Skip to main content

A Note to Readers of Purple Hibiscus and Skeptics:

"Father Benedict usually referred to the Pope, Papa, and Jesus- in that order." *Doubletake* Is this some sore sort of variation of the Holy Trinity?

As a Christian, reading Purple Hibiscus makes me uneasy. Papa, a pious Christian, physically abuses his wife. Aren't Christians supposed to be moral? Yes, I'm not close to being perfect (in fact, why I believe Jesus to be my savior), but seeing the blatant hypocrisy of Papa and many other church leaders is questionable. He may donate and be mentioned in the priest's sermons, but don't be deluded, that's not what Christianity entails.

I've seen it myself. In a Korean church full of tradition, there's a sort of order that must be kept. Bow to the pastors and highly esteemed elders. Invite church leaders for dinner. Give generously. Yet despite my performative respect I offer to such leaders, I've heard of the church politics, financial disputes, and personal stories behind facades. I hope I'm not deterring you from faith, though. The institution of religion is often corrupt (you've seen it with the Pope). But, true religion is personal faith, guided by a church's teachings. 

So if you ever decide to approach Christianity or read Purple Hibiscus, heed the dangers of a sole reliance on the church. The focus on the development of your personal relationship with God is what makes you religious, not just performance. So please don't perceive Christians as hypocritical performative abusers!

Now go on and read!

Comments

  1. Abby LiangFebruary 2, 2021 at 8:35 AM

    I love the personal connection you make in this blog post. Performative acts are super common, whether it's in activism or religious settings, so I'm glad you highlighted the importance of having a personal relationship <3

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Pick Your Poison

 Would you rather find out that your significant other is cheating on you or never find out? Though very far away and presumably irrelevant to your and my current circumstances, this question raises an issue that's not so far from what we know: Is ignorance really bliss? Sure, I typically respond to the opening question by selecting the latter choice of oblivion as I imagine the pain and hassle it entails, but after I contemplate and fight my instinct, I choose the wiser option. The more daunting one. I choose to pop the bubble of ignorance and learn the truth. Let's break it down. Your significant other is cheating on you. This action may be a result of a few reasons, the major being dissatisfaction in the relationship and/or sole disloyalty and a lack of integrity. A cheater is prone to cheating more than once, and if one continues it may just be a sign of bad character. Do you really want to be with someone who isn't committed to you? Someone who doesn't find satisfa...
Post a Comment
Read more

Welcome Back

Every meeting, email, or letter begins with a greeting. "Good morning," "hello," or "dear *recipient.*" Only once an opening has been made can the intent of communication be addressed. However, though unnecessary in content, such polite phrases serve to transition and maintain friendly relations beyond just solemn work. In Korean, the staple greeting comparable to "hi" or "hello," literally means, how are you? However, no one interprets it that way or responds to the question. Despite not staying true to its meaning, it is a necessary means of easing into the meat of a conversation. Very isolated from the other employees, I often found myself asking for favors or questions at work without saying "hi" or "how are you" first. I noticed I was disrupting their work and disregarding their existence as a person and instead only seeing them as a source of inquiry. By bypassing any greeting, any conversation becomes too a...
5 comments
Read more

The Fiction of Eye Contact

This picture makes me so  uncomfortable.  While it's eye-opening to find reason behind the normalities of point of view in film, the eye-level shot appears far from normal in my eyes. Is it the purple suit? The hands crossed? Or the specific positioning of the viewer on a table that makes me so uneasy? It's probably a combination of my suspicions, but I've decided that to its core, it's the eye contact that creates my discomfort. Most of these types of shots never reach the extent of eye contact. Instead, the similarity in levels creates a feeling of similarity shared by the character and viewer. There is no power disparity, no difference in viewpoint. Look at Forrest Gump and this eye-level shot (note that he's not looking at you). But once eye contact comes into play, the connection is too strong. Of course, any good producer will aim to form a connection for an audience to a film. However, there's comfort in a screen lying between a film and its viewer. It...
Post a Comment
Read more