seethrough

how often do you install software on your pc?  just today a bubble popped up to tell me that Windows had downloaded “critical updates”.  Naturally i clicked the button to install the updates, only to be confronted by that regular (and for me, awkward) screen entitled “User agreement”.  Along with all the other Windows users around the world I was asked to read 93 pages of legally binding agreement, before installing the updates…

i want to know

• who reads all that legal stuff?
• do the people who write it expect us to?
• if not, is it binding?
• why do “critical updates” for software you already paid for and legally own (along with clicking on “AGREE” when you first installed it) require further legal contract?
• do i really have a choice to NOT AGREE?
• can i click AGREE and argue later that I did so in order to gain access to the software, but not with any intention of entering into legal contract because it’s unreasonable to ask a person to read 93 pages every time their pc (automatically) downloads updates…

the more interesting thing than the challenges of living ethically in a digital and internet age is the issue of trust.  we who like to think of ourselves as highly rational, never entering into a situation without consideration of the facts, display a lot of willingness to trust - perhaps not in traditional ways, like trusting a partner or trusting the divine…  and yet it’s still trust.

what if we were to discover that less of our life (our choices, our circumstances, etc.) is determined by “facts” than we like to think… and much more of our life than we recognise is actually determined by trust?

at the core of every person is an energy center called the heart.  just like the physical heart pumps blood, so the spiritual heart wants.  that’s just what it does.

I think we don’t make decisions rationally (i.e. with our minds)  I think we follow our hearts.  And our minds rationalise the longing…

we do exactly as we like!

(which is to say, everything we do is in response to a hearts desire.)

you may argue that you do “unselfish” things which go against your heart’s desires.  (like washing the dishes).  But I would still ask what made you do the unselfish thing…  did you want to be seen to be helpful? kind? generous?  what desire motivated you to do something you don’t enjoy?

i don’t think it’s helpful to regard the heart in terms of right and wrong.

E.g. A little boy who sees a porcelain vase and wants to touch it…  the longing to touch it is neither right or wrong.  it just is.  the desire to touch may lead to a broken vase.  But the desire itself is not wrong.  Why does the little boy want to touch the vase? Now, that’s an interesting question that may never be explored if we simply condemn the heart’s desire.

Why does the happily married man of 28 years want to leave home for a passionate relationship with his secretary?  Condemn the longing, and you’ll probably never get any insight into that potentially painful set of circumstances…

To change a person’s behaviour requires a change of heart!

The work of heart-change is really the key to all meaningful reflection on transformation.  “Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also…”

the literal meaning of the word muslim is “one who submits to God”.  if that be the case, i am (proudly) a muslim.

the history of the relationship between christians and muslims has been one of opposition and conflict.  having grown up in the “christian west” i have experienced the way that history is retold.  For me, this always included a certain way of speaking about Islam that portrayed that religion in terms of threat.

Even today, with conflict in the middle east, people in (relatively) unaffected southern africa have strong opinions and characteristic ways of speaking about Muslims.

I think christians (and especially the zealous kind) have a lot in common with many muslims.  We are keen to share our convictions with others.  We believe we have found the “truth” and that we are (more) right than anyone else.  We are sincerely convinced that we know the way to please God.  We appeal to our scriptures as a primary (and final) authority.

In fact, christians who view the Bible as a product of divine inspiration with no real human involvement in it’s authorship reflect a strong resembalnce to to the most common Islamic view of the Q’uran.  For most Muslims the Q’uran is believed to be an accurate word-for-word transcription of the “original” text given to the prophet Mohammed to record.  These are the exact words of Allah given to people to aid their submission to the Almighty.

Not all Christians understand the Bible in this way.  In fact, I would argue that in the Christian tradition, this view of scripture is not the way of the faithful through the ages.  Faithful Christ-following has been a product of careful interpretation of scripture.  The perception of the Bible as a book that dropped out of heaven can be seen as a relatively recent historical occurence which reflects a deviation from the traditional interpretive understanding.

Last year I attended a Muslim Propogation Soceity rally.  I felt safe and respected.  The speakers were sincere.  They communicated a respect for other views.  They reminded us that people can be sincerely wrong or simply ignorant.  They sought to help us understand the limits of our knowledge and understanding by showing the relative value of adopting the Islamic view of various things.  I think they were sincerely moticated by loving conern.  If they are right, and if we are misguided, shouldn’t they seek to share their insight with us - for our benefit?  (a familiar argument?)  Mostly they compared the Bible with the Q’uran showing how (if we accept the assumption that Holy Scriptures drop out of the sky from God to humans) the Q’uran is a far more reliable source than the Bible. (which from a scrictly textual critical perspective it is!)

They also encouraged us to acknowledge (properly) the belief in ONE God - identifying the dangers of Trinitarian thinking - and taking Christians to their own Bible, showed them that in the original Hebrew texts, the name for God is recorded as “Allah”.

At question time I  stood up and  conceded that if to be a Muslim one needed to “submit to the will of [the one] GOd”, then I was a Muslim!  The room cheered and I was rewarded with a complimentary copy of the Q’uran.  I then asked a curious question about interpretations of the Q’uran (recognising from my own experience of the Bible that the greatest problems are not about agreeing on the sources of the text, but rather on how those texts should be understood…)

The speaker was not willing to concede that there are significant differences in interpretations of the Q’uran, by different “schools” or “teachers”…  Perhaps in a more frank and open conversation - without the need to convince a crowd - a Muslim may acknowledge some difficulties with the interpretation and application of the text to current and contextual challenges.  Somehow I find it hard to believe that there are not varying opinions within Islam on how the “law” is to be interpretted.

If only we could see beyond the competition.

I am not suggesting that Islam and Christianity are “different paths up the mountain”.  I think they are distinct and unique and different in many significant ways.  And I am even clearer now (having visited a Muslim rally) that I am a Jesus-follower.  What I am suggesting is that we have more in common than we would like to admit.  And that if we could re-member our “history” and reconsider some of our opposition stories there might be space for us to tell stories of humanity and relationship… stories of living as neighbours and stories of respect and mutual understanding.

At the very least, i think we could stop killing each other!

my early mentor and role-model in the ministry wrote this in a Christmas letter…

Response to Jacob Zuma’s election – at last the voice of the poor is being heard in South Africa! I think there’s little to fear in what’s happened - in fact it’s a chance to start again, in a country with huge riches, to share what we have (e.g. our GINI coefficient is still amongst the worst in the world.) And the story’s not about one man (unlike the Mbeki style). And even if Zuma is convicted, the new Deputy, Kgalema Motlante, has long experience in governance.

besides always being interested in what he has to say about things like this, i’m also always interested to hear an alternative voice. I personally think that most objections to Zuma have tended toward the moralistic (read judgemental) and reflect the affluent preference for a “Mbeki” who will not rock the economic boat too much. i think it is helpful to interpret Zuma’s election in terms of the poor needing to be heard!

I am a friend of Gay and Lesbian people. If their choices make them sinners (and I’m not saying that they do), then I’m a Friend of Sinners. Crucify me!

The tough thing for them is that they have to deal with being friendly toward a big sinner themselves…

(tonight I will be interviewing a Gay man as a part of a series of conversations inviting the church to listen with compassion to “voices from the outside”. If you pray, pray that we will learn to listen with compassion to the voices that are marginalised in our culture and society… I pray that the church will offer leadership on how to handle the vast challenges of diversity and conflict in this shrinking global village…)

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?

(more…)

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!

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.