When the 2003 METS travel group departed Atlanta last May, they were following a well established METS tradition. At the same time, they were pioneers. This was the first METS group to travel after 9/11, not to mention that the U. S. had invaded Iraq less than two months before the May departure. Also it was the first “Middle East Travel Seminar” that would focus on Turkey and Greece rather than the heartland of the Middle East.

Now that we are back, let me confess that even I was a little uneasy. How would an American group (including one Canadian) be received in Deirbakr, the capital of Kurdish Turkey; or in Mardin, within sight of Syria and less than a hundred miles from the Iraqi border? And would the METS experience be the same? Would there be a sufficiently dramatic encounter with a truly foreign culture, for example, as well as some memorable “ah-ha!” moments, and enough genuine interchange with local people along the way to stimulate serious reflection and discussions among the METS travelers?

As it turned out, there was no need to worry on either count. Whatever their private thoughts about current U. S. foreign policy, the Turks and Greeks received us graciously and politely. Istanbul is more westernized than Damascus, so there was less culture shock on the first day. But for an experience of cultural otherness, Sanliurfa is a match for any city in the Middle East. Add to that the fact that, according to Muslim tradition, Sanliurfa is the present-day descendant of ancient Ur, Abraham's hometown, from which he set out to Harran and eventually to Canaan. What an experience to stand in the midst of a crowd of Muslim pilgrims before the very spot where they believe Abraham was born; to realize that they earnestly regard him to be both their genetic and spiritual ancestor; and to know that they see Jews and Christians as misguided brothers in the Abrahamic tradition.

Yet I would have to say that the sharpest religious clash experienced by the METS 2003 travelers, and the one that generated the most intense discussions this year, emerged from within the METS group itself. For several years now I have been noticing an increasing polarization in the basic religious assumptions and perspectives of the METS seminarians. Some tend to be more conservative, evangelical or fundamentalist; others are inclined to be more moderate, liberal or even radical social-activist. This year the opposing camps were more sharply divided than ever. Moreover, when one compares the opposite extremes, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that we really are dealing with two different religions.

The divisions are approximately along seminary and denominational lines, but not entirely so. And naturally most of the seminarians are reasonably confident that they represent the true Christian heritage as presented in the Old and New Testaments. But they interpret the biblical materials differently (some assume biblical inerrancy, for example, while others make allowances for the Bible's ancient historical context). They place emphasis on different passages. And they end up with very different theological beliefs about the nature of God, the human condition before God, what is happening in history, the right path to salvation, how narrow that path, and what is in store for those who wander from it. As I suggested above, once all is taken into account, we really are dealing with two essentially different religions.

Nowhere is this more obvious than in the 2003 reflection papers. Pat Pattillo read selections from these papers at the wrap-up banquet, and some of his selections are printed elsewhere in this newsletter. But one needs to read the papers in full to appreciate the wide range and opposite extremes of theological views expressed. We have some extras and will mail them to former METS participants upon request and as long as they last. (Contact Marta Wood at (770) 200-3667 or MWood@pattilloconstruction.com .

The emergence of two essentially different Christian religions is not just a METS phenomenon of course. With roots going back to the Renaissance and Reformation, it is not an entirely new phenomenon either. Yet it does seem to me that we have entered a particularly divisive phase in the history of Christianity—or at least in the history of Protestant Christianity. The growing split among seminarians only mirrors the corresponding split between mainstream Protestantism and the religions right. Admittedly “mainstream Protestantism” and “the religions right” are loose categories with fuzzy boundaries. But the differences are real, not just cosmetic. I think that we are talking different religions.

One of the purposes of the METS program is to provide an occasion for the leaders of tomorrow's churches to get to know each other and to establish bonds of understanding. This is a more worthwhile endeavor now than ever before, in my opinion, even if the bonds of understanding do not lead to agreement.