I’ve been thinking about what happened to olympic cyclist Burry Stander (killed on a training ride by a driver who did not see him) and how this has sparked a sense of outrage and horror among cyclists and others.

I’m no great cyclist, but I do love being on a bike and would love to be in a position of safety.

If we look at Burry’s death in a broader context of +- 13500 people killed South African roads each year, I wonder if the problem is not a broader issue of discipline, rather than bad enforcement and rule ignorance. If we take out the 1300 deaths for dec, we’re still left with12 200 deaths over 11 months. This is a disaster akin the the crisis (what crisis?) in education and healthcare.

Unlike education and healthcare which are far more ‘institutionalized’ crises, Road discipline is something that we can all do something about personally.

I wonder if we don’t need to assert a need for personal discipline, personal choices? I personally am so over any form of government intervention and mass demonstrations (march, t-shirt, memorandum- problem solved).

Like the Lead-SA initiative, a personal call to be personally disciplined and to be able to live with those who are not personally disciplined might be the only way to turn this around.

Recently, I’ve been picked out about reading/ checking my phone at traffic lights. It’s become an unconscious habit and my passenger was horrified. It takes real discipline not to do this…

As I join the rush home tomorrow from the country so that real work can start on Monday, I will stick to the speed limit and take it easy. I only hope others will try too.

Anyway, these are early thoughts, something I personally try to do and something I preach about. Think about it, no hassle, no pressure. This might be the right time for discipline.

Peace for 2013.

On a personal level, it’s been a huge year. I’ve learned that as a priest loneliness is part of the package and that facing that loneliness is often a priest’s greatest battle and danger. I realized this year that one cannot assume that friendship in a pastoral setting is friendship that translates well into a personal friendship. Sometimes the honesty of a personal friendship is masked by the role expectation of a priest and the personal experience that we priests have of people. I messed those boundaries up this year. I’ve emerged wiser, scarred and in some places still quite hurt.
I’ve also emerged to realize that as a priest true and deep friendships take time to build. That’s true of anyone, for anyone. I’ve also learned that the pain and trauma of 2012 have broken a barrier that I didn’t even think I had built up.
The danger of a professionalized priesthood is that I had allowed myself to become distant from the pain and trauma of others. This year was the first year that I cried at a funeral…I spoke at the funeral of a dear friend and realized just how much I needed to be me – priest always, but not distant from pain. I’ve felt that pain in the suicide of my cousin who stepped out of the closet (dramatically as he always did) into an abusive, manipulative and ultimately fatal relationship. I have felt the pain in watching family aging, in facing the delayed trauma of the murder of a dear friend and mentor.
I think I have become better for the pain. But I won’t seek more.

There have been some incredible goods that have emerged as the grace of 2012. But that is for another time.

Here’s an excerpt:

600 people reached the top of Mt. Everest in 2012. This blog got about 2,200 views in 2012. If every person who reached the top of Mt. Everest viewed this blog, it would have taken 4 years to get that many views.

Click here to see the complete report.

The story is about a rich person inviting other rich persons to a banquet – something only the rich can do. Yet, the invitation is rejected. What struck me in this familiar scenario is that those who reject the invitation do so because they are rich – landowners, owners of livestock (5 yoke of oxen is like owning a Lamborghini – or at least a huge tractor) and those who have ‘taken a wife’.

Contrast this with the streets and lanes of the city – no spaciousness here – where the understandably upset host now sends the servants. To the poor, the maimed, blind and lame.Those who work on the land – if they can – and those who cannot work.

Reading this with the initial exclamation is to see that the Bread of the Kingdom of God is the bread of the poor, the lame, the maimed and blind, – and that is blessedness. Read with the Gospel of this past Sunday (Matthew’s Beatitudes on the transferred Feast of All Saints) reinforces that the arrogant self sufficiency that willingly excludes self from the Banquet also excludes self from the Blessedness in this life.

The Scene in the story changes once again – with the host demanding that the hall be filled. I’ve not noticed before that the word used is ‘compel’. Wow. The urgency of that is to fill a banquet so that there is no space for those who change their mind and wish to come in – the response will simply be – the banquet is full. I’m not sure how I  feel about this – is there no choice to get in on a mind change? Or is the mind change possibly to admit that you and I can only experience the blessedness of the Kingdom Banquet if we admit that we are poor, maimed, blind and lame.

What a challenge to our Eucharist and our lives.

(Scripture version used – Revised Standard Version 2nd Catholic Edition)

Thanks Rob for the Image – apologies if the (c) is dodgy.

Today I’m sad but strangely peaceful. I’ve done something that I have not had to do before in my multi-connected Social Media world. I’ve had to un-friend someone. I’m beginning to untangle the many-linked webs in which people become part in my life online and connected.

It’s not that I haven’t had to block or delete people before – I do that regularly. In my work and ministry, the crazy and the angry are part-and-parcel of everyday experience. I don’t watch soap operas – I get enough of that every day in real life…

This Other was a friend. Having to get to the realization that some people do not seek or desire your effort at peace or peace with you when you desire to give it or try to make peace is very tough. Heartbreaking.

I have often read Mt 10:13 about giving peace to a place or a person. In fact, one of the Franciscans responsible for my seminary formation always made a point to greeting ‘peace’ to every home he visited. It’s something I have tried to do. In fact, so much of ministry is about rediscovering the seeds or remnants of peace and trying to put them back together.

But letting your peace return to you? This has been a very hard lesson for me – for I try, demand sometimes, that peace be something that happens because I am present and therefore it is what the Lord Jesus wants for the other and wants me to ‘make’ or facilitate for the other.

But it is not. Peace is God’s Gift, given freely like all God’s gifts.

No matter how much I demand, cajole, obsess about being at peace with another, especially if I have been unable to achieve peace or been in part a cause of the lack of peace for the Other – I am often not helping the cause of God’s peace and God’s healing. In fact, I might be an obstruction to what God wants by being in a position that God wants someone else to occupy.

So I started with Facebook and BBM and Linked-in and and and – not for the Other but maybe as an Act of Faith that by my clearing myself out of the space, maybe God’s healing and Spirit may not be prevented from working.

Does it hurt – Hell yes, like hell. It is against my natural instinct and very much against my misplaced and misguided need to be the healer, the hero, the Good Shepherd and at peace with everyone.

Maybe my effort will also clear space in me for healing.

Sometimes, this is what a priest feels like…

good shepherd

immediately places us in the position of looking for the contrast- if there is a good shepherd, then what of the bad shepherd or the not so good shepherd. Jesus gives us the comparison himself. The good shepherd and the hired shepherd. All well and good. The hired shepherd has no personal investment in the sheep except as wage opportunity. Again, this is something we can relate to- we all know the problem of the wage earner who has no personal involvement. And we could easily nod our heads in broad agreement.
But once again, when Our Lord uses these agricultural images, he doesn’t get the image right! In most cases, especially here in Africa, the shepherd is not so much a hired man, but part of the family- generally the youngest boy-child or the relative who might not be the brightest. So if we scratch at the image, there is a problem. Even in the time of Jesus, this would probably have been the case.
So we don’t have a normal situation here, in the sense that the issue here is not of shepherding but of personal investment or ownership. The Good Shepherd is personally invested in the sheep and knows their value.
In other parts of the Gospels where Jesus speaks of sheep, such as the parable of the lost sheep, I can see this sense of investment in the sheep that doesn’t really make sense- why chase after one sheep if you have 99 others. Stick with the 99!
This sense of investment is developed further with the introduction of the threat to the sheep. A wolf on the prowl. It would make sense to scratch here again. Generally, the presence of a shepherd would be enough to deter the ‘lone wolf’, but if the wolf was determined, the law of averages kicks in again. If there is a wolf, then sacrifice one sheep and keep the rest safe. Certainly, if the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it, the shepherd as owner or hired man, would probably not put his life on the line as his life would be more valuable than the sheep or the whole flock.
The flock would be scattered and more vulnerable to attack, but the shepherd would be alive. Now we begin to see another threat. The process of attack by a pack of wolves is (and here I can only speak of the experience gained by watching tv or by looking at those animals that hunt in packs in Africa) to first scatter the sheep and then to pick them off one by one. So the presence and preemptive action of the Shepherd counts.
Scratch further. The image isn’t really working on a realistic level. But on another level the image is working. The value of the sheep and the bravery of the shepherd (a line from the Collect prayer today) reminds me of a different sacrifice- made by Our Lord on the cross.
Here the image turns to the willingness of the Shepherd to lay down his life for the sheep. This shepherd does this because of the personal connection that he has with the father who is the owner of the sheep and with whom the shepherd has intimate communion. Here the actions of the brave shepherd make sense. He makes the effort for he knows the Father’s investment and how the Father values the sheep and this relationship of value prompts his choice to lay down his life for both the sake of the sheep and the Owner of the sheep.
Laying his life down then becomes a choice that is protective and value driven. The Good Shepherd makes the choice motivated by both the intimacy he has with the Father who owns the sheep and the sheep that are so valuable to the father.
On face- and familiarity value, this image, makes intuitive sense only if we move if from a purely agricultural sense and allow the deeper story to emerge.
For me, this deeper story is about a choice for the value of the person. Any choice made out of value is a choice made like Jesus did.
Now the image makes more sense – and I can see how this text is chosen as an illustrative one for the process of discerning our Vocation or Calling from God – all done from a deep unity of value.