mind the gap

… we read in the ancient texts of how the creation is the handiwork of the Lord and that even the heavens reflect the glory and the wonders of the creator

… and I agree… without hesitation

like most I am indeed overwhelmed

and with intense awe I sample the wonders of it all

… the wonder of supreme design expressed in every facet of what I see

… even in the suggestive echoes of that which I cannot see

 

a most intriguing mystery for me is the disproportionate spatial dimensions of ‘space’

specifically the minuscule amount of solid matter that seems to float so precariously isolated amidst the vastness of it all …

the basic math of it is staggering…

… perhaps significantly far less than 10% of all the universe is solid matter (planets, stars, moons, suns, meteorites, clumps of rock, whatever…)

… just hanging there somehow… no hooks or pulleys, no platforms or solid scaffold substructures are visible and most seems to be moving silently and apparently effortlessly in gravitationally negotiated orbits…

all locked together and balanced by a kind of mystically ethereal, invisible glue

but all this matter simply hanging there in space is far less mysterious to me than the apparent reality that it is surrounded from every angle with …

 

… nothing

 

and even more amazing to me is that this nothing seems to be a staggering 90% + of everything

… and from what we can tell, this disproportionate amount of nothing is made up of ever expanding ‘space’

… ever expanding distance that is filled mostly with vast stretches of space

extreme emptiness

huge vacuous gaps of almost endless separation…

… there is significantly more nothing out there than there is something

… and this, believe it or not

is our reality

… and to throw another spanner in the works, the quantum physicists seem to suggest that it is equally as spacious and vast “in” there as it is unimaginably spacious and vast “out” there

… as eternally infinite “inwardly” as we can attempt to conceive of it being eternally infinite “outwardly”…

 

for me this is a truly amazing set ideas

 

a wonder that comes to mind almost immediately for me is

… if the heavens declare the fingerprint or footprint, even the glory of God

what might this suggest about the creator?

or the very nature and character of God?

what might this be saying about God’s relationship to us?

and his own relationship within himself?

why all this space?

maybe the space is very necessary?

 

and seeing that we are created in God’s image

… what might this be suggesting about our relationships with each other?

 

 

the dog marks its territory

I have a friend who had a little mongrel dog as a pet.  The dog was a family pet and to my understanding was in no way mistreated or neglected.   To the contrary, it was loved and cared for.

Now there is always more than one side to any story but for some unknown reason(s) this dog upped and moved across the road to a neighbour – lock, stock, and barrel.  The dog now struts around in the street outside like a bantam-cock yapping at all who pass by as if it owned the whole suburb.

How and why did this happen?  I really cannot say.  Whether the neighbour lured the dog over with more delectable food titbits or pampered the dog, convincing it into deciding to cross over and switch affection, allegiances and devotion and even as a result now into co-habiting with the neighbour will probably never be known.  But there we have it.  The deed is done and the results speak for themselves.

Now the dog even barks at my friend and his family (along with all the other people in the street) when they leave or return from their homes.  It seems to have taken on a new sense of territorial responsibility for the street and surrounding environment and makes its presence felt in no uncertain terms.  Sometimes the only way to get the dog to remain silent is to actually charge at it, yelling in a threatening way so that the little mutt retreats hastily into the safety and privacy of its new home with its tail between its miniature legs.  This only works for a short time and as soon as it feels the coast is clear once again it struts out and the yapping starts all over.

One thing does seem apparent though, and that is that the dog doesn’t seem to have a sleepless night over any of this.   It’s business as usual and life goes on.  I often wonder what it does think actually (if it thinks about it at all that is).   Does the dog think about commitment and past affection?  Do the concepts of loyalty, responsibility or the feelings of the ex-cohabitants ever enter into the equation in its mind?   Perhaps it’s simply a matter of whatever is directly beneficial to the dog at any given moment that is the key or even sole factor in any of this?

But what am I thinking? … this is a dog for goodness sake!  Dogs don’t have a higher sense of conscience.   They are brute beasts.  They can’t think about their thinking like humans do, … can they?   They are driven purely by beastly instinct  and unbridled self-preservation.  Not so?

Interestingly the neighbour also seems to see nothing wrong at all with the current state of affairs and can be heard lovingly calling the mutt for food and left-overs and in the evening for the dog to come in for bedtime.  The neighbour also seems naturally content, even happy and at ease with the little mongrel bustling playfully around at their feet whilst they are working in the garden or doing chores outside.  The neighbour even greets my friend and his family warmly whenever their eyes meet, even whilst the dog is there in plain view and even sometimes when yapping at my friend and his family.   It would also appear that the neighbour too seems not to lose any sleep over the turn of events and the shift in allegiance.

Strange creatures these … aren’t they?

I have another friend who has a wife and two delightful and beautiful children.

He recently left home and family and now has a very young lady lover.

the voice of God

I am a father and I know a lot of fathers just like me. Sadly some of us are somewhat socially inappropriate – as men and as fathers. Many are hard business men, aggressive negotiators, strong deal makers, blunt communicators, many even unable to interact with our own peers in an appropriately civil manner.
Nevertheless I am constantly amazed at how these hardened men can often so easily and so naturally be softened and drawn into the humble, lowly realm of the infant child – even to the extent of often willingly engaging with them in the usual “gah-gah, goo-goo” babbling language of the child even delighting in their infantile world view however irrational or even “incorrect.”
Now we view God as our father. Heavenly father yes, but even by God’s own initiative and admission he is declared as our father.
So why doesn’t God speak to us in baby talk?
Or does he?

works of faith and other oxymorons

Of late a friend and I have been having a very stimulating discussion on the issue of faith and empiricism.  Now I know this is a very hot topic for many but nevertheless, I thought that I’d give it a little bit of air anyway in the hope of perhaps generating a little bit of discussion.

To start with maybe the fact that I said faith and empiricism and not faith vs empiricism might prove itself to be an interesting point (which might or might not unfold later?).  I am very aware that many seem to see this as an either/or debate but I propose that it is not necessarily a mutually exclusive issue.  In fact it might well be the case that both views end up as co-detainees on the disqualified list or in the ‘cooler’ or ‘sin-bin’ much like our somewhat overzealous Super 15 rugby Rambo’s who tend to overextend their interpretations of the letter of the law to introduce and include the spirit of the war?  It may well be that perhaps one could also say that faith itself is practiced mostly on an empirical basis and that empiricism is run in equal measure on faith?  (although both camps would rather chew broken glass washed down with shark-infested custard than acknowledge as much).

There, I have said it …. and having said it I feel much better already.

In the new testament text there is a delightful little turn of events which to me places both faith and empiricism in the same fishing boat.  Jesus had an intriguing response to this interesting little event that I think warrants a deeper look.

An apostle named Thomas who personally walked with Jesus for virtually the entire duration of his public life and ministry was expressively doubtful of the claims of the others to the resurrection of Jesus after he was crucified and buried.  His exclamation was indeed empirical.  He is recorded as saying, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”  A more empirical statement would be difficult to come by.
Interestingly, he is not struck dead on the spot nor de-apostled.  He isn’t even insulted, marginalised nor attacked by the other believers (and please remember how the apostles would commonly fight amongst each other as to who the greatest amongst them was.  This would indeed have been real low-hanging, ripe pickings for just such an exchange of testosterone).  The even crazier thing is that the narrative goes on to tell that a whole week later Jesus personally takes the time to approach Thomas and bring the issue up again.  Not only that, but Jesus, instead of taking the opportunity to launch into a probably well deserved teaching of faith and doubt actually offers his wounded hands and side as physical proof.  The only thing Jesus says by way of challenge to Thomas is, “stop doubting and believe.”
Now, believe this whichever way you choose, but the beauty of this exchange for me is that Jesus never denied him the empirical test and never ‘cursed’ or even accused Thomas of any inferiority.  Nor did he attach any superiority to the others who ‘believed’ for that matter either.  Clearly from the text the only difference between Thomas and the others was that he was not there with the others when they all had their ‘empirical’ encounter with the risen Christ.  The only thing Jesus did more than this was to proclaimed that the really ‘blessed’ would be those who in the future would be enabled to believe as a result of the apostles’ testimony in having physically seen him in his risen state.
Personally I draw great peace and courage from this, that whichever way we approach it, truth will meet us more than half-way.

For me the deciding factor either way is not based on culture, intellect, intelligence, breeding, or any other measure other than honesty and sincerity and an active pursuit of the truth as we see it to the best of our ability.
I personally have absolutely no problem with empiricism nor faith as separate methodologies (hence my resigned status as that of a faithful skeptic).  I do however, have an issue with presumptuous arrogance and myopia and the tendency we all have to mud-sling when confronted with our own doubt and insecurities.  I also have come to believe that I stand on ground that trembles with a personal revelation that even the most ‘pure’ amongst us (and I place myself 1st in line in this regard) are profoundly arrogant and myopic and that neither method is any superior.  Perhaps herein lies the ‘both/and’ proposal I made earlier?

But more than that, perhaps the respect and honour with which we approach life in all it’s facets might be the only ‘key’ that either locks or unlocks ‘revelation’.

… here beginneth the dialogue

a lonely, stormy hood

It’s a lonely, stormy neighbourhood out here. We seem to have settled somewhat but we keep our distance. It’s best for all that we keep our distance. Somehow, like moths to candles we have gravitated towards unique orbits around each other, or so it seems. Some circle others who are in turn circling others themselves.  Some seem so far away that they are not circling anyone, but they are. From time to time we get a little closer but this tends mostly to produce more storm activity on our surfaces.  The conflict of intimacy is a tacky reality but there’s something in us or around us that pulls us relentlessly to move closer. It’s almost like being caught in a circle and we can’t stop spinning.  Something pulls us away while at the same time almost equal yet opposite forces pull us apart. Eventually one or the other gives in. It’s a morbidly intense ordeal. The fascination is one thing but the encounter is wholly another. Is it apparently better that we keep our distances? The only way we have is to try tolerate and absorb the turbulence as a normal day at the office.  Maybe we just have to remain content to watch each other twinkle away at more than a healthy arms length?
Mostly it’s pretty cold out here which is amazing considering the heat of the initial explosion back in the day, but that was a long time ago. Seems we’ve lost track of time, sense and sensibility since then but it’s almost like someone smacked a mysterious bonfire and completely dispersed everything to a stormy cloud of turbulent embers, floating frantically outwards.
So here we are.  It’s mostly quiet as we all seem to have our minds on our own things although there’s the endless static crackle of seemingly chaotic data that streams out randomly in all directions. We float in packs, distorted clusters of celestial orbs having avoided crashing into each other somehow in melted times past, but now in a relatively stable state of turbulent truce.
Somehow perhaps we decide that there is some form of tribal link and we feel a resonance to persist with the notion of similarity and build into the investment almost unconsciously.  Sort of a clinging to that around us perhaps in an attempt to dispel the ever-widening expanding space that rolls out into countless horizons which seem to point to the vastness of empty nothingness out there.  Our orbits are all we have really.  As cold as the expanse is it’s the only warmth we can generate. The formation of our constellations is the only order out here, or so we think.  So we cling to it whether we like it or not.  We have to like it.  Perhaps we have no choice?

relating

It amazes me how we tend to allow our relationships to define our truth.
This should be a good thing, but tends to unleash lots of trouble. Perhaps the reason we allow our relationships to define our truth is because of an inherent insecurity that fuels a fire to belong and resonate with people who we believe “agree” with us (or so we hope?). This seems to be often at the expense of good reason and sound perspective. Once we experience what we believe to be a resonant relational orbit it seems to so enamour us that we quickly start redefining our values in order to sustain this alliance. This is very seldom a premeditated conscious action but nevertheless, a very real and present potential danger. Perhaps that it is mostly unconscious is what makes it so perilous. Much like the proverbial “moth circling the flame” metaphor.
The seeds of deception?
Is it because we so desire to belong, to resonate with significant others and have a mutual witness to our lives that we fall prey to this so easily? The harmony of another in resonant orbit with us is such a desirous thing.
Perhaps we so want to believe that we somehow close our eyes to what is in the shadow of our infatuation with what we hope could be. It is usually only when the relationship is really tested and found wanting that we are first able to painfully re-enter a (hopefully) more reasonable perspective on the truth as we see it.
Could this be why the feelings of perceived “betrayal” are so devastating when relationships hit the rocks in some way?
Relationship and truth – strange bedfellows indeed.
If we were more circumspect about our relational contexts might we avoid these pitfalls and forge better, longer lasting relationships?
Truth refines relationships but relationships cannot be allowed to exclusively define truth.