what do you do?

“So, what do you do?”

This seems to be the most common way we make the first step of exploration when meeting someone for the first time.

I know it is mostly very innocent and a customary socially appropriate exchange to boot but I can’t help thinking that it subtly and perhaps even bewitchingly encourages us to define ourselves not by who we are but by what we do.

With each and every one of us there are a multitude of things we “do” and none of these things defines us completely.  In fact, even what we do as a primary activity in our daily lives is for the most of us not what we would choose to do.  Most often what we “do” is a functional necessity usually linked directly to the most primitive of drives – that of survival rather than something that is a full and free-flowing manifestation of who we really are.

Apparently they say it has been proved that real job satisfaction is very rare in our times.

To add more to this suggestion our apparent obsession with desperately making it to each weekend (TGIF) is perhaps powerful evidence of this sad state of affairs.

Now this dominance of defining ourselves almost exclusively by what we do rather than by who we are may well be as a result of a gradual shift away from the entitlement of the aristocracy in history where worth and status in society was granted not by individual functionality or competence but by peerage.

Or perhaps it could also be a spin-off from the beginnings of the industrial revolution where focus on the worth of the individual was suddenly shifted and extended in terms of the specific function played in the production line of  life in the modern age of mass production and consumerism?

Either way I would think it’s perhaps more than just an interesting thought to entertain.

A fruit tree at the very earliest stage in its life may well be confused with any number of other sapling species to all but the expert botanist …but come maturity it will be defined by its fruit and all debate will then cease.

It is written in the ancient spiritual texts that a tree will be recognised by its fruit – however, it was the fruit tree well before it bore the convincing fruit declared it as such.

In these deceptive times perhaps our marketing saturated and superficially obsessed, materialistic society has succeeded in convincing us otherwise though?

So, how would you define yourself?

do we really think…

We live in an era saturated with branding, slogans, memes, pop iconography, subcultures, rampant pop media, fashion obsession, subcultures within subcultures within cultures, and a dominant worldview of citations, quotes, references – whether they be scientific, religious, literary, social, or even tribal.

Of late I’ve been thinking about what percentage of what we think is what WE ourselves actually think and what percentage of what we think is what others think?

I throw this out even though personally we may very strongly not think we think what others’ think influences us to think, say and do things?

… what do you think? … do we, or don’t we?

And what would it mean if we are offended at this thought or if our immediate response is that we haven’t really thought much about it?

call and response

Having been a musician virtually all my life I have often been involved in musical recording projects ranging from individual demo songs, to high-end popular artists albums, to movies, all the way across the spectrum to 30 second radio and TV advertisements recorded solely for the purpose of getting people to buy a specific product.

I have also been involved in many forms of “Christian” worship projects and meetings as a musician and on more occasions than I care to remember I have been asked or ‘instructed’ by the pastor/evangelist/preacher/teacher/worship leader etc. to play specific worshipful styles and songs with specific words, messages and cultural meaning that ‘set the tone’ for the message that they want to convey and to assist them in getting the desired response from the people.  (Usually this response is intended to be a good one that is meant to be specifically helpful to the audience in attendance – or so it is believed).

As a person who believes in what scientists might call “intelligent design” and what most religious folk might in various ways and forms refer to as “God” I have often asked myself what exactly we are doing when we do what we do.

I also believe that most of us are sincere in what we say, do and even believe (although there clearly are malicious deviants out there who intentionally manipulate others to gain personal advantage out of them. However, I believe these deviants are a small, lunatic fringe …. well, er, …I can only hope sincerely that I am correct in this personal belief).

Over the years I have begun to ask whether what we do as orthodox and sincere religious activity on a regular basis is rooted in basic and elementary aspects of our humanity (specifically our nature as physical beings in a physical world) that is more emotionally and sensually driven and not nearly as ‘spiritual’ or even as cognitively or intellectually based as we would like to believe it is.  I have often begun to ask myself whether the sense of the “presence of God” or the “rightness” of a spiritual way, thing or activity or even the ‘rightness’ of a specific community or religious grouping or order is really valid?  Is the sense we have, be it however intentional and well thought through, actually a link with the divine creator or a higher order of spiritual life or consciousness, or just an emotional and physical process of perception resulting in an experience that makes us feel that it is so?

We all want to be ‘right’ and we all want to ‘belong’ and these desires are neither good nor bad – they are natural, human, even instinctual.  They seem to be what we are, how we were created even.

The following link is to an article on some interesting research that I came across that introduces an interesting and possibly alarming angle on the way we tend to respond to certain stimuli.

(Anatomy of a Tear-Jerker) ~
http://ow.ly/98sLK

 

___________________________

words, having lost their meaning…

we say “I do” – but we don’t

 

it was written

that the word

became flesh

became man

took form

and shaped

reshaped the form

lived amongst us

 

it is also written

that we must do

as was done

as the word fleshed

so must we

 

so when, do tell

so when will our words

become flesh?

when will our words

live amongst us?

through us

in us

 

for no greater…

has any

than to…

 

“I love you”

what?

what does that mean?

just words

 

we hear

lots of them

spun beautifully

we read

feel the glow of their presence

what do you meme?

what is the meme-ing of life?

 

but we still need

to carry the book

feel compelled

to quote

unquote

because we forget

so immediately

 

not backed up

with nothing to back it up

except a leather binding

words

letters

thin ink

on thin paper

 

as shadows

we see a reflection

glance away for a second…

and we are found

having lost our place

 

in a smoked mirror

we have forgotten

we have lost

our space

we have lost

our face

 

and the face

of God

 

… a thought from another planet perhaps?

In South Africa a secrecy bill (the “Protection of Information Bill”) has been shoved through in what clearly appears to be a sneaky, underhand and sinister fashion.  If it gets past any constitutional court appeals and hearings it stands to give the government unimaginable power to control who says and does what … and exclusively at their (the ruling party’s) own discretion and for their own personal benefit and ultimately, protection (from exposure and prosecution for corruption and any other deviance or malpractice).

A thought from another planet perhaps: – the bill, what it stands for and the way it was forced through as well as the alleged reasons for this action is to my mind somewhat extremely unethical to say the least. The fact that it comes through the ANC is nothing less than shocking.

However, in terms of the direct implications of the bill on the “free press” what to my mind does perhaps need to be thought through is the extent to which the press really is “free” and objectively “journalistic.”
Let’s face it, sensationalism sells and revenues from advertising in publications that generate sensationalistic response is what makes the world go round for the press industry.
The press feel like their freedom to inform is being taken away, as well as their freedom to bring an ‘objective’, factual perspective (and before I am branded as a neo-Nazi, totalitarian despot sympathizer, I do believe that strong debate and passionate opposition is essential and very healthy for any community).

But for many decades now I personally battle to read the newspapers, or watch TV, TV news, or read current news editorials as they are to my mind so overwhelmingly manipulatively inflammatory and one sided in terms of the sensationalistic negative spin they seem to take (take the whole recent Rupert Murdoch debacle for example).
Could it be argued that the cries of the “free” press are the same as the cries of the record industry against piracy (who even mobilise the artistes themselves to campaign against piracy) when they themselves, to my mind at least, are the biggest pirates, raping and pillaging creativity, the arts, culture, artistes and the coffers of the artistes themselves for their own gain and dictating to the masses what, when, and who to listen to in order to extract exorbitant profits for themselves?

(and as a personal footnote jab, the Gospel Worship/”Contemporary Music” industry as well as the Christian/Gospel Book Publishing Industries do exactly the same thing – selling manipulatively marketed, sensually “popular” merchandise for exorbitant profits and in so doing dictating to a thoughtless and naive church what the “prophetic” voice and message and culture of God is…  – which in the present Christian scene is merely a very weak, attempted copy of what is perceived to be popular and trendy in the ‘secular’ marketplace. -  A bit extremely blasphemous to my mind … …  .. .   don’t you think?)

it’s always ever only about…

A good friend’s status on one of his social networking systems is “It’s always ever only about…”

And yes, we are suitably provoked to insert “me” as the only logical conclusion to that subtle but screaming declaration.

This has tickled and disturbed me all at the same time over the last weeks.

Clearly it’s something I know very well from experience but equally clear to me is that I seem to forget it all too often.  It’s not because the statement is untrue or defective – this is obvious to me,  perhaps it’s because I am.  Maybe I wish to forget it?  … a subconscious act of convenience?  Maybe my daily habit of rearranging my own personal fig leaves over all the less presentable area’s of my life distracts me from the reality of what I am actually doing?

“Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive!” (Sir Walter Scott)

A song by the great Paul Simon paints these pictures,

“He makes me think about
All of these extra moves I make
And all of this herky-jerky motion
And the bag of tricks it takes
To get me through my working day
One-trick pony”

What is it about us that so energetically wants to persuade others about what we are trying so energetically to persuade ourselves about ourselves?

We seem to have become the monsters of the marketing bog…  flaying around with this herky-jerky motion and the complicated bag of tricks it takes to get us through our working days… perhaps the frantic rustle of dried out fig leaves as we cover ourselves from ourselves, just in case we are seen for what we really are…?

And the skeptic raises his voice from the swirling beneath the surface of the deep and asks,

“what about our consuming motivation, even obsession with persuading others about our personal beliefs?”

Who are we trying to persuade?

Who really needs to be ‘saved’?

Is it about all about ‘them’?

… or is it actually always ever only about us?

COME BACK, PINK FLOYD!!! ALL IS FORGIVEN!!!!!

I have begun to notice more and more how many people make quotes for their status updates on Facebook.  On Twitter it has reached a level of almost total quotation mania.  In my experience well over 90% of all tweets are links to some article on the web.

It’s almost like a new currency has sprung into existence.  We love trying to impress others by the clothes we wear, the car we drive, the company we keep …  Are we now trying to convince people we are well read and educated?  Are we trying to make a show for the watching world that we are well connected and at the cutting edge of technology, intelligence, art, culture, politics?

Have we lost our ability to think for ourselves?  Could this be the effects of social/cognitive/intellectual/moral consumerism setting in?  Fast food ethics and morality?  No mess, no fuss, just collect it off the shelf.  And it’s all colour coded and wrapped in plastic rap for our hygienic convenience.  God help us!

Yet still the increasing outcry is for individualism and personal significance.  We all desire independence and self determination but could this be a self inflicted form of ‘group think’?  Has the human race given up?

Group·think is the act or practice of reasoning or decision-making by a group, especially when characterized by uncritical acceptance or conformity to prevailing points of view.  It is the tendency within organizations or society to promote or establish the view of the predominant group.

Our beloved democracy is the same only it is far more decisive and demonstratively unforgiving towards those who think independently.  Democracy forces the opinion of the masses into modern doctrine and legislated culture.

Being a follower of Christ myself I have also noticed that Christians seem to spend a majority of time and much effort quoting often extensive passages of biblical text not only in their social networking status publications but also in their interpersonal communication.  Whether offering personal advice or counsel or even simply commenting on a news article even in informal social settings.  It also seems apparent to me that we seem to regard the accuracy of the literal quotation of any given text as weightier than any truth or sensibility that may be present in it in a given situation.  This too appears to me like a form of social and political currency.   Who might we be trying to impress?   Are we really trying to help and engage or market ourselves?  And who do we think we are fooling?

“Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven” – this is what Jesus said as a key part in his teaching on prayer.

So I ask myself, is this what we are doing happening in heaven?  Is this what heaven is going to be all about for ever and ever?  quoting scriptural texts at each other?  Will we reference everything we experience and participate with there?  When we cross over into the heavenly spiritual realm will we hear God quoting back biblical text to every question we have?  Is this the way God speaks?  Does God even speak human language?  Is what we are doing now the language and culture of heaven?   I mean, when one travels to France they speak French and especially in France, … English doesn’t really cut it  …

Will God’s communication to us be tagged with the topographical grid reference of each statement?  Is God at all interested in what we have to say or think?  Is this what we are created and even redeemed for?  To be a silent audience without opinion?  Is this more important that the people God created, redeemed?  Yet in modern Christian culture it seems to me that the content of the passage of scriptural text quoted battles to hold any water unless it is tagged with a “John 3:16” or a “Matthew 28:19-20”.  People are important, yes, but not nearly as important than the accuracy and fluency of the text quoted.  Is this the Gospel?   “Hand me my sledgehammer, .. I want to go tell someone how much God loves them.”

Does God want a mass of “believers” who chant the same thing over and over in unison?  “Oooo, say that again … that part about me being great and almighty and magnificent … “  Is this a true reflection of the nature and character of God?

I was always under the impression that in Christ God was setting us free to be an extension of his presence and a free flow of his life in the present world and in the realm to come.  Will heaven be filled to the ceiling with scrolls and books (now “Kindle’s and iPads too perhaps)?  or will it be filled with liberated beings who have reached their full potential and optimum effectiveness not in word or deed, but in their full spiritual essence?  … in who they are and not in what they managed to make the fig leaves look like in the setting sun.

My God, maybe Roger Waters was correct all along?

COME BACK, PINK FLOYD!!!  ALL IS FORGIVEN!!!!!

friendship too, weighs

(following on from
http://alalohwhydee.wordpress.com/2011/07/11/friendship/
)

There are a few people in history that help us to define another angle on friendship.  Jesus himself spoke to his closest disciples and told them that they were his friends.  They never sent the equivalent of a facebook friend request because it was advantageous for them to do so nor because he was the best looking stud around.  In fact it was to the contrary.  Actually it was unprovoked by them.  It was totally Jesus’ idea.  That was a radical suggestion and a total departure from theological understanding in that day.

In the Old Hebrew texts there are also some very provocative suggestions of the friendship that seems to be of the kind God would align to.  Some of the few examples are backed by a little detail, others are just hints that leave me wondering what it actually meant.  For example, Abraham was called a friend of God.  Moses it says, was spoken to by God as a man speaks to his friend.  Some of the dialogue between the two of them is very unusual indeed.  There are other scattered hints as well.

Another one of the characters who defined real friendship was a man who lived at the same time as Jesus around 2000 years ago.  His name was John and he was the son of an old Hebrew priest.  He never went into the priesthood in any official capacity as we could tell or as was the custom of a first born to a priest of that day.  Instead it seems he led a pretty much unusual, somewhat rough, wild and reclusive existence.  He was by all accounts a very fiery character, not one most would associate with cuddly feelings and nice convenient friendship as we seem to define it these days.  This John lived out in the desert and went about telling people that the long awaited messiah, the saviour of the world, was coming very soon and that they must prepare themselves for this.  He never used vague flowery words but told all to stop living evil, wasteful lives and publicly get baptised in water as a sign of washing the filth of evil from off of them.  It was more a “shape up, or ship out” type of press release.  He never stopped there but then proceeded to tell them to live lives in keeping with this public act.  On top of all this he was particularly feisty and pointed towards the religious leaders of the day – the equivalent of our present pastors, evangelists and religious TV broadcasters.  He also spoke out against the evil social and political situation of the day and was apparently unafraid of the ruling powers at the time, saying the same to them without holding back.  He even took on the dictator of the day because of his immorality.  It was for this kind of thing that he was eventually locked up in a state prison.

One day John saw Jesus coming towards him as he was preaching and baptizing in the Jordan river.  Jesus came to be baptized by John and John was somewhat confused, reluctant and tried to resist, even humbling himself by publicly revealing that this Jesus was the one he was told to prepare the people for.  He re-emphasised that he himself was not the messiah but that he was just a lowly servant sent to facilitate the messiah’s coming.  He declared that he was not even worthy of untying the smelly sandals that Jesus wore.  His claim was clearly that this Jesus was the awaited one.

Some of John’s disciples came a little later to him concerned that Jesus was now also drawing many converts.  One can only presume that they were threatened because it may have seemed that some or even many of John’s disciples were now leaving to follow this Jesus.  Instead of accepting and responding to their concerns John simply but clearly declared that he was merely the friend of the bridegroom and NOT the bridegroom and that he was happy and excited just to hear the voice of the bridegroom.   Here John introduces the concept of friendship between him and Jesus.

It’s an interesting picture he paints for them and us.  And it clearly rattles us now as it did to them then.  John spoke of being a friend of the bridegroom.  The picture suggests from the tradition of the day that the bride is prepared for the bridegroom (of who is Jesus, by John’s own declaration) and the friend of the bridegroom is sort of like our best man at modern western weddings.

Now usually the best man is a trusted, responsible person to the bridegroom.  One who is honoured and entrusted with the purity and preparation and even protection of the bride.  A real friend, not a casual colleague and clearly not a Facebook type of  acquaintance.  Even in our day a real friend should never in any way access the bride for personal gain in any way.  The bride is betrothed to the bridegroom and the best man serves the bride and groom selflessly in this process.  Instead of deriving personal pleasure his joy is in supporting and facilitating the full pleasure and intent of his friend the bridegroom … as his “best man”  … his friend – in responsible honour and service for and towards the marriage of the bridegroom to his betrothed bride (wife to be).

To my mind this suggests an interpretation and concept of friendship that thrusts things into a whole different league.  As I have suggested, one does not search for this kind of friend on a social network like Facebook or Twitter.  If one does it is plain foolishness, vanity, perhaps even extremely dangerous.

We tend to get such personal and social affirmation by the number of friends we have.  Perhaps this seems to make us feel like we are popular and well-liked.  But John’s example though perhaps a tad radical according to my interpretation suggests that it is more than just service that he was called to but personal sacrifice.  “He must increase, I must decrease” he said. “He must become greater, I must become less” is how other interpretations go.

As Jesus’ public profile and impact increased John’s dwindled steadily.  Eventually he was imprisoned because of his outspoken statements and his last days were in darkness, frustration and even deep personal doubt.

In a short while John was unceremoniously murdered.  He never died on the front line as a triumphant warrior in a hail of bullets as he led the charge against the enemy.  He died alone in a dark, damp prison cell.  He probably heard the lock turn and was confused as to why the guards rushed in and forcefully held him down and bound him tight.  He probably never even saw the blade rise and fall as it severed his neck from his shoulders.  Chances are he never even knew his death was as a result of some young girls provocative, alluring dance and a thoughtless promise made by an egotistical, vain and foolish politician.

Just before this, while John was still alive and in prison and possibly extremely doubtful, confused and even despairing of his own sanity Jesus gave him the highest praise and accolade any man of the time could be given.  Jesus himself called him the greatest man ever to have lived who was born of a woman.

It’s an interesting story which is not fully clear in so many of it’s detailed meanings or even implications but to my mind the stark contrast of this relationship and the superficial friendships we practice and seek after in our day and in our social networking is profoundly disturbing.

friendship

These days we have social networks everywhere.  And they are on the increase.  Opportunists can see a trend and they are scrambling to capitalise on it.

Through the likes of Facebook et al we connect and network with people across the globe and across the room.  This is clearly a strong need amongst humans today.  Through these social networks we feel linked to others and we even seem to draw great security and a sense of belonging, possibly even purpose and significance from it all.  Perhaps in an increasingly alienated and alienating social system we need to feel like we are a somebody who is connected to other somebodies.

Not all of it is bad though.  Sometimes it is an interesting thing to rediscover and link up with people from our distant past, even if we don’t see them at all these days.  Perhaps it’s sometimes warming to look back and see how far we’ve come and compare notes, lifestyles, successes and failures.

Sometimes there are people and memories we’d rather not recall.  Mostly we don’t seek these out.  It could be suggestive that all this connecting is mostly about us and not others?  Maybe I’m being a bit harsh here?  … maybe not?

However, truth be told we can amass vast numbers of friends from all around the world without really actually engaging with them.  We think we are reconnected and we may even swap a few messages or comment on a status update or two but are we perhaps just playing a desperate game, even aiding and abetting a monstrous con?

Perhaps on a more sinister angle are we not perhaps willing accomplices?   Maybe we are unwittingly drawn into it all but are we nevertheless  actively participating in a profound devolution of human culture and integrity?  Are our friends really our friends?  And what would a real friend be?  And have we perhaps wittingly or unwittingly allowed the definition and outworking of friendship to be altered so radically?

There’s a lot being said these days about friendship.  Social networks like “Facebook” are interesting for me in that they can subtly point to aspects that can sometimes help us see things from a slightly different angle.

Lately we have heard some scary stories of abusive stalkers and predators and how some violate the privacy of others.  New words have popped up like phishing …  we even have viruses, or subtle marketing ploys going around on fb that lure multitudes into clicking on an “app” that can be downloaded to see who it is who is ‘stalking’ you or leering in on you, your pics, your lifestyle,  your intimacies, etc. … what amazes me is how many click on these lures.  This suggests that we are privately very interested in this, not so?  It’s almost like a soft form of reverse voyeurism (see
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/voyeur
) … or maybe not so soft?  Now this may or may not be true but what really grabs me is how much we choose to expose of ourselves and how willingly we seem to want to do it.

Friendship is quite a loose thing in our modern day language and culture (see
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Friend
).

Many see the number of friends they have as almost a form of social currency.  Being popular is alarmingly important.  It seems to have an unmatchable value.  Perhaps this is understandable in our materialistic, marketing obsessed era.  We seem to want to market ourselves, place our personal ‘brand’ out there.  We seem to want, desire, even need to attract attention.  The quality of the relationship or the transaction is significantly secondary to the quantity.  But we have a strong role model – our king, lord and master does it – Capitalistic Materialism.  We seem to view the accumulation of true wealth in the market share we can control (or maybe it’s the market share controlling us?).

I think what concerns me is how subtly friendship has been devalued in this post-modern age of enlightenment and autonomous independence.

I have watched as my facebook ‘friend’ tally has risen and now I can see how few of those accumulated friends I have regular, meaningful and sincere contact with.  Yes, there are some with whom I share specific aspects of my life and this I personally enjoy.  I mean not everyone laughs at the same things or holds the same political or religious views.

So, what is friendship really?   What role does it play?   And what is our part in it’s apparent downfall?   Or am I mistaken and is all well?

(next part –
http://wp.me/p10VG6-m8
)

if a banana could speak

I find it tragic that labelling and branding has become such a massive part of our lives.  I heard once that South Africa is one of the most label conscious nations on earth – hmmm, I wonder how true that is?  But perhaps this labelling thing is a deep rooted issue far deeper than just vulgar capitalistic marketing and greed (although that is exactly what it is)?  I have also thought it to be a natural by-product of our industrial revolution and the development of technology and the ‘specialization’ that has evolved as a consequence … that as we have got more technical and complicated (“messed up” is possibly also a good synonym here as well) we have found ourselves pressed into isolated little boxes, cubicles, compartments, apartments, and have become cut off from the other essential realities around us?

For me it is sad that we seem not really able to progress much in exploring and interacting with our world without a clear boxing or compartmentalizing of all we come into contact with.  And for now, it also seems clear at least to me that we need to spend such a lot of time and energy defining and re-defining ourselves, what we do, why we do it  –  marketing ourselves, ‘making a statement’ – not only for those we think are watching but also for ourselves, lest we get totally lost in our own lostness perhaps?

Sometimes I think that as a species we seem to act as if we are all living with a permanent and constantly deepening post traumatic stress disorder.  Have we lost the wonder of simply being and letting be? It seems to me that we are traumatized until we have been able to label things and then when we do eventually get them labelled the labels themselves can traumatize us somewhat … and the few who defy formality and conformity or simply seem not to fit easily into the boxes we make are generally viewed as strange, weird, even defective and often ‘dangerous’?  No wonder we seem to seek out people and environments that make us feel ‘comfortable’ rather than challenged.  I wonder what that might say about our progress as a species – even in the so-called ‘scientific’ arena?

I can’t speak for others but I see no labels in nature. We place labels on trees and plants in our botanical gardens and on animal cages in our zoos.  To my mind this could be directly as a consequence of our having lost touch with the world we were made in, made for, even possibly called to represent the image of the creator in?  It’s almost as if we need to be guided through our own world by ‘specialists’ and specialist details in order to understand our environment, educate ourselves and begin to approach life with any sense of meaning.  Then there’s also ‘entitlement’ – do we really need a title before we can do anything? A social position to establish a platform for action?

In the Christian church we seem no better off.  In fact, we may be far worse off than we are willing to admit.  From my observations we tend to celebrate our uniqueness, our ‘liberty’ by merely rearranging or re-designating labels for ourselves.  Sometimes even by only copying trendy cultural phenomena such as music styles, clothing fashions from the materialistic world we live in – is this freedom?  … to copy and follow the patterns of the world around us?

Some years back a good friend who had just launched a website for the local church he was leading asked me to take a look at what he had done on his new site and to give him feedback as to what I thought.  Often it is difficult to see ourselves as objectively as we need to and looking over this new website for the first time I saw something that I had never seen before, something I had done and that suddenly exposed me and us – I saw the section on “vision and values” and whilst reading through it I was struck by the fact that it went to great lengths to explain and define what the church was – it’s way of looking at things, the prevailing doctrinal emphases, social and cultural alignment (dress codes, music style, etc.), demographics,  even what the church was not.  Why was this so necessary?  Is this the reason why people should go to church and become Christians? …  because they agree with the way we say we do things?  … because it’s a convenient place to fit in?

In our own sacred texts we are told that like a tree will produce after its own kind so will we.  We will be known by our fruits, not by our labels… by what we do, not what we say we do…  by our ‘taste,’ and ‘aroma’ not by the box we are packaged in.  I have never heard a tree groaning to produce fruit, have you?  I have never heard of a tree covering itself with leaves to look a certain way, nor trying to convince others that it is what it thinks it is?  or what it thinks it would like to be?  Have you?   No, a tree is known by it’s fruit and we are the same (whether we think this to be so or not).

So what’s all this continuous covering of ourselves with fig leaves?  Are we trying to hide something or make believe we are something else?  Either way if we do this we are naked.   And calling ourselves something, even willing ourselves faithfully, will not achieve it.  setting goals?  Will that help?

If a banana could speak and told you ever so convincingly that it was a pineapple one bite would be all that was needed.

… and after eating the banana you don’t go back and eat the box (even if it came in one) would you?

[A good friend recently posted something about our identity and how we relate and respond to each other and to it (
http://sevencitys.wordpress.com/2011/06/04/what-am-i/
) this stirred up some thoughts and ideas from long ago.]