Healthy Diabetes Recipe (Stew!)

Nutrition Facts can be found here on Self.com's amazing nutrition calculator.

At the request of a vegetarian friend with developing diabetes, I have designed the following recipe.

Ingredients

1 lb Soybeans (mature seeds)
1/3 lb Wheat berries (hard red winter)
1/3 lb Navy beans
1/3 lb Amaranth
1/2 lb shredded coconut
1/2 lb flaxseed
1/8 lb nutritional yeast
1 lb almonds (slivered and/or sliced)

5 onions (mix red, yellow, white)
2 bell peppers
4 Jalapenos
2 lg cans of diced tomatoes
1 lb Swiss chard
1 lb Collard greens
2 bunches of cilantro
2 heads of garlic (yeah, the whole thing x 2)

1 cup olive oil
1 cu apple cider vinegar
1/4 cup of each of the following spices: black pepper, cayenne*, cumin, coriander, paprika, tumeric, yellow mustard seed

*1/4 cup of cayenne will yield a solidly spicy stew. Scale back to preference.

Instructions

1. Rinse soybeans, navy beans and wheat berries. Divide in 2 and put each half into a large pot. Add water and boil for ~1 hour (until they're still tough, but chewable). Stir occasionally to make sure nothing is sticking to the bottom.

2. Chop onions, peppers and garlic. Put into a pot with the cayenne pepper, black pepper and coriander. Add some of the olive oil and fry on high heat, stirring constantly, until onions begin to look translucent (~10-15 minutes). Divide in half and set aside.

3. Chop the collard greens, the Swiss chard and the cilantro. Do chop this carefully (I prefer ~1/2 inch squares) because long, tough greens do make the soup messy. Set aside. Open the cans of tomatoes. Divide all the other ingredients in two portions. 

4. When the beans are finished, put everything that's not in the pot, into the pot. That's right. Everything (including what you set aside in steps 2 and 3). Cook for 15 minutes, or until it's as soft as you'd prefer. Remember, the tougher you can handle it, the better (slower digestion, better for blood sugars; also the more work it is to eat, the less you'll eat). Stir frequently, making sure to scrape the bottom (the stew is quite thick, and it's really easy to burn the bottom layer).

 5. (optional) I like to divvy it up into day-use Tupperware so I can just grab-and-go. Also, I do sometimes freeze a portion of it for later use.

Discussion

First off, to be perfectly clear, this is not a recipe for diabetes. You won't actually get diabetes by eating this stew. But it is for diabetics, or anyone who wants to get better control of their blood sugar (I'm talking to you, average American). The above is a modification of my previous recipe, but this time optimizing factors important for blood sugar. The most important thing goal for the diabetic is minimizing glycemic index (GI), how fast the food turns into sugar. The faster this happens, the harder it is on you pancreas and cells; a nice, slow gradual release of the sugar is ideal. Coca Cola and white bread are bad. The other thing I found in my reading was that fiber is good. I'm not sure it's entirely clear the mechanism (I've heard some argue that fibrous foods make it physically slower to digest food). Also, to throw a kink in, the particular person I designed this for was a vegetarian. So no meat.

So with some reading and comparing of foods, I decided to go with soybeans as the primary base (the kind that look like nuts in the bulk food section; not the ones that look green that you get at Sushi restaurants). They've got a ton of fiber, really low GI, and high protein. For diversity (and also inspired by Ezekiel 4:9), I decided to add in wheat berries, Navy beans (best-in-(bean)class on fiber and GI), and, partly because Milton thinks it was next to the Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden, partly because it means "unfading beauty" in Greek, and partly because it has pretty darned good nutritional properties, I added a bit of Amaranth.

In looking at the nutrition facts above, you may think I failed. "626 Calories!?" "34 grams of fat?!" It was deliberate. The first thing you may or may not know is that humans need to eat food in order to keep on living. For most humans about 2000 Calories need to come in one way or another. The goal should not be to try to eat 1500 Calories and splurge up to 2500, but to try to eat a good 2000 Calories.

As for nutritional goals, I think it came out fairly well. One hearty bowl of the stuff and you get all the fiber you need in a day without Metamucil (and I suppose this is as good a place as any for the disclaimer: that much fiber will probably change your bowel habits: get ready for it). The glycemic load is low at 19 for the bowl (~61 if you ate nothing but the stew all day, well below the target 100). Those were my goals, and they were met. And now for the gravy (don't eat gravy; it's bad for you).

Veggies (not bacon) are good for you, especially slow-digesting, nutrient rich ones (i.e. the green-leafies). It's  winter, so the tomatoes locally are about a bazillion dollars a pound; so I went with canned this time (of course, fresh is always better if you can get your hands on 'em). And because I love garlic, I was not sparse with it. For most people, and for people with blood sugar problems especially, veggies are very important.

Let's move on to the fats. Because of (as far as I can tell) very clever "fat free" marketing in the 90's, we have adopted the idea that "fat is bad!" It's equivalent to arbitrarily selecting a class of words and declaring them evil: "Nouns are naughty!" "Verbs are viscous!" In reality, there are good and bad fats. The only "traditional" diet studied with rigor has been shown to be really good for you; it's called the Mediterranean Diet and includes a LOT of olive oil. Coconut oil (which is expensive... dried coconut is much cheaper, and believe it or not, has coconut oil inside of it) has been shown to increase good cholesterol (HDL) and improve blood sugar. Monounsaturated oils (lots in olive oil) also improve cholesterol profile (increase the good, decrease the bad), as well as improving blood sugars. So I included lots of both. I also read that almonds, in addition to the great benefits of their good-for-you fats, were really good for sugar control. And (also because flaxseed extract is expensive) I added flaxseeds; the stew has as much heart-healthy Omega-3 in one bowl as a supplement pill.

As with the previous version, the massive amounts of spice provide anti-oxidants anti-inflammatory which are good at curing everything ("Cancer!" and "Infection!"). Some people even think that diabetes is a problem with "inflammation" (e.g. bariatric surgery can sometimes reverse diabetes; some think this is because people lose their "inflammatory" fat tissue). But we have meandered to the fringes of scientific hypothesis and in the imagination land of nutritional benefits; I have not even heard of people who tried using coriander for cure. The whole inflammation story seems to simple to be true IMHO, but I'd bet that some of the hype is real. Even if it wasn't, spice is the spice of life.

So that's the "Diabetes Stew." The more of it you eat, the better! If you just have a little bit with your meals, it'd have some effect. If you can, as I did, completely replace your diet with this one item (you'd have to sacrifice the Western proclivity for variety and learn to enjoy repetition as the rest of the world does), it'd have big effects.

[For the record, all the health claims are scientific second-hand: I have not read the original papers nor am I an expert in nutrition. I have written the above mostly with what I have learned from (probably) reliable sources (mostly professors at Stanford). If you find sources and/or info that contradicts this, please post in the comments]

The Neuroscience of Empathy

You’re 10. The lunch bell just rang. The epic and thrilling sport of kickball is about to begin. Now it’s time to pick teams. Today you’re relived to get picked in the middle. The other kids are getting picked. Now there’s just two left. You look out with sadness at the last two schmucks. One of them will end up getting picked second-to-last and one sorry kid will have to endure the gut-wrenching feeling of being the only one on either team that didn’t get picked at all. The second-to-last kid is picked. You look out at the face of that last pitiful kid. How do you feel?

If you answered, “Hey! I was that last kid!” you make a really good point. Before we look at empathy, let’s take a quick look at our own emotional pain. Researchers set up a virtual playground where participants were playing the videogame “cyberball” while in a brain scanner (fMRI). And then, in the equivalent of the playground, two of the players rejected the participant. What happened? Ouch. What did the researchers see? A part deep in the brain right between the temples called the Anterior Cingulate Cortex (ACC) burned bright with activity. They asked the participants how bad it was, and they found that the more distress they felt, the brighter the ACC burned. Getting picked last for kickball is a terrible thing.

But what’s also terrible is watching someone get picked last. The experiment was repeated, but this time the participant watched while another player got rejected. What happened this time? Ouch again. Again, the ACC burned bright. Watching someone else get picked last is also a terrible thing.

It turns out that the ACC seems to be important for feeling any kind of pain. It lights up when you stub your toe or when you watch someone else stub their toe; it lights up when you get dumped, or when you hear about your friend getting dumped. One group even looked at patients who cannot, for neurological reasons, feel physical pain. They found that even these patients were still able to share a pain they never felt; their ACC was active when watching others experience physical pain.

This might lead you to think that the ACC was important in making people altruistic. You may think: the worse you feel about someone else’s situation, the more likely you are to help. The more pathetic-looking they make the African orphan on the commercial, the more likely you’ll donate money. But it’s false. Even though it seems to be an indicator of pain, it doesn’t seem that pain produces altruistic action. In the study of the cyberball watchers, the participants got a chance to write an email to the rejected player, and this was then rated by how helpful and comforting it was. Changes in ACC didn’t predict nice emails. In another study of people looking at pictures of hurricane victims and considering donating money, they found the same thing: ACC was active but didn’t predict generosity.

What did? A part of the brain between the temples near the top of the head (dmPFC). The more dmPFC activity, the more helpful the emails to the rejected cyberball players, and the more money was committed to the hurricane victims. Why?

To answer that, we need another experiment! This time, researchers tested a very strange hypothesis: the most selfless people were actually being selfish. In other words, they tested whether people’s generosity was because they felt bad for people in a bad situation, or whether it was because they considered themselves “one” with the others. Oneness, “reflects a sense of interpersonal unity, wherein the conceptions of self and other are not distinct but are merged to some degree.” They asked people how they would help various kinds of people (from strangers to family), in various situations (from a phone call to helping their orphaned kids) and found that the empathic concern was only important insofar as the people considered themselves one with the other person. Their altruism was driven by their oneness, not their empathy.

So what about our friend, the dmPFC? It turns out that it’s more active when we’re making evaluations about others, particularly when we’re considering others as a part of ourselves, a part of our group.

Conclusion

It seems that the emerging story is that empathy is an important human capacity. You can look at a person in pain, feel bad for him, and keep on moving. In fact, it doesn’t seem to matter how much it actually hurts you to see another in pain. So long as you think of the person as ‘him,’ you’ll probably walk on by (probably crossing to the other side of the road while you’re at it). But the more that you think of the other person as ‘me,’ the more likely you are to let your empathy drive you to action. Jesus may have been speaking quite literally when He said, “Love thy neighbor as thyself.”

Disclaimer: Professor Plumb, in the Library, with the Candlestick

Professor Plumb was in the library, but did he actually commit the murder? We see a provocative correlation, a brain region that lights up when you’re about to do good, that same region lighting up when you consider people part of your group, and the observation that feeling “oneness” with others lines up with altruistic action. All the pieces are in line for it to be true, but we don’t know for sure. That is to say, the above goes into the category of “speculative hypothesis.” All these observations might be explained by a third factor. Or it might turn out that some of these observations are actually false. Or an hundred other things. That’s the problem (and the fun) of speculation. So long as the speculation is backed up with a firm Theology (i.e. that we ought to obey Jesus regardless of whether there are discovered neural pathways to support His advice), it’s all in good fun.

Together in the New Jerusalem (4 of 4)

We often hear that we were once a violent race that killed people who believed in other gods. Then we made a great compromise. Some great peacemaker suggested Pluralism, “If you just say that your all-powerful god isn’t all-powerful, we’ll do the same; our gods can share the sky.” And so, by compromising on God’s power, we achieved a cease-fire. And some would advocate that we again accept it. But the advocates are often humanists, and as it is said in business, beware the naked man who offers you his shirt; so now, beware the atheist who offers you his god. Pluralism was a reasonable compromise for two monotheists, but not for an atheist and a monotheist. But what can we compromise on? How can we have peace?

The unique solution to our dilemma is to put our faith in Peace embodied. Jesus came and was the Prince of Peace, and he founded a religion with just the structure to meet the need of our species. The one place where Christianity cannot compromise is where everyone else can (doctrine). Where everyone else cannot compromise, Christianity can. So my dear reader, if your heart is to reconcile all religions, you have the heart of Christ. And if you seek a path that can satisfy all people, you can find it in Christ. And if you seek to bind together all the diversity of humanity in a wonderful unity, your desire can be satisfied by the Church.

Muhammad desired that men might learn humility before God. Christ humbled Himself unto death and bids His disciples do likewise. Confucius was looking for social order. Christ founded His Kingdom on Love to bring perfect order. The Buddha sought an escape from suffering. Christ bore our suffering on Himself, and promised a Resurrection unto joy. Hinduism sought an escape from the unending circle of reincarnation. Christ adjures us to take the straight and narrow path to the Holy City. Yoruba religion sought reconnection with God, others, nature and destiny. Christ tears the curtain of separation between God and man, and demonstrated how love can tie us intimately with all around us. Judaism seeks a Messiah to bring Israel back from Exile. Christ is that Messiah. Laozi was searching for the Way. Christ said “I am the way.”

Many visions of the afterlife, though beautiful in many ways, turn out to be narrow. The blissful unity of Nirvana is wonderful, but it would certainly exclude a man as passionate as Jesus. Buddhist ideas of inner peace are profound, but Muhammad was far too aggressive to find it. The pleasures of Muslim Paradise are easy to yearn for, but the Buddha wouldn’t know what to do with virgins and wine. The freedom and formlessness of the Dao is beautiful, but not a beauty that Confucius with his focus on about cities and politics would appreciate. The structure of Muslim Sharia establishes a firm public order, but not one that Laozi would ever have submitted himself to. There are strange truths present in the words of the mystics, but Rabbi Hillel would much rather know by reasoning. We have all felt the bottomless despair of death so well captured by Greek Hades, but Socrates could never accept an afterlife absent of ultimate justice. But the New Jerusalem is big enough to fit all these men.

In a Christian Heaven we might see, standing at great gates of pearl, Plato and Augustine discussing the City of God. In Heaven, the Buddha may sit silently with St. Benedict and the Desert Fathers under the Tree of Life. In Heaven, Hippocrates may gather leaves of healing with Maimonides and Dr. Livingston. In Heaven, Hector may wrestle with Joshua and Arjuna. In Heaven, Gandhi may join Moses and Dr. King on a freedom march down streets of gold. In Heaven, Solomon, standing in the court of the Final Temple, may explicate the finer points of his administration to Muhammad and Confucius. In Heaven, Laozi may wander with St. Francis and Adam, following the Dao through wondrous Eden.

<== Back to The Universal Church (3 of 4)

The Universal Church (3 of 4)

At the opening of the movie Wedding Crashers the priest is about to start reading. John whispers to Jeremy, “20 bucks, First Corinthians.” Jeremy accepts the bet, “Double or nothing, Colossians 3:12.” Jeremy loses the bet, and 1 Corinthians 15 is read. That is the famous “love” chapter (the one opening with “love is patient,” or if you prefer the older translation, “charity suffers long”). At the end of the section, it talks about something that I, as a Bible-clutching believer in Truth never really understood. Love, “bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.” I get the bearing and enduring. But believing? Hoping? Isn’t Christianity about disbelieving things? Aren’t there definitely things that need to be rejected?

Christianity seems to have been specifically designed to be the most universal and unifying thing in the galaxy. And this is very strange. Isn’t is supposed to be close-minded and bigoted? Superficially, so it seems. But let’s review some history.

Jews for Jesus

In the first century, the Church was made up entirely of Jewish converts. They still kept Jewish feasts and really didn’t see Christianity as anything but a Jewish sect. Then, God called some Romans to be Christians, too. When the news of their conversion was shared, it blew the minds of the listeners who, to that point, thought God cared mostly about the Jews: “When they heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God, saying, "Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life." There arose a great argument: wouldn’t the new converts have to first convert to Judaism (and get circumcised…ouch!), or could there be such things as non-Jewish Christians. Because of the convincing (to them) evidence of miracle surrounding the conversions, they decided that non Jews could be Christians, too.

Gentiles for Jesus

Fast forward a few millennia and the tables have turned. Christianity, originally a Jewish sect, is now perceived as a non-Jewish group. But not entirely. Meet Glenn Blank (not Beck), a good Reform Jew who was minding his own business. Out of the blue, he saw a vision of Jesus crucified. He did not understand it at the time, but through a process that included a Bible-as-literature class in college, he eventually came to believe that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah. So what did he do? Give up his Judaism and become Christian? On the contrary! He got more Jewish. “I didn't know [my Jewish identity] was important! I thought I'd become a Christian! But in fact, my Jewish identity is important to God, and I began to grow in understanding what it means to be a Jew.” Glenn is an example of what is called today a Messianic Jew, a startlingly large group that has been reported at 250,000 in the US alone; even with only these counted, it would mean that about 1 in 50 Jews worldwide believes in Jesus.

So we see in Glenn something very interesting. The first century question was whether Christianity was broad enough to include non-Jews. Today, it is whether Christianity is broad enough to include Jews. But in both times, God seemed to be calling people in their own cultural contexts not to change cultures, but to believe in Jesus.

Muslims for Jesus. Wait, what?

Now let’s take a look at Islam. Meet Soleh. He was a construction foreman who also taught in the mosque of his remote village. He took a job working on a Christian school for several months. The students at the school were running out of food, and prayed for food, and food came. Soleh believed the coincidental timing of this donation was indeed an answer to prayer. Later, he had a conversation with one of the students about faith, and came to believe in Jesus. He was ready to leave everything to follow Jesus, but was told he didn’t need to; he could follow Isa (the Arabic name of Jesus) without leaving Islam. He returned to his village, gathered his community and, “announced that he was a Muslim who now followed Isa. Not only did nobody seem upset, but many people were very interested, including the village chief who also became a follower of Isa soon thereafter!" The same source also tells the stories of other Muslim followers of Isa like Taufik who “never thinks of himself as being a ‘Christian,’ ... He sees himself being a good Muslim, called to share salvation in the Messiah with fellow Muslims” and Achmad who, “perceives himself as a Muslim who knows Isa.”

How is this possible? A Christian may wholeheartedly claim to be a Muslim, “One who submits.” He may pray 5 times daily facing east. He may give alms. He may fast during Ramadan. He may visit Mecca. He may say and even believe the Shahada (“There is no God but God, and Muhammad is his messenger”). A Muslim cannot accept the Christian idea of Jesus (that he was the Son of God), while a Christian can accept the Muslim idea of Muhammad (that he was a prophet). An orthodox Muslim cannot take Communion, accepting the sacrificial death of the Son of God (because God has no son), or Baptism, taking part in His resurrection (for Jesus never died) while a Christian can observe the Five Pillars. Christianity is a bigger circle than Islam. An orthodox Christian can be a Muslim, but an orthodox Muslim cannot be a Christian.

If there can be Messianic Jews and Messianic Muslims, there can be a Messianic anything. We think of religions as mutually exclusive largely because we, in the West, impose a Christian framework on other religions. We see conversion as a person leaving all that they once knew, and doing something completely foreign. But conversion to Christianity is not a universal rejection; it is a universal acceptance.

Omniworship

Christian universality is possible because Christianity is flexible in the right places and rigid in the right places. Jesus does command that you love him more than your family and your culture. But when the healed man from Decapolis would leave his people to follow Jesus back to his Jewish ministry, Jesus told him to stay. Some are called to literally leave, but most are called to stay, to work within their own cultures.

A Christian may, in the same year, celebrate Holi, Passover, Ramadan and Christmas. She may make pilgrimage to Mecca, Jerusalem and Tibet. She may meditate, pray, chant, sing, worship and do yoga. She may eat meat, abstain from meat; she may eat kosher food, halal food or food sacrificed to Vishnu. She may tell stories about the Jews’ redemption from Egypt, Odysseus’ return to Ithaca, or Rama’s romance with Sita.

St. Paul explicitly encourages this sort of thing. He himself walked amongst the idols of the Greeks and participated in Jewish practices he was freed from. He wrote that “All things are permissible,” even doing very un-Jewish things like eating meat sacrificed to idols. A huge part of Paul’s teaching throughout his life was that Christians didn’t have to keep Jewish traditions.

Real unifying faith

All this allows for a beautiful and unprecedented unity. When we talk about our color preferences, we are talking about something purely subjective. When we enter into the realm of true and false, we cross the threshold into that part of the human experience we can share. Conversations about theology are impossible in pluralism, or at least they’re very short. “Oh! Very interesting. That’s good for you.” True and interesting conversation can only come when people are talking about the same thing. And with Jesus’ audacious claim to be the Truth, the logos, the foundation of rationality, he permits his followers to seek him literally everywhere. The Christian can discuss the truth in a Hindu story, or a Jewish scripture, or a Greek epic, or a mathematical postulate. He can feel the emotional truth in Muslim architecture, Buddhist yoga, or even a secular nightclub [1]. The Christian can baptize a piece of art, or an experience, or a story in the waters of Truth, allowing all that is false or evil or wrong to die, and bringing the rest of it into the Light. GK Chesterton once said that St Thomas Aquinas baptized Aristotle: Thomas found his work and literally saved it from being lost, but also translated the good of it into the new orthodoxy. The Christian can affirm the true and the good in every culture, in every religion, and even in every person. The Atheist must deny all things (certainly all religions). The Pluralist must deny some things (e.g. Christianity and Islam). The Christian, unique in history and amongst philosophies, may truly believe all things.

Calling Christianity intolerant is like saying that the Allies were secretly Nazis. Without context, it might have been confusing to see Patton in Germany with American tanks. Patton’s defection might be a plausible story, or maybe he was a German general all along. But if one simply watched the Battle of the Bulge, it wouldn’t take long to see that the Allies were not friends with the Nazis. Of course, there were Nazi spies amongst Allied ranks, and there were Allied soldiers who poorly represented the group. But it’s difficult to argue that the Allies were pro-Nazi because it was the Allies who defeated the Nazis. And so it is with Christianity.

On Christmas Day, the beaches of Darkness and Intolerance were invaded. Since then, thousands of missionaries, abolitionists, and translators have been broadening the Church. As the Allies marked time from the day of their invasion, so Christians count time relative to “C-Day”. In fact, so do you. In the corner of your computer screen and on your wrist and on the phone in your pocket you can see exactly how many hours, days, months, and years have elapsed since the invasion began (“The Year of our Lord 2012”, abbreviated 2012 AD from the Latin Anno Domini). In 33AD, the Church spoke Aramaic and included Judaism. Within a few decades, its leaders were from diverse parts of the Roman Empire and it included Greek. Today, the Gospel has been printed in well over 1500 languages and the Church includes members from every continent and every major religion. And it continues to broaden.

[1] I have recently discovered the feeling of being ‘one’ with a crowd, moving to loud music in a dark club is true. Of course, there are a million bad things mixed in. But the feeling of unity with strangers is a mystical truth: we are indeed all one blood, and the breath that we draw is from the same Father in heaven. This is the kernel of truth I found at Bootie.

<== Back to Color, Culture and Christianity (2 of 4)
==> Onward to Together in the New Jerusalem (4 of 4)

Color, Culture and Christianity (2 of 4)

Culture is Like Color

Culture is like colors. Most of history, there really have been only two options: Conquest and Pluralism. Most empires decided that they would impose their culture, or at least their government, on others. They are like blue panes of glass shattering every pane that would not or could not become blue. The blue panes tried to paint the world blue. The alternative is pluralism, rejecting the idea that any one color should be dominant. There is no Blue Plan or Green Plan; the colors don’t go anywhere in particular. The best we can hope is for them to stop smashing each other. We keep our own color, and, as best we can, practice tolerance for the others. And we can celebrate that red is a different color than blue. Maybe blue panes occasionally go visit the red corner; there are rare outliers who, for work or family, live amongst differently colored panes.

Through the ages, we strove to achieve the ethical goal: “Don’t smash each other.” As a species, we’ve gone from killing the guy next door, to tolerating him (and his goddamn music!). The next step is to love him; to invite him and his family over for dinner. The colored panes, now preserved from violence, can begin to come together. But why should they? Previous attempts have mixed the colors at random simply for the sake of diversity; but inevitably, the panes would retire to their corners. What can bring the green panes from the green corner?

Common Purpose Unites Cultures

A higher vision. A purpose. A picture that requires green and nothing but green right next to blue and nothing but blue. And so, the panes came together and formed a beautiful stained-glass window. And then something new happened. The sun rose, and illuminated the picture. The green glowed with a beauty it had not known in its corner. The red and blue, enemies of old, mingled the light that passed through them into a rich purple. The picture, made up of every color, became alive and dazzling, giving new meaning to each pane’s color, a meaning that was only a mystery and a dream while they were separated from each other and in the darkness.

Language: A Case Study of Culture

On a remote island of the Philippines a year ago, I was working on a healthcare project amongst the Palawano, a people-group of about 50,000. My companion was a tall white man wearing a Hawaiian shirt, big round glasses, and shorts; he had an enviable full beard, white with age and wisdom. As we travelled, he pointed to a Palawano road sign and casually remarked, “They spelled that wrong.” He, of all the people in the world, would know. He invented the Palawano written language.

While Christians pour out their hearts to translate the Bible, cultural Imperialism is on a death march, crushing culture after culture. When I was in Kenya, they had forgotten how to play their traditional music. They wore mitumba, second-hand shirts with all variety of American brands, and only rarely something that looked vaguely Kenyan. As a colony, the British attempted to crush tribal individuality by imposing Swahili on them (while depriving them of the economic benefits of English). Today, their economy mandates that they speak English or never leave the farm. Kikuria, the traditional language of the tribe I worked with, will be soon be forgotten. And so it is everywhere.

The Cruel Western Melting Pot

America has been compared to a melting pot, but it seems that the world has become one. But what seems to be melting away are the distinctive features of the different cultures, like the subtle flavor of saffron consumed into an over-salted homogeneous gruel. Everyone is listening to the same music, watching the same movies, and hearing the same opinions. A thousand teas, honey wines, and tropical fruit juice are being replaced by the very same Coca-Cola. The wonderful variety of roasted, fried, and stewed meat are being replaced by the very same Big Mac (with the occasional hat-tip to the host country). It is true that the offering plate on Sunday has trouble slowing the steamrolling powers of Coca-Cola and McDonalds. But at least we’re doing our best. Who else is even trying?

Christianity Redeems Human Culture

Christianity cares deeply about human culture, so much so it preserves it eternally. There are very few versions of the afterlife that preserve human culture. Atheistic oblivion tells that it will cease to exist when humans go extinct. Eastern versions tell that humans will lose their separateness when they enter Nirvana, when the drop joins the ocean, culture and all. But in Christian heaven, there will be people of every tribe, tongue, people and nation, recognizably themselves and different, but unified and at peace. It is a radical vision of human unity that is symbolically expressed and anticipated by Christian translation efforts. Christians spend a huge amount of blood, sweat and dollars on translating the Bible into languages because the vision of a diverse crowd in heaven is so exciting. This shows Christianity’s relationship with culture. It is not a melting pot averaging out all the flavors into the same gruel. It is the salt of the Earth, bringing out the flavors of the individual cultures, and preserving them from blandness and decay.

What other truth speaks every language? The Qur’an, according to Muslims, cannot be translated; once it enters English, it is not the Qur’an. Part of its holiness is its Arabic. Though few are as strict as this, most religious writings go un-translated. Even the Christian critic Robert Heinlein’s fictional Martian religion cannot be translated. But the Christian Bible remains holy in English or Urdu. Indeed, many of Christian heroes are translators who literally gave their lives fighting the cultural bigots of their day. William Tyndale was burned at the stake fighting those who would confine the Christian idea in the prison of Latin culture. In an irreversible act of defiance, the Bible broke loose into German and English and then every other language under the sun. Where are the Tyndales of pluralism?

<== Back to The Religion Color Experiment (1 of 4)
==> Onward to The Universal Church (3 of 4)

The Religion Color Experiment (1 of 4)

Background

Parents: you wouldn't do this...

Daughter: “I love green. Green is my favorite color.”
Father: “NO. Your favorite color is purple.”
Daughter: “But Dad, I don’t like purple. I like gree-”
Father: “NO. YOUR FAVORITE COLOR IS PURPLE AND THAT’S FINAL” 

...So don't do this you do this:

Daughter: “Dad, what happens to us after we die?”
Father: “I’m so glad you asked, sweetie! Allow me to now parrot what my parents told me as a child, thus perpetuating 2,000 years worth of bizarre, backwards, ridiculous beliefs that no one in their right mind would believe unless an authority figure taught it to them while they were young.”

Here is a popular view on religion, presented by perhaps the second funniest web comic on the whole interweb, TheOatmeal (<----the highlighted word "TheOatmeal" links to the original version of the above comic. Warning: TheOatmeal often uses hyperbole for comic effect). It basically says that religion is like a color, an arbitrary preference. Some cultures happened to all agree on favorite colors, maybe red, white and blue in the US of A. But it might just as easily have been black, yellow and red if you were born in Germany.

Methods

Let’s run that experiment. What if Christianity was exactly like the color red? Let us imagine that there are people who believe that red is not just a good color, but the True color. We will call them Red Colorists.

Results

The Red Colorists top minds begin to investigate red as a color, reasons for preferring red, and the essence of redness. This process consumes undeniably the best minds of most of European history, as the Red Colorists find the subject of Red-ology so deep its depths cannot be plumbed.

Red missionaries travel throughout the world, sacrificing their careers and their families to spread the good news about the color red, red being the only one by which men might be saved. They spend decades as anthropologists and linguists translating the Gospel of Red into the native tongues of those who like green and purple and yellow. They work so hard because they believe every person should be able to read about red in their own “heart language.” Those who convert exclaim, “I’ve loved blue my whole life, but now I see I’ve been living a lie! The arguments of the Red Colorists have persuaded me! Red is the one, true color!”

Those who prefer red are often persecuted, and even threatened with death. Others, who also take their color seriously make threats, “If you don’t say that yellow is your favorite color, we will kill you!” But the threats do nothing; the Red Colorists refuse to change their preference, or even pretend to change so that they don’t get killed. Some get killed. But it doesn’t stop them. Their love for the other colorists is so intense that they are willing to die so that others might prefer red.

Discussion

What is the result of treating Christianity like the color red? It makes Christians seem nuttier than a jar of Skippy.  And for some, it may help communicate how crazy religion seems. For those on the fence, maybe it’s a silly enough story to be laughed at. But it doesn’t matter. I tell the story to raise the question: Why don’t we die for our favorite color?

As is always true, when your theory can’t explain something, it might be time to change it. If a guy has the theory, “She wants me sooooo bad,” it may not adequately explain her statement: “Get away from me, creeper!” A new theory is needed. And so it is with the color theory of religion. Even if it is true in part, it doesn’t explain important pieces (like the whole dying-for-a-color part).

The trouble with the word religion is that it’s hard to define. Like the coach section of an airplane, the word ‘religion,’ mashes together very different kinds of people into an identical seat size, some of whom definitely don’t fit. Consider the case of Confucianism and Christianity. Both are concerned about ethics. Also, you may astutely note that both begin with the letter ‘C.’ But that’s about where the similarities end. 

Confucianism focuses on the present world, barely commenting on metaphysics. Christianity is concerned with both, caring that God’s will be done “on earth, as in heaven.” Christianity does a lot of other things that Confucianism doesn’t, like congregational worship, and telling a common narrative. Confucianism seems well described by the color theory; it is closer to a culture or a civilization. It is a beautiful ethical code, and it seems like it works really well in China. But proselytization really doesn’t make much sense.

The color theory just doesn’t work when it comes to doctrine. And Christianity is really the only religion that has doctrine as a central part, the only religion where belief (orthodoxy) is more important and even separable from behaviors (orthopraxy), practices and culture [1]. Confucianism is a Chinese set of ideas and isn’t really trans-plantable. And even if it were, there’s not really much motivation to move it. “It works for us; whatever you’re doing probably works for you.” Judaism is similar but specific to a scattered race rather than a fixed country. But, like a fat man on a coach seat, Christianity’s doctrine spills out of the “religion is a color” coach seat.

When we enter into the realm of ideas, we have crossed an important threshold. When religion is something that exists only inside one brain, it cannot be shared. My preference for blue is irrational. There is no reason I can identify why blue is a great color, a color better than red and orange. I cannot make you empathize with my liking the color blue; you can sympathize with my words, “I like blue,” but even if your favorite color is also blue, you cannot understand my blue preference. But then let’s suppose I move into the common world that we both share when I say, “The color blue is made by photons of wavelengths 450-495nm.” Then you can agree with me or disagree with me. When I say “Blue is [something],” then I’m talking about something that exists in your world and mine.

And Christianity began to say, “God is Love” “God is Just.” When it crossed that threshold, its ideas entered the marketplace or arena of ideas. They must compete like all other ideas. Ideas can appeal to personal narrative (i.e. “I used Sham-Wow, and it was amazing!”), or they can appeal to testable facts (“Sham-Wow can hold 432 times its weight in water!!!”).

But if they are to survive, they need to make appeals in ways that purely subjective things do not. Like a marketplace, ideas must be persuasive to be passed on. Richard Dawkins, Atheist extraordinaire, says that ideas are like viruses. He calls them memes, and those that are able to transmit from one person to another succeed. And what idea has been more successful than Christianity?

[1] This was first pointed out to me by Christian de-convert, Stephen Prothero, in his book God is Not One. I had Christio-centrically assumed that everyone in every religion had doctrine as I had. In so doing, I was imposing my Christian view on religion on religions that didn’t have orthodoxy. It was like walking into the House of Representatives and asking to speak to the king; the Speaker might be the closest approximation, but I wrongly assumed that every government was like my own, and that he had ultimate power when he did not. Hinduism no more has Orthodoxy than a Democracy has a king. In the next section, I’ll give more examples and consequences of this difference.

==> Onward to Color, Culture and Christianity (2 of 4)

The Elephant and the Blind Men

Once upon a time, a blind man was travelling down a road when he ran into an elephant. Feeling its trunk, he said aloud, “I have found something very strange! It feels like a snake!”

He soon discovered that he was not alone. A second man, also blind, had found the tail some minutes before. He agreed that it was flexible, but disagreed about it being thick, “It is a strange thing, but I think it’s a rope!” Just then, another set of blind travelers came to the creature and found its middle. They began to discuss amongst themselves the thing’s rigidity and strength. But when the pair came to talk about shape, they began to disagree vehemently. One hugged the leg and, from the roundness, insisted, “The thing is a tree!” The other pushed against the creature’s side and argued, “It is far too flat to be a tree. Surely it is a wall!”

Yet another blind man passing by heard the commotion. He would not approach the others or what they gathered around, and was astonished at the discussion. He mocked, “How can there be anything there at all? How can you all honestly think you’re right? Can’t you see (but alas, you are blind) that, at best, only one of you is right? If you ask me, I think it most reasonable that there is nothing there at all. You desire to feel ropes and trees and walls, and so your imagination gives birth to ropes and trees and walls.” Annoyed at the foolishness, he continued on his way.

The blind man touching the trunk, heard this rebuke, and had an epiphany. “No indeed! There is certainly something here. But it must be a very wonderful thing! We all truly feel differences, but maybe that is because the thing has no fixed shape. It is not really like a tree or a wall, but it may become like them. Truly, the best picture of this thing is like water. It may freeze solid and feel like a tree or a wall, but its true essence is water. Water may melt and be flexible like a stream and feel like a snake or a rope, but not be a snake or a rope. None of us understands the true essence of the thing and not even sight would reveal it.”

Just then, the Tree Grasper saw a vision of the thing like a thunderbolt from heaven. He and declared with a voice of wonder and conviction, “It is one creature!” There was silence. The others furrowed their brows, clutching tighter to their respective parts. “How could that be?” asked one of them. “It is a living thing, like a snake. But it is more rigid with strong bones, as our friend who felt the wall declared. It is flat in some places, round in others. We are all right about different aspects of it, but united in our error: it is not just one experience; it’s bigger than that. The thing is great enough to include each of our experiences.”

Just then they heard a new voice, one overflowing with confidence and joy. “It is an elephant!” the voice declared. The blind men were thrown into confusion. They stood and waited, turning their heads toward the newcomer. Eventually the Rope Grasper mustered courage and meekly asked, “What’s an elephant?”

Though they could not see it, the stranger smiled wryly. Then, with a voice full of music and authority, he commanded them, “Look and see!” Instantly the veil of darkness tore like a curtain, and light streamed in through the eyes of the once-blind men. They began weeping, but through their tears they saw that it was as the Tree Grasper had said. They all gathered together around the “snake” of the trunk and saw how it connected to the head and they understood how it helped the elephant eat and work. They went to the “rope” and laughed together about how it looked and how it expressed the creature’s mood. They saw that the “wall” and “tree” men had also been right; it did indeed have great strength. They realized that the strong bones and sinews of the creature were the only thing that ever could bind together “tree” and “snake,” “wall” and “rope.”

The men stood now blinking in the sun. In all the excitement, they had forgotten the stranger. And then they turned around and beheld the man. He was strong and standing tall, arrayed in fine clothes and wearing a crown of gold. The edges of his lips were upturned, his teeth were exposed, and his eyebrows were raised. The men looked then at the first smile they had ever seen, and could not keep themselves from returning it.

“Who are you?” they asked together in awe.

“I am the Prince, and this, whom you have been prodding, pushing, yanking and hugging, is my elephant,” he declared with a dramatic gesture to the creature. “She is well trained her to endure all manner of investigations by all manner of people.”

“Why do you have an elephant?” they asked.

“Movement!” declared the Prince.

“But where shall we go? Our homes are in all different parts; where can we go together?” the men asked.

The Prince replied, “You will come into my palace! Today, I am adopting you into the royal family! As of this moment, you are brothers to one another and heirs of the kingdom! Come home with me!”

And so the Prince called the elephant to kneel, and the once-blind men leaped up onto her back. As they climbed on, he set a crown of gold on the head of each one, embraced him, and looking him in the eye he said, “Welcome!” And so all of them began a journey toward the Palace of the Prince, united now as brothers, sighted men, and newly-crowned Princes of the Palace.