Great workmanship in Tanzania

We recently returned from two and a half weeks away, mainly in Tanzania. For some of that time we stayed in a village called Mande, near Moshi, on the lower slopes of Mt Kilimanjaro. We were hosted by the parents of a friend of my husband, who couldn't stop telling us how much they liked having our company. They were great hosts, with a welcoming and open attitude and wonderfully hearty Tanzanian home cooking.

The famous Mount Kilimanjaro

It was a very peaceful place compared to busy, traffic-filled Kampala - except when all the village roosters were crowing in canon (which could start as early as 3am!), or when the pigs could see their food being prepared and started making excited and impatient grunting noises, or when some of the village ladies gathered in the front room of the house to sing hymns before studying the Bible together. Not all noise is unwelcome! One day they were singing 'How Great Thou Art' in Swahili and I went and joined in in English, which was wonderful.

As I stood outside one evening looking up at the black night sky with its brilliant stars, the first verse of that hymn (see below) immediately came to mind. God's workmanship is truly magnificent! We saw so much of the variety of creation as we travelled around - flat, dry plains dotted with small villages of mud huts; lush tropical forests with red fertile soil; rocky outcrops scattered over the landscape; looming mountains; rolling hills... We also had the opportunity to take a three-day safari to some of the nearby parks and we saw such a variety of creatures for the first time. Again, this reminded us of the grandeur of what God made with a word and to which he gave life and breath and everything.

One of many brilliantly coloured lizards we saw in Dodoma.

O Lord my God, when I in awesome wonder

Consider all the works thy hand hath made;

I see the stars, I hear the might thunder,

Thy power throughout the universe displayed:

Then sings my soul, my Saviour Lord, to Thee:

How great Thou art, how great Thou art!

Then sings my soul, my Saviour Lord, to Thee:

How great Thou art, how great Thou art!

Book Review: The Language of God (Francis Collins)

A few months ago I wrote that I had started reading Francis Collins’ book 'The Language of God’. I have now finished it! That took a bit longer than anticipated... So I thought I’d write a review of it, having also given a verbal review of it at training this week.

As I said in my earlier post, and as you can learn from the book’s blurb and Wikipedia, Francis Collins is trained as a physician and geneticist, and was head of the Human Genome Project which did some real ground-breaking work in the late nineties and ended up presenting the world with a complete ‘map’ of the human genome. He is now Director of the National Institutes of Health in the USA, having been appointed by Obama in 2009.

Although it’s called ‘The Language of God: A scientist presents evidence for belief’ it’s not really about trying to prove God with scientific evidence, which can’t ever be done as far as we know. The title is a bit of a misnomer in that respect. What Collins is trying to do is explain why he believes in God and why, for him, being a scientist does not present an obstacle to faith in God. It’s an argument about the compatibility of science and faith more than an argument for faith.

The book is set out in three parts: the first section is about the perceived chasm between science and faith; the second section is about questions of human existence and Collins’ findings from the human genome project and related investigations; and the third section is on the relationship between faith and science in the past, and the options for now, highlighting that even if people insist on choosing between science and God, they are still putting faith in one or the other.

I enjoyed the way the author shared his life story (as I mentioned in my earlier post), and the way he systematically explained his scientific observations and reasons for his beliefs about God and about the world. I found it clearly written and strategically crafted, and the scientific explanations (e.g. how human DNA works) were accessible but not patronising. The crafting of the book intrigued me because, for most of the book, there is no mention of Jesus; I wondered all along “so he believes in God, but what does he think of Jesus?”. That made me quite wary of his argument, not being very sure about where he stood in relation to Jesus. It’s only at the very end of the book, when he has made a very compelling argument for his beliefs, that he finally shares his testimony about how he came to realise that Jesus was Lord, and decided to follow him.

There were several ideas and debates that I thought were set out in a helpful way, for example different world views and objections to religion, and questions about human existence. There was also an interesting discussion of historical changes in the relationship between science and faith especially in relation to discoveries that we now take for granted (e.g. the earth revolves around the sun, not the other way around - a theory which brought Copernicus, its first advocate, strong criticism, and saw Galileo, a firm supporter, tried by the Roman Inquisition and put under house arrest until his death!). I also found the appendix on bioethics a very worthwhile inclusion, as it was generally well reasoned and sensible about issues that tend to be over-sensationalised in the public arena.

I did have a few reservations about the book, though. I’m not completely sold on Collins’ ideas about theistic evolution, and need to do some more investigation before I can come to my own conclusions. But I appreciate his strength of conviction and the reasoning he has gone through to get to his ‘BioLogos’ perspective on the way the organisms of the world came to be the way they are now. He is fairly critical of creationism and intelligent design, however, which has no doubt alienated a lot of Christians who identify strongly with those perspectives. I also thought that leaving his testimony right to the very end, while strategic in one sense, may mean that many readers never read it if they abandon the book part-way through (for whatever reason), and that would be a shame.

I would say it’s a worthwhile read for non-believers who are interested in reading a scientist’s testimony of their faith, as they get the science and the faith reasoned out together. It’s also a good place to go for people wanting to form a view on the evolution/creation debate - but just as one perspective. One would need to read other perspectives also, and make an informed comparison. I’ve been recommended ‘Unnatural Enemies’ by Kirsten Birkett, although this one is also from a Christian perspective.

The journey continues...

The Language of God

I had some days off sick this week, which gave me the opportunity to do a bit of long-awaited leisure reading. So I started reading 'The Language of God' (2006, Free Press), which I found amongst the small collection of books my husband already owned before I moved in with my several extra bookshelves worth!

I was initially attracted by the title, as you can imagine - but it's not really about 'language' of the kind that I study. It's written by Dr Francis Collins, who is the head of the Human Genome Project, and the title is taken from US President Bill Clinton's speech at the official public launch of the findings of the Human Genome Project, the human DNA sequence, in 2000. Clinton said: "Today we are learning the language in which God created life. We are gaining ever more awe for the complexity, the beauty, and the wonder of God's most divine and sacred gift." (see full transcript here).

Collins' aim in the book is to dispel the notion that a rigorous science precludes serious belief in a transcendent God "by arguing that belief in God can be an entirely rational choice, and that the principles of faith are, in fact, complementary with the principles of science" (p.3). As part of this, he gives his own testimony as a scientist with a firm faith in God.

I haven't finished reading it yet (only up to chapter 3) but I have thoroughly enjoyed reading the first two chapters. In the first chapter, Collins shares the story of his interesting childhood, his growing thirst for scientific knowledge, his studies in chemistry and then medicine, and ultimately, sparked by the simple question of a dying woman, his discovery of a God who is there, and who takes a personal interest in human beings.

He also shares some of the trains of thought he went through during this time of discovery, inspired by the writings of C.S. Lewis, another academic who had taken a very similar path from atheism to faith. These included the perplexing fact that "the concept of right and wrong appears to be universal among all the members of the human species" and that "this law appears to apply peculiarly to human beings" (p.23). I was encouraged and excited to read his reflections on the differences between humans and animals on this point, as this is an issue that has been on my mind, as seen in last week's blog post. I was glad to find some support for my ideas from a more knowledgeable source. It's nice to know I might be thinking on the right track!

Humans and animals

I've been saying in other blog posts that humans are created in God's image (Genesis 1:26-27) and are communicative and relational. But we can also observe communication and relationship in some, if not all, animal species. The Genesis account makes it clear that animals are not created in God's image. So what is the difference between the kind of communication and relationships that humans and animals have? What is it about human communication and relationships that is special and particularly reflects our status as God's image-bearers?

I think it's love. When I think about what we see as relationships between animals, they are really utilitarian, rather than characterised by love. Animals enter into relationships with other animals mainly for procreation (only for very few is this an exclusive relationship) and for cooperation related to food sourcing etc. But the procreating kind of relationship is driven by hormones and instinct rather than love. While hormones and instincts are also involved in human relationships, humans are also able to override their hormones and instincts when necessary for the sake of another person. As far as I know, animals do not have the option of exercising self-control for the sake of another. As far as I know, they do not make choices which sacrifice their own desires for the sake of another, to put the other first. To do that would seem to go against the 'survival of the fittest' principle.

Humans' ability to have loving relationships that display conscious, deliberate self-sacrifice seems to me to be a direct reflection of God's relational character. God's deep love is supremely demonstrated in the way God the Father sent his only Son to die as a sacrifice for the sake of those he loved (see John 3:16 and 1 John 4:9-10), and the way God the Son willingly sacrificed himself for the glory and honour of his Father, because he loved his Father and wanted to obey him (see Luke 22:41-42).

I speak, therefore I think, therefore I am?

Recently I became aware of the work of Walker Percy (1916-1990), an American writer who had an interest in human behaviour, in particular the peculiar ability of humans to use language. He wrote a number of novels between the 1961 and 1987, one of which I’ve read – The Thanatos Syndrome (1987), which is an interesting but at times disturbing read – and a few non-fiction ruminations on humankind, language, and the like, including one I am reading now. The one I’m reading now has the rather long and intriguing title: The Message in the Bottle: How Queer Man Is, How Queer Language Is, and What One Has to Do with the Other (1975).

I came across Walker Percy by accident. I had been searching for papers about language and consciousness, and one of the ones that came up was an old (1993) but interesting article in the journal Language and Communication by Laura Mooneyham, who compared and contrasted the ideas of Percy and a psychologist of the same period, Julian Jaynes.

Like much of the biographical information I’ve seen about Percy (e.g. the entry on Wikipedia as a start), Mooneyham draws attention to Percy’s Catholicism, crediting this as a major influence on his ideas about humans and their unique capability for language and higher order consciousness (incorporating self-awareness and the ability to communicate with others through symbols). His search for a metaphysical explanation of events (that is, explaining phenomena from first principles, which include time, substance and existence) is contrasted with Jaynes’ materialistic explanation (that is, explaining phenomena only as the result of interactions of physical matter). Percy's dissatisfaction with such materialistic explanations is nicely captured in a question he poses (one of many presented one after the other over several pages!) in the opening chapter of The Message in the Bottle:

“Why is it that scientists know a good deal about what it is to be an organism in an environment but very little about what it is to be a creature who names things and utters and understands sentences about things?” (1975, p.8).

One of the main ideas discussed in Mooneyham’s paper is the distinction between primary consciousness (which animals have; 'bicamerality' in Jaynes' terms) and higher order consciousness (which humans have), and the notion that humans once had only this primary consciousness. The theory is that higher order consciousness came with the ability for complex, autonomous language (see also Halliday 2004 for a similar argument from systemic functional linguistics).

I was intrigued to learn that both Percy and Jaynes had drawn parallels between the Fall of Man and the shift from primary to higher-order consciousness in humans. The idea here was that for a time, humans were living in such a way that all their responses to external stimuli were dictated by God/gods (according to the various creation/fall narratives). They “could neither reflect upon their past nor future actions nor upon the possible consequences of those actions; therefore, they were without the moral consciousness which makes guilt possible” (Mooneyham, 1993, p.176). But then the ‘Fall’ happened (they tasted ‘the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil’) and there was a shift, and their minds became capable of introspection and seeing how others saw them, so they felt guilt and shame.

 I'm still working out my views on how to read the story of Creation presented in Genesis in light of theories of human development, but there are some principles in the Genesis account, particularly about God's character, that are reiterated throughout the Biblical account and therefore can be trusted regardless of whether one takes the '6 day' narrative literally or figuratively.

One such principle is that humans were created in God’s image (Genesis 1:26-27). So I find it hard to accept this conception of the development of human consciousness because the Bible is consistent on the notion that God Himself has higher-order consciousness and the ability to communicate with others (see also related blog posts I wrote in August and October).

Another such principle is that God is inherently good and can't abide evil. The idea that humans went from being “neither good nor evil” in their state of primary consciousness to capable of both good and evil in their higher-order consciousness denies the pronouncement of God on the 6^th day, when he had created humans, that his creation was ‘very good’. God is good, and would not have been able to make this declaration if humans had not been ‘good’ from the beginning (at least until the Fall), not ‘neutral’ as supposed.

I welcome comments or clarifying questions on any of these thoughts.

References

Halliday, M. A. K. (2004). On Grammar as the Driving Force from Primary to Higher-order Consciousness. In G. Williams & A. Lukin (Eds). The Development of Language: Functional Perspectives on Species and Individuals, pp.15-44. London: Continuum.

Mooneyham, L. (1993). The Origin of Consciousness, Gains and Losses: Walker Percy vs Julian Jaynes. Language & Communication, 13(3), 169-182.

Percy, W. (1975). The Message in the Bottle: How Queer Man Is, How Queer Language Is, and What One Has to Do with the Other. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Real Dialogue #2: A Review

As I wrote last week, I had the privilege of moderating a public debate at the University of New South Wales between Dr James White and Abdullah Kunde on the question of ‘Can God become a man?’. It was indeed a privilege to be part of a dialogue conducted in such a thoughtful and civilised manner on one of the central issues over which Christians and Muslims are not able to agree. The debate should be available on YouTube in the near future (I’ll post a link here).

Both speakers acknowledged the value of the debate and treated each other with great respect, with Kunde acknowledging White’s seniority in both age and academic status, and White acknowledging Kunde’s scholarship in both Hebrew and (Old Testament) Biblical studies and Medicine (of which he is still a student). Both came across as being conversant with the sacred texts of the other faith. Neither speaker seemed to approach the debate as merely an opportunity to spend time in the spotlight or provide entertainment for the audience (although it was certainly entertaining at points); rather, they treated it very seriously as an opportunity to discuss at length and bring into the open the central issues that make the incarnation of God of utmost importance to Christians and an absolute blasphemy to Muslims.

The format of the debate was:

• 20 minute opening statement from each speaker
• 15 minute rebuttals
• 10-15 minute break
• 12 minute cross-examination (2 sessions each)
• 12 minute closing statement from each speaker

It was decided that it would be more valuable to let the speakers use the whole time to say what they wanted to say and clarify each other’s views rather than allow time for audience questions. That made my job as a moderator much easier! A text record of the debate has been published by someone who was there and took notes on the proceedings, which gives you a general idea of what kinds of ideas were tabled (until the video becomes available).

As in many debates of this nature, where each speaker prepares an opening statement in advance, this debate began with the speakers talking across each other to a certain extent. White offered his formulation of the central question: ‘Does God as creator have the power, ability, capacity to join a human nature to Himself if he pleases to do so? Upon what basis can anyone say God could not do this?’ but Kunde, as the second speaker, had prepared a statement with not one central question but a large number of questions, such as ‘if Jesus has both human nature and divine nature in one being, which part of him died – the human or the divine nature - since Christians believe God cannot die?’.

There were two parts of the opening section of the debate that I found really helpful. The first was White’s argument that the doctrine of incarnation doesn’t involve ‘a fundamental change in divine essence but a fundamental change in divine experience’. That is, from a Christian point of view, the incarnation of God does not change the essence of God, only the way that God interacts with the created world. The other was Kunde’s presentation of the Islamic beliefs about the attributes of God. This helped me understand why incarnation is such a difficult concept for Muslims to accept, namely, that because one of the necessary attributes of God is that he is dissimilar to created things, he could not become a man without ceasing to be God. Obviously these two points are related, and it was this issue of whether incarnation and the essential attributes of God that became the recurring theme throughout the night.

A few other key issues that I noticed over the course of the night were:

• The nature of the Trinity, which (as I understand it) is unique to Christian theology and involves a complementary relationship between the three persons of the Godhead rather than all three acting in exactly the same way all the time. The relationship of love between the three persons is also important for explaining the obedience of the Son to the Father and the desire of the Father to glorify the Son.
• What it would mean for a human to be ‘perfect’ – complete sinlessness or complete lack of limitations (mortality, temporality, intellect, power, etc). My impression was that Kunde was arguing that sinlessness alone does not make Jesus ‘perfect’ as Christians claim, since all the Muslim messengers are considered ‘sinless’ (because God protected them from sin) but not perfect. Perfection in his view seemed to be not just sinlessness but the state of being unlimited by temporality, mortality, knowledge, bodily frailty, etc. And these are all attributes of God…
• The nature of certainty in the two faiths. Kunde argued that the Muslim faith is built on certainty, promising believers paradise, whereas the Christian faith is ‘at best’ a sandy surface. But it was never made clear what the certainty of that promise of paradise is based on, or how believers can be certain they will see paradise. Christians are also given a promise – one of eternal relationship with God – and for me that promise is a certainty for a number of reasons. Firstly, it was promised very early on in the Bible (Genesis) and reiterated throughout the Old Testament. Secondly, Jesus fulfilled hundreds of prophecies from the OT about the one God was going to send to bring about the ultimate fulfilment of his promises. Thirdly, Jesus made it clear that the only way people could have any relationship with God the Father was through him, the Son of God, not by any good works they did, which could never be enough. They had to believe that Jesus could be (and had to be) a mediator between them (a sinner) and the Father (a Holy God who cannot abide sin). Fourthly, God raised Jesus from the dead and exalted him to His right hand to rule over all of creation, which demonstrates to me the credibility of Jesus’ testimony and also validates Jesus’ promise to his followers that he was going to prepare a place for them in his Father’s house and would bring them there later.

Language: from the mouth of...

In the course of my search for blogs about language/linguistics and faith, I came across this very interesting post about whether the human language in which the Bible is written limits God’s ability to communicate with us. The discussion was based on Article IV of the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy – a statement of affirmations and denials prepared following an intensive 3-day conference of about 300 evangelical pastors. The Article in question reads as follows:

We affirm that God who made mankind in His image has used language as a means of revelation.

We deny that human language is so limited by our creatureliness that it is rendered inadequate as a vehicle for divine revelation. We further deny that the corruption of human culture and language through sin has thwarted God's work of inspiration.

There are two points I would like to make about this now, but I might return to it in a later post after I’ve thought and read some more.

Firstly, God ‘made mankind in His image’ (see Genesis 1:26) and I take it that, as part of his creation of humans, God created language also. God, who is a relational God, created us in his image to be relational creatures, and it seems to me that God has given us language so that we can relate to each other, but also so that we can relate to him.

I was recently reminded of the way humans reflect God’s image in terms of communication when I read Psalm 94. The psalmist cries out to God to bring justice and judge wrongdoers, who keep doing what they are doing, thinking that God can’t see them. In verses 8-11, the psalmist then goes to address these wrongdoers:

 ⁸ Understand, O dullest of the people!
Fools, when will you be wise?
⁹ He who planted the ear, does he not hear?
He who formed the eye, does he not see?
¹⁰He who disciplines the nations, does he not rebuke?
He who teaches man knowledge -
¹¹ the LORD - knows the thoughts of man,
that they are but a breath.

This reminded me that our ability to see, hear and reflect on the world in thought is a reflection of God’s ability to do all these things, since we are created in his image. The ability to hear (v.9) particularly struck me: what is God hearing (and, we assume, understanding) here but the cries and prayers of the people he has made? The characteristic of being communicative must also be a reflection of God’s communicative nature. Jesus’ testimony about God helps us see that God is communicative within the Trinity: there is communication between God the Father and God the Son (e.g. Matthew 11:27, John 14:10, 15:15; Matthew 26:39,42; John 14:6-7, 16), God the Son and God the Spirit (e.g. John 15:26), and God the Father and God the Spirit (e.g. John 14:16, Romans 8:26-27).

And so, because we have been created as relational, communicative beings, ‘God has used language as a means of revelation’. So all three members of the Trinity also communicate with people at different times (e.g. the Father in Genesis 1:28-29, Exodus 3:3-6; the Son in any of the gospels, also Acts 9:4-6; the Spirit in John 15:26, Acts 2:4).

God’s use of the human phenomenon of language to communicate with us reminds me of another beautiful way in which God used a human phenomenon to reveal himself - about 2000 years ago, in the form of a human, Jesus Christ. Because we are humans who use language, God uses language to speak to us through the Scriptures. Because we are humans who have physical, frail and mortal bodies, God sent his Son, Jesus, as a human, to point us back to God, and used his human mortality to demonstrate his love for the world. It was the ultimate communicative act.

What people are saying about language

There are some big questions that I'm thinking about at the moment and want to start writing about soon, but need to do a bit more reading. So today I was thinking I should find out what other language blogs are out there and what kinds of things they’re on about. Language is a broad topic, after all, so blogs about language could (and do) include funny ones about Chinglish as well as more serious ones about language teaching/learning resources.

There is even a ‘World Top 100’ competition of language blogs run by bab.la – you can see the 2011 top 100 list here. The list is mainly populated by blogs about language learning and teaching, translation, and language humour. Two that caught my attention were The Yearlyglot, by a guy who has made it his aim to learn a new language every year, and A Walk in the Words, with amusing language tricks, puns and observations.

So far I haven’t seen any doing anything similar to my blog – that is, thinking about issues of language and faith. I’m sure there are some out there, including many focusing on Bible translation (like God Didn’t Say That), and there are probably contributions to more generic blogs that do it occasionally (e.g. this one about what language God speaks, or this one about Bible Translation). I’ll keep looking… I’d be interested to hear of any interesting language blogs you know of, too.

On 'Mother Nature', 'big brother', and God

My country has been suffering from a range of catastrophic natural disasters in the last few weeks: floods in the states of Queensland, NSW and Victoria of a combined scale never previously recorded here; a category 5 tropical cyclone in northern Queensland, Cyclone Yasi, the tail end of which also caused torrential rain and flooding in Victoria, over 2000km south of where Yasi made landfall; and then bushfires in Western Australia.

My unfortunate sister chose last week to move from flood-stricken Brisbane to Cairns, so having miraculously escaped flooding at her house in Brisbane she then had to live through Cyclone Yasi in an evacuation centre, which lost power in the cyclone along with the rest of the city.

Understandably, this kind of unprecedented disaster, which can't be blamed on terrorists or inadequate legislation or any of the other human causes that inevitably have the finger pointed at them, causes people to wonder. Why all this at once? Is there any reason?

Many ordinary Australians who have had the opportunity to give their opinion in front of the TV cameras or in the newspaper have asked 'what has Australia done to deserve this?', or have attributed the cause to the whims of 'Mother Nature'. The language reflects a state of confusion about supernatural responsibility. Is it some detached, capricious being/spirit/force (?) people like to call 'mother nature' who causes such events at whim? If so, she gives us no way of understanding them within a bigger picture. Is there some dictatorial, sadistic ‘big brother’ who holds people and whole nations responsible for the things they do and metes out punishment as wrongdoings are noticed (but equally without giving instructions for how to avoid such punishment)?

Those two views are not mutually compatible, and if we think about it, they don’t reflect reality either. We know that people do bad things without getting punished for it at the time (does that mean the punishing being doesn't see? Or is a bit slow? In either case, they’re not really worth worshipping). And science tells us that there is order in nature, and although events such as floods and cyclones may occur unexpectedly (although we usually have some warning), the reasons for their occurrence as phenomena in general are no longer a mystery to us. Is it just that we are bothered by not being able to predict the times and places of such events over the whole trajectory of our lifetimes so that we could plan better and ensure we are out of the way when they come?

The idea that Australia has done something 'to deserve this' from mother nature also assumes an entity who punishes nations for wrongdoing, though somewhat capriciously. But at the same time the question ‘what has Australia done to deserve this’ assumes that our nation is really without fault and doesn't deserve such treatment. And what guidelines has 'mother nature' given us for knowing whether we have gone wrong or not? None that I know of.

But there is a God who created nature, including us (we are part of nature, after all). He has revealed himself to us through his creation:

¹ The heavens declare the glory of God,
and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.
(Psalm 19:1, ESV)

The apostle Paul made a similar appeal to the people of Athens after he had walked around the city and seen altars absurdly dedicated to ‘the unknown god’:

What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. ²⁴ The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, ²⁵nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. ²⁶And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, ²⁷ that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, ²⁸for "'In him we live and move and have our being'...

(Acts 17:23b-28, ESV)

Unlike ‘Mother Nature’ or a mysterious ‘big brother’ figure, God has also revealed to us how we are to conduct ourselves within his creation, through the Bible (which is his word spoken/written through prophets and historians and poets and apostles). I'm not saying the recent floods and cyclone and bushfires in Australia are necessarily punishment for some particular corporate wrongdoing of Queensland or any other state, or indeed the whole nation. The God who created this world has told us, through the Bible, that the problems we face in living in this creation are a result of original sin. Again, Paul writes to the Romans explaining this:

¹⁸ The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, ¹⁹ since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. ²⁰ For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

²¹ For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. ²² Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools ²³ and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. (Romans 1:18-23, ESV)

So we are 'without excuse' for failing to recognize him and rather insisting on this 'mother nature' who cares nothing for us at all, unlike God. We won't see an end to natural disasters, disease, or conflict until this world ends and the new world begins - which will happen when Jesus returns to judge the world once and for all. God loves us so much that he sent Jesus, his only Son, (John 3:16) to live on earth as a man and die a horrific death so that we who believe in Him would not have to face the punishment we deserve for our own sins.

Mother nature does not ask anything of us, and I suspect that’s part of the reason Australians are happy enough to invoke her in these kinds of situations. But Jesus calls us to know and obey Him, and when we come to him his light exposes our darkness and sinfulness (John 3:16-21). But rather than condemning us, he gives us new life and teaches us how to live in his light, and promises us that we can share the glory and wonder of heaven with him.

Learning from the source

This week I have been lecturing on using evidence in academic writing – using sources, referencing, quoting, paraphrasing, etc – and how it's not good enough just to quote someone second hand. You actually need to go back to the original source and see that the middle man has conveyed the meaning of the source text accurately. Otherwise it's like Chinese whispers and you never know what convoluted rubbish you could end up with!

I was reminded of Paul's exhortation to Timothy (2 Tim 2:2) to entrust the gospel of Christ to reliable men who would be able to continue to faithfully teach others – passing the baton on, but ensuring it's always the same baton and doesn't get switched for something else in the middle of the race. We need to keep going back to the source – the Word of God, the gospel of Jesus Christ – so that we never just assume we know what it's about and then pass on a twisted or faulty message.

Around the same time I heard that message from 2 Timothy (preached by the faithful Richard Chin at St Michaels Wollongong), I read Amos 2:4-5, where God pronounces judgement on Judah because they have forgotten God's law and have been led astray by their lies, which presumably have resulted from just that same problem – the Word of God was no longer being taught faithfully, people weren't going back to the source but were hearing distortions and allowing them to continue.

So Paul exhorted Timothy to 'preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching (2 Tim 4:2). And we need to always go back to the source to test what we hear or read against the original source.

Dawkins and evaluation

No, I didn't make a typo in the title - it's not supposed to read 'Dawkins and evolution'!

A fellow Australian Christian academic, Ross McKenzie, has recently written a blog post in which he speculates on whether Richard Dawkins might have 'softened' in his stance towards Christians, based on some reviews of Dawkins' recent book (The Greatest Show on Earth). What strikes me as interesting is the recurring theme of comment on Dawkins' strong criticism of those who choose to believe in a creative God. I know Dawkins' writing is generally considered 'popular science', rather than academic scientific discourse, but even so it does seem rather inappropriate to be so blatantly evaluative in his references to certain groups of people.

I would love to do some appraisal analysis of his writing and see what kinds of appraisal show up the most, and towards whom (see Martin & White 2005 for more on Appraisal). Because I'm interested in his evaluations of people and groups of people, I would look at the linguistics resources used to express judgement, whether social esteem (based on a code the violation of which results in criticism from others) or social saction (based on moral/legal codes the violation of which leads to condemnation) (see e.g. White 2004). Perhaps there will be positive or negative appraisal of people's capacity (especially their mental abilities), normality, or tenacity (parameters of social esteem). Perhaps it will be expressions of positive or negative social sanction about people's propriety or honesty.

References
Martin, J. R., & White, P. (2005). The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. Basingstoke & New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

The year past and the year to come

Well, I know it's already the 3^rd of January, but better late than never to think through the year that has been (2009) and think ahead to 2010 – the beginning of a new decade brings many new beginnings for me. In February I will begin a new job at the University of Wollongong, lecturing in English Language and Linguistics at the Language Centre. Initially it will be for 6 months, but may become longer, God willing. So that will involve moving to Wollongong (for the uninitiated, that's about 1.5 hrs drive south of Sydney), finding a new church, getting to know a new city, making new friends, somehow trying to keep in touch with family and friends in Sydney, and getting my head around a different university, its administrative systems and the curriculum I will be teaching.
The final year of the 'noughties' (BTW, what will this current decade be called?) was a very full and busy year, and I was able to witness God's work in my life in many ways. I give thanks for many things, including:

• Being able to complete my thesis on time, and the encouragement and support of friends during the writing up stage
  
• The blessing of an office on campus for the final 12 months of my PhD, and a friendly and supportive office-mate
  
• The encouragement and support of my supervisors and colleagues at uni
  
• Continued fellowship with the Lighthouse Forum at Macquarie Uni, and the work God did on campus through all the Christian groups throughout the year
  
• God's provision of everything I needed throughout all the lean and stressful times, especially the provision of work after my scholarship expired at a time when work appointments at uni were very hard to come by
  
• Safe travel to China twice, and the helpful experiences I had there at the conference and job interview
  
• Safe travel to Canberra for the inaugural Cite conference, and the great encouragement and inspiration it was to meet with other Christian academics there
  
• Safe travel to Victoria at Christmas to spend time with family
  
• Opportunities to make new friends in a number of contexts, and opportunities to share the good news about Jesus with various people
  
• The generosity of my family

I'm really thankful for this new job also, because not only will it be helpful financially (boring pragmatic reason), but it is also a really good opportunity for me to develop skills in lecturing and convening university courses. And it's a good time for me to move away from home and branch out a bit too. Wollongong is a very pleasant city, from what I've seen of it, and it's not so far from Sydney!