Primordial = Prime Ordeal?

Once upon a sunny afternoon several years ago, I visited my cousin, a beautiful fair-skinned 24-year-old with six older brothers. We were planning to go to the movies with her boyfriend and some other guys. A nice fellow, her boyfriend was. And I particularly liked him for his good sense of humor and responsibility – not to mention his bright intelligence and wonderful personality.
But there he was, as I stepped into the house, sitting on the sofa all by himself, while her brothers and parents walked passed him without even trying to look, or simply notice his presence, as if he was but a phantom unseen.
When I brought it up, my cousin just gave a sigh and a faint smile, replying, “Oh, well. It’s just the ordeal we have to face. You know, he is not of our kind.

Sounds familiar?
Many people throughout the country seem to share the same experience, at least once in a lifetime. Yes. We try to deny it – in public, at the very least – or conceal it, or speak against it. But many of us, deep within, echo the same comment, “They are not of our kind.” They are not of our tribe. They are not of our color. “They” are not “us”.

Anthropology defines it as primordial behavior – a term we are not prompt to react against. Yet, put it to its popular terminology, and we will have screams of hypocritical denials from those who claim “not to be so”, but then again…

Racial discrimination!

Or, shall we call it Primordial Behavior in this essay?
After all, racism sprouts from the root of primordial behavior. “Primordial” derives from the Latin “primeval” (primus [first] + aevum [age]). It is the prime culture that exists from the birth of a primitive tribe and is preserved from generation to generation down to the modern era. It is the sign of our tribalism – or, in other words, the mask by which we represent our tribal identities.

Talking about tribes is talking about segregation.
We have the primordial point of view that says, “We are better than they.” It sounds so much like a refusal to stand on common ground. It places a tribe on higher ground than others – in the eye of that particular tribe. And, in this case, subjectivity is objectionable.

Every tribe, actually, has its own set of moral standards and norms, by which the members of that particular tribe organize the proper conducts acceptable by whole. And there is nothing wrong by setting moral standards and values of good and bad – as long as we attain the essence of the teaching. The teaching is always good. It keeps the balance in the community. It makes sure everything is in order.
Thus, every tribe is fine. Every culture is good.

But things turn unfortunate when people of one community comment against another community by claiming, “Our standard is better than theirs.” Do we have the right to say so? If we happen to have such point of view, let us be ready to hear other people – better, mightier, stronger people – say against us, “We are better than you.” They, in their sight, are standing on higher ground than we do.

When people are trapped in primordial behavior and claim to be higher in level compared to others, they are in fact never come to their root. They never grasp the essence – or ever will be. None of them stand on higher ground – for all are under-the-ground.
The aftermath is inevitable: segregation.

Let's face it: throughout the decades, our motto “unity in diversity” has never actually been manifested. Worse, it even comes closer than ever to separate autonomous territories. Prime ordeal! So long as the tribes within this country obstinately hold onto their primordial point of view, unity is but a dream away. (We might as well reconstruct the constitution and establish a new form of government: autonomous states, instead of united republic.)

Primordial behavior is continuously-denied yet ever-cherished, ever-preserved (otherwise, we won’t be talking about SARA [tribal, religious, racial, class] issues behind other people's back, will we?). Some prefer to call it latent. Some even find it tolerable. But in my opinion, it is all a sign of immaturity. And we all love our immaturity so much it makes us forget we are grown-ups. Our country is over six-decades old. And we have a prime ordeal to solve.

I am not a politician. Neither am I a journalist or member of a particular party. But when an ordinary woman plainly sees the invisible walls built within the society, I believe it is obvious to each and every one of us that we are living in separate flats. We are building walls, not bridges. And we ironically call ourselves a United Republic.

I find it so pitiful, yet satirical at the same time. Will we hold onto this primitive tribalism while the whole world is unanimously heading toward globalization? Are we ready to be a jest for the world to see? It’s high time we grow up!

[PS: This article was actually written several years ago, early in 2005. After giving it a little editing touch, I decided to post it here instead, rather than let it rot in my essay folder.]

Prayer -- Demand or Trust?

A study on theology had kept me occupied these last two months (which explains the reason behind the vacuum of posts in this blog). A long and laborious effort on translation indeed, but I have always loved the way translation projects broaden my insight on life -- and everything it has to offer.
Shall we continue with the story I have to offer, then?

Once upon a time, there lived a woman in the East, who was beautiful and much loved by her husband. Her name was Rachel.
Despite her beauty and graceful appearance, Rachel was barren. Even after years of marriage, she bore her husband, Jacob, no children. On the other hand, her unloved sister, Leah, had given birth to six sons!
In their community, children were considered as valuable heritage, and sons were greatly prized. There was nothing a woman could desire more than giving birth to many sons, to build the family's name.
Grieved by her unfortunate condition, Rachel prayed and prayed and prayed to God for a son, out of jealousy toward her elder sister.

Many centuries afterward, a woman from among her descendants suffered the same fate. Hannah was deeply troubled, for she could not bear children.
One day, she prayed to God, that if He granted her a son, she would dedicate her baby to the Lord's service for the rest of his life.
The Lord listened to Hannah's plea, and opened her womb.
Hannah gave birth to a son, and -- in great joy -- named him Samuel, "God grants."


Rachel, after struggling with her sterility for many years, was finally granted her wish. God remembered her, and in His time, gave her the son she asked for.
Rachel was overjoyed, and called her baby: Joseph, "may He add."
God gave her a son, and she asked for more sons, to rival her sister, Leah.
Well, she did give birth to another son -- Benjamin -- several years later.
But it cost her life, for she died in childbirth.

And Hannah?
After she weaned Samuel, she took him to the house of God and left him there under the high priest's care, to be trained in the way of the Lord -- never did it cross her mind that Samuel would grow up to become one of the greatest prophets Israel ever saw.
Hannah came home to the mountains of Ephraim, feeling content and at peace. She glorified the Lord for His goodness in granting her a son, and He was pleased with her thanksgiving. So, the Lord gave Hannah three more sons and two daughters!

Can we discern the difference between these two women?
Even though they faced the same problem, felt the same anguish, and fought the same struggle, but the outcome for each was not similar.

How come?
Here, we see the contrast between a demanding prayer and a trusting prayer.

A demanding prayer is the kind that forces God to bend to our will, our motives, our methods. Most of the time (if not always), this sort of prayer is founded on self-interest.
Rachel didn't submit her will to the will of God. She chose her own path and forced God to follow her down a steep road which she didn't know where it led. Eventually, she had to pay for it dearly.

Hannah, on the other hand, linked her plea with God's will.
She didn't ask for a son to fulfill her self-interest. By asking for a son, she was plainly asking God to take away her disgrace, and in return, she would return the boy to Him.
She believed that the blessing of children was God's to give, and understood completely that the son He would give her actually belonged to Him. As a parent, she was nothing more than a caretaker of God's blessing.
By trusting that everything came from God and should only be used for His glory, she conceived, gave birth, and dedicated her son for a lifetime of service. God was pleased with her humility, and granted her five more children she had never asked for!

Perhaps, it would be prudent if we reflect on the Lord's words: "If you remain in Me, and My Word remains in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you" (John 15:7).


Many people simply quote the last half of this verse: "Ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you."
They neglect the first half of it -- the requirement any prayer needs! Without it, there's no way our prayer will be heard: "If you remain in Me, and My Word remains in you."
Meaning: our will and prayer should be in harmony and concurrence with God's Word. If we are one with God, we shall understand His thoughts, and anything we ask from Him will not stray from His good and perfect will. Only then, will our prayer be heard and granted.