Monday, August 21, 2017

Charlottesville and the Moral Vacuum - Some Further Thoughts


There was some interesting and good discussion by several others on my earlier post Charlottesville - Venom and Anti-Venom.  I responded to one comment on a friends FB page, and then repurposed it for here.  And that led to some further pondering over the past couple of days as I am still trying to figure out what this all means for my country, for my community, for my church, for me.  I welcome your own interaction.  I only ask that you treat me and others the way you want to be treated.


A woman on a friend’s fb page had the following comment on my blogpost.  And what follows is my response.
VJH  There are ways we are becoming more polarized and in those areas I agree with the author: tax policy, health care, what to do about climate change, size of government. All of these are areas which provoke anger and animosity, but in which right and wrong is not absolute and open dialogue can lead to understanding. But there are times when moral choices have to be made

Bill Black If I may interject, the challenge in this particular instance is that there is not one side against another side. There is a whole spectrum of views, motives, actions present, all mixed uncomfortably together. For years there have been in Charlottesville civil discussions between people of good will who have different opinions on the statues and what should be done with them. The same sorts of discussions have occurred concerning the complicated legacy of our fourth president and the founder of The University. It is possible to have different views without either intending or causing or taking offense. People of good will can and often do come to an understanding without result to verbal or physical violence. The problem in Charlottesville, and indeed across the country, is that people who are driven, not by the desire to find some sort of accommodation for a local problem, but by strong totalitarian-view ideologies that brook no dissent have hijacked the local issue for their own political agendas. The people who came to Charlottesville from all over don't actually care about Charlottesville as a local community, a community with its own history of race relations and its own history of trying to cope with its very complicated past. These people cared about their ideologies and the offense caused by the 'others'. They came to make their own statement, either for or against. And now that all of those people have gone, who is left to pick up the pieces and to ask 'What just happened?' The people who actually live in Charlottesville and who have the burden of having to actually cope with each other and make a community work in these circumstances. Yes the Nazis, Klanboys and white supremos were horrific - they are like boys who just found a cache of explosives, playing with things that they don’t realize willl destroy them. And there were a minority of people there who were driven by an opposite but also detrimental ideology. And then there were most people somewhere in the middle. Can we agree that it is possible to hold conservative social and political views and not be a white supremacist/KKKguy/neonazi? Can we agree that it is possible to hold liberal social and political views and not be a Marxist/anarchist/social justice extremist? If we can agree to resist the strong temptation to label our enemies with the worst possible cultural epithet (rather than seeing them as human beings and having a rational discussion with them), then there may be hope for us yet. If however we are driven to categorize everybody who disagrees with my very narrow ideology as the enemy, then history itself prophesies that it will not go well with us. So yes, condemn the Nazis and the small-minded Klanboys and White supremacists. But just realize that it is the agenda of some at the other end of the spectrum to use these miscreants as posterboys for the wider conservative movement and thus as justification for ridding the country of all manner of conservative social, moral, religious and political views and policies, tarring us all with the same brush. And the outcome of that agenda would be just as disastrous for the people of our divided land as the outcome of the vision for our country touted by the neoNazis, KKK and White supremacists and their ideologies, in my opinion. A pox on both their houses. As Christians we know a better way.


And this led me here:
There was a time when when the statement ‘there are times when moral choices have to be made’ was perfectly clear and made obvious sense, because just about everybody was reading from the same Christianity-informed moral page.  But those days are long gone in our society.  So my first question would be ‘Whose morality decides what those moral choices should be?’  At polar ends of the argument spectrum in Charlottesville, there were very different ‘moralities’ at play, as well as a bunch more in the middle, all of them persuaded that they were right.  So which morality are we to follow?  And who is to decide which one is ‘right’/’correct’/’binding’, indeed which morality is moral?  This is where all our fragmentation and pluralism as a culture has led us.  And the ones who have shouted the loudest, played the ‘outrage’ card most deftly,  and gotten the attention of, indeed managed to persuade the media of the rightness of their various causes, these are the ones loudly proclaiming the rightness of their social movement and the wrongness of the so-called alt-right and anybody associated with them.  But having cherry picked which moral guidelines from the Bible and Christianity they are going to highlight - ones which suit their purposes - they have tossed out everything else that disagrees with their lifestyle choices, on no other authority than their own personal sense of what is right and wrong.  When ‘triggered’ by a conservative Christians stand for what has always passed for ‘traditional’ morality (especially in the sexual arena), many on the others are quick to lay into the Christian perspective, shouting it down with the now classic ‘Who gave you the right to judge me?  You yourself are just a bigot and a homophobe and a hypocrite.’  But what these people consistently  fail to acknowledge is that the same argument could just as easily be turned against them, and to devastating effect.  They are, in effect, attempting to impose their own morality on Christians (totally ironic, in that this is what they claim Christians have done to them!), and though they claim the so-called moral high ground, they have actually no moral ground on which to judge or accuse anybody, having relativized all truth and thus all morality.  Their shaming tactics, their 'tell your story' tactics are just that - tactics, void of a moral center, employed to manipulate in order to achieve certain social goals.  So when my sense of what is right and wrong clashes with your sense of what is right and wrong, indeed when it offends your ‘morality’, or you offend mine, who is to judge between us as to who is right and who is wrong?  Nobody.  Despite all the self-righteous shouting and threats of the so-called social justice warriors.  

Our friends to the left have dismissed any and every objective authority from the discussion and replaced that authority with our own.  In order to justify their ‘moral’ choices, like for unfettered abortion rights, or homosexual marriage, as well as the rights of every sexual and social minority, they have had to get rid of all of the parts of the former morality that says that what they are doing is objectively and morally wrong.  In that respect, what we have witnessed in the past generation or two is both an assault on and revision of what was understood as foundational Christian morality.  And while one of the arguments for doing so was that Christians have always been part of the problem in their ‘literal’ understanding of Scripture and their obnoxious hypocrisy, it is the fact that there exists an objective Biblical morality that enables anybody, including those on the left, to make pronouncements about what is right and wrong.  Take the Bible away, take Christian morality away, and all we are left with are suggestions (although folks on the left in particular are still persuaded that their thunderous moral judgements have meaning, which they don’t, except in their circle of cheerleaders.)  This, I think, goes a long way towards describing what we see in terms of moral chaos going on in our culture today.
  
So while I understand the deep desire to come together and condemn what looks and feels and actually is abhorrent behavior on the part of the racist end of the spectrum, the other end of the spectrum has actually removed any kind of binding morality from the discussion, including their own, if consistent still means anything.  It is actually only the Christians and other faith communities that have moral system that can stand up to these terrible groups and their toxic ideologies.  This of course won’t stop people on the other side of the political spectrum from having all sorts of moral judgments against these ideological enemies as well as anybody that gets in the way of their Social Justice Warrior/LGBTQ/BLM social agendas.  But when you strip away all the impassioned rhetoric, given that they have bought in completely to moral relativism (or at least the kind that says everybody else morality is relative except mine/ours!) - that there is no truth - that I have the right to do or be anything I want - that we live in a pluralistic free-for-all, there remains no grounds for any of them to then say to me or anybody else that they are right and we are wrong.  It’s the hubris of the left to banish inconvenient (or homophobic, or bigoted) Christian morality and then assume they can replace it with a morality of their own making, created in their own image, designed to justify their own desires and agenda. It is a 'morality' which turns out to be just as bigoted and prejudiced as what they claim to be replacing.  But right now they have managed to persuade the guardians of our culture and body politic that it is otherwise. We are living in a time where the identity-rights juggernaut is steamrollering all opposition, and labeling not just Nazis, KKK people and angry white nationalists as bigots, racists, and dangerous to society, but conservative Christians and other social conservatives who have the gall to stand up to them.  And they are using the courts and threats of boycotts to powerful effect.  As a conservative Christian, I cannot dare disagree with the new orthodoxy on LGBTQ rights or their social agendas without triggering the kind of response that, if it were directed in their direction, they would call it hate.  It’s an altogether different kind of morality from what our country has seen, but this time it's being imposed by a minority on the majority, using fear, intimidation and manipulation to ensure the implementation of its social, cultural, political and religious agendas.  But again, for all the bluster, there is nothing behind it holding it together.  These people are rather like the great Wizard of Oz, who turns out to be not the fulminating image, but a little man (or woman?) in the back manipulating levers.  Five, ten or twenty years from now it will be something else, some other cause, some other ‘right’ and ‘wrong’.

Christianity – real Christianity, the Christianity that takes the Bible and the Church’s Traditions as its authority, has got a 2000 year track record.  This doesn’t mean that Christians have behaved consistently with their morality, but that Christian morality has remained robust for all this time.  Or to put it another way, just because the Christians are flawed doesn’t mean that Christian morality is flawed.  Indeed the very reason a Christian morality has persisted for two millennia is because its based, not on the whims and changing opinions of people in power and influence, but because the source is from the Triune God Himself.  The writer of the NT book of Hebrews states that Jesus Christ is the same today as he was yesterday, and He will be the same forever.  Such a claim cannot even be heard, much less fathomed by the relativistic crowd that controls American culture today.  But it is a the claim that still underpins Christian morality today, just as it did 500 years ago, just as it did 1500 years ago.  

So all of these people in Charlottesville who were not loving their neighbor as themselves, much less loving God with their whole heart mind and soul, these people are leading lives apart from the one source, the only source that can redeem this situation, and indeed redeem them.  And their lives and their groups are bearing the kind of fruit that reflects the disorder of a life lived for self and not for God and his revealed agenda.  For persons and churches who have been reconciled with God and are being reconciled with each other, their lives and their groups are bearing a different kind of fruit, what the Apostle Paul calls the ‘fruit of the Spirit’: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, faithfulness and self-control.  Which raises the question, what kind of people would you prefer to hang out with? Which kind of person do you and I want to be?  

None of the groups on the polar ends of Charlottesville have the power to effect this kind of transformation in individual lives and in society.  But this is precisely the good news found in the Christian gospel – what we people are unable to effect, God is able to do through Jesus and what he has done for us and for our salvation.  All of the sides in Charlottesville made a lot of noise, and continue to make a lot of noise.  But none of them can effect the change they think they want, much less the change that is actually needed in their own hearts, in their neighbors’ hearts, and in the nation, and the world, for that matter.  The volume and the agitation simply mask the moral bankruptcy of both sides.  Now, if we Christians could just do a better job of being what God has called us and empowered us to be, then all these other people might, just might, take us seriously.

Saturday, August 19, 2017

Denial


There's a reason it hasn't gotten any better.  
Against all the evidence, 
and the intervention of friends, 
you resist any notion that you might be sick. 
Go to the Doctor 
while there is still time 
to do something about it.  
Just saying.


From a friend who knows a thing or two about denial.

Somehow Dr. Price's school didn't make the upload.  He teaches at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, where I got my MDiv some years ago..

Thursday, August 17, 2017

Charlottesville: Venom - Anti-venom


I am trying to fathom what is happening in my country.  When I am in the US, my home is close enough to Charlottesville, VA that I do my shopping there.  My two children attended the University of Virginia.  I know the place.  I also know that there have been discussions about the Lee statue and Lee park for years.  I am a professional historian and senior lecturer at an African university.  There have been good arguments presented on both the for and against side.  And no, acknowledging that might mean I disagree with you, but that does not make me a racist.  People from various perspectives and various ethnicities have disagreed with each other.  But they have been civil.  The past couple of years I have watched with increasing annoyance as that local and necessary debate has been hijacked by powerful ideologies, ideologies which brook no dissent.  On one side, the statue must go and the park renamed because they are powerful totems to white oppression over black people.  And all reminders of white atrocities, be they statues or buildings named after long-dead racists and slave-holders must go.  Indeed anybody who is not on the side of these culture cleansers is immediately shamed as a racist and bigot and thus toxic to the cultural progressives who control the media and trendy companies of the country.   So damn our county’s centuries-long involvement in the Atlantic slave trade, damn the policy of extermination against our indigenous people, damn the Civil War and the fact that most the people in the North were just as racist as the people in the south, damn the fact that most the people in our country were, and perhaps still are, racist through the 20th century into the 21st.  But we don’t promote ‘justice’ by erasing history and taking down monuments.  I think (hope?) what these people want is for us to learn from our past and to decide that we will do a different and better job when it comes to loving our neighbor.  Stridency may get one attention, but it doesn’t necessarily push the ball down the field.

But this is only one of a phalanx of identity ideologies that have emerged in our current generation.  And their tactics are eerily similar to those employed by the LGBTQ etc. ideologues in their similar relentless march through the cultural, political and legal halls of the country, not simply to secure their rights but to redefine morality in such a way that one’s support of the LGBTQ agenda is the litmus test of moral right and wrongness.  Shame words such us homophobe and bigot are affixed to any person who dares to disagree.  Identity politics generates its own self-righteous wrath and outs anybody who dares to disagree with their agendas, especially those in higher education and media.  These ideologies feel that the wrongs that either they or people like them in the past have experienced justifies their tactics.  Their ideas are now being parroted as institutional policy in government, education and media across the country.  There are many people who think this is a good thing.  But there are many people who are horrified and who are forced into moral hypocrisy because they are afraid of losing their jobs.  The identity social justice warriors have thus far engineered quite the cultural coup.  By specifically attacking historical Christian morality they have succeeded in sawing off that limb, but it was, ironically, the moral limb upon which they and we were sitting.  Their vacuous post-modern attempt at a post-Christian morality collapses of its own weight when challenged.  And given that they have obliterated traditional morality without any thought to a coherent replacement, they are falling back on the traditional stance taken by all tyrants, be they political, business and cultural, that of might makes right.  Their original complaints may (or may not) have been completely justified, and I for one have been in sympathy with at least some of their issues.  But in recent years they are evolving into something else.  And no one in any of these groups can seem to see that they are now beginning to treat the people who might disagree with them in the same way they claim that they or their ancestors were treated.  What is viewed as ‘justice’ to them is experienced as persecution by everyone else.  And once we are in this territory, something has gone bad, like Aunt Mae’s potato salad at a hot summer’s day picnic by the lake.  It will not end well.

And on the other end of the ideological spectrum, it is nauseating and revolting to see neo-Nazis, KKK sympathisers and white supremacists hijack the debate over the Charlottesville monument and park as a symbol for their agenda.  It beggars belief that anybody could think this is anything but evil, anybody who has taken time to understand what happened in Germany in WWI followed by the Weimar Republic and the chilling rise of Hitler and the institutionalization of his racist ideology against Jews and many other kinds of people (including Christians) and the steps he took to deal with everyone in his way.  It is more than chilling to think that there are actually individuals today who not only think that was a good thing but who will do anything to promote a similar murderous agenda today.  And to see a collection of Hitlerians and KKK-hooded losers and white people who are afraid of anybody who doesn’t look like them come to a place I know and love and attempt to redefine symbols to support their cause and then appropriate Nazi-era tactics to provoke fear in the locals and make a statement through the media to the rest of the country - these people display an utter ignorance and contempt of history and obviously don’t realise that they are playing with forces that they themselves will not be able to control and which in the end will consume them as well.

So on the one side, the ‘hatred’ of the others justifies taking whatever steps to silence and force them into submission for the sake of the movement.  And on the other side the perceived injustices against our people and the demonization of the others and the existential threat they pose to our way of life and our culture justifies taking whatever steps to silence and force them into submission.  I am not creating some sort of moral equivalence here.  Instead this is called polarization. 

But, but, but - those other people do this and say that and stand for this and it’s terrible and it’s wrong!  But when has violence ever solved the problem?  Violence, or the threat of violence may force opposition underground due to fear.  One may succeed in silencing or even killing most of one’s enemies.  But recent history shows us again and again that once one resorts to violence, either as an individual, as a movement or as a state, it almost never ends well, for anybody.

As matters polarize, people on one side tend to view people on the other side not as people, but as enemies.  And it is a short step from viewing one as an enemy to viewing one as less than human.  And it is an even shorter step, when one views the other as less than human, to treating the other inhumanely.  Think Rwanda, think the partition of India, think the ethnic violence in Kenya, in the Balkans, in Turkey/Armenia, in the so-called Caliphate, think of our own indigenous people in North America.  Things are polarizing right now in my country, and the ones doing the polarizing all think that they are completely, totally, utterly right and justified.  But their collective postures of moral superiority are simply shams in light of their utter individual and collective hypocrisy.  Both sides are self-seeking and self-justifying.  The way they treat their enemies is actually the proper measure of their morality, or lack thereof.  And both sides, by that criteria, come off as moral pygmies and just as selfish and obsessed with power as every other political movement.

What is needed, in my opinion, on the part of people on all sides, is not power over others to enforce our views, or to retake what is rightfully ours, or to ensure respect for our way of life.  What is needed is something that has, to this point, been totally lacking in any of the debates on all side, at least those debates with which I am familiar - what is needed is humility.  Humility is impossible  in a heart that is motivated by hatred of other individuals or groups.  Humility is impossible when one is seeking to advance one’s own position or agenda at whatever cost.  Humility is looked on by so-called powerful people as weakness.  And it is true - humility cannot silence anybody; humility cannot remove obstacles (read: people with whom I/we disagree) from the scene; humility cannot force people to do things they don’t want to do.  But none of those things can change a human heart.  And that is precisely what humility, when paired with love, can do.  Too many people have been seduced into thinking that it’s power that will bring them what they think they need or want.  This is certainly the case in my current home of Kenya, just as it is in the United States.  But to believe this is to build one’s life on a lie.  Humility on the other hand treats the other as a person just like me; listens to the other the way I want someone to listen to me, cares for the other as if their life is worth something; works to find a way to resolve differences and conflicts to the benefit not just of one party over another, but to the benefit of all.  It’s simply a life lived by the golden rule - Do unto others as you want them to do unto you.


Charlottesville this past weekend was an unveiling to many of us of the tactics and agenda of the Neo-Nazi/KKK/White supremacists who decided to use that place and that moment to make a statement.  And their agenda and tactics resulted in the deaths of three people and left nearly 20 others injured.  And their collective posture of unrepentance shames them all and reveals their true heart.  But Charlottesville is also a symptom of the even bigger ideological wars threatening to tear our country apart.  Our current world gives us hundreds of examples of people who think that power give them the right to squash others who disagree with them.  But they are wrong.  And they will all be proven wrong in the end.  

The vast majority of Americans are not the ones driving the current polarization of our society.  Our silence, our fear, however, is enabling those who are.  It is possible that those doing the polarising may learn humility.  But I am not holding my breath.  We, however, who have chosen to step aside from the rush of ideologies of right and left, we have the power to make both sides irrelevant, and to defang their tactics of intimidation and fear.  Jesus shows us what to do.  We know what to do.  We have in our hearts, those of us who know and love Him, the anti-venom.  When we take courage and do what is right and love our neighbour as ourselves, we will find a nation so transformed we will wonder if heaven has come to earth.  

Wednesday, August 9, 2017

Is Anything True Anymore?


I come from a country whose president regularly makes the sort of claims that when I was a teenager I might have read in a Mad Magazine parody.  To further date me, it makes me feel as if I am living in an unending episode of the Twilight Zone.  One side threatens ‘fire and fury,’ another threatens to incinerate Guam and melt their southern neighbor off the planet.  Ho hum.  I guess we can derive some comfort from the fact that words have ceased to mean anything.  I hope.

I live in a country where politicians have apparently divorced themselves from verifiable fact, all in a race to see who can whip up the greatest fear.  Fear, of course, can motivate people to vote.  But in our case, fear is more likely to motive people to pack up and leave the mixed slums of Nairobi in their thousands and head for home where you won't have people bringing messages in the middle of the night threatening you and your family if you stick around for election day.  A non-vote is just as good as a vote for, in this terrible math.

I am part of a profession (higher education) where colleagues (in the West) are increasingly more concerned about ideological litmus tests than about the free exchange of ideas, where disagreement is no longer allowed, and where even the suspicion of ‘bigotry’ (read: anything that offends me) can be used to persecute me out of a job.

A recent review of the movie Dunkirk (which I have seen) by a self-styled ‘feminist’ critic came to my attention, in which said critic railed at the movie as being bigoted and sexist and completely insensitive to more than half of the population who aren't male, simply because there were hardly any women cast in major roles.  Evidently this critic believes that the purpose of cinema is to correct perceived (by her) social wrongs rather than to, in this case, attempt to tell the story of what happened in such a way as to bring what happened home to viewers.  But for this critic, truth - history can be dispensed with for the sake of fulfilling her particular quota need.

I regularly have upwards of half of my students turning in papers that turn out to be plagiarized. In other words, their paper is presented as their own work but they have filled it with long unacknowledged quotes, and sometimes even entire articles, which they tidy up, affix their name and turn it in as their own work.  According to students I have talked to about this, our students simply think this is what it means to write a paper.  One masters student submitted a thesis that turned out to have an entire chapter taken word for word from a book that just happened to be published by her examiner (and a friend of mine).  This happened just recently. I was there and watched with fascination at how my colleagues came up with a way to listen cordially to her exam but fail her nonetheless (to their credit).

I have been stopped more than 13 times at a notorious police check point on my way from work by law enforcement officers on the hunt, not for malefactors, but for money.  Should they find the slightest reason to write me a ticket, they will do so in such a way as to let me know that some help with lunch or tea would send me on my way.  But should I protest about the injustice of it all, or even come close to raising the spectre of b-r-i-b-e-r-y, they would arrest me, take me to the police station, charge me with the most expensive offence and make an appointment for me to appear in court and pay the fine.  When law enforcement and the justice system is no longer concerned about truth, there is no recourse.

Societies are held together by fragile contracts.  The capacity to believe what your neighbor, your colleagues, your spouse, your leaders are saying is the glue that holds this social contract together.  But introduce a solvent and that glue begins to dissolve, and the necessary bonds that hold things together begin to come apart.  Our society in the US has never been perfect, which is why we have historically put so much stock in an impartial justice system.  But should ‘justice’ be determined more and more by ideology (again.  We have have seen this sort of ideology tyrannize American justice in terms of African Americans throughout their history in North America), then it ceases to be justice.  It becomes instead another weapon for enforcing the ideology of whoever holds the power.  As such ‘justice’ simply reinforces the prerogatives of the culture tyrants rather than defends the rights of the poor and marginalized.   We see this happening in my country of origin in ways that we could not have even dreamed of twenty or thirty years ago.  And we see it happening in my country of current residents where truth and justice are simply up for sale.  Either way is a dangerous road, for everybody involved.  There always comes a tipping point, where things get so bad or so ridiculous that people feel they have nothing left to lose.  And once a society heads down that road, it is very very hard to put Humpty Dumpty together again.



Truth is hard.  And presently it seems to me that prevailing cultural norms are giving people everywhere the notion that we can dispense with having to take truth seriously.  We’ve been in this place before, and it didn’t go well. Marxist-Leninist Russia and National Socialist Party Germany both dispensed with truth for different ends but with appallingly similar consequences.  Similarly in Mao’s China (and the Kims’ Korea)  And even if these are some of the most horrific examples, the tendency reappears with alarming regularity in history, enough so to summon the observation that we human beings are terrible at learning what should be one of the most obvious lessons that our combined histories labor to teach us, namely, that we dispense with truth at our peril.  One would think that we would have gotten it by now.  But evidently here we go again.

Friday, August 4, 2017

The Motive Was Love



The Motive Was Love

My first attempt.
A layer cake,
A Birthday cake
For you,
Stacked three high,
Chocolate with chocolate icing.
Perfect.
So very proud when I was done.
But when I came back to admire,
The layers had slithered off.
Simple physics when a cake is still warm.
So the layers hastily reset, 
Affixed by a fork in the middle,
Inelegant perhaps,
But it sure was good.
And you overlooked all
Because the motive was love.

You had doubts,
But I did not.
I encouraged,
Urged 
You to go back to school.
And when you did
You found your call
And did so well.
It made me happy
Since the motive was love.

I chose to help with the house,
I chose to help with the girls,
I chose to help with the cooking,
I chose to help with the chores,
And though you assumed it was your right,
Hardly anyone else enjoyed your same life.
I willingly took on these tasks
To give, to serve,
Because I wanted to.
Because the motive was love.

Your mother died.
And then your father.
And your brother.
It was terrible.
I became the pastor, 
Took upon myself the burden 
Of talking to everybody,
Of walking family and friends through their farewells.
I did it willingly,
Because I cared for you, and for them.
The motive was love.

You wanted to work less,
I made it so.
You wanted to upgrade your degree,
I made the sacrifices to make it happen.
You wanted to work on staff with me,
I negotiated it.
You wanted to pursue a PhD,
I made it possible.
You wanted to be ordained,
I cheered you on.
None of this a matter of boasting,
It’s just what someone committed to the other’s best does.
And the motive was always love.

Even when the sun was hidden at midday,
When your rages and contempt made me weep,
I still tried to make it right.
And when I finally saw the pattern
That stamped our marriage from its beginning,
And resisted those pressure points that had always worked for you before,
When you became angry
And stopped listening
To anything that came from me.
I still held out my hand to you,
Again and again.
Risking the uncomfortable truth about us
Trying to help you to see,
Wanting you to come back
From that far country to which you wandered.
And the motive still was love.

I wish not a famine,
or supping with swine,
If a few lines of honesty
Could do the same work
And bring you to your senses.
How many of your father’s slaves have plenty and more?
Surely he would hire you back
or even kill the fatted calf.
For the small price of a return,
just to see you home.
Costly I know, a journey I’ve made before.
So easy.
So hard.
I gaze down the road,
Looking for the familiar gait
Rounding the bend.
I wait and wait.
You may never come home again.

But the motive remains love.