Phobias, Love and Hate

kold_kadavr_ flatliner left a comment on my account of Sparkle 2017.

He says:

That's totally whorizontal, dood.
Wiseabove.
Follow us on the journey Upstairs:
I'd looove to meet you
in Seventh-Heaven...
yet, you first must be prepared:
Find-out what RCIA means... and join;
classes are free,
starting early September.
Aint no joke, earthling:
our indelible soul is on the line.
What's 77ish years compared to
the length N breadth of eternity?
What's the Tyranny of Progressivism
compared to the saving of our soul?
Doesnt make any difference
if you're an atheist;
doesn't make a whole-hilla-beans
wortha difference when you croak.
You'll be crying-out for JEEE-SIS!!!
...yet, if you've been a non-believer
your entire, finite existence,
Jesus maaay not hear you.
Billions of everlasting souls
are now in Hellfire without
the basic nessecities for eternity.
Are you actually willing
to take THAT risk of being condemned?
Again, Jesus laughs when you
should've learned the
meaning of wisdom N discernment,
mortal sinner... as am I.
Im not better than you...
yet, I gotta lotta d'knowlijj
which'll save-your-soul, kapiche??
Sorry for the New Yoirk accent.
Again, find-out what RCIA means.
Make Your Choice -SAW
PS 'Saving souls from Hell
should be your
primary occupation'
-Jesus

There is an image on the Google+ page of  kold_kadavr_ flatliner that looks like this:

It’s taken from here, a posting from Mike Warren, Disciple, Husband, Father, Soldier.

Warren says:

“Better is open rebuke than hidden love,” (Prov 27.5).

We love others when we see them as individuals to be loved as differently as they are from one another but always in accordance with how God commands.

If we really loved them, and we know that love is defined by God, then helping them learn how to love God should be our ultimate aim, even if such love would be defined by our world as “hate.”

But there are still problems here. In knowing about the things that are defined by God. Just believing something doesn’t make it true. Even having faith in something doesn’t make it true. Having it written down in the Bible doesn’t make it true.

In the context of the original article I think a fair translation of the text on the image is:

My opinions

sound

like hate

to those

who hate

my opinions.

Hateful words aren’t made less hateful by being based on a persons interpretation of what the Bible says.

Here,  a comment from Kold_Kadavr_flatliner links to here. The About Me section of this page takes me to -blessed holy socks, the non-perishable-zealot which says that his Web page is here. The July 15th feature is headlined:

Only Homophobes Will Make It To Heaven And All Non-Homophobes Will End Up In Hell. This kind of thing makes me struggle with the idea of freedom of speech. It seems to stem from a persons belief in their correct understanding of a book that they claim is infallible giving them the authority to speak with absolute certainty about the mind of God. Coupled with an inability to understand people and a propensity to pass judgment. Walid Shoebat says of himself: For the record, my name is Walid Shoebat. I used to be a radicalized Muslim willing to die for the cause of Jihad until I converted to Christianity in 1994. So perhaps he has changed from being a radicalized Muslim to being a radicalized Christian?

Earlier today I wrote about a “renewed personal commitment to engage with people that I see as being different from me whenever that is possible. To not make assumptions about people without taking the trouble to get to know them.” And I have to admit that I’m struggling with this at the moment. It’s difficult to draw alongside someone who gives the impression that they speak for God, that God hates you and that they hate whoever God hates.

I haven’t any Hellfire to threaten people with. I don’t lay claim to understanding the mind of God. I’m don’t believe that I am homophobic, biphobic or transphobic. These are some of the differences that seem to exist between myself and Walid Shoebat.

Things that we might have in common. I accept the fact that I’m fallible. I make mistakes, do wrong things. I don’t know all the answers. I hardly understand the questions. Maybe Walid is like that as well?

Anyways I added the following comment to the posting:

I have to admit to feeling sad that you have these opinions. I have a feeling that you'd perhaps say that they aren't your opinions, they are what the Bible says and what God says. Nevertheless, it makes me feel sadness, not hatred.

At the moment it says: Hold on, this is waiting to be approved by Walid Shoebat. I find that a bit curious.

Anyways. if anything comes of this I’ll post it somewhere here.

Where does all the hatred come from?

Today, as I often do, I listened to the Today programme on Radio 4.

I remember two news stories in particular.

One was the Orlando Shootings. I cannot understand this. How someone builds up such depths of hatred. Or fear. Or whatever it is that drives them to do this. How a person can gun down people.

And there’s another part of me that listens to songs like this, (Great Imperialist State by Simone White):

There's a farmer in a distant country working on the land
A hat upon his head and a shovel in his hand
Till the soil plant the seed wait a while cut the leaf
And send another cup of tea to me

I'm a spoiled child of the great imperialist state
I cannot kill my meat nor grow the food upon my plate
I never walked a mile to the well, when the tap runs dry do tell
What will become of you and me

What will become of us, who will give us trust
Will you believe me when I say I never loved profiting from your pain
That I felt shame when I looked the other way
Woke up this morning, the revolution knocking down my door
Those capitalist pigs? No, they don't live here anymore
Slipped out the back door into my car how far can you drive how far

There's a farmer in a distant country working on the land
Food turned into flowers for the uptown florist stand
What you saved another paid to turn his soil into sand
The world will not deliver on demand

What will become of us who will give us trust
Will you believe me when I say I never loved profiting from your pain
That I felt shame when I looked the other way

You can listen to it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRlEA0ZTxZ4

And I wonder how we tolerate and perpetuate the inequalities and injustices that are in the world.

I can think of no justification for what happened in Orlando.

I can think of no justification for the things that we tolerate.

I shed tears. And in the small ways that I am able, commit myself to make the changes that I can make that will one day help make a difference.

There was a time that I thought that the answer to the worlds problems lay in Jesus.

Which leads me to the next news item on the Today programme.

There was a news story that’s also mentioned in The Guardian, to say UK state schools get gender-neutral uniforms.

And comments from people that include:

It is so utterly wrong that we allow left wing nut jobs to dictate school policies.

or:

Gender change has never been so explicit. It looks to me a recipe for confusion for many young people who want to have sex with a member of the opposite sex but are denied by a law regulating legality at 16. Hormones for lads are raging for a few years before that. Some will take the first chance of a 'sexual experience' they can and may then feel controlled into that for life. And that is often a boy going with a boy. And many find they are straight and go on to have fulfilled lives

Gender change is as fashion.

or:

These nut jobs will be recommending "gender neutral" toilets and changing rooms soon enough...

I’m glad that not everyone agrees with these comments.

On the radio they interviewed a head teacher at a school that has introduced such a policy. And a lady who said she was offering a Christian viewpoint. Her view seemed to be that if any child is struggling with their gender identity, no matter what the specific circumstances of that child are, the only loving thing to do is to ensure that the child comes round to the idea and practice of living with the gender of their birth.

Andrea Williams, the Chief Executive of Christian Concern has said that this is not only pushing an agenda onto impressionable minds, but it also sets a dangerous precedent for other schools. She says:

To introduce such facilities – seemingly without parental consent – is highly irresponsible of the school. These pupils are of an impressionable age and are in the process of maturing physically. Introducing unisex toilets and uniform is surely to confuse them at the time when they are most in need of reassurance about their God-given identities as male and female.

"We are increasingly seeing boundaries being overstepped, and it is concerning that other schools may follow this example."

 

Personally I don’t believe that there is an agenda in schools to coerce boys into wearing skirts or girls into wearing trousers. I think it’s about allowing people the freedom to be themselves.

Over the weekend I read about Lily Allen and the impact that a stalker had upon her life. That led me to look into some of Lily’s songs, which I’d not done before really. I came across Fuck You  (Very Much). You can listen to it here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4NHXvQEOok:

My own style shows more of an incination to engage in constructive dialogue. However … I like the song – it makes a point and, surprisingly, lacks any sense of animosity. And there are times when no amount of dialog seems to make any difference.

The words are something like this:

Look inside
Look inside your tiny mind
Now look a bit harder
'Cause we're so uninspired, so sick and tired of all the hatred you harbor

So you say
It's not okay to be gay
Well I think you're just evil
You're just some racist who can't tie my laces
Your point of view is medieval

Fuck you
Fuck you very, very much
'Cause we hate what you do
And we hate your whole crew
So please don't stay in touch

Fuck you
Fuck you very, very much
'Cause your words don't translate
And it's getting quite late
So please don't stay in touch

Do you get
Do you get a little kick out of being slow-minded?
You want to be like your father
It's approval you're after
Well that's not how you find it

Do you
Do you really enjoy living a life that's so hateful?
'Cause there's a hole where your soul should be
You're losing control of it and it's really distasteful

Fuck you
Fuck you very, very much
'Cause we hate what you do
And we hate your whole crew
So please don't stay in touch

Fuck you
Fuck you very, very much
'Cause your words don't translate and it's getting quite late
So please don't stay in touch

Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you,
Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you,
Fuck you

You say, you think we need to go to war
Well you're already in one,
'Cause its people like you
That need to get slew
No one wants your opinion

Fuck you
Fuck you very, very much
'Cause we hate what you do
And we hate your whole crew
So please don't stay in touch

Fuck you
Fuck you very, very much
'Cause your words don't translate and it's getting quite late
So please don't stay in touch

Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you
Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you

 

There was a thing that I came to believe in the days that I was a Christian. It was that change begins with me. In the end it’s unreasonable to expect the entire world to change if I’m not willing to.

So if I want the world to be less hateful, then I need to begin with myself and my own attitudes and actions.

It’s a surprisingly difficult thing to do, and it is still a work in progress.

I once read the G K Chesterton once responded to the question:

“What’s wrong with the world today?”

With a letter that simply read:

Dear Sir,

I am.

Yours, G.K. Chesterton.

I empathise with that thought.

Unconditional love and the death of a teenager

There’s a story in the news today about Leelah Alcorn. It’s in the Independent here and the Daily Mail here.

The articles mention that 17 year old Leelah committed suicide and that a contributing factor in this was her Christian parent’s inability to accept Leelah’s gender identity.

Leelah’s mother says that she loved her son unconditionally, but seems unable to use the word daughter.

I’ve spent a while reading through some of the comments that readers of the Daily Mail article have made.

To me it seems that there are some very harsh things being said.

Some people believe that all religions are evil and intolerant. That the influence of religion on people is always bad.

And some religious people make comments that seem to confirm this stereotypical view of religion.

As often seems to be the case, a surprisingly large number of people seem to think that there is a single one size fits all solution to dealing with transgender issues and religious beliefs. Unfortunately the one size fits all answers that are offered by different people are different.

There was a time when I viewed myself as being a Bible believing born again evangelical Christian. Not a fundamentalist. But I believed things like the apostles creed.

There were some things that I found difficult. The idea of hell, for example. And the concept that even though God is love and God loves everyone, it was likely that the vast majority of all people that have ever lived would be spending an eternity in hell.

I think that when people believe this, the result can be that they do a lot of seemingly unloving things with a motivation of what they believe is love.

If a person believes that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people are bound for an eternity in hell then it might seem loving to do almost anything that would save them from it.

In some ways I think this helps me understand the feelings and actions of Leelah’s parents.

But, it doesn’t stop me feeling and believing that they are wrong. Just as I believe that I was wrong. In offering Leelah what they believed to be “unconditional love”, they seem to actually have been attaching all kinds of conditions to it.

There’s an article that’s worth reading: What to know, say and understand.

In fact, not all Christians share the views and beliefs of Leelah’s parents. It depends upon how they interpret the Bible.

I know Christians that don’t associate homosexuality and transgender with “sin”.

I also know other Christians that say that people with such views are not Christians.

I’ve never actually met a Christian that takes these words of Jesus literally:

"He who has two coats, let him give to him who has none. He who has food, let him do likewise."

But I have heard Christians explain why they should not be taken literally.

These days I don’t see myself as being Christian. Some would associate this with dogs and vomit, pigs and mud. My own feelings are more complex than that.

Marriage … what is it all about?

Today I read that:

The Catholic Church today told worshippers they have a ‘duty’ to resist Government plans on gay marriage.

A letter from two senior archbishops, read in 2,500 parish churches during Mass, argued changes would reduce the significance of marriage

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2113429/Catholic-Church-steps-war-gay-marriage-letter-worshippers-warning-profoundly-radical-step.html#ixzz1op7z8okr

The Guardian mentions it here.

The Washington Post here.

And the BBC here.

There are hundreds of articles from different sources that have appeared within the past 24 hours.

The text of the letter is here. In case it disappears from that link I’ve copied it here.

I don’t know how the people that have heard the letter being read out to them have felt about it.

In looking around a little I did come across some refreshing places.

Queering the Church  which has also led me to the Coalition for Equal Marriage which has a petition with the following wording:

I support the right of two people in love to get married, regardless of gender. It's only fair 

I’ve just signed it. It’s worth reading the thoughts they have about the uniqueness of marriage and the consequences of changing the legal definition of marriage.

The content at Queering the Church here and here is especially heartening, somehow.

I also found Press for Change which has some interesting stuff relating particularly to trans-gendered people.

The text of the letter from the Bishops is here. I’ve interlaced it with some of my own thoughts in italics. And a lot of people have similar thoughts.

---

A Letter on Marriage from the President and Vice-President of the Bishops’ Conference of
England and Wales

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Jesus Christ,

This week the Coalition Government is expected to present its consultation paper on the proposed change in the legal definition of marriage so as to open the institution of marriage to same-sex partnerships.

Today we want to put before you the Catholic vision of marriage and the light it casts on the importance of marriage for our society.

I’ve seen it expressed, by Catholic’s, that what follows is the vision of some Bishops and church leaders. Rather than being the Catholic vision.

I believe that not all Catholics share this vision.

However, I don’t know enough about leadership, church structure and authority in the Catholic church to be sure about what difference this actually makes.

I know, from experience, that in some churches, if the leaders say this the way it is, then if you think it is some other way you have to go and join a different church.

The roots of the institution of marriage lie in our nature. Male and female we have been created, and written into our nature is this pattern of complementarity and fertility. This pattern is, of course, affirmed by many other religious traditions. Christian teaching fills out this pattern and reveals its deepest meaning, but neither the
Church nor the State has the power to change this fundamental understanding of marriage itself. Nor is this simply a matter of public opinion.

I’m not sure anyone really knows where the roots of the institution of marriage lie. It’s quite a mish-mash

I have a feeling, though, that it’s more about love and commitment than it is about gender.

We are human … and built into us there seems to be a need to both give and to receive love. I don’t see that gender needs to be the main issue in this.

A man and a woman can complement each other … but so can two men or two women.

The natural reproductive pattern of the human species is about gender. But does marriage necessarily include reproduction? Heterosexual partners don’t usually have to make marriage vows that include reproduction. There are promises to accept and love children but not usually to procreate. At least that’s how this reads to me.

Nature itself is a contradictory kind of thing. I don’t believe that marriage is an institution with laws that are governed and dictated by nature.

Contrarily, I suspect that religions and societies developed the concept of marriage to define a structure in which stable , loving and committed relationships could develop and flourish.

Because of this I think that it’s fair enough to redefine it if the redefinition serves to extend this stability to other people.

Understood as a lifelong commitment between a man and a woman, and for the creation and upbringing of children, marriage is an expression of our fundamental humanity. Its status in law is the prudent fruit of experience, for the good of the spouses and the good of the family. In this way society esteems the married couple as the source and guardians of the next generation. As an institution marriage is at the foundation of our society.

People understand that the ideal of marriage is a lifelong commitment. No one that I know of plans on redefining this.

My own feelings, though, are that it is a commitment to do things like:

- to accept children lovingly 

- to be true in good times and bad, sickness and health

- to love and to honour

It’s not about promising to reproduce. Nor does it necessarily have to be a commitment between a man and a woman, unless we choose to make it that way.

Love and commitment are the things at the foundation of society.

Marriage provides a way for people to promise openly that they will love each other and commit themselves to that love and to each other.

Marriage actually guarantees nothing.

It’s the love and commitment that do the work.

Marriage is a vehicle through which the love and commitment can be expressed.

If the definition of marriage is changed so that people who happen to be of the same sex can make the same promises of love and commitment doesn’t that have the power to strengthen society rather than weaken it?

 

There are many reasons why people get married. For most couples, there is an instinctive understanding that  the stability of a marriage provides the best context for the flourishing of their relationship and for bringing up their children. Society recognises marriage as an important institution for these same reasons: to enhance stability in society and to respect and support parents in the crucial task of having children and bringing them up as well as possible.

I don’t have a problem with this, other than to say it represents an ideal. An ideal that is sometimes impossible to achieve.

In the real world parents die, wars happen and families break.

In the real world some children would be better living well outside their natural families.

And some children would even be better outside of the institutions that have pledged to take care of them when they have no family.

Stable relationships are a good thing. I think most people accept this. But I don’t see that stability necessarily involves reproduction and child rearing. It involves love and commitment.

The Church starts from this appreciation that marriage is a natural institution, and indeed the Church recognises civil marriage. The Catholic understanding of marriage, however, raises this to a new level. As the Catechism says: ‘The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a  partnership of the whole of life, by its nature is ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptised persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the
dignity of a sacrament.’

These rather abstract words are reflected however imperfectly in the experience of married couples. We know that at the heart of a good marriage is a relationship of astonishing power and richness, for the couple, their children, their wider circle of friends and relations and society. As a Sacrament, this is a place where divine grace flows. Indeed, marriage is a sharing in the mystery of God’s own life: the unending and perfect flow of love between Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

We know, too, that just as God’s love is creative, so too the love of husband and wife is creative of new life. It is open, in its essence, to welcoming new life, ready to love and nurture that life to its fullness, not only here on earth but also into eternity.

This is a high and noble vision, for marriage is a high and noble vocation. It is not easily followed. But we are sure that Christ is at the heart of marriage, for his presence is a sure gift of the God who is Love, who wants nothing more than for the love of husband and wife to find its fulfilment. So the daily effort that marriage requires, the many ways in which family living breaks and reshapes us, is a sharing in the mission of Christ, that of making visible in the world the creative and forgiving love of God.

In these ways we understand marriage to be a call to holiness for a husband and wife, with children recognised and loved as the gift of God, with fidelity and permanence as the boundaries which create its
sacred space. Marriage is also a crucial witness in our society, contributing to its stability, its capacity for compassion and forgiveness and its future, in a way that no other institution can.

In putting before you these thoughts about why marriage is so important, we also want to recognise the experience of those who have suffered the pain of bereavement or relationship breakdown and their contribution to the Church and society. Many provide a remarkable example of courage and fidelity. Many strive to make the best out of difficult and complex situations. We hope that they are always welcomed and helped to feel valued members of our parish communities.

The reasons given by our government for wanting to change the definition of marriage are those of equality and discrimination. But our present law does not discriminate unjustly when it requires both a man and a woman for marriage. It simply recognises and protects the distinctive nature of marriage.

Changing the legal definition of marriage would be a profoundly radical step. Its consequences should be taken seriously now. The law helps to shape and form social and cultural values. A change in the law would gradually and inevitably transform society’s understanding of the purpose of marriage. It would reduce it just to
the commitment of the two people involved. There would be no recognition of the complementarity of male and female or that marriage is intended for the procreation and education of children.

We have a duty to married people today, and to those who come after us, to do all we can to ensure that the true meaning of marriage is not lost for future generations.

I don’t know … it seems like the meaning of marriage here is being reduced to being all about having children.

It’s almost as though someone has sat down and though … “what is it that same sex partnerships can’t do” and then based a whole argument upon it.

My own feelings are that children are best brought up within loving and stable relationships. And that people who have children should try to make it work that way.

I can see why religions then say that people should marry before having children. As an expression of love and commitment.

But I’m not at all sure about the way it’s being twisted the other way around. Implying that you should have children if you want to be married, rather than if you want to have children you should get married.

Children … and grown ups as well … thrive best when they are loved and when they know that this love is stable and committed.

In one of the Bible passages that I like a lot (and I know, I am as picky as anyone) it says a lot about love but nowhere does it say that love is exclusively a man and a woman thing.

Changing the legal definition of marriage may have profound results.

With every blessing.

Most Reverend Vincent Nichols

Archbishop of Westminster

President of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales

Most Reverend Peter Smith

Archbishop of Southwark

Vice-President of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales

---

 

I know there's more than a single point of view for everything.

So, if you’re aged 16 or over and live in the UK … take a look at http://www.c4em.org.uk/ and think about it. And also take a look at http://c4m.org.uk/ to see the opposite side.

And then … be reasonable minded bout this and sign the petition at http://www.c4em.org.uk/ 

God, the Bible, Gender, Shellfish, Haircuts, Love and Nail Files

It’s that time of year again. As I take my lunchtime stroll there are bushes overflowing with fruit. It hangs heavily on their branches. The grey footpath is littered with yellow and red.

Each year I think … how extravagant nature is. Or is it wasteful? Or is it so harsh and cruel that there needs to be an over-abundance of fruit … just so that a few survive.

I guess until relatively recently it was the same with people.

A thought that has crossed my mind several times over the past few months is the idea that I should revisit the concept of God.

There was a time that God was a person to me. That Christianity was a relationship … a friendship … much more than it was a religion.

This was all based on the “evangelical” kind of view that the Bible is the final authority on all matters. And, what I now believe to be incorrect, a feeling that there was some kind of definitive logic in the way that evangelicals … the kind of person that I was … interpreted and understood the Bible. That there was some kind of objective and unbiased view that represented the truth.

And yet … there isn’t. We all bring our preconceptions and prejudices. The things that influence what we accept as fact and truth … and those things that need to be “interpreted”, discussed and disregarded.

My friend Dani recently left a comment on a blog posting that I made a while ago … it’s here. Reading the article that Dani mentioned led me on to some more searching around … and there is this … Proof that fundamentalists selectively quote the Bible. It’s worth reading. It makes it clear that if you you are Christian and have hang-ups about Gay or Lesbian people then you should also steer well clear of shrimps and be careful how you shave.

Really I knew this all along.

One of the first “Christian” Books I ever read was a thing by Francis Schaeffer called Genesis in Space and Time. It had a title that intrigued me.

It’s intelligently written … but even then as a new Christian … I wondered why Francis Schaffer was adamant that it was important that there was a literal Adam and Eve … and yet the eating of the fruit in the Garden of Eden was an allegory.

At the time I guess I though that he knew better than me.

In fact, really, I think it’s about what we choose to believe … which then influences how we interpret these things.

Emily Saliers … an Indigo Girl just in case you didn’t know … put it like this in her song Deconstruction:

We talked up all night and came to no conclusion
We started a fight that ended in silent confusion
And as we sat stuck you could hear the trash truck
Making its way through the neighbourhood
Picking up the thrown out different from house to house
We get to decide what we think is no good
We're sculpted from youth, the chipping away makes me weary
And as for the truth it seems like we just pick a theory
The one that justifies our daily lives
And backs us with quiver and arrows
To protect openings cause when the warring begins
How quickly the wide open narrows
Into the smallness of our deconstruction of love
We thought it was changing, but it never was
It's just the same as it ever was

 

The song is here:

 

Life is a subjective kind of thing.

Anyway … I digress.

My plan is to try revisiting some of the places that I’ve been before but with an acceptance that it is ok … inevitable even … to have a subjective view on the stuff. That it’s ok not to see it all from an evangelical perspective.

I don’t know where this will lead me. Though I know there is no going back to where I used to be.

Tonight I read through I Corinthians Chapter 13.  It’s here. And I have to say … it’;s hard to disagree with any of it.

I remember, many years ago, someone saying it’s an interesting exercise to take these words:

Love is patient,

love is kind.

It does not envy,

it does not boast,

it is not proud.

It is not rude,

it is not self-seeking,

it is not easily angered,

it keeps no record of wrongs.

Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.

It always protects,

always trusts,

always hopes,

always perseveres.

Love never fails.

And wherever it says love or it try substituting with the word I.

And even today, if I do that, I’m left with the feeling … I wish.

So now … though I don’t know where this is leading or what I’m looking for … it’s true to say that even without a belief in God … and in the certainty that I disagree wholeheartedly with the views that some Christians have … the Bible does say some things that are worth listening to.

Like many things though … it’s not what you read … not what you say … or what you say you believe … that matters. Not really. In the end it’s  about what you do.

And now I need a break … so it’s out with the nail file.

While and Matthews, Poles, Love and Fear

Having listened quite a lot more to Chris While and Julie Matthews (http://www.whileandmatthews.co.uk/) , I must say I like them a lot.

I bought the CD from Amazon’s download site and spent quite a while searching out lyrics of the songs somewhere on the WEB … with no luck at all until tonight. Googling for “distant as the poles” came back with a hit …the parent page of which is: http://www.whileandmatthews.co.uk/Julie%20website/Song%20pages/ which has lots of lyrics.

I mentioned the song Distant as the Poles in an earlier post.You can listen to the first bit at: http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B002E3D0IA/ref=dm_dp_trk6 (click the preview button when you get there) and also there is a version from a fan.

 

And the words:

Distant as the poles
Julie Matthews
From the album ‘Quest’
While and Matthews

You cannot hold her anymore
Though everyday I see you try
She's bursting with the urge to run and fly
And where she's bound you cannot hope to be
As distant as the poles and the poles will never meet

She chases comets in the sky
One day she'll catch one in a jar
You would rather watch them from afar
And what she dreams you cannot hope to see
As distant as the poles and the poles will never meet

The tighter that you hold her
The wider bridges grow
The more you try to mould her
The less she'll come to show

You cannot hold her anymore
So have the heart to say goodbye
And open up the cage and let her fly
A blazing trail of comets in the sky
And love her just enough to set her free
As distant as the poles and the poles will never meet

 

When I first listened to the song it reminded me of the feelings of a parent as a child grows … the pain of letting go. And yet there isn’t another way.

I think that as time has passed I’ve learned, a little at least,  that holding onto people too tightly seems to be a sure fire way of pushing them away.

Driving back from work tonight I thought of the way that futility of getting things by force. The way that compulsion seems to be doomed to failure.

Ultimately, it seems, we do what we want to because we want to do it rather than because we have to do it.

The things we do out of compulsion don’t last. The first chance we get … we do something else.

I think it explains why, in the end, love is stronger than fear.

Do you believe in sex?

The past week I’ve been working in Bristol, staying at the Premiere Inn at the Haymarket.

The train was on time, no snow and only a little rain.

A couple of nights ago I caught the tail end of a TV programme that featured two girls who were travelling around with parents and grandparents. Having missed the start of the show I’m not certain of the exact details. It seems, though, that the aim of the journey was to help the two girls decide if it was time for them to give up their virginity.

The UK, it appears, is a European leader in things such as teenage pregnancies, sex without condoms and youngest average age (for girls especially) to become non-virgins.

As they say … sometimes one thing leads to another.

The girls spent some time talking with 15 and 16 year old boys at a school. Expert advice indeed.

They said they wished that their mothers could be more open in talking about sex … in particular their own sexual experiences.

They visited Holland … which reputedly has a much more open attitude to sex than the UK. And also much lower rates of teenage pregnancy and a higher average age for loss of virginity.

They talked with a Dutch mother and her 16 year old daughter. The daughter had recently had her first full sexual encounter. Everyone was impressed with the  openness of the relationship between this girl and her mother.

At no point that I saw were the concepts of marriage and sex seen to be related in any way. Perhaps that idea had been discussed or dismissed earlier in the programme.

Soon after meeting the teenager and her mum they went on a walkabout through the red light district of Amsterdam accompanied by a brothel owner as well as the Television crew.

They saw ladies in shop windows … and the brothel owner explained a little about how the places work.

The reaction of the two British girls to this was one of disbelief. Shock. How could people? Isn’t sex all about love? They cuddled mum and cried and sobbed.

I’ve given this reaction some thought. It seems that they hadn’t yet discovered that the significance of sex can be very different to different people.

• A mechanism for procreation
• An expression of love
• A source of pleasure
• A thing to not talk about
• A source of shame
• A necessary evil
• Something that should only ever happen between married people
• Something to sell
• Something to buy

And many other things.

Not all of the above are applicable to all people.

In fact all of the above are applicable to no people.

It’s definitely a some opinions to some people kind of relationship.

And peoples opinions sometimes change.

Once upon a time in the distant past I remember one of those debating sessions in an English class. Pre-puberty, early secondary school.

I am a panel member.

Non-panel members get a chance to pose the debating questions.

Janet Taylor raises her hand.

“Do you believe in sex before marriage?”

Janet Taylor wears the shortest skirts in school. Even shorter than Andrea wears today.

Her legs go a long long way. Maybe she was already post-puberty.

It was, though, more of a question than an offer.

My turn arrives to express an opinion.

“I don’t believe in sex.”

As I said. Opinions change. Puberty does that to a person.

Eventually I came to believe in sex.

At age 18 I was born again. Sex still a belief rather than a practical experience. The belief restricted to the confines of marriage. There were definite rights and wrongs about it.

Today I’m not so sure about the rights and wrongs.

The reaction of the girls in the television programme seemed to be strangely inconsistent.

There are things that I wonder about …

• Maybe some cattle-market-like nightclub dance floors aren’t so different from the red light shop windows of Amsterdam. People seeking the same thing.
• Boys at nightclubs will sometimes invent all kinds of stories to impress girls. At times maybe this is about romance. At other times maybe it’s a lot more basic.
• Maybe a shop window in Amsterdam can be a more honest and safe way of people achieving the same ends without a need to tell lies to each other?

I think that the things that matter most between people include things such as:

• Honesty
• Respect
• Love … in the sense of wanting to help rather than to hurt each other

I guess that in reality love encompasses the honesty and respect.

It sounds a little like things that I heard at Church.

But at Church this was supplemented by an additional framework of rights and wrongs that mattered even more than honesty, respect and love.

These included big stuff like not killing people. Unless of course it’s in self defence, or a “just” war …

And other stuff as well:

• Do not be gay
• Do not be lesbian
• Do not dress in women’s clothing – unless, of course, you are a woman

And you can’t even do these things during a war or in self defence.

Mostly I’ve discarded lists of absolute don’ts.

It’s not that I think that everyone should do them. More that it “depends”.

Sex, like almost all other things, then just fits into an overall framework of honesty, respect and love.

Simple?

Well … maybe.

Easy?

Well … no. Not at all.

I think a lot of this begins with “oneself”.

I recall a Bob Dylan song … “Slow train coming”.

That’s how it’s been in my experience.

A lifetime to get to a place where I can be honest with myself and about about myself. A place where I respect myself. Even my unconventional dressing habits. My flirtations with pornography.  A place where I don’t feel I have to hide it all or live in fear of being found out. A place where I can love myself.

I know … this stuff is in the Bible as well. It says that you can’t love other people if you don’t love yourself.

A little while ago I spent some time talking with a girl that works as an escort. She is married. Has four children.

Her work involves sex. Her husband knows. Her family knows.

They are happy.

Is it wrong?

Whatever the girls in the TV programme feel about this, I have a feeling that it’s a lot less wrong than what happens every weekend at a lot of nightclubs.

Maybe not perfect.

But where is perfection?