stillhaventfound.org

I’ve thought of becoming a vegetarian for many years. Well, I’ve not exactly thought extremely hard about it, but the thought has been there many times over the past 10 years or so. I bought a good Christian book about vegetarianism years back but have yet to read it. I’ve probably avoided reading up on this issue simply because I knew it would be hard for me to let go eating meat! Not that I’m crazy over meat. I’m not fussy at all about what I eat and can refrain from eating meat if I really want to. But maybe it’s more of the inconvenience. It’s not easy to live as a vegetarian in Singapore. And perhaps harder to do so in many parts of the developing world where I hope to live in in future.

But I’ve always known deep down inside that I should strive to become a vegetarian because of my faith. Well, I should do many things, shouldn’t I? I should get the hell out of Singapore and serve the poor in the developing world. I should go and do all I can to reach the unreached peoples. And ya, I should really think about becoming a vegetarian. If not now, then soon. If not dogmatically, then at least more fully.

Greg Boyd has recently written on his blog the reasons as to why he’s a vegetarian. His reasoning is quite simple. I summarize it here:

1) God originally intended for humans and all other creatures to eat plants for food (Genesis 1:29-30). This is confirmed by Genesis 9:1-4, where God said:

Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. The fear and dread of you will fall on all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky, on every creature that moves along the ground, and on all the fish in the sea; they are given into your hands. Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it.

Notice how God’s allowance for fallen humanity to eat animals was something new: “I now give you everything.” Why did God now allow man to eat animals? Because the “fear and dread” of man that now falls on the animals (due to the fallenness of all creation) has disrupted the peaceful and non-violent nature of creation. I think this means that animals will no longer act peaceful towards man and so God allowed man to eat animals.

2) The non-violent and peaceful nature of God’s kingdom which existed before the fall will be restored at the end of this age:

The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them. The cow will feed with the bear, their young will lie down together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox. Infants will play near the hole of the cobra; young children will put their hands into the viper’s nest. They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain, for the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the LORD as the waters cover the sea (Isa 11:6-9).

3) Therefore, in the past before the fall, humans did not eat animals. In the future when we dwell with God, we will not eat animals. But, what ought we to do now? I’ll end with Boyd’s own conclusion:

Now, the most fundamental job of followers of Jesus is to manifest the reign of God. I take this to mean that we’re called to put on display now what the world will look like when God fully reigns over it in the future. In theological terms we’re to be “the eschatological community.”

One way the New Testament expresses this truth is by referring to Kingdom people as the “first fruits” of a coming harvest (2 Thess 2:13; Ja 1:18; Rev. 14:4). The “first fruits” referred to fruit that ripened and was picked before others. In the Old Testament, first fruits were consecrated (set apart) to God and were a sign that God will faithfully bring the remainder of the harvest to fruition (e.g. Ex. 23:19). In the same way, Kingdom people are consecrated to God as a sign that God will faithfully bring his Kingdom to complete fruition.

As the “first fruits” of the Kingdom, our call is to be in the present what the entire world will be in the future, when the Kingdom is fully manifested. In a world that is yet under bondage to the rebel Powers, we’re to display what it looks like to live in the reign of God. Our lives are to reflect God’s will being done “on earth as it is in heaven” (Mt 6:10). We’re to be, as much as possible, heaven on earth and thus a window through which people can see the future into which God is leading the world.

If God’s original ideal of a creation free of violence will be achieved in the future, it seems to me that the job of Kingdom people is to manifest this ideal now, as much as possible. Which to me suggests that since humans won’t be killing animals and eating them in heaven, we shouldn’t be killing them and eating them now.

I’m partly Australian - don’t ask me to explain what I mean by that But I have to say I’ve never been exactly proud to be an Aussie and have never really felt like one since I’ve spent most of my years in Singapore.

Because John Howard was Prime Minister during most of my grown up years, that kind of made it even harder for me to identify with being an Australian. But living in Australia last year changed my thinking quite a bit. One of my happiest days last year was when Kevin Rudd thoroughly defeated Howard and the conservative Liberal-National Party coalition. Good riddance to them. And today, as Prime Minister Kevin Rudd issued an apology to Australia’s Stolen Generation, I feel proud once again.

I feel proud that the leader of Australia did the right thing. That was the compassionate thing to do. I guess it says a lot that it took so long. And I do know that many Australians are not in agreement with Kevin Rudd on this - which is really sad. And yes, I think there’s a lot more that needs to be done than merely this apology. But I’ll savour the moment anyway.

I don’t think I’ll ever feel totally like an Australian. Socially, I’m more at home in Singapore. Having lived most of my life here, there’s that great connection that I can’t deny. However, politics means a lot to me because it’s about how the government (and people) treat other people - especially the least of them. It’s reflects one’s values and what you view as important. That speaks a lot to me. My heart will always have a place for Singapore, but I can’t identify with the political culture (or party?) that prefers pragmatism rather than standing up for what’s right. As someone said, society is judged by how we treat the least among us.

When millions of people are dying of AIDS and malaria in Africa, it is hard to justify the umpteenth society gala held for the benefit of a performing arts center or an art museum. A $30 million gift to a concert hall is not philanthropy, it is a Napoleonic coronation. (William H. Gross)

When I first started doing this, I made a contribution to some organization, Harvest something or other, I think, that was working on homelessness. The next thing I knew, I got a plaque in the mail and an invitation to an awards ceremony. I never gave them another nickel. What were they spending money on plaques for? (Thomas M. Siebel)

It is indeed heartening to know of what Dove is doing with its Campaign for Real Beauty and Self-Esteem Fund. Investing part of its profits into a good social cause ought to be the way to go for corporations. Whatever has come out from their advertisements, commercials and educational programs aimed at changing mindsets deserves our praise, but more importantly, our reflection on how we ought to perceive beauty.

Having said the above, imagine my shock and disappointment in discovering that the parent company of Dove, Unilever, also owns brands like Fair & Lovely and Pond’s. Both products pride themselves in offering more beautiful skin. And one important aspect of being beautiful, according to them, is having fairer (i.e. whiter) skin.

This unbelievably racist idea clearly shines through their commercials. These can be viewed at Youtube.com. (Just search for “Fair & Lovely commercial” or “Pond’s commercial“). In the beginning of these commercials, dark-skinned women are shown leading less happy and less successful lives. After using the skin-whitening product, their skin becomes lighter and amazingly their lives become happier and more successful.

The racist stereotype that black is ugly and white is beautiful is a very common perception throughout the world. Just like the idea that being thin or having double eye-lids is beautiful, this is something that ought not to be promoted, let alone harnessed to make money off the vulnerable. And yet Dove’s parent company is doing precisely that. Indeed, it’s hard to understand the disconnect here. As someone else has said, and I have no reason now to disagree, “What Dove gives with one hand, Unilever’s other brands take away with the other”.

I wonder what representatives of Dove and/or Unilever have to say about these advertisements and the message being promoted through them? Why is there such a conflict in the messages? I would also like to know whether Dove thinks the idea of equating beauty with white skin is as wrong as equating it with slimness.

(The above was what I wrote to the Straits Times Forum page on 23rd February 2007. The actual published version of my letter can be viewed below. You can read more about this topic at:

- The New York Times‘ Telling India’s Modern Women They Have Power, Even Over Their Skin Tone
- The Situationist’s Shades of Fairness and the Marketing of Prejudice
- Guardian’s Beyond the pale
- CounterPunch’s Pigmentation and Empire
- Salon’s Race, poverty and skin-whitener
- Feministing’s Who’s the fairest of them all?
- The Wall Street Journal’s Critics Say Ads for Skin Whiteners Capitalize on Malaysian Prejudice)

———-

The Sunday Times’ Inbox, 4th March 2007

Ads’ idea of beauty biased

IT IS heartening to see what Dove is doing with its Campaign for Real Beauty and its Self-Esteem Fund. Investing part of its profits in a social cause is the way to go for corporations. Advertisements and educational programmes aimed at changing mindsets on how we perceive beauty deserve our praise.

However, I am dismayed to learn that Dove’s parent company, Unilever, also owns brands like Fair & Lovely and Pond’s, which have commercials that promote a very narrow and, some might say, racist idea of beauty. Both products pride themselves on making skin more beautiful. But being beautiful, according to their ads, is having fairer – that is, whiter – skin.

In the beginning of these commercials, dark-skinned women are shown leading less happy and less successful lives. After using a particular skin-whitening product, however, their skin becomes lighter and, amazingly, they become happier and more successful.

This stereotype that black is ugly and white is beautiful is very common. But just like the idea that being thin or having double eyelids is beautiful – and, by extension, that being fat or having single eyelids is not – this is something that should not be promoted, let alone harnessed to make money off the vulnerable. And yet Dove’s parent company is doing precisely that.

Three cheers to both Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. In the past month, both have announced decisions that can only be good for the world as a whole, and especially the poor. On the 15th of June, Microsoft announced a two-year transition period that would eventually see Bill Gates move out of his present day-to-day involvement in Microsoft into spending more time with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Less than two weeks later, the second richest man in the world (after Bill Gates) decided to donate around US$30 billion to the Gates Foundation - which already has around that amount in assets.

Both men deserve great credit for not passing down most of their money to their children but instead giving it back to society. In an interview with Fortune Magazine, Buffett said:

Certainly neither Susie nor I ever thought we should pass huge amounts of money along to our children. Our kids are great. But I would argue that when your kids have all the advantages anyway, in terms of how they grow up and the opportunities they have for education, including what they learn at home - I would say it’s neither right nor rational to be flooding them with money. In effect, they’ve had a gigantic headstart in a society that aspires to be a meritocracy. Dynastic mega-wealth would further tilt the playing field that we ought to be trying instead to level.

Jacob Weisberg wrote this of him in a Slate article:

At the moral level, Buffett does not believe anyone has the right to be as rich as he is. He described wealth on the scale he has accumulated as a “claim checks on the activities of others in the future”—claim checks that he has long ago recognized would have to be returned to society rather than passed on to his descendants.

On why he didn’t start another foundation in his name, Buffett responded in the Fortune Magazine interview:

The short answer is that I came to realize that there was a terrific foundation that was already scaled-up - that wouldn’t have to go through the real grind of getting to a megasize like the Buffett Foundation would - and that could productively use my money now.

I think this shows truly what a great man he is. That’s humility - something lacking frequently in famous people. So many foundations are named after the philanthropist. Worse still, how many Christian ministries are named after the minister?

What’s most remarkable for me, however, is Buffett’s recognition that his riches boils down ultimately to luck. Jacob Weisberg wrote:

As he made the rounds Monday, he consistently emphasized the role of chance in getting rich. “A member of the lucky sperm club” as he described himself to Charlie Rose, he happened to born in the right country, to the right parents, at precisely the right moment, to absurdly reward his special talent at asset allocation. Few successful businessmen truly believe they owe their rewards to luck, even if they pay lip service to their good fortune.

I wrote elsewhere about how I feel arbitrary factors (or luck) play an important role in the spiritual decisions of many people. I think a lot achievements or lack of achievements we see today can ultimately be attributed to luck. Buffett understood that and that’s why he felt he didn’t deserve to keep his money for himself. Both he and Bill Gates were fortunate enough to be members of the lucky sperm club.

That some are born into this club and some aren’t - that some are lucky and some aren’t - seems to be unfair. No doubt this world is unfair in many ways. That’s not to mean that we despair. No, we ought to seek to do our best. If we do well and succeed, we ought to never forget those who didn’t. If we don’t do well, we should try to persevere to the end. Ultimately, I believe all things will be corrected in future. I trust God to dispense justice justly.

Just finished watching the DVD of “The Motorcycle Diaries”. I read a bit about Che Guevara’s life many years back. Here in Singapore, as in many places in the world, Che’s face has become a famous icon seen frequently on many T-shirts. Yet few know who he really was. To many, his rugged good looks is seen as “cool”. For me, I’ve always associated Che with being an exemplary and compassionate human being since I first read of him.

The movie is really about the Che’s journey throughout Latin America. I knew this much before. People who know me well know that I seldom watch movies in cinemas because they are just too expensive. And I have better things to do when out with my friends than to spend it on an anti-social activity. And so I had never watched this movie before. Had I known this wasn’t just about Che’s journey but really about how this journey transformed his life and planted the seeds that made him a revolutionary, I would have watched it sooner.

In the movie, we see the virtues that mattered to Che: honesty, truth, compassion and idealism. We see how the poor and suffering moved him and how his experience and knowledge of poverty and injustice in Latin America forever changed the direction of his life. We see compassion in action: giving his only US$15 to a poor couple, sacrificing his own asthma medicine for a dying woman, being the first person in a leper colony to shake hands with lepers without the compulsory protective gloves (thus recognizing the dignity they deserve as human beings) and swimming bravely across the Amazon River (which nearly cost him his life) which seperated the health care workers from lepers in order to celebrate his birthday with the lepers as well. He had no patience for such inhumane segregation.

The movie is definitely an inspiration for me. I love reading and watching about how experiences transform people’s lives, making them want to live more radical and compassionate lives for the poor, suffering and oppressed. I hope more people who are familiar with Che the icon will find out what truly made this man great.

Watching this movie in Spanish - as when I watch other movies with a Latin feel to it - makes me fall in love with the Spanish language and the region of Latin America all over again. I really need to improve my Spanish!

Lastly, when one day I speak fluent Spanish, I would really love to travel Latin America just like Che did. Argh…that would be a bloody awesome experience! Won’t be terribly safe, but I don’t really care! Inside, there is this adventurous spirit in me. When I was in Bogotá, Colombia, I really didn’t care whether I would be kidnapped by the FARC. Actually, I thought that would be a wonderful experience. Coz I know that nothing bad would happen to me because I’m not White =) But seriously, travelling Latin America would be a dream. I would love to take a couple of years just travelling and going where the mighty Wind leads me - without much money, without much possessions, without any planning but just going with the flow. And who knows, I may settle down somewhere and start doing development & missions work and helping the poor. Now, that’s a dream - that will probably never come true…