winichakul observes that traditionally boundaries between nation-states in Southeast Asia were ill-defined regions between power centers that melded into each other at their outer peripheries.  One did not cross a boundary but rather travelled through it, gradually leaving one power sphere and just as gradually entering another.  At the peripheries, local rulers and people often gave shifting allegiance to two or more centers of power.  When the Europeans showed began to take control of most of the region in the 19th century, however, they introduced carefully surveyed, sharply drawn boundaries.  They wanted to know the precise extent of their authority for purposes of control and taxation.  The "mapping of Siam," thus, was not just about cartography.  It was about power.

We in the West continue to think of boundaries in this sharp-edged, almost rigid way.  A recent posting entitled, "Facebook Data Creates Incredible MLB Fan Map That Proves That Yankees Fans Are Everywhere," provides a striking example of how such mapping of realty is both useful and deceiving at the same time.  Illustrating the posting is this map:

The point of the posting is that Yankee fans are everywhere.  Its assumption is that sports cartographers are able to draw fine-lined boundaries between geographical areas "occupied" by each major league baseball team.  Thus, Minnesota Twins support all but ends at the Minnesota-Wisconsin state line and the Milwaukee Brewers take over.

In truth, it isn't like that.  The boundaries of support for each team are far more porous, less well-defined, and more like traditional Southeast Asia than the above map suggests.  The actual point of the article, that there are Yankee fans in large numbers all across the nation, itself suggests that sports boundaries are more amorphous that the map suggests.  The map evidently uses counties for its basic unit, so that a county that has a bare plurality of Yankee fans is colored Yankee black, while another one that almost has a plurality of support is not Yankee black.  Twins support does not abruptly end one county into Wisconsin or Iowa, but it does dribble off so that there are more Brewers fans or Cubs fans east or south of the state line.

The point here is that people who habitually draw maps with sharp-edged boundaries tend to perceive such boundaries in other areas of life.  Such boundaries promote rigid identities in all facets of life, and those who think in terms of pencil-thin boundaries tend to draw them when it comes to religion as well.  One must be either a believer or an unbeliever, an atheist or a religionist.  In reality, even in our hearts the boundaries between faith and unfaith are just not that clear.  We have, in fact, a word for those who eschew amorphous shifting boundaries of the heart: "fanatics".

The Giant & the Toothpick: A Case of Corporate Overkill?

Khun Damrong of "Starbung Coffee")

There is a street vendor in Bangkok, Thailand who sells coffee.  He has one cart and sells at one location.  His income can't be more than a few dollars or tens of dollars a day, at most.  His name is Damrong Maslae, and he has become the target for a lawsuit by Starbucks, a corporation that last year generated over $18 billion in revenue.  In Thailand alone, Starbucks has over 170 outlets across the nation.  Khun Damrong's sin?  He calls his stand "Starbung Coffee" (กาแฟสตาร์บัง), and his logo is one that looks a lot like that of Starbucks.

According to stories coming out of Thailand (see here), Khun Damrong intends to fight the lawsuit and is even willing to go to jail if he loses.  He is Muslim, and he claims that the idea and design for his Starbung logo came from his religion and not from Starbucks.  The, ah, similarities between the two seem a little too close to be a coincidence, and it appears that the corporation has every right to sue for copyright infringement.  Khun Damrong is quoted in an article entitled,"'Starbung' Coffee Street Vendor Opens Up about Starbucks Copyright Dispute," as saying in defense of himself,

Sure, my logo may look like theirs, but I don’t see it as being totally the same. I haven’t copied them. My logo has its own identity. And it’s green because the color has always had a special significance for Muslims like me. I’m dejected that a huge multi-national company should choose to take this action. They are like a giant treading on a tiny toothpick—what would happen if the toothpick stood up and stabbed the sole of their foot? It might backfire and some people might turn away from Starbucks. It’s normal for me to feel tired of vending, but on top of that now I have all this trouble that just seems nonsensical to me.

 Starbucks may have a legal case, but it feels, however, like corporate overkill.  One street vendor?  If anything, this use of a Starbucks-like logo promotes Starbucks more than it harms it, and Khun Damrong certainly can't take enough business away from the corporation's outlets in Thailand to make any financial difference—assuming he even takes away any business at all, which is unlikely.  It seems petty.  One even wonders if it might not generate a backlash that will cost Starbucks some money because people sympathize with the tootpick-sized underdog and decide to boycott the giant.  For sure, Starbucks will spend more money taking Khun Damrong to court than he will cost it otherwise.

More largely, this feels like a case in point of the principle that what is legal (or illegal) and what is fair (or wrong) are not the same thing.  It is really, really hard to feel any sympathy with the big bucks corporation and not hard at all to feel a bit sorry for the little guy trying to make a tiny bit better living on the hot, hot streets of Bangkok.

What Say?

The Huffington Post has a posting entitled, "The Most Efficient Health Care Systems in the World," which makes the point that of 46 nations surveyed the United States ranked 45th in "life expectancy (weighted 60%), relative per capita cost of health care (30%); and absolute per capita cost of health care (10%)."  The posting cites a Bloomberg table (here) as its source, and what is particularly noteworthy to me as a former resident of Thailand is that Thailand is ranked 22nd among the nations surveyed in the effectiveness of its health care system.  Thailand ranks 1st in terms of the absolute cost of health care per person ($202/person compared to $8,608/person in the U.S.) and third in health-care cost as a percentage of GDP per capita (3.7% of GDP compared to 17.2% for the U.S., by far the highest percentage of the countries surveyed).

Thailand is a great place to live, but it is not noted for governmental efficiency.  It has a national government that many here would consider to be the very essence of "big government."  Corruption remains a serious problem.  Still, in the past the Thai government has taken steps to see that all of its citizens receive affordable health care, perhaps not always of top quality but still available.  Those efforts have apparently paid off, and it should give Americans pause.  Our health care system is incredibly expensive and hard to access for lower income folks, which facts have negative repercussions for all of us.  If Thailand and numerous other countries around the world can figure this out, why can't we?

Revivalism in America & Siam

Readers of this blog might be interested in a posting I just made to the modest blog I maintain in conjunction with my personal website, herbswanson.com.  The posting is entitled, "McGilvary in America and Siam" and contains some basic reflections on the role of Presbyterian missions in the history of 19th and early 20th century Protestantism in Thailand.  It's there if you are interested.

Decline: It's Not Only Western Christianity

The following PBS news video reports on the decline of  Buddhism as an organized religion in Thailand.  Having lived for 25 years in Thailand myself, I can attest to the wide concern in Buddhist circles concerning such things as the decline in attendance of ceremonies and religious events at local temples.  Religious reformers in Thailand itself also frequently allude to the fact that the deeper aspects of Buddhism and its teachings have always rested lightly on Thailand—always been strongly tinged with cultural elements that have nothing to do with meditation and the practice of Buddhist ethics.

In spite of the doubts of the U.S. based scholar voiced in the video, Thailand is very much becoming a more secular society.  Organized religion is playing less of a role in peoples' lives.  It is not that people are somehow becoming more anti-religious, a phenomenon we see here in the U.S.  They simply are not all that interested in religion, esp. in a nation where one religion so thoroughly dominates the religious landscape as Buddhism does in Thailand.  There was already less religious competition and fewer viable choices.

This clip is worth a watch.  It runs for about 8 minutes.  Enjoy.

Watch Decline of Buddhism in Thailand on PBS. See more from Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly.

On the Horns of a Dilemma

In a world that is increasingly inclusive, it is difficult to maintain the integrity of an exclusivist Christian faith.  The problem is this: those who hold to an exclusive gospel—that is that only Christ saves—often care deeply about those who do not share their faith.  They are convinced that "non-believers" are going to hell.  They want to communicate with non-believers about their plight and help them escape it.  Communication is important.  However, in a world that  increasingly rejects exclusive ideologies, it is all but impossible for exclusivists to communicate across the boundaries of their exclusive message.  Fewer and fewer people find any kind of exclusivism to be "good news."

This is a real dilemma.  A recent example of it has engulfed the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod in controversy over the participation of one of its pastors in ecumenical services held at the time of the Sandy Hook tragedy in Newtown, CT.  As widely reported (here), the pastor of Newtown's Christ the King Lutheran Church was reprimanded by the president of the Missouri Synod church, for taking part in an ecumenical service in Newtown in spite of the fact that one of the children murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary was a child of Christ the King Church.  The pastor did apologize for upsetting the denomination although not for his action.  Now, the president in his turn has felt compelled to apologize to the denomination for his own actions (here).  His letter of apology can be found on the Missouri Synod website (here).

The president's letter articulates the dilemma he and his denomination face in their exclusivist approach to the Christian faith.  In the letter, he states,

As the nation struggles with increasing violence and tragedy, we as a church body have struggled and continue to struggle with how to respond to civic/religious services in the midst of such events and to do so in a way that is in accord with our core convictions about the uniqueness of Christ. There are strong differences of opinion on this issue within the Missouri Synod, and that is because we all take our commitments to the Bible and to serving the neighbor very seriously. One view is that by standing side-by-side with non-Christian clergy in public religious events, we give the impression that Christ is just one path among many. Others view participation as an opportunity to share Christ and to truly love a hurting community, which may not happen if we are not participating. We struggle with the tension between these two views. We all deeply want to support our hurting communities in ways consistent with our religious convictions. (italics added)

That's the dilemma: engaging with those in need while remaining disengaged from those who believe the wrong things when those in need and those who don't believe are one and the same.  So, sitting on a stage with other clergy is wrong, but sitting with clergy ministering to a community in deep pain is not.  For a consistent exclusivist, sitting with the other clergy is always wrong and cannot be done, which seems to have been the initial position of the Missouri Synod president.  In an increasingly pluralistic, inclusive age, his reprimand of the pastor is widely seen as hurtful—among Missouri Synod members as well as in the public.

In sum, in an increasingly inclusive and pluralistic American culture exclusivist versions of the gospel are increasingly seen as bad news.  Exclusivism builds walls, encourages judgmentalism, and forces its adherents to behave in ways that others find unloving.  And often enough it is its own "reward," as can be seen in the case of the controversy sparked by Missouri Synod narrowness in the face of the Newtown tragedy.

Boundaries, Asian, European, & Religious

Thongchai Winichakul's book, Siam Mapped: A History of the Geo-Body of a Nation (1997), has become something of a classic in Tha and Southeast Asia studies. In brief, Tongchai (we always refer to people by their first name in Thailand) examines the ways in which traditional Thai concepts of national space were transformed by European colonialism. Thailand (or Siam, then) was the only nation in Southeast Asia to escape direct colonization, but by 1900 it had British or French colonies on its borders in all four directions.

Here's the thing: before the Europeans showed up, Southeast Asian nations had very loose, ill-defined boundaries. At the center, there was one central power, but as one travelled outward that power slowly diminished and was increasingly shared by rulers of the outer provinces—then shared even more with the princes of the tributary states. Eventually one travelled out of one nation's power sphere and entered, gradually, that of another nation—again going through tributary states, outer provinces and inner provinces until one reached the center of power. These spheres of power waxed and waned, grew and diminished. The far tributary states were often tributary to two powers at once.

By European standards all of this was a chaotic mess. When the British conquered Burma, thus, they wanted to know exactly and precisely what they had conquered. Down to the foot and inch. And they went to great trouble to survey "the" border between Burma and Siam. The Thai political leadership had to learn this European concept of boundaries and space in order to survive it—and they did.

Now, my point: all of this has a great deal to do with the liberal-conservative split in contemporary American Christianity.  When it comes to people of other faiths and religions, progressive Christians usually feel more comfortable with the traditional Southeast Asian view of boundaries. They will "borrow" Buddhist meditation, find meaning in Islamic theology, and happily integrate the latest scientific findings into their faith and theology.  Conservative Christians more often than not feel more comfortable with the European conception of boundaries when it comes to religion.  There is a desire to designate clearly what is "Christian" and what is not.  Where nationality is hard to determine in the older view, in the one imported by the Europeans everyone had a nationality that could be clearly determined.  In the same way, evangelical Christians usually care a great deal about who is saved (i.e. lives in the territory of Christ) and who is not.

It would be fascinating to know why we have these differences.

P.S.  There must be something about October.  Just a year ago, I posted another posting that draws on Tongchai's, Siam Mapped (here).

Christians in Chiang Mai Aren't So Bad

Old "First Church," Chiang Mai

More than a year ago, blogger John Quinn, reported on his observations of Western missionaries living in northern Thailand in a posting entitled, "Christians in Chiang Mai."  Quinn is a Brit, and many of the missionaries are Americans.  He is an avowed atheist with a seriously jaundiced view of organized religion, and the missionaries, of course, are quite the opposite.  Quinn readily admits that when he moved to Chiang Mai 11 years previously he brought with him a prejudice against missionaries in particular and Christianity generally.  He writes that, "However, after living here for over 11 years and meeting many of them personally, my opinions have mellowed quite dramatically."

In a long posting, Quinn summarizes the history of Christian missions in northern Thailand (most of his facts are correct) and then shares with his readers the views of two missionaries that he knows personally.  Quinn then observes that while there are some negative aspects to the Western missionary presence in northern Thailand, on the whole he is impressed with the missionaries' good works and good hearts.  He closes his posting by thanking the two missionaries who shared their views with him and writes, "Thank you Gary and Gordon for being so open with your responses. People such as you have turned a fairly cynical person into a far more tolerant human being. The positive energy you bring into this world is impressive and long may it continue."

A couple of thoughts.  First, it is held among many who reject organized religion and religious beliefs that religion is an evil thing in and of itself.  They complain that it causes most of the wars we humans fight and is otherwise oppressive and intolerant.  Religion is bad.  For those of us who live "in here" this whole notion of the evil nature of religion is simplistic.  No one doubts that it has its ugly side.  But as a pastor, I see the better side nearly every day, the one Quinn points to in his posting.  Second, it is good to see that on occasion we can balance our differences in thinking and believing with mutual respect for the good in the Other.

And a third thought.  Some of the missionaries Quinn has come in contact with have evidently been engaged in faith-sharing with him.  They have "evangelized" him with their positive vibes and good works as well as their willingness to respond respectfully to his questions.  There are kind, respectful ways to share one's faith, and the outcome doesn't have to be in a baptism.  It can simply be in a little better understanding between people.  In our sadly divided world, such faith sharing offers one important contribution to healing the wounds of our differences.

The Quality of a True Politician

P. M. Yingluck Shinawatra

An AP article (here) marking Yingluck Shinawatra's completion of her first year as Thailand's prime minister, notes that it is a surprise to many that she survived a year in Thailand's fractured, volatile political climate.  Although there have been some rough patches, PM Yingluck, displays a number of political skills that have made her a reasonably effective national leader and a good politician. Most important among those skills? One leader of the Red Shirt popular faction, Korkaew Pikulthong, is quoted as saying that she has matured as a leader and that, "She is very responsive to problems of the people and is very keen to solve them, and that's the quality of a true politician."

In an interview with ABC before the election last year , below, Khun Yingluck spoke of her goals for the nation and articulated a political philosophy that is built on reconciliation and governing for the whole nation.  It is worth remembering that she has no prior political experience and has widely been seen as her exiled brother's "cat's paw".  If you have six minutes, the clip is worth listening to, especially in our own supercharged political environment in the U.S.

A Hero

I first became aware of Tammy Duckworth when she first ran for congress in Illinois in 2006 and narrowly lost to her Republican opponent.  I don't think I'm alone in finding Duckworth's story a compelling one.  She served in Iraq as a major in the army and a helicopter pilot who lost both of her legs after being shot down.  An added attraction for me personally is that she was born in Bangkok, Thailand, and like my own daughters has a farang (Western) father and a Thai mother.  She's only a decade older than our oldest daughter.

Duckworth is now running for Congress again, this time against a tea party radical by the name of Joe Walsh (R - IL).  The race has gained some national attention because Walsh has criticized Duckworth for supposedly constantly mentioning her military service and sacrifice (see here).  In the process, he has called her heroism into question.  In light of his criticism of Duckworth, reporter Rick Newman has posted an article entitled, "What Joe Walsh Needs to Know About Tammy Duckworth," which describes her true heroism.  Being shot down, Newman writes, is not what qualifies her for that title.  Rebuilding her life in the face of horrific pain and daunting challenges does. I would recommend readers of Rom Phra Khun take a few minutes to read Newman's description of Tammy Duckworth's heroic struggle to regain her life.

 In my humble opinion, the United States will be better off if the voters of the Eighth District of Illinois replace Joe Walsh with Tammy Duckworth.

If Duckworth does unseat Walsh, she will be the second person of Thai descent to have served in the U. S. Congress.  The first, interestingly enough, served only briefly in 2010.  He is Charles Djou, a Republican who won a special election in Hawaii's First District in 2010 but then lost his seat in the general election of 2010.  He is running for it again this year.

Evangelism (xxi)

FPC, Lowville, NY

This is the twenty-first posting in this series working on what it means to be a church, based on eight criteria the Mars Hill Church uses to define its branch congregations as churches. The series began (here). We have finally arrived at the eighth and final criterion, which reads, "The church is an evangelistic community where the gospel of Jesus is constantly made visible by its preaching, its witness of the members, and its Spirit-empowered life of love."

In the previous posting, on the seventh criterion, Fellowship, I stole some of the thunder of this last criterion. The point there, you will recall, was that the earliest church grew for a number of reasons including the person of Christ and the quality of its loving fellowship. Evangelism, as such, wasn't a key factor. Paul's commitment to full-time itinerant evangelism was very much the exception rather than the rule.

When I taught early church history to seminarians in Thailand (for about four years or so), I emphasized the fact that it was the quality of church life rather than aggressive evangelism that motivated many to join the earliest churches. In Thailand, generations of missionaries had ingrained in Christian converts the importance of evangelism, emphasizing that it was the most important ministry of the church. So successful had they been in this emphasis, that the churches had virtually become one dimensional churches. Even funerals and weddings were conducted with an eye to evangelizing participants who weren't Christians.  The result was that other vital ministries of the church has never been properly developed, including Christian education and pastoral care.

The lesson from the mission field is that the unmodified, bald statement that, "The church is an evangelistic community" is dangerous to the church.  Churches carry out evangelism as one of their outreach ministries.  Some members and leaders feel themselves called to be evangelists.  But the church has other ministries, other callings, all of which have their vital importance to the life of the church.  Short-term, an evangelistic emphasis may result in rapid statistical growth, but long term it is all but certain to cripple the full life of the church in question.

Thailand Spring?

My wife, Runee, and I are often asked about events in Thailand, which seem to be too often troublesome.  We are thankful for the concern.  For RPK readers who might also be interested, the July 7th op-ed posting by Thitinan Pongsudhirak entitled, "A Thai Spring?" provides important insights into Thailand's current political situation after its recent elections.