things i would love for you to know [part i]

if i ever met you and we got to sit down together, perhaps over a cup of coffee [a mocha, or if it’s later in the evening a kahlua coffee perhaps, sprinkle of choc on the cream], there are some things i would love for you to know… and there are a lot of things i would like you to know, but here are some of the important ones…

[1] i would want to tell you that you are important and you are loved. i don’t think that we can hear that enough and i wonder when last it was that someone told you that. perhaps those around you in your life have slipped into the assumption that you know those things as far as they are concerned and it has just been a little too long since they said them. perhaps you are in a space of life right now where it doesn’t feel like ‘those people’ even exist at all – i would want you to hear that they are out there, and they are out there for you and i would hope that it won’t be too long before you have them in and around your life again. but even if you are surrounded by people who let you know you are important and loved, i don’t think you can hear it enough. so i would want to start there.

[2] i would want to you to know that for the duration of the time we are going to be spending together, that my cellphone is turned off. my laptop is packed away in its bag and my tablet is lying on my floor back home. for however long you have chosen to sit with me and talk and be listened to, i want you to know that i am unplugging myself from as much other noise as i can and am going to focus my attention on you. i am going to try to really listen and want to create a space where you feel free to speak about absolutely anything, that you can set the boundaries in terms of what we talk about – whether you are wanting to go deep and intimate and really share some things that are maybe hurting you or causing you confusion or fear, or if you are wanting to keep it light and informal and talk about which upcoming holiday movie you are most looking forward to seeing and whether or not you think Anchorman II has a chance of being half as good as the original. i want you to really get that you are that important to me right now.

[3] i would want to tell you that God loves you more than you know. maybe you are someone who doesn’t believe in God or maybe you used to and now you’re not so sure… perhaps He just seems really far away right now, or the questions you have about life are really challenging His existence to you… well then in any of those scenarios let me tell you that God really loves you so much more than you know or feel or believe… maybe if you don’t believe in God you would be brave enough to close your eyes and even just consider the possibility that He does exist and that this Love i speak of is real and directed at you. i would love for you to know that.

[4] i would want to tell you that if you are not happy in your job at the moment, or maybe in the place where you are staying, or if things in your dating relationship are not going so well, that if you are feeling burdened by the responsibilities you have taken on at church or that you are feeling a little overwhelmed with some of the meetings you have committed yourself to every week, that it does not have to remain that way. 

– you can leave your job, and, if you are up for the challenge, you can even choose to start a new career or maybe head back to study something different

– you can find a new place to live which could mean a new living arrangement in terms of the people you are currently staying with, it might mean a new neighborhood or even a new town or city, and it may even look like moving to another country

– if you are dating someone and you know that this relationship is not the one you want to invest in for the rest of your life then you can get out of it. it very likely won’t be pretty, but then most relationships that end or transition aren’t and that is okay, but what is not okay is if you end up staying with this person with the knowledge that you really shouldn’t simply because you couldn’t bring yourself to end it

it is easy to get caught up in the rhythm and cycle of how life is and sometimes all you need is for someone to simply say to you – “It doesn’t have to be this way” – and don’t let age or money or circumstance stop you – there is always a way – if you have a lot of people who love you in and around your life then easier still as there are a number of them who would jump at the chance to help you move towards a place and space and context where you can be more you

[5] i would want to strongly encourage you to stop. to just stop and be. for five minutes a day. or thirty minutes a week. or maybe even a few hours on a weekend once a month. if you are aware of God then to be still and know that He is God. time to unplug yourself from technology and the busyness and business of the day. i know you might protest and say that you don’t have time, but even if it starts out being an intentional minute where you just freeze and close your eyes and put your head down and just listen and be and focus on one thing you are grateful for at that exact moment, then i would love for you to do that. to go outside if possible and sit on a bench in a park and people watch and nature appreciate and smile quietly to yourself and take in the feeling of the current weather conditions on your face and arms and just glory in the stoppedness of it all. because life travels faster than it was ever meant to and it is dragging you with it and so sometimes you just have to rebel and throw your hands up in the air and shout “Enough!” i might encourage you to do it right now, just for a minute, as that would surely be enough to give you a taste of what it to come. i would love for you to incorporate something like that into the regular rhythm of your life, because i know how good it has been for me.

anyways, there are many other things i would love for you to know, if i could get to sit down with you at that coffee shop table, but these feel like some good ones to begin with…

is there anything you would want me to know?

[For some more things i would love for you to know, click here]

a conversation on tolerance

Brett: Firstly, let me set the scene a little bit. Nathaniel and i do not know each other – we recently connected on Twitter via some conversations that have been happening and when we started a little back and forth on this article titled ‘Intolerant Tolerance’  by Mark Driscoll I suggested to him that this might be an interesting conversation to blog.

So via email we are looking to have some back and forth on it and this will be whatever comes out of it.

While I agreed with the majority of what was being expressed in the article, Nathaniel had some reservations, so maybe that is a good place to start. Nathaniel, thanks for agreeing to have this conversation with me and hope it will be helpful for those who read what we write. What was it about the article that caused a reaction in you?

Nathaniel: I reacted to the title of this article before I read it, because I have heard the “your tolerance isn’t tolerance at all because you aren’t tolerating my intolerance” nonsense many times. People view the word “tolerance” in many different ways, but in my experience the most common interpretation and the one used by many Christian writers and speakers have some key differences. My dictionary (Google) defines tolerance as “the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.”

 Mark seems to believe that the “new tolerance” is accepting all other beliefs as equally valid- he explicitly ties it to a lack of moral absolutes. Where is he getting this from? Of course there will be people who define it that way, but is that really the prevailing “new” way to look at it?

Brett: Well firstly, Nathaniel, you are using a definition of a word that contains the word itself, so looking up ‘Tolerate’ on your same dictionary I got this: ‘allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference.’ Which in essence is what you are saying, but helps to remove the word from its definition. 

I would tend to agree with Mark that generally [and it is a generalisation, but one that is true for the majority i would suggest] does seem to be the way things are going/have gone. The call is to show tolerance to all forms of behaviour/lifestyle that have previously not been tolerated [within a religious framework] but also with an increasing mindset that “anything goes” [hence the lack of moral absolutes]. Part of that comes from the post-Christian context we now find ourselves in [where before morality was largely defined by the bible but now society as a whole does not deem that to be a suitable point of definition] but if we do not have a set standard from where morality is defined then are we not saying that each person defines morality for themselves?

Nathaniel: I am not sure the “anything goes” attitude is as pervasive as Mark and others might insist. I would also draw a distinction between each person independently creating a set of moral values, versus interpreting a given set of moral values. For instance, a random sample of Christians may agree on the Bible as a moral guide, but vary widely in their interpretations of how its instructions should be applied. Is that moral relativism? For better or for worse, each person has a different set of experiences, motives, and attitudes that will affect the way they act out a common code.

To illustrate this, take a common evangelical perspective regarding our nation’s history – the idea that the Bible and Christian principles were essential to its founding, and that we have gradually fallen away from that standard. It’s pretty clear that realities like chattel slavery and the genocide of indigenous populations don’t mesh well with this narrative. It’s easy to look back now and show how these atrocities conflicted with the morals outlined in Scripture, but what they really show is how each person (and each generation) has a certain degree of choice in how consistently and accurately they apply the teachings of Scripture

 Maybe what Mark would refer to as moral relativism in the church is just the humility to realize that our experiences as individuals are not universal, that we “see in a mirror dimly,” and that we are dependent on the Holy Spirit to guide and teach us.

 Brett: Nathaniel, while I would personally disagree with you on your ‘anything goes’ stance, I think I can say I agree with pretty much the rest of what you have written here. Healthy interpretation of Scripture [and how some have read it absolutely to say ‘it is our duty to kill people’ and others read it absolutely to say ‘we don’t have the right to kill people’ in the whole capital punishment question… so even the ‘absolute’ of the Bible ends up being very non-absolute once interpretation is applied and we have seen through apartheid and the crusades to name just two, how horribly that can end up looking] and the importance of being led by the Spirit to have any idea of how God is really leading us is of paramount importance. Which is where it gets infinitely tricky as both sides of an argument always claim loudly that they are led by the Spirit [except maybe the cessationists? Hm, where do they stand on this one?

While there is merit in the idea of humility and possibility of error expressed in your description of the ‘mirror dimly’ idea, surely there still need to be boundaries. People having sex with animals? Is that still a safe one to assume that most people will see as completely across the line. And yet already there are government debates and in some countries it is legalised. Surely we will corporately agree that that is a good example of something to be intolerant towards? That is one thing which I enjoyed from the article and which the pastor of my church preached on recently – the fact that we all embrace intolerance in certain ways [intolerance towards litter, intolerance towards drunk driving etc] and so as opposed to blanket tolerance, perhaps what we are needing is a combination of tolerance where it is needed as well as a healthy intolerance. What are your thoughts about that idea?

Nathaniel: Who are the masses of people applying the idea of tolerance to drunk driving or littering? Does the fact that we are a country with laws mean that we have collectively rejected this mythical form of tolerance? 

Of course not, because tolerance as a community value boils down to mutual respect and understanding. Look back at that transcript from their discussion. Does Piers even hint at this “new tolerance” against which the whole rest of Mark’s attack is focused? I don’t see anything from that excerpt that would imply a “postmodern” definition of tolerance. 

 So why does Mark use that as a starting point for this discussion, and why are we having this discussion at all? My assessment would be that conflating moral relativism and tolerance creates an bogeyman against which fundamentalists and dogmatists can defend their positions. Mark took the appearance of a buzzword in one conversation as an excuse to attack arguments that (just about) no one is making.

Brett: Nathaniel, I’m not sure you are seeing my point on the intolerance thing – the suggestion that I am making is that a certain level of intolerance is necessary for society to function well [I am not suggesting people ARE tolerant towards those things but speaking to the postmodern definition of tolerance which I would certainly hold to being more closely what Mark is suggesting than what you are saying “just about no one is making”] I don’t know that Mark took the definition of “the new tolerance” from anything Piers suggested but is using it as an assumed place of where the world seems to be at the moment, so maybe that is a good place to backtrack a little to getting a better understanding of how we both see that.

 It might be helpful to go back to the article and look at the two definitions given for tolerance and give us an idea of which one  feels more descriptive of how things are today [in general, in the world] or would you hold that neither of these are accurate?

The old view of tolerance assumed that (1) there is objective truth that can be known; (2) various people, groups, and perspectives each think they know what that objective truth is; and (3) as people/groups disagree, dialogue, and debate their conflicting views of the truth, everyone involved will have an opportunity to learn, grow, change, and possibly arrive together at the truth. 

The new tolerance is different from the old tolerance. The new view of tolerance assumes that (1) there is no objective truth that can be known; (2) various people, groups, and perspectives do not have the truth but only what they believe to be the truth; and (3) various people, groups, and perspectives should not argue and debate their disagreements because there is no truth to be discovered and to assume otherwise only leads to needless conflicts and prejudices.

Piers was pressing Mark to answer the question ‘Are you tolerant?’ and Mark was responding with a message of ‘Loving your neighbor.’ So a helpful question to look at is, do you think it is possible to love your neighbor without being tolerant of some of their beliefs or ways of living?

Nathaniel: I think tolerance is a posture of the heart and mind towards people, regardless of their beliefs or actions. Put another way, you don’t have to tolerate every action or belief, but you should treat each everyone with tolerance. Whether you believe in objective truth or moral absolutes, you can still treat your brothers and sisters with respect. Is that too simple? I think this definition of tolerance has remained the same regardless of the cultural trends that he sees. 

Brett: Okay I think we might be nearing more common ground here in terms of understanding. The idea of respect and treating a person who believes something completely different to you with love. But I think within that idea [which I imagine we would both hold to] is the more recent idea that suggests that I cannot love you and treat you with respect while also holding on to the idea that I think you are wrong in some behavior you have or action that you are doing? Because then that is not seen as tolerance and even the love and respect will in many cases be questioned [because you believe me to be wrong] Does that make sense?

Nathaniel: How pervasive is that “newer idea” (that I cannot love you and treat you with respect while also holding on to the idea that I think you are wrong). It is probably hard to quantify, since few people would self describe as exhibiting this form. 

This seems to be the key point to me : when a Christian is being accused of intolerance, as I am sure Mark often is, does it provoke us to go on the attack to insulate ourselves from criticism? Do we reflexively rail against “the wordly definition of tolerance” as we imagine it? Or are we open to criticism and to instruction? Are we willing to examine whether under the auspices of loving the sinner and hating the sin we have allowed ourselves to stand in judgment? 

 

I have the tendency to deflect criticism related to my spiritual journey – if someone has an issue with how I apply my faith,  it’s easy for me to believe that their issue is about the essential nature of my faith, when really it is about my imperfect practice. Often the issue is not my belief, it’s that I am being self righteous or stubborn. 

 

So my final point would be that I think this talk of “new tolerance” is unproductive without practical examples that also show how it affects the church. I would much prefer some self-reflection on whether we are truly practicing “Christian tolerance,” and loving people without standing in judgment.

Brett: I think you make some good points there, Nathaniel, although i do still think Mark [who i don’t agree with on a lot of stuff] is speaking about something that has become and is becoming more pervasive. Maybe you have not experienced or seen it as much, but i encourage you to keep your eyes open cos i strongly feel that is where we’re heading. You mentioned the old ‘Love the sinner, hate the sin’ statement which i agree with and have used often enough, but i have recently heard in multiple contexts that a variety of people feel like that is not a possible statement [Tony Campolo posted a video on it on Red Letter Christians which i didn’t get a chance to watch yet as one example but i have heard people speak of it too]. Jesus and the woman caught in sin is a prime example of the combination of ‘I don’t condemn you’ with ‘Go and sin no more.’

We didn’t touch on homosexuality, because I didn’t really want to go down that path in terms of trying to stay focused on what we’ve been talking about. But that is one example where homosexuality used to be viewed as a sin and now more and more prevalently it is being viewed as acceptable in both society and the church. But what i think Mark is alluding to in that area is now it has swung full circle where now the people who call homosexuality a sin are viewed as being sinful in their call.

But let’s end off with that great point you made in terms of responding to criticism and none of us can obviously speak for Mark in that area, but that is one plus we can take from this discussion. How do i respond to how people criticise me? Do I start by assessing whether the criticism is valid or not and maybe ask those around me who know me and who i trust to help me discern whether it is something i need to learn from and accept? Or is my first reaction to brush it off or deflect it or even get defensive in my approach and potentially miss what might have been helpful for me to hear?

Thankx for the conversation. I don’t know that it was all helpful [as you also indicated offline] but hopefully there is something in here worth gleaning and at least the invitation for us to be thinking about what both ‘tolerance’ and ‘intolerance’ mean and what are the things in life that we should be healthily intolerant towards? And also the joy of being able to have a conversation with someone and not feeling like we have to agree on every single thing.

Changing lanes.

hi there

my name is brett “Fish” anderson and this is my blog…

the FISH stands for Faithful In Serving Him and it is all about the purpose of my life being about trying to love Jesus and love people more and well and better. and to hopefully help them do likewise.

this is apparently my 1095th blog post so i’ve been doing this for a while. i don’t tend to use a lot of CAPS which infuriates some people but i generally like to keep them for highlighting important things like God and people. the beginnings of sentences don’t often feel worthy enough for me to employ CAPS. apparently the word CAPS does, at least in this post.

i also apparently have 279 subscribers to my blog. but to be honest i don’t really know a whole lot of you. and that bothers me a little bit. i don’t follow a lot of other blogs usually because of time but three that i find myself at quite often and which i generally like are those belonging to Don Miller, Jamie the Very Worst Missionary [and bronze olympic hugger if she is to be believed] and Rachel Held Evans… i don’t always agree with everything all of them say [which is good, and hopefully you won’t either, when it comes to me too] but more often than not i find them encouraging or challenging me to be a better me and to love Jesus and people and embrace life more and those are all good things.

but they all have interactions in their comments section. and that’s one thing this blog lacks and i’m not quite sure how to get that right [maybe you need 10000 followers to get 10 comments so i may have a fair bit to go] except by having it implied that i am anti-animal [which i’m not particularly] cos back in the day that used to get people going off.

[1] the one thing i was thinking was that a lot of my posts tend to be sermons or lessons, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but i don’t know if that would make me inclined to comment and get involved…

[2] the second thing is that i was doing NABLOPOMO which is the challenge WordPress has to post a blog a day for a month, which i normally do anyways [or close to] but find that when i’m trying to do one for the sake of doing one then i tend to end up writing blog posts that feel like they’ve been written for the sake of it and that just absolutely SUCKS. so i’m going to stop that.

here is what i am going to try to do going forwards [and you can hold me to it, or maybe remind me from time to time]:

[A] i am going to try and only post what i want to post… and that will probably still be a whole bunch of different stuff, but i am going to try and be more intentional on this front

[A + 1] i am going to try and post some more life blogs, so not messages, just life as i experience it or things i am thinking or experiences i am experiencing

[A + 2] i am going to try and come up with a less ridiculous numbering system for bullet points than this one which felt clever in my head, but really isn’t.

all to say that i don’t know if you will notice a whole lot, but i am wanting in my brain at least to be intentional about changing lanes and maybe there will be more cause for interaction in the months and years to come.

in the meantime if you are a subscriber who actually reads my blog from time to time [and not one who has set their settings to automatic ‘like’ which does tend to make me feel good until i realise you’re liking every single post which no sane person possibly could and so go back to being sad or really really nervous about the kind of person that might be] then i would love it if you would jump in to the comments section below and at least say hi and if you’re up for it introduce yourself and say a few words and if there was any particular post you liked or any specific type of post that you enjoy more please let me know… and every now and then when you read a post and you have an extra minute, add a thought or a comment or start some controversy about me hating animals…

and then if all 279 of you went from there directly to this link and voted on my most incredible Coke Zero sweater which i created, then there is little doubt in my mind i would make it into the top 100 and it would actually get made and that would be fun. at least for me. so please do that.

but anyways, thankx to all of you who do come in and read from time to time and i hope that some of the things i write or post or video make at least some small difference to your life… here’s to the next 1095 posts…

 

 

The Great Brett Andy Survey – part V

So part IV of the Brett Andy survey garnished the most votes so far and the clear winners were these two:

[6] “THEY SAY YOU SHOULD GRAB LIFE BY THE BALLS, WHICH IS TRUE, BUT ALSO NEVER CONFUSE LIFE WITH ANOTHER MAN.” [Brett Andy]

[4] “WHAT IF LIFE GOES STRAIGHT TO GIVING YOU LEMONADE? I’M NOT SURE WE’VE BEEN SUFFICIENTLY PREPARED FOR THAT POSSIBILITY.” [BRETT ANDY]

which was a little sad for me cos this one was one of my early favourites but didn’t quite grab the crowd support this time round – “I STARTED A BUSINESS DESIGNING AND MANUFACTURING SHOES FOR CIRCUS CLOWNS USING THE LEAD FROM DISCARDED PENCILS. BUT I HAD TO STOP ONCE I WAS MADE AWARE OF THE HUGE CARBON FOOTPRINT I WAS CREATING.” [BRETT ANDY]

which brings us to the last and final round [until such a day as i come up with some new ones] and so please once more indicate by number which your top 1 to 3 selections are from the following list:

[1] ‘As I slowly moved my piece across the board, I quietly but firmly declared, “I think that’s checkmate!” Since then my gran refuses to do jigsaw puzzles with me any more.’ [Brett Andy]

[2] ‘As the noose tightened, it felt like my breath was being forced out of my lungs, and my whole life flashed instantly before me. Wait, not ‘noose’ I mean ‘necktie.” [Brett Andy]

[3] ‘I reckon I can forgive that evil scientist who injected me with that advanced memory serum, but I will never forget.’ [Brett Andy]

[4] ‘Do you know what makes me laugh? A taxidermist filling out tax forms in a taxi. Get yourself an accountant, man.’ [Brett Andy]

[5] ‘I did a search for Spiderman on the web the other day.’ [Brett Andy]

[6] ‘Before you criticise someone, walk a mile in their shoes. Then, walk half a mile in their shirt, followed by another full mile in their pants. Walk two more miles in their underwear and then criticise them all you want. Oh and also, they’re naked.’ [Brett Andy]

[7] ‘”Pay a R10 fine or take a chance,” my girlfriend read aloud off the Monopoly card. “Okay,” I said, “Those jeans make you look fat.”‘ [Brett Andy]

[8] ‘I wish I had the balls to do that, I thought, as I enviously watched the juggler.’ [Brett Andy]

[9] ‘I wondered, ‘Is it white with black stripes, or black with white stripes?’, which was all fairly strange as I was looking at a giraffe at the time.’ [Brett Andy]

So there you have it… final individual round – what are your top three? Will you go for jigsaws, juggling or jeans? Leave your selection in the comments section below. And thankx for taking time to vote…

[If you missed out on previous rounds and want to go and add your votes to the rest, click here]

 

a helpful way to view demonisation…um i mean denomination…

the other day i was locked in a room and forced to watch a 45 minute preach by Mark Driscoll [well, not quite locked and forced but strongly encouraged to by the presence of it being shown at a staff meeting i was required to attend] and since i have not been exposed to too much of his preaching [beyond the oh-so-much-smoke which i have heard enough times to realise there are some things about the way he does ministry that i am definitely not on the same page as] i decided to give him a chance and see what he had to say…

and by ‘say’ i clearly mean ‘shout’ cos the man shouts…

which in and of itself is not a sin, and so i tuned in to the shouting…

it was his opening speech for the recent Convergence conference and it was the way he explained different parts of the body of Christ, the church, that i really felt super helpful:

he used the analogy of place and border… the idea that Nation is a description of the boundaries of our faith where crossing them means you are no longer talking about following Jesus, but something else…

if you take that as a starting place then for me as someone who lives in Oakland at the moment, when i go and visit the next town or suburb, so Alameda or Berkeley, nothing changes too much – for the most part the context stays the same and so we will by and large do things the same – in fact people can move from Alameda to Berkeley without noticing too much difference.

then if you take it to the next level, when you cross a state boundary, things start to look different in some ways, but for the most part things look and feel and operate the same way. but there will be bigger changes – ways of doing things, focus of state, it might even have some laws that are different and so certain behaviours and attitudes will look different…

but when you cross a nation border then things look radically different – you might drive on a different side of the road, you will have a different currency, in most cases a different language – we just are not talking about the same thing any more – we will still be civil and loving to those people, but we will recognise that they are from a different country.

he definitely said it better than i’m explaining it here, but hopefully the idea comes through – he refers to different church group or demonisations, um denominations, as tribes and as long as we are in the same nation, then we are about the same thing – as we are in different states there may be some huge differences between how we look and how we do and say things and some of those we will not agree on, but as long as we agree on the basic necessities, we are still in the same family.

and as we come a little closer to within-state boundaries, the differences become even less and we might find ourselves collaborating a little more because our styles and ways of doing things look a lot more similar.

i guess what becomes important is defining the nation’s borders and being able to recognise what following Jesus means [some things like denying ones self, looking after the least of these around us, forgiveness of everyone who has hurt or offended us but also truths like Jesus being the only way to God etc] and to put less emphasis on all the things within the country border that seek to cause conflict between those of us who follow Jesus differently within there…

anyways, try find the talk, cos he did a better job, but like the picture of that and his focus on church unity… in this instance, i think the man speaks the truth…

Mark, my words: Faith to move mountains

With regards to the fig tree, my friend Niven had this to say which makes a lot of sense:

Check out the significance of the fig tree by how it relates to the religious system the Pharisees were running. Much of what Jesus does is largely counter-intuitive so the real story is often just beneath the surface. The fig tree was representative of the system. The end of the old oppressive regime. Jesus goes to the temple just before Passover and turns one of the most important sacrificial feasts upside down. He is announcing a new way by rendering the old as obsolete. The fig tree was also used as a place of prayer for young Rabbis in training then off course there’s the fig leaves used in the garden of Eden we can throw back to employing the principle of first mention. Just some thoughts around it.

Let’s look at the second part of that story im Mark 11.20-26 and the whole idea of praying for mountains to move… and the urgency of forgiveness.

[For the next passage in this Mark series looking at Jesus dealing with questions intended to trap Him, click here]

Facebeg or Twithelp?

so i mini ranted on Facebook the other day a complete pot-kettle-black question about whether social networking has made many of us a lot more beggy…

and i do mean ‘us’ because the other day a carefully subtle form of ‘advertising’ on someone’s status led to the complete surprise gift of two bottles of my favourite chocolate liquer, ‘Nachtmusiek’ [which reminds me, we are still working through those].

but i see people do it all the time – “Working home alone tonite and wouldn’t complain if someone brought a T-Bone steak dinner over” or “Ah the new iPhone 5 is happening – be fun if someone didn’t need their old iPhone 5 any more.”

it is a pretty safe practice, because at the very worst you end up with exactly what you had before [or some jerk writes a blog post about you!] but at the very best, you might just get lucky and find two bottles of… um i mean find that someone has been completely gracious and kind and totally surprises you with what you want.

i guess as a once off or an every-now-and-then it might be more harmless, but when people start using that space regularly for personal wish fulfilment advertising then i guess it feels a little needy… here’s looking at you brett fish anderson…

BUT then, looking at it from a different perspective, i absolutely LOVE the potential of the social networks when it comes to meeting legitimate needs and connecting resources and need.

one of my friends [well more friend of a friend] won a trip overseas with his band [including my friend Dreadlocked Mike] because of using Facebook as a voting platform.

just today i had a friend of mine working with underprivileged youth in an area reach out to me for help and i was able to connect him with another friend of mine working in the same area with the hope that between them there will be someone in the network who will be able to help out with the necessary mentoring.

Val and i have been given use of vehicles on so many occasions [back in South Africa and here in Oakland] when we needed them through people who had a spare one, or were able to give us theirs for a time, so generously jumping in and helping out.

same with cellphones  we had one phone and two sim cards and made an appeal online and now we have something like 5 phones and it became an embarrassment of riches.

help with removing a stain or a recipe? jump online and pose the question and call on the collective wisdom of your friends and their friends [if Uncle Google doesn’t sort you out first] but a tried and tested solution often beats something you randomly look up online and hope will work.

this is where, for me, social networking becomes so useful and exciting as a tool – raising prayer and support for issues like with what just happened in the Philippines – suddenly via Val’s dad who was going to be there and Eugene Cho who was Twittering about One Day’s Wages as one possible organisation that could help and a whole bunch of other avenues of how to get involved.

as with any tool, i guess it’s success and value lies in how well you use it – and so the challenge is up to us to use it for far more of the latter [helping people out in need and joining available resources to areas of lack]

i would LOVE to hear your opinion and thoughts on this and maybe even more importantly hear your stories… missing people being found, old friends being reunited, mass encouragement for someone who is struggling a bit, positive flash mobbing – these are all amazing ideas and ways of using the social networks for good, rather than me-vil.

In the meantime, as you ponder upon these things, if you could follow this link and go and vote for my super hardcore design for a Christmas sweater [complete with dinosaurs, abominable snowmen, dolphins and ninjas] the top 100 that get voted for will actually be made and that would be a lot of fun.