Liberty University International Organizations Making a Difference Discussion

Description

 research an international group, NGO, or other similarly situated group and explain how this group is helping to engage an international audience. If this is an area of interest or passion for you that must also be noted.
Read: Politics, Evangelism, and the Global Impact of Pursuing Domestic Tranquility https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Politics%2C-Evangelism%2C-and-the-Global-Impact-of-Mihelic/06ca749301034eac2a5d6d623d0a230c596ba0af

4 attachmentsSlide 1 of 4attachment_1attachment_1attachment_2attachment_2attachment_3attachment_3attachment_4attachment_4.slider-slide > img { width: 100%; display: block; }
.slider-slide > img:focus { margin: auto; }

Unformatted Attachment Preview

From Cold War to Post Cold War
Previous modules, I’ve introduced you to the basics of constitutional government, politics, and
economics, all from a biblical perspective. In this module, we hope to apply those ideas to a global
context. After all, the information age with a spectacular technological advancements with respect to
travel, communication, logistics, and connectivity has made the world a much smaller place. Today’s
leaders will have to think with a global perspective. So it is important to discuss some good guidelines
for doing so. For starters, it is helpful to know the difference between the Cold War era and now. Back
then it was easier to have a clear cut definition of good and evil, the free world versus communism. Of
course it was never that simple. Some of the things the USDA to stop communism and the alliances they
made to do so we’re themselves questionable. But there were so much clear lines between good and
evil than what we see now. When the Cold War ended, old ethnic rivalries sprung up among various
people groups. Rivalries which had been centuries old and which had perhaps only been dormant during
the Cold War. Ethnic warfare in the Balkans, in places like Serbia are examples of this. We should not
find this surprising. In a Tower of Babel account in Genesis 28, we see that new people groups formed
based upon their own languages. It seems that ethno-linguistic geopolitical alignments are hard to
break. In a more positive sense, we should recognize that God loves diversity in prophesies of a day in
which people of every tongue, tribe and nation will come together to praise him with one for that day
and do whatever we can to foster peace and harmony among different nations. In the meantime, until
the perfect is realized. Certainly globalization might be breaking down some of those allegiances. We
shouldn’t be surprised that their permanence. And then of course we have the War on Terror. This two
represents a fractured understanding of who the enemy is. According to the Bush doctrine, generally
speaking, we were to fight terrorists wherever they are and to consider enemies any nation harbors or
supports terrorism. But this leaves a less than clear path for future action. Since terrorists are not always
closely aligned with a particular nation and often engage in guerrilla warfare, hiding in the shadows. In it
further remains to be seen how stable the emerging democracies of Afghanistan and Iraq will be as the
US slowly disengages from a strong military presence in those countries. In light of these foreign policy
challenges, it will be helpful to review biblical principles of what constitutes a just war.
Tariffs and Freedom
Meanwhile, there is more work in the global arena than just military engagements. More and more
nations are embracing free trade agreements with other nations, sometimes in the form of limited
agreements such as nafta. But we’re also seeing greater emphasis on free trade in general. But of
course, this isn’t the rule across the board. For instance, many nations still use tariffs in some form or
fashion. Terrors are our fee charged to foreign companies to do business in a particular nation. The hope
was that terrorist will protect national businesses from international competition. The argument against
tariffs is that they actually hurt the country citizens by limiting their purchasing power and freedom. This
is because the companies which have to pay the terrorist pass the cost on to the domestic customer. So
essentially it ends up being attacked and the consumer, the counterargument is that such a costs are
still preferable because it strengthens domestic businesses, which in turn means more jobs for citizens.
That concerned with this approach is that businesses do best when they can overcome competition
from other businesses. Now when they are protected from them, this argument assumes that protecting
business from competition actually encourages them to be inefficient and unresponsive to a consumers
really want to make matters worse. This protection essentially comes right out of the consumer’s pocket
book. Moreover, the theory of comparative advantage argues that nations should engage in the types of
business in industry they are best at. This means that they shouldn’t oppose foreign companies which
are better at a particular business. Because it in turn allows the host nation to focus on the type of
industries it is better at. This is a nice sound in theory of course, but there’s no guarantee that this
always works perfectly at all times. And in all places.
The Impacts of Globalization
Finally, it may very well be that terrorists will be less popular as globalization free trade spread among
nations. There are many arguments against globalization that kinda the thought that and basically
maximizes all the evils of big business, particularly in parts of the world that are so desperate for
economic development that they will other workers in their natural resource to be exploited. Well, that
can certainly be the case. There’s also good research showing that globalization has indeed lifted
millions of people out of poverty in a way that foreign aid never good. To the point that some business
leaders like Bill Gates openly wonder if poverty will be eradicated in the not-so-distant future. But of
course it is not so simple as that. Research has found that globalization works best for people in the
nation which it occurs is less corrupt. Dentures, basic freedoms. When those attributes were not
present, we’re more apt to see crony capitalism and exploitation. This reminds us of the importance of
communicating biblical principles of government and especially self-government, as part of our
missionary efforts to other parts of the world. And on a related note, we are seeing a new trend among
missionaries. The idea of building a business in the nation they are serving. The business would in turn
not only give them the base for evangelizing people, that would also bring real economic value and
benefit to a region. In effect, a line the missionaries to meet both their spiritual and their physical needs.
Relatively new trend. So it’ll be interesting to see how well it works. These are indeed exciting times as
we see the rapid spread of Christianity throughout the global south. Paul Johnson, author the next
Christianity chronicles this incredible growth and discuss it, the complexities and challenges of this
revival. We should do our best to perfectly support that revival. Part of doing so is fully embracing what
it means to worship God in every area of life. As Abraham Cooper argued with his notion of sphere
sovereignty, every realm of life, church, business, government, non-profits, the arts, the family, and of
course, individual all have a unique way to glorify the Lord. Too often we focus on just our individual
responsibility to God. Overlooked things like Erebus, church life and community involvement. Or
perhaps you put a hope and a lichen, a particular political party to office as if that party person can solve
all of our problems. In the end, only Christ can redeem and heal our nation and all the nations. The
question we must ask ourselves how we might be called the participate with his work. Perhaps as an
elected official, perhaps as a church leader, perhaps someone working in a non-profit locally or
internationally. There are so many unique ways to get involved. So many unique and yes, holy ways to
care for one’s neighbor. It is part of the Great Commission who will respond to the Lord’s call. The fields
are white with harvest.
Just War Theory
Because man has fallen in this, no government can be perfect, can tell Christ returns. War isn’t inevitable
reality in this world. Most generations of Americans have been impacted by war. And even today we’re
faced with a compelling questions of whether wars are ever justified. And if so, under what
circumstances. Whether it’s a terrorist threat thousands of miles away, or an evil dictator is killing
civilians within his own country. Or a violent militia in Africa kidnapping child soldiers. We’re regularly
confronted was whether or not our countries should act with military force. In his famous work, City of
God, the theologian Augustine detail what does become to be known as the most significant, profound
statement of a biblical view of war. As Augustine writes, all good men would wish to wage no wars at all.
However, just war is justified only by the injustice of an aggressor. Because goddess commission
governing authorities to primarily protect the citizens under their care. It is a God-given mandate for
civil authorities to fight against unjust aggressors. Therefore, as a general rule, 1, defensive wars are
imperative to offensive wars are prohibited. Three, the only exception is a holy war, one truly mandated
by God. It should be noted, however, that a holy war is relegates Old Testament engagements and not
relevant for modern times. When a nation attempts to overrun another nation, that nation as interpose
itself over the other nation and is the substitute itself for God in the life of the other nation. This is blast
me on an international scale. Thus, defensive wars are permitted. Under this general rule, though there
are certain elements to be weighed in considering whether such wars are just. The first element is that a
proper authority has been declared by those who have supreme authority. How the people delegated
proper authority to that person or body. The second element is that of just cause. This element
examines what situation has precipitated the declaration of war. Does the war avenge wrong? Where
does the nation refused creature in that which has been improperly seized? The third element, exams
right intention is good, being advanced, is evil being avoided? Is a threat being exaggerate, or is it a ploy
for enlargement? Is the purpose, justice or vengeance? Is the war waged for peace? The fourth element
ask whether the war is of last resort. This question is difficult because war ends the discussion. One
arguable standard might be whether all diplomatic measures to resolve the issue had been exhausted.
In modern example of a biblically just wars practice by US President Ronald Reagan. Without any direct
military engagement. Reagan let the free world an overturning Stalinism in the former Soviet Union. And
with the help of Great Britain, the United States was able to defeat a nation we should put to death
millions upon millions of innocent people in the name of communism. Having say these general
guidelines, what are the guidelines for situation where a nation is called to defend the people of another
nation, whether from external or internal tyranny. The Bible commands individuals and governments to
seek justice for the oppressed. It is not specifically limit that requirement, the people one zone citizenry,
nor does it expressly prohibited nation from defending another nation. Thus, the opportunities left open
for a nation to come to the aid of another nation when Justice calls for it. Now, one of the elements of a
just war satisfied. This becomes especially relevant in the case such as genocide. Accordingly, here are
some important guidelines for such interventions. And provide these guidelines. It should be noted that
they are just that guiding principles. Foreign policy situations are complex and often can be quite
difficult to discern which side is the one that can be trusted to best uphold justice and liberty. Further
working with a nation onetime period often does not guarantee that this nation can always be trusted
as an ally in the long run. Geopolitical circumstances are always changing and nations are always
calculating the best odds of survival. Nevertheless, we believe the fall and principles will at least provide
a loose framework for a deeper understanding of how biblical principles of foreign intervention might be
applicable. First Nation’s government has a God-given duty to protect its citizens. No foreign policy
decisions should ever inhibit that responsibility. In other words, an intervening nation should be careful
to not spread its own defenses so thin that it can’t protect its own people. That being said, there may
also be a defensive strategy and come into the aid of oppressed peoples. Winning the goodwill of a
neighboring country through material gifts for mutual protection is not prohibited in the Bible, so long
as the citizens of the intervene nation are not harmed or made vulnerable to attack. In fact, gain and
maintain allies can be a very strategic way to defend one’s own nation. One and if oppress people,
remember the goodwill of another nation that came to their aid, there’ll be far more inclined to return
the favor in future years. Next and decide to intervene in a nation, there must be a legitimate cause. If
the answer is yes to these questions, there might in fact be illegitimate cause. Is justice truly being
violated? Will a nation’s legitimate national sovereignty violated? Has the oppressor abandoned his civil
social covenant with His people? Relate to the last question is a question about the severity of the
tyranny being perpetuated by the tyrant. The closer it gets to full-blown genocide, the greater the need
to get involved. Secondly, and certainly related the first, the right intention must motivate the decision
for war. The answer must be yes to both questions. Is war waged for peace? Is the threat legitimate or is
an exaggerated as a ploy for enlargement. Third, war must be a last resort. Have all diplomatic measures
been exhausted? Well, this military action truly help the oppressed people, or will it perpetuate or
inflame the situation? Can there be unforeseen secondary, tertiary consequences that would further
harm the oppress people or even make one’s own country vulnerable in any way. Could support be
given another way is to protect the oppressed peoples, such as facilitating evacuation of refugees.
Finally, the question of cost must be considered. An intervention, must never prohibit the intervene
nation for protecting his own people. These guidelines are not provide a rich formula for engagement,
but rather guiding principles. Foreign policy is never easy because it’s hard to fully grasp the numerous
factors that come into play at the international level. This reality alone should drive leadership prayers
that God will guide them in ensuring justice and peace.
A Christian’s Role in World Affairs
Good morning. The topic this morning is looking at the importance of the Christian worldview versus
everybody else. And when you stop and look at it, there really are only two worldviews, that of Christ
and that of the world. And in the Christian perspective, our number one enemy, of course, is Satan and
his enemies on the earth, which are best expressed by the philosophies of Marxism and communism.
And that’s what we’ll be concentrating on this morning in the classic sense, Karl Marx and other
followers of Georgia, Hegel believe that human history booze inevitably through various stages,
continuing pattern. And we’ll use this several times during the presentation of thesis. Antithesis and
synthesis add. One way of looking at that is that the thesis is the current status quo. The antithesis is it’s
direct opposite. And those two words together bring about a synthesis which is the new status quo,
which again, just keeps going on through history. Add a common term. That course that’s eagles,
dialectic. And a common term used when you’re talking about Marxism is dialectical materialism. And
that is a term that was added after Karl Marx. Basically, a dialectical materialism is all historical growth,
change and development results from the struggle of opposites. And that again, isn’t synthesis. Thesis.
Antithesis, synthesis. Primarily the struggle of opposites, the capitalist landowning class, landowning
class and the proletariat, the poor, the peasant. Add those struggles together, bring about a new world
order. Now the Mavs of this dialectical progression are seen as so powerful that really it doesn’t matter
who the particular country leader is. You can’t change things. This will happen naturally. This is the
natural order of think. Marx and Engels started their philosophical train of thought by thinking primarily
in terms of the social and economics and other people followed them, changed. Now, at the current
sense, we can see how the dielectric is still used to control a willfully ignorant population. Matzo by the
unceasing propaganda machine. That is the government meeting the Congress and the executive
administration and its primary lapdogs, that would be the mainstream media and the public education
system. That is the key thought behind George Orwell’s novel 1984, where it is explained to the main
figure that we want power, not for anything else, just for power. We want power because power is
power. And so today we see this brought out in, I think a very open way. You can see this. Getting to this
point. Need to understand that democracy is not what our founding fathers wanted. They wanted to
republic. And a democracy always has to have an enemy. There’s a interview with a Russian general,
Soviet General add an American author. And he made to stay. But we are going to do a terrible thing to
you. We are going to deprive you of your enemy. The basis of that was that a democracy, which is not
what we were founded, requires an enemy to focus the population NADH so that they don’t see what
the government is doing. Now the technique is used, we would call them today. In academic circles, we
call the revolutionaries. The actual word is politician ad. We see them having created economic chaos.
Shortages of food and fuel. Confiscatory taxation. That crisis in education, a threat of war, a real war,
threat of war, and other diversions to condition Americans for the new world order. And that phrase has
been used by several politicians of late, including President George Bush. The technique, as I said, is an
old as philosophy itself add putting back into the dielectric. First step, the thesis. Is to create a problem.
The second step, antithesis, is to generate opposition to the problem. The’re panic hysteria. The third
step is to offer the solution to the problem which you have invented as a government. And it’s a, a
solution that the American people would not have accepted if you had just presented that to them to
begin with. But they propagandize need to believe that this is a real problem. For example, carbon
dioxide, carbon dioxide is not, they pollute. And we’ll see why it was named such because we no longer
has scientist, we have audiologists ad, once you convince the American people that carbon dioxide is a
pollutant, then you could do all kinds of things to increase control, increase spending, increase
everything so that the government gets more and more powerful. Now, the objective is basically to
emasculate sovereign states, merge nations under universal government, centralized economic system
and powers and control the world’s people and resources. And one should remember our current
president statement made on television, that he has a moral obligation. Neuter the United States. Now,
still looking at the larger or the macro picture, we need to clarify some concepts that had been realm
represented by the propaganda machine, which I mentioned earlier. First, there are differences
between a Marxist and a communist. The terms are used interchangeably roadway. So anyone who
claims to be a follower of Karl Marx in any obvious main areas of philosophy is a Marx’s, which usually
beads that you believe in the Marxian economic philosophy of socialism. Now, there’s a distinction
between Marxist and socialists, but we won’t go into that. Talk about the Marxist slash socialist. And this
is nothing more than the belief that the strong, capable, the powerful should support those who are too
weak to support themselves. Now that’s a principle that almost 81 can agree with. We find that is a
Biblical principle. That difference is Karl Marx left out one important player and that’s God. Add, thinking
that this could be done by man. The Communism that emerged in the philosophical battle between
cross-cut linen is considered a perversion by those who consider themselves to be the true followers of
Marx and particularly labeled deal Marxist. Now, Neo Marxism is a new form of Marxism. And it is based
upon the differences between Marx’s pre 840 for writings and his post 840 for writings. Add in the
middle there is the publication of Marx and Engels, The Communist Manifesto. Add the neo-Marxist
want to take the later writings because they don’t seem to be as violent as the first set of writings.
Violet, meaning how much violence is necessary to make the changes its history. And the neo-Marxist or
not traditionalist, they are not concentrating on structures like adjust structures as mentioned so often
in liberation theology, they are more interested in the individual and the individual understanding that
these things have to be, we have to be able to take care of the poor. We have to do all this. Now.
Communism, on the other hand, Most people do not understand the communism. A democracy mean
the exact same thing. We were not created as a democracy. Again, we were created as a constitutional
republic. Constitution, limited government. It does not limit the individuals, it limits government. And
this is being taught in the exact opposite by our current administration. Communism as the political
theory advocating community and ownership of property. What does that mean, government,
ownership of property. Not Karl Marx’s ideal plan. A blue from you started with feudalism. The Czarist
Russia add, said that this will lead to the battles with it that will lead to a new synthesis which is called
capitalist development. That has its warring elements, which leads to socialism. It has his work
elements, which leads finally to the Gilded Age, that community of bad that we call communism. Add a
grasshopper now so be communism believing that government would no longer be necessary, thereby
would do right, because it’s right to do right? If I remember correctly, they tried that before the flood
and it didn’t work. So linen. I was rather power hybrid where the revolution succeeded in Russia. There
are two groups, the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks. Bolsheviks led by Lynn had the Mensheviks by Trotsky.
Petroski says, This is great, We have overcome feudalism. Let’s move to capitalist development so we
can move. And Linus’s law, if we do that, I’ll be too old to see the glories of socialism. And we could do
socialism in one country law. This is contrary to Marxist THE, because the world has to move together
through these stages. Trotsky said not so Linda said, So Casie said not. So they finally buried the hatchet
in the back of Trotsky’s head. Add linen took over. So we have communism or socialism in one country
had Linton said all that’s necessary to do that is to have a party of scientists notice the word that CAN,
that properly understand the blues of history, aka guide us through this. Socialism in one country fall
defending against all the other pressures against those. Well, that party a scientist becomes the
Communist Party. Add, it is ruthless in all of its aspects. So I’ll just bring this down, just a practical
understanding. What is the difference and put a communist government at a Marxist gaba. We’re
probably 40 or more Marxist governments in the world as a boar, there are a few remaining communist
governments, one of which is North Korea. Sub would say China, that China has a strange case. China’s
kinda like the Soviet Union. They are very capitalist. It’s just that in Soviet Union, the state owned all the
capital. In China. They are not quite free market, but they’re much more free market that we are in the
United States. Now the first difference is that the government that allows only one political party, the
Communist Party is a communist government. If there’s more than one, if there is more than one party,
it is not a communist government would be classified as a socialist government are Marxists. The
Marxist government will have several to midi political parties. Add, my favorites are the ones in South
America because everybody there’s little brother has a political party. Perhaps. This government will
have more than one Communist Party, Nadeau, which would be the majority or should they go party?
And a good example is found in Nicaragua. Nicaragua has a multitude of parties. Add three communist
parties. I’ve done the communist parties like the other two ones associated with Korea. One is
associated with Kiba, one is associated with, was associated with the Soviet Union. I’m not sure who
they are backing now, but the three rarely vote as a block. Now, each of those parties has two seats in
the 96 seat National Assembly. Now for government be communist, it has to be dominated by the
carbons. These people are not able to threat, they don’t vote together. Second main difference is that a
communist government is totally opposed to religion. Absolutely opposed to religion. Religion is the
opiate of the masses and all that must be eliminated. The Marxist government may have even Christians
in their administrative, governmental administrative structure, as does Nicaragua. Now, let me wrap this
up with two personal illustrations. What a personal phone call to Alejandro big Dunya, the Foreign
Minister of Nicaragua. Add the second one. Conversations with one of my students or teaching at
another institution. Who was a Marxist Christian from Zimbabwe. I was watching television one night
when watching TED couple it Nightline. And they had Mr. been done yet on as a guest and opposing
guessed we’re Elliott, Abrams and smothers from the Reagan administration. The opposing guest kept
saying to Mr. bit Nadia, you communist in Nicaragua, you communist in Nicaragua, you communist
Nicaragua. Now turned to my family. I says, I gotta talk to that man. And because he never answered
back. So the next day I call Washington, got his phone number. Calling. The phone line was dead. Saw
called back to Washington. This oh, we forgot the Russians put in a new telephone system. Try this one.
So i down the number and a little I’m guessing a teenage girl answers in Spanish. And I said, Ma’am, I
don’t speak Spanish. No, that’s okay. I speak English in a perfect Berkeley accent. And she says, What
can I do for you? That’s what I’m Professor Charles Murphy. I’m working on my dissertation, liberation
theology, and I would like to speak to Mr. Been done yet. I can’t She’s okay. Phone bills, debt. Well, I’ve
dealt with governments all my life, so I’m getting ready to go through 3 second lieutenants, 42 captains.
I go rattled up and finally talked to his assistant rather than to him. As she comes back on the line, it
says, you’re not Charles morph, ABC News as oh, no, ma’am. No relation. Never heard of it. Yeah.
Because ABC News is what does giving of the problem. And so the phone goes dead. In just a few
seconds, a male voice get massages. What can I do for you, Mr. Version as well? I would like to speak to
Mr. Douglas Houston speaking how can I do for you? I look at my watch, 29 seconds to get the foreign
minister of another country or the telephone. Add. So we had quite a bit small talk. I told him I watched
a TED calculus. I have one question and that is, why didn’t you answer them when Elliott Abrams with
these other guys are calling you communist in Nicaragua, you communist Nicaragua. He says, Well, Mr.
Murphy’s, you know, were not communist as we are Marxist but were not communist. Add, we didn’t, I
did answer there because, you know how American television is. If you go to make a point that they
don’t like, they cut to a commercial, that you’re never able to give your viewpoint. So we decided
beforehand that we would not fall for that red baiting trap. Add just would answer the question. Hey, so
now, as you know, is repeated again, we are Marxist government and I said, yes, sir. And did you know
we have three Communist Party, as I said, Yes, sir. They each have two seats in the National Assembly.
He said. So how can we be communist? He says, Furthermore, I have three Christians at my government,
the deck Rogan administration. I said No, sir. You have four phases. Now I have three passions. No, sir.
Way I read it. You have four. He was silent for a couple of seconds at all. I keep forgetting about here is a
You’re right, we have for the government. Now the point is that allowed Christians The gov, but many
political parties, three communist parties, they were not a communist government. The second
illustration is from a student from Zimbabwe. Turns out his father was third administer the government
in Zimbabwe. Add his name was Peter. And in a free-flowing political theory class, I had the students
introduce themselves while they were in the class, whether steady, what they plan to do and all that
business. And about nine to 13 students in the class comes around the Peter and he says My name is
Peter, the jaw and I’m from Zimbabwe. And the class, just like dead silence because they knew my
background CIA and they figured out rather quickly that if he use of Zimbabwe that he has connections
with the KGB, GR year the Soviet Union, which is true. Add also find out that he as a trade terrorist,
trained militants, I guess you would say active parish underground buying and selling weapons and such.
So I asked him to tell the class about the revolution. With the Rhodesia became Rhodesia, Zimbabwe
Rhodesia they became Zimbabwe. He said, Well, the first thing we did as Marxist, we confiscated all the
farmland. That’s okay, I can go over that. Now. What was the second thing is all the second thing. We
confiscated all of the farm equipment and distributed around so that everybody could use it to scrape. I
said, What happened? He said, well that year we had an absolute bumper crop. And I kind of smiled and
I said, Okay, at the end of that growing season, What happened? He said, Well, everybody got paid as
his Peter. How did they get paid? So everybody got paid the same, no matter what they did. As Peter.
What happened next? A pause for mitosis. The second year we did never crop. Because that doesn’t
work. Marx’s main ideas from each according to his ability to each according to his need. I defy you to
try that even in a Christian school, it won’t work because we have a fallen human nature. But the point is
that our number one enemy of the world remains Marxian socialism and communism. Thank you very
much.
Biblical Principles of Civic Duty: Global Politics
Hello, my name is Matthew metallic and I’m a faculty member here at the helm School of Government
at Liberty University. This week we’re going to be looking at biblical principles of government as they
relate to global politics and international affairs. You know, before he ascended into heaven, Jesus gave
his followers a command to make disciples of all nations. From the very beginning of Christianity, we’ve
seen that Christ’s mission for Christians is of global proportions. God cares about what happens in the
world. From the directing the hearts of kings and the mightiest of palaces to caring for orphans in the
poorest slums. God cares about this world and he’s given us a duty to engage it. People often look at the
troubles in this world and the pain that we all face. And they see that it’s because of the absence of God.
If they forget that it’s human depravity, this caused the problems that we see every day. In fact, For God
so loved the world that he came. Jesus has won the victory over sin and death. And now we as those
who follow him or call to be God’s ambassadors in the world to engage every sphere of society. To do
that with the message we’ve been given. And we’re called to think global