To fully understand this, one must have read the previous post or been on facebook following it!  So this was my response to his question. 

 “Firstly, I am honored that you believe I have above average brain activity!( always wanted to use a line like that on myself but never got round to it because of this humility thing I have got going!) Soo, thanks for that! I will do my best to not outshine you…me and my black boyness! Hehehehe

On to the good stuff then! Again, I am grateful for the caution you bring to my attention and it is going to be put under advisement in the course of this discussion.. (I feel so formal!)

In general I agree with most of what you are saying because I understand from where you are coming. It would be disingenuous to cover up a faulty idea so as to keep the ideology going. It is inane to subscribe to such audacious philosophies. Brace your self. This is going to be long! As always. 😉

To directly address your contentions I must make certain underlying assumptions on some of the issues you have raised..
First off, I do believe you did allude to something similar in an agenda else where on the yoms page.  It is from that thread that I will assume your sentiments are driven.
Secondly, I will refer to a statement you made about the more moderate Christian saying “They will rarely correct others publicly where it’s necessary, nor will they come out strongly against archaic views because I guess they don’t want to fracture the team.”
As in the case  ASCK YOMS Vs Frobisha on matters to do with alcohol,(which I assume is the point of reference for this post) I believe this assertion is rather inaccurate.  To be clear, I , as this post strongly suggests, am one of the moderate Christians, right? So the response will be purely based on the defense of my “moderate” approach.

To suggest that we sit back and watch the fundamentalists make fools out of themselves and shrug it off would basically point to a level of irresponsibility in epic proportions. This, in my defense (and that of all the moderates I know) is an erroneous presumption. I am passionately involved in the intricacies of pastoral care and as such, my heart goes out first and foremost to the young in Christ.. to the growing, to the ones that still ‘drink milk’ as it were. To these, I provide guidance, correction and direction the best way I know how and with special care depending on what level of growth and in what particular area.

In no way should the moderates “accept” wrong doctrine. In fact, rebuking, teaching and correcting are tools that must be used to edify the brethren (both young and mature) However, as you witnessed in that case against Frobisha, It is also, the moderates’ duty to foster peace, promote love and encourage humility. These facets of our faith are most important in whatever task we undertake, whether it be in doctrine, whether it be in rebuking, correcting and/or exhorting. If these facets are in danger of being misrepresented, then no matter what doctrine you are preaching (be it true or false) these-according to my faith- take precedence over everything else. These facets must be addressed as fundamentals to any resolution. Without them, as Christians, we are simply wasting time. Correcting, teaching and rebuking quickly degenerate into quarrels, dissentions and mindless banter about who is right and who is wrong. It results into more strife, gossip emerges and hatred abounds. This has happened one too many times because people have elevated “passionate rebukes” over their love for others. This is a special time for the “moderates” to step in and bring balance to the world!(the avaters of Christianity! J)

 Christians fighting amongst themselves simply because they believe they are all right has been the story from of old. Moderates see all this and want to reconcile based on the more important, the more essential… the more significant things of our faith. Peace, love hope… all in humility.    

Attacking and showing someone how so very wrong they are is never going to be the solution to get anyone to understand their mistake! It will drive them harder to it!  That is all the moderates are up against. Make no mistake, these moderates to whom I refer do not just sit back and defend false doctrine because they are afraid to “fracture the team”. No! It is the context in which its all done that matters for them. The context that yields the best results… Peace and love to all men!

 So to answer your question “Don’t you think it’s time the more enlightened shall we say of the brethren have a duty to sharpen their fellow brothers instead of having outsiders so to speak have to do it and so be attacked for it?” It has been the case. It’s being done. Just not the way everyone thinks it should be. Actually I welcome with both hands the outsiders’ challenge. If it is what will help us learn how to discuss and debate amicably then by Heaven yeah! I say bring it on! Make us stronger! We need all the help we can get!

• I read recently a post on Facebook of a well intending Christian that wanted to interpret Ex. 21:10  that says, “if a man takes a second wife, he must continue to give his first the same amount of food and clothing and the same rights that she had before.” I read it and thought to myself, “i am certain i know where this is going.” Sure enough, it went exactly as i had anticipated. She went on to say,
  “we associate polygamy with ATR or Islam, looks like we’v got it too and the same conditions apply. keep in mind, this isnt adultery if ‘nothing’ happens before marriage to e 2nd wife.” And then does the  almighty suplex question to just run me over with fury. She asked
  “why does the church then not accept polygamy?”

  I read through the numerous  comments, the brilliant analysis, the critical questions and the downright  inane and frivolous arguments for and against this scripture.
  It was and still is my humble opinion to just make no bones about. There has to be a way to get facts and have them stand in perfect harmony with the TRUTH!. These back and forth ordeals between skeptics and believers must have a silver lining somewhere. And to me, these ordeals have made the Christian smarter.. or at least they are trying to smartly apply their faith a lot more.

  However in discussions such as this one, it is hard to fathom how our own intelligence and interpretation of scripture can make us look more crass than erudite. They went on about the absolutes of the assumed, the falsities of emotional and subjective interpretations, they argued on the thin-iced basis of literal interpretation. It was a mess reading it all.

  There were some however, that showed a tremendous level of astuteness that held them on a stable theological acumen. I salute them that do TRY! It is a long and dangerously threatening ordeal to the faith! But they held their end! To my comrades in arms… To the Army that fight the most holy of wars, the wars of the heart, I salute!

  To elucidate from all I have observed and read about the scripture and the law at large,  this was my response.

   Paul, Peter, James and all the men of God didn’t need scriptural backing to all agree on monogamy, especially among the elders of the church. I know all too well, as do the rest of us, the mayhem, the chaos,the jealousy, the outright evil that wreaks in polygamous families. Poverty, depression and loneliness have curved out into normalcy. I have seen first hand(as have most-if not all) what wreckage polygamy inflicts on the hearts of little boys-that grow to become like their forefathers,.. Irresponsible, indignant and driven by hate and anger. i have seen the hopelessness of girls that grow to become bitter and vicious mothers that feed on the misery of their co-wives’ children! Polygamy is the most fertile ground for the breaking down of basic moral conduct all over the world. This break down in morals is fueled by envy and (with just the right amount) drives the home into utter ruin.Ruined homes that make ruined communities, ruin nations! A curse that has been passed down form generation to generation since the fall of man. In polygamous families generally,(especially here in Africa) one need not go to hell to know it exists.
  In the scripture quoted, my quarrel with the  interpretation(or at least what was interpreted in the discos is that the emphasis is solely on polygamy and hardly on the conditions for polygamy. For a man to pull off the idea of equal, unequivocal and absolute love for more that two women, he would have to have two of everything. Two brains, two hearts… two unmentionables!

  Now don’t get me wrong, there are perhaps exceptions to the rule. I just don’t know they exist or haven’t met them.  The Moslems have tried but then again, their culture has for the longest time disregarded , unheeded and stealthily muffled the dying and silent cries of the woman. They(the women) have to live with it because they can’t do anything about it. If you find a woman that welcomes another into her home to share the love of her husband cheerfully and whole heartedly( and isn’t insane), then there is such a thing as Extra Terrestrial creatures among us!!! Women have just had to adapt and to let live. They wouldn’t survive, fighting this on their own. MEN RULE! Yes, I said it.

  So for those that think that it was only Paul’s idea to stay with one woman, it was with good reason. He, being a man and an authority in the transforming work of the Lord in his people,was strategically and uncannily placed for a time when Women were finally brought up out of their dejection.  It is not rocket science people! At least one person will suffer enormously in a polygamous home. And the men of God saw it as a need to be addressed with hearts of compassion.
• So my point is that because the scripture above was and still is clearly impossible to fulfill,( as the rest of the law is) the message of Grace ushered in a better relational way to “always be at peace with all men” . Monogamy, is not only the Godly thing to do, It is the logical and rational way to live and love considering our weaknesses and those of others we have no control over.

So to my friend the The brown letter, big ups for stirring up the monster writer in me! This is for you.   No for real, this part two is to respond to some of the personal questions and opinions you expressed comprehensively through the post and the responses there after. Allow me to use the same style as in Part 1.

You said,

 “Be fruitful and multiply” is not specific to child birth. I am a woman who doesn’t want to have kids simply because I have never felt the need to. Is that abominable?”

When God said, “be fruitful and multiply” It was not just in reference to childbirth but it was more of an emphasis to participate in the creation and preservation of Human life. The reason most Christians use this scripture to debunk homosexuality is because it does none of that. It is a misrepresentation of the order of nature. It defies the laws of nature and posses a danger to the preservation and creation of human life in more aspects than just existence. Social, economic and spiritual aspects of any society would be imperilled by epic proportions should homosexuality be accepted as normal.

Normal may refer to the normality (in behavior) or the  Norm in Sociology.  So in short it can be derived as a conformance to an average or an expected pattern of behaviors studied within the Context.
In behavior, It is the deviation from average/central tendencies. Therefore, “not normal” is negative,  an assertion of the “improper”/ sick etc.
In sociological and social psychological terms,  it is a guide, or rule, or line of thoughts that  distinguishes  appropriate fom inappropriate value systems, beliefs, attitude, that are derived from the behavior average.
Abnormality, is the vivid sense of something deviating from the normal or differing from the typical.

Therefore, homosexuality according to Christians, is a deviation from the intended plan of nature (Normalcy) designed by an infinitely loving and perfect Deity.

You also said,
“..Which leads me to the question of evolution – is it right, is it wrong? There is substantive scientific evidence to the fact that we did evolve”
Substantive?? Really?  Allow me to enlighten you if you may . The difference between the human’s DNA and that of a chimp’s is les than 1%. A whole one percent is the only thing standing between hairy, stinky bodies, with very little cognitive reasoning and high instinctive responses. Not to mention the lack of speech! Wouldn’t our lives be wonderful!! It means we have a whole 99% chance that we could have been chimps. If 1% is the only inherent difference between us and the creatures, it would simply be disingenuous to call it “substantial evidence” to centerour existence on the theory of macro evolution as far as humans are concerned.

You say,

“We are under the assumption that homosexuality is wrong. Why? Because the bible says so or because it was interpreted that way?No where in the Bible does it state that the original design was for man-and-woman to be together.”

I cannot even begin to express how misinformed these statements are. It is however safe to assume, that when you ask questions in this structure, you are indirectly asserting that the bible is an authority you recognise and have let influence all your life. As such, let me indulge you in a few scriptural expositions about the subject at hand.

When the angel of the Lord visited Abraham on his way to Sodom and Gomorrah, they mentioned a wickedness there in that he wanted to investigate on his own before he passed judgment. Its true that they did more than participate in same sex orgies but this is the gist of what was to be emphasized.

Genesis 18:20: And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;

Genesis 18:21: I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.

When they went down to Sodom, they found Lot who insisted they stay at his, as if he knew they wouldn’t survive on their own outside. Sure enough the men came to Lot’s place.

Genesis 19:5: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Whereare the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

Genesis 19:6: And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,

Genesis 19:7: And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.

Now, KNOWING them, to Lot, was a WICKED thing. The first time the homosexual act is mentioned in the bible and it is mentioned with wickedness in the same breath.

If you doubt that “Knowing” meant sexual intercourse,  look at the next verses.

Genesis 19:8: Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

Genesis 19:9: And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door.

As such, the angel of the Lord saw enough for himself to pass Judgment. He didn’t even have to see the temple prostitution or the thieving or the murders etc.

Genesis 19:12: ¶And the men said unto Lot, Hast thou here any besides? son in law, and thy sons, and thy daughters, and whatsoever thou hast in the city, bring them out of this place:

Genesis 19:13: For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the LORD; and the LORD hath sent us to destroy it.

Call it what you like, but I have used no other interpretation other than what was literary written, to understand these passages. According to these passages, the act of Homosexuality, among others was enough to convince the angel of the Lord to destroy the Place.

I may not call it substantive, but there have been interesting findings that, if followed, could point you to the direction of evidence. Not much but it’s a start.

As for the Law, “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination…. If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them” (Lev. 18:22, 20:13).

So, all through the Mosaic law and of the prophets, the Jews knew and believed that the Lord considered the act of Homosexuality sinful and wicked.

Jesus said not an iota in the Law shall pass before it is fulfilled. Jesus became the fulfillment of the Law by living flawlessly. Believed to be the only perfect human that ever crossed the earth, he was the accomplishment of the law and through him, the Human race was set free from the bondage of sin. Even Homosexuality.
To directly answer yo question, Yes!! The bible speaks clearly and boldly against sexual immorality of a wide range.

You  say,

 “An atheist can be moral because he believes the moral law was there way before the writers of the scriptures were even born. That’s his reason for being good.”
Well so do the majority of Christians. They believe that the Moral law started from creation! That the originator of this Law was the Law-giver!

Where I defer from the atheist is in the ambiguity of its origin. There can not be a law without a law giver…unless we are to throw out logical thinking. But if we can safely say it is the parameter they use to come to a deductionabout moral law, then it is inconclusive (to say the least) to assume it has always been there.
If they however believe that it(Moral law) has always been there with no law giver, then they have more faith than they give themselves credit for.

So, For a Christian, the moral law giver that has always been there long before the scriptures were written is the one in whom they have faith.

You may say that, “the atheist has more faith in the “goodness of Humanity” and as such has more hope, than a Christian that preaches total deprivation of goodness aside a Deity making him a pessimist”. This is not only inaccurate but disingenuous as well.

Conceder the Christian; His hope is in a being (whether the fragment of his imagination or not) greater than and transcending human weakness and goodness. It is this faith that propels them to be apart of the greatest mission in the universe…to bring goodness into the world they live in.

Secondly, hope in Human goodness?? How is that working out for the atheist? The aspect of Hope itself defeats the very label of atheist. To hope in something is to believe in its foreseen reality that isnt yet. Without proof or scientific facts, hope is an intangible inconceivable idea that runs on human emotions and little on logic and reason. It goes without reason that Human beings will always be sinful and evil. They need a power greater than their own, a hope in something bigger than themselves to face the onslaught of human weakness.

you said,

Why should I believe every single thing Paul says as opposed to every single thing Bishop Jakes says? Isn’t the God in them one and the same? Neither Paul or Bishop Jakes have seen Jesus with their own eyes

If you research on how they verify historical documents, there is one simple reason why they would credit or discredit an account or a biography. The older the document, the closer to the event or individual about whom/which is the account in question. The closer to the time of the event or the individual, the more accurate the document might be and the more authentic it will be considered.  The question asked would be considered rather primitive ( as in the sense of underdeveloped) for these very reasons. The reason Paul, peter, John Mark, Luke are given more reverence is because they were the closest beings/contemporaries we know to the Lord Jesus while he walked on earth and soon after he left. Paul’s letters especially are better appreciated when you read his auto biography. He was well learned, a zealot, a puritan and an enforcer of the Jewish law. He knew his stuff. He attributed his sudden and acute transformation to the makings of the Man Jesus, earlier assumed dead. There are good grounds here to take what the disciples and his contemporary say over any other.  If we still believe that their historical documentation of Jesus is accurate and that Jesus is still the Lord, then the gospels and epistle are to be revered as GOSPEL TRUTH.

You say,

Who’s to say Paul wasn’t a homophobe and felt in his spirit that it was wrong?

As I had previously mentioned, Because Paul was an enforcer of the law, a Zealot and a well learned Pharisee, he had no qualms or objections to the punishment of the Homosexual should he be found guilty. He knew the Law of the Land.

After he found the savior, He was the best candidate for the Job of interpreting the Law in the Light of the saving grace of Jesus. Paul, a prolific writer of the grace and the law was distinctively clear about the position of the lewdness and perversion in human nature. So He was clearly an authority in the subjects about which he wrote. You would take PhD physicist’s analysis paper over any book written by a secondary school teacher, right? If so, then with that same logic, Paul’s letters and are “must reads” whose messages must be reckoned with.

In conclusion, the question about Homosexuality and its “okay-ness” is one of the heart.  The response toward it is determined by the conditioning of the heart by the Holy Spirit or not. When we let God’s transforming power take its course, we rid ourselves of all that is foul and base in the light of truth and love.  We are restored to perfection.

ps. im going to give all my fans a break after this! 😀

I read  a friends blog(http://thebrownletter.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/do-we-all-have-to-be-heterosexual/ – comment-334) that had so many questions about the faith in light of homosexuality. I must say it was rather quit the brain tease. It was a combination of questions, opinions and quotations. I have written a two part series to respond to all these. I will elucidation on as much as was written in this blog and in the comments that soon followed. So brace yourselves, it is going to be one long read.
The letter that was quoted there in was what got my attention first. So i will attend to it in this first part.. Sarah McEwan had some robust opinions about the Christian faith. She specified it to the evangelicals but if we read it careful, the undercurrent is much slyer than meets the eye. So that you may get the full picture, here is the extract of the letter.

Dear …

If you and your fellow Evangelical Christians really want to be “part of the solution” to stop anti-gay bullying, you’ll stop teaching your children that being gay is sinful.

You can argue all you want that the solution is Christian compassion despite a belief that being gay is sinful, but as long as you believe and preach and teach that gay kids are inherently abominable to God, you’re always going to be part of the problem.

And no, the philosophical contortions in which many Christians like to engage, claiming God only hates homosexuality but doesn’t hate homosexual people, does not absolve you of your responsibility. Treating people as though their humanity is somehow separate from their intrinsic characteristics is not merely absurd bullshit; when you seek to wrench apart the components of people’s whole selves and throw away pieces of their identities, it’s just eliminationist rhetoric dressed up in its Sunday best.

This reflexive insistence that anti-gay Christians can’t just toss away their institutional homophobia because it’s in the Bible is contemptible nonsense. There are all kinds of things in the Bible that modern evangelicals don’t teach their children, and for less reason than because to continue to believe it has demonstrably deadly consequences.

Listen, I’m not telling you what you should or shouldn’t believe. I’m just telling you that it’s disingenuous to pretend that your anti-gay beliefs themselves don’t have cultural consequences.

Any well-known and widely-discussed and deeply-held belief of millions of people in a democratic nation is going to have cultural consequences. Especially when that belief marginalizes millions of other people.

If you really and genuinely and authentically want to be part of the solution, you’ll take a good, long, hard look at the particular bit of dishonesty that is telling yourselves the belief itself is okay to have. Because there is nothing—and I mean nothing—that is helpful about telling “straight evangelical students that following your faith means treating your neighbors well. That means all of them – even the gay ones.”

Even the gay ones. That shit, right there, suggests to the very students you want to dissuade from bullying that their gay peers are less than, which is the precise attitude that leads to bullying in the first place.

You can’t hope to be part of the solution when your beliefs are exactly the problem.

You want to help? Stop marginalizing queers.

It’s that simple. Anything else is an empty gesture, designed to make you feel good—not designed to help gay kids.

Ref. Sarah McEwan

So I wrote a response to rebut some of the heinous accusations and invalidate some of the misgivings and misconception about the faith.  Consider this an informed opinion at worst.

Dear Sarah,

You say,

 “part of the solution” to stop anti-gay bullying, you’ll stop teaching your children that being gay is sinful.”

First of all, your approach presupposes that you are right about the gays and that a faith (you clearly know very little of) is going to change the teachings central to its theology simply because they need to change a facet of their belief to accommodate and tolerate an act they consider odious. Here are some facts;

1. Sin is the primary reason the theology of Christianity exists. There would be no need for Jesus to pay the debt of sin if there was no sin in the first place.
2. You assume that by telling the Christians to stop teaching children that being gay is sinful, it will take away the marginalization of gays. They are so out there even without the help of the church. There is so much moreto deal with like, culture, status, tradition, that in and of themselves would wage war and have done so.
3. Not teaching the children that being gay is not sinful is not going to take away its sinfulness. Not according to the Church precepts. What you are asking them to do is to look the other way when it comes to Homosexuality. Everything else can be condemned but not that. Why? Because it marginalizes them? Well then, lets not marginalize the petty thieves, the cheats, the liars …

you say,

“, but as long as you believe and preach and teach that gay kids are inherently abominable to God, you’re always going to be part of the problem.”

The theology of Christianity is that humanity is inherently sinful “NOT JUST THE GAYS”. For the gays, it is a public manifestation of sin while everyone else is hiding their hideous nature in the closet. We are intrinsically flawed and damaged from within. As such we need a savior. A savior who not only redeems humanity from the hell he created on his own,[ eg Nuclear war, perversions, serial killing, pollution, homosexuality -all posing a threat to the human existence as we know it], but also restore us to eternal/abundant life. A life with purpose and meaning; A savior that will not only save but restore the order of perfection in the human condition.
So it is inaccurate to assume that the problem is “calling it SIN” as the Christian sees it. No my friend. It is much bigger than that. The problem is the Human heart. The sick and twisted human heart, Christian or not, is the single greatest weapon of mass destruction of the marginalized homosexual and others like him. This is why the Christians rely on a power greater than their own. Because the Christian is aware of his weakness, he depends on a grander celestial being that would deal with the heart of the problem- the human heart.  So no, the church should never and will never stop calling out SIN as it is. It is a belief well entitled. If one cant take it, they can always leave. They always have.

You say,

“absurd bullshit; when you seek to wrench apart the components of people’s whole selves and throw away pieces of their identities, it’s just eliminationist rhetoric dressed up in its Sunday best.”

You make the assumption that just because its intrinsically characteristic of human nature, it is therefor ok. Not so!!. If that were the case, the prisons would be vacant on grounds that every criminal would argue the same. Its who he is.  Telling the Christian to stop telling people that what he believes is sin actually is sin is the same as telling the state to stop calling people that do wrong criminals. Because it marginalizes them! Hog wash I say! If you are going to use this standard to critique the Christians, id suggest you do the same everywhere else.  See how that works out for you.

If there is an intrinsic characteristic in any one that is imperiling his wellbeing and forward movement, then I’d suffice it to say it can and Must change! The Christians have a solution. Jesus. If you cant deal with that, find something. But know that it can change.

You say,

“If you really and genuinely and authentically want to be part of the solution, you’ll take a good, long, hard look at the particular bit of dishonesty that is telling yourselves the belief itself is okay to have. Because there is nothing—and I mean nothing—that is helpful about telling “straight evangelical students that following your faith means treating your neighbors well. That means all of them – even the gay ones.”

Please make a distinction between the belief and the believers’ interpretation of it all. The interpretation is biased by cultural and traditional disposition, which is affected by pure human interactions and emotions. These have absolutely very little to do with the belief and its theology there in.

Being an anti-gay bully /homo phobic is not a result of Christianity. It’s a result of a screwed up misconception and perception of the faith, by both believers and non-believers. It is a human problem. A result of the human heart!

Lets get the facts right before expressing misinformed notions through unintelligent bunterand prideful ignorance about the subject of faith… Whatever faith/religion it may be.
It would be inane to continue a debate with someone with such a mindset, let alone trying to come to a solution.

Toward a solution, you say,

You want to help? Stop marginalizing queers.

Again, Not the solution. If you want to stop marginalizing, quit bickering and pointing crooked moral fingers at each other and come together to pursue a common goal without removing from society the beauty of faith, and hope.

We can pursue peace and harmony in society without taking away from it the richness of diversity. Its what makes it beautiful to be human!

Instead of seeing differences, we need to come to a point where we see variety. As such, when the Christian holds a certain opinion, he is not pulled down for it and if the “gay” does his thing, he is not considered less than human.
Right there, I have provided a possible solution to the problem without planting the blame on either side. Without so much as being condescending to the faiths or condemning a person’s sexual orientation, I have come to a place where both sides can agree to disagree and let faith or nature take its course.

Yours truly,

 the challenger. 

This weekend, i went to the country side( i just love saying that) after a long while. I travelled with a few of my friends from the band in which i belong. Yes… i sing too. 🙂

It was one heck of an experience. We get to the bus park about 5pm and got on to a bus that was supposed to be leaving in an hour. We set off a little after 8pm. Three hours we waited!!!!! As we set off, it dawned on me that public transport can have a close relationship with hell. This dude comes and sits right in the middle of the passage way and removes his shirt … because he was hot and the rest of us were not. He sat right between me and my friend Abby(poor girl). He reeked of a God forsaken putrid stench and was sleepy. So all through the trip at least for the first three hours, he made subconscious passes at my friend by sleeping on her as many times as he could. We eventually found a way to stop it all.  we stopped worrying and waited for him to get out. In the mean time, Abby and i exchanged seats.

We got to Rukungiri about 3am and slept. We got up after three hours to a busy but beautiful saturday. You see, the purpose for this trip was to have a different kind of experience for me and the band. We wanted to meet some people whose lives we could impact with ours and bring some sort of hope. It would be worth all the hassle we experienced.

In the deep of the village in Kitimaba, we met a girl. Patience! She run up to us as we arrived into their little green compound and hugged each one of us and greeted in her language. She was full of energy and bright with a smile. Her torn up skin and dry mouth told a different story though. we were informed that their Parents abandoned them and left them with their grand parents. About two weeks before we had arrived, their grand mother passed away. killed by rabies from a cat. (yeah, apparently, they too have rabies). She died and left their unable grandfather to take care of them .

Though she (Patience) is brilliant and charismatic, there is a sense of loss… a deep, deep seated despair that she long learnt to conceal. As we got to know her and talk to her grandfather, it was revealed that she and her brother were born HIV positive. Their wretched father was all over town collecting it and later gave it to their mother who passed it on to them and then passed away after a while.

It’s a funny thing this life. How we on the other end of the rope, wake up everyday, take in all the air we could, take a hot bath, smell good, talk good and live the good life, while right where we were standing stared at us a vivid and malignant state of affairs. One that would change the very fabrics of our purpose, our hope,  our priorities and our aspirations. All these seemed benign in the midst of a conundrum of  such epic proportions.

My heart went out to these little ones who, in some ways, were born with less than “nothing”. Life dealt them a blow such as they couldn’t fathom. They were victims of a raw deal that screwed their lives over for what would seem forever. With no where to turn and no one to love them, what would become of them? where would they turn for hope?
Would patience find a man that would love her? All of her? Will she ever get out of the rat race of bear survival? Will her brother Amon ever find purpose in being a man? Would he ever know that its ok to live positive? Will they blame themselves for being born because everyone considers them outcasts? Would they find redemption in the midst of a war against their very existence?

It was these questions that sank my heart and filled it with rage. A rage i would forever share with the world. Whoever would listen. A rage that seeks Justice. A rage that searches the depths of the heart for compassion beyond pity. A rage against our puny little discomforts. A rage that propels us to do greater than our own imaginings. To change a life.

A rage that gives hope and purpose to a fallen spirit.

I will never forget the glow in their faces as they realized, there is life after all. There is someone that cares beyond words.
This will be my gospel to them. To all those for whom life was unjust… Love!. It was and has always been the ultimate and incomprehensible facet of mankind that reins it all in.
This is my gospel, my moto, my life line, my purpose.
LOVE.