- Jul 3, 2014
- 5,268
- 1,707
Last week, tragically, twelve men and women lost their lives at the hands of terrorists in Paris. That same week, an estimated two thousand, mostly the elderly, women and children, lost their lives at the hands of a terrorist organization in Nigeria.
Both events were completely tragic and abominable, and regardless of the differences in loss of life, are on equal levels of evil. However, the Nigerian incident clearly had a higher death toll, and yet, it got very little airtime, and I'd not be surprised if only a handful of those reading this post had heard of it. And those who did hear of it didn't hear of it nearly as much as they heard of the Paris attacks.
Now, it's not my intent to be opportunistic, but I can't help but notice that an attack that occurred in a Westernized, "first world" nation, but had a lower death toll got *far* more media coverage than an attack that claimed almost 200 times more lives, in a third world nation. I've heard messages from "prophets" proclaiming that the French attacks are God's warning to a wayward nation, and, of course, many are spouting off nonsense about it being a sign that we're living in the "end times". Why, I wonder, aren't two thousand dead Nigerians considered a sign of the end? Why is there no significance to such events when they occur in a nation where we anticipate such things?
Friends, I want you to consider the fact that we only see prophetic and eschatological significance in "third world" type events when they happen in first world nations. This reveals the idol we've made of Western culture, and the little value we place on those on the outside. Obviously, these attacks have nothing to do with an approaching "end". They are the byproducts of violent, religious systems in desperate need of internal critique and a reformation. What *some* Christian's responses to them reveal, however, is the high prophetic significance we place upon ourselves, and the low view we have of those who fall outside of our ranks.
Both events were completely tragic and abominable, and regardless of the differences in loss of life, are on equal levels of evil. However, the Nigerian incident clearly had a higher death toll, and yet, it got very little airtime, and I'd not be surprised if only a handful of those reading this post had heard of it. And those who did hear of it didn't hear of it nearly as much as they heard of the Paris attacks.
Now, it's not my intent to be opportunistic, but I can't help but notice that an attack that occurred in a Westernized, "first world" nation, but had a lower death toll got *far* more media coverage than an attack that claimed almost 200 times more lives, in a third world nation. I've heard messages from "prophets" proclaiming that the French attacks are God's warning to a wayward nation, and, of course, many are spouting off nonsense about it being a sign that we're living in the "end times". Why, I wonder, aren't two thousand dead Nigerians considered a sign of the end? Why is there no significance to such events when they occur in a nation where we anticipate such things?
Friends, I want you to consider the fact that we only see prophetic and eschatological significance in "third world" type events when they happen in first world nations. This reveals the idol we've made of Western culture, and the little value we place on those on the outside. Obviously, these attacks have nothing to do with an approaching "end". They are the byproducts of violent, religious systems in desperate need of internal critique and a reformation. What *some* Christian's responses to them reveal, however, is the high prophetic significance we place upon ourselves, and the low view we have of those who fall outside of our ranks.
