God is Love; Gay or Straight
As it turned out, the day was perfect; no wind, no rain – certainly no thunder or lightning. A gentle breeze kept the waiting guests cool and an inky, overcast sky provided a magnificent backdrop for the green Stellenbosch vineyards in the foreground and the familiar grey Cape mountains in the distance.
My faith – the Christian faith – has at its core the notion of God as love. As one studies the other religions of the world, one comes to appreciate that they all say roughly the same thing; God is love and our job is to allow Love into our lives to love us, so that we – in turn – may love others. The learning in all this is of course that God loves and God is love. So, in short, Love loves; it knows how to do nothing else. This is why there is really no such thing as atheism unless you do not believe in love at all. For where there is Love, God is. The two are one.
The happy couple made their entrance on horseback preceded by several flower girls laying a pathway of petals before them. As is so often the case with weddings, the joy found its expression in tears amongst the 90 or so guests awaiting their arrival. But the tears quickly turned to laughter. I have never attended such a joyful wedding ceremony. The marriage officer was a Russian Jewish lady with a happy face and a naughty smile who tapped the traditions of most of the major faiths to create a rich and deeply spiritual occasion; the couple’s hands were wrapped in a strand of jewels to symbolise two becoming one; the congregation tied red cords around one another’s wrists to symbolise connectedness and our unity of witness and support for the couple; the mothers drank wine and then served some to their children’s new spouse – a symbol of welcome into one another’s families; the oldest Granny blessed the couple. Rings were exchanged and the service culminated in that marvellous symbolic Jewish ritual of stamping on wine glasses.
You know Love when you feel it; it wraps you up and holds you tightly even if you are just watching it unfold. This is why so many people cry at weddings. They are being moved spiritually not just emotionally. No one present at this wedding would disagree that Love – or God if you prefer – was present on that day. She – or He if you like – was infused in every petal, every playful glance, every small gesture of kindness and care, every giggle and every tear.
A short sermon which – appropriately for a South African wedding equated marriage with rugby – preceded the legalities of signing of marriage registers and certificates. Then – to Mendelsohn’s wedding march and in a hail of rose petals – the couple made their way up the aisle and disappeared for their photos.
“I will always be proud to introduce Grant as my son Theo’s husband,” said Theo’s mother as she concluded her speech later that evening at the reception. And again, the tears came for many as Love stood for itself. It was not being judged as gay or straight or for how it chose to express itself in the bedroom. It was just love.
My purpose in writing this story as I have, is not to persuade you that homosexuality is right or wrong. That is a fool’s game. My purpose is simply to give Love a chance to speak for itself without our age-old preconceptions, judgements and stereotypes telling the world who or what Love is and what it should look like. Usually we are so busily expressing our fear of what is different or other to ourselves (this fear is usually expressed in moral judgement), that we miss Love. We miss God. Because the uncomfortable truth is that Love cannot exist outside of itself – and most believers would believe that God is Love. So, is there not also a revelation of pure Love that God just may not physically be capable of homophobia? What if God is not physically able not to love? What then? Where does that leave us? This realisation is surely what gave Archbishop Desmond Tutu the faith and courage to say: “I would refuse to go to a homophobic heaven. No, I would say sorry, I mean I would much rather go to the other place,” and “I would not worship a homophobic God.”
Towards the end of the evening I looked across the dance floor and saw a sight I will never forget; Theo was dancing – proper ballroom style dancing – with Grant’s 75-year old father.
Two families had become one and Love had triumphed.
Justin Foxton is founder of The Peace Agency.
His writing is dedicated to the memory of Anene Booysens, Emmanuel Josias Sithole and Suna Venter.
Community Development: We Get It Wrong At Our Peril
I met up again with Justin Foxton, founder of The Peace Agency, a month or so ago.
Contrary to the intensity of our first encounter – a workshop at the Ilembe Chamber of Commerce on racism, freedom of expression and the state of our democracy – a weekend away with friends and family in the untamed African bush of northern Zululand provided the perfect setting to explore our respective angles on community development. Justin recently set out some of these thoughts in his column in Independent Newspaper’s The Mercury. Our thinking was that they need urgent consideration for anyone working in or near communities: One of the aspects of the work I (Justin) do would broadly be referred to as “community development” work. Typically, this involves going into peri-urban or even rural communities on behalf of neighbouring businesses or other concerned stakeholders and meeting traditional leaders, youth or women’s groups, trustees of local trusts, school governing bodies etc. to talk about their democratic rights and responsibilities, sustainable alternatives to violence, how to organise themselves into cohesive entities, or how to start a business. Now, when I refer to “communities” in the context of community development work, I am talking about areas that are under-developed and experience high levels of unemployment and poverty and the resultant ills. They often border developed and even affluent areas that attract large investment into local business. The general picture? A booming, productive, haven of economic vibrancy on one side of the street and a desolate, poverty-wracked haven of social ill on the other. The obvious – but unfortunate – effect of this picture is that the word “community” becomes a euphemism for lack and deficit. Of course, communities often take on this negative identity and live into it as a means of survival. This creates an unhealthy cycle in which a protest is followed by business, government, NGO’s etc. swooping in to save the day and quieten everyone down. Until next time. So this perception of communities as lacking leads us to a “fix them up” approach to community development. But we must acknowledge that – given the escalation of community tension and violent flare ups in our country – how we define communities and how we work with them, needs a radical rethink. The general approach is not working because it is premised on several “us” and “them” assumptions. For anyone who has worked in the types of communities referred to here, you will know just how dangerous these assumptions can be. This is because they can lead to us parachuting solutions into communities. These are usually “our side of the street” solutions to “our side of the street” problems. This leads to community anger because the benevolence is perceived as arrogant and self-serving – often rightly so. I must confess that I have learnt this lesson the hard way. Along with my colleagues some of our best intentions have resulted in death threats, being held hostage, damage to property including arson, theft and hijacking. You get this work wrong at your peril! Justin offers an alternative construct, based on an approach to community development advocated by Peter Block in his book Community – The Structure of Belonging. Central to this approach is engagement; engagement that builds communities that are accountable and take ownership of their own destiny. This is the key ingredient that we have largely been missing when it comes to the building of community economies. To whet your appetite, here are a few of the steps that create this level of engagement: Dialogue is key Block suggests that all transformation, including a community’s economic prosperity, occurs through language. Engagement through dialogue allows community assets to rise and gifts to be offered freely. This causes a shift from community problems to community possibilities. Potential is unlocked as we listen to what people are saying, respond to their input and become prepared to change our plans and prioritise new possibilities, projects and activities. Think small Deep and effective engagement is an ongoing process that leads ultimately to transformation. Its building block is small group conversations that do not in themselves aim to provide solutions but rather focus on listening and asking the right questions. This allows community members to be heard and respected and to arrive at their own answers to their own problems. Block suggests that inviting people into a room and dividing them into facilitated conversation groups of 5–8 people is the basis of the transformation process and the container for the experience of belonging. Take time A community self-focus, where social and cultural nuances are not ignored or undervalued, is an important angle from which to explore community assets and possibilities. As Justin acknowledges, this approach takes time but the investment will pay off in the long run as communities become self-reliant and productive. Have the ownership conversation Communities won’t energise their own economic well-being if they don’t progress from blame to ownership; ownership that stifles entitlement and dependency. Such community building workshops should begin with questions like: What have I/we done to contribute to the very thing I/we complain about or want to change? How has my community contributed or reached out to stimulate enterprise and job creation? The offering of gifts Block maintains that communities must stop defining themselves by their lack and begin to focus on what they have to offer; their gifts; what is present and presented. Our job as community builders is to move the conversation away from deficit towards assets. He advocates that communities choose their destiny when they have the courage to acknowledge their own gifts and opt to offer these gifts to society at large. In the community economy context, how does a community use their gifts to stimulate enterprise and job creation, even in the smallest way? This question must challenge the view that the future of communities can only be improved with new laws and policies, more oversight and stronger leadership. Finally, Justin and Cobus will be hosting a dialogue session around this approach to community development. Please contact us if you would like to be a part of that conversation. justin@peaceagency.org.za or ceo@ilembechamber.co.za By Cobus Oelofse – CEO Ilembe Chamber of CommerceBakkie-Taxis: Inequality at its Worst
As South Africans, we are used to the sight of people being transported on the back of bakkies. Sometimes, these bakkies have a canopy and people are wedged in like tinned sardines. Other times there is no canopy and people sit, stand or lie depending on space availability.
The canopy-less option is usually preferred as the transporter gets more bodies onto the vehicle and the passengers get some fresh air. Safety is not a consideration. These bakkie-taxis as they are affectionately known transport children to and from school and workers to and from work. They sometimes have 2 or 3 people, they sometimes have 22 or 23 people. As far as one can make out the maximum number of people that can be transported on the back of a bakkie is mostly determined by how many people need to be transported. Apparently, thousands of people – many of them children – die each year because of over-crowded bakkies and taxis. Parent24 editor Sophia Swanepoel argues that: “If all kids 3 and under should legally be strapped into car seats and all passengers should wear seat belts, then how can it still be legal to transport people, including children, on the back of a bakkie?” Well, the good news is that – as of 11 May 2017 – it isn’t legal. Well, kind of isn’t. An article on Wheels 24 states that: “In terms of regulation 250 of the National Road Traffic Act (NRTA), from Thursday (11 May) no person will be allowed to transport children in the goods compartment of a vehicle for reward.” So, in short, it’s okay for children to carry on dying because of this frankly barbaric practise that perpetuates inequality, if the driver doesn’t get paid for it. Apparently, the Department of Transport has lauded this as a “giant step in the right direction for road safety.” There are other elements to regulation 250, for example if you are transporting people on the back of a bakkie (for no pay of course) and they are seated, there must be a minimum 35 cm enclosure above the sitting area. If they are standing, the enclosure must be at least 95cm’s above standing area. So, if you are sitting, you have just over one school ruler’s protection between you and doom. If you are standing, you have 3. Remember, you are not sitting or standing with any form of restraint. Now as I mentioned above, it is illegal to drive in a car without a seat belt and your baby must be strapped into a car seat. So, the conclusion must be drawn that we have two sets of road rules in our country; one for the poor and one for the rich. This is very considerate of us really because after all, the applause for these ground-breaking new regulations is that they will save lives. But it seems that these lives don’t matter quite as much as rich lives as if they did, transportation of people on the back of bakkies would require at the very least, some kind of seat belt for adults and some kind of car seat for children. Better yet, it would be banned altogether. But of course, critics of this tell us that that can’t happen because bakkie-taxis are an essential part of the transport mix in our country. For example, if you are a parent living in an informal or rural area, you may need to make a decision as to whether you want your child safe or in school. If the latter, then you will likely need to put their lives at risk by transporting them on a bakkie-taxi. We must not accept this. And we must not accept that legislators must legislate to accommodate a total lack of services for our most vulnerable citizens. Transporting people on the back of bakkies is a structural inequality of our country that is so much a part of our culture, we don’t even notice it anymore. I can accept that it will take time and money to correct such gross inequality and indignity but in the meantime, we can become far more creative about how we keep our people safe. If you are reading this and you are an engineer or an inventor of sorts, I would invite you to create a simple, cost-effective restraint for adults and children sitting or standing on the back of bakkies. This should be co-funded by government and vehicle manufactures. Coupled with strict enforcement of maximum numbers of passengers this would save thousands of lives as it would now be illegal for passengers to be unrestrained. And by the way, let’s work on this restraint being dignifying. We also cannot – even in the interests of safety – accept the inequality of human beings being packed onto the backs of bakkies like farm animals or people off to a death camp. Justin Foxton is founder of The Peace Agency. His writing is dedicated to the memory of Anene Booysens and Emmanuel Josias Sithole.Colour Diversity Should Equal Choice
I had my head buried in a magazine so only half heard the conversation. When it finally permeated through the intellectual fug of doctors waiting room literature I must confess I was utterly bemused.
A woman – one of the doctor’s patients – was asking if the receptionist knew where she could buy skin-coloured plasters for her daughter. I had a bit of a chuckle, assuming that the lady must be pulling the receptionists leg; like the time my uncle sent my brother to the hardware to buy a tub of elbow grease and a left-handed hammer. But the lady was being serious and it soon became clear that her daughter – obviously, a self-conscious teenager – had a post-operative wound on her face and she wanted a plaster that would help to keep her medical procedure discreet by blending in with her skin tone. Now up until over-hearing this conversation I had literally never thought about the colour of plasters. In fact, I had never thought much about plasters period. A plaster is a plaster, right? Surely they are all vaguely “skin coloured”? But this lady was darker-skinned and her daughter needed a darker-toned plaster to feel okay about her wound. I must admit that I had questions about this incident: Was this a real need – skin-toned plasters? Was she just being precious? The more I thought about it and chatted to Cathy about it, the more I realised the issue was bigger than that. It was about choice and self-determination. Of course, a teenage girl would want to cover up an ugly wound and she might want the covering to be the same or similar colour to her skin. But more than that she would not want to be prescribed to one way or the other about what colour plaster she had to wear. To the millennial generation in particular, this is crucial. Of course, such notions would be totally foreign to those of us – particularly us white folk – who grew up in the 1900’s. The colour of a plaster would simply never have been an issue as firstly we did what we were told (ho hum – “in my day….”) and secondly good old Band-Aids or Elastoplast were always near-as-damn-it to my skin tone so who cared? But millennial “self-centredness” notwithstanding, is racism not – at the very guts of the thing – a lack of choice because of your skin colour? Go to this toilet not that one; get that education not this one; don’t use that beach or you will be insulted; apply for this job but not that one; wear that plaster etc. Surely, if racism is – as many people tell me – a thing of the past or at worst, confined to “isolated incidents”, then we should all be able to go into a shop and buy a skin-toned plaster (our skin tone – not a “pink person’s” skin tone.)? Or should we? Is this not taking things too far? Well, maybe it is. But how about this example: I know from having an adopted black child that it is virtually impossible to buy anything other than a white doll. This is odd as the vast majority of South African children are black. Now how would I react if I had a white child and could only buy her black dolls? How would she feel about this? How would I feel about only having a brown or black plaster to put on my peachy white skin? Maybe you would be fine with that, but maybe I would not and therein lies the rub. People of colour have been extremely limited in terms of choice. Another example is condom usage: the norm in terms of free condoms (and indeed store bought ones) is that condoms are whiteish. I mean who would want to use something that made you like some fluorescent glow stick? It has – and remains – a challenge to get men to wear condoms so heck, let’s make it as easy as possible by making them widely available in every colour under the sun. Social media and indeed the fashion industry have begun to take note of all this. A recent Sunday Times article entitled “Showing One’s True Colour” highlighted the fact that people of colour were beginning to get very vocal about “the lack of inclusion when it comes to their skin tone in beauty products.” This has led to the very popular social media hashtag #melanin emphasising the fact that dark-skinned people have 43 times more melanin per skin cell than lighter skinned people. This campaign is of course a millennial incarnation of Black Pride. The article points out that even companies like Apple and WhatsApp have taken heed by including racially diverse emoji’s. You will have noticed these if you are a WhatsApp user; various shades of smiley faces, different colour thumbs for the thumbs up emoji. We are moving into a world of choice and colour. Bring it on. Justin Foxton is founder of The Peace Agency. All my writing – regardless of topic – is dedicated to the memory of Anene Booysens and Emmanuel Josias Sithole. I do this to help keep their stories alive.Moving Beyond Ourselves to Find Joy in 2017
As I awoke on boxing day morning and the sad news of George Michael’s passing hit social media, I began to consider the validity of the “enough-of-2016-roll-on-2017” lament.
I do not believe that one year is any better or worse than another on any kid of grand scale; a year is simply a measure of time in which both good and bad occurs depending on which side of the fence you are on. But it could obviously not escape me that we had lost a great many wonderful people in 2016; Prince, Leonard Cohn, Mohammed Ali, Alan Rickman, David Bowie, Carrie Fisher and of course George Michael to name a few. We would all agree that these deaths were tragic for the world, as of course were the many deaths of innocent people in murders, suicide bombings and wars. But not all of us would agree for example that Donald Trump’s election was a bad thing. Many would say that this alone made 2016 a fabulous year. Good and bad is a very relative thing. This got me thinking: is there a way to ensure that 2017 is a “good year” for us personally or are we simply at the mercy of the fates? Is such a guarantee of happiness possible for human beings or is it indeed true that the only things in life that are certain are death and taxes? As far as I know, there is no formula for ensuring that good things will happen. However, there is a great deal of research and common wisdom that gives us techniques and disciplines that can safeguard joy, even in the face of bad stuff happening. Research by psychologist Sonja Lyubomirsky tells us that around half of our levels of joy or happiness are determined by unchangeable factors such as genes or our personality. The other half is determined by our circumstances (over which we have limited control), and our attitudes and actions over which we have a great deal of control.
So, this suggests that we can at least contribute to 2017 being a joyful year by watching our attitudes and actions. What does this mean in practise? Lyubomirsky’s research confirms with hard data what many learned folk – including all the great spiritual leaders of history – have been telling us for centuries; that there are essentially 3 factors to increasing joy or happiness: the first is our ability to reframe our current situation or circumstances in a more positive light; the second is our ability to express gratitude and the third is our ability or capacity for kindness and generosity. I think two and three are self-explanatory although tough for many of us; we can all accept that grateful, generous people are happier and we know this because it feels so darn good to be grateful and generous.
But how do we reframe our current situation in a more positive light, especially when it is bad? From reading the thoughts of such thinkers as the Dalai Lama, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and others, there seem to be two ways we can do this without slipping into denial. The first is to actively place oneself in the shoes of other people who are suffering worse than we are, and assist them in whatever way we can. As we do this our negative situation does not change but our perception of it does. Suddenly our lot is not so bad. We move from the victim position (from which no joy or creativity can flow) to the creator position, as we seek ways to alleviate the suffering of others. Joy is produced in the other and joy follows in us as an inevitable by-product. Every time we move towards others, we move away from self-centredness and joy can rise.
The second way of reframing our situation is arguably simpler than the first, but it challenges us very deeply. Contrary to what our culture would tell us, we must choose to view life through rose-tinted spectacles or “see the glass half full” if you prefer. Now, this is not to say that we should ignore the bad. It just says we should look at the bad in the light of the good. It also says we should choose to see good first – in every situation and in every person; the bad will always be there and it is in our nature to seek this out. We need to intentionally re-wire our brains on this one and as we do we will begin to experience awe and wonder again – both components of joy. Perhaps the best place to begin our re-wiring process is in our thoughts and opinions of our country, so deeply negative and mostly lacking all joy.
A deep awareness seems to be stirring globally; an awareness that we urgently need to move beyond ourselves to a place of radical gratitude, generosity and positivity. In short, we need to heed a deep call to love. If this is how we choose to do 2017, then it is going to be a fantastic year.
Justin Foxton is founder of The Peace Agency.
This column is dedicated to the memory of 17-year-old Anene Booysens: gang raped, mutilated and murdered, and our Mozambican brother Emmanuel Josias Sithole: beaten and stabbed to death.
