seethrough

when i was a pre-teen Pirates stories were the rage.  I still remember watching “The Princess Bride” for the first time.  All that sailing ships into misty fog…

One Monday - it was my day off - I wandered into Pirates of the Carribean and Capt. Jack Sparrow brought it all back.  Seems pirates are back!  (don’t bother with the sequels - just stick to the original Jack Sparrow movie: The curse of the Black Pearl.  or, find a copy of The Princes Bride and catch up on lost time…)

But there’s a new pirates story that is emerging on the west coast of Africa…

Have you asked yourself why are somalian pirates risking their lives taking hostages from ships passing the horn of africa?  Well, yesterday I discovered some stats that begin to answer the question.

Try compating the mortality rate of children under the age of 5 - in Somali, my home country South Africa and for comparitive sake, the United States:

Comparative mortality of under 5’s (per 1000):

Somalia - 143
South Africa - 59
USA - 8

Next, consider the  comaparative income of the average population GNI per capita (Gross National Income divided by the number of citizens in each country):

Comparative GNI per capita (2007):

Somalia - US$ 140
South Africa - US$ 5760
USA - US$ 46040

(Check the graph on the right to get the full effect of these numbers.)

stats courtesy of UNICEF (studies conducted in 2007)

Another  factor is presented in this articel from thefreelibrary.com:

The reasons behind piracy: piracy off the Somali coast has been headline news, but the media have neglected to say why the pirates do what they do. Massip Farid Ikken reports.

Of course, I could just be soft…  we can always send in the big guns…  Check out the alternative solutions as presetned by Grant Walliser on his High Voltage blog.

“choose your enemies carefully because they will define you” - u2, cedars of lebanon

a colleague of mine often makes reference to “an enemy-loving community” when he talks about the community that has faith in Jesus.  This seems to be one of the most clearly described values of Jesus - and one that he lived out right to the point of death.  Whatever the enemy threw at him, he refused to hate them.  We can reflect on what enabled Jesus to do that - and we should - but the key thing to begin with is recognition that this was not just a path Jesus had to follow so that we wouldn’t have to..  but rather a path he taught, calling us to embrace the value.  He initiated the way and walked ahead of us, calling us to follow.

So Brian McClaren makes this painful observation at a Conference in Magaliesburg this week:

“The Way of a man of peace and reconciliation and liberation who was tortured and killed by powerful people became a powerful religion that defended oppression, torture and violence in the name of this very man.”

Till we really wrestle with how we treat our enemies, I don’t think we have really grappled deeply with the teaching and life of Jesus of Nazareth.  How we feel about our enemies is another matter all together.  Those who have hurt us, abused us and attacked us… their actions are not condoned, nor should they ever be sanctioned.  But as Desmond Tutu observes, “pain, if not transformed, will be transmitted”.  Transformation and Healing is desperately needed in our lives, lest the pain be transmitted, through our words and actions, and through our children to following generations.  Our pain is not ignored of overlooked by Jesus.  His suffering on the cross is precisely the moment of solidarity.  We do not suffer alone.

But what we DO with our pain will become the central question of our lives.  And somehow our enemies become the symbol of everything that salvation is about.  Will they (and we) be destroyed - wiped off the face of the earth?  Or can this situation of conflict, animosity, abuse and violence be redeemed?

who is your enemy today?

the bible has some great advice for people who want to communicate more effectively.   today i took three phrases from the bible - 2 from Ephesians and 1 from James - and used them to guide our reflection on good communication.

James says that we should be “quick to listen, slow to speak, slow to anger”.  But what makes a person quick to listen?  I think it’s a spirit of curiosity.  Certainty is quick to speak.  It is sure of itself and in an argument is slow to consider that there may be more to the conflict or argument than is is able to grasp.  But Curiosity sense that there is more to discover.  I think it would be a fascinating exercise - to ask ourselves in the middle of an argument “what am I missing here?”  I think there’d be more questions and less categorical statements…

In Ephesians we read “putting away falsehood, let us all speak the truth”.  In this verse we are not just told not to lie.  It’s stronger and broader than that!  We are putting falsehood aside!  How much falsehood can exist between people without a word being spoken?  We don’t have to lie to allow deceit to exist between us.  BEING NICE is the curse of many religious people.  In the noble insterests of not hurting a person feelings, we may entertain falsehood by not speaking honestly when there is a need to do so.  I don’t think we are being given permission to speak honestly without care.  But we are being encouraged to live honestly.  It’s harder to live honestly than to be nice….

Finally, I reflected on another phrase from Ephesians: “let no evil talk come out of your mouths, but only what is useful for building up”.  The real test of whether we should speak - once we have taken time to listen, and reflected on whether we are living honesty with ourselves and others - is held in this question:  will it build the person up?  Perhaps the best communication advice the Bible gives us is the challenge to speak constructively.  Imagine setting out to speak words that build people up in your daily life.  Suddenly every moment, every encounter, every conversation would be touched by your spirituality.  “Religion” would get out of a building and seep into our everyday interactions and relationships.  People would benefit as their confidence grows.  And we would benefit because our communication would be effective and enduring.

three questions for reflection:

• am i quick to speak or quick to listen?
• do i want to be nice and popular or do I want to live honestly?
• are my words constructive?  do they build people up?

it’s a big day for our country!  Mr Mbeki was recalled by his party, the ruling ANC.  And today he resigned.  Good move.  if he was impeached by a vote of MP’s in parliment, he would have lost his pension.

so i’m expecting people to react with concern and anxiety.  fair enough it’s not an everyday occurence that a president resigns.

but consider this.  our northern neighbour has had the same president for nearly 30 years - the only head of government in that country since liberation in 1980.  many people who fear change in our country often site Zimbabwe as a sign of things to come.

but today we experienced our second change in president in the first 14 years of our fledgling democracy.  Not only did our beloved first president graciously step down after his first term - setting the stage for a different tradition of leadership.  Now our second president has been peacefully deposed by political rivals and will be replaced by a care-taker president till elections next year.  And please note - not a single drop of blood shed.  how different to the story of our northern neighbour.

Now please note - all you lovers of democracy (whether you agree with Mbeki being asked to step down or not, whether you like Jacob Zuma or not) - this transition of power is a sign of maturity.  And if, in the next few days, cabinet ministers stick around and agree to work with the new president, that will also be a sign of democratic maturity.  Mbeki’s resignation can (must?) be seen as the result of a democratic process within the ANC.  Other alternatives are a coup - a violent unlawful change of leadership - and revolution - forceful, usually violent but morally justified change in leadership.  Even if Mbeki had chosen to stay and fought impeachment in Parliment, that would have been a more protracted process, but still an extension of the democratic process.

And if, as some have predicted, followers of Mbeki move out to form a rival political movement, to contest the next elections…  that could also be a sign of democratic and political maturity as our political landscape begins to reflect greater diversity, challenging the single-minded and uniform stronghold the ANC has in Parliment.  No political party should enjoy (i believe) an outright majority in Parliment.  A change in the constitution should always be the result of multi-party consultation and agreement.  When opposing political groups have to come together to effect a change in the constitution, then there is safety that changes are not just being made to suit the best interests of a political party, rather than the best interests of the country.  (A good example of the ANC majority in parliment being misused was the decision to allow floor-crossing.)

many things can be said about the events of today.  and everyone is justified their opinion.  the one thing that can not be said about us today is that we are a banana republic.  political intrigue and power mongering is alive and well in our Republic…

Viva Democracy Viva!

how do you face a tragedy?

I sometimes sit with a family who are preparing a funeral for a loved one.  Paying tribute to the deceased is an important part of the funeral service, and the grieving process.  (assuming that the person who has died was really loved and appreciated by the family…) the family often hesitate over the tribute, voicing the fear that they “might not be able to”.  by this they mean they might be overcome with emotion and cry while speaking.

My question is why would we want to avoid tears at a time like this?  Ok, so there’s the public eye.  No-one wants to stand sobbing in front of a group of people.  But is that it?  Have we in some way conditioned ourselves not to feel.  Are feelings of pain, sadness and grief an inconvenience?  even an irritation?  Or perhaps just an embarrassment?

What does weeping during a tribute suggest?  That the person weeping is weak?  That the person weeping has loved and lost?

my sense is that we approach tragedy with our feelings well hidden.  (a huge generalisation, but made on the basis of a growing assessment of a cultural “way of being” of which I am a part.) On Good Friday we come to tragedy of the Jesus’ death on a cross with our heads.  We analyse and consider and theologise the Cross - and in so doing probably miss the horror and the absurdity of Jesus’ death.  We sit and stare at a Cross - the symbol of tortuous punishment and death - and come to some carefully considered opinion about it’s significance.

and then we go home and eat hot-cross buns.

I think we need a dose of feeling.  we need to encounter good friday, and the cross of Jesus, with our hearts.

This Friday co-incided with the anniversary of the Sharpeville Massacre.  In 1960 69 people were killed - mostly shot as they fled the gun-fire of South African police.  Innocent people killed while protesting the discrimitary nature of the pass-laws which required all black south africans to carry special “pass” identification with them at all times.

When we take time to remember - when we face the tragedy - we are tempted to analyse, to attach significance. That’s ok, we are meaning-makers.  that’s what we do.

But when do we weep?  When do we face the absolute tragedy of an innocent person condemned to painful death for no real reason?

i just watched the movie as it is in heaven - a must see! among other things, it reflects the worst of the church, especially the moralistic nature of calvinistic protestantism. for those needing a reason not to participate in a church community, the movie could offer many reasons to avoid any kind of formal or institutional religious community. and they’d probably be making a fairly good, reasonable decision - and save themselves a lot of pain!

but why does the movie resonate so deeply with my soul. i am a church-man. ordained minister of an established and highly institutional christian denomination. and yet i identify with the ideals of compassion, freedom, inclusivity, belonging of the new community represented by the choir in the movie. I want to believe that the movie is not a call to abandon the church community in favour of other forms of community. every new movement seems to end up becoming institutionalised and loses it’s original freedom and focus. The movie stands as a gentle and yet powerful reminder of the primary reasons we are called to live in community. The impact of the little Choir-community in a rural swedish town represents what i believe a gospel community will always look like.

it’s hard to live with this tension: on the one hand, i love the church - i sense the incredible potential it holds. it has the vision and passion of jesus to guide it and inspire it. it has the compassionate and surrendered jesus to keep it kind and tender-hearted. on the other hand, i see all the signs of stubbornness - rejection of the freedom of jesus and a return to the legalism and fear of patriarchal religion.

when I ask questions about the church - and raise serious concerns about the church’s faithfulness to the teaching of Jesus, i am treated with a certain skepticism… the implication is that if I don’t believe in “the way things have always been done”, I don’t actually believe in anything at all…

it’s sad that asking honest questions gets you lumped with the label “faithless”. somehow i sense that it is in asking the difficult questions that faith is revived.

I believe in community - people sharing their lives with compassion and generosity. I believe we are always being called - by jesus - away from the habits of ME into the ways of WE…
away from the habits of FEAR (which always seems to lead to judgement) into the ways of PEACE (which is contentment)…
away from the habits of ATTACHMENT and HOARDING into the ways of CELEBRATION, JOY and FREEDOM!

p.s. i think a wonderful gift of the movie is that the choir leader is not set up as a messiah figure. although he has gifts to share, he is also wounded and fearful like the others. perhaps the closest person to a “messiah” in the movie is Lena, the young blonde girl who has a reputation for being a loose woman, but who knows how to love without holding on too tightly… “there is no death!”

Sometimes people just say things SO MUCH BETTER than you could…

(Some pastor freinds of mine have been taking strain from congregation members who don’t like their theological view regarding same-sex relationships. The paragraph below was written by a senior minister colleague in response to those who are struggling. It reflects on sacred violence - a sneaky way for religious types to justify the very behaviour that it would condemn in “the world” as unacceptable and immoral…)

Our people get angry when we threaten their outlets for sacred violence. Its complicated but really means they now have to find someone else to blame/measure themselves against. They now have to find another ‘lesser human’ to scapegoat. That’s where ministers come in!!!! It all gets back to the fact that we have missed the understanding of atonement - which is not Jesus dying to keep God wrath free, but Jesus dying to keep us wrath free. Jesus dies for the sins of those who sin against me. So if I retaliate, I am 2000 years too late. Healthy atonement blames Jesus. If the one to whom I sacrifice is in fact the sacrifice, to whom then is the sacrifice being made?

what happens when a minister/pastor (or any other representative figure in our lives) becomes the “scapegoat” outlet for our pent-up frustrations and aggressions?

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!

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!!!

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…