sustain:if:able kiwi

signs of hope

New blog; Emerging Women Leaders that might clear some space to move some conversations forward. Good stuff, especially if they can embrace some women bloggers from outside the US …

question re pxt

Is the term – pxt – pictures on cellphone – just a New Zealand term, or is it appearing in other places in the world?

unsettling the crevices

In reponse to here and the question; “Now is the world any different?” This is not a question of flushing away attempts at defecation. This is not a dismissal of child play, the elegant caress of a goodnight kiss. This is not an assertion of superiority around gradients of success. This is not a rhetorical ruse to dismiss the ontotheologic of the magna carta, the butterfly flap of the opaque obscurity of a verbal email exchange, as an irrelevant game of words.

It is a simple reflection on justice and a personal reminder in the everdayness of my life, that, in the deconstructive words of Caputo; a “Settling into the crevices and interstices of the present … the provocation of what is to come … with bearing an ethico-political witness to justice.”

wedding sermon with thanx

here is someone’s personal spirituality in response to the wedding semon , read below.

(more…)

i present you mr and mrs woodley

up to auckland to preach at a friend’s wedding: the instructions are:
10 minutes will be fab
sweet as to mix U2 and Trinity
just don’t forget to mention the g[od] or j[esus] words
speak to both us and the audience please
just make it gracewayesque or is that opawaesque?

sick

this is abusive behaviour. this is not an individual problem but a societal issue. the internet needs to grow up and find ways to redeem such behaviours.

Update: If this was happening in a real world, a restraining order could be enacted. The internet doesn’t really have this facility. Hence my assertion that this is a societal issue that the internet community as a whole has to work at.

a toast to the depths of opaquacity

i like dan hughes. he is so opaque that he must be deep. he draws the very best of opaqueness out of me. he liked my email. i liked his response.

for the record, our mutual email love session goes like this,
>>the opaque dan: …theologies and ecclesiologies that have come to dominate the memory of the man Jesus. We envision a direct, participatory spirituality
>
>the opaque steve: All theologies start with the dream of direct, participatory spirituality.

the opaque dan: Oh, yes. Hegemony is self-subversive, indeed.

A toast to opaquacity. Now is the world any different?

linked

one of my posts (an idea of an alternative way of being church) made it onto the Presbyterian Church of Aoteroa New Zealand newsletter here.

welcome to any presbyterian sojourners who might have clicked my way.

questions that need answering

1. why would lawrence lessing release his book for free on the www?

2. why would lawrence lessing’s publishers release his book on the www?

3. who feeds lawrence lessing’s children?

the publishing week that was

Friday 5 March 3 pm :: I blog some brief thoughts about art and Mel.

Saturday and Sunday :: I work on an article on creativity and spirituality for Reality magazine. This is unpaid. This diverts time from my book. But I have been asked to do it and I am passionate about the topic. I send the article to reality late Sunday evening.

Tuesday 9 March 1:30 pm :: I got to see Mel’s passion.

Tuesday 9 March 2:00 pm :: Reality ring to discuss the creativity and spirituality article with Lynne. Lynne mentions I am at the Passion and Reality ask what I think.

Tuesday 9 March 5:00 pm :: I suggest Reality should do a feature edition on the movie.

Tuesday 9 March 10:00 pm :: I draft an initial 500 word letter to Mel. This is for my own benefit, as it helps me process my thoughts and extends my blog thinking.

Wednesday 10 March 1 pm :: Reality ring and ask for a 2000 word article on Mel. (This means they will shunt the article I have spent all weekend writing, to a June edition). I have been deeply disturbed by the Mel movie. I am aware that my feelings are out of step with much evangelical fervour surrounding the movie. I am concerned about how my thoughts might be perceived. Do I want to be cast as grumpy? Reality promise to edit me carefully. On this basis I say that if an article emerges, I will submit it.

Wednesday 10 March 5 pm :: The keyboard taps and I have some coherent thoughts. I am still very concerned about my thoughts. I am not sure I want to publish. I put my thoughts up on the blog, asking for feedback. In my mind this is a draft piece and I am, as my blog says “a work in process”.

Thursday 11 March 5 pm :: I have had 4 appreciative comments. Encouraged by this, I decide to submit the piece. I make some changes. I send the piece to Reality. Reality is primarily a print based medium, but they also publish work on their website. If Reality accept the piece, then I can take the draft piece down. I have a church AGM to run that evening, so I leave the office in a hurry.

Friday 12 March 9 am :: It has been a big Thursday evening and another night away from my family, so I drink a slow morning coffee with Lynne and Kayli.

Friday 12 March 11 am :: I arrive at the office to find messages on my home phone, work phone, cell phone and email from Reality.

By the time Reality have cleared their email, and received my piece, that Friday morning, they have already received two copies of my draft post, emailed to them, cut and pasted from my website. I am totally unaware of this. No one has told me they are cutting and pasting from my website and sending it on to other people. This is a draft piece of work. I am angry.

Technically my creative common license makes this OK, although it does cut across my statement on the blog that this was a piece in process, and my request for feedback.

Reality say they like the article and want to print it. They are, quite rightly, concerned that by the time their print based medium has printed my article, lots of people in New Zealand, might have read by piece by email. So I can either publish (unpaid) with them, or publish (unpaid) on my blog. However, since they will put my piece on their website, I can get the best of both worlds, just at a slower pace. I pull the draft piece of my blog.

Friday 12 March 3:00 pm :: I am now under internet pressure to put the piece back up on my blog.

I (think) I have learnt
1. The internet moves VERY fast.
2. Print based medium is under huge pressure from internet media.
3. That I cannot trust the internet, including other Christians. Anything I put up on my blog, can and will be, cut and pasted and sent without my knowledge.
4. That unless something changes in either writing medium or the way people use the internet, that my print writing and internet writing career are incompatible. I can no longer use my blog as a place to process work.
5. That this is sad, and I would love to find another way forward.

whats the internet point 3

I continue to ponder the ethics of the internet and the personal implications for me as a thinker and writer. I have been informed that my Open Letter to Mel was cut and pasted from this website and emailed to people around New Zealand, without my knowledge.

I struggle with this. I put the letter up. I asked for feedback. There were 2 comments and 2 emails, yet I find out via a friend that via email it is flying around the internet.

I think aloud. The blog is great for that. I want to be read. I am honoured that people would cut and paste it. But why, oh why, couldn’t you pay me the courtesy of telling me. I feel quite exploited on this one.

Perhaps I am just too naive for this internet game.

Newsflash

The Taylor household is in uproar. The dog is dancing on the table. The guinea pig has just had kittens.

Drum roll … I have been mentioned FOUR yes, FOUR, times on Jordon Coopers blog. Jordon is a wonderful man who could now an internet friend for life. Off to change my blogroll!