Seksualiteit en liefde

Ek het gister 'n merkwaardige, eerlike onderhoud met Kardinaal Martini oor die tamheid van die kerk geblog. 

Saam daarmee ontvang ek van Celia sy ewe merkwaardige uitsprake oor seksualiteit. 

Hy skryf in die studie aangrypend oor die innerlike dinamiek in seksualiteit wat groter vriendskap en intimiteit tussen man en vrou in die huwelik bewerk. Sy woorde laat my herken hoeveel skoonheid daar in liggaamlikheid kan wees.

Die skuinsgedrukte dele oor liefde in die onderstaande stuk het my diep geraak. Egte liefde oorkom die aftakeling van die tyd en fisiekheid, en skep uiteindelik 'n innige band tussen twee mense. Dit is boeiend om te lees wat skryf hierdie man, gedryf deur sy lewenservaring, oor die onmeetlike krag van seksualiteit om mense naby, onvoorstelbaar naby aan mekaar te bring.

Martini: “Sexuality is a very complex subject, about which there is also a “conflict of interpretations.” It’s a murky field, deep, fluid, difficult to define. It’s a part of existence in which the subconscious (and the unconscious?) especially come into play, where rational explanations can find, in the individual but also in social groups and cultures, an inner resistance that fails to be persuaded. This is no doubt also due to the fact that there are within us dark caverns and impenetrable mazes. Furthermore, the evolutionary strand that also touches mankind is not [yet] completed, and therefore we cannot easily predict the developments of the next millennia. It is data that is new in kind, and that somehow makes us afraid. Personally I am not competent on this topic and I am tackling it here just to try to say simply what  life has taught me. But first I would like to hear from those who have scientific knowledge to start in some way from them.

Marino: “Sexuality, by definition, is an interpersonal relationship and as such should be fully received as an exchange and a gift and has an important role for human beings, regardless of age, gender, origin, culture. From the biological point of view it represents a fundamental aspect of life as do sleeping and eating. Much is due to the production of hormones from organs such as gonads, the pituitary, the adrenal cortex and the hypothalamus that regulate and encourage sexual activity. Certainly, coupled with the biological aspects that relate to sexuality, there is the cognitive dimension and the cultural one, which includes the ethical and moral aspects. They are spheres often difficult to fathom and inevitably influenced by a person’s education and psychological experience.

Science has long occupied itself with the study of sexual behaviour of human beings for different reasons: from birth control, to the transmission of diseases, to understanding the differences between human sexuality and that of other animal species. Most animals, in fact, seek a mate for reproductive purposes, whilst among humans  sexual behaviours are not biologically linked only to reproduction, as well as not being only determined by hormones. The brain, in fact, has a key role in helping to increase or decrease the response to sexual stimulation, for example through learning, which plays a decisive role in sexual orientation. It is precisely for this reason that much attention should be given to full and proper sex education in the early stages of growth, to avoid creating feelings of guilt or punitive attitudes toward one’s body and one’s sexuality. It’s clear, and in my opinion not understandable, that the Catholic Church, in the course of several centuries of its history, has often ignored the issue of sexuality, or else viewed it in a way that was geared to give rise in the faithful to a sense of guilt with respect to sexual activity detached from reproductive purposes. I believe that this approach should at least be discussed because, as confirmed by scientific knowledge, sex cannot be considered as an  element foreign to the human being, but rather as a natural fact.”

Martini: “First and foremost, it is something very personal and difficult to express in words. It is better expressed in poetry or what is called “the language of love.” In fact, the subject-matter is  part of the great theme of love, as is well noted by Pope Benedict XVI. Early in his encyclical “God is love” (December 25, 2005) he speaks of eros and agape, connected to the major theme of classical literature. It seems to me that human sexuality is covered by a “vertical dynamism,” or “influence”, by an inner force that makes it become little by little the tool and place of deep friendship and intimacy of souls, to become, in the Christian view, a preparation for that great communion of hearts that is the goal of humanity’s journey. A true love is also a mature and lasting love, that when it is well lived goes to the heart of the person and overcomes the inevitable wear of time and a merely sensitive/emotional and bodily aspect, to become a union of souls. And here I would like to quickly note that, from personal experience, such a dynamic may also lead to such a love of God “with all [your] heart and with all [your] soul and with all [your] strength” (Dt 6.5) as to totally surpass the physical factor and thus become a chaste and intense friendship-love. From the above it appears that sexuality is primarily a force of nature, which however tends to prolong the species. It is a continuous struggle, relentless, against death. In this sense, sexuality is not only proper to mankind. But as I said above, in men and women it arises in the context of a dynamic that tends to make it scale the heights, bringing sexuality to a level of friendship and a deep understanding, almost incommunicable to others, of two people. Thus understood, it is essential for a happy married life and is a source of growth for husband and wife as well as their children: this applies particularly in the years when children become adults, a period that is getting longer as the average age increases. Only those who have developed a serious friendship continue to get along well with the other spouse even when the children are by that time all out of the house.

In this context, sexuality remains in itself a force that tends both to generation as well as to the communion of persons. The fact that you can also have children in a test tube does not change the nature of sexuality. It is always a natural tendency to self-giving between a man and a woman with a view to the realisation of a stable community of people.”

Die afgeleefde, tam kerk...

 Ek het lank laas so 'n aangrypende stuk soos die een hieronder gelees wat 'n onderhoud met die bekende kardinaal Martini bevat. Hy het byna pous geword  toe hy meer stemme as Ratzinger in die eerste rondte van die verkiesing gekry waarin Ratzinger in later rondtes wel verkies sou word. 

Ek onthou dat ons in Milaan 'n byeenkoms van die SNTS (die internasionale vakvereniging vir Nuwe-Testamentici) bygewoon het waar hy, 'n prominente lid van die vereniging, gasheer was. Daar was hoë respek vir hom onder die kollega's by die konferensie. 

Hierdie onderhoud is 'n dag of wat na sy dood gepubliseer. Dit sou sy laaste onderhoud word - 'n merkwaardige testament. 

Dit is 'n teks wat oor en oor die moeite werd is om goed gelees te word - want dit is eintlik van toepassing op kerke in vele wêrelddele. 

  

Translated final interview with Martini

John L. Allen Jr. NCR Today

Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini died in Varese, northern Italy, on Aug. 31 at the age of 85. Two weeks earlier, on Aug. 8, Martini gave a final interview to his fellow Jesuit Fr. George Sporschill, with whom Martini had collaborated on a book titled Nocturnal Conversations in Jerusalem, and an Italian friend named Federica Radice Fossati Confalonieri. Radice has told Italian media outlets that Martini read and approved the text of the interview, intending it as a sort of "spiritual testament" to be published after his death.

The following is an NCR translation of the interview published in Italian by the newspaper Corriere della Sera.


How do you see the situation of the church?


The church is tired, in the Europe of well-being and in America. Our culture has become old, our churches and our religious houses are big and empty, the bureaucratic apparatus of the church grows, our rites and our dress are pompous. Do these things, however, express what we are today? ... Well-being weighs on us. We find ourselves like the rich young man who went away sad when Jesus called him to be his disciple. I know that we can't let everything go easily. At least, however, we can seek people who are free and closest to their neighbor, like Archbishop Romero and the Jesuit martyrs of El Salvador. Where are the heroes among us who can inspire us? By no means do we have to limit them by the boundaries of the institution.


Who can help the church today?


Father Karl Rahner often used the image of the embers hidden under the ash. I see in the church today so much ash under the embers that often I'm hit with a sense of impotence. How can we liberate the embers from the ash, to reinvigorate the fires of love? For the first thing, we have to seek out these embers. Where are the individuals full of generosity, like the Good Samaritan? Who have faith like the Roman centurion? Who are enthusiastic like John the Baptist? Who dare the new, like Paul? Who are faithful like Mary Magdalene? I advise the Pope and the bishops to seek out twelve people outside the lines for administrative positions, people who are close to the poorest, who are surrounded by young people, and who try new things. We need to be with people who burn in such a way that the Spirit can spread itself everywhere.


What tools do you recommend against the exhaustion of the church?


I recommend three very strong ones. The first is conversion: the church must recognize its errors and follow a radical path of change, beginning with the pope and the bishops. The pedophilia scandals compel us to take up a path of conversion. Questions about sexuality, and all the themes involving the body, are an example. These are important to everyone, sometimes perhaps too important. We have to ask ourselves if people still listen to the advice of the church on sexual matters. Is the church still an authoritative reference in this field, or simply a caricature in the media?


The second is the Word of God. Vatican II gave the Bible back to Catholics. Only those who perceive this Word in their heart can be part of those who will help achieve renewal of the church, and who will know how to respond to personal questions with the right choice. The Word of God is simple, and seeks out as its companion a heart that listens. ... Neither the clergy nor ecclesiastical law can substitute for the inner life of the human person. All the external rules, the laws, the dogmas, are there to clarify this internal voice and for the discernment of spirits. 
Who are the sacraments for? These are the third tool of healing. The sacraments are not an instrument of discipline, but a help for people in their journey and in the weaknesses of their life. Are we carrying the sacraments to the people who need new strength? I think of all the divorced and remarried couples, to extended families. They need special protection. The church upholds the indissolubility of matrimony. It's a grace when a marriage and a family succeed ...


The attitude we hold towards extended families determines the ability of the church to be close to their children. A woman, for instance, is abandoned by her husband and finds a new companion, who takes care of her and her three children. This second love succeeds. If this family is discriminated against, not only is the mother cut out [from the church] but also her children. If the parents feel like they're outside the church, and don't feel its support, the church will lose the future generation. 
Before communion, we pray: "Lord, I am not worthy ...' We know we're not worthy ... Love is a grace. Love is a gift. The question of whether the divorced can receive communion ought to be turned around. How can the church reach people who have complicated family situations, bringing them help with the power of the sacraments?


What do you do personally?


The church is 200 years behind the times. Why doesn't it stir? Are we afraid? Is it fear rather than courage? In any event, the faith is the foundation of the church. Faith, trust, courage. I'm old and sick, and I depend on the help of others. Good people around me make me feel their love. This love is stronger than the sentiment of distrust that I feel every now and then with regard to the church in Europe. Only love defeats exhaustion. God is love. Now I have a question for you: What can you do for the church? 

 

Wanneer word die internet 'n vyand? Om na te dink oor die vanselfsprekende.

Ross Douhat skryf in gister se NYT oor ‘n bekende verskynsel en ‘n gewilde onderwerp ook in die kerk.

Daar word dikwels verwys na die modern tyd as ‘n era van individualisme. Soms word dit negatief ingeklee as ‘n slegte verskynsel wat selfsugtigheid bevorder en mense wegneem van ‘n gesonde verhouding met hul gemeenskap.

Die gevolge, sê Douhat, van die opkoms van individualisme is dat godsdiens sal verdwyn, die huwelik raak onbelangrik, ideologieë word verwerp en patriotisme skuif by die agterdeur uit. Vreemdelinge word met agterdog bejeën.

Dit is die tyd, beweer mense, dat dwelms, selfies en Facebook alle aandag kry en aan die orde van die dag is.

Mense vertrou mekaar minder, hulle hou van hulle onafhanklikheid en hulle wil nie eintlik met ‘n politieke party assosieer nie. Hulle hou ook nie van vaste denke nie. Selfs die beskerming van die omgewing is nie vir hulle belangrik nie. Hulle sien dit as net nog ‘n beweging wat deur aktiviste georganiseer word.

Dit is opvallend, voeg hy by, dat mense egter nie minder godsdienstig is nie – al behoort hulle nie meer tot ‘n kerk nie.

Dit is ‘n tyd wat nie meer in patriotisme, familie en allerlei verbintenisse aan groepe belang stel nie.

Party mense sien dit as ‘n goeie beweging. Hulle sien dit as ‘n bevryding van elke vorm van verdrukking en beheer.

Ander dink minder positief dat dit lei tot sosiale afsondering, fragmentering en depressie.

Ek kry ‘n slegte gevoel toe ek die res van sy artikel lees. Hy verwys na ‘n boek van Robert Nisbet waarin hy (in 1953 al) opgemerk het dat individualisme die oorsaak was van sulke totalitêre verskynsels soos fascisme in Duitsland en kommunisme.

Daar waar mense nie meer in hulle plaaslike omgewing saam met ander leef nie, word hulle ingetrek in massa-bewegings, persoonlikheidskultusse en nasionalistiese drome. Dit is dan wanneer individualisme omgekeer word in konformisme, onderwerping en beheer – presies die teenoorgestelde wat dit soek. In Europese lande met ‘n sterk neiging tot individualisme het die kommunisme en die fascisme met sy rassistiese karakter immers ontstaan.

Neem byvoorbeeld die aanlyn-verskynsel van ons tyd. Dit het ‘n houvas op mense. Die internet maak mense vry, word geredeneer. Dit gee ook aan hulle nuwe geleenthede om inligting te bekom, om met mense ver buite hul eie gemeenskap te skakel en om vry te raak van uitgediende vooroordele en menings.

Maar as gevolg van die internet het ‘n mens nie meer privaatheid nie. Onbekendes kan jou lewe binnedring en dit beheer. ‘n Enkele fanatikus kan ‘n massiewe beweging aan die gang sit of ver en wyd wantroue saai. ‘n Regering kan elke beweging monitor en selfs beheer. Die diktators van die verlede sou net kon droom van die moontlikheid tot magsvergrype wat die aanlyn-verskynsel bied.

Die bydrae van Douhat gee ‘n genuanseerde beeld op die aanlyn-verskynsel van ons tyd. Ons omhels die verskynsel in die verste dele van ons land en wêreld. Mense raak opgewerk, soos nou in Turkye, as hul reg tot toegang tot die internet aangetas of ingekort word.

Mens kan jou jou lewe nie voorstel sonder die internet nie.

Maar hoe kan ‘n mens die belangrike verskynsel sinvol binne ‘n kerklike konteks bedink?

Ek sou graag ‘n debat hieroor wou sien.

Aan die einde van die erediens moet mense voel dat hulle God se teenwoordigheid daarin beleef het

 In vanoggend se NYT is daar ‘n berig oor ‘n Joodse geestelike in New York wat gedrewe voel om nuwe lewe in sy bediening te kry, veral oor die resend snelle agteruitgang van bywoning van dienste (sien: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/16/nyregion/lab-shul-is-an-experimental-jewish-gathering-still-in-a-beta-phase.html?emc=edit_th_20140316&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=55992893).

Ek vind heelwat interessanthede in die berig: 

Mense is besig, gewoond aan wonderlike ervarings in die teater en kunswêreld. Hulle wil nie in ‘n diens ‘n lang preek vol allehande inligting hoor wat niks verskil aan hulle lewens maak nie. Hulle soek, aldus die Joodse geestelike, transformasie.  

Mense wil ook nie vanaf die preekstoel vertel word hoe hulle moet leef nie. Hulle wil betrokke wees, deelneem, saamdink. Veral, sou ek sê, omdat hulle intuïtief aanvoel dat die geestelike nie die waarheid in pag het nie. Jy kan ure praat oor hoe Jesus sy lewe opgeoffer het en daardeur die onmoontlike gedoen het, sonder dat jy ooit besef wat ‘n opoffering in jou eie lewe sou wees. 

(In New York het die geestelike gevoel dat dit regtig baie van hom sou vra as hy vir ‘n dag lank sonder die internet sou moes klaarkom!)

Ek vind veral uitdagend hoe hy oor godsdiens dink: ‘n mens neem nie deel aan godsdiens om die godsdiens aan die gang te hou nie. Jy is aktief daarin omdat dit van jou 'n vervulde mens maak. Of, in die taal van spiritualiteit, omdat dit jou in die teenwoordigheid van God bring. 

Dit is soos wanneer ‘n mens met ‘n lugdiens vlieg: jy vlieg met ‘n lugdiens omdat dit jou die beste diens gee.

Alles in die berig is nie so positief nie. Aan die einde daarvan word vertel dat die eintlik sterk Joodse groepe, die konserwatiewe groepe is. En in hulle geledere wil mense maklike antwoorde in ‘n komplekse, verwarde wêreld hê. 

Wat my weer laat besef: Mense se geestelike behoeftes verskil nie net van plek tot plek, van instelling tot instelling nie, maar ook van tyd tot tyd. Wie gemaklik in ‘n tradisionele omgewing voel en graag daar ‘n tuiste soek, is op ‘n ander plek, in ‘n ander fase nie meer so seker daaromtrent nie. Veral nie wanneer hulle agterkom dat alles wat altyd so seker lyk nie, nie meer ‘n verskil maak nie.

Ook hiervoor moet ‘n mens begrip hê.

Wie het nou kon dink dat ‘n Joodse rabbi in New York dieselfde geestelike ervarings het en soek as dit waarmee vele Christelike kerke oor die wêreld tans worstel.

Nog boeiender: hoe gebeur dit dat daar so min gepraat word oor die verskil wat ‘n mens se godsdiens aan jou lewe moet maak? En dan gaan dit nie om die gehoorsaamheid, etiek, moraliteit, sekere moets en moenies nie. Dit gaan ook veel meer oor transformasie, die soeke na die diepere, wat ingebed in die menslike innerlike is.

Byvoorbeeld: hoe sal ‘n preek lyk as die prediker elke keer tydens die voorbereiding vra: “aan die einde van die erediens moet mense voel dat hulle God se teenwoordigheid daarin beleef het.”

Hier is dele uit die berig:

At a rock club on the edge of SoHo on a recent Saturday, Amichai Lau-Lavie stood in front of two musicians and a set of video screens, bringing a message about counterculture. Mr. Lau-Lavie, 44, descends from at least 37 generations of Orthodox Jewish rabbis.

On the screens was an image of a sacrificial lamb, taken from a Dutch painting. He asked his audience to name something they were thankful for.

If they felt guilt that they wanted to expiate, as ancient people did through ritual sacrifice, what did they feel guilty about?

“Where is sacrifice in our lives today?” he asked.What act in today’s society, he asked, was painful enough, messy enough, to approximate ancient sacrifice?

Finally he offered an answer: unplugging from the Internet for one full day a week. It would hurt, sure, but it could also be cleansing, he said. Then he confessed: “Giving up digital for 24 hours is so healthy, but I don’t do it, because I’m addicted.”

“One of the ways to describe what this is about is creating sanctuary,” Mr. Lau-Lavie told the roughly 60 people for the more-than-two-hour service. The conversational style and claim to counterculture, the texts and videos projected on screens, the emphasis on arts and music, resembled nothing so much as a modern evangelical Christian church.

These are precarious times for non-Orthodox synagogues in New York. According to a 2013 survey, fewer than one-third of American Jews belong to a synagogue, and barely one-quarter say religion is very important in their lives, compared with 56 percent of the general public. The share of Jews living in a household where anyone belonged to a synagogue fell to 39 percent. In a 2001 survey, it was 46 percent. The decline has been especially acute in Reform and Conservative congregations, many of which have closed or merged to stay afloat, even as the Orthodox community expands.

The wreckage, in turn, has created opportunities to improvise.

Mr. Lau-Lavie finds himself part of a coterie of religious leaders, Christian as well as Jewish, asking a nearly impossible question: In an increasingly secular, technological, consumer-driven culture, how can they revise worship in a way that is relevant to people who have unlimited demands on their time and weak ties to institutions?

 “The Pew study tells us, if synagogue life won’t innovate, then we’re going to continue to lose people,” Rabbi Ingber said. “I’m convinced we’re blessed to live in a marketplace that forces us to hone what we’re doing.”

He added: “The hierarchical model of the rabbi speaking to a flock is obsolete. Experience is paramount. And information alone is not transformative, so people are not coming to synagogue to learn new things. If you have everything you want to know at your fingertips and you’re still unhappy, it’s clear that information isn’t enough. People ask how come their services aren’t as transformative as their yoga class. And they could be.”

Lau-Levi noticed that the heart of the synagogue service was given to a scriptural reading that felt lifeless compared to the competing forces in New Yorkers’ lives, he said.

 “That was my big light bulb,” he said. “What if we changed the unit of the worship? The storytelling? This is theater. There’s a guy standing on a stage; they are transmitting a story. It happens to be the world’s best seller. There’s an audience. It’s a performance. It’s just a bad performance. It’s really bad theater. What if it was actually theater?”

Mr. Lau-Lavie started a theater company called Storahtelling to present scriptural narratives the way he imagined them, in English, with music and dramatized.

As Storahtelling grew, with holiday performances that drew several hundred people, Mr. Lau-Lavie began to develop new ways of thinking about his faith and his family legacy.

Michael Dorf, the owner of City Winery, joined the group’s board of directors. Mr. Dorf, who describes himself as a “cultural Jew,” mainly interested in observing the holidays, felt that Mr. Lau-Lavie was a charismatic leader who could provide more.

At a 2012 board meeting, he said the group should evolve into a synagogue, with Mr. Lau-Lavie as its rabbi. He offered his club for services.

Mr. Lau-Lavie had resisted such entreaties before, feeling that “artists were the new rabbis.” This time, though, he felt he and the congregation were ready.

“What matured in me is the sense that Judaism, like all religion, is not the bottom line,” he said. “That it is a tool in our toolbox for human well-being and being helpful beings, and that there is a difference between many people who really view Judaism or religion as the end goal: In other words, keep the Sabbath or marry a Jew so the Jewish story continues. That’s of course how I grew up. I realized that that’s missing the point.

“I’m not flying Delta because I’m interested in Delta. I’m flying Delta because it’s convenient or I got the miles on it. The idea is to get somewhere. I’m practicing Judaism because that’s my airline, because I was born into it and I think it’s got a deeply profound, ancient and relevant toolbox for a good life, but the end goal is a good life, not to be Jewish. To be human. To be there for myself and others. And that’s a totally different proposition.”

Shawn Landres, who runs a Jewish innovation lab, compared the experimentation in places like Lab/Shul to the “emergent” Christian churches, which have reached out to people turned off by religion.

“Emergent churches and synagogues are both moving away from traditional institutional forms, to reflect a broader cultural shift,” he said. “People coming to synagogues or churches now want to be in a relationship, not a contract. They want to be in a network, not an institution.

Waarom die Bybel 'n kanonieke teks is...

Dit is nie om dowe neute dat die Bybel in vertalings beskryf word as ‘n “kanonieke” teks. 

Daarmee word die gesag van die Bybel onderstreekp. Dit het ‘n spesiale status vir die kerk. Dit dien as "kanon" - as 'n maatstaf waarop 'n mens jou lewe meet. Dit is 'n boek wat gesag het.

Gelowige mense onderskei hulle omdat hulle só oor die Bybel dink. Die Bybel het immers nie vir almal gesag nie. 

Selfs binne die Christendom is daar verskille tussen mense oor die gesag van die Bybel.

Tog is daar sekere basiese uitgangspunte: ‘n Boek wat gesag het, skep verwagtinge by mense. Hulle sien op daarna, soek leiding daaruit en wil hulle lewens daarvolgens inrig.

Die Bybel word vanuit hierdie oortuiging gelees as ‘n boek wat vir mense se lewens betekenis het.

Dit beteken op sy beurt nog lank nie dat die boek bloot net vir mense spesiale inligting bied nie. Wanneer mense Bybelstudie doen, lees hulle inligting oor die teks omdat hulle weet dat dit sal help dat hulle die betekenis van die teks beter kan peil. Dit maak 'n groot verskil of die Bybel vir mens interessant het en of dit vir 'n mens lewensveranderend betekenis het. 

Die betekenis het dus te doen met hoe die Bybel hulle lewens raak.

Nie dat die begeerte om goed ingelig te wees oor Bybelse tye nie belangrik is nie. Deesdae raak die soeke na inligting oor Bybeltekste en Bybeltye al hoe belangriker vir mense omdat hulle weet hoe maklik mense die Bybel kan misbruik.

‘n Mens kan baie vroom wees, maar daardie vroomheid kan groot skade aandoen wanneer dit op slegte interpretasies steun.

Goed ingeligte Bybelstudie kan ‘n mens help om egte vroomheid te ontdek. Dan lees ‘n mens jou eie gedagtes in die Bybel in. Jy laat die Bybel buikspreek.

Goeie inligting oor die Bybel kan dus van groot waarde wees.

Die voorwaarde is egter dat die inligting direk met ‘n mens se lewe te doen het.

Wanneer ‘n mens die Bybel lees uit blote nuuskierigheid om meer te weet oor wat destyds gebeur het en wie die boeke geskryf het, verander dit nie noodwendig iets aan ‘n mens se lewe nie.

Dus: om die Bybel ‘n kanonieke teks te noem, beteken eintlik dat ‘n mens praat van ‘n boek wat bedoel is om mense se lewens aan te raak en te verander.

Dít is dan die egte bedoeling van Bybellees: ‘n mens lees die teks met die verlange om dit deel van ‘n mens se lewe te maak en om daardeur verander te word.

Eerbied teenoor die Bybel?

Daar is twee bekende houdings onder lesers teenoor die Bybelse teks. Die een groep aanvaar blindelings dat die Bybel ‘n boek is waaraan hulle letterlik gehoorsaam moet wees. As daar iewers in die Bybel ‘n vers is wat sê dat ‘n mens kinders nie die lat moet spaar nie, is dit vir hulle ‘n opdrag.

Die ander groep is geneig om die Bybel se boodskap “vas te stel,” te “ontleed” en die betekenis daarvan uit te spel. Hulle beheers en heers dan oor die teks. Hulle vertel met groot vertroue wat Bybelskrywers eintlik gedink het. 

In ‘n geestelike lees van die teks word die Bybelse boodskap eerder in ‘n dialoog toegeïen. Dit gebeur wanneer die Bybelse teks so gelees word dat die implikasie van die oorspronklike teks in die bestaan van latere lesers inwerk.

Hierdie dialoog aanvaar dat die oorsponklike teks ‘n ander horison het as die horison van die latere lesers. Dit eerbiedig die “andersheid” van daardie tekste en soek om hulle in hul andersheid te lees.

Terselfdertyd wil later lesers nie maar net kennis neem van die Bybelse tekste nie. Terwyl hulle eers die teks uit hulle eie tyd en wêreld uitskuif en inpas in hul oorspronklik konteks, wil hulle tog ook weer die teks op ‘n nuwe manier hulle eie maak. Hulle onteien die teks, maar wil dit ook weer toeëien.

Die Bybel wys ‘n mens na sy eie betekenis. Dit is asof ‘n mens in die bybel ‘n pyl sien wat in ‘n bepaalde rigting gaan beweeg en ‘n mens moet jou in die verlengde van daardie rigting inpas.

Moderne lesers loop dus in die rigting wat in Bybelse tekste uitgewys word.

Die pyl trek uit die boog van Bybelse tekste. Geslagte en geslagte volg die pyl. Elke keer weer sien hulle nuwe dinge, nuwe moontlikhede.

Al hierdie opmerkings wys daarop dat latere lesers die Bybel “interpreteer” as ‘n boek met besonder krag. Die moderne leser ontdek dat ‘n teks in latere tye betekenis behou.

In die interpretasie van die Bybel ontmoet twee wêrelde mekaar. Die wêreld van die teks en die wêreld van die lesers. Twee horisonne versmelt.

Hier moet ‘n mens onderskei: die horison van die Bybel is nie die horison van die leser nie. Net so word die horison van die leser nie die ruimte waarin die Bybel ingedwing word nie.

Elkeen van die twee horisonne bly behoue en is in ‘n dinamiese interaksie met mekaar. In die hele proses bly die invloed van die Bybel op latere tye behoue. 

Hiermee word steeds veronderstel dat die Bybel 'n geestelike krag uitoefen. Dit is 'n boek wat sy teenwoordigheid laat geld. 

Dit vorm die grondslag van Bybelse spiritualiteit.

'n Oogappel van God... Oor 'n tydlose gebed.

Ek ontvang vandag ‘n epos met ‘n gebed van Efraim, die Siriër, die kerkvader uit die vierde eeu. Hy word algemeen beskou as die belangrikste Siriese skrywer in die vroeë Christendom. 

Vir eeue na sy dood het mense hulle nog verlustig in sy werke.

Ek verwonder my aan die gebed, en veral die boeiende struktuur daarvan. 

Aan die een kant is dit ‘n tipiese naby-Oosterse teks, met subtiele verwysings na daardie konteks en ook na die kerklike wortels van Efraim. 

Aan die ander kant is dit ‘n besondere teks wat die diepsinningheid van Efraim en sy geestelike volwassenheid uitwys.

Die gebed begin met ‘n persoonlike deel, waarin die bidder God vra om sy lewe te reinig. Hy gebruik "my"-taal, maar dit is ook intieme taal wat praat van die verlange om naby aan God te kan wees. Dan word dit gevolg deur ‘n gemeenskaplike deel waarin die bidder om God se leiding vra en vir nog steeds meer geestelike groei.

Wat my opval in die gebed is die totale vertroue op en toewyding aan God, maar ook die afhanklikheid van God. Uiteindelik is alles wat ‘n mens aan die goeie het, iets wat ‘n mens van God moet ontvang.

Die gebed vertel dus van ‘n intieme verhouding met God, waarin die bidder in vele dinge uitsien dat God alles sal gee wat die bidder nodig het vir die geestelike reis. Daar is in die proses dus ‘n proses van nietiging, van verwagting dat die lewe van God sal kom, van buite ‘n mensself. Die fokus val op die behoefte dat God al hoe meer sal ingryp, meer sal doen, krag sal gee.

Nie dat dit die vernietiging van die mens beteken nie. Want hoe meer ‘n mens nietig en niks word, hoe meer ruimte is daar om soos God te word en te lyk. Sonder om God te word, want God alleen kan gee wat ‘n mens moet hê, word die mens steeds meer beeld van God en lyk die mens na wat God van die mens wil maak.

Hier is die gebed:

Ek bid dat U my, asof u oogappel, sal bewaar, o Here God.

Hou my en laat my skuil onder u vlerk, laat u vlerk my beskerm teen versoekings.

Wees U tog die hoeder oor die oog, dat dit nie met die blik van ‘n dief kyk nie.

Wees U tog die hoeder van die oor, dat dit nie valsheid sal aanhoor nie.

Wees die hoeder van die lippe, sodat hulle nie laster, veroordeel, kritiseer en ydele woorde kwytraak nie.

Wees die hoeder van die hart, dat dit nie neig tot kwaad en nie onreg bedink nie.

Gee ons, o Here, insig in wat ons behoort te doen en hoe om dit te doen.

Gee, o Here, dat ons vir U geuriger as reukwater of parfuum sal wees.

Gee, o Here, dat ons U sal liefhê en nie die wêreld van donker nie.

Gee, o Here, dat ons sal soek om U te verkry eerder as verganklike besittings. 

Gee aan ons, o onse Here, dat ons aan U drie uitsoek-gawes sal bring.

Gee aan ons, o onse Here, om drie geurige wierook-offers voor U te brand.

Gee aan ons, o onse Here, om vir U drie helder brandende lampe aan te steek: die gees, die siel en die liggaam – die drie gawes van die Een Drie-eenheid.

Laat ons die gees aan die Vader opdra, die siel aan die Seun en die ligaam aan die Heilige Gees, die Gees wat dit weer uit stof sal laat oprys.

O Vader, wy ons gees aan uself! O Seun, wy ons siel aan uself. O Heilige Gees, wy aan uself ons liggaam wat met sere besmet is. 

Gee aan ons, o onse Here, om vreugde in u te hê en mag u in ons vreugde op die laaste dag hê.

Aan U kom toe die lof, van die gees, siel en liggaam.

En aan ons kom toe U ontferming.