Living cross-culturally part 2.

This is my second post on living cross-culturally. See the first post here.

Besides the humbling process of being the guest in a foreign country, in our case France, living cross-culturally has helped humble me by bringing to light some of the sin and spiritual junk inside me. It is amazing all that we can keep bottled up and under control when we are living at home in the world we have grown up in, but take that level of comfort away, expose yourself to the endless drain of culture stress, and it is amazing what flaws and fears will bubble up to the surface. With the loss of cultural fluency and the ensuing powerlessness in the host culture, these character weaknesses are revealed. I believe this process has very little to do with the host country. France has been our crucible, but any country or place sufficiently different from our native lands will suffice for this process. While this is a hard process to endure, refinement always is, it is good. Exposing these faults to the light allows us to humbly surrender them to Holy Spirit’s work of sanctification. One example that God has shown me while in France is my anxiety.

779 days ago before we left for France, I would not have described myself as an anxious person. Today I have seen what a deep issue this was for me. The loss of my home culture created a profound awareness of my lack of control. This spurred in me the belief I had to control anything and everything I could. The only way to ensure something would work was to control for every detail possible. My anxiety drove me to control what I could and stress over the variables I could not. I had trouble falling asleep or waking in the middle of the night worrying. ‘What if I am missing some necessary piece of paperwork to renew our visas and our applications are denied and then we have to flee the country or face becoming illegal immigrants but we cannot find a way home so we are stuck living in some remote airport for all eternity?’ My mind would play these scenarios over and over. And once that crisis was over I would find a new subject to dwell on in the night: buying train tickets, finding someone to translate for me at an event, making it on time somewhere, paying taxes, etc.

But God was good and He began to work in me with regards to my anxiety. He first revealed that my anxiety stemmed from the belief that God was only with me on the macro scale; I knew He would be faithful with big picture things, but what about the day-to-day events? God had called us to France but what if that turned out to include a season where we had to wait in administrative purgatory until our papers were processed because of a mistake I made? I knew God loved me, but how did I know if I would be able to go home on vacation and see my family? Did I have a guarantee for such a small thing, and if not how could I ensure things worked out as I wanted? I believed I had to control these details.

Slowly God worked in me; through prayer and continuous laying down of my fears He eased my anxieties and showed Himself to be faithful both on the macro and micro scales. Because we have lived in France so long, I have been able to measure the progress of God’s transformation in me. We have had to renew our French visas twice now. The first time, a year ago, I was an emotional wreck and everything went fine. This year we had some hiccups with paperwork, had to come back a few weeks later and reapply, but I had God’s peace the entire time.

Surrendering my worry and trusting God continues to be an active choice I make; it is not yet “natural” for me, but God is faithful to walk with me through this process. Last week as we waited to pick up our new visa cards I felt the urge to worry what if the cards were not ready, and if not would that affect our ability to go home this Christmas? But I was able to brush these thoughts aside, to not allow them any headroom, and remind myself God was with me. I am learning to rely on God’s goodness and faithfulness, and I have been changed by His work in me.

I say all this to show a surprising benefit to living cross-culturally and share how God is using my circumstances to draw me into a deeper relationship with Him. How is God using your circumstances to change you? How have you seen the progress He is making?

Living cross-culturally part 1.

Emily and I arrived in France 767 days ago. Be sure to check out my photo-a-day blog. Living in France has been an incredible experience, one that has eternally changed me. It has been one of the most transformative choices we have made. It has been one of the most challenging choices we have made. I have learned so much from our time here, working with truly incredible people, and living in this wonderful place. And the bread here has ruined me for bread outside of France.

Our experience has been exactly what many other missionaries living in Europe had told us: living cross-culturally is extremely hard and you never get over culture-stress. Culture shock is the sense of confusion and frustration that engulfs someone when the "honeymoon” period of living in a new place fades. It is the utter disbelief at how another culture could function so differently from your home culture. Why can't people form a line to wait for the bus or the cashier? How is it possible in Grenoble, a metropolitan area of 500,000 people, for only one branch of our bank to accept cash deposits? The branch on campus opened our bank accounts, sold us renter's insurance, gave us our debit cards, PINs, and chequebooks, but the teller (not the atm) could not accept the 20€ I wanted to deposit for activating my new account. Instead, I had to go to the main branch in downtown to deposit cash. Thankfully, culture shock does pass; it takes time and perseverance, but it does not last forever. 

Culture stress is the fact that I am a Californian living in Grenoble, the fact that I am the stranger in a foreign land. Anytime there is a misunderstanding or conflict, it is the French culture which wins. I understand that it would be ridiculous of me to expect the French people around me to conform to my American ways. But it is hard that every day, with every misstep, I am the one who is wrong. It can be upsetting when, on top of the normal stresses of life, a cultural mishap thwarts your plans and leaves you feeling ridiculed for your cultural ineptitude. Someone is rude toward you and it's your fault for creating the awkward opportunity for them to be rude. It is not about logic or reason, it comes down to the fact that I am not at home here and everyone knows it the moment I open my mouth. Culture stress is described as a low-grade fever you never get over, and I must confess that after 767 days that is how it feels. I know that in time, perhaps on the order of years or decades, this fades away. 

One of the fruits of living here in France is the humbling process of culture stress. Being the person who does not know the culture, the language, or the customs puts you in a very dependent position. I need others to help me if only to verify that what I said in French actually makes sense. Being the outsider wears on you over time. The choices become either never leave your house, leave France, or humble yourself to your host culture. Humility is a hard concept to learn, I am very much still in progress, but living as a stranger in France has helped me along in this process. It has also made me extremely appreciative of the rare person who is kind and understanding toward me; who is patient with my less than perfect French skills, and who puts in extra effort to help me navigate life here. When we return to California, I want to find every opportunity to be like these gracious people and help others who are strangers and outsiders.

Thoughts on Heaven: Is Ministry a Temp Job?

This post is a continuation of the ideas laid out in my previous post "Thoughts on Heaven" and is a question I have been praying and wrestling about for a while: is ministry a temp job?

An aspect of Heaven which Scripture describes is that we will have jobs and roles in eternity (Gen 1.28, 1 Cor 6.2-3, Mt 19.28, Rev 3.21, 22.5). Immediately we think this sounds terrible; retirement is a dream of our modern era. This stems not from an eternal perspective on the nature of work, but is a consequence of living in a fallen world. Originally we were given the job of cultivating God’s good creation (Gen 1:26-30), and having work was a part of God’s design for humans. In Genesis 3:17-19 we see part of the curse is our work becomes difficult. Much of the enjoyment intended for our occupations has been replaced with weariness and struggle. But we still have a God-given desire to do, make, create, and work.

In light of eternity, what job security do I have as someone in full-time ministry? For those in vocational ministry, whether as a pastor of a local church, a campus minister, a cross-cultural missionary, or any number of other full-time positions, will we outgrow our need for ministry? Other jobs like engineers, baristas, and interior designers conceivably have a place in Heaven. Should pastors be concerned that one day we are doing to be replaced by the Good Shepherd (Jn 10:11-18) himself? When Jesus came he made the high priest’s job redundant (Heb 4:14). Does the same fate await ministers in Heaven? What use will we have for sermons or Bible studies when standing in God’s presence? Paul describes in 1 Corinthians 13:8-10 that prophecies and speaking in tongues will cease in Heaven, and such means of experiencing God will be eclipsed by God Himself. What happens if a pastor’s only marketable skill or job experience is preaching? Does an infinity of unemployment await him or her?

Perhaps we will all have time to devote toward developing other jobs, tasks, and creative endeavors. My father-in-law (who is also in full-time ministry) says he is waiting until Heaven to learn to play the violin, so perhaps he will have a future in one of Heaven’s orchestras?

The good news is, despite the fact that we do not know what Heaven holds for the full-time minister, our God is far too creative to abandon us to idleness for eternity.

What are your thoughts? Have you found any scripture which sheds more light on this subject?

Jesus is not afraid to get his hands dirty

Jesus is awesome. I have to start there. In the story of the healing of Jairus' daughter (Mt 9:18-26, Mk 5:21-43, Lk 8:40-56) there are two healing: first the woman who has been bleeding for twelve years and then the daughter of a leader of the local synagogue named Jairus. 

It's interesting to read this story with the purity codes of the Old Testament in mind, because the woman who has been bleeding is ceremonially unclean (Lev 15:25) and the dead daughter of Jairus is also unclean, and yet Jesus touches both of them. According to my understanding of Old Testament purity codes and first-century practices, wouldn't touching them also make Jesus unclean? The woman with blood only touches Jesus's cloak so I am not sure if this would be enough to make him unclean, but when Jesus "took [Jairus' daughter] by the hand" (Mt 9:25, Mk: 5:41, Lk 8:54) that would seem to make him unclean. According to Numbers 19: 11 touching a dead body made someone unclean. This fear of corpse contamination may be some of the reasoning why in the story of the Good Samaritan the priest and the Levite both avoid the wounded man. Jesus also talks of this defilement when he calls the Pharisees "whitewashed tombs" (Mt 23: 27) in reference to the unmarked graves in the Kidron valley which could within sight of the Temple accidentally render a pilgrim, coming to celebrate Passover, unclean for seven days.

Jesus is not concerned with purity codes, not because he is disregarding the Law, but because just as honoring the Sabbath should not keep him from helping others in need, corpse contamination would not keep him from doing the Father's will of healing. We see in this story that Jesus is willing to touch and be touched by those who society shuns. Jesus does not hesitate to reach out and get his hands dirty for our sake, and his interactions with these two women demonstrate the larger truth of how Jesus, who is perfect, came into the dark and dirty world so that he could restore and save us.

This raises a question about the Law which is not addressed in the Law: if a dead body ceases to be a dead body does anything rendered unclean by that body become clean again? For both the woman with the bleeding and the daughter of Jairus, Jesus took away their uncleanliness. Jesus overcame the source of their defilement and made them clean. 

So the answer my earlier question of did these women make Jesus unclean is no. The uncleanness of both women did not make Jesus unclean because he makes unclean things clean. His power to purify trumps any ability to defile. And this is an illustration of the Gospel, Jesus came into this unclean world and not only purifies us according the rules of cleanliness, but he also fulfilled our debt to sin and imputes us with his righteousness. Like I said, Jesus is awesome.

Thoughts on Heaven: It will be more awesome than we can imagine

This blog post is a preface to a preface to some thoughts I have been praying and wrestling with God about. What will life in the New Heaven and Earth be like? As a child I remember being a little scared with the concept of Heaven because, to be honest, the idea of us floating around clouds with harps for an endless eternity sounded...boring. But God is not boring, and the more I learn about Him the more I am convinced of this. I remember finding comfort in the thought (perhaps this was God speaking) there will be baseball in Heaven (which is funny because I now think baseball is boring).

Our cultural image of Heaven, this place somewhere in the sky, all of us with halos and harps, is a gross underestimation of how awesome the New Heaven and New Earth will be. Heaven will be so much better than this feeble image. As best we can describe it, Heaven is the place where God (who is omnipresent) is; it  is the where He dwells. By place, I do mean Heaven will have the same three spatial dimensions we know here; Jesus in his resurrection body (a foreshadow of our own bodies to come 1 Cor 15:20) inhabited these spatial dimensions. This of course does not mean Heaven is restricted to those three dimensions.

An issue we finite creatures encounter when discussing Heaven is our ideas and descriptions are limited by our words; how can we define the infinite glory of Heaven with finite human words? This is why so much of theology is metaphorical. Now before you dismiss me as a heretic, hear me out. 

The metaphorical nature of theological concepts does not make them not true, what I mean is that such concepts as the truth of who God is, the Son's relationship to the Father, etc. are more true than what our limited words can express or our finite minds can comprehend. The Son and the Father are not only in a deep familial relationship with each other like a father and son, but they are one, and the metaphor of father and son is actually an understatement of their deep relationship, love, and unity. Jesus used the words "father" and "son" not because it perfectly describes Him and the Father, but because we can wrap our finite minds around these ideas; I understand what it is to have a father and to be a son. God and His awesome nature is too big for us to fully understand, this is just an aspect of our creature nature; God is God and we are not. 

This is why I think a reoccurring image used to depict Heaven is music (Rev 4:8-11). Have you ever listened to a piece of music which stirred up emotions or captivated you with its beauty and for a time, perhaps only a moment, you were transfixed by the experience? This, I think, is a better descriptions of what Heaven will be like than human words can say, which is why Scripture often uses music when describing Heaven. These passages do not mean Heaven will be one endless church service. Heaven will be more awesome than we can say or imagine because God is more awesome than we can understand.

"Copy and Paste" and Intra-Biblical quotations

Have you ever read a passage in the New Testament, perhaps in the writings of Paul or Matthew, where the author quotes a passage from the Old Testament, but when you compared the New Testament quotation with the original source you found slight variations in the wording? For example, the Luke 4 quotation from Isaiah 61: (red added to show differences)

Lk 4: 18-19 (NIV)

“The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
    because he has anointed me
    to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
    and recovery of sight for the blind,
to set the oppressed free,
   to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”

Isa 61:1-2a (NIV)

The Spirit of the Sovereign Lord is on me,
    because the Lord has anointed me
    to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted,
    to proclaim freedom for the captives
    and release from darkness for the prisoners,
 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”

Should the New Testament authors have not been more careful when quoting the Old Testament? Because the Bible is God’s word, shouldn’t we be extra vigilant to get our wording right? What’s the deal?

The good news is there is a logical explanation for these “loose” standards of quotation, and ultimately the word variations between Old Testament sources and New Testament quotations, while it may give nuance to the passages, do not change the meanings especially when the passages are viewed as a whole and not by word count.

The reason why the New Testament authors were not as “precise” in their citing of the Old Testament reflects a difference between their first century Near Eastern culture and our own twenty-first century Western culture. It was sometime around the third century when the quotation mark was invented and the idea of exact, word for word quotation, began. By the societal standards of the day, the New Testament authors were being accurate in their quotation of Old Testament texts. The challenge for us now is understanding their standards of accuracy and our modern standards of accuracy are different. Today with modern technology I can copy and paste a paragraph, quote, or even an entire manuscript with complete confidence I am not forgetting a word or letter. Computers are really good at assisting with these kinds of tasks. Such luxury was not available to Paul. Neither was a personal copy of scripture; before the advent of the printing press copies of the Bible were too laborious and expensive for an individual to own.

It is fine for us to adhere to the standards of precision afforded to us by modern technology, but we should not be upset when we cannot impose our cultural value upon biblical texts written in the context of a different culture.

A theology of viruses

You may have learned by now that I have a morbid fascination with diseases (why else does one study microbiology?). With my studies came some interesting theological observations, particularly about viruses. As I have discussed in previous posts, viruses are composed of a nucleic acid, either RNA or DNA, wrapped in a protein shell. A virus may or may not have a lipid membrane around the protein coat. Also important to note is that viruses are not classified as living organisms. Viruses by themselves have no metabolism, cannot replicate on their own, and lack other basic qualifications for being considered “alive”.

Because viruses cannot self-replicate, but hijack the cellular machinery of a host cell in order to reproduce, it is believed the origin of viruses is after that of cells. Viruses can only reproduce by attacking and killing other organisms; there is no such thing as a self-sufficient virus. To me this corresponds well with the Genesis creation accounts.

In the beginning God creates everything: light, space-time, molecules, plants, animals, and people, and after each step He stops to admire His work and declares that it is “good” (Gen 1.4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31). The Hebrew word used is “towb” and translates as “good, pleasant, excellent, and valuable.” All throughout God’s creating process, He affirms the goodness of His creation. He even concludes the sixth day, after creating humanity, by declaring His work to be “very good” (Gen 1:31).

But where in God’s good creation does a parasitic “almost-living” thing like a virus belong? I think we have to turn to Genesis chapter 3 for the explanation. Here we have the Fall of Humanity and all of creation with it. God’s very good creation became marred by human sin and there were grave consequences; death entered creation and with it came viruses. It should be noted that Satan is not creative himself, but instead subverts preexisting things. We see with the temptation of Adam and Eve that the serpent twisted God’s words: "did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?" (Gen 3:1b). Similarly, viruses are fraudulent creatures which mimic life, but exist by means of death, the result of sin. Viruses are a corruption of life, and there is no place for viruses in God’s good creation. They are an unfortunate result of sin and a reality we must face until all of creation is made new, but we know that when creation is transformed there will no longer be viruses to kill and destroy. We have not yet eradicated all viruses, but the day of their destruction is coming and there will be justice for all that has been stolen from humanity and creation by viruses.

Thoughts on Turning Thirty

I turn thirty tomorrow and want to share a few thoughts on the subject of leaving one decade for another. Getting older has never bothered me, and whenever someone asks what are my feelings about turning twenty-two, twenty-five, etc. I like to joke it “beats the alternative.”

It is strange to think it has been ten years since I left my teen years behind, but I was ready for that transition and I feel ready for this one too. There are a few things which are affecting my preparation for the completion of my tridecennial year.

The first is I have enjoyed my twenties. There is the idea your twenties are a time of self-discovery, personal reflection, adventure, and trying new things, and I have loved these aspects of my last decade. I have questioned, explored and contemplated who I am, and my life has been enriched by this process. Looking back, it is hard to believe who I was ten years ago, in many ways I hardly recognize the 20 year-old Tim, and I am okay with that. I am relieved to not be the same person I was then. Having enjoyed this season of learning, I am ready to move on. I do not want to keep asking the same questions forever. I have some ideas now of who I am, what I love, and what I want to do with my life. I feel I have accomplished the goal of my "self-discovery twenties." Now is the time for my thirties, a season of launching out into what I feel called to do, becoming who I want to be, and the beginning of those things which my twenties have prepared me for.

I have been basing these ideas about the nature of our twenties and thirties off of what I have observed and what I have read from sociologists and bloggers, but I also realize it was at the age of thirty when Jesus began his three years of ministry. Jesus, in part, was following the rabbinic traditions of his time (which specified not beginning ministry until thirty) and I think this tradition acknowledges the same anticipation I feel now. This does not mean I am prepared or expect to not make any more mistakes or discoveries, I most certainly will. I do not feel like a butterfly emerging from a chrysalis, but I do feel like a fledgling bird ready to try jumping out of the nest.

The second factor is that I have completed the major life goals I had hoped to accomplish by now. I was twenty-five when Emily and I were married and we had hoped to wait five years(ish) before having children, and we also wanted to live in Europe for two years. We have enjoyed this time of being married without children (no, we are not pregnant!), and we have lived in France for eighteen months now. God has been good and my life has unfolded, for the most part, as I had hoped.

The third thing is I am curious who 40 year-old Tim will be. What goals and dreams, adventures and misadventures, lie between me now and me then? Just as I look back on myself ten years ago and think “wow, I have come a long way,” I hope in ten years I will be able to do the same. This is not a reflection of dissatisfaction with who I am at the present, but a desire to not be static as a person. I hope I have not “peaked” at thirty.

So here's to being thirty and the adventures to come!

Stuck in the Present

When Emily and I first decided to move to France I was excited; not only was this the opportunity to live in Europe which we had dreamed of, but France is the home of such delights as croissants, pain au chocolat (chocolate croissants), baguettes, and a range of other delicious foods besides pastries. I only had one concern: I do not speak French.

Having growing up in California, when it came time for me to study a foreign language in high school I chose Spanish. Now with our plans to move to France I sought out various options and resources for learning this new language. I found a few helpful, and free, websites which taught me a lot of useful words, and I poured time and brainpower into learning French.

When we arrived in France I certainly did not know much French, but I knew a few key words and phrases like “ou sont les toilettes?” (where is the bathroom?), “bonjour” (hello), and “comment ça va?” (how are you?). I also soon learned other important phrases like “je voudrais ______” (I would like…. a hamburger, some water, cold medicine, etc.)

But when it came to verb conjugations all I knew was present tense. At first I thought this tense would serve a purpose. It had not until my second year of Spanish class in high school that I had learned the past tense, so certainly the French present tense would carry me through some conversations right?

Turns out the present tense is only helpful if you want to narrate your life as it occurs, but the moment someone makes small talk by asking “comment était ta journée?” (how was your day?) or “qu'est-ce que tu as fait aujourd'hui? (what did you do today?) you are reduced to sounding like an idiot saying “je mange…j’écris une lettre …je voudrais dire quelque chose!” (I eat, I write a letter… I would like to say something!). In conversations I was made into a near-mute, unable to use words to express myself. I was stuck in the present tense.

After living in France for two months we started language school and at last I started learning the beloved passé composé (the tense used for finite events in the past and analogues to the preterito in Spanish). Now I could say “j’ai mangé et j’ai écrit une lettre” (I ate and I wrote a letter). Next came imparfait which is used for descriptions and for reoccurring events in the past. Now I could understand and answer the question “how was your day?” (comment était ta journée?). Futur proche opened the door for describing near future events. No longer was I stuck in the present, I could speak French in four dimensions!

I am still learning French and have tons more to learn. I have developed relationships with a few more verb tenses (turns out the conditional and simple future sound the same in spoken French). It may be I have only scratched the surface of French, but as I dig deeper I am ever growing in my ability to express myself. The constraints of time no longer bind my speech. I am finding my voice again, now in French.

(this post was originally published on my new writing blog: tholdenkamp.wordpress.com)

Response to "Prayer in C"

Today I thought I would share some thoughts, music theory, and theology from a song written by my friend Dora. Her song title "Prayer in C" is a response to the original song "Prayer in C" by the band Lilly Wood and the Prick.

The original lyrics speak of resentment toward God for His perceived silence and lack of involvement in the world. I was struck by the song's repeat lines "don't think I[singer] could forgive you[God]" and "don't think I could believe you."

In response to this catchy but cynical song, Dora wrote her own "Prayer in C". I love this idea. Too often when we encounter something we do not like: song, movie, philosophy, etc. we want to criticize or mock it; to play by the same rules which govern Junior High. Instead Dora created a new song. She did not agree with the ideas being told by original lyrics so she wrote her own to tell a different story. We need to engage with our culture, the arts, and the narratives we are being told.

(Scroll to the bottom to see the lyrics and chords to Dora's song)

Soteriology represented by F(major), a(minor), and e(minor)

Dora's song is written as a monologue to God and structured as two verses, chorus, a second two verses, and a repeat of the chorus. The first pair of verses and the chorus use the pronouns "You" (God) and "I"(the singer) to speaks of singer's personal experiences, while the second two verses shifts the first-person "I" to the plural "We" and addresses broader issues of the human condition.

The contrast between the verses and the chorus, created by alternating of these two sections, is further developed by lyrical distinction. The verses describe the thoughts of someone who, like the singer of the original song by Lilly Wood and the Prick, feels alone and abandoned by God while trying to make sense of life in this world. The first two verses begin with candid acknowledgment of the broken state of the world, whether considering either the spiritual or the natural realities. They also speak of a sense of, and perhaps desire for, independence and "to solve things myself". The lyrics also describe what such a self-sufficient mindset will inevitably result in. The first verse ends with "on my own strength I just got more blind," and in the second verse we see this leads to "learn[ing] to ignore you[God]." Building off these thoughts of the first set of verses, the second pair of verses discuss the condition of humanity apart from God. The lyrics assert that without God we lose our sense of identity, and our freedom 'to do as we please' becomes a prison.

The chorus talks of new life and hope found in God. The problems lamented in the verses, blindness and hardness of heart, are seen to be healed by God in the chorus. Unlike the verses which culminate with the words "there's no point to be", the chorus ends with the declaration God "truly changed my life." This contrast between the verses and the chorus, life with and without God, is further developed by the chords and the music theory of the song. The entire song is composed of only six chords: e minor, G Major, a minor, C Major, d minor, and F Major. These six chords are neighbors and relative Majors/minors around the circle of fifths (which is like the periodic table of elements for Music Theory).

Circle of 5th

By examining the chords of the song and comparing them with the lyrics, we see certain theological parallels emerge. We discover the F Major chord is the tonal focus of the song; it is the musical resolution which we are yearning for. The first occurrence of F Major happens on the first downbeat (strongest beat of a measure) of the chorus. Whereas the chords of the verses are predominantly minor and only weakly resolving, this first F Major in the chorus is the first strong resolution of the song. F Major is only found in the chorus, and in conjunction with the lyrics, represents our wholeness in God. After slogging through the confusion and unfulfilling tones of the verses we at last taste completion in F Major.

We also see that if F Major represents our fulfillment in God, e minor represents alienation from God. Of the six chords in the song, e minor is the chord furthest musically from F Major both around the circle of 5ths and by mode (Major/minor). E minor is also the most repeated chord in the verses, but is not present in the chorus. Throughout the verses we see chord pairs resolving toward e minor, and implicitly away from F Major. The progression from d minor to e minor in the second line of each verse presents us with a false attempt of resolving to G Major/e minor instead of F Major.

If F Major and e minor represent relationship and estrangement from God, respectively, then the a minor chord represents our current reality. A minor is the first chord of the song, the first and last chords of each verse, and the last chord of the chorus. It is present throughout the song,  and while it shares 2/3 of the tones with F Major chord (an a minor chord is composed of the notes A, C, and E but an F Major chord is constructed of F, A, C) it lacks the critical F pitch and instead contains an E pitch which is the leading tone (see note 1.) for F.

The chorus begins with F Major, a taste of fulfillment in God, but ends with a minor, reflecting our desire which is partially attained but not yet fully reached. We see throughout the song in the chorus, verse, and even the end that the song does not completely resolve. Just like each verse and each repetition of the chorus, the end of the song leaves us with a minor. We have experienced resolution, we have found what we sought in F Major, but we are not yet at rest there. Instead the song concludes unresolved, with us tempted to fall back in e minor and still yearning and struggling to find our home in God and F Major.

note 1. The leading tone is the note which wants to resolve to the tonic. This tension is what tonal music is based upon. Imagine singing a musical scale and then stopping on the second to last note, before returning to 'do'.

Prayer in  C 

 by Dora 

Verse 1            Am                              Em It’s a dark place where I come from                 Dm                Em I was searching for light                 C                     Em I had no help, on my own strength                 G             Am I just got more blind Verse 2  Am                Em I got angry couldn’t hear you Dm                    Em had to solve things myself C                    Em Slowly learned to ignore you G             Am but it made no sense    Chorus F                               C            You gave me new sight G                             Am convinced my heart F                              C your Word comes alive G                             Am it brings me new life F                              C You showed me your love G                             Am talked to my heart F                              C my only Lord my God G                             Am truly changed my life

Verse 3 Am                Em We can argue we can blame you Dm                    Em we can pretend not to see C                    Em we can’t catch you we don’t know who G             Am we’re meant to be  Verse 4 Am                Em we can all do what we want to Dm                    Em we think we break free C                    Em in our prison there’s no freedom G             Am there’s no point to be

Grief in France and thoughts on Charlie

            I first became aware of Charlie Hebdo when I heard about the terrorist attack on January 7^th. My initial response was unattached; twelve people dead is tragic, but tragedy happens all the time.

            But for my French friends around me it was not something to be unattached about, it was personal. It was an attack in their nation. It was the targeted assassination of well known and dearly loved public figures. I think this is inpart why the cry for solidarity has been “Je suis Charlie” (I am Charlie), because so many people can identify with those killed at Charlie Hebdo. I have heard stories of people who grew up reading comics and articles by those killed, whether published by Charlie Hebdo or in other magazines. Satire and the idea no subject is too sacred to escape mocking is a deeply held French value; it seems to date back at least to the writings of Voltaire and the Enlightenment which are both at the core of the French identity. Regardless of opinions concerning this freedom of speech, the attack on Charlie Hebdo feels like an assault on French values and culture. France is not my country, but it is my host country. French culture is not my culture, but it is my friends’ culture. So I want to stand with my friends and grieve this attack.

            My concern now is what the backlash will be. We panic when something as foundational as our culture or worldview is threatened. France is characterized by a unique brand of militant secularism known as laïcité which seeks to restrict the expression of personal beliefs in a public setting. This philosophy confronted with the large North African Muslim population now living within France has made anti-immigrant sentiments and questions of religious freedoms into hot topics of debate since before we arrived in France. I fear this new attack will only fuel the view religion is fundamentally incompatible with French culture, and spur a rise in actions against immigrants, specifically North-Africans, and Muslims. Already laïcité and Islamophobia place restrictions on religions of any sort.

            The Muslim community in France is as deeply grieved by this attack as the rest of the French people, but now bears the added weight put on them by political powers and mob mentality. Extremists, both those who plotted the attack as well as the National Front (the ultraconservative, nationalistic, and Islamophobic political party), want to use this attack to divide the people of France and further their agendas. They want to force Muslims to say either they condone Charlie’s images against Islam and condemn Wednesday’s attack, or they condemn the images and condone the attack. But this is a false dichotomy, and many Muslims feel caught in the middle. A Muslim friend of mine said he has been hurt three times now: first when Charlie Hebdo published their cartoons, second was the attack on Wednesday, and now a third time when people began saying all Muslims are terrorists.

            People have also begun spreading “Je ne suis pas Charlie” (I am not Charlie) on social media as a reaction to those killed at Charlie being viewed as martyrs of free speech. In the wake of this attack people are questioning and responding to the previous published works of Charlie Hebdo. The tension which erupted with the attack is still lingering and everyone is in a reactive mood. It has been noted social media polarizes people and viewpoints; we either agree 100% or we are opponents. People feel the need to critique and comment upon every single point of deviation they may have with another person’s thoughts. Add this to something has volatile as Charlie Hebdo, and we get a potential social media storm with overly defined and simplistic battle lines dividing people.

            This is missing the true need right now. Whether the past actions of those at Charlie Hebdo were wise, disrespectful, funny, or imprudent is not the issue. Twelve people are dead in what was an attack on a cultural value. We do not have to agree 100% with Charlie Hebdo’s policies to be grieved by this attack or to mourn with those around us. “Je ne suis pas Charlie” at worst seems to say those who died deserved it, and at best invalidates the grief of everyone affected by the attack. It may not be meant as invalidation of others' grief, but it is perceived as such, and I cannot agree with that. Now is not the time to ponder Charlie Hebdo’s policies, it is a time to mourn together. If you do not feel comfortable changing your profile picture to “Je suis Charlie” don’t, but please do not nullify another’s grief. Division will not bring peace; it will spark only violence and fear. Our only hope is that we can love others and work together through this.

            Please pray for France: pray for unity, peace, and understanding.