World Cup roundup: the group games

Most people who know me probably don't know that I've been a soccer fan for about 10 years now. It all started on New Year's Eve, 2008. I was fourteen years old and visiting England with my family, and my uncle had a Premier League game on. Intrigued by how fast-paced and smooth the game was (in comparison to the stop-and-start nature of American football), I watched the entire game, and I've been hooked ever since.

I've spent most of my football fan life following the Premier League (with occasional interruptions from Spanish, French and German league football), but my favorite soccer event by far is the World Cup. Every four years, the world comes together around one game. It's amazing. I've had the privilege of following three World Cups now, and though apparently none of them have been as good as the past ones (according to more seasoned fans), I love it just the same. There's nothing quite like a World Cup summer.

This World Cup has been by far the most fun one to watch so far. What a round of group games! I checked results every day, and practically every day there was a surprise to gasp over. It literally started on day 1 when Russia, the lowest-ranked team in the tournament, beat Saudi Arabia 5-0. Even Uruguay, who are a much better team, didn't do as well against Saudi Arabia, and Russia were able to follow it up by scoring 3 goals against Egypt, qualifying to the knockout rounds easily. They may not be a great soccer team, but Russia is definitely a sports country, and home support can make a big difference for teams. (Just look at South Korea in 2002).

For Group B, Spain provided most of the drama when they sacked their coach a mere two days before the World Cup started. Their coach unwisely decided to announce that he'd be managing Real Madrid (one of the biggest clubs in Spain, and one whose administration is known for their prima donna attitude), and the federation was not having it, so out he went! The real question was whether Spain would recover, and they did. It wasn't too pretty, but they managed not to lose, which is more than a lot of favored teams can say.

Argentina were just one of the favored teams that found themselves in huge trouble after less favored teams proved to be good against them. Iceland were able to tie with them, and Croatia outclassed them in every way. I saw Luka Modric and Ivan Rakitic's goals live, and I just remember having my mouth drop after Modric's goal, in particular. It was just one of the many screamers of the group games, but what a goal it was. I did not see Croatia's first goal live, but it was also incredible. Ante Rebic not only took advantage of a goalie blunder, he did so in STYLE. What a volley!

Group D also had one of my "official" teams (AKA a team I support), Nigeria, and they, too, shocked me in their second game by winning against Iceland. After Argentina capitulated against Croatia on the same day, I wanted so much for them to win against Argentina. But Argentina, they of four World Cup final appearances and two wins, were able to dig deep and find the will to win. That was probably my least favorite result of the group rounds, but Argentina likely deserved their win. Group D was one of the deepest groups, with two good teams being forced to leave the tournament early (Nigeria and Iceland).

At least Nigeria went out as the undisputed flyest team of the tournament. LOOK AT THIS KIT! *swoons*

Group E provided some unexpected political tension with Switzerland fielding three Kosovo-born players against Serbia, but other than that, it was relatively uninteresting, with expected results. Its relative lack of drama was made up for by Group F. OH MY DAYS.

Everyone thought Germany was going to contend for the trophy again after their showing in the Confederations Cup, a World Cup preview tournament, last year. Looking back, of course, we're not so sure now, but then they looked incredibly deep and almost invincible. Cue Mexico, who broke that impression with a single goal:

Even after that game, though, people just assumed that Germany would recover, because they always do. It is said that "football is a game where 22 people play for 90 minutes and the Germans always win". They have four World Cup trophies and haven't gone out earlier than the semifinals for the past 20 years at least. But then the game against South Korea came. Like a dead snake who can still kill you with its venom, South Korea, a team that was already eliminated, came in with a vengeance and scored two goals on Germany in stoppage time. At the same time, Sweden, traditionally known as a defensive side that grind out games, burst into the scene with three goals against Mexico. The combination of results put Germany out of the World Cup for the first time since 1938! EIGHTY YEARS!

Hindsight is 20/20, but I must say, I did suspect that the German league was getting weaker over the past four years. Bayern Munich is the only top club right now in the German league; they haven't had real competition in years, and they've had time to get complacent. Compare this to 2014, where the year before, Bayern Munich and Borussia Dortmund (two German clubs) had played the Champions League final. (The Champions League is the annual all-Europe club competition, generally fielding the best clubs in football.) German football was a lot more competitive then, and the team members had much more ambition than they did this year, in 2018. I sense that Germany spent four years sitting on their laurels, and they paid for it. They'll certainly be back though; their system is solid. All they need is ambition, and I hope this dismal World Cup performance gave them some!

Group G generally made me happy. My other official team, England, did really quite well for themselves. After grinding it out against Tunisia in typical England fashion, I was expecting their game against Panama to be another toughie; they instead blew Panama away with a six-goal rout. The English press, trying not to get excited, called them "clinical", but in what world is SIX goals a "clinical" performance? It was amazing, that's what it was, especially since Panama were playing so dirty and trying to distract them. Unfortunately, England lost against Belgium and they now have to play Colombia, one of the top teams in the tournament. Most people expect them to go out, but this World Cup has been full of surprises so far. Let's see what happens.

Happy England makes me happy. Photo from The Telegraph.

Group H, as it turns out, was the other group of death. Japan, traditionally a nonentity in football, had a coming out party in Russia, opening their tournament with a surprise win against ten-man Colombia. Granted, they were greatly helped by a mistake from Colombian Carlos Sanchez, but a win is a win! Senegal nearly did the same as Japan, winning over favored team Poland in one of my favorite surprise wins of the tournament. I was really rooting for them to do the same against Colombia, but again, the South American team proved stronger, and Senegal went out on a tiebreaker with Japan. Poland, who were ranked sixth in the world going in, were atrocious, and they went out with three losses.

Senegal in happier times, after they scored against Poland with a HOWLER! Sigh. Always in our hearts <3

That sums up the group stages for anyone still reading. It has been an incredible two weeks. Of course there are minuses: Group C in general (what is France doing?) and the fact that there are no African teams left in the tournament (*sobs*). But the amount of surprises and the amount of goals (just one 0-0 draw in 40+ games) has made up for the sad parts, and I am SO excited for the knockout stages. Pray with me that they will be just as good as the group games!

Controversial Bible Verses #2: On Women in Leadership

Disclaimer: I am not a seminarian, and I possess nothing approaching a degree in biblical interpretation. I am just a laywoman with a degree in economics who loves God and his Word. Also, I come from a Pentecostal/Charismatic background.

We pick up where I left off in the second half of 1 Timothy 2, a series of verses that at first seems designed to not let us women be great:

11 A woman[a] should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[b] she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women[c] will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

I hardly consider myself a feminist, and even I want to get up and picket at the last three verses. Women will be saved through childbearing? Are you kidding me!?

These verses are far harder to interpret than the ones about modesty that I spoke of in my last post. Clothes are one thing; gender roles are quite another. On the one hand, as Christians we are supposed to live by God's Word at all times, and this is part of God's Word. On the other hand, these verses not only go against the currents of the modern age, they go against examples we see in our own Christian circles. Do we repudiate teachers and preachers such as Beth Moore, Joyce Meyer, and Christine Caine simply because they are women who (likely) teach men? Even if they preach as biblically as the men do, do we call them heretical simply because they are women? Were they not called by God, but instead hallucinating? What do we do?

We look for context, that's what we do.

The Bible is God's Word. As 2 Timothy 3:16 says, everything within it is inspired and should be used for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in godly living. But it is also a book and a collection of letters--letters that were not originally divided into chapters and verses. The chapters and verses were added later so that people wouldn't have to sift through 1,400 pages of material backwards and forwards whenever they wanted to find a specific point. Therefore, whenever we find a verse in the Bible, it is entirely reasonable to look at the context and look for other verses that talk about the same theme as the verse we've cited.

The most famous cross-reference for these verses here is 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, which says just about the exact same thing:

As in all the churches of the saints, 34 the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. 35 If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

The two verses don't contradict each other in any way; therefore, it appears that the debate is settled. But, if we look just three chapters earlier in 1 Corinthians 11, we find a contradiction:

 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, 5 but every wife[c] who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head...

Here, Paul seems to allow women in the church to both pray and prophesy. Both of those, especially prophecy, require speaking. If a woman is supposed to be completely silent in church, then why is she allowed to prophesy? Why, then, are there people such as Philip's four unmarried prophet daughters in the Bible (Acts 21:9)? The most simple answer is that praying and prophesying are different from just speaking. The Greek word for "speak" in 1 Corinthians 14:34 is laleo. One of the meanings of laleo is "to use words in order to declare one's mind and disclose one's thoughts" (Strong's Lexicon). Imagine for a second that you are in church, and the person preaching is speaking straight fire. (If you happen to not be a churchgoer and are reading this, imagine yourself to be at a really cool TED talk.) You're sitting there, listening and gleaning from this person, when someone decides that it is the right time to stand up in the middle of the service and interrupt the speaker to declare their mind and expose their thoughts. Even if their thoughts are somewhat relevant, they are still expressing them at a very improper time. The people there do not need to hear the interrupter's opinion, and they probably don't want to hear that person at any time since they were super rude. Now say that multiple people do this multiple times, at the same time. Before you know it, you don't know what anyone is saying anymore.

Apparently this was the situation with the church in Corinth, the recipients of the two letters to the Corinthians. 1 Corinthians, in particular, sounds like an incriminating letter from your dad who has just found out all of your dirty secrets. The Corinthian church had plenty of potential, and they were especially talented as far as spiritual gifts. They prophesied and spoke in tongues more than any church that Paul writes to. However, they had let the spiritual gifts become the centerpiece instead of the more important Christian values such as love, faith and hope. And they were very out of order. Much of the letter, including chapters 11 and 14, is Paul telling them how to do church. Communion is not a time to get drunk! Don't just yell out in tongues without any interpretation! No, you CAN'T have five people prophesy at the same time! Stop tolerating incest! (I kid you not. Read the book!) Much of the book of 1 Corinthians carries the tone of a person who is trying to establish order. In an orderly church setting, it is good for women (and men, honestly) to learn in quietness, as Paul puts it, and then discuss their questions in a more open setting, like at home or in a small group. Indeed, the word for "quietness" in 1 Timothy 2:11 is hesychia, which describes a person who does their own work and "does not meddle with the affairs of others". The silence demanded, then, is not a complete silence, but one that keeps everything within reasonable order.

This silence is apparently allowed to be broken when praying or prophesying, and I hardly need a lexicon to make a suggestion as to why. Prophecy is when someone gets a message from God by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Regardless of whether the someone is male or female, he or she is inspired by God with a message for the congregation, and should be allowed to speak out. Praying, similarly, is communicating with God. In a congregational setting, when the prayer is not just one person's opinion but that of the entire congregation, it makes no sense that only men should be allowed to pray to God. The only mediator for God, male or female, is Jesus Christ. Anyone can pray to him if he or she pleases.

Fast forward a couple thousand years to our cultural context, where women are just as educated as men are and the head coverings mentioned in 1 Corinthians 11 mean far less than they used to. In an orderly church setting, where people do not interrupt each other in order to express their opinions and one person talks at a time, does it not make sense that a woman who is under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit should be allowed to say what the Holy Spirit tells her to say? Some may disagree with me, but I think it makes perfect sense.

There are many women in the New Testament who are important enough to mention. Priscilla was one half of a great teaching team along with her husband Aquila. The end of Romans mentions a woman named Junia as being "outstanding among the apostles", and another lady, Phoebe, is mentioned as a deacon (Greek: "diakonos"). In fact, Romans 16 mentions plenty of women: Mary, Tryphena, Tryphosa, and Persis are just four women who have "worked very hard in the Lord", as Paul says. The second of John's letters is written to a "chosen lady" and her children, and at the end of that letter, he says that the lady's sister and her children greet her. It is entirely possible that these two unnamed women served as pastors of churches.

From the time Jesus resurrected from the dead and appointed a woman, Mary Magdalene, to be the first witness of his resurrection, there has always been a very significant and powerful role for women in the Gospel story, and this is only likely to continue throughout time.

Scripture quotations are from the New International Version (NIV), via BibleGateway.
Greek words are taken from Strong's Lexicon via the Blue Letter Bible, at blueletterbible.org.

Controversial Bible Verses #1: On Modesty

Disclaimer: I am not a seminarian, and I possess nothing approaching a degree in biblical interpretation. I am just a laywoman with a degree in economics that loves God and his Word. 

I'm blessed to have been reading the Bible for a number of years now, and I have of course come upon some of its more controversial verses multiple times. The whole second half of 1 Timothy 2 most certainly falls into this category. It tells women in the Ephesian church how to dress and how to act--and the instructions are not exactly compatible to today's modern woman.

The controversy starts in verse 9-10, the famous verses about modesty:

9 I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10 but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God. (1 Timothy 2:9-10 NIV, emphasis mine)

Ahhh, modesty. For five decades now, women's fashion has been raging against this concept. First, the miniskirt came in around the '60s, taking hemlines to where they'd never been before. Then came crop tops, especially in the '90s, and the midriff was exposed for the first time. The early 2000s brought in bralettes as tops and low-rise jeans. Today, all of these trends have combined to make war against the concept of modesty as we know it.


From left to right: Girls in "New Look" dresses from Seventeen from March 1968; an ad in Seventeen, April 1992; Paris Hilton in 2001. The first two are taken from justseventeen on Tumblr, and the picture of Paris Hilton is from Popsugar.

With this battle comes questions: how sexy, exactly, is a little bit of midriff? Is it bad if the midriff is a little sexy? Is modesty repressive to today's working woman? What exactly is or is not modest, anyway?

Much of the battle comes back to this question: what is modesty?

In the 2010s Western cultural context, modesty as we know it largely refers to a movement in fashion. Modest women repudiate the trends that I mentioned above. Their skirts and pants don't go an inch above the knee; their tops are never cropped, and are usually high-cut enough to cover any sort of cleavage. Many times, modest women account for factors that "less modest" women wouldn't even think about, like covering their shoulders or hiding their curves. The reasons to adhere to this movement vary, but for the most part, they're religious. Muslim women are the most consistent adherents of this movement, often adding hijabs to their modest ensembles. Where the movement has become most famous and most controversial is among Christian women; the ones who do adhere to this seemingly stringent dress code often cite the verses above.


Modest fashion of the 2010s. Honestly, all of these outfits are really cute IMO. Credits go to Pinterest.

Like many concepts within Christianity, this concept of modesty has become a debate. On one side, adherents of modest fashion cite these verses (which are very much biblical). They have also said that because men are created as more "physical" beings than women, that Christian women need to dress in a way that doesn't lead Christian men into temptation. The Bible does certainly warn against leading other believers into temptation (Mark 9:42 is an obvious example), but this assumption about men is not obviously cited in the Bible, and at any rate, the Bible tells men and women to "flee from sexual temptation" (1 Corinthians 6:18).

The revival of feminism in the second half of the 2010s has brought modesty into a war like almost never before. Feminism, by definition, takes the woman's side in every conflict. It says that women should not have to cater to men in any way. The notion of women having to dress a certain way to curb man's primitive tendencies is absolutely repulsive to the feminist's perspective. Women on this side of the conflict say that if men and women are to flee from sexual temptation, that it is not the woman's job to help/repudiate a man who is loath to get running. They cite the very real examples of women who despite being dressed in somewhat "modest" clothing, became victims of rape and other sexual crimes. These examples lead these women to say that modesty is a failed system, and yet another example of the repression of women throughout the centuries. The feminists of the 2010s are not the bra-burners of the 1970s, but they do take pleasure in showing off their bodies, proclaiming that to be sexy is to be confident and modern in this age.

As always, in a debate, there are people who find themselves in the middle. Here we find the Christian women who want to honor God with their clothing choices as modest women say they should, but they also want to be confident and modern. These are the women who find themselves wondering what is modest and what is not many, many times. After all, the verses don't exactly tell us how long our skirts should be, or whether we should even be wearing skirts, for that matter. They mention nothing about whether tops should be cropped or not. They instead mention "braided hair" (KJV), gold, pearls and "costly clothing". In fact, on another glance, we can't even be certain that 1 Timothy 2:9-10 says much about clothing at all.

9 I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10 but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God. 

So what is modesty, then? The original Greek word used here for "modestly" is "kosmios". Strong's Lexicon defines this word as "orderly, i.e. decorous--of good behavior, modest". Thayer's Lexicon adds "well-arranged" and "seemly". The word "kosmios" is a derivative of the word "kosmos"--as in the English word, cosmos. It speaks of a harmonious arrangement of things, such as the stars, which occupy their precise positions in the universe. Overall, the word "kosmios" seems to denote order. Interpreted this way, Paul wants the women to dress in an orderly fashion. Seen this way, the words "decency" and "propriety" thrown in right after this word make complete sense. It appears, then, that the issue of "modesty" actually has very little to do with how much skin you show.

The rest of these verses confirm this notion. Paul cites "elaborate hairstyles", gold, pearls and "costly clothes" as things that women should shy away from. In the Roman times in which Paul lived, fashionable women would wear elaborate braided hairstyles that immediately drew attention. Gold, pearls and costly clothes, as in our times, drew plenty of attention as well. Paul charges that Christian women should not draw attention because of their clothes, but because of their good deeds. Christian women, in this case, should be known more for what they do and who they are than what they look like.

In his first letter, Peter repeats this sentiment, but uses slightly different words:

3 Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as elaborate hairstyles and the wearing of gold jewelry or fine clothes. 4 Rather, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight. (1 Peter 3:3-4 NIV)

In modesty talks when I was younger, people would always say that "modesty, at its core, is an issue of the heart". I had no idea what that really meant until I studied these verses. In the end, modesty has little to do with how short your skirt is, and it has absolutely nothing to do with men. It instead is an issue of what you want people to know you for. Do you want people to remember you for the amount of body you showed in that dress, or for the lives that you impacted with your good works? Do you want to promote your own brand, or do you want to promote God's kingdom? These questions (especially the second one) should guide not only how Christian women dress, but how they act and who they are.

The essence of modesty is this: wherever you are and whatever you do, you show the light of Christ to others.

You can read part 2 of this series here.


Scripture quotations are from the New International Version via BibleGateway.
Strong's Lexicon and Thayer's Lexicon are from blueletterbible.org.

Leaving the Nest Part 2: The Actual Post

I believe that at some point in your life, Jesus will present you with the opportunity to shift your dependence from family or those who have always provided for you onto Him, allowing Him to become your source and supply for the things you need. (Jeremy Pearsons)

The last post was supposed to be this one, but I ended up telling you all how I ended up in California. Oh well. That one was probably going to happen anyway, so now you have it.

So now I've been in California for nearly nine months. And overall, it's been really, really good. Med school, as I said before, is not much harder than college, and I am having tons of fun exploring Los Angeles whenever I can.

But I have to confess to you something: sometimes I wonder if I would have been better off being close to home.

Most of my classmates are from California, and many of them are from the greater LA area or Orange County (the next county over). They live a mere hour or two away from their families at most, and a couple of them live with their families. I lived with my family for a year before moving to LA, so I know that the support these classmates are getting from having their families nearby is tremendous (assuming that their families are close to them like mine is). For those who live at home, they don't have to worry about food or rent, and they get the security and the support of living in a place where people are obligated to care about their well-being.

I had that option too. Other than Keck, I only got into two other schools. With traffic, the two schools are both only an hour away from my house. Most of the time, I am glad that I took the other option and came to USC. Independence is wonderful, for one thing, and being able to explore a new city and coast in my spare time is another thing.

But occasionally, I find myself wondering if I can handle everything on my own. Usually, this happens when I feel like I haven't done everything right. This past block was one of those occasions. For the past eight weeks, we were learning neuroscience, along with head and neck anatomy. It was very interesting information, but it was a lot of information to learn, and in the midst of that, I started having some personal struggles. I found myself not studying as well as I had in other blocks, and for my perfectionist expectations, that was terrifying. I was continually disappointed in myself, and for the first time in a while, I felt like I was really alone.

I think that's when I started really wondering if I would have been better off going to a school nearby and commuting from my parents' house. My parents are the strongest people I know, especially in faith. If I was in their house, they would be able to encourage me up close. They would be able to see whatever problems I had up close and deal with them, and they certainly would have had me studying like I felt like I should have. And they would have made sure that I kept up with everything faith-wise: studying the Bible, going to church, listening to sermons every single day. I wouldn't have to trust myself to do those things myself; they would motivate me. Had I stayed home, the thought went, I wouldn't be struggling like this.

I remember crying out to the Lord one night: I can't handle this alone!!!

He ended up answering that cry before I uttered a word. Back in Chicago, my mother and some of her friends had been sensing trouble, and they had been praying for me a lot. She gave me several timely calls that helped me when I most needed it. In the end, I not only passed the neuroscience block, I passed it with an 11 percent margin.

And now I'm here, a week and a half later in the reproductive system block. Now I'm back to being glad to be here, but the thought still lingers in the back of my head: I need to go home. I need to be protected. To an extent, that thought is right. I do need to go home this summer and see my parents and my friends there. But I read the quote at the top of this post today, and it popped out of the page for me, because I feel like this is what the Lord has been telling me to do.

Before February (I think...this year feels like an eternity!), I assumed that I would be going back home for the summer. But on multiple occasions, often when I was listening to sermons or asking Him about this, the Lord told me to look for research opportunities in Los Angeles and to consider staying out here for at least part of the summer. And when I told Him that I needed to go home, and that my spiritual growth was not going well out here, His response was: then why did I send you here?

I can't deny Him on this front; I know that God sent me here. As I detailed in my last post, I had no interest in California before October 2016. It was never my idea to go to medical school over 2000 miles away from my family. It wasn't even my idea to apply to USC. He brought me here, and He's been sustaining me all through medical school. He brought me out of my nest in Chicago, got me to "mount on wings like eagles" and start a new life in Los Angeles. I think the quote above is what He wants to do with me. He doesn't want me to leave my family forever (that'd be awful!), but like a mother eagle who kicks her babies out of the nest when it's time to fly, I think He wants me to spread my wings.

And even as this new block has started, I'm finding myself to be less and less alone. My best friend from college, who is from Minnesota and had about as much interest in the Golden State as I did before 2016, is at USC working as a missionary with FOCUS (Fellowship of Catholic University Students). My other best friend from college hails from a town in LA County called Walnut, a mere hour from where I live. She and another friend from college got accepted to Keck as well, and are deciding at the moment if they want to come here or go to Berkeley (a six hour drive from LA). I found a church and a small group within weeks of moving here, and as if on cue, my small group leader met with me two weeks ago and told me that he wants to start seeing me more often. We'll likely be meeting this Friday.

In the same letter that the quote on the top of this post came from, Jeremy and Sarah Pearsons write: "What we found out is that true security and the comfort of the Holy Spirit belong to anyone who's willing to leave anything for Jesus' sake and the Gospel's [sake]." I believe that the Lord is teaching me to expand my horizons and to throw all of my security onto him, and to trust that he can handle me. I am so excited for this new adventure!

Leaving the Nest Part 1: Welcome To (The Hotel) California

I believe that at some point in your life, Jesus will present you with the opportunity to shift your dependence from family or those who have always provided for you onto Him, allowing Him to become your source and supply for the things you need. (Jeremy Pearsons)

My first year of medical school at USC has been almost completely wonderful so far. I think because Harvard was so difficult and it made me grow up so fast, I had less growing up to do by the time I reached the big bad dragon known as med school. Because of this, especially for the first semester, med school has been substantially easier than college for me. I know that's not the normal thing to say about medical school, but it's what I have to say about it!

Whenever I tell people I'm from Chicago, I'm always asked what brought me here. The funny thing is that before med school, I had no interest in California. As a kid, I saw California as a faraway place where all of the actors and moviemakers lived and where the weather never changed. It seemed boring and (dare I say) overrated to me, and I had no relatives or friends there to compel me to visit. Everything I knew and aspired to was either in Chicago or east of there. My relatives were across the Atlantic, in Nigeria and in London, England; the colleges I aspired to go to were in the Ivy League. As a senior in high school, I started an application to Stanford, but then I got into an Ivy League school and my flagship state school (U of I) and immediately dropped my application afterwards. Nothing could make me go to California over the Ivy League or even over U of I.

In college, I found to my surprise that several of my new friends were from California. They occasionally whined about the lack of sun and sand, they usually freaked out over the winters, and they sang the praises of In-N-Out Burger to NO END. My interest in California went from 0% to about 10%, mostly because I wanted to try this In-N-Out place that they wouldn't shut up about. But I still really had no aspirations to go there.

A couple months after college, I started finalizing my applications to medical school. I remember one day in June when I presented my already very long list of schools to my parents. They were mostly satisfied, but they wanted me to try everything possible.
"Apply to a school in California!" my mother told me.
"California?" I scoffed. "I have no reason to ever end up in California. Why would I apply to a school there?"
"Just apply to one school! You never know what's going to happen."
"Ugh. Okay."
We looked up schools in California. As an out of state applicant, I didn't even consider the UC's. Loma Linda seemed too strict. Stanford had a requirement for a sociology class; I had one, but the grade wasn't so great. I decided to not waste their admission committee's time (or mine). That eliminated all but USC, so that was the one California school I applied to.

USC gave me an interview invite two days after I submitted my secondary. We were surprised and excited. In thirty years of being in the U.S., my mother and father had never been to California, and I had never traveled west of Oklahoma, so in late October 2016, my parents and I traveled to Los Angeles together. We saw Griffith Park, Beverly Hills, and Santa Monica Pier. We marveled at the architecture and the diversity of neighborhoods and people. And then we left, expecting not to see California again for a very long time, if ever again.

On December 13, 2016, I was admitted to the Keck School of Medicine of USC. It was 2000 miles away from home, but it was the best school I got into by a country mile, and my parents, themselves immigrants from Nigeria, weren't about to let me miss my great big opportunity.

Fast forward to early May 2018, and here I am. I write from USC's Doheny Library. Outside, Los Angeles is giving us its best impression of London; it's cloudy and grey and 58 degrees outside. Other than the occasional "London" day and the exactly 6 days where it has rained, the weather has been cloudlessly sunny all year. Winter in LA is equivalent to a really nice fall season in Chicago or Boston. It's pretty amazing.

Corona Del Mar State Beach in Newport Beach, Orange County. No, I do not go to school here in particular, though wouldn't it be amazing if I did!?

They say California converts people. I was told several times by my fellow Midwesterners that once I move to California, I may never want to come back. I'm not so sure about that yet. California has its flaws, just as the Midwest and the Northeast have theirs. But I do know that I have been thrust into a new adventure, and while I'm here, I am eager to explore everything I can on this so-called "Best Coast".

My current Facebook profile picture. I took it in a skating rink called World on Wheels in Crenshaw (part of LA). Would highly recommend it for anyone visiting! It really does have a great '90s vibe.

I leave you (at least in this part) with a song that my roommate Juliette (who I miss dearly) used to play in her room a lot. Little did I know that the Eagles were actually welcoming me to what would soon be my new home...

(P.S. I've had In-N-Out now. It's pretty good for its price, and I like their Animal Fries. But I've definitely had better burgers--don't tell my California friends...)

Christ and Cartoons (ish) #4: Black Panther

As I write this, I am slated to see Black Panther either tonight or tomorrow.

And yes, I realize I am very late.

The cool people (including the cool people in med school) have already seen the film one, two, three times. I have been that girl who ruins in-depth conversations about the movie because I haven’t seen the film yet. When I tell people that I haven’t seen the film yet, the reactions range from shock to scorn. You haven’t seen the film yet? What are you doing with your life??? I promise that by tomorrow, I will be in the know.

The reaction to Black Panther has been something to behold. Wakanda fever has hit nearly every black person I know! People showed up to the premiere and beyond wearing traditional African outfits, the kind of stuff they normally pull out for birthday parties and weddings. They performed large group dances in theaters and posed for endless pictures by the movie’s poster. The movie has made 940 million dollars in four weeks, more than any other Marvel film besides Captain America: Civil War and The Avengers. Even my ignorant self knows the Wakanda Forever sign; I did it as part of an African dance that my friends and I performed at the Keck School of Medicine’s annual talent show (see below).

All because of a movie made by a big-name studio with an all-black cast and an accurate portrayal of African civilization.

Let me be clear: I am very happy about Black Panther and I am very excited to (finally!) see it soon. And I don’t think anything about people’s reactions to the movie have been even close to wrong; everyone is happy to finally see some good black (and African!!!) representation on screen. And yet, when I think about Black Panther, and the way that people are obsessing over it, I cannot help but see a phenomenon that I’ve seen over and over in the past couple of years.

I think I first noticed this around 2012, when I first went to college; there, I ran head-on into a wave of Scandal obsession. From Facebook to Twitter to Tumblr, everyone was talking about Scandal. To me, people seemed especially excited about the main character, Olivia Pope, who was a strong black woman, much like the show’s director, Shonda Rhimes. (Having watched Scandal now, strong is probably an underestimation!) I had grown up watching and talking about a ton of TV shows (as you might have noticed by this series), but the way that my peers, especially my African-American female peers, talked about this show was different from what I’d heard. It was as if they saw themselves in Olivia Pope. They basked in the positive attention that Olivia Pope received, and if she received any negative attention, it was a personal affront. The amount of self-worth that people gained or lost from a character on a TV screen amazed me.

I noticed this again when ABC announced the show Black-ish in 2014. The title definitely caught my attention; TV had come up with a word for a feeling I’d had my entire life. But again, my African-American peers obsessed over this show and its existence like it was the most important show in the world at that time. It was as if black representation on TV was a vital component of their self-esteem.

And now, I feel that I’m seeing the same thing regarding Black Panther.

At this point, I have to admit something about myself. Growing up, as far as black representation, I was very spoiled. My father is a pediatric anesthesiologist, my mother a neonatologist. My sister is a general surgery resident, and my brother is about to be a dentist. Growing up, the notion of being a successful black woman wasn’t just a possibility; it was the norm, the expectation. Every two weeks, my parents would invite their friends over for Bible study. These friends were often doctors as well, and their children were held up to the same expectations as I was. I was continually surrounded by well-off black women who were raising families and advancing their careers. I was in continual contact with black peers who were not only staying in school, but doing extremely well therein. College was not an option, nor was having a productive life plan. So, as a child, even though I watched several TV shows with no black representation at all, I was able to counteract and supplement the messages I got from TV with the role models that I had in my real life.

My faith background also had a major impact on the way I watch TV and movies. Growing up, TV and movies were a special treat, to be watched only when we didn’t have homework to do. Furthermore, my parents were aware that TV did not always promote the morals that they wanted us to live by. They not only restricted us from shows that didn’t promote good morals, but they also taught us that Christian morality is very different from TV morality. My brother and I often found cartoons faster than my parents could scan them, but even when we watched shows, we watched them with the view that we were not necessarily supposed to look to the characters to represent us or to tell us what we could be. Instead, we were to look to Christ, and to other people who emulated him.

In my adolescence and young adulthood, I started to realize that I am a child of God, and that because he is the King of glory (Psalm 24, and many other sources), that technically makes me a princess. As a child of God, I have been made holy, righteous and absolutely flawless in Christ. I am settled in heavenly places, above any enemy that could come at me. I am fully able to do anything that he calls me to do, and I have an inner source of love, joy and peace for every situation. I’ve found that no person or TV character can validate my existence better than God can. He made me the way I am; he ordained my family background, my skin color and hair type. If he created me the way I am, and if every person that he created is good, then I am good. End of story.

So yes, I will be seeing Black Panther tonight, and I will probably enjoy it. But I will not look to it to tell me what I could be; I will see it knowing that I already am a King’s kid.