Abortion - a Courageous Conversation

In his welcoming message, the host of the 'Courageous Conversation: Abortion' event I attended this past Tuesday requested the audience to operate along the value of 'human dignity' when interacting with the various speakers hosted on the night. The 'conversation' was hosted by the Stellenbosch Theology Faculty who aims to operate in a manner which affirms dignity to humans. I cannot confirm exactly what the Theology Department means when using the word 'human' in that phrase but fittingly, our understanding of what a human is will greatly influence our stance on the abortion issue which was about to be discussed. I provide below a summary of the discussion presented at this conversation with some of my own thoughts and questions (in cursive) added along the way. I hope to present what was discussed as accurately as possible and would ask any reader who was present at the event themselves to add or contradict what they feel necessary in the comments section below.

The idea of this conversation, as I understood it, was to put the 'abortion debate' or 'abortion issue' into perspective in order to provide the audience the opportunity to participate in discussions around this matter from a more informed position. ('STUDY LOVE.' image belongs to US Theology Faculty and was used for Courageous Conversation event)

First to share on what he calls 'the three main arguments' found when investigating opinions on abortion, and eventually also his own thoughts on the matter, was Prof. Anton van Niekerk who is chair of the Philosophy Department and Director of the Centre for Applied Ethics at Stellenbosch University. His research is mainly concentrated on the areas of bioethics, the philosophy of religion and the philosophy of the human sciences.

He opened with presenting the audience with a concise summary of how the practise of abortion is dealt with within the South African law. Up to 12 weeks after conception, a woman may request (so-called 'abortion on demand' according to my understanding) the abortion of her foetus and up to 20 weeks she may request an abortion should she be socio-economically impaired due to the birth of a child. Van Niekerk affirms that in effect that means that our law allows 'abortions on demand' up to 20 weeks seeing that socio-economical impairment is the typical outcome of having a baby. He also added that South African doctors are not forced by law to conduct abortions as long as they refer patients to a willing doctor or institution. He then states that he has never personally met a respectable medical practitioner, as he often interacts with them as a medical ethicist, who is willing to conduct abortions. This made me wonder where most women who go for abortions end up and into whose hands they entrust themselves.

He continued discussing what he considers the three main arguments, namely theological, human rights-based, and utilitarian.

The theological argument is the one typically but not exclusively associated with the Abrahamic or monotheistic faiths (although I am unable to confirm the exact stance of Islam on this matter?) which holds to the notion of human dignity or sanctity of human life. Basically, people are sacred beings as they are created in the image of God Almighty, or at least as higher and sacred life forms. From this perspective, abortion is no different to any other act of killing of an individual in a situation other than self-defence or war. Humans are sacred beings and therefore they ought to be treated from a position of reverence towards the God who's image they bear.

The human rights-based stance holds a women's choice and sovereignty over her own body (or that being which resides therein) as the point of departure and only thereafter the rights of any other parties involved are considered. The foetus has no rights in terms of the South African law. I'm not sure on which basis 20 weeks as cut-off date is supported by this stance.

The utilitarian approach took me back to the days I completed a few courses in economics at the university myself as it comes down to the notion that 'the aim is to promote happiness and prevent suffering as far as possible for the most people involved', basically optimisation of human resources in a scenario where all humans are equal while all humans have no intrinsic value other than that ascribed to them by any 'more equal' human in a position of greater power and influence. This view would for instance argue that a baby/foetus/human (choose your own definition) who cannot register pain and thus cannot suffer or experience happiness for that matter may be killed as only the mother (or do they also consider the father, extended family, society as a whole – for it is about the most people involved, remember – in which such practises occur) should be considered when measuring potential suffering and happiness. This view is said to further hold that it ought to be illegal to kill persons but not necessarily so for humans. Thus, whoever is able to ascribe personhood to a human holds that human's dignity, value and fate in his hands. It is for this reason that abortion is often compared to slavery and even Apartheid or the Holocaust, as the stripping of personhood from certain human beings allows persons to legally treat them as lesser beings. When considering the arguments of those who take the human rights-based or pro-choice stance, it is to a large extent intertwined and operating along similar principles than the utilitarian approach. Utilitarians usually define a person as an entity which has developed an interest in its own survival but, adds Prof. Van Niekerk, certain animals have this ability as well, and he mentions higher primates, elephants, and other mammals amongst possible others. Could it be along similar inconsistent reasoning that Spain granted 'human rights' to great apes such as chimps, gorillas and orangutans a few years ago while allowing people to abort their children?

Into play comes the 'potential person' argument which members of the pro-life groups use to argue that even if we kill 'potential persons' (this assumes the utilitarian view is accurate in its definition of persons as opposed to mere humans) we kill actual persons in effect. Apparently, this argument is not very popular (considered weak) among ethicists and philosophers, seeing that they are of the opinion that not all potential things must (or ought to) be developed. Two examples are mentioned: an acorn is a potential oak tree but we ought not fight to see all acorns developed into trees while it is good to fight for the protection of the beautiful oak trees lining the streets of Stellenbosch (which adds to the town's reputation and living standard of its inhabitants); further, if we recognise our child's superb hand-eye co-ordination we ought not develop his ability to become a brilliant pick-pocket.

If ethicists and philosophers truly use this as a counter argument they should perhaps re-evaluate their definition of what a 'weak argument' truly looks like. They immediately operate from the assumption that an acorn and a foetus, or a human and a tree ought to be considered equally – which I guess from a utilitarian perspective is fair, seeing that a human is not necessarily of any more value than a tree, or a piece of rubber for that matter, depending on the purpose and use of that tree or piece of rubber. Secondly, I believe they operate in an inconsistent manner, appealing to moral laws consistent with theological views in using words such as 'ought', 'must', etc. If they are willing to define exact end goals, it would be fine for them to use such words but I would still pose the 'why?' question and expect of them to communicate the broader moral framework within which they believe we are functioning, and with whom the decision of what true and greater happiness and suffering is, lies? They condemn pick-pocketing but on what basis? Also, if pick-pocketing is found to be 'wrong' for whichever reason, can they consistently argue from that basis that it is better not to let a 'potential' human become an 'actual' human person? It is as if they make their argument in a vacuum, not looking at the complete influence their reasoning will have on society while borrowing a moral framework from a position which they oppose to justify what they propose?

After sharing these main three arguments, Prof. van Niekerk continued to share his personal stance. He believes a debate on whether the embryo deserves 'rights' is perhaps redundant or unnecessary but prefer to argue that the embryo ought to be viewed with respect – as it is human in nature. Should all persons be viewed as such or does he too distinguish between mere human entities and actual persons? Do we only respect foetuses as the 'offspring of persons' or are they themselves persons? He believes respecting human life is a mark of and necessary for the maintenance of civilised communities. He does thus acknowledge the way we go about this issue has wider reaching consequences and does not only involve the mother or baby involved, it sets a standard for how we view and treat one another. He states further that he believes human life to be valuable but not absolutely valuable, referring to the example of war and his non-pacifist position, that taking the life of another may at times be a just act, eg. a soldier killing a terrorist or an opposition soldier threatening the lives of others. The institution of the death penalty may be another example? He is in favour of abortion in instances where the mother would otherwise 'probably' die. He did not say so but is it necessary to 'legalise abortion' or is adherence to standard and proper medical practise, which has as its end goal to save endangered lives, not sufficient in itself? He is also open to the idea of aborting in cases where 'congenital defects' are detected in foetuses, more specifically in cases where scientific methods are able to detect it earlier and earlier nowadays. I am unsure whether he mentioned any such disorders in particular but he did mention that there are 'tragic' cases. Tragic for the person-to-be or tragic for those whose responsibility that person will become? Or does he mean any and all such potential disorders, if it is detected at a certain stage that is? He does mention hereafter that abortion on demand ought to be discouraged as strongly as possible and also that he must always remain open to the fact that he might be wrong, expecting then of others to logically convince him of his erroneous ways.

I agree with Prof. Van Niekerk to a great extent but believe his willingness to make the exceptions he does has a high probability of undermining all the grounds on which he does oppose abortion. As already mentioned, as soon as one does legalise the practise of abortion (as opposed to trusting and monitoring current medical practises) under special circumstances, human dignity and the sanctity of life is no longer the point of departure from which one argues. It sets the stage for a culture where those who have reached their potential and developed into persons, decide on behalf of those who haven't what is best for them and how 'livable' their lives could possibly be. The 'healthy' decide on behalf of the 'sick' that it is better not to enter life but to have its life ended. The alternative is a culture which celebrates the weak, where the strong considers it a virtue to serve the weak and to honour their existence. And where and how would we draw the line in deciding who will have a 'tragic' life or not? This notion should also be considered within the broader culture in which outward 'perfection' is worshipped and strived towards as opposed to one celebrating great character. A consumerist culture which desires convenience before self-sacrifice. This proposes a culture where aborting one's potentially 'congenitally disordered' child is considered a compassionate act while footage of a dad or a brother giving themselves for the joy of their congenitally disordered son or brother could be demeaned to a 'good on you for taking that strain on yourself or choosing that road' act.

After Prof. Van Niekerk a psychologist shared on the reality faced by women who find themselves before the decision to abort their babies and the intense emotional ride it is for them and also how they are often condemned rather than supported during this dramatic time of decision-making, followed by another lady from Seasons Pregnancy Centre sharing a bit more on the reality they also encounter on a regular basis. The question asked here is basically, while our national laws do allow the killing of foetuses, how will we deal with those people who see abortion as their most viable option? I believe it is possible and necessary to draw a distinction between valuing human life and opposing all that which demeans it, and dealing respectfully with those pressured or tempted into demeaning it. One can argue against inhumane laws while supporting those who opt to operate within those laws from a place of desperation, and many organisations do assist women in that way. Abortion can be discouraged and argued against while respecting such a mother's decision and valuing her as a human being too. In saying that, I believe as respecters of persons who esteem human dignity we must also acknowledge one another as morally responsible beings and hold one another accountable to act in a moral manner.

I would argue that it is ultimately one's view on personhood and moral responsibility which will determine your stance on this. It is therefore necessary to test the worldviews people operate from when engaging these matters and see if they posses consistency, coherency and logical continuity. To paraphrase philosopher Ravi Zacharias, a good worldview should be able to answer the particular questions surrounding the issues of origin, meaning, morality and destiny of all things, and do so in a consistent, coherent and logical manner. Otherwise we easily find ourselves in the situation of the utilitarians and likewise the humanists who selectively borrow concepts from other worldviews in order to properly answer these four questions. If a worldview is found to be all that, it would be good for those who adhere to it to properly engage the issue through that view.

I have found the biblical worldview to be the most consistent one, which does not need alternative views in order to express itself and answer these fundamental questions. But how then must I, as someone who believes Christ Jesus to be the source of Truth respond to abortion?

I believe a person is any being which form part of and is the offspring of members of humankind and therefore deserve the right to life. I believe it is wrong to actively take the life of such a person for the mere sake of convenience of another person. I believe I ought to oppose any law which deprives certain humans of their human dignity. I believe that expecting people to act in a responsible manner is ascribing dignity to them. I believe that second to the actual babies aborted, women are more often than not the victims of the practise of abortion and therefore we ought to communicate the dangers of abortion to them and encourage them to choose against this procedure, as we ought to with any other destructive practises people engage in. We ought to offer viable alternatives to abortion to them. We ought to comfort those who choose abortion and suffer from that choice. We ought to oppose cultural behavioural patterns and norms which causes women to end up in a position where they choose abortion above other alternatives. We need to take care of widows and orphans despite the fact that their own foolishness or the wickedness of others may have brought about the desperate position they find themselves in. I believe this view to be consistent with that of the so-called 'abolitionists' who lived in the first to fourth century in the Roman Empire, who were dissidents of their own culture of death where it was legal or normal to abandon unwanted children to the elements, practise infanticide and also herbal and surgical abortions. Christians opposed these practises on the basis that all men were created in the image of God, as they did in the eighteenth and nineteenth century when the opposition to the human slave trade was opposed primarily from a theological perspective, asking on behalf of the slaves "Am I not a man and a brother?". Am I not a man (a fellow human being made in the image of God?) and a brother (Jesus Christ died for the African just as He did for the European) – thus, the image of God and the incarnation of Christ guided their reasoning.

I am aware that there are non-Christians and non-theists engaging in the fight against abortion as well on the basis of conscience and conviction. I am also aware that many who oppose abortion from the theological perspective do not necessarily oppose root causes which ushers women towards opting for abortion, and that Christians do not readily offer alternatives to abortion to those willing to consider alternatives. That is an inconsistency which does exist in the theological approach.

An initiative I'm involved with which aims to operate along the principles I mentioned above - opposing abortion and assisting women, or being "pro-life and pro-women" as one lady put it - is ProLife Generation which you're welcome to learn more about.

"...Did not He who made me in the womb make him/And the same one fashion us in the womb?..." -Job 31:15

"The Biblical word for justice means "making things right." If all we do is take care if symptoms, we're not making things right." -tweeted by Jim Wallis

Serv.

I have my doubts about Thomas: is he not merely 'Thomas-Come-Lately'?

Among all of Jesus' many followers there were twelve with whom He had a more intimate relationship. They were hand-picked, traveled with Him all throughout His three year ministry period and eleven of them reunited with Him shortly after His resurrection. One of these eleven is often mentioned by name whenever an account of the resurrection is given. That one is Thomas, or as he is more often referred to: 'Doubting Thomas'. This name is derived from the gospel as it was written according to John (20:24-), where Thomas states, "Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will never believe.” (ESV)

For this he is now widely known as 'Doubting Thomas', as if to condescendingly say 'he who had little faith'. This is especially said in relation to Jesus' response to his doubts which reads, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” 'Hallelujah!' shouts all those with 'lots of faith', we have not seen but are blessed for believing. Blessed perhaps because Jesus is no longer around in the flesh to poke our fingers at but by His grace our eyes have been opened to believe the message conveyed to us? (I'm not sure, you ought to read up on that for yourself.)

Hold on just one second, say all those who do not go around believing every far out story which gets thrown their way: Thomas ought to be declared a hero of the faith, one who 'counted the cost', one who applied critical thinking skills, one who believes truth ought to be open to and able to withstand rigorous testing. Or perhaps the patron saint of the thinking man: St. Thomas the Rational.

Last night I came across another such notion in the comment section beneath a testimony of a person who went along the road of 'testing evidence' along the road to conclude that Jesus is Lord. Thomas is referred to 'as perhaps the only true intellectual' among the other more thick-headed (my own deduction) disciples.

I am of the opinion however that Thomas is unfairly branded 'the doubter', and flatteringly labeled a 'rare intellectual'. Perhaps he ought to be called Thomas-Come-Lately or something of that sort rather. His response to the news of Jesus' resurrection was very similar to that of most (or many at least) others on that and following days. And maybe not to different to many of ours?

Just before that section of the gospel account written by John (in 20:20), Jesus also showed his wounds to others and thereafter they believed: "When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord." From this it does seem as though the crowd remained at least a bit sceptical until they saw the wounds. Similarly in Luke's account (24:36 onward) it played out as follows: "As they were talking about these things, Jesus himself stood among them, and said to them, “Peace to you!” But they were startled and frightened and thought they saw a spirit. And he said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet. And while they still disbelieved for joy and were marveling, he said to them, “Have you anything here to eat?” They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate before them." So, while for Thomas merely touching His wounds was maybe enough, some of these other 'doubters' were only convinced once they saw him eat real food, perhaps proving that even his inner works were also functioning in a biologically correct manner? Luke also mentions that prior to this meeting, where plenty of wound touching occurred, Jesus walked with two people on the road to Emmaus. As Jesus joined their conversation they were "talking and discussing", or "reasoning" as per the NKJV translation, about the testimonies of a risen Jesus and not readily believing the accounts they heard, to which Jesus responded, "O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!...". Peter also, before that ran to the tomb to investigate there, "stooping and looking in, he saw the linen cloths by themselves; and he went home marveling at what had happened." From Mark 16 (of which the earliest manuscripts did not include v.9-20) it is also clear that the others did not believe – probably until he showed His scars and ate with them as pointed out in the other accounts. Matthew wrote (28:17) that "...they worshipped Him, but some doubted".

Thomas, I believe carries that tag of doubter unfairly becuase his behaviour was no different to many others it seems. Maybe we should be asking: why was he not with all the others? Or is there another reason, other than the fact that it is an account of how things happened, why he is individually mentioned here, which I may be missing?

It also shows that the typical initial reaction to news of Jesus' resurrection was unbelief, even when that news was conveyed by Jesus Himself. Most probably because people back then, much like today and probably any other time in history, do not expect dead men to rise from the dead, in the flesh. It was only the angels who casually asked and stated "Why do you seek the living among the dead? He is not here, but has risen.", for the rest it was something to critically engage with and yet mysteriously, a truth which can only be acknowledged once God Himself opens our eyes to see it. They went from unbelief and doubt to laying down their lives for it.

"When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed and broke it and gave it to them. And their eyes were opened, and they recognised him. And he vanished from their sight." - Luke, recounting what happened along the road to Emmaus

Serv.

Twitter convo with a SSM advocate

Below is a twitter conversation I recently had with someone advocating for the redefinition of marriage, where 'marriage' is proposed to mean something along the lines of "a long term, (monogamous?) relationship between two consenting adults", as opposed to the usual "long term, monogamous relationship between two consenting adults of which one is male and the other female". It became clear from this conversation that people have different reasons for wanting to have relationships defined as 'marriage'. My position is not so much concerned with the word 'marriage' itself but rather with the fact that it distinguishes a specific relationship format from others in recognition of the very nature and potential of that format with relation to the development of society. The focus is therefore on the role that specific relationship format is expected to play within any given society. My conversation partner/opponent felt relationships ought to be defined as marriage in order to grant certain 'rights' to those parties engaging in those relationships. The role of the relationship is thus secondary, or even irrelevant, to the rights extended to those parties engaging in this relationship.

The 'advocate' pushes for what is commonly referred to as 'same-sex marriage' and often in the news as many nations are considering the redefinition of marriage as defined and recognised by their governments. The 'advocate' shared a few links and papers for me to consider, while taking a general tone which may suggest that I am not one who has been exposed to much literature myself while herself, on the other hand, has access to a 'vault of truth and enlightenment' or something? I felt she did miss the point at times though, suggesting that because definitions/words change we ought to seriously consider redefining marriage? In South Africa we call traffic lights 'robots'. A guy from England once told me that when someone told him to turn left at the 'robot', he kept picturing a mechanical, human-like figure next to the road which would serve as indication that he needs to turn left. The multiple definitions of 'robot' of course does not influence our ability to use the word robot properly for the sake of communicating messages to help us achieve wished outcomes and therefore I have no fear of tripping over 'marriage' when trying to have a conversation around relationship formats and the purposes they could serve. (I hope you're following because the advocate did not seem to get it, initially at least, or did not want to get it, initially at least)

As far as I'm concerned, the only proper reason she proposed to redefine the definition of marriage is if there is truly no real difference between 'man' and 'woman' and 'father' and 'mother' but then, as I mentioned, it's not a gay/straight issue but a gender debate which needs to be had.

I will leave you to read through our conversation below and add your own thoughts about the matter in the comments section below. (I left the twitter conversation as it was, with spelling mistakes and word abbreviations, in order to indicate also how we may have misunderstood one another even; it is presented as chronologically accurate as possible)

Advocate: Marriage is NOT a heterosexual privilege. The state shud have NO SAY in who adults can or cannot marry. #prop8 #MarriageEquality #Secularism

Me: If that is so, you shouldn't campaign to redefine marriage but rather for state to not define it in any manner whatsoever.

Advocate: is a legal document, useful for property rights and migration purposes. Anything BEYOND the paper is NOT state's concern.

Me: The reason for marriage as an institution was never property rights and migration though, was it?

Advocate: Actually, it was. Marriage was a result of securing the inheritance of property. Read: The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State link provided

Me: I'll have a read.Not in favour of that as sign. reason myself, for it as recogn. foundation of fam. as foundation of society

Advocate: two gay men who are responsible and educated make a BETTER family than two under-educated redneck republicans.

Me: Some single people would be better parents than many other combinations of others but that's no reason to redefine marriage.

Advocate: It ALL comes down to power. u do NOT have the authority to grant words their materiality. You have a heterosexual privilege acknowledge it.

Me: The word was/should be defined for a purpose, if redefinition defeats purpose I'll oppose redefinition.

Advocate: EVERYTHING gets re-defined all the time. The term "man" and "woman," religions, politics, you name is. LANGUAGE is fluid. You have absolutely no authority as to how to "define" family. Islamic polygamy is also "family." Please study your bias. And stop limiting OTHERS from defining THEIR relationships as THEY seem fit.

Me: But you do? How come you're allowed to define family and I'm not? What was the previous definition of 'man' and 'woman'?

Me: Do you think when marriage was defined 'one man, one woman, for life' it was specifically an anti-gay conspiracy?

Advocate: No but in religious terms, there is explicit homophobia in scriptures. You need to study gender anthropology

Me: Does religion need to be brought into it though? It serves as scapegoat for your agenda but can't argue free from religion?

Advocate: Again: Any concept which you prefix with "divine will" becomes stagnant in time. It is the best way to coerce obedience. The abjection of homosexuals, when "divinely sanctioned," has consequences.

You define YOUR family. I define MINE. DO NOT intrude in another person's personal unit. "man" and "woman" are identities that are socially constructed. I have said this 1000 times. This Bible/white-centered approach "Your definition is wrong bcz it doesn't conform to my Western standards" = Imperialism. It is this thinking which served the basis of colonization. You have no right to colonize someone else's body or home

Me: So it's not gay issue then but gender one - we define gender differently? Do you also draw no distinction btw father/mother?

Advocate: Not discursively, no. A parent is a parent. Their expressions are not related to their genitalia. When fathers/men engage more with younger children, studies show that the testosterone level drops. Read up on #biopower.

Me: I don't see how distinguishing btw same-sex and opposite-sex relationships=colonisation. In your case 'sex'=irrelevant term?

Advocate: That's bc u dont understand body politics. Y do we assign sex to things,practices, & objects IF sex is penis & vagina only? Obviously "sex" the idea is NOT just limited to the body parts. When I say DOG, you THINK of a certain thing. This materiality of language comes in2existence by"citationality."Which is nothing more than the socio-cultural reiteration

Me: I'd expect you to admit then that any/all 'rights' are socially constructed too and not absolutely obligatory to adhere to?

Advocate: Sure, if you WANT to be an asshole... But before that, research a little about "social animals" other than humans. Empathy is an important evolutionary tool. I recommend reading "The Selfish Gene" for starters.

Me: Is sexual attraction socially constr. as well then? Why some people only attracted to one type of socially constr. gender?

Advocate: Ohhh, you'd be surprised :) Which is why you *always* get "deviations".

Me: Summary:'d ya say primary reason for gov defining certain relationship formats as marriage:to grant rights to individuals?

Advocate: Yes.

Me: It seems you keep meanings of words fluid up to point where it serves your purpose,divorced from reality it aims to portray?

Advocate: ....u clearly don't understand the evolution of language. Language IS fluid. The meaning of words is dependent on cultures. Along with everything else that I have recommended you to look into, this is also a great resource: link provided

Me: I agree, but then we must accept that together with evolution of word, purpose of initial definition might go lost. Agree?

Advocate: If u can state the *original* purpose,that is. &if we get rid of the old concepts 4 a better& just practice,whats the prob?

Me: Prob is we view life differently,therefore have different opinions on what is *better&just*. Open public sq. best I hope for

Advocate: Which is why u need to read so u can enhance your understanding. Equality & inclusiveness= Better & Just. Disagree? Too bad

Look into this: link provided And the concept of "Palimpsest." #JacquiAlexander

Me: We all need to read yes. I try my best to read what I can. 'll do my best.Hitting long road for Easter w/end now.'ll use our dialogue anonomously to generate further disc. via my blog (what you're reading now)

Advocate: All I am asking is: Stop colonizing the discursive regimes of body politics & acknowledge your heterosexual male privilege.

Me: I will, and would also ask that you have understanding for fact that I aim to remain true to the truth as I see it.

Serv.

The Sorrows of Yamba;

...or, the Negro Woman's Lamentation

From time to time I come across an article, speech or writing  which just has to be shared. Not necessarily reported on or disected, just shared. This is one such article which is filed under the Verbatim section.

The poem, The Sorrows of Yamba, is a deeply touching piece I've come across through my previous post: When the string unravels.

"In St. Lucie's distant isle,
     Still with Afric's love I burn;
Parted many a thousand mile,
     Never, never to return.

Come, kind death! and give me rest,
     Yamba has no friend but thee;
Thou can'st ease my throbbing breast,
     Thou can'st set the Prisoner free.

Down my cheeks the tears are dripping,
     Broken is my heart with grief;
Mangled my poor flesh with whipping,
     Come kind death! and bring relief.

Born on Afric's Golden Coast,
     Once I was as blest as you;
Parents tender I could boast,
     Husband dear, and children too.

Whity Man he came from far,
     Sailing o'er the briny flood,
Who, with help of British Tar,
     Buys up human flesh and blood.

With the Baby at my breast
     (Other two were sleeping by)
In my Hut I sat at rest,
     With no thought of danger nigh.

From the Bush at even tide
     Rush'd the fierce man-stealing Crew;
Seiz'd the Children by my side,
     Seiz'd the wretched Yamba too.

Then for love of filthy Gold,
     Strait they bore me to the sea;
Cramm'd me down a Slave Ship's hold,
     Where were Hundreds stow'd like me.

Naked on the Platform lying,
     Now we cross the tumbling wave;
Shrieking, sickening, fainting, dying,
     Deed of shame for Britons brave.

At the savage Captain's beck,
     Now like Brutes they make us prance;
Smack the Cat about the Deck,
     And in scorn they bid us dance.

Nauseous horse beans they bring nigh,
     Sick and sad we cannot eat;
Cat must cure the Sulks they cry,
     Down their throats we'll force the meat.

I in groaning passed the night,
     And did roll my aching head;
At the break of morning light,
     My poor Child was cold and dead.

Happy, happy, there she lies,
     "Thou shalt feel the lash no more,
Thus full many a Negro dies
     'Ere we reach the destin'd shore.

Thee, sweet infant, none shall sell,
     Thou hast gained a wat'ry Grave
Clean escap'd the Tyrants fell,
     While thy mother lives a Slave.

Driven like Cattle to a fair,
     See they sell us young and old;
Child from Mother too they tear,
     All for love of filthy Gold.

I was sold to Massa hard,
     Some have Massas kind and good;
And again my back was scarr'd,
     Bad and stinted was my food.

Poor and wounded, faint and sick,
     All expos'd to burning sky,
Massa bids me grass to pick,
     And I now am near to die.

What and if to death he send me,
     Savage murder tho' it be,
British Law shall ne'er befriend me,
     They protect not Slaves like me."

Mourning thus my wretched state,
     (Ne'er may I forget the day)
Once in dusk of evening late,
     Far from home I dar'd to stray;

Dar'd, alas! with impious haste
     Tow'rds the roaring Sea to fly;
Death itself I long'd to taste,
     Long'd to cast me in and Die.

There I met upon the Strand
     English Missionary Good,
He had Bible book in hand,
     Which poor me no understood.

Led by pity from afar
     He had left his native ground;
Thus if some inflict a scar,
     Others fly to cure the wound.

Strait he pull'd me from the shore,
     Bid me no self-murder do;
Talk'd of state when life is o'er,
     All from Bible good and true.

Then he led me to his Cot,
     Sooth'd and pity'd all my woe;
Told me 'twas the Christian's lot
     Much to suffer here below.

Told me then of God's dear Son,
     (Strange and wond'rous is the story;)
What sad wrong to him was done,
     Tho' he was the Lord of Glory.

Told me too, like one who knew him,
     (Can such love as this be true?)
How he died for them that slew him,
     Died for wretched Yamba too.

Freely he his mercy proffer'd,
     And to Sinners he was sent;
E'en to Massa pardon's offer'd;
     O if Massa would repent!

Wicked deed full many a time
     Sinful Yamba too hath done
But she wails to God her crime,
     But she trusts his only Son.

O ye slaves whom Massas beat,
     Ye are stained with guilt within;
As ye hope for mercy sweet,
     So forgive your Massas' sin.

And with grief when sinking low,
     Mark the Road that Yamba trod;
Think how all her pain and woe
     Brought the Captive home to God.

Now let Yamba too adore
     Gracious Heaven's mysterious Plan;
Now I'll count thy mercies o'er,
     Flowing thro' the guilt of man.

Now I'll bless my cruel capture,
     (Hence I've known a Saviour's name)
Till my Grief is turn'd to Rapture,
     And I half forget the blame.

But tho' here a Convert rare
     Thanks her God for Grace divine,
Let not man the glory share,
     Sinner, still the guilt is thine.

Here an injured Slave forgives,
     There a Host for vengeance cry;
Here a single Yamba lives,
     There a thousand droop and die.

Duly now baptiz'd am I
     By good Missionary Man;
Lord my nature purify
     As no outward water can!

All my former thoughts abhorr'd,
     Teach me now to pray and praise;
Joy and Glory in my Lord,
     Trust and serve him all my days.

Worn indeed with Grief and pain,
     Death I now will welcome in:
O the Heavenly Prize to gain!
     O to 'scape the power of Sin!

True of heart, and meek and lowly,
     Pure and blameless let me grow!
Holy may I be, for Holy,
     Is the place to which I go.

But tho' death this hour may find me,
     Still with Afric's love I burn,
(There I've left a spouse behind me)
     Still to native land I turn.

And when Yamba sinks in Death,
     This my latest prayer shall be,
While I yield my parting breath,
     O that Afric might be free.

Cease, ye British Sons of murder!
     Cease from forging Afric's Chain;
Mock your Saviour's name no further,
     Cease your savage lust of gain.

Ye that boast "Ye rule the waves,"
     Bid no Slave Ship soil the sea,
Ye that "never will be slaves,"
     Bid poor Afric's land be free.

Where ye gave to war it's birth,
     Where your traders fix'd their den,
There go publish "Peace on Earth,"
     Go proclaim "good-will to men."

Where ye once have carried slaughter,
     Vice, and Slavery, and Sin;
Seiz'd on Husband, Wife, and Daughter,
     Let the Gospel enter in.

Thus where Yamba's native home,
     Humble Hut of Rushes stood,
Oh if there should chance to roam
     Some dear Missionary good;

Thou in Afric's distant land,
     Still shalt see the man I love;
Join him to the Christian band,
     Guide his Soul to Realms above.

There no Fiend again shall sever
     Those whom God hath join'd and blest:
There they dwell with Him for ever,
     There "the weary are at rest."

Serv. via Hannah More*

*poem traditionally ascribed to Hannah More. However, recent scholarship by Alan Richardson suggests that a short form of the poem was originally created by Eaglesfield Smith, to which Hannah More made additions.

When the string unravels - Neill Goosen

From time to time I come across an article, speech or writing  which just has to be shared. Not necessarily reported on or disected, just shared. This is one such article which is filed under the Verbatim section.

Original post by Neill Goosen on his blog: 'n Vis is 'n ding wat spring

Words are powerful things.  They are more than just sounds used for communication; birds, whales and insects also communicate by sound.  Words, human words, however, are more than just the sounds they are made of, and they can be used for much more than just mere ‘data transfer’; they are used to express the deepest of emotion, forge unbreakable bonds and to bring forth art.  Words sometimes give men wings, or  become the chains around their feet.  They are used to bless and to curse, to proclaim life and death, to make free and condemn, to laugh and to cry.  Words, therefore, have a certain amount of weight attached to them (in my mind at least).  I concede: it is true that not all words are weighty, nor is the weight of different weighty words necessarily equal; but this does not change the fact that words can have a lot of weight attached to them. 

It is not difficult to demonstrate this.  The world is riddled with tales of people’s lives who have been changed by the words of others, or put another way, by words that these people accorded a certain weight to.  I think of somebody as famous as Nelson Mandela who was influenced by Mahatma Gandhi, or somebody like me and you who were influenced by people ranging from parents to friends to teachers and lecturers.  Some are influenced by sport heroes, others by famous heads of state, and others by the leading thinkers of their time.  On the other side of the coin though, the world is also riddled with people who have not been influenced by words spoken, but rather by words left unspoken.  I think of children who had no role models or parents or grandparents to speak simple things like “Well done” or “I love you” over them, and who grow up confused and unguided; there will be other examples also.  The point I am trying to make is that the weight of words should not be underestimated, as words (or the lack of words) have long-lasting influences on people’s lives. 

And yet: just as the weight of words shouldn't be underestimated, it should also not be overestimated.  Words alone cannot fix the world.  Even though words are powerful, they were never meant to operate alone.  Words need backup for their full weight to be manifested.  The conflict in the DRC will not be solved by only speaking; yes, people need to speak to one another, but they have to do more than that.  Extreme poverty cannot be talked away; practical and logical steps need to be taken to translate the words into actions.  This, to me, as a crucial point: for words to carry any weight, they need to be supported by actions.

As a Christian, I have been taught about this relationship between words and actions since I can remember.  “Do not lie” (Colossians 3:9; Exodus 20:16); translates into “Do not say one thing and do another thing” or “Do not say you did something, while you actually did something else” or “Do not say somebody else did something that they did not do” or “Do not say that you will do something, and then do something else or not do anything at all”.  It basically boils down to what we commonly refer to as ‘lies’ and ‘broken promises’, which are two of the most destructive forces the world has ever known. 
Why, though?  Why are lies and broken promises so destructive?  How do these two things manage to come between countries or teams or friends or spouses, to cut an unbridgeable rift valley between them?  I believe it comes from the abuse of words, or more specifically, of not realising or honouring the fact that words and actions are inseparable.  James speaks of this in James 2:14-18 where he says that one cannot only say that you believe if it is not backed up by your actions; you cannot say to somebody ‘be blessed’, but not be willing to be the one through whom they are blessed.  One cannot say that you love somebody, but you live as if they are just a casual acquaintance.  You cannot profess to be a friend if you are not willing to put the friend’s needs above your own.  Words then, or that which you confess, need to be DONE before they can carry any weight. 

I think of it in the following way: words and actions are the individual threads of a double-stranded piece of string.  For ‘words’ to have any weight its strand needs to stay close to that of ‘actions’; they need to be intricately intertwined.  As soon as the two strands start separating, when what a person says and what he does starts to move away from each other, their words start to lose weight.  Apply this to everyday life: a public figure might start with a clean record, good reputation and also possess the competence to do whatever he or she does.  While that person’s words and actions stay intertwined, their words carry weight; as soon as his string unravels, their words start to carry less weight and they lose credibility. 
Now I apply this principle to myself.  The distance between the separate strands of words and actions in my piece of string are an indication of how ‘well it is with my soul’; of how good I feel about life and how close I feel to God.  When my words and actions stay intertwined, all is well.  When some separation between the strands starts forming, life starts to drift, purpose starts to grow dim and the separation between words and actions signify the separation I feel from God.  It has taken some time, but I have learnt to recognize any disconnection between words and actions in my life as a danger sign, and as soon as it is identified I try to close that gap.  For when this string unravels too far, a point will be reached where my words will no longer carry any weight.  Then words will become nothing more than just mere sounds; insignificant and ordinary, forming part of the background noise.  And then I, as the maker of these words, will become a ‘clanging cymbal’, or ‘salt which has lost its flavour’, making a senseless noise in a confused world; useless as a witness of the Good News. 

I dread such a day.

I post a photo I took at the National Maritime Museum in Greenwich, UK.  It is an excerpt from a poem called 'Yamda's sorrow', and the following phrase which also refers to the gap between words and actions, will probably haunt me for years to come: "Mock your Saviour's name no further". 

When the string has unraveled too far.

Serv. via Neill Goosen