pornography is an interesting “evil”. those who are quick to condemn it might miss the complexity of the “problem”.
are we agreed that nudity is not bad - not in and of itself. actually it’s quite nice.
are we also agreed that sexuality is a gift. a treasure. again, not bad, in and of itself.
(those who roundly condemn pornography without any pause to acknowledge the closely related components - sexuality, nudity etc - will probably further compact the damage that has been done to a generation of people who were so afraid of sexual sin that they were unable to embrace the gift of sexuality and struggled to enjoy pleasure.)
what makes pornography a tricky issue is that those that produce it are reflecting things that are not in and of themselves bad or wrong. in fact, the sexual revolution that has made porn so freely available is a movement that is based on a positive premise: sexuality should not be denied or suppressed.
nudity is beautiful.
sexuality - the suggestion of it - is attractive, even obsessive. it’s a strong force.
i believe that a holy spirituality will integrate a balanced and healthy affirmation of the body: exercise, eating, rest, and… a place for passionate and caring sexuality.
what does it mean to own something?
“owning” something doesn’t ensure that it can’t be lost or takne by someone else. and if someone else takes it, does it then belong to them?
do we own the land on which our house it built? what does it mean to say that the land is mine? obviously there is a sense in which the land belongs to me because there are soceity rules governing access to that land. i can restrict access based on my title-deed. but in the greater scheme of things, can I say that the land is mine? earth-quakes and floods tend to make fun of title-deeds.
and our bodies? human rights express the right of every person to safety and the freedom of their own body. i am fully supportive of the desire to support and protect those basic human rights. but ultimately those “rights” are again undermined by death. my body is “mine” until that confidence is undermined by sudden illness or death.
divorce reminds us to be cautious about speaking about “my wife”… we often speak like a person can own their spouse.
and children… when they leave home, they challenge our sense that they are ours.
i think we need a huge re-think on the matter of ownership.
(for our own well-being, as well as the well-being of people in the light of increasingly materialistic and consumeristic ways of doing life)
on this blog i think i write more than i probably should on the topic of the so-called spiritual life. which raises a huge dilemma for me: if we assume that integrity and wholeness flow from a rejection of unhelpful dualism (drawing a disctinction between the physical and the spiritual) and that a helpful “spirituality” will be one that takes seriously questions of body, mind AND spirit (Dallas Willard would add to that list, community or relationships and group all four categories of human life under the heading “SOUL”) then what shall we call that journey? to refer to is as a spiritual life or a spiritual journey fails to acknowledge the new focus on body and spirit, physical and spiritual, together (along with other things categories that might need to be included in a wholistic model of healthy living)
what do you suggest?
at first i just dropped the adjective “spiritual” and spoke about the journey or about life. but that doesn’t do proper justive to the sense of intentionality expressed by the phrase “spiritual life”. usually when that phrase is used, it refers to a more intentional approach to spirituality. so how do we speak about an intentional journey that embraces growing wholeness in all of these important aspects of being human.
If the word soul can be distinguished from the word spirit then perhaps “the soul journey” could describe this important integrating journey seeking wholeness through greated wholeness…
the mail&guardian reports that Aids-related deaths in South Africa were at 2,319,317 at noon on November 28
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!
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?)