Thursday, August 24, 2006

KL Trip - August 2006

Was in KL last week for a few reasons. One of them was to attend Ravi Zacharias' dialogue with Dr. Syed Hussein. I expected it to be somewhat apologetical but was mistaken. Watched 2 movies there. Click and Nacho Libre. Both comedic but very different production. When i came back to Singapore, went to watch My Super Ex-Girlfriend. Needed that dose of comedy to get me going.

During my spent-time with Pui Yee, learnt something called 'agent of socialization' from her. It's the medium between culture and people. It's the 'where' of a cultural date being transmited to the observer. For eg. language is an 'agent' (correct me if i am wrong). Illuminating.

Leon Jackson has been graciously allowed me to stay at his place. Besides the hospitality, he blessed me with some of his studies, especially in the area of viewing ethic. Am grateful for such illumination.

Had lunch with Teresa on Monday. Was amazed by her Roman Catholic tradition of saying grace. We had a good conversation in regards of her view on economics and religion and philosophy. She champions the Free Trade market. Another illumination.

Tuesday's worldview class by Rev. Burke was none the less illuminating. We talked about a biblical view of vocation. After going through the eyes of seeing vocation through Creation, Fall and Redemption (ala Francis Schaeffer & Nancy Pearcey), i asked suspiciously "How broad can this paradigm being applied?" (with suspicion that this paradigm is not practical in today's world on ALL vocation). Then i asked "can a Christian works with Coca-Cola?" Rev. Burke said "why not?". I replied "because Coke is not a healthy drink. There isn't anything good in it. So, if a Christian knowing that it is a bad drink, can he still work with the company?"

These questions led me to think of other vocation such as prostitution. It seems like there is an unnecessary bias towards this vocation compared to others, such as Coca Cola, Gucci, Louis Vuitton, Merc-Benz etc. I still can't see the intrinsic difference between a prostitute and a Coca Cola marketer. Both fallen jobs, but why one to be accepted in this part of the world, while the other is not? Coca Cola is being accepted because of it's been socially accepted. Prostitution is not because it's not being accepted by our societies. But how about countries like New Zealand and Australia where prostitution is legal and socially acceptable?

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

'Agents of Socialization' basically refers to people who help shaped and influenced you as who you are. For example, your parents, peers and etc.... people that you interact with.

Prostitution is hardly accepted because it violates a woman's body and it can cause many social illness whereas to most people, Coca Cola is just another type of drinks.... no taboo. So whats the big deal about it?


There are unending fallen jobs.. so how do you choose?

Correct me if i am wrong.

Benjamin Ho said...

Living in a fallen world, there is no job too spiritual (not even pastors) that is not tainted with sin nor a job that is too shameful that God cannot redeem. I think we have just got to live with this tension. Oh btw, Randy Kluver loves Coca Cola, you may want to get his take on this=)

enn@j said...

my job is probably the least 'spiritual'

Being in sales, you get people to spend - the more, the merrier, even if you know they don't need it or that the product itself aint that great. So is this a wrong job to be in?

I guess to start off with, to find something that's right in this world wouldnt be possible, it's being in a fallen world and making a difference in our daily decisions because we understand what is right

Anonymous said...

Coca-Cola's a good. And a good can be subjected to abuse (think alchohol, money etc). It doesn't take away the fact that the good is well, a good.

Prostitution is an evil as it deprives the woman (involved) of her human and womanly dignity. Her sexuality has been perverted and her patrons view her as a thing and not a person.

There are economic reasons for morality, and this would be useful in talking to atheists though the value of arguing from this premise is limited. After all, man is not to be viewed autonomously i.e. apart from God.