A New Enlightenment?

This blog has been silent for quite a while, but the article from NPR, What the World Needs Now is a New Enlightenment, has gotten me fired up enough to write a response.

First, Gleiser's assessment of the goal of Enlightenment philosophers strikes me as a little off. At least I doubt they conceived of it in terms of multinationalism in the way he suggests. Their goal was to promote the use of human reason above other forms of conceptualizing the world, and they assumed that the capacity for human reason was universal. While I agree that the capacity for reason is universal, this assumption carried with it the assumption that Western ideas of reason were the only valid ones, an assumption I would strongly contest.

            Furthermore, I take issue with "the need to create a global civilization with shared moral values". No doubt, by "shared moral values," Gleiser means liberal Western values. Ostensibly, of course, part of this value system is an emphasis on diversity, but if this value system is to trump all others, then it ultimately collapses in on itself in a rubble of hypocrisy. Better to celebrate and allow ourselves to be challenged by the ways in which the moral systems of other cultures conflict with our own. That, I think, will lead to a more healthy understanding of diversity.

            Finally, in celebrating the importance of the Enlightenment and how it was "far removed from traditional religious precepts", he declares that we need a new one based on "humancentrism", summed up by one of his closing statements, "We matter because we are rare." Does not this ironically echo the attestations of those same "traditional religious precepts" that Earth and humanity must be at the center of the universe because man is the peak of God's creation?

Why do I think the Way I do?

 This post is a bit of self-exploration. In the recent election season, I have been thinking a lot about the divergent views of conservatism and liberalism, what lies at the root of each, and what is positive and negative about each. Mostly, though, I've been asking the question of why I have the biases that I do. Ultimately, those biases are much more liberal than they are conservative. However, this is by no means an attempt to convince anyone that my views are correct, it is rather a self-examination, to try to understand why I think the way I do. So without further ado:

I think there are two major issues responsible for my liberal bias. First, the conservative emphasis on free-market economy translates, to me, as encouragement of profit-driven consumerism, which is entirely against Christian values. Related is a general mistrust of of anyone who values business and profit over people. I don't trust someone who inherited his daddy's business to understand what life is like for someone who lives in a trailer park surrounded by drug addicts and child pornographers.

On the other hand, an alternate conservative narrative is that of the hard-working struggler who pulled himself up by his bootstraps, a narrative which I can relate to. However, this narrative seems to have been co-opted by liberal parties.

The second issue that concerns me about consevatism, indeed it angers me, is an implied necessity for cultural homogeneity. Conservatrism seems to be equivalent to middle- and upper-class white values. This, too, is far from Christian values. Biblically, all man and all cultures are equally created in the image of God, and all reflect that image in some way. They are also all equally fallen, which means that middle class white values are not the only legitimate values.

Moreover, and more deeply-seated, such cultural homogeneity is an affront to my sensibilities as an intellectual, writer, poet and generally creative person. Creativity lends itself to questioning, challenging, and sometimes outright defying the status quo, Conservatism violently defends the status quo, it seems.

These two issues, of profit-focused consumerism on the one hand, and fierce demand for cultural and social homogeneity (which means white middle-class values) deeply disturb me, and I believe they are the source of my bias against conservatism.

There are many other reasons, no doubt, but as I realize them, I can explore them further here on this blog. As a preview, though, one thought that has occurred to me recently has been that both conservatism and liberalism are based on fear. The fear goes in opposite directions, but it is the same for both. Conservatives fear abuse and bullying by the government - but they fear this because it hurst the businesses that fill their coffers. Liberals fear the abuse and bullying of big business and other private sector organizations, and look to the government put reigns on these abuses. I think more exploration of this will have to be another post, however.

Christian and Democrat? Republican?

The thoughts expressed below are in response to a facebook post, which linked to Billy Graham's website, here.

I will take this opportunity to say what I really think. There is no doubt whatsoever that the values Graham mentions are the Biblical truth. Life is a precious gift from God, and it is simply unjust to throw away a life that He put on this planet because of someone's bad decision. Biblical marriage is about God's desire for us to live in community with others (marriage being the most intimate community) and about telling the Gospel story through the parallels with the relationship between Christ and the Church. Marriage, between a man and a woman, is very, very good. Although new at it myself, I see more and more every day how awesome and right His design for us not only to marry, but to save ourselves for the one we eventually marry. I have struggled with sexual sin in the past, though I did, ultimately, save myself for my wife. In doing so, I realize more and more how good God's plan to do that is! He knows what He's talking about, because He's the one who designed our innermost being, with all its desires, of which He is ultimately the fulfillment. So yes, marriage between a man and a woman is good and godly in a way that homosexuality is not. I do believe it is a sin, but I think it is important to remember that God has reasons for forbidding something from us, the reason being that ultimately it will not satisfy us at the deepest level, the way He wants us to be satisfied in Him.

However, there are other Biblical values that Graham in this article and most conservative Christians in their politics completely overlook. The prerogative to care for the poor and marginalized in society is clear not only from the example of Jesus' life (he ate with tax-collectors and sinners, prostitutes, and interacted with many other undesirables of society), but also from the Old Testament. Isaiah speaks throughout of the call to "Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow. (Isa. 1:17)" The same idea is repeated in 1:23, 10:2, and even in Jeremiah 7:6, among others. There is, it seems to me, a growing body of young believers who see this and are passionate about actually doing it. They might even vote Democrat to see it happen. I am tempted to go this route myself, but there are some things that concern me.

First, putting our hope in earthly governments is not the answer. Those who tauted Obama as a Messianic figure in 2008 were unquestionably mistaken to do so. But Conservatives seem to have applied just as much of a messianic deification to say, Ronald Reagan. I understand that small federal government is a strong value of conservatives, but they get so impassioned about their candidates and platforms that they often say and do idiotic things because they have abandoned the Biblical value (another one Graham didn't mention, though John Piper does) that this world is not our home. All governments and government officials in this world lie, propagandize, and sacrifice integrity to gain power. That is a problem with partisanship on both sides, but I do fear that liberal evangelical Christians may vote without thinking about the fact that their candidate's words are rhetoric designed to win their vote, which means their promises cannot always be trusted. Republicans do the same thing, but my main point here is the concern that liberal Christians forget this.

The second concern is that conservatives raise a legitimate question: should it be the government's role to "Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow" and all other marginalized groups in society (the homeless, drug addicts, prostitutes, etc.)? I have heard time and again the conservative argument that it most definitely should not - instead it should be the job of churches and charitable organizations, but I can't shake the feeling that this is an excuse to do nothing themselves. Moreover, while government is not the ultimate solution, its powers should certainly, at least in some cases, be levied to address problems of poverty, marginalization, and oppression, but ideally in partnership with churches and charitable organizations. One of the few things I liked about the recent Bush administration was its support of faith-based organizations. That was good, and it was a way for government to be involved and provide some accountability without overpowering those on the ground working for the poor, oppressed, and marginalized.

All this is to say that I believe the only conclusion possible is that there are good, biblical reasons to vote for both parties. It frustrates me that such a term as "the religious right" can exist, at least without a counter "liturgical left" (or maybe something with a much more clever name). I honestly believe that if Christians are following Christ, doing what He would have us do, we will sometimes be on the right, other times on the left in our activism. Neither the right nor the left should be able to absolutely, unambiguously count on the Christian vote. As it is, all evangelicals vote Republican on the basis of only two issues, which might well be solved better by addressing the poverty, oppression, and marginalization that engender them in the first place. Right now, though, all I see is many Christians afraid to do the things that are so clearly Biblical (caring for the poor, oppressed, and marginalized - Isaiah, not to mention Jesus, again). We are afraid of doing these things because they might seem "liberal" and God isn't liberal, no sir. God doesn't give a rat's you-know-what about conservative or liberal, people! He is zealous for His glory and His sheep, many of which He has called and will call from among the ranks of the "undesirables" of society, and we need to be out there reaching them, not sitting in our comfortable pews discussing how Barack Obama or whoever the current Democratic candidate may be is the antichrist (if we must sit in our comfortable pews, at least let it be to hear the word of God being preached and challenging us to get out of those pews and share the love and salvation of Christ with people!)

The point is, again, there are strong, Biblical reasons for voting liberal, and there are strong, Biblical reasons for voting conservative. Regardless of how we choose to vote, though, we should be activists offering the freedom of Christ to, and pleading the cause of, the fatherless and the widow (and the prostitute, and the drug addict, and the homeless, etc, etc) all year round.

The Evolution Debate Continues

I just posted this article on facebook: http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cosmicfingerprints.com%2Fdarwin-half-right%2F&h=wAQCh7YvgAQAJ9m3p7PuT-us9A712R_0d1Zrzzk2GxF2Yjw I've made comments there about it, but there are a couple of counterarguments that occurred to me, which I thought might be better in a blog post. First, the random mutation generator Mr. Marshall links to and cites as evidence that "noise" does not add information to a structure. However, the use of linguistic information as an analogy to evolution is precisely that: an analogy, and by no means a perfect one. The fault in Marshall's generator is that there is nothing that plays the role of natural selection. Nothing that weeds out the harmful mutations. Of course, he would say, as he does later in the article, that such measures are not "natural selection" but "deliberate selection." But again, this is only an analogy, and simply having random mutations with nothing that serves to play the role of natural selection is ultimately not useful, except perhaps to give us a sense of precisely how unusual useful mutations are. But in the real scenario of natural selection there is a sort of "refiner's fire" that gets rid of superfluous or harmful mutations. There is nothing that even serves as a substitute for this process in this generator. Second, Marshall discusses how there is in fact no question that very beautiful, intricate patterns occur with no interference from a mind: sand dunes, snowflakes, etc. However, putting it that way is theologically incorrect. Precisely because God is a sovereign, personal God, Biblical Christianity would argue that He fashions each snowflake, each sand dune, every thunderstorm, the course of every river, and so on. Yes, these are entirely natural occurrences, but it is God who not only wrote the laws that govern the natural forces which produce these magnificent displays of His glory, but He is intimately involved with them (and us) day by day. There is no easy, scientific way to explain how these can be both completely naturally occurring and intimately designed by God, but nevertheless, Biblical Christianity sees no conflict between these positions.

The Forbidden Subjects

Everyone knows you don't talk about politics and religion. But I've never been a big fan for agreeing with what everyone knows, so here's a blog about both.

I've noticed in my post-college years more and more young, evangelical Christians who are NOT, by any means, Republican. In fact, many of them resent the fact that the Republican party, with often very un-Christian actions and views, claims the name and votes of their religion. These young evangelical Christians are less concerned about pro-life and anti-gay marriage stances than about issues of social justice and poverty relief, among others.

I foresee two possibilities for the future of the Republican party as this group grows, both in numbers and age.

1. The Republican party may, within a generation or two, no longer be able to count so strongly on the evangelical vote as more and more of these young evangelicals become politically and socially active.

2. On the other hand, this group consists primarily of young, single or recently married folks. In other words, people who don't have a lot of net worth or family to protect and provide for. It could be that as they develop wealth and families, they begin to fear the loss of these things, and will find themselves voting more in line with the party that claims to protect these things.

What about you? Have you experienced this apparent growth of more liberally minded Evangelical Christians? Are you one of them? Do you think my characterization is fair? What aspects of your faith inform your politics?

Are you a more "traditional" evangelical Christian who votes Republican? What aspects of your faith inform your politics? Do you think my characterization of you is fair?

Why might it be a good thing for more liberally minded evangelicals to increase in number? Why might it be a bad thing? Why might it be a good thing for evangelicals to continue their support of the Republican party? Why might it be a bad thing?

Creating Languages

Every so often, it strikes again - that quiet, persistent urge to exercise what Tolkien called the "Secret Vice". It started, as so many such things do, in the days of my no-social-life-outside-of-school adolescence. I would lock myself in my room and go through page after page of titillating material. I was creating my own language.

Inspired by the example of J.R.R. Tolkien, whose Lord of the Rings trilogy had by then become my favorite novel, and by that exotic, tempting leather-bound copy of Latin Grammar I had found and perused at my great-aunt's, I entered innocently into the world of toying with powerful forces I had yet to understand. But they had begun their work of slow seduction, and it wouldn't be long before I became more machine than man, bent on galactic domination...well, perhaps that's an exaggeration. Nonetheless, I had found my calling.

What impressed me about my first introduction to Latin, from that battered book on my great-aunt's shelf, was that here was a language which expressed perfectly well with suffixes what we had to use often clunky permutations of word order to say. I wondered, could there be still another way to express the relationships between words in a sentence? And while we were at it, what about the sounds of a language? These were the two revelations that provided the basic structure of my language, which I originally called Kirkian, from my middle name, eventually settling on a name from within the language, Paijodd, the "high speech".

I wondered if it were possible to use a completely new and different way of defining the relationships between different words. I made it so by deciding that nouns would have a different form to show whether they were related to other nouns or to verbs. There would be suffixes that could be added to these basic forms to specify the relationships further. In this way, a noun inflected to show relationship to the verb could cover all the basic functions (subject, object, indirect object, etc.), and even take on some adverbial meanings. On the other hand, a noun inflected to show relationship to other nouns could show adjectival meanings, possession, or simply form compound words.

The different forms for these nouns are based on the other part that fascinated me: sounds. I thought it would be neat if consonants with the same place of articulation (like b, p, v, and f, for example) alternated their manners of articulation (that is, b means something different than p) to indicate different meanings or grammatical functions. So that's how it works in Paijodd. Final consonants change to indicate different meanings or relationships.

Fricatives (like v and f), for example, indicate plurals. A voiced consonant (such as b, singular, and v, plural) indicates that the noun is related to the verb, while the remaining two (unvoiced - p and f) consonants indicate that the noun is related to other nouns.

There's one more aspect of sound that fascinated me, though: vowels. I always liked English irregular verbs like run, which changes its vowel in the past tense, to ran, so I wanted something of that in Paijodd. To that end, it is not only final consonants that indicate the noun's relationship to its verb, but the vowels in the final syllable of the word as well. To create rules for this, I arranged the possible vowels in Paijodd into a hierarchy. In noun base forms, the vowel moves down in the hierarchy to indicate relationship to a verb, or stays the same as the base form to indicate relationship to another noun.

To make this all a little bit clearer, let's look at an example. Take the word sabb, which means "war". The two forms would be:

seb- = related to a verb, and
sap- = related to a noun.

seb- shows the vowel e, which is below a in the hierarchy I devised, and the voiced final consonant b. Together these sounds show that this word is related to the verb.

sap- on the other hand, shows the original vowel, a, unchanged from the base form, sabb, and the unvoiced consonant p, which IS changed from the base form, together indicating this word's relationship to other nouns.

To these would be added suffixes making the precise relationship with the other part of speech a little clearer. To round out our example, let's just take the suffix -ía, which has a meaning like with or of. Thus, it can express how someone did something in the verb-related form: Sebía sem eós, "He came with war" (in order to make war or by making war). Further, in the noun-related form, it can show possession: Sapía égg, "the war's end".

I could outline the entire grammar, of course, but this is just a taste of it, and only meant to explain which aspects fascinated me about the prospect of creating a language and why. For me, it was primarily the notion of creating an entirely new and unique way to express the relationships between words in a phrase or sentence, as well as the use of different but related sounds to change the meaning or function of a word. It was these titillating bits of the language-that-could-be that knocked me off of my feet, and kept me locked in my room for hours, afraid that someone might walk in on me any minute!

Why am I a Christian, anyway?

Discussing my thoughts about Dawkins arguments in my last post naturally begs this question. And I would like to share briefly how I became a Christian, and more importantly, what keeps me going, in spite of the obvious challenges that being of a curious, analytical mindset raises.

First, I became a Christian at the age of fourteen, or at least that's when I made it my own, and chose to follow Christ for myself, not just because it was the way I had been raised. I made the decision at a moment of crisis when, confronted with ideas from other religions, I realized I needed to decide what I believed. Although I respected the idea of constant searching for truth from Eastern traditions, I felt that Christianity had the most cohesive argument of any religious system I was familiar with at the time: it explains where we all came from, why things don't seem right in the world, and what the God who created it all has done and is doing about it, and what will become of everything in the end.

Created by a Holy, just God in His image, man sinned and was separated from the creator. Man's sin is so pervasive that he cannot earn forgiveness on His own, because God's holiness and justice cannot be attained by man. Yet God is also loving and merciful, so He sent Christ to die on the cross, thereby satisfying the justice of God, while allowing Him to extend His love and mercy to man. But man must accept it in order to escape the justice of God.

That still makes more sense to me than any other belief system out there. But what really keeps me going in Christ is the growth I've experienced in all the years since, the experience of living the Christian life. Thinking Christianly about world issues, consttantly seeking to grow and learn more, and to deepen my relationship with God through Christ, as well as to take action and actively love people as Christ loves them are all the reasons I still find Christianity to be the most satsifying, freeing, and enjoyable experience of faith.

Response to Dawkins

Dawkins spends a great deal of time early in The God Delusion explaining the concept of NOMA, that is, “non-overlapping magisteria.” This simply means the classic argument that science and religion are two different things, addressing completely different issues. I agree with Dawkins that this is not actually true. The interests of science and religion often overlap and address the same issues, not the least of which being the whole question of how and why we got here in the first place. But Dawkins argument against the NOMA position is simply that religious propositions can and should be testable by science.

He uses the example of an experiment on the effects of prayer, conducted by the Templeton Foundation, which found that there was no measurable difference between patients who were prayed for and those who weren’t – at least if they didn’t know they were being prayed for. The ones who knew they were being prayed for actually did worse, perhaps, Dawkins muses, due to a sort of “performance anxiety”. Dawkins argues that this is one way that a specific claim of religion could be tested, and was. Therefore, he believes, science can be used to prove or disprove religion, or at least certain claims thereof.

But what he fails to understand in criticizing this position is the reason it is invoked by people of faith. He assumes, due to his own bias as an intellectual and a scientist, that NOMA is intended to keep science from messing with the sacred, probably because as soon as it does it will blow it out of the water. So fear, in Dawkins view, is the chief motivation. He is especially cheesed because whenever something comes to light as a result of scientific inquiry that seems to support religious positions, the religious seize on it and trumpet it far and wide in the hopes of proving themselves right.

I see it differently. I think the NOMA position is rather an acknowledgement that there is a fundamentally different and opposite assumption at the basis of each position. Science asserts that human reason is capable of understanding everything (at least eventually), while religion asserts that human reason can’t. Although I have yet to finish the book, Dawkins keeps coming back to this point, and it really is that simple: science emphasizes reason, religion emphasizes faith. I found this thoroughly disappointing. If I wanted such an uncomplicated argument, I could have gone to any fundamentalist church – there’s at least five within walking distance of where I sit this very moment, thanks to my home being in the oh so wonderful South.

You see, ultimately I disagree with the NOMA position precisely because I don’t think it’s true that science and religion never overlap. And in spite of his attempt to say that NOMA is untenable, when we find out the main point of his argument, Dawkins ultimately ends up using it himself, if it can be restated in the way I have restated it: that science trusts in reason and religion trusts in faith. So Dawkins cannot truly undermine the position of faith because he cannot understand it.

He fails to understand it because of all the abuses and failures of religion that he sees. And they are many, nor is he unjustified in pointing them out. He argues that the “God hypothesis” is ultimately no more than an excuse for intellectual laziness, as it encourages people to be content with lack of understanding. This, unfortunately, is true, but it seems to me a horribly un-Christian position to take, for reasons I will explain below. Dawkins also, inevitably, points out the horrors that have been carried out in the name of religion, which, also unfortunately, are many. But again, these are abuses of religion, and by no means endorsed by God.
Rather than taking the NOMA position, I advocate a position of overlapping but distinct magisteria. That is, while science and religion can and should address the same issues, they do so in entirely different ways, and based on entirely different, opposing assumptions, as we have seen. This is a position the religious can more easily take than the scientist, since they have no problem with co-existing but mutually exclusive phenomenon.

Here’s how this point-of-view would work, on a practical level. Christians would pursue the sciences with just as much skepticism and objectivism as the staunchest atheists in the field, even if that means operating under or even endeavoring to prove evolutionary theory. They would do so for the most religious of reasons: bringing glory to God. You see, God gave us our human intellects for the same reason He fashioned the heavens and the earth and administers all the laws thereof: to bring glory to His name. The chief way He does that, and the pinnacle of all creation, its very reason for existence is to bring humanity into relationship with Him. Thus, the intellect exists chiefly for us to contemplate the profound mystery of God. One way we do that is by contemplating His creation, and it is indeed, as Dawkins would argue, lazy and in fact irresponsible for us to say “God did it” and thereby stop asking questions about it. That does not challenge us to grow closer to God, nor to understand Him at a deeper level. It leaves our relationship with Him stagnant, when it ought to be dynamic.

Reflections, Part One: Islam and Christianity

With the inflammatory actions of a small, but vehement local church, I think this topic is vitally important. What is the reality of Islam and the beliefs of its practitioners, and how do they compare to Christianity and the words of the Bible? That's what I hope to answer here.

God

From my year spent in Turkey, one thing I learned about Islam is the very high view they have of God. Part of the argument against God being incarnate in Jesus Christ is that God is too holy, too far above mankind to lower Himself to become one of us. But there is a profound irony in this high view of God, which I will expound upon in the section on salvation. On the topic of Jesus unity with God, the Bible says many things, including the words of Christ Himself:

Jesus says:

John 10:30 “I and the Father are one.”

John 14:9 “He who has seen me has seen the Father.”

And in Paul's epistle to the Phillipians, we read:

2:5-7 “Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though He was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made Himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.”

Prayer

The Muslim conception of prayer is vastly different from the Protestant Christian understanding. It is repetition, and must be done in the same way, every time. When I went to the doctor, I chatted with one of the nurses for a while, who asked if I was a Christian. He said it must be hard for me, since there were no churches in the city, so I couldn't go anywhere to pray. As a Protestant, I have no need to go to a church to pray. I can pray anywhere and everywhere I am, and at any time of the day, not only the five times prescribed by Islam.

More importantly, the nature of prayer for us as Christians is actual communication with God. It is the chance to offer worship and thanks to God, and bring my problems or the concerns of life to Him. And though I have never physically heard Him speak, He does answer our prayers, whether through His word, His people, or His provision for the needs we bring to Him.

For examples of what prayer is, we can look to the prayers of Christ Himself, recorded in all four of the Gospels. Any look at these will show that prayer is an intimate, personal encounter with God. And the entirety of the Psalms, long before the incarnation of Christ, are examples that demonstrate the same thing. David, in the Psalms, was sometimes brutally honest with God, even accusing Him of failing to fulfill His promises. And though we can pray the Psalms or the prayers of Christ, and many of us do, those are not our only options. Prayer is a way of drawing close and growing intimate with God, something it does not do in Islam, if I understand it correctly. But of course, how can one be intimate with a God who is so far above and beyond mankind?


Salvation

Here is where the irony of Islam's high view of God, which I alluded to earlier, comes in. Muslims and Christians actually agree that God is great, and beyond human comprehension, even, if things worked the way they should, beyond human access. And yet Islam maintains that simply performing the actions that God revealed through the Quran – profession of faith, fasting, prayer five times a day, charity, and pilgrimage. But if God is so high and great, beyond human access, how can these simple actions impress Him?

Christians say they can't. For us, even the much more elaborate system of laws laid out in the first five books of the Old Testament are not enough. Even a person who kept every detail of these laws to the letter would still deserve damnation. God is too Holy to be impressed by human actions, no matter how well-intentioned. As Paul writes:

Romans 3: 20 “For by the works of the law no human being will be justified in His sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.”

In fact, he argues that all the laws in the Old Testament do is condemn us the more!

Romans 4:15 “For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression.”

We cannot be saved by following the law, but only by the sacrifice of Jesus. In the same section of Romans, Paul argues that it was not Abraham's following the laws of God, but His faith that made Him righteous.

Romans 4:13 “For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith.

That it is only by faith in Christ is further made clear in Paul's letter to the Ephesians:

Ephesians 2:8-9 “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.”

Islam still seeks salvation through faith. It can be said of every religion (including Christianity at times in the lives of individual believers as well as particular types of it), that religion is humanity's attempt to reach God. But only bible-based Christianity argues that instead, God has come to reach man.

Community

Finally, on the topic of community of believers, my experience with Islam remained sadly silent. Certainly, believers form communities whatever their religion, and the doing of good works necessarily involves community. However, I have seen no evidence that the concept of community is inherent in the faith.

It is in Christianity. Ephesians is again an excellent source to point to in examining the role of the community in Christianity. It is full of metaphors of the body of Christ, and even suggests that Jesus' work of salvation was meant to draw us into a community. I think it is clear from the Bible that God's plan of salvation from the beginning of time was to save a people for Himself – in other words, to redeem a community of believers in Him. Jesus summed up the commands of God from the Old Testament in just two:

Matthew 22: 37 “And He said to them, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets.”

I think Islam would have no problem at all with the first one, given their appropriately high view of God. And though they would likely not say the second one is wrong, I know of nothing in their own writings that compares. It seems that, for a Muslim, the most important thing is one's own relationship with God.

But Christianity was never meant to be experienced alone. The work of salvation itself is a community affair.

So, there are similarities in the two religions, particularly in the understanding of how great our God is. But really, I have to argue that Christianity has an even higher view of God's greatness: if only the work of God Himself (incarnate in Christ Jesus) is enough to earn God's favor, while all works of man are “like filthy rags” (Isaiah 64:6), Christians seem to believe that God is even higher and more beyond the access of humanity than Muslims. This only makes the access purchased through Jesus' blood the sweeter and more intimate, allowing prayer to be so much more than mere repetition. And it is an integral part of the Christian experience that we live in a community of believers. That is in fact the purpose of attending church. Not to recite meaningless prayers, nor even to experience the intimate prayer that only Jesus' death and resurrection permit to us. The church is where we go to connect to God through His people. We do that in part through prayer, yes, but also through collective worship, reading of the word, and just plain and simple fellowship – just hanging out with people who are as close as brothers and sisters because of our shared experience with the transforming power of Christ.

This is a fairly good summation of what I have learned from a face to face encounter with Islam. Feel free to comment, and especially is I've gotten something wrong, please correct me!

Top Ten Things I Will Miss About Turkey

10. Baklava
9. Music: Bağlama and guitar duos in every Teahouse.
8. The Bazaar

7. Buying dried apricots and figs from street vendors
6. The food!
5. The dancing

4. Çay
3. Travelling: Ancient, Classical, Byzantine and Ottoman ruins all over the place!
2. The language.

1. İnsanlar: My friends, co-workers, Ahmet the taxi driver, Ramazan and Suleyman the shopkeepers at the market, Mustafa one of their sons, and all the random people who come up to you to practice the six words of English they know!

One Last Trip

This past weekend I went with two of my co-workers to Mersin - or rather, Kız Kalesi, to be precise, a town near Mersin, named for the amazing castle floating out in the middle of the ocean a few yards from shore. The trip was amazing, and the timing of it couldn’t have been better, at two weeks before I leave the country. And I enjoyed the company of my friends Duygu and Selda.

We left at 1 AM Saturday morning, switched buses in Mersin, and arrived at about 7:00 AM I think. We slept until about 10, after the late night travel session, then spent the entire day at the beach. It was scorchingly hot and I got burned pretty bad, but it was sooooo relaxing and the water was the perfect temperature. I enjoyed the uniquely Turkish institutions of selling simit (a fresh baked roll of bread formed in a circle) as well as tea and coffee on the beach. The guys walk around with trays of simit or canteens of hot water with tea and instant coffee mix, which you can buy for about a lira each. Only in Turkey!

After dinner, we watched some of the world cup match that evening (Paraguay vs. Spain, Spain won), with the intention to go back out afterwards, but during the match, we all just fell asleep. We did get a chance to walk around in the evening before that, however, which was nice, but nothing out of the ordinary or notable happened. We did stop to buy magnets featuring aerial pictures of the castle, though.

On Sunday, along with one of the Zirve University staff folks, the head of security, in fact, who was also in town, joined us for a day long boat tour. This provided great views of the castle, swimming in coves, and a rather lively dance party on the boat. There was one cove in particular that had an awesome underwater cave on the other side of some overhanging rocks. You duck your head under and swim forward a few feet, and when you come back up for air, you’re inside an awesome cave, with the light from outside coming through an opening in the rock wall and bouncing off the water to reflect on the other walls. After that, we went back to our hotel, got showers, and met up with the security man, who gave us a ride home. On the way, we dropped off another passenger, who lived in Karamanmaraş, a city famous for its ice cream, which, in spite of it being after midnight, we made sure to sample. We arrived back in Gaziantep the same hour we had left - 1 AM.

Taking this trip at this time proved more perfect than I could have realized (especially since I had originally wanted to go two weeks earlier). But I’m now in my last two weeks in Turkey, finishing class this week with exams next week. And due to this trip, instead of thinking about all the negative things and the problems we’ve had with the administration’s decisions, the cultural differences in running a university, and the mundane grind of working every day, I’m thinking about the good things about this country: the amazing places like Kız Kalesi, the amazing people like Duygu, Selda, and Hacer Bey, and the memories I have of all the trips I’ve been able to take since being here. And that is a great attitude to have while finishing up. It’s even got me thinking that I have to come back to visit - but I don’t want to ever work here again, if I can help it!

Swimming Between the Sexes

Sunday, we went to a swimming pool just a short drive by taxi outside of town. It was a lot of fun, and much needed. Being able to immerse oneself in water makes everything so much better. But here, too, cultural differences abound.

In the first place, there were two distinct sections: a men’s section and a family section, which meant women and children could be there. We wanted the family section, which was a little bit more well-kept, and one of us was married with his wife, so we boldly strode forward into the family section. After a brief row with a security guard, who saw five men and one woman and didn’t like it, a local man came to our rescue and argued that we would not cause a problem, and that he should let us stay. So we did.

However, the male members of our group did make a few forays onto the other side, where we were stared at, asked to play basketball with, and more than a little discomfited by the absence of even a single female member of the species. However, the men’s side had all the best waterslides.

During the course of the day one topic of conversation that came up was how the reasoning behind such separation hinges on a supposedly Koranic teaching that men can’t control themselves, which is why women here are encouraged to wear full headscarfs and trenchcoats in 100-degree weather. If that’s the case, then why do these out-of-control men get all the privileges and status in society? It is, as our female companion put it, “rewarding bad behavior.”

If, as men, we are so incapable of controlling ourselves, why don’t you lock us away in the kitchen and home all day and let the more level-headed women deal with the business of life outside the home? The logic makes no sense to me. I say men sure are responsible for their behavior, and the heavier the consequences for behaving irresponsibly, the better!

Women ought to be treated with respect and dignity, in spite of whatever male urges we might have. Making them over up to the point of discomfort only hides the problem, it doesn’t deal with it. Only the heart-changing power of the Gospel can work to break the problem, and even then, it often takes quite a long time, as I can attest personally.

Getting Lost and Losing Money

Last Tuesday I went to Zirve’s business school, where I have been teaching Spanish to a woman in the export - import business. Usually there is a taxi for the people going home that the school pays for. However, there were so many people that particular night that we couldn’t all fit in the taxi. So, the alternative was to catch a ride home with a couple of the students, however, through a miscommunication and my lesson running a bit late, the students left with one other teacher, and without me.

The director apologized and gave me money for bus fare, which was a good thing, because I was quite thoroughly broke. So I waited and waited for the bus, but those going my way are rather infrequent from the nearest stop. The only one I saw that I thought would go that way was for Karataş, an area not too far from where I live - or so I thought! I took it, and after weaving its way through many parts of the city I didn’t know, I decided to ask someone.

“Üniversite çok uzak” were the oh-so-encouraging words I heard. “The University is very far.” Yikes! So, after a consultation that seemed to involve everyone on the dolmuş - that is, the small, tightly packed buses that travel just a bit faster than the larger public ones - they suggested I get off at a certain stop where I can then catch a bus going towards University. That is, I could catch a bus, if I weren’t so broke that I didn’t even have enough to cover bus fare!

So I walked. It was a bit of a hike, but not so far as I had feared, and after a block of walking in the direction the folks on the bus had pointed out, I found myself in familiar surroundings. By then, I was able to judge about how far I was, because I knew the area. It wasn’t close, but it could have been a lot worse.

The next day was even more frustrating. Because of not having any money, I was trying desperately to find ways of accessing the money in my American account. I have forgotten my PIN number because I haven’t used the card since I’ve been here. I realized I might be able to send money to myself through Western Union - I might get charged a fee, but that would be better than starving! So I tried it.

I left work early to send some mail, go to the Western Union at the bank, and go to the doctor. The doctor and the post office went off without a hitch, but getting my money didn’t happen. I sent $100 to myself, which was more than I really needed, but sending less didn’t seem worth it. I went to the bank and it turned out that I needed the number I hadn’t written down. So I came back home, got the number, and went back. Once I had the number, it turned out they couldn’t give me money because my middle name is on my passport, which I was using to verify my identity, and it wasn’t on the information about who would pick it up! So I tried to correct the problem by resending it, with the intent to call customer service and work out the details later. Resending resulted in a separate transaction, and did not allow me to add my middle name to the pick up details. So now I was out $200, and couldn’t pick it up.

So of course I called customer service, but they naturally suspected some kind of fraud and were evasive in answering my questions. Moreover, the only way I could make any changes to the transaction would be for them to call the phone number that they have on file, and speak to me. The phone number they have on file is my Mom’s number back home, where I’m obviously not! So they couldn’t add my middle name to allow me to pick it up, or cancel it without speaking to me at that number!

And now there is $200 sitting in Western Union with no possibility of being picked up. Quite frustrating, really, and nothing I can do about it, it seems.

Monday, I felt like my ear was a little swollen, so I decided to go to the doctor after work. And boy, was it an adventure!

I went to the Gaziantep University hospital, asked the information desk where to go for an ear problem, and was pointed to the ENT on the fourth floor. The ENT (or KBB, for Kulak, Burun, Boğaz) office secretary actually spoke pretty good English, but not well enough that there weren't problems communicating.

I will give the rest of the story from the Skype conversation I had with my girlfriend, copy/pasted below:

[17.05.2010 18:18:25] Jeremy Graves: then at one point, while I waited for an hour and a half, a lady from the public relations office came by, and he told her about me, and she hung around helping translate what the other guy couldn't say

[17.05.2010 18:18:41] Jeremy Graves: even though I'd figured most of it out by context

[17.05.2010 18:19:07] Jeremy Graves: oh, and I was waiting BEHIND THE SECRETARY'S desk this whole time!

[17.05.2010 18:19:17] Jeremy Graves: because that's where they invited me to sit

[17.05.2010 18:19:35] Jeremy Graves: then the secretary took me to the staff lounge or something for tea

[17.05.2010 18:19:41] Jeremy Graves: we chatted for a bit there

[17.05.2010 18:20:19] Jeremy Graves: then I finally saw the doctor, confirmed that it was an ear infection, got cleaned and vaccuumed out, and a prescription

[17.05.2010 18:21:01] Jeremy Graves: had to come back home, sort through old e-mails to find the number to give them for insurance

[17.05.2010 18:22:02] Jeremy Graves: went back, dealt with the PR lady again to get that worked out - it wasn't working (I guess from context), she apparently called Zirve, got it worked out

[17.05.2010 18:22:35] Jeremy Graves: then we wait for the secretary (his name was Mehmet), to physically walk me to the pharmacy across the street so I can get my meds

[17.05.2010 18:23:05] Jeremy Graves: only to find out the internet isn't working so they couldn't work out payment with insurance and I have to go tomorrow

Mehmet invites me for tea again, and I thought, what the heck, so I joined him for a while, he practiced his English and then he had to get back to work and I came home

But the story doesn't end there, actually. I went back to the pharmacy the next day, taking a taxi from work since there were no buses in the middle of the day because there were no students (exams had been finished that morning). The taxi driver who we've all used frequently invited me for tea, and at first I protested, but again decided "Why not?" and agreed. So he drives me to the pharmacy, waits for me while I try to get my meds. I was waiting for a long time, uncertain what was happening, when finally Ahmet, the driver, comes in to see what the problem is. He finds out the internet is down again, and finally convinces the pharmacy tech to take down my information and a telephone number (I gave them Zirve's, since I don't have a cell phone here, and am not going to get one with only eight weeks left), so that they could process these things later. Then we went and had tea.

And as always, a seemingly simple task turned into a huge ordeal. But that's part of the fun of living in a foreign country. And because of that, I didn't feel stressed or upset, just amused.

Untold Tales of Antep 1

Today on the way to my one-on-one tutoring session, I wanted a bottle of water, so before going into the office where I tutor, I stopped at the coffee shop below it, thinking it’s a coffee shop, surely they have water. But it turned out I was wrong. I asked for water, and the gentleman got up, walked out, and returned a minute or two later with a bottle of water from a store a yard or two down. I could have done that, of course! Wouldn’t it have been easier to tell me to go a couple of doors down? Not that I would have understood that if it were said in Turkish, of course...

The reason this falls into the untold category, since it only happened today, is that this isn’t the first time something like this has happened. Once, we were at a little restaurant, which claimed to be an Italian restaurant, but, as we found out, didn’t have a chef. They only had pizza and drinks available - although I use the term loosely. Because when we all ordered pizzas, one of the workers walked across the street to the market, bought the ingredients, and a full hour later we finally had our pizzas. The wait was long enough that one of our number left.

So why do these kinds of things happen? Well, it’s a hospitality culture. There’s an obligation to accomodate, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing. The problem comes in when it’s applied and when it isn’t. My employer has accommodated me in many ways - gave me housing, helped me out quite a bit in my first few days. But there have still been lots of problems, lots of ways in which they have been most unaccommodating, some of which I’ve mentioned before. So this accommodation culture that demands a shopkeeper must serve you tea while you survey his wares can seem to be selectively applied.

Adventures in Travel

On Sunday, I returned from The Turkish Republic of North Cyprus (which is its own country, dangit, no matter what the rest of the world says!). I have every intention of writing a blog about that entire trip, but tonight I want to tell you about the most adventurous part - coming back home. But first, a little backstory.

We (that is, Martha, Judy and I) booked plane tickets and hotels back in February. But a couple of weeks later, our flight out was cancelled. No big deal. We rescheduled for last Wednesday night. Thursday was a test day, so we figured we’ll get colleagues to cover our classes, nothing doing. Then a couple of weeks later, our flight BACK was cancelled. Well, we could either fly back Sunday on a different airline and return to a different city, or wait until Monday. Since we were already taking Wednesday off, we thought it would be very bad to take any more days off. So our return plan was to fly to Antakya and take a bus from there back to Gaziantep.

Fast forward to the trip and its end this past Sunday. We stopped into the Anglican church for their communion service. It was a great treat to go to church in English. Then we walked to the bus stop where we caught our bus to the airport. Then we took the short flight across the Mediterranean to the mainland. In Antakya, we endured the chaotic mesh of people pressing and shoving to get back onto Turkish soil.

And then the adventure began. We hadn’t really had a clear plan, other than catching the bus to Gaziantep. From my Easter trip, I knew that there were actually two bus stations - the first, more popular one, was the eski otogar (old bus station), where you could get the small, crowded, stuffy buses that are pretty uncomfortable for a four hour drive. Besides that, they stop EVERYWHERE to pick up anyone who flags them down. Then there’s the yeni otogar (new bus station), where you can get the more comfortable, large buses that don’t stop as much and actually enforce limited seating. So we wanted the yeni otogar.

We took the Havaş, the airport shuttle, towards town and stopped it at the yeni otogar. But there, we found out the next bus to Gaziantep was already booked, and there wouldn’t be another until 4:00 PM. It was only about 1:00 at the time. So that was no good. We then got another taxi to the eski otogar. But on the way, the taxi driver saw a bus headed for Antep, and flagged it down and let us get out and onto the bus.

This one wasn’t so small, but it did stop everywhere and pick up anyone who flagged it down. It took us about a half to three quarters of the way, then stopped and all the people bound for Gaziantep had to get off and get on yet another bus! This one was smaller, more crowded, and stopped even more times to pick up anyone who flagged it down, even if there was clearly no more room! They even put out little plastic stools in between the rows of seats! Cramped and uncomfortable as it was, we did make it home, eventually.

But if that wasn’t enough, just tonight I had another adventure in travel. Since I had to cancel the private Spanish lesson I’ve picked up on Saturdays because of my trip to Cyprus, I planned on doing a make up lesson tonight. I had to catch one of the student buses from work to the Grand Hotel, which is near the office for the continuing education program, where I give these lessons.

As I was walking to the buses, I saw three of them taking off! I thought, Oh no! but maybe it wasn’t a big deal. Maybe one of the ones that was still there was the one I needed. I asked the first driver I came across “Grand Otel?” and he pointed forward - to the bus that was already gone. As a look of dismay creased both of our foreheads, he suddenly brightened and waved me onto his bus. Through gestures, he made it plain that he intended to catch up to the other bus and stop it so that I could get on.

And he did. But he didn’t catch up to it in the Zirve University driveway. And he didn’t catch up to it on the main road just outside of ZU. He caught up to it at the roundabout on the road into town, which was a horrible place to stop, but the other driver finally pulled off to the side of the road just beyond the roundabout. Then I got out and mounted the other bus, after making sure that he was, indeed, going to the Grand Otel.

When I finally arrived, and waited for my student...and waited...and waited...the director at ZUCEP called her only to find out that she was flying to Egypt that night and would be gone for three or four days. So after all my crazy adventure in getting to the place, my student didn’t even show up! I wasn’t particularly angry or upset at the situation, just highly amused. All in all, it was just another day in Turkey.

Shipping and Handling

I thought I would take a moment today to explain how shipping a package from here works. Granted, I’ve only tried it twice, but it’s rather inconvenient. Some of my fellow teachers have had the full experience.

When we arrived, we were told we could have mail sent to Zirve, which it turns out is the best option. I’ve received several packages from back home there. Otherwise, in order to pick up a package sent to your home address, you have to travel way across town, almost in the middle of nowhere to pick up a package at the post office. To send a package, there’s another option that isn’t so far away, but is still most inconvenient from the side of town I live on. I live on the Southwestern outskirts of Gaziantep, just before the shops and apartment buildings become empty land and villages. The nearest post office is in the city center, downtown, a twenty or thirty minute bus ride at best, followed by a bit of a walk. And when you’re carrying a package to deliver, it doesn’t make for easy hauling.

The first time I sent a package was at the very, very far away post office, the same time a colleague was picking up hers. And the package still hasn’t arrived, I’m told. Perhaps it got held up in customs, since it was pictures of Christina’s and my trip in January on CD. I guess the customs folks worried that it might be Al Qaida training videos or something...anyway, it never got there.

The second time was just this past week. I planned to send a package from the downtown office, but it turned out that wasn’t necessary. I bought a birthday gift for Christina, but needed a box to ship it in, and wasn’t sure if I could get them from the post office. I asked at my local market, and they told me to bring the package there, and they would help me. I figured they just meant they would find a suitable box. Well, as it turned out, they took care of mailing it for me. The next day, when I went back, they asked me for the cost of shipping and gave me the receipt. This is, of course, a much more convenient way of handling the matter. I don’t know if it will be any more successful at making it through customs, but we’ll find out in a few weeks, I hope!

Easter in Antioch

We left Saturday morning; there were six of us. Four Americans including me, and two Turks - a fellow teacher and her mom. Only two of us were Believers, as far as I know.

Saturday wasn't all that important to me, since I'd been to the city before, although I did hit up the museum again. But it was Sunday that I had been looking forward to, and it was worth it! We went to St. Peter's church, a cave where early Christians met and Peter is supposed to have preached. After exploring a bit, we sat outside of the cave and read the Easter story. Tears came to my eyes reading about our risen Lord in the place where his followers were first called Christians. Then, later, we went to the Protestant church in Antioch, and again, I was moved to tears just being in a room so full of other Christians! You can't imagine how much being here wears on you - it was so refreshing to be with so many other Believers!

Turkish Language

Here are some Bible verses in Turkish. I'll write them in Turkish, then with interlinear translation. For the full translation, go read your copy of the Good Book!

Genesis 1:1 Başlangıçta Tanrı göğü ve yeri yarattı.

Başlangıç -ta Tanrı göğ -ü ve yer -i yarat -tı.

beginning-in God heaven - obj. and earth-obj. create -past

John 3:16a Çünkü Tanrı dünyayı o kadar çok sevdi ki, biricik Oğlunu verdi.

Çünkü Tanrı dünya -yı o kadar çok sev -di ki, biricik Oğlu -nu ver -di.

because God world-obj. that much very love-past rel. only son -his give -past

A word of explanation for the abbreviations and labels in the interlinear text:

obj. = direct object of a verb

past = past tense of a verb

rel. = relative pronoun, "that" in a phrase like "The dog that he bought"

And that's it for now, folks! See you next time!

Tea with Shepherds

After lunch today, I was heading back to the office when I saw Judy and Devon on their way out.

“We’re going for a walk up the hill, wanna come?”

Of course I did. So I joined them for the walk up the hill that runs beside the one currently operational building on campus, till Zirve’s property ends. The border is marked by a rather imposing barb-wire fence, as if it were a prison, or a military base. On the other side of the fence, however, is idyllic pasture perfect for herds of sheep and goats to graze on. And that’s exactly what was happening.

We could see to our left one shepherd with his flock, tending them in the distance. Eventually, they came closer, and another shepherd with another flock arrived suddenly from the right. It was fascinating watching scores of sheep pour over the ridge not far from us, but which had blocked our view of their approach until now. As the shepherd approached, riding a donkey while talking on his cell phone, we saw a perfect photo opp.

Now the sheep were very near us, in fact directly on the opposite side of the fence a little to our right. So we went over, and while we were ooh-ing and aah-ing over the sheep, the shepherds started trying to talk to us. Turns out one of them spoke a little bit of English.

“Where are you from? What is your name?” he asked, and we answered, one by one.

We were discussing the freedom these shepherds must feel with their simple life and contrasting it with ours. The sheep surely can’t be as hard to deal with as a bunch of hormonal 18-25 year olds, right? These guys don’t have to worry about staying all day at work even if there’s nothing to do. And so on.

The shepherds would occasionally call their sheep with bizarre whoops and hollers, and I started thinking about John 10 in a whole new way.

Suddenly, “Çay istiyor musunuz?”

“Is he offering us tea?”

“I think so...”

“Okay,” we told him.

They start gathering the dead brushweed lying around. “Are they going to start a fire and brew it up right here?”

Turns out that’s exactly what they were going to do. They lit a fire with the dead stuff, pulled out a very old, very black teapot, and put it directly on top of the burning weeds. A few moments later, one of the men pulled out a glass - glass! - tea cup, and poured a small amount into the glass, then poured it out again - to sterilize the glass. He did this one more time, then handed me the glass, and proffered a jug of sugar with the small, silver teaspoons common to Turkey. He poured tea into the glass and I took a couple of spoonfuls of sugar.

It looked like there was only the one glass, so I started sharing it with Judy and Devon. As it turned out there was one more, so we were sharing two glasses between us.

“I think this is the best çay I’ve ever had,” Judy said. We all quickly agreed. “Maybe we should do this every day.” We all quickly agreed. And once again, Turkey proved to have bizarre, pleasant adventures in store where you least expect them.