Goodbye Sir Ed

"Even the mediocre can have adventures,and even the fearful can achieve."
- Sir Ed Hillary (referring to himself), 1919-2008

I took this photo at 2.00am this morning, after standing in line for an hour and a half. I, like some others I spoke too, had underestimated my fellow Kiwis and thought that there would not be many people there in the early hours. The line outside the Holy Trinity Cathedral stretched out onto the street and around the corner of the block. There were people with kids, including some with babies asleep in prams. Sir Edmund Hillary died on 11 January 2008, and we have been remembering him and paying our respects since the news broke. It was decided to keep the Cathedral,where he has been lying in state, open all night before the day of his funeral. So we waited in line and the rain, from the remnants of the sub-tropical cyclone that passed our way over the weekend, was so fine that the wind blew it away before it could settle on us. As we finally moved into the grounds of the Cathedral we heard, from further back along the street a group of young men singing "Swing low, sweet chariot". And everyone stopped talking. We entered the Cathedral, which is beautiful, just as the changing of the guard took place, which was followed by a minister saying a prayer. There were several people who had taken seats and sat quietly as others passed through to pay respect. As we left we were greeted by Rev. John Marcon, a chaplain who shook my hand and had a warmth that was immediately obvious. Like the NZ Army inside, I had the sense that Rev. Marcon was keeping a kind of open guard at the door too.

I first heard Sir Ed had left us when I was on holiday. We were walking down to the beach and passed a house on the way that was flying a NZ flag at half mast. Hardly anyone flies the flag outside their house here, so that in itself caught my eye. "Some-one has died" I said, and we wondered who it was. Later we saw the newspaper and couldn't believe it. Because I think we always subconsciously assumed that Sir Ed would endure just like the mountain he climbed - Everest. The weekend newspapers ran extra copies and still nearly sold out. We read them, and talked about him, and told the well known stories of that famous climb in 1953 with his Sherpa guide and friend, Tenzing Norgay. One of my favourite quotes from Sir Ed is his reponse to being asked why he took a photo of Tenzing at the summit, but didn't have Tenzing take one of him. Sir Ed explained that Tenzing didn't know how to use a camera, "and it wasn't the time to teach him". A couple of days later I passed through the sea-side town of Orewa and stopped there at Hillary Square where many holiday makers had also stopped to convey their respect and mark Sir Ed's passing. Scarves had been draped around his statue there.

Sir Ed was both living history among us and a good down to earth bloke. He received a knighthood from the Queen, and still kept his phone no. listed in the White Pages. Being the first man to climb Mt. Everest was really a short period of his life compared to his life-long commitment to the Sherpa people in Nepal afterwards. Here he is remembered as much for his work to provide hospitals and schools for the Nepalese as for his world-first ascent. He found time to cross Antarctica as well. I would say he was our greatest icon but that suggests a hyped up kind of adultation. He was a hero to us though, partly because he was the Kiwi who was first to the top of the world, and just as much because he came down the same man who went up - and remained modest throughout his life despite the accolades that came. He is being given a state funeral today, an honour normally reserved only for those who have held high public office. The Domain, a big park close to the Cathedral, will have screens set up relaying the funeral for people.

I think Sir Ed didn't even know what would follow when he spent 15 minutes at the top of Everest in 1953. He had climbed eight mountains in one year in 1950 (five of them in five days), and was up for the biggest challenge of all in 1953. We're used to thinking of him as still around, and seeing him in interviews every so often. Now he has met the last challenge of all and has left us. And although Sir Ed didn't like a fuss being made and was really quite a humble man who didn't let it go to his head, I'll still say that he was, and I expect will be, our greatest hero. An ordinary bloke with a passion who went for it and got there. And the view was terrific.

Child That Mind and Way Give

Comes a time when one must set the rest of the world right side up. Hence the photo. I'm going to be travelling to stay with relatives and visit some beaches further up the island on the East coast, so I'll be away for a few days. I will come across some more of our road signs on the way. It seems that people read things from the bottom upwards. (Who knew?)

This is a standard feature of life here, with my favourite piece of abstract road signage being CHILD THAT MIND - seen mostly outside schools, play centres, and kid venues. I think the person who first thought this up was really creating a subliminal message about having a child-like wonder as we travel through this world (but keep inside the white line as you go and speed that watch).

We drive, as all normal folk do, on the left. I put aside the slightly controversial post I had planned for today (wot, no controversy?) since I will be away for a bit. Yes, I know I was away for a few months but I am back now and this week has been a blogging warm up. I've caught up with a few blogs already and have thoroughly enjoyed them. I hope to take some photos up on the West Coast - the surf is great there. This photo was taken across from a park not far from where I live. That's how it is living at the top of the world. You learn to way give things. It's easier to do if you child that mind.

Achilles Point

Knowing they would be perfect for weaving, the flax leaves have tried to put the blue into a basket.
The sea is too joyous and will not be contained. It runs out laughing through the channel and does not stop to take stock of the time.
I would fly out too, soaring above, but there is wax on my heart wings and the sun shows no partiality.

Is no respecter of persons.


Look - a festive heart crossing the bays, cutting a straight path.
Set for safe ferry shore to shore, this vessel of people I know and have never met.
A red ark with a white thread wake to follow.

Without shadow or variation of turning.


Delight comes to the careful shore hugger. The neck of the sea meets the sand and is draped with lacy gems.
No eye sees the deep channels in the rock from which these jewels are mined.
The lapping floor is buoyant as it sings in polished reflection.
If this is my Achilles heel, I will dance on it.

For I would gladly be considered a fool.

(*I took the photos at Achilles Point, where I spent the afternoon.)

Gentle Beginnings

"O ye who have your eyeballs vext and tired
Feast them upon the wideness of the sea"
- John Keats, On the Sea

Very early and quiet as if there had not been fireworks and Auld Lang Syne just hours before. The street lights are still on as I drive toward the waterfront. Dotted like the last of the Christmas tree, and the sky is beginning to change. The sea is, like the inhabitants who nest by her, sleeping and doesn't stir. I must go down into that seeming darkness to ascend the cliff. There were two passings during the year. One I wrote of and one I could not bring myself to voice. I think of them, and of Theodore Roethke, who said, "I wake to sleep, and take my waking slow". I don't stop at the waterfront - the car turns toward the upward climb. And already the sky is lighter that when I first looked down the hill.

There were family who came home from long adventures in other countries. They returned with hugs and nervousness, and excitement. Bought houses, took jobs, and began old lives anew all over again. It's as if they had never been gone and their absence was a story. A story told in parts. At the top of the cliff there is my old man of the sea - Rangitoto. Not that he is really mine. He belongs to everyone when they sight him and look across the water to that majestic permanence. The sea and I are glassy eyed. But we are awake.



This brand new light is soft, and I almost motionless with the ocean. John Keats wrote,

"-then on the shore
Of the wide world I stand alone, and think
Till love and fame to nothingness do sink."

I can imagine fame slipping silently into the sea with barely a ripple - insignificant. But love? Love drapes the sky and holds the deep silent. To sink is to be loveless. Love is both here and in faraway stories.

There was laughter - at life, each other, at little slips of the tongue, at how confused we get by things that are supposed to be second nature. There was discovery and uncovery and sometimes putting pieces back together again. Perhaps this too slips into the sea. And there was having a passion and quoting e.e. cummings, "i thank You God for most this amazing day". The sun paints a glow on the houses down in the bays. All those hearts beginning to stir. Who will rise to the moment? We expect each day to follow upon like the waves - sometimes repetitively predictable. Sometimes tumultuous, saying "the real thing and not the expected thing" as Virginia Woolf was once described. But there is a gold shadow across the shores of the bays - a gentle reality comes unexpectedly even to those who have so often basked in the warmth of an early sun.

It's Happening

Bit of a weird week. Been sick on and off. And this is happening. We've waited four years for this and we're ranked no.1. This is the biggest thing since sliced bread and we're into it. The All Blacks are famous for their haka at the beginning of each game. The haka is a dance, and in the All Blacks case it's a war dance. A challenge. I could wax lyrical on the haka for a couple of thousand words but will restrain myself to telling you there are two versions. The old one, a controversial new one, and then this one below, which seems like the old one with a few modifications. The other team stands and faces up to it like rugby men do. Except this time, the first haka in the Rugby World Cup, we played the Italian team. And they went into a huddle during the haka. A huddle. (Let's pause and consider the sight, off camera, of grown men huddling before the other team). We beat them 76-14. Or as one commentator said, "The Italian team turned their backs on the All Blacks during the haka and didn't turn round again until ten minutes before the game finished". Indeed. "Girly team", said Kiwi couch commentators.

The Cup matches are being played in France. They have this unusual thing of having a band play during the games - sounds like a mariachi band. Incongruous - the guys are rucking and mauling while this happy brass instrument stuff is riffing along in the background. There are rules to rucking and mauling, which consists of one guy who had the ball being somewhere underneath a pile of other guys trying to get the ball by stomping in his general direction. How the referee can actually see what is going so on he can enforce the rules is a great mystery which we don't care about. Tonight we play Portugal which isn't an even match but it's good experience for the Portugese team. Once every four years. We want to win. If we don't we'll hear about it for the next four years. If we do we'll hear about it for the next four years. Rugby is huge here. Anyway, here's the haka from our first 2007 Rugby World Cup game. It's about 56 seconds.

On Christian Indoctrination: He's Talkin' 'Bout His Generation

I was scooting about in cyberspace a couple of days ago and came across this post, Christian Indoctrination, written by a 16 year old guy who isn't a Christian and who attends a Christian school. He's attended Christian schools for a total of six years, and has spent four and a half years at his current school. Very interesting post, which I will add has been guest posted on his Mum's blog. Since he doesn't give his name, and I don't want to call him Meg's son through my whole post, I'll refer to him as MS for short.

MS asked what people think of the ideas in his post. I think he said some great things in that post, but before I get to those I want to respond to the pretty big negative that he has up near the beginning, which is this:
"Which is where I’m coming from when I’m writing this, a non-Christian in the heart of a fundamental Baptist school. I’ve dealt with peer pressure on the topic in the bucket loads, absolutely backwards fundamentalists, and speeches that seem eerily reminiscent in tone and substance to those that preceded the infamous Kristallnacht."

I'm looking at that from the perspective of my own ancestry, my faith, and the years I've spent researching the holocaust. So this statement strikes me as one of those comparisons that is pretty hefty but not necessarily accurate. In all the years I've been a Christian I've only ever heard one speech from a Christian which I think I could lump in with the sort of speeches that preceded Kristallnacht. So when I read that MS has heard speeches reminiscient in tone and substance to that kind of anti-semitic ranting I'm thinking, "If it's that bad why have you been at school there for four and half years?" Because if you are in a place which is propagating ideas that have not only the tone but the kind of substance the speeches of Nazi Germany had - you are not only in a damaging environment, but your attendance there helps perpetuate that. If it's really like that. (In other words I'm making a rhetorical point, not actually questioning where he goes to school). But let me say, that having been a Christian for several years, I can only think of one occasion when I've heard a speech from a Christian that I would compare to Nazi rhetoric - and that was some guy from overseas who appeared on radio proposing that a certain group of people all be rounded up and sent to live on a separate island. Can't remember his name, and he made no great impact on anyone, Christian or otherwise. I do remember how abhorrent his idea was, and to this day I question if he was a Christian because he sure didn't sound like one. To get some perspective, the people I hear who make speeches with the tone and substance that would precede Kristallancht are those who are pseudo-Christians - the Ku Klux Klan, the "Christian Identity" movement, Fred Phelps and his Westboro "Baptist" church... Hate groups that are not Christians at all. And what they have in common with Nazism, apart from their hateful rhetoric, is that they are all revisionists. They edit and revise Christian belief into something that is the opposite. Which is what the Nazi leaders did when they came up with the "Nazi Bible" - a short volume since they removed huge parts of it, such as the Old Testament, because they objected to "the history of the Jews". There were pseudo-Christians in the Nazi era too. As an aside, Christian pastor and theologian Dietrich Boehoeffer is famous for resisting the Nazis attempts to control church belief and practice. My point here is to say let's be careful about using extreme analogies.

But then MS goes on to say:
"On the other hand, I’ve also seen some of the best that Christianity has to offer, I’ve seen the good that those who truly practice what they preach have done for the school and local communities, three of whom I’d count amongst my closest of friends. This seeming contradiction in extremes has made me think long and hard about the role of religion in education, and I’ve come up with an idea that I’d like some of you to critique."

I like that there's a positive there to bring more balance, although I wonder if there is as much of an extreme as MS proposes. It does sound like there are some people who are evidently genuine in their faith - because it shows in what they do. Which brings me to three points I'd like to make here:
1. Being born into a Christian family doesn't make you a Christian.
2. Attending a Christian school doesn't make you a Christian.
3. Living in a Western nation doesn't make you a Christian.
The first two should be obvious if one knows anything about Christianity. And the the third, well that comes in response to two things. Firstly, I have over the last 3-4 years had some discussion with muslims from the other side of the world who seem to think that whatever the West does is done in the name of Christianity. e.g. They refer to actions of certain countries as "Christian" or what "Christianity" is doing. The war in Iraq is cited as an example. I think this occurs because of the fact that these particular people live in countries with Islamic govts, and don't make the distinction that in the West our govts. are not religious - democracy does not represent one group only. Western govts. are not Christian govts. The other reason goes to something MS brought up in the comments on his post:
"Every school teaches Christian values in class, as we are a Judeo-Christian society whose very fundamental laws and rules are pretty much lifted from the Bible word for word. Christian schools teach to convert more so than just teaching the facts for people to make up their own mind."

"Judeo-Christian" is a term that I find problematic. What is it supposed to mean? I'm not just saying that in response to MS, but because I've seen this term a lot. But using the term for now, what I'll add here is that I disagree with the generalisation that every school teaches "Judeo-Christian" values, or that society is based on them or reflects them. Western society is also heavily indebted to the Ancient Greeks for what it values - like democracy, the educational disciplines, metaphysics, logic, ethics, Aristotle's poetics and the dramatic arts, Homer's epic story telling and heroism in narrative - and many other things. As well as that, let's not confuse values with rules. One of the biggest values in Christianity is faithfulness. Actually it's a big value for many non-Christian people too. I have never met anyone who agrees with their husband or wife having extra-marital affairs. Even though "society" seems to value adultery - at least popular tv and movies seem to. I could give plenty of examples of the prevalent mantra in entertainment, stated both overtly and covertly, that "you can't help who you fall in love with even if it is some-one else's spouse". But for now one is The English Patient, which was lauded as a great love story. It was about a man who had an affair with some-one else's wife, and whose stupidity ended up betraying people whose lives were at risk. In terms of fundamental laws, there is no law against adultery in any Western country I know of. I'm not saying there should be, but I am saying that while some of our laws come from a biblical basis, that is not comprehensive. The laws and values of a secularly governed society do not sum up Christianity. In some aspects they differ markedly from Christianity. And they differ from what other groups believe too. Simply attending any school is not going to result in a student picking up Christian values. And being a true Christian means the values are the result of a spiritual renewal, not the cause of it.

OK, not my intention to be heavy but MS did ask for a critique and I'm not into patronising the guy by shirking the hard stuff. Onto the next point, which is the issue of "indoctrination". Let me say MS makes some marvellous points in his post about practicing what you preach, and in fact goes further than that to touch on the evidence of being a true Christian. I'll get to some of that, but first I want to pose a few questions. Is it wrong for members of a religious and/or cultural group to have their own schools? Where I live there are Christian schools, there is a Jewish school, and there is a muslim school, and there may be others. Should the govt. determine what kind of school a child attends, and do they have the right to say children can't be schooled in the religion and cultural beliefs of their parents and their religious/cultural community? If the govt. shouldn't determine that, then should we? You see I don't know of anyone who isn't "indoctrinated" in some way. Even those who say they are atheists have mutually reinforced beliefs. Whether we like it or not we do get taught what to think and believe by our parents, our teachers, the media, the politicians (well they try), and our friends. We do fall prey too often to intellectual laziness insead of critiquing what is coming to us. But we are also, from the time we are tots, "indoctrinated" - like learning not to throw a tantrum which is detrimental to the well-being of others in ear-splitting range. That stuff. It's enforced on us. Other stuff isn't enforced. And that leads to the crux question - is what is being taught useful, productive, ethically for the better, and delivered ethically? So we need to get under the "indoctrination" label and ask: Is what is being taught helpful or harmful? I'd say that if some-one attends a private school for four and a half years by choice, even though they don't hold the common beliefs the school is basing itself on, then overall they must find it helpful rather than harmful.

Moving on, let's look at something MS says which nails it:
"Here’s where almost five years of being the vocal non-religious person at a very religious school has led me. Quite frankly, people who say they’re of the faith, but do absolutely nothing to live by any of the guidelines set by it, and just go around making a bad name for it, are good to absolutely no one. They’re not good for Christians, they’re not good for non-Christians, they’re good for absolutely no one."

Which speaks for itself. We don't need more pseudo-Christians. By the way, I'm not saying all pseudo-Christians are like Nazis here. I'm saying all pseudo-Christians are fake. And if there's one thing I know, having spent enough years in the past not being a Christian and being quick to criticise those who are - people can usually spot a fake. So MS has hit it on the head with that, and not ony would I have agreed with him on that before I was a Christian, I also heartily agree now. Then he asks:
"Which is why I can’t figure out why people are being pressured into the religion at a young age without actually knowing the first thing about what it means to be Christian, what it entails, what it is. Instead, why can’t they do the seemingly most obvious thing? Simply; teach what Christianity is. What it’s about. What it means to be a Christian, what it means to have a relationship with Jesus, and then, leave the rest up to you?"

Good question. It has more than one part to it. If MS means teach how you become a Christian then that's one thing. But teach what Christianity is and what it's about? That's huge - that covers spirituality, motives, behaviour, communal expression, history, theology, apologetics, service, mission, persecution and more. I don't know what they teach at MS's school, but I would say that we have a history, and that Christianity is not an individualistic exercise. We do this together, and if we teach what Christianity is about we've got a lot to talk about. This is also about ones worldview. Everyone has a worldview - a perspective which is informed by their own beliefs. No-one is neutral in that regard. I would expect a Christian school to inform from a Christian perspective - not only on "having a relationship with Jesus", but on what it means to be a Christian in every aspect of ones life, and what it means to be part of a continuous community. I don't see that as any more "pressured" than a non-Christian environment which teaches certain things from certain perspectives. e.g. there can be a secular pressure to split our values from our work, so that we split faith into our private life and our work into our public life. Problem: Then we get people who don't live out their Christianity at work (or at school) because the Christian belief is considered only a private thing, and the pressure is to not be fully Christan wherever we are. But what I'll add here is that becoming a Christian is not dependent on having a whole lot of knowledge about Christianity to start with, and there is not some minimum age limit set in terms of a child expressing spirituality. Since I know a number of people who became true Christians at very early ages, even at pre-school ages, and they are still Christians as adults, I'd say we can't cut off those kids from hearing about Christianity, and from learning how that is lived in every aspect of life.

And that brings me to MS's point about walking the talk. It seems to me that his main criticism is that in a school environment that carries the label "Christian" there are too many people who don't live as Christians. He has a couple of criticisms in his post that I agree with - like the way they were asked to put up their hands at a camp, and what sounds to me like a possible over-emphasis on having some separation. That leads into a whole discussion that would take too much time in this post, but briefly, we do have our own distinctiveness and common boundaries as Christians, and within that some have different boundaries to others. There is some diversity of expression within the distinctiveness, and then there are those who cross the line into extremes which are pseudo-Christian. Bottom line - if mixing with those who are not of the same faith also involves you acting like a hypocrite then don't do it. Because then we have the very problem MS has nailed - people not walking the talk who are of no use to anyone. I still remember a guy from my highschool days (it wasn't a Christian school) who was a bully and nasty to people continuously, and who said he was a Christian. I didn't buy it. I also knew some real Christians, and I was taken with how genuine they were. Not perfect, but authentic. MS also adds:
"Those that are actually sure of their religion, of their faith, and of the fact they’ve chosen the right path, and don’t feel it necessary to trumpet it so everyone else thinks they’re cool and spiritual. Knowing these people has truly been and honour and an experience. It’s these people who are the future of the religion. If the school could create ten of these in each year, as opposed to one hundred of the other kind, then in the end, there would be more Christians in the world."

Ah, some people have more surety than others at different times. But I think I understand what he says here. I also think that we develop surety on some things - it builds. It's easy to be sure when everything is hunky dory. But when we have a long illness, or someone dies, or we feel betrayed in a relationship, or some-one we love is hurt, or... you know, the big things, then we have to dig deep, and sometimes everything that can be shaken will be shaken, but we strengthen the good solid part that remains. And I think too, that MS has seen that when the Christian life is lived in truth and love, then it makes a positive and beneficial difference.

He asked what folk think so I thought I'd pitch my response back across the Tasman. It was an interesting and thought-provoking challenge.