SeeThrough

light

2007-09-22T00:31:00.000+02:00

the end is the beginning

2007-08-18T09:57:00.000+02:00

after a long and meaningful relationship with Blogspot (you gotta love the price!!!) I have decided to move over to WordPress. A couple of reasons:
- I needed webspace to upload podcasts/mp3's of sermons and teachings etc.
- also, WordPress has a cool functionality that facilitaties easier reading and commenting

so from now on you will find me at seethroughb.com

look forward to connecting with you there!

getting bumped

2007-08-10T02:49:00.000+02:00

I can't remember ever being asked to leave a church. Mostly I was the good kid earning the prize for 100 attendances...

Recently I have been enjoying a fairly engaging conversation with Nate on Adam's blog. Adam posted a reflection on developments in a ministry called "Exodus" in the UK. Nate and I (and Meghan for a while) got into an interesting conversation about different ways to approach ethical questions - most notably, whether people of faith are called to be "boundary-watchers" (Nate's term).

I don't know if reading text makes a person's tone sound more aggressive than it's meant to be, but I thought the tone of the conversation was assertive but respectful. More interesting to me is that while I engaged Nate about some aspects of faith that I feel strongly about, after visiting his own blog, I sense we probably have more in common than we disagree on. My sense is that our differences are worth talking through - we are on the road to finding each other... (I thought!)

That was until Adam shut down the conversation with a short explanation: "Nate & Barry…I’m glad the two of you could engage one another in this conversation, but perhaps it’s time to take this conversation to your blogs or to an email correspondence. Thanks." Adam has closed the comments on this discussion thread, effectively stopping the "public" nature of the conversation (we can of course continue privately). Also, out conversation will no longer be associated with Adam's blog.

So I'm wondering, why did we get bumped? Are we using up his webspace? Are our comments/conversation not the purpose of hosting a blog? Are our comments and perspectives, or just the robust nature of the conversation embarrasing to Adam? Or was he just tired of deleting our comments in his INBOX?

I can't remember ever being asked to leave a church... but this certainly gives me a glimpse of what it must be like to be silenced by an authority in the community - without explanation...

shit!

2007-08-03T01:12:00.000+02:00

transparency can be scary!

(this "venture in honesty" could really be used to hurt me!!!)

am i biblical? am i ethical?

2007-08-02T11:15:00.000+02:00

a group of colleagues recently sent out a letter which begins like this:

in these days of moral and spiritual uncertainty the Church must give clear direction to her people, not least in the area of sexual morality.

while i commend them for their sincere concern for the witness of our church, i find their assumptions difficult to accept.

one of the total misunderstandings (or misrepresentations) of an "inclusive" position with regard to same-sex relationships and the church, is the "so you're saying anything goes" argument. besides being a logical fallacy (see http://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html), it also underestimates (or is disrespectful of ) the strong biblical and ethical basis for the position that supports full acceptance of people in same-sex relationship within the life of the Christian community.

on what basis do I support people in same-sex relationships and desire that they be fully embraced by the Christian Community?

1. the story of God relating with people (what biblical scholars call "salvation history") which is recorded in scripture is an unfolding story of grace and mercy.
the whole of scripture moves from limited experiences and expressions of grace to more and more wide and embracing expressions and experiences of grace...

God is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - a tribe
then the God of Israel - who mercilessly slaughters other nations to establish the nation of Israel in Canaan
then the One True God (a shift from polytheism to selective monotheism)
then the God who has mercy on other nations (jonah)/uses other nations to punish Israel (most of the prophets)
then, the God who will be revealed to other nations as God, by Israel who will be a "light to the nations" (Is 51:4)
then the Only real God (true monotheism)
then the God of the Gentiles and other groups (no jew nor gentile, slave nor free, male nor female - Gal 3:28)

the overarching sense you get as you read "Salvation History" in scripture is of a people coming to terms with a God far beyond their wildest imaginations - they imagined that Yahweh (Jehovah) was their God, but Yahweh keeps surprising them with just how open he is to embracing the "other". This powerful trajectory in scripture is accented by the ministry of Jesus. He actively seeks out the marginalised and the persecuted, the powerless, voiceless and rejected ones in a first century Palestinian society, motivated by raw compassion and some powerful prophecy in Hebrew scripture: "He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners... etc (Is 61, Luke 4) But in so doing, Jesus underlines this narative thread in scripture... that God is always stretching beyond the boundaries we would like to set up as the limits of His Kingdom!

One may ask, but what about the passages in scripture that regard homosexuality as detestable to God? I would simply ask whether you believe God finds slavery detestable. If not, then we don't have much common ground from which to continue our conversation! But if you, like me, believe that God is opposed to slavery, then we would have to reflect on why the Bible regards slavery as a taken-for-granted part of life, and even, in places calls on the slave to be obedient to his master! If scripture represents an unfolding revelation of God, which is becoming increasingly clear, then it is easier to understand that there are aspects of the scriptures which are not to be regarded as "rules for living" but rather as a part of the larger story of God's work with people to bring them to a fuller and greater understanding of God's purpose with people. How do we decide what is to be followed and what is to be ignored? My answer is: nothing is to be ignored, everything should be carefully considered, but always in the light of two interpretative principles:

How does this verse/idea fit into the broader trajectory of scripture? i.e. is it an example of the expanding understanding of God's grace to humanity (e.g. Paul in Gal 3:28) or is it an example of humanity's difficulty in embracing the fullness of God's grace and mercy (e.g. Paul's comments about women in 1 Cor 14:34)?
How is this verse affirmed (or not) by the life, teaching and ministry of Jesus? (because not everything in scripture, both the Hebrew and Christian scriptures, is "Christian"!)

There are a lot of places where scripture is remarkably "supportive" of common prejudices in society. But this "support" is always short-lived, as the wider trajectory of grace always turns back to challenge that prejudice. In the case of slavery, which took another 1700 years to properly condemn, Paul (incredibly for his time) proclaims "no slave nor free"... and in the case of sexism (which is still not fully condemned by the Church) Paul is able to muster "no male nor female"... As a colleague of mine wrote a while back "once a prejudice is named, it's only a matter of time until that prejudice is overcome"...

2. the second strong reason why I would work to encourage the community to fully embrace Gay and Lesbian people is that I believe the Church (what I have been referring to as the community of faith) is called to be a prophetic and counter-cultural community. Paul writes: " Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world..." Most "conservatives" (if this is not a respectful word to describe the group of people opposed to the full acceptance of same-sex relationships, then please help me to find a better one!) would argue that "if the church accepts same-sex relationships, it would be conforming to the pattern of the world". I think an argument can be made for the opposite stance... the world i live in is full of hatred, prejudice, war and violence. While "conservatives" are certainly not advocating or supportive of violence against Gays and Lesbians, our violence and bigoted society is responsible for many incidences of hate crimes. Gays and Lesbians have been murdered. Less violent but much more prevalent, Gays and Lesbians are rejected, fear the loss of their jobs, or opportunities because of their sexual orientation. Even family members of Gay and Lesbian people fear that they might be shunned if they reveal their acceptance of their children/siblings... In this society of prejudice and rejection, to "not conform to the pattern of this world" is to stand in solidarity with and plead for the dignity of people who are often our gentle, silenced family members, colleagues, friends and neighbours... Churches have rejected Gay and Lesbian people so as to "honour the moral teaching of the Bible" - but in so doing have affirmed and encouraged the very prejudice that the majority of the society in which we live still holds on to. Imagine taking Paul's challenge seriously and standing boldly to in non-conformity...

This argument - which I would refer to as the "solidarity" argument can only be understood in terms of an Ethical Value - I am not saying "anything goes" - but quite the opposite. I am arguing from a strong ethical basis which regards the witness of scripture very highly and which regards the ethical example of Jesus (his solidarity with the marginalised) as exemplary for us as followers.

3. another assumption which I believe some people make about the position I am presenting, is that I do not have strong ethical values surrounding sexuality. But I experience myself to have very strong ethical values around the issue of sexuality. I believe that we are created for relationship - with God and with other humans (a principle best expressed in the opening chapters of Genesis). The nature of these relationships may differ, but a deep current underlying relationships is the quest for intimacy. We may not experience the same level of intimacy in all of our relationships, but the heart (passion/motivating factor) in a relationship is intimacy - the enjoyment of connection. Relationships are not just a theoretical connection of minds. They involve our bodies and therefore touching. There are different levels of appropriate touching, which express various kinds of intimacy, but in romantic relationships of passion, this touching takes on a more strongly sexual nature. (this is not to say that sexuality is not a part of other relationships, but that it is not as overtly present.) Our growing relational intimacy with another person is therefore mirrored (very naturally) by a passionate and demanding physical desire for intimacy, which can be expressed most fully in sexual intercourse. For many reasons, we may choose NOT to enter into a sexual relationship with someone we feel attracted to, either because it isn't the right time, or because it isn't matched by a growing committed relational intimacy. (Much harm is caused, i think, by people who move more quickly in the realm of physical intimacy without paying enough attention to the development of relational intimacy! This is probably what is most often referred to as promiscuity.)

The above description of relational and physical intimacy is entirely based on my understanding of the Bible's stories about creation - about the way that God makes human beings, reflective of God's own image. God's image is not male or female but relational: capable of intimacy. I believe that all people are made in God's image: they are relational beings, capable of forging strong relationships of care and intimacy. But nothing that I have stated here is necessarily opposed to such relational or physical intimacy being expressed by two people of the same-sex, who are naturally oriented in toward each other.

I therefore make the following observation:

I am making my appeal on strong biblical grounds. (Of course, there are those who would disagree with my interpretation of scripture, but I ask hope that they will acknowledge that I am in fact making a sincere and thoughtful appeal to scripture!)
I am making my appeal on strong ethical grounds, both from the ethical perspective of solidarity (a strong value of Jesus) and on the basis of an ethical understanding of healthy sexuality which includes both relational and physical expressions of intimacy, but which is not necessarily limited to heterosexual expressions of such intimacy.

inspired

2007-08-02T09:55:00.000+02:00

click on the poster to see it full-size

prayer

2007-07-30T10:51:00.000+02:00

What do you ask of me? What do you require?

Do you want my money?

Do you want my time?

Do you want my attention?

Do you want my hands?

Do you want my heart and my mind?

How have I filled my life with things, so that my hands were not free to grasp the thing you offered?

How have I filled my life with noise, and missed hearing your voice?

How have I filled my life with business, and didn’t accept your gentle gracious invitation?

What do want from me, Lord? What do you require?

absolute truth - part two and three

2007-07-20T11:48:00.000+02:00

did you read my previous remarks on this subject? (part one)

part two is actually covered by some remarks i made the other night here : People who want to appeal to "absolute truth" (or just Truth, with a capital T) might consider the comparative benefits of pursuing the value of Openness - which I have provisionally defined as my commitment to always ensure (to the best of my ability) that there is space for people around me to speak. While Absolute Truth is proving to be hard to nail down, Growing Awareness is a spiritual discipline that might produce surprisingly good results for people longing after Truth...

ok, so part three...

Elaine is thrilled that she's got her body back. Being pregnant takes over your whole body. It's an amazing process and all, but it's also the most overwhelming alien invasion... A women's body, especially in the last few weeks, is just not her own... So, after courageously giving birth to our daughter, one can't blame her for feeling happy to have her body back!

But this morning she mentioned to me that for a moment she missed being pregnant! She said it felt strange feeling that emotion - such a strange contradiction of her other feeling of being glad it's all over...

My reason for telling you about this (and breaking my wife's strict no-personal-stuff-on-the-blog-or-in-sermons rule) is that it wonderfully illustrates something about human identity. Those who build their understanding of reality on "Absolutes" usually assume that every person has a True, Essential self. it might be hidden under some layers, but if you dig deep enough, there you will find your true self. presumably, there will be no contradictions or paradoxes there. Your True self is clear about what she wants, who she is, why she exists, etc. So, the argument goes, if you're feeling confused, caught between two rival feelings, ask your True Self which of the feelings is most True...

I grew up taking this "Essentialist" view of reality for granted. More recently I encountered other ways of viewing reality. A non-essentialist view of human identity suggests that there isn't one "thing" that defines you. You are a composite creature with many identities... Take me for example: I am Barry, minister, father, husband, man, child, son, rascal, rebel, friend, etc. - and those are just some of the nicer words that try to describe me. The more I reflect on this whole question of "Who am I?" (which is a common pop-psychology question - needs to be followed by a rub of the chin, a meaningful sigh and a "Hmmmmm... interesting!") the more i become convinced that this is essentialism trying to limit identity to a True Self, which I am not sure exists.

The reason I like the alternative view is the space it gives for the tensions of being human. I can feel happy and sad and not have to feel that the tension must be quickly resolved for fear of being regarded as "confused" - or even worse "irrational". The complexities of life are just far better appreciated if I am able to view life - and people - with a Curiosity that asks questions about the complexity rather than with a Judgement that asks "but what do you REALLY want?" or "but who are you REALLY?" or "What is REALLY best for you?"...

So, Elaine is happy to have her body back. and... sad that she's not pregnant anymore - a little bit of grieving the loss of the incredibly intimate connection of a baby in the womb... Hmmmm, interesting!

distinction?

2007-07-19T11:18:00.000+02:00

I've been following a discussion about a how three influential leaders of a ministry called "Exodus" - which was committed to helping Gay and Lesbain people "come out" of a homosexual lifestyle - have publically withdrawn from the work, stating that they no longer believe that it is healthy to try to change people's sexual orientation... If you're interested in reading further: go here

One of the common arguments amongst Christians who have accepted that Gay and Lesbian people really do have a different sexual orientation is the "Love the sinner, Hate the sin" position. (other's take the position that there is no such thing as a homosexual orientation - otherwise you have to explain why God would have created people like that!)

But I'm wondering how I can separate “homosexual orientation” from “homosexual activity”? i mean, what is a sexual orientation if it’s not (at some point) going to be acted upon?

why would God give us a sexual orientation if we aren’t going to express ourselves in loving, respectful, passionate, faithful ways?

i try (as a straight man) to imagine being told: “it’s really ok that you are attracted to women. Don’t feel judged about that. it’s not a sin. just don’t think too much about touching a woman - under any circumstances. no amount of love, tenderness, faithfulness will make THAT ok…”

I'm trying to imagine how i’d respond…

i can’t imagine it would be pretty. no wonder there’s so much anger expressed by gay and lesbian lobby groups. they’re incredulous, and understandably so. i’d be, if the tables were turned. the more impressive thing is that the majority of Gay and Lesbian (GLBTI) groups aren’t militant. their graciousness is notable.

maybe that’s why the ex-Exodus leaders got out - perhaps they just couldn’t live with the distinction “love the sinner, hate the sin” any longer.

did it just stop sounding credible?

friend or foe?

2007-07-18T11:18:00.000+02:00

have you noticed how powerful Silence can be. I'm still not sure if he/she is a friend or foe! Silence creates space and makes room for rest and re-creation. but Silence is also a sneaky accomplice to heinous crimes of the worst kind...

my life if full of words - and speaking. sometimes i think i'm paid to speak. and sometimes i think I'm jsut plain full of myself "and love the sound of my own voice". either way, Silence is the best medicine. She allows me to retreat to a place of solitude where I am able to rest and be restored in the Values that I have confidence in. She is gracious and gentle - imagine, not having to say anything! What a relief when so much of my life is judged by what I say and how convincing I sound and how entertaining i am... etc...

but Silence has a dark side. I know of many people who are in unsafe relationships but feel trapped - fearful of the consequences of breaking the silence and speaking about what is happening. The story goes something like this: something aweful happens. sometimes the perpetrator impresses on weaker victim the consequences of telling. Silence becomes accomplice... aided by Fear. sometimes the victim chooses Silence because of a twisted guilt - blaming themselves - or because of the shame associated with telling the story. Even if the perpetrator regrets their actions, Silence makes it possible for a repeat of the aweful thing, or worse. But many perpetrators do not regret. They are actually masters at employing Silence to ensure that their behaviour is not detected, and can carry on unabated.

People are left trapped in abusive homes. Families live with aweful secrets. Partners live in fear, in a downward spiral with no hope of a way out. And Silence is the fence-sitter, never lifting a hand to intervene, harming lives not by his actions and choices but by his lack of action.

There's a saying that I like because it conveys hope: "the truth will out" I'm a little less hopeful about the "truth" coming out these days. seems there is always another side to every story, which makes me reluctant to judge and cautious about anyone claiming to have "the truth".

But perhaps there's another Value (other than Truth) that can guide me here. I'm still not sure what word to use to it.

As I reflect on the power of Silence - and specifically the harmful potential that it has - i feel motivated to always ensure (to the best of my ability) that there is space for people around me to speak. the only way of counteracting the harmful potential of Silence may be to remain committed to an openness in relationships that creates space for people to speak their thoughts and feelings without fear. I'm sure that this is an important value for home life and intimate relationships. I'm also convinced that this is an important value in the work-place, especially for people in positions of authority in the work-place.

I try to read the Mail&Guardian newspaper on a regular basis. One of the things I love about the newspaper is the fact that almost on any given Friday, you will find a letter containing quite harsh criticism of the M&G, published in their letters column. I also enjoy their common practice of allowing the "right of reply" to anyone who has received critical report. And occassionally when there is a difficuly issue being discussed, two reporters will write editorial comment from opposing views. We so desperately need to encourage open conversation, that includes criticism and challenge. And for the this quality of Conversation to flourish WE need to embrace the value - we need to be willing to listen to criticism (not just be keen to give it.)

so, finally, a question: what do you think your partner/spouse/best friend is afraid to speak to you about?

lessons from a boy

2007-07-14T15:00:00.001+02:00

Last night Ruben and I were playing around the house while we were waiting for the braai-fire to be ready. We found a balloon and began kicking it around the house. I thought of a great game. I suggested we start at the one end of the kitchen and then kick the balloon and see how many kicks it required to get it to hit the Kitchen door.

I started: one, two, THREE!!!!! I took three kicks to get the balloon across the kitchen.

Then it was Ruben’s turn. He got himself into position and then ran up and kicked the balloon. But he didn’t stop running. He continued to run after the balloon, kicking it again before it had stopped moving… (clearly against the rules of the game!!!) He kicked/shepherded the balloon across the kitchen whilst shouting ONE-TWO-THREE-FOUR-FIVE-NINE!!!!! By this stage he had lost control of the balloon and had run past it. He turned around and began kicking it back towards me. Clearly he hadn’t understood the important goal of the game: getting the balloon to hit the kitchen door.

I tried again: put the balloon down for him, explained the purpose and goals of the game. Reminded him that the previous World Record was just 3 kicks – set by me just a few moments earlier… but things went pretty similarly to his first attempt. ONE-TWO-THREE-FOUR-FIVE-ELEVEN-EIGHT-NINE…

He was loving his game of kicking the balloon. Just Kicking, because it was Fun.

Seems he hasn’t quite grasped the incredible importance of goals in life yet… but I’m sure with enough pressure, constant encouragement and a lot of coaching he’ll turn out properly goal-oriented like me!

finding a voice

2007-07-14T01:13:00.000+02:00

i have been thinking lately about how little we really actually change. I began writing on this blog with the value of Integrity as a theme. By Integrity, I mean an integration of all the things that have been broken, separated and polarised - at great expense to the health of humanity (well, let's just say, at great expence to my health adn wholeness).

One could say this thing about being "open" and "real" is a bit of "hobby-horse" - it's my little soap-box.

And then the other day I remembered an experience from my early childhood. My family were in the car on the way to church, where my parents were quite involved members. My dad was a senior leader... He and I were having an argument in the car which was not resolved when we arrived at the church. He wanted to stop the argument as we got out of the car, but I wanted to carry on arguing - citing "honesty" as my reason... "if we're going to shout at each other in the privacy of our car, why shouldn't we shout at each other in front of fellow church members?"

(by the way, the photo is not me - it's of my dad, Guy Marshall)

I remembered that incident with such vividness, and the effect was to make me ask - has anything really changed? I'm still on about the same old hobby-horse that I was when I was a teenager, 25 years ago!!!

But then I had another thought - is this my Voice? Is this the thing that I'm being asked to say, with my life?

Perhaps for some people this message simply isn't relevant. They are healthy and balanced in the area of Integrity and so they find my dwelling on the topic a little anonying. But perhaps, for people who have struggled with the Dualism that has severed their lives (and all of life) into binary categories of good and evil, right and wrong, light and dark, private and public etc.. - this is the word of encouragement that they need to hear. Perhaps, also, there are faith communities, that need to hear this word. A challenge to wholeness and integrity, where faith and life, religion and politics, secular and sacred... have been dangerously kept apart...

Am I finally realising my humble significance in this life - not to do extraordinarily great things - just to speak (live) the message that I've been asked to speak/live, to embody a value that many of us need to embrace, to bring a gentle challenge in one aspect of life where there is imbalance and unhealth?

am I discovering my Voice? (my dad would say I discovered it far too early...!!!)

what I like about the idea of finding my voice is that it helps me to have a limited, and therefore hopefully a humble view of my significance. the thought also makes me wonder about other people's Voices? People I respect and admire - I wonder if they have discovered their Voice... Perhaps they are speaking, but are yet to stumble on the simple realisation that this is the thing they are called to say...

Have you discovered your Voice? (and, do you feel confidence to speak with it?)

taking a breath

2007-07-14T00:55:00.000+02:00

Cate Jenna took her first breath at 28 minutes past midnight - in the early hours of Wednesday morning. Elaine was amazing. She laboured through the contractions with great courage for 6 hours and then gave birth naturally. I am grateful that everything went so well - so well indeed that we were home by 2pm that same day! While one can't say that it was easy, in many ways, the birth went smoothly and Mother and Daughter are healthy and thriving. Giving birth, while a beautifully natural process, is also a potentially dangerous thing with so many painful possibilities... many friends have experienced these dangers. I am grateful!

doek!

2007-07-09T09:00:00.000+02:00

my son ruben is teaching me again...

elaine and I shower in the mornings. Ruben is becoming mommy and daddy's little helper... when he hears the water stop he runs into the bathroom shouting "Doek! Doek!" (that's afrikaans for "towel".) He gets the towel off the rail and hands it to us... Cute!

more interesting, i was lying in bed this morning... elaine finished showering and I realised that ruben wasn't around. Without a second thought I asked: "Elaine, can I get you a towel?"

if you ask my partner about what get's me out of bed in the morning, she'll tell you that there's not much... and yet a small little routine of my son managed to move me from my comfort.

we should give some thought to the tension between Performance and Principle - where "performance" refers to the actual practice of an activity and "Principle" refers to the theory or value or motivation that supports the activity.

for a long time, i've been taught (and was fairly convinced) that no real "outer" change can happen without an initial "inner" change of the heart. fair enough. the theory makes sense. you have to get the Principle in place, in order to motivate the Practice.... you have to have your heart touched in order to reach out your hand in kindness... or do you?

ruben's little "doek" routine - and it's infectiousness - suggests that getting into a rhythm of Practice may be more effective than grasping the Principle behind it... maybe we should try getting into a Routine of Kindness and see how that affects our Theory (Principle) - and our Heart, for that matter...

page 2

2007-07-08T09:36:00.000+02:00

(Aiden remarked, when reading another story that he "looked forward to turning the page"... so, with his encouragement, here is page 2...)

did you know that the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures use the phrases "do not fear" and "do not be afraid" 113 times!!! (those same scriptures use the phrase "love God" only 5 times...) So let's make a humble assumption - spirituality that takes the Bible (meaning the Hebrew and Christian scriptures) seriously will be a spirituality that is Peace-producing. Essentially, I'm assuming that Biblical Spirituality will echo this sentiment - do not fear, do not be afraid, do not worry, etc.

the Christian scriptures tell us that Jesus is the "prince of peace" (i'm assuming that means that if anyone is going to bring peace it will be him..) it also tells us that "perfect love casts out all fear" (1 John 4:18) and goes on to make a clear observation: "for fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not reached perfection in love."

the thing that I struggle with is that the "good news" that many Christians offer is highly fearful. The common story goes something like this: God created you. Things were good until you messed up. You sinned and God was angry. You had broken his Law. Justice was required so someone had to die. It would have been you (and it might still be if you don't...) but Jesus died in your place to "absorb the wrath of God" (John Piper). To return to right relationship with God, you must repent and believe (presumably that Jesus died for you) so that eternal punishment can be avoided. If you do, God's anger is avoided and heaven awaits. If you don't, the just punishment for your sins will be your reward - that's hell. (If "God is Love" he certainly has a big investment in fear and punishment in the universe...)

so here's a question: what motivates your faith in God? why are you a Christian? is it to avoid the fires of hell - an eternal punishment? as I've indicated here i am an unapologetic follower of Jesus. I am willing to associate myself with him in every way. but I am simply not happy to associate myself with this common version of the Christian Story any longer. I think that there is another story which is desperately needing to be told - needing to be heard.

(some quick reasons why the new story needs to be heard:
1. i don't think that the common version is doing our Great God of Grace justice!
2. many good, thinking, moral, faithful, did i mention good, people are simply not able to fathom a God who is so petty and, instead of looking deeper into the faith tradition, are choosing to live as moral atheists rather than associate with such a paper-thin version of a Creator God.
3. it is Fear Producing - which is exactly the opposite of what Biblical faith is supposed to do. Where is the peace? Where is the confidence?)

Here's to another story! (I don't call it a new story because I would like to argue that this other story has been around longer than the common one!!! it's the old story, needing rediscovery)

my understanding of Jesus was that he chose to live and teach in the tradition of the Hebrew prophetic tradition - most significantly, the prophetic vision of Isaiah. His first public teaching in a synagogue involved a reading from Isaiah 61 (Luke 4:16) - a moving, inspiring vision about the "Year of the Lord's favour". (the interesting thing is that the phrase "and a day of vengeance for our God" - Is 61:2 - is omitted in Luke) This prophetic tradition includes moving passages about the coming of the Messiah who will bring peace - when the Lion will lie down with the Lamb (Isaiah 11)... perhaps the most moving passage for me is found in Isaiah chapter 2:

Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord,
to the house of the God of Jacob;
that he may teach us his ways
and that we may walk in his paths.’
For out of Zion shall go forth instruction,
and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.
He shall judge between the nations,
and shall arbitrate for many peoples;
they shall beat their swords into ploughshares,
and their spears into pruning-hooks;
nation shall not lift up sword against nation,
neither shall they learn war any more.

These are the passages that I believe inform the ministry of Jesus. When he speaks about the "Kingdom of Heaven", I believe he is talking about this kind of Kin'dom... where Peace is found to be stronger than force, where love is eternal and cannot die...

In the light of these (biblical) observations, I want to encourage those who are dissatisfied with the common story to begin to consider Alternatives. I believe there are many other stories on offer in the Christian Scriptures. Paul's writings do contain much that supports the common version, but he also transcends those thoughts in some of his writings, focusing more on the theme of Reconciliation. See 2 Corinthians 5:16-21. (I realise that it is possible to use this passage to underscore the common version of Christianity.) I believe it is possible to interpret this passage in a way that appeals to Loving Relationship as a motivation for Faith... (perhaps the topic of Page 3...) The Gospels are the best place to look though, because the parables and the ministry of Jesus are still being processed by the authors. The Gospel writers certainly include their own interpretations in the re-telling of the stories (which explains some of the differences in the four gospels) but the interpretation can be said to be "in process". This gives us a glimpse into the early Christian community of people who were not called "Christians" - they were simply people of faith who had decided to follow the teachings of Jesus. They were best described as "those belonging to the Way" (acts 9:2)

What are some of the attributes that I think Another Story might include?
1. i think it must choose to be faithful to the teaching and example of Jesus. this might involve a revisiting of the gospels and a decision to take Jesus at his word. or as Albert Nolan says to "take Jesus seriously".
2. surely it must work out a new motivation for Faith. If we aren't following Jesus to "avoid hell and earn our ticket into heaven", what will be our primary reason for following? it might return to a much more wholistic understanding of the word "believe" which embraces the whole self, heart, will, mind, body, in place of a modern understanding of the word which reduces believing to mental (intellectual?) agreement. To say "I believe in Jesus" would be more akin to saying "I commit my whole self to Jesus".
3. it must strive to be all-embracing, not sectarian but able to embrace variety so that it can become a story of Peace and Unity. surely if God's Kin'dom is going to be eternal we're going to have to live side-by-side then... why not start finding a way to live together now...?
4. it might formulate a different understanding of authority. for instance, it may choose to view the Spirit of scripture as a higher authority than the historical written text. This might include the recognition that not everything that is biblical is consistent with the teaching of Jesus i.e. Christian
4. Another Story might re-emphasize the importance of being good - what Jesus meant when he spoke about the fruit that a tree bears. the Common Story has used the Fear of God (of hell) to motivate people into believing, and has unwittingly encouraged people to "believe" at all costs, but has paid too little attention on the thing that Jesus asked us to do: "go and make disciples" (Matthew 28) disciples are learners, and presumably that means learners of The Way. Evidencing the Fruit of the Spirit - the signs of a transforming life - will become the essence of Another Story.

What do you think might be some of the attributes of Another Story? OR, what would you LIKE to see being addressed by a different kind of Spirituality? (that you feel has been neglected by the Common Version of Christianity in your experience?)

did you feel the mountains tremble?

2007-07-07T09:45:00.000+02:00

i enjoyed reading Matt's comments on prayer: Prayer: What's the point and also some of the comments he received. While I find engagement with so-called "Atheists" energising and fascinating (they have usually thought abour their position far more thoroughly than most Theists have...) I am always curious about the experience of defining oneself by a negation - A-Theist... i.e. NOT-Theist. As a Christ-follower I define myself by what I am for. I am for the values that are embodied in the life and teaching of Jesus. An Atheist, presumably believes in something. I'm curious to know what an "A-Theist" has faith in (it's not God, of course...)

here are my thoughts, posted on Matt's blog:

you guys certainly spend a lot of time (and much passion) arguing against something that you regard as pointless.

i think it’s pointless to argue against something that is pointless.

i’m wondering what you are FOR. how would you define your position if it weren’t for religion? i.e. what is an “atheist” without theism?

have you factored into your reasoning the role of experience? for some, REALITY is not primarily constituted by physical existence alone. when i speak to you i have FAITH that there is something out there that i am interacting with. I have no proof of that. it could all be part of my own dream. but what I can’t deny is the EXPERIENCE of interaction, conversation, relationship. i would argue that my conversation with you and Prayer require exactly the same kind of “faith” - neither of them are more real or provable than the other.

the more significant thing for me is: what do i experience through the act of communication… (whether it is with you or with “God”)

i am enjoying writing this comment. it helps me to clarify my own position and it holds the possibility of surprising conversation (a response that makes me reconsider…) i.e. it’s a good experience.

I enjoy praying. for a variety of reasons. your saying “it’s pointless” a) won’t diminish the significance of the experience for me and b) simply stands in constrast to my assertion that it definitely has a “point” for me.

in fact, to claim that something is “pointless” suggests that the entity doing the claiming knows what IS NOT POINTLESS.

so, please let me know. what IS NOT POINTLESS? (so that I can reflect on how appealing the rational world you live in really is…)

:) thanks! for a cool post

who says?

2007-07-04T00:41:00.000+02:00

a big theme in religious talk is AUTHORITY. the issue is, who get's to say what's in and what's out. more personally, we have to decide who we're gonna listen to - i.e. who we will invest authority in. i've often thought about the authors/books i choose to read.

what if what i read today takes me to a new place (in terms of outlook and perspective) and, to some extent, determines the next book i choose to read... and so on... then perhaps all the books I've read were to some extent a consequence of the first author I chose to read... hmmm, so how does one choose? isn't there a danger that we end up choosing books that reaffirm our already held views? or do you purposefully seek out books that present alternative perspectives, so as to broaden your scope?

that aside, i have a question which I would like to propose as a HELPFUL and RELIABLE (meaning, "authoritative") question in the hard work of making decisions about our lives. When we have to make an important decision, Who do we turn to? Who's opinion counts? What principles guide us?

Here's my Guiding Question: "What is the bigger danger in my life?"

The question needs some clarification. Let me use an example from my own life.

I have lived my life in fast forward mode since I can remember. I joined my parent's bible study class when I was 15. I took on leadership responsibilities at church and school in my teens. I started preaching when I was 17 and offered myself to become a minister at 18. I left home at 18, graduated at 22 and was ordained as a minister at 24. I led my first funeral service when I was 19, even though I couldn't remember actually ever attending one! At 27 I was made the solely responsible minister/pastor in a local congregation... I have taken on huge responsibilities as a senior pastor of a various local christian communities - for the well-being of their individual members and for the health of the communities as a whole. I'm now 35. I'm not bragging. It's just that I'm slowly beginning to realise that I am a person who tends to take on a lot of responsibility. For whatever reasons, I take on huge responsibilities, sometimes at a high price to myself... (How did I come to realise this about myself? - the Guiding Question...)

So, when a decision comes along I ask myself the Guiding Question: "what is the bigger danger in my life?" Am I in danger of being accused of being an irresponsible person? or is it that I become overly-responsible for others. When phrased like that it's an easy question to answer. The far greater danger in my life is that I take on too much responsibility. This has helped me to reflect on decisions from a different perspective and has helped me to take more enlightened decisions that protect me from the seemingly endless demands of Responsibility...

I think the goal of the Guiding Question is greater health.

Another person may acknowledge, in response to the Guiding Question, that they are a person who is in greater danger of irresponsibility... the challenge for them, as they make a decision, is how to take on more healthy responsibility...

One more example: for some people the "rule" no-sex-before-marriage is Authoritative. But what happens if we apply my Guiding Question to the following scenario - I am thinking of a 28 year-old person, who has faithfully abided by the "rule" and is a virgin. The unfortunate result of this in their life is that sexuality has become a source of frustration and even irritation, and therefore it has been gradually devalued. Now they meet someone... What is the greater danger for this person - that the gift of sexuality be devalued by a faithful and mature sexual relationship at this point in their lives or that the gift of sexuality become increasingly harmed by an ongoing denial. I suggest that for this person it may be helpful to use the Guiding Question (alongside the Rule), exploring this person's high regard for the "Rule" and encouraging them to consider that the Spirit of the Rule may not necessarily be best served by ongoing abstinence.

In the same way, a very gregarious and physically confident young person in their late teens might answer the Question quite differently - becoming aware that the greater danger for them is a path of sexual promiscuity, and that the potential for hurtful and even life-threatening consequences suggests that they strongly consider the "Rule" as a guide for their forthcoming years...

I think I may be missing some clarity, but this is already too long... but please, your reflections on the helpfulness of this "Guiding Question" would be appreciated!

making sense?

2007-07-03T10:04:00.000+02:00

if you are interested in reflecting on the rational consistency of your thoughts (beliefs) about God, have a look at this test: It simply asks you questions and then compares your answers to other answers you gave earlier and checks for logical consistency...

i think it's helpful! The TEST

huh?

2007-07-02T11:58:00.000+02:00

what kind of God would he be
if he did not hear the bangles ring on an ant's wrist
as they move the earth in their sweet dance?

and what kind of God would he be
if a leaf's prayer was not as precious to Creation
as the prayer of His own son sang
from the glorious depth of his soul - for us.

and what kind of God would he be
if the vote of millions in this world could sway him
to change the Divine law of love

that speak so clearly with compassion's elegant tongue,
saying, eternally saying:

all are forgiven - moreover, dears,
no one has ever been guilty.

what kind of God would he be
if he did not count the blinks of your eyes
and is in absolute awe of their movements?

what a God - what a God we have.

i hope...

2007-07-01T11:22:00.001+02:00

my hope refers to whether i'm "narrow" or not... regarding "straight", i'm pretty sure!

everyday play

2007-06-27T09:14:00.000+02:00

I’ve joined the chorus of cars that stop outside playschools each morning to drop off kids. My son, Ruben attends a wonderful playschool near our home. His teacher welcomes him to school each morning by squealing his name from across the playground, and with a big hug. It’s a special kind of person.

The rules of the school are that children need to be potty-trained. Totally understandable. So when the beginning of the term arrived and Ruben wasn’t trained, Elaine went past the school to tell them that we wouldn’t be bringing him until he was trained. They reassured her that we could bring him and that it wasn’t a problem. Elaine (the person that I’m married to, and the mother of Ruben) does not like to take advantage of other people’s generosity, but reluctantly agreed to take him. The impression she got was that it wasn’t such a big issue to the staff.

We love the school and are glad to leave Ruben there in the mornings.

But last week, after almost a term has gone by, a note came from the school expressing frustration with us that we are not adhering to the “nappy rules” of the school and pleading with us to begin nappy training. Their note gives the impression that they were happy to give us 3 weeks grace, but after that, expected the issue of nappy training to be resolved.

Elaine and I were surprised by this sudden expression of frustration. Elaine wondered why they hadn't expressed their concerns earlier. Obviously we feel embarrassed that they have been thinking we are taking advantage of the school. Elaine is convinced that they never gave her any indication of a time limit. She doesn’t remember any mention of a “3 week” period. She has been waiting for the July holidays, when we would have Ruben at home all day, to begin nappy training.

So we wrote a letter explaining our perspective and understanding of the situation. We won’t take Ruben back to school after the holidays until he is trained. But Elaine was at pains to say that she wasn’t told about the 3 week expectation. Later when Elaine spoke with one of the staff members, she responded positively but added “But I did tell you”.

So, who is right? We won’t pursue the issue. But this little everyday misunderstanding has helped me to think about conflict and resolution… in a conflict situation basically good people come into the conflict believing that they are right. Elaine is sure that they didn’t mention any period (and I am inclined to believe her because they are so overwhelmingly accommodating kind of people). They are sure that they did tell us.

Saying “but i did tell you" or “but you didn’t tell me” is trying to resolve the conflict by asserting our own “rightness”. But this, by definition, makes the other person “wrong” and is not likely to invoke a response like “oh, yes, you’re right”.

I think that we will live with greater ease through conflict situations if we are able to move beyond the need to say “but I did…” (firming up our rightness). Beyond rightness is a place where we are able to consider that the other party might be acting in good faith and according to their own understanding (or misunderstanding as the case may be.)

I think that Elaine and I have to accept that whether the staff told us or not they are operating on the assumption that they did. And it would be helpful if the staff at the school were able to trust that we were acting according to what we understood to be the “agreement”.

I also think that Elaine is right – speak up earlier! Don’t let a misunderstanding escalate into frustration and resentment…

Fun, fun, fun... everyday!

reworked

2007-06-26T08:12:00.000+02:00

i was recently asked to preach on a passage from Galatians - chapter 2:11-21. Here we find a record of an early conflict between Paul and Peter. They were wrestling with how important obeying the Jewish Laws were for a new Christian - especially when the people concerned were not Jewish, but Gentile...

I wondered how relevant this conflict is to the contemporary conflict about same-sex relationships in the church... so I reworked the passage replacing "jew" and "gentile" with "straight" and "gay/lesbian"...

see what you think: Galatians 2 (reworked)

I asked for comments from my ministerial colleagues and recieved the following reply: (an extract)

...The reworking is not bad from a literary point of view. But biblically and theologically it is disastrous. It fuses the temporary ceremonial laws, which were done away with by the cross of Christ, and the ever enduring moral law, and then proceeds to throw the melded product out of the window. Note that what Peter withdrew from was eating with Gentiles (vs.12), which was a purely ceremonial and ritual prohibition for Jews. Clearly, then, it was intimidated Peters' succumbing to the ceremonial Law which drew forth Paul's angry protest. His later declaration in the same letter that "It does'nt matter if you are circumcised or not" (6:15), is in concert with that protest, and makes it doubly plain to us - should that be necessary - which 'Law' it is that is at an end as a means of making and keeping people right with God.
Paul, then, if he was not given to crazy contradictions, must have had a Law other than the ritual and ceremonial in mind when he rhetorically asked his Roman readers, "Do we destroy the Law by our faith?", and then answered with an emphatic negative, "Not at all! We make it even more powerful" (Rom 3:31, and cf. Rom. 7:12 etc., etc.). Of course he had another Law in mind - the moral law. That same Law that our Lord had in mind when he equally emphatically said, "Don't suppose that I came to do away with the Law and the Prophets. I did not come to do away with them but to give them their full meaning. Heaven and earth may disappear. But I promise you that not even a full stop or comma will ever disappear from the Law" (Matt. 5:17-18).
So, as a matter of fact, "Galatians 2 reworked" does not compare apples with apples. It is a confused piece of work. It jumbles up the moral and the ceremonial . It leads astray.

i found this response fascinating, but it raised many questions for me:

is the Law to which Paul refers well described by the term "moral"?in fact, what is the difference between a "moral" and a "ceremonial" law?
in some cultures (i associate culture largely with ceremonial law) it is moral to marry more than one person. the difficulty with outright condemnation of this behaviour arises when investigation reveals (surprisingly for me...) a very responsible, loving and caring environment for marriage and family life. polygamy is not my preference, but it is difficult just to write it off as "immoral" in all cases.
is God's Law a law that expresses preferences on these kinds of cultural practices? (and if so, how can we be sure that it is not our own cultural bias that is determining our understanding of "God's Law"?)
to what extent then is homophobia a culturally defined evil, as opposed to a God-condemned orientation?
I prefer to describe the Law that Paul is describing as the "Perfect Law of Love."
(to read Paul as referring to some "moral" law offers no helpful distinction for me between ceremony and morality that actually helps me to distunguish in my daily ethical dilemmas.)
i am not inclined to outright condemn people who live in polygamous marriages, where the practice is culturally acceptable and is practiced in a loving and caring manner (i.e. if I am satisfied that people are not abused through the practice). I'm sure there are more dangerous evils in the world!!! In the same way, I am inclined to argue that homosexual orientation is one of those culturally defined moral issues, that will undergo a cultural shift in our life-time (just like racism and sexism, and slavery in a previous century) When it is no longer culturally/morally perceived to be bad, the "moral" and "ceremonial" laws will be changed (and they are already are being changed...)
I rejoice that the Law (the one that Paul refers to) will remain! (in fact, what could we do to ever threaten that perfect Law?) This Law does not condemn people but will gently continue to invite all people to live within the Values of the Kin'dom... love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

does anyone dispute that a gay or lesbian person (living in a faithful loving partnership with another) can evidence any, or all, of the above "Law" of the Spirit (what I have called the Law of Love)
I suggest that a preferable translation for "Law" in Paul's writing (when he's referring to God's Law) might be Way...

do not fear...

2007-06-24T09:36:00.000+02:00

guess how many times the phrases "do not fear" and "do not be afraid" appear in the Bible...

another story

2007-06-20T10:17:00.000+02:00

i've been taking some strain lately for wanting to live and speak from the heart.

all minisers in the denomination that I belong to have been trained in theology and biblical studies. being able to do theology (which I define as talk about God) and interpret scripture are basic skills of a pastor and teacher. the approach to these skills is not legislated. there are a variety of different perspectives that emerge from our training programme. it isn't a sausage-machine producing exact replicas of the trainers...

But one thing I assume is that the process of education has encouraged us all to think and wrestle with theological and biblical issues. To some extent, I expect a colleague to be able to engage with the complex and sometimes difficult issues surrounding a pastoral concern that they might face. on the whole, I would say that my colleagues seems to reflect this. I feel safe to speak about my theological questions and struggles with most colleagues and i don't expect them to answer "oh, but that's an easy one - in mark 9v7 it says..."

why, oh why then do we as pastors and teachers not share these views of theology and scripture with our congregations? why do I find ordinary members of congregations SO soaked in a foreign legalistic theology and literlistic approach to scripture? It seems that the proponents of such views have been far more dedicated to communicating their views and also more effective in convincing people that they are the authority.

We now find ourselves in a situation where the spirituality of many ordinary members of churches is defined not primarily by their local pastor, but by the writings and on-screen persona of some "higher" authority. I don't expect to hear anyone on CTV or TBN proposing that we encourage faithful same-sex couples to enter the bonds of covenant relationship out of devotion to Christ. It seems that the conservative theological agenda perspective has spoken often and loudly and now dominates the church - even churches like my own that do not have a conservative theological or literalistic sciptural tradition!

This week I had breakfast with three people. I was encouraged by the conversation. I know them all as people who seek to love God and grow toward wholeness their lives. The conversation focussed on how the church can continue to offer nourishment to those who are looking for thoughtfulness and depth alongside passion and experience. I think that integrity was also a value that featured highly in the conversation. It was very encouraging for me to be a participant in the conversation and I found it strengthening my confidence that there is another story of faith that is quieter and more gentle, but no less devoted to God and no less serious about scripture - just perhaps a little more cautious about certainty and more devoted to wholeness and freedom from fear.

we'll make you pay!

2007-06-18T08:38:00.000+02:00

My car was stolen recently. When I emailed my insurance company to have my replacement car insured I was advised that my premium would be higher than before, even though the value of my "new" car was lower than than the car that was stolen! I asked for an explanation and this is what I got:

The cancelled vehicle was insured for R71 200 and the premium was R438.12
The replacing vehicle will be insured for R66 700 and the premium will be R468.33
The increased premium is due to the loss ratio in view of the claims history in the account.

...is due to the loss ratio in view of the claims history in the account...

meaning??? I get to pay because my car was stolen!

And they call it "insurance"!!!

am i a Christian?

2007-06-17T10:55:00.000+02:00

Yes and No

if by "Christian" you mean a person who has put their faith in Jesus Christ, then ok, yes, I am a Christian.

but there are so many problems with the term "Christian" that I'd rather use a different way to speak about my faith. I'm not very original on this one! Authors like Gordon MacDonald, Trevor Hudson, Dallas Willard and others have for some time preferred the term "Christ-follower". The truth is that the term "Christian" has become associated with so much that is definitely not what I have faith in, that it doesn't seem appropriate for me to use the term anymore.

a few reasons:

the term "Christian" is static. it sounds like a destination or an achievement. the early followers of Jesus (after he had left them) were most commonly referred to as "people of the Way" (e.g. Acts 9:2) This, along with other New Testament terms, like "believer", are far more active. Christ-follower is another term which expresses that this is a decision which will impact on every moment, every decision, every circumstance... It's the very opposite of static.
the term "Christian" has become associated with moral judgement. When you ask some very faithful Church people "Are you a Christian?" they actually hesitate before answering! The reason is fairly noble. Because "Christian" has so often been associated with moral judgement - it almost feels arrogant to proclaim proudly "I am a Christian!" - it's almost like saying "I am a very good person!"
I don't want to have to hesitate when asked about my faith in Jesus.
I also don't want to be misunderstood as arrogant. So, I prefer the question "have you decided to follow Jesus?" or "have you felt the need to follow Jesus?" The answer is simple and clear. There is no judgement. It's a matter of fact question about a person's faith allegience. I am a follower of Jesus - a Christ-follower. And proud to say so!
In a similar vein - the term "Christian" doesn't say what it means. Just like some people try to "Christen" their children, when coming for infant baptism (what does it mean to "Christen" someone????) in the same way Christian is somehow associated by some as a default option that has to do with cultural practices and family traditions. Now I have no objection to leading a funeral service of anyone! (even if they have no church connections) but assuming that because you are not Muslim or Jewish or Buddhist, you are therefore "Christian" makes the term something that has no attraction for me at all. Just as there are probably nominal Muslims and nominal Jews and nominal Buddhists, there are most certainly nominal Christians who regard the label as something that defines them along with which sports club they belong to and the charities that they support. No problem. They are welcome to the term then. I am not interested in nominal Christianity.

I experience Jesus as the most challenging teacher and formidable Leader. He is the Passionate Guide who opens the heavens and lets me glimpse the Dream of God for all creation. That Kin'dom vision - that powerful experience of Grace and Love has captured my soul. It's everything now. Others may experience it differently, but for me it's all or nothing. I can't think about that all-embracing Dream of God and then turn around and go back to things "as they were". Nothing will every be the same again... I'm a believer! I'm a sinner with a second chance. I'm a privileged partner with God (only because he invited me). I'm loved and accepted completely. And it's only just beginning to sink in. The all emracing arms of a Loving God, reaching out to all creation with gentleness and compassion - it keeps me awake at night!

(I wonder how this post sounds to the reader... I don't think of myself as a "jesus freak" kind of person, and yet reading this might make a skeptic take a few steps back... I just think that passionate faith in Jesus, his teaching, his example, his life, his death, his Way... doesn't have to equate to a Bible-punching, gay-bashing, bigoted, closed-minded life. I am passionate about Jesus, and it's a head AND a heart thing.)

So, I will answer to the term "Christ-follower". Unashamedly. He's touched my heart, and he's challenged my thinking... most importantly he's got me reconsidering what I want from this life. That's why I have decided to follow...

the C word

2007-06-15T18:41:00.001+02:00

When my dad first broke the news about the need for surgery last year, he managed to tell me without once mentioning the “C” word.

Fortunately the radical surgery went well and he has resumed a very active life, returning to his cycling, busy work schedule and daily life. It seems you can live quite well without a prostate! It seems…

Cancer has reared it’s ugly head in my family for the second time in less than a year. This week my mother went for a mammogram and then for further tests. She will be admitted on Monday morning for radical surgery to remove a tumour in one of her breasts. She will spend this week-end deciding whether to go for the full mastectomy or to opt for less radical surgery. Tough one, but the doctors will surely help her in her decision.

It’s difficult to know how to respond. On the one hand, the medical profession has proactive responses to almost every condition, giving one great confidence that “this is not a big deal” – we’ll get through this fine. My dad’s progress certainly bears witness to the fact that there is life after Cancer. On the other hand, this is Cancer, and it’s my mom, and it’s a bit too close for comfort. I know women in my congregation who have died after protracted battles with the bloody thing. Every year St John’s holds a service for people who are struggling, or who have struggled with Breast Cancer.

I suspect this isn’t the last word regarding C…

who was there? (and who wasn't?)

2007-06-13T02:36:00.000+02:00

my son ruben had to have grommets inserted into his ears this morning. it's a relatively small operation taking a few minutes and requiring that he only go to a day clinic at the hospital. our day began at 7.30am with registration, then 4 hours of waiting till his turn on the "list"... 4 hours with a 2 year-old who hasn't eaten or drunk anything since last night...

anyway, 4 hours of waiting got me looking around and observing...

1 out of 10 beds in the day-clinic (on this particular day) served a black patient. the rest were all white children.
6 out of 10 children were accompanied by their mothers (or other female care-giver). Only 4 out of the 10 had their fathers (or male care-giver) present to help with the difficult job of pacifying a child in strange and scary circumstances... not one child was accompanied by their father (or male care-giver) alone!

what (if anything) do these token statistics reflect?

i think they are telling!

One, Private Health-care is still a privilege of the affluent in our country. And the affluent are still predominantly white families. No-one cries "discimination!" because the hospital is not disciminating - it will admit anyone who can pay. The issue is a much more subtle "discrimination" of economic forces that restrict access to vital resources like education and health-care. If our rainbow nation was whole, I would expect that the patients in the day-clinic would (to some extent) reflect proportionately, the people in the community in which I live.

Two, 4 out of 10 fathers present at the day-clinic during work hours, reflects a change. When I had my grommets in 30 years ago, my mother took me to the clinic alone. I'm not sure how many fathers would have been in attendance back then, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't many! So, 4/10 can be interpreted as a slow transition toward greater acceptance on the part of fathers for their share of the responsibility of parenting. But 4/10 also refelcts that there are still a majority of children whose primary care comes from a faithful woman (mother) - and that there is still a far way to go before men accept their part as co-partners in the work of raising children!

0/10 men on their own at the day-clinic can mean just one thing! they wouldn't cope... (sorry guys, am I letting the side down?)

networking central

2007-06-12T11:14:00.000+02:00

i have a few friends who's lives depend in varying measure on networking. they can set me straight (and I'm sure they will when they read this post) - but they are involved in various forms of networking that involves social interaction using the internet and other technological media.

check them out: mike, aiden, dez

mike's very livelihood depends on the growth of social interactive software (let him get you straight on the correct terminology)... aiden's business depends on his ability to connect with potential clients... his blog is one of his methods of networking, connecting, sharing and participating in conversation with people who might use his expertise. dez is an example of a gregarions kind of person who doesn't depend on internet interaction for his financial livelihood - but he might say he can't live without facebook :)

networking - interaction - relationship - watch-words of the new business paradigm?

today I was walking through Central (the small inner-city area of Port Elizabeth where I work) and smiled at a lady walking toward me. She greeted me warmly by name! I was surprised that she knew me and we stopped to talk. She is from the Anglican Church in Central and works in the area of community development. She is aware of certain projects that my church is involved in in Central and expressed the desire to get together so that we can talk about collaborative efforts...

Networking - Central style - no email, no internet, no phone. just a side-walk and a small community where you are known (or becoming known!).

Am I living in the Olde-Worlde? or is there still a place for social interaction, networking and relationship without technology?

absolute truth - part one

2007-06-10T13:24:00.000+02:00

one of the big challenges for people of faith in a postmodern era is responding meaningfully to the relativistic claims that there is no "absolute truth". my experience is that people of faith become quite defensive about this aspect of postmodern thought.

one thing that I would like to add to this conversation is the following:

i'm not sure that postmoderns are actually claiming that there is not absolute truth.

(I think that this is one of those claims that are made to discredit the "other side" and write them off as uncredible. Rather than write anyone off, let's trust that anyone who is trying to engage us in a respectful manner actually may have something of worth to listen to and consider!)

I think that postmoderns are drawing attention to the fact that we cannot CLAIM to know any absolute truth. This is a slightly but significantly different claim altogether. There may of course be absolute truth (the favourite retort is to say "the claim that there is no absolute truth is an absolute claim, thus proving that there are absolutes...") but can we know such absolute truth. All knowledge of the world around us is subject to a number of interpretations which mean that even this paragraph may not be understood quite in the way that I intended it to be understood. That is the risk I take in writing it - the risk of all conversation and realtionship - that intentions are subject to the interpretation of the hearer/reader/observer.

postmoderns are responding to the difficulty that exists (and this is a simple observation) in the world due to significant differences of opinion on issues that affect people's lives. Wars have been fought between people who believe they are right and are bound to resist the evil efforts of the other side. closer to home, communities bear the pain of conflict and disagreement when people disagree on emotive and controversial issues like religion and homosexuality. The problem is not that either side has given up on "absolute truth". I would suggest that everyone in the debate believes they are right - else, why would they be arguing? The problem is that try as we might, we just can't get others to come round to our side and see that WE have the grasp on the absolute truth.

And the problem is not that intelligent and wise people haven't tried... this is not a new problem in the history of human relationships. Rather than continuing to appeal to some form of Authority and Absolute Truth - which has painfully and repeatedly failed to bring unity and peace in human conflict - let us consider other alternatives for a way forward.

postmoderns are pleading that we consider alternatives for finding a way of being human together in the face of diagreement and conflict. We ahve tried and failed to convince each other that WE are right... What other alternatives are there?

do we take Jesus seriously ?

2007-06-06T16:15:00.000+02:00

Someone asked for a copy of my Good Friday sermon. You can find it here: Good Friday Sermon 2007

talking with people of other faiths

2007-05-24T00:43:00.001+02:00

I was recently asked to participate in a meeting where senior leaders of the various major faiths, along with a secular humanist, spoke about spirituality from their perspective.

The Mufti, Siraj Desai spoke about Muslim spirituality - the quest to reconstruct the link with God. He said that Islam is "not a religion, but a way of life."

Chuck Volpe spoke about the value of acknowledging human achievement throughout history. Although he claimed no faith, I thought he showed tremendous faith in the human potential, as well as a strong faith in the essential goodness of reason as a "tool" for humanity to use.

I then presented a short paper which I hoped would express the basics of christian spirituality, as well as some personal convictions, in a fresh and interesting way.

Read my presentation here: Christian Spirituality.doc
(go here for a pdf version)

Living with tension

2007-05-21T00:21:00.000+02:00

A big part of the idealism that I have had to let go of has been the desire to eliminate tension. Idealism convinced me that life could be easy and trouble free if I just lived according to the “rules” – the right principles. When there was a problem – the thing introducing tension – it could be analysed, diagnosed and attended to… a little like the way a mechanic has a look at your car, works out why it won’t start, then gives you a quote to effect the repair.

Is life as simple as that?

My experience is that to be faith-ful means to live with tension. There may be things we can do to relieve tension – and I would totally support that kind of effort. Tension can get too much... for sure! But some things just can’t be resolved with one quick dose of Diagnose-and-Repair.

A present example: Having children produces huge tension in my life. I love Ruben. Check out his web-site here: rubenm.iscool.net He has recently turned 2 and I am proud of him. In fact, there are moments when I delight in him in a way that surprises me.

But he also is difficult. He is strong-willed, passionate, incorrigible, and a whole lot of other things that remind me of someone I know. He is able to produce emotions (like anger) in me in ways that scare me. I’m not blaming him for the anger – it obviously arises out of me – but he is certainly the catalyst. He also produces difficulty in my relationship with Elaine, the person I am married to. We love each other and respect each other in so many ways. But Ruben seems to expose all the tender points in our relationship, especially the things that we are not in agreement about. When it was just the two of us, we lived with a high level of tolerance of our different views. I thought we were mature and respectful. But Ruben seems to worm his way behind our respectful and tolerant façade, and gets us engaged with each other over various issues that we probably wouldn’t have brought up otherwise.

I love my child, but he’s a real challenge to my sense of self. In some ways he is a darling and in other ways a selfish little terror who wants nothing except his own way. I love him and I resent him, at the same time. Huge inner tension.

Somehow, I don’t sense the tension is going to suddenly be relieved. Of course, I’d welcome any helpful advice from people who share the struggle of child-rearing… (actually, I might get irritated by anyone offering advice, but try me anyway - I'm desperate) But even great advice is not going to relieve the tension immediately, and probably not even entirely.

Maturity, faith-fulness… these are qualities that for me are forged in the midst of the tension.

Beware!

2007-05-20T12:23:00.000+02:00

mentioning the bulls meagre 1 point victory...

Live like there’s nothing to hide

2007-05-20T11:31:00.000+02:00

Last week I preached from Revelation 21:10-14. This vision of Jerusalem coming out of heaven from God – heaven crashing into earth – is certainly challenging me to realise that the Kin’dom of Heaven is “now or never”! I have given too much energy to trying to squeeze people into heaven when they die. Far too little consideration has been given to living in the Kin’dom right now…

For instance, if all my secrets are going to be known in heaven (when I die) surely it’s Kin’dom living to begin to de-secret my life right now… in preparation for the grand unveiling. If there are people I really can’t stand – but God is going to welcome them to his Table – surely it’s Kin’dom living to start making peace and treating them with respect today.

I can’t be sure what life is going to be like after I die, but there are a few things that I am sure about… Life with God means:

Worshipping like there’s no tomorrow
(with passion and without fear or inhibition)
Sharing with others like your life depends on it
(because we begin to realise that our life does in fact depend on others)
Living like there’s nothing to hide
(no more blame and no more shame means no need for secrets!)

These statements describe how I imagine “eternity with God” to be like. But they are just as relevant (if not more important) to my life right now. It’s now or never.

As Richard Rohr always reminds me, “It’s heaven all the way to heaven… and it’s hell all the way to hell”!

problems with objectivity

2007-04-22T22:36:00.000+02:00

one of my close friends is in a same-sex relationship. she and her partner intend to marry later this year. their home church (which I was previously a part of) is struggling with the question of whether to host the marriage service. There are a complex set of reasons, but let me mention two main reasons. One is that the denomination in question has threatened to discipline ministers who perform or bless same-sex unions. Another is that the local church leadership are divided over the issue. (see my previous blog post for the full story- feel the pain)

One interesting development is that some senior leadership of this church have resigned. They are disillusioned with the pastors of the church who are sympathetic to this same-sex couple and would like to support their decision to marry. One of the complaints is that the pastors lack objectivity because they are friends with the same-sex couple in question.

This creates a very interesting situation: a pastor is criticised for lacking objectivity in handling an ethical question on the basis that he/she is friendly with the person concerned. Fair enough. It can easily be established that my theological/ethical stance on same-sex relationships has been affected and shaped by my friendship with same-sex couples (and this couple in particular!). It would be pointless for me to deny this. So, the argument goes - "because you are friends with A. and B., you are not able/willing to counsel/guide/reprimand them properly, according to the teachings and principles of the bible/church".

But I don't like where this argument leads us... As a pastor, I am effectively discouraged from forming friendships with the people in my congregation for fear of losing my objectivity!

I think that objectivity is hugely over-rated.

Trusting "objectivity" suggests that the preferable way to help/love/guide people is to offer advice/guidance from a distant, impersonal, objective stance. Sure, that may mean that I will be able to avoid getting compassionately (detractors would probably use the word "emotionally") involved with people. I could dispassionately explain to them the position of the church and the bible without consideration for the painful circumstances of their particular situation.

But I prefer the value of friendship - without qualification. I prefer the way of living that encourages compassionate involvement in people's lives. And yes, that means that because I am friends with a same-sex couple, my thoughts, feelings, theological views, ethical standards, pastoral practise have been affected, even completely changed.

And all because a couple of young christian women fell in love and want to ask God to bless their decision to live faithfully and honourably together. Thank God that they are willing to be my friends, in spite of the way my church is treating them! Thank God their friendship has softened my heart and forced me to reconsider my previously rock-solid opinion on the issue.

One thing is certain... no argument could have brought about this change of heart. Only personal encounters (through friendship) have been able to reveal and challenge my ignorance and prejudice. I therefore think there is no use in arguing with those who seek to maintain the "objective" principled stance which refuses same-sex couples access to the church for weddings. Only friendship could soften their hardened hearts. But they won't surrender their objectivity... so theirs is a fairly impenetrable position, unlikely to change.

I just read what I have written to the person I am married to – she raised a very interesting question: are they afraid that friends won’t be honest with each other?

Does honesty require objectivity? Are honesty and objectivity the same thing?

I would contend that while good friendship surrenders so-called “objectivity”, it does not have to surrender honesty. In fact, honesty may be strengthened by the foundation of friendship. Good friends will be honest with each other, while remaining faithful to the relationship of trust (subjectively faithful to the person despite their failings or weaknesses).

If I truly believed that my friend was being hurt in this relationship, there is no doubt that I would speak with her (honestly) about my concerns. But I do not subscribe to the argument that to really help and guide her, I need to adopt an objective position.

feel the pain

2007-04-18T00:55:00.000+02:00

Today I experienced that sad sinking feeling in my stomach. But to explain, I need to fill you in on quite a long story…

One of my best friends fell in love a few years ago. She (let’s call her Sam) is a person of faith and she fell in love with another woman, who is also a very sincere person of faith. At the start, the relationship was a total surprise to them. They never set out to break any rules or make a statement – they were fully expecting to live “normal” lives as straight women, marrying, having children. But their love for each other – as only love can – prevailed to keep them exploring. They searched their own souls and consulted friends. They prayed and asked God for guidance. They experienced some angry condemnation and even tried to separate for the sake of fitting in with the widespread church teaching condemning same-sex relationships.

Two years down the line they have built a solid and loving relationship. They are both compassionate people who take their work in government medicine seriously. They participate in a local church congregation and Sam was even elected to serve as a society steward (senior leader). They love the church and are committed to it’s life and witness in a variety of ways. Sam gives a lot of time and energy to her responsibilities as a leader.

What has been helpful for me is to see the nature of their relationship. In so many ways I can only describe it as “normal”. The fact that I even say that reflects my own prejudice and ignorance – that I thought their relationship wouldn’t be normal. They have gone through all the same relational stages as Elaine and I. This has been a huge challenge to my inherent prejudices, which expected that it would be all different and weird for them. They are a good example of “opposites attract”. They are complimentary personalities and fit well into the Imago (Relationship Therapy) model of partners who connect with someone who offers healing and wholeness. My sense is that Sam and her partner are a good match in that sense – again, a helpful reminder that their relationship is normal and can be treated, in every way, as a “normal” romantic and committed partnership.

Recently they got engaged. They want to formalise their relationship – for all the same reasons I wanted to. I should probably ask them to give their reasons – but I surmise that among other reasons for wanting to marry, they would like to feel that their faithfulness and commitment to each other (which is a very spiritual thing for them) is recognised by their friends and community as something they take very seriously and also as something they are committed to before their God. I’m sure that there are also some practical and legal reasons for wanting to be married. One thing that seems clear to me is that they want to be married for VERY SIMILAR reasons to why I wanted to be married.

In a faith community that believes that sex is reserved for marriage, one practical reason why I wanted to marry Elaine was so that I could share a home with her with the community’s blessing! While getting the community’s blessing may not be top of the list in Sam’s life, I’m sure it does rank somewhere there on the list. Just like for young (straight) couples who “live in sin”, there’s a sense in which getting married would bring Sam and her partner’s relationship out of the shadows into the light, where it could be acknowledged and spoken about rather than politely ignored.

Sam has been open with the community about her relationship. For some time there was not strong reaction which she interpreted as a surprising affirmation. But more recently, the reaction to the news of an approaching wedding has prompted some people to respond in hurtful ways.

It’s complicated. At one level, the wider denominational church is struggling with the issue and so has issued an ultimatum that threatens any minister who participates in the blessing of a same-sex union. This puts my friend’s pastors (who are very supportive friends to Sam) in a painfully difficult situation. They are caught between being responsible to the community of faith, which could be torn apart by this issue, and being responsible to the individual (in this case Sam and her partner), for whom this feels like a justice issue. Suffice to say, the wider church is not able to offer a prophetic lead in supporting them in their desire to be married. They probably will not be able to hold their wedding ceremony at their home church because the church has formally forbade ministers to allow such ceremonies.

I remember saying to Elaine that the one non-negotiable of our wedding day for me was that we should say our vows at the bottom of the steps in that church, which was, at that time, our home church. It seemed important to me to make such an important step in the same sanctuary that I worship Sunday after Sunday. Sam and her partner will not be able to have the same privilege. Even though she is a committed member, regular worshipper, of sound moral character and displays the fruit of the spirit in her life, she will not be free to consecrate her marriage vows in the sanctuary that she calls “home”.

At another level, the local church is breaking. There are some who are absolutely unequivocally, passionately opposed to any form of compromise. To the extent that they will withdraw from the conversation, resigning in protest. There are others, a few quieter voices, who are very supportive. Probably the majority are people for whom the issue is not entirely clear… but they seem to be able to stay in relationship with Sam and her partner, not rejecting them, even though they may have reservations about the ok-ness of same-sex unions. I certainly respect them for their willingness to hold the tension! There are those who will accuse them (us?) of lacking a clear position – of being wishy-washy – but I commend their spirit of openness and tolerance. I commend them for not trying to take a splinter out of Sam’s eye. I commend them for following Jesus’ clear directive not to judge or condemn (Luke 6:37). I commend them for holding the tension between compassion and principle/doctrine… for taking seriously Jesus’ assurance that God “desires mercy, not sacrifice” (Matthew 9:13).

Finally, what emerges for me is just how hurtfully we can act and how much pain we can cause when we think we are right! I want to write more about this, but being right is seriously over-rated! It’s over-rated as a way to please God. I was taught that having the right thoughts (doctrines) in our heads will translate into the right kind of lives and actions. But too often, the opposite proves to be true. It’s often the people who have little or no theological or ethical training who are able to practice compassion and mercy, without any prompting or complication. “Pharisees” – teachers of right thinking – come along and cause pain through their conviction that “knowledge always improves lives”. But knowledge and wisdom are not the same. An increase in knowledge does not automatically lead to an increase in wisdom. What we need is wisdom, not knowledge, which comes across as “know-it-all”. Know-it-all people have decided that this is right and this is wrong. The faith community has been tied up by self-righteous know-it-alls who sincerely believe they are helping people live better. Except their behaviour exhibits exactly the same kind of qualities that Jesus challenged the Pharisees over.

The Pharisees weren’t insincere. They weren’t lacking in knowledge – they were the most learned people in the community. They weren’t irreligious. So what did they lack? Jesus suggested that all their “correctness” had squeezed out their ability to cope with the messiness of life (that is, grace and compassion). Their quest for Perfection – an unreal state - rather than the kingdom of God – a very real thing – rendered them harsh and insensitive and haughty and proud and far from God. Jesus infuriated them by suggesting that children (unlearned, ignorant), women (not fully able), sinners (failures, sinful) and the infirm (punished with suffering) were closer to the kingdom that they…

What the Pharisees lacked was not knowledge of religion, but knowledge of God. It's really hard to leave our self-righteous egos behind and progress without judgement, when we haven't experienced an encounter with God that involved an embarrassing (public) acknowledgement of our own failure (sinfulness) Without a huge sense of our own need for God, we continue to walk in the pride of our lives as exemplary rather than Christ's as the only example.

As I spoke to Sam this evening I sensed the huge disappointment in her as it dawns on her that her “home” community of faith is not going to get the Supportive Thing right. While there may be individuals who support, the majority are going to fumble the ball for fear of dropping it! I sense that argument is not going to change people’s opinion – especially the hard-liners. What may offer some hope is simply sharing her story and her pain. Without allowing herself to become their victim, sharing her story of love and life and hope AND her sense of disappointment that she is not able to be fully embraced by the community she loves… I think people need to hear that story!

I need to hear that story!!!

living peace

2007-04-14T00:19:00.000+02:00

I'm preparing my sermon for sunday. Jesus comes to his friends after the resurrection and his firsts words are "Peace be with you". After some reflection it has occurred to me that most often Peace is seen to be a symptom of other things. IF we stop fighting THEN there will be peace in our homes. If we spend time in silence then we will enjoy inner-peace. If world leaders find agreement and cease fire, then there will be peace - and end to war.

But what if Peace is not a symptom, but rather a Causal kind of thing?

What if it works the other way around? If World leaders were keen for peace, then the result (symptom) of that would be a cease-fire and an end to the war. If we longed for and chose peace as a primary value of our home life, then we would stop shouting and screaming at each other. If we really wanted inner-peace, we'd find ourselves much more comfortable with silence and rest.

We have assumed that we don't experience Peace because the circumstances aren't right - and when we rectify the circumstances, then we will be in a position to experience Peace. This leads to one of two reactions: Hopelessness, because the changes required to bring about the right circumstances for Peace to reign are just to great to achieve, OR a frenetic buzz of activity aimed at bringing the necessary changes to circumstances to achieve the desired result - i.e. Peace. Peace (supposedly) becomes a product of our frenetic activity. It seems we give up Peace in order to try and achieve it...

But Jesus says - "Peace be with you". It's as if he gives it - as a gift. He encourages us to start there - start living peacefully, being peaceful, making peace central to our way of living. If we receive the gift, we may be surprised to find that our peaceful way begins to influence and affect the circumstances of our lives. Bringing Peace into a home may affect the way we speak and relate to each other. Wanting Peace, more than power, may lead to responsible and wise political leadership - and an end to war. Peace is then, not a product of our achievement, but a gift and catalyst.

There is much talk about the quest for inner peace, but I wonder if inner peace can actually be distinguished from other kinds of peace in any meaningful way. Is it really possible to distinguish inner peace from "outer" peace? Perhaps what we are realising is that "inner" peace and "outer" peace are the same thing. When we live peaceably, without busy-ness and speak with kindness we will find inner peace - evidenced by silence and the freedom to rest. And when we rest and take time to be silent, we may find it possible to speak more kindly and to live with less frenetic activity.

Peace is then better understood as a catalyst, than as a product or a symptom. The measure of peace in our lives will not be only relative to the circumstances we find ourselves in, but more likely related to the level of longing and desire we have to live in the Peace - that is a gift of the Spirit...

words

2007-04-13T23:57:00.000+02:00

I like to speak about Values rather than Beliefs or Doctrines. I sense that our lives are shaped by the Values that we embrace. We may say we believe something, but ultimately our actions and attitudes may not be deeply influenced by that mental "belief". By Values, I am referring to the core fundamentals that actually do shape our lives...

A Value is a lot like an assumption - a Taken-for-Granted - that has been evaluated and considered OK to keep...

One assumption (or belief) which is fairly influential in my thinking is the way in which I understand words, language and interaction: I no longer understand Words as describers of reality. (I used to.) I have come to believe that Words create reality. "Words create Worlds." So, when I write, speak - even better, participate in conversation - Reality is being created, co-created. The God who said "Light" (and there was light) has made us "in his own image". Being made in the image of God is, in my understanding, having this extraordinary ability to speak, and in so doing to create. When we speak we create reality.

The ethical question is of course, what kind of reality am I creating? What kind of world is my language and conversation shaping?

This is an especially challenging (and exciting) question for a poet...

I'm not a poet, but I am a preacher - and I find it humbling and inspiring to think about preaching in this way. Rather than thinking of preaching as prescribing to people how to think or how to live, I choose to see preaching as the act of humbly (hopefully!) using words to create new reality. For example: in a time of despair a preacher's (or a poet's) words could bring about the reality of Hope. For those living in fear and anxiety, words could be used to create space (the real possibility of) for trust and peace.

getting started

2007-04-13T17:02:00.000+02:00

i've had a Task in my Outlook Task-list for some time now. it has no Due Date for completion. it's just one word: "Write"

so i've decided, after some months, to get started...

there are a few values that have begun to shape my life. i find myself increasingly committed to them. lately i've been feeling that i'd like to write about them. For me, thinking comes after speaking - I speak before I think! somehow it's in the speaking (esp if it's a conversation) that ideas are born and values are clarified.

Some of the things i'd like to write about and explore are:

living sustainably - seeing the journey through, i'm interested in sticking around for the long-run. so many really good people have burned themselves out - not because they had the wrong ideas or intentions - but because they allowed the demands of activity to drain them of more than is possible for one person to give.
living transparently - risking living a see-through life and exposing the hidden and speaking the unspoken. I am curious to explore what happens when the personal and the public are allowed to mingle and wander into each other "territory".
integrity - the integration of "opposites" that are the result of centuries of dualistic thinking...

integration of my body life and sexuality into my life as a whole
integration of spirituality into my life as a whole
integrating values that I hold in principle into my life in practise - bringing theory and practice together.

so, I expect that i will want to write personal things and explore (even interrogate) myself. I will want to interrogate assumptions - my own, those of the environment in which i live - to see whether they stand up to scrutiny. I want to ask if our "taken-for-granted's" deserve their taken-for-granted status. And I will look forward to participation from others who may offer words that help support and encourage these values.