7 steps how to read a book: #4 Spot the bad argument

Reading a book is an art. It requires skill, and the skillful are rewarded. The good reader but be able to distinguish between good arguments (points) and bad ones, otherwise he or she may end up swallowing the false logic.

I read a story about a man who wanted to test the wisdom of his three sons. He gave each of them an apple, and each apple was half rotten. One boy ate the whole thing. The second son threw the whole thing away. The third son cut off the rotten part and ate the good part. This shows how a good reader should be able to separate the good and bad in what he reads. Even the same author can have good and bad arguments. The analogy was applied to all of life. (I think the book was written by Richard Baxter). So lets identify some bad arguments.

Here are some examples of  false logic:


Birds fly.
A chicken is a bird.
Therefore, a chicken can fly.

 This argument is used is more complicated ways. For example, when some preacher is being criticised for spending the churches money, he may say:

Pharisees opposed Christians.
I am a Christian.
Whoever opposes me is a Pharisee.

Do you see the false logic? These kinds of arguments can be used in sales, politics or day to day conversations. And many times we are convinced before we reflect on the validity of the arguments. Another example would be, someone trying to justify his behaviour:

After all, everyone is doing it.

But that does not mean it is right! Many arguments are misleading, but we may be convinced because someone famous or trusted is speaking. 

Another example is a false "either/or" argument:

If you don't support Chelsea you don't know real football

The good reader must have a critical mind. Don't eat every apple, and don't eat every bit of the apple's you eat!

Rumours - GMO for the mind! (Poetry)

If you have lived long enough and have a little keen observation

I have no doubt you will relate to this common situation

WHen data treacles down the grape vine and changes form

The story modifies, twists and grows and amplifies, filled with lies

No one bothers to come and ask for your witness testimony (IF only!)

People receive the 'news' and accept it as fact; They swallow, digest and react!

My mistakes blown out of proportion, I'm painted as wicked as Nero!Others defend their image and get painted as heroes!

The crowds that used to greet go silent. (I wouldn't be shocked if they turned Kill-Bill violent!)

Written on each face, a scowl that tells me the rumour has taken root, found a cosy place
Yet no one has come to ask - No one wants a fact finding task or intercedes for grace

Those words become a mask to mask the truth that they wont ask

Gossip goes down like a t-bone stake, juicy, tender, GMO and fake

Wont someone give me a break!

But in all this atleast I know my real friends come to inquire because they care

For them, its more than just another juicy morsel to share.

So before you listen to a story that is seeping through the vine

ANd before you share it, think: Is it true, is it fair, will sharing it be kind?

Sometimes you have better things to feed your mind!

*Food for thought - No G.M.O. for the mind!*

7 steps - How to read a book: #3 Recognise the rhetoric (Or: A lot of nothing)

What is the difference between an argument, an explanation and rhetoric? An argument is an attempt to persuade using a conclusion and at least one supporting reason. An explanation is expanding on a point that  is already accepted as true (or assumed to be true). Rhetoric is different. Bowell and Kemp define it as “Any verbal or written attempt to persuade someone to believe, desire or do something that does not attempt to give good reasons for the belief, desire or actions, but attempts to motivate the belief, desire or action solely through the power of the words used.” An example may help. Imagine the following narration comes with a TV advert: 

“I look up at the blue sky, I see the lovely butterflies and I hear the sweet song of the birds. People are smiling and there is the sense of freedom on the air. That is why I use ‘Ka-blam’ washing paste. The smell of satisfaction!”

What we have above is not an argument, not even an explanation. It is a statement that tries to convince us to use ‘Ka-blam’, without giving us a reason. It just associates the paste with nice sounds and sights, for no reason at all. That is rhetoric. Modern adverts are rarely argument! (Although artistic adverts are very entertaining...!)

Another example will do. You are discussing the teachings of some group, church or sect, then a friend says, “Only an idiot can believe such rubbish!” May be you are not convinced, but you are intimidated and laugh along with your friends. He has not given you a reason to reject that idea. Bowell and Kemp call this an “appeal to ridicule.” No reason is given, but a negative label (such as ‘rubbish’ or ‘idiotic’) is used to persuade.

We find rhetoric in some speeches, books, used by friends, con-men, salesmen, preachers and everyday conversation. A useful skill is learning to recognise rhetoric and distinguish it from arguments and explanations. Sugar coated words have a rightful place in life, but be careful not to confuse them for arguments. That is how con-men get away with so much!

7 steps - How to read a book: #2 What's the point?

We continue with the series by asking "What's the point?" I mean what is the main point the writer is trying to put across?

Piper wrote, "most of us write to communicate something, rather than simply to throw things on the page for others to make of them what they will". Good reading means we aim to discover this "something". You are trying to discover the "mind" of the writer.

Sometimes a novel will have one theme. Sometimes a motivational book will have dozens of ideas. Our focus here is on the kind of book that contains explicit points it is trying to put across. When we say argument here, we don't mean a loud exchange of words. Tracy Bowell and Gary Kemp in their book "Critical thinking" define an argument as, "a set of propositions of which one is a conclusion and the remainder are the premises intended to support the conclusion". By "premise" they mean "basis" for the conclusion.

So an argument is a statement that gives a conclusion, and a reason for that conclusion. For example: "Taking too much salt is bad for you. People who take too much salt eventually suffer from high blood pressure." The conclusion is that "salt is bad for you". The basis is the experience of people who have taken too much. That is the premise.

When we come to speeches and adverts, we may find it is harder to pin-point the conclusion, the point of the statement. Many speeches and adverts are "decorated" with phrases that add "flavour", but many times there is no real point that is being made.

When you read a paragraph, try and find the one sentence that highlights the point of the whole statement. There is a motive behind the writing, and your aim should be to discover that point, whether you agree with it or not. You can only react properly to the piece of writing when you have identified the point.

When we analyse and understand statements better, there is less chance that we will be conned by "sweet talkers" and lose ourselves in the eloquence. Good analysis is part of wisdom.

The next step will be identifying what is a good argument and what is a bad or faulty argument. But that is for another entry!

7 steps - How to read a book: #1 Motive and mindset

There is a right way and a wrong way to read a book! If you approach books the way you approach watching a movie or listening to the radio, it is no surprise that you struggle with reading. It is like swapping the rules in volleyball and basketball – it will not work! So how can we enjoy and benefit from reading books?

Recently I started reading “How to Read a Book” by Mortimer J. Adler and Charles Van Doren. It reminded me that good reading is actually a skill that can be developed. Some people are too quick to surrender and say “reading is not for me” when the skill can be learned. Some of his insights are worth sharing!

The author talks about two attitudes to reading, (1) active and, (2) passive. The active reader makes an effort to digest what he reads. Compared to a sport, in basketball the one who throws the ball and his teammate who catches it are both active. Likewise, the writer was active in writing and the reader must be skilful in “catching” what he is saying. The active reader, who develops his skill, will be successful in his reading. Active reading means you are a player in the game, not a spectator. Effective reading needs an active mind.

The writer also distinguishes between reading for more information (of the same kind we already have, more or less) and reading for deeper understanding. If we only read material at the same level, our understanding will never grow. But if we challenge ourselves by reading material which has more than we presently understand, we can potentially experience personal growth. Choice of reading material is as important as our attitude to reading.

A lot of modern books and magazines try to make material that is not challenging, in order to indulge the readers who are avoiding critical thinking. You can’t blame them. The average reader wants to make a little effort as they do when watching a cartoon over the weekend. There is little challenge, but there is also little personal development. Others have mastered the art of memorising books for exams, without really understanding them, and therefore they can barely apply that data to their work. Our goal should be reading for personal development as well as enjoyment.

The first step to enjoying and benefiting from books is “counting the cost”. Do a cost benefit analysis and tell yourself, “The time and effort needed to read books properly is worth it. For personal growth and greater critical analysis, I will gladly make the effort to read the right stuff, and to read it properly.

For more, wait for the second part in this series!

May 1st - Labour day origin

Some interesting history on the origin of Labour Day ... One version at least! Go to:

http://lusakachamber.wordpress.com/2013/05/06/labour-day-celebration-and-the-cry-of-a-zambian-employee/

Editing culture?

The last few years have seen a lot of public debate on traditional roles. Some examples are the now infamous ‘Alangizi’ (matrons who prepare young women for marriage), traditional ceremonies and dressing (such as the woman who was half nude/ topless at a pageant, in the name of traditional culture), corporal punishment, and local languages as a medium of education. In all these discussion, people talk of ‘tradition’ and ‘culture’, but I suspect they do not all mean the same thing. Perhaps if we could define these terms, we may make some headway in these debates. Then we will also answer the question, do we have the power or the right to change tradition and culture?

We will borrow a definition of culture from Oliver Barclay:

Culture may be defined as the overall beliefs, priorities and values of the community that are expressed in its institutions and its practices. In the sense that I have chosen, the term culture can be Marxist, Muslim, secular, or Christian. There is a Western or Asian culture, or a city or rural culture.*

The first thing that this brings to light is that we have several cultures in Zambia, not one culture. There may be common elements in the tribal cultures, common denominators, but otherwise there is more than one culture in a nation with 72 tribes. But the picture gets more complicated. There are rural and urban cultures. I know we usually say the urban (us!) are Westernised, but since we have an urban, technology based lifestyle, this pattern of behaviour can be called a culture as well. 

To avoid any confusion, we will say that urban and rural have a common heritage (i.e. common roots) but slightly different cultures (patterns of behaviour in work, socialising, etc). So our heritage and our culture are different. But even modern village life is not what it was a hundred years ago – if a villager could time travel they would find a cultural shift of some kind when they go to the year 1914. Add to that other facts such as changes in diet over the years (I am told maize was introduced around the year 1880) and economic models such as use of money and passports. Culture, just like life is dynamic. Even if the change is slow over a century. Even now, within a generation, some of the slang used on Facebook baffles me – language changing in the space of twenty years.

The next point is that culture is not perfect. Like people, who are a mixture of good and bad (our great dignity and high calling, and our inclination to greed and pride) culture is also a mixture. I quote again:

All culture is a mixture of good and evil: good because all God’s gifts of creation are good, and man is still made in the image of God, and not one has reached the same depths of depravity as the devil; but evil because no one is an angel, no one is perfect in this life. The structures of society, and even the best aspects of our culture, are imperfect.*

There are things to be encouraged and things to be discouraged and even replaced. Culture is not perfect, no more than the people who practice it, whether Zambian, Asian, or Western.

The conclusion is we must consciously decide what to encourage and what to discourage. Culture is shifting sand, even if it shifts slowly over the generations. But then, we must ask, what standard are we going to use? We can imitate good things from other cultures, but we must not make them a standard, because they are equally a mixture of good and bad. Cultural snobs are in the wrong, whatever advantages or advances they may have in their society. There must be a standard to assess all cultures, not just comparing one culture to another. For the humanist the standard is probably utility, or pragmatics. For the secular thinker, the standard may be a matter of agreement or convenience. For the Christian, the wisdom of the Creator must set the pace for human life to flourish. The Creator sets the outline and provides the impetus for human life to reach the order and beauty and satisfaction it was originally designed for.

The biggest mistake we can make in this regard is to deify culture. We must not promote new things simply because of their newness or old things just because they are ancient. The value is not intrinsic in its novelty or age, but rather in how constructive or destructive it is for society. The more our social bonds are built on what is right, the better our society will be. That is something worth passing on to the next generation.

*[Quote from ‘Developing a Christian Mind’ by Oliver Barclay. Available at Bookworld shops]

Danger in the streets

Walking through town on a busy day, when suddenly
The crowd screams and people are running in all directions
Panic, vendors drop their wares on the street,
Fruit trampled by rushing feet

Stumbling, almost tumbling, not sure where to turn
Crying and scampering, Not sure whats going on
Where is the danger? Where is safety? What has caused this maddening cry?
Gun shots in the air, scared faces everywhere
Old and young racing down the street; shocked faces, stumbling feet
Then suddenly its over
Three officers throw a body in a van
A lifeless corpse next to an AK 47
He lived by the sword, he died by the sword
Bullets in this case - a crime attempted in vain
Such a waste, such a price, such a shame

Born Again - a word everyone uses and no one defines

Language is dynamic. Over time, some words even lose meaning or fall out of popular use, or change meaning. The word "BOMA" (which refered to British Overseas Administration offices, or something like that) has come to mean something else. Strictly speaking there was no BOMA after independence, but we use the word anyway.

If you went into the street and randomly asked a few Zambians what "Born Again" means, you may come up with as many different answers as the people you interview! Some would say "people who attend a church with loud music that can be heard down the road". Others would say, "people who go for crusades" or "people who speak in tongues (charismatic  - but there are some charismatic groups who are not 'born again' but purport to have the same gifts)". Still others might say "those who listen to loud American preachers". Within the church some will say "a person who has repented" or "someone who has faith" or even "anyone who is baptized". How can such a common term have so many different interpretations?

It presupposes a radical diagnosis of human condition. It proposes that, what we need is not simply new resolutions or new attitude or even positive thinking or more self esteem. This view says what we need is so radical, it is called new life. We are naturally unconscious to the wonder of the Creator. We are naturally rule breakers with an attitude of apathy to our maker. We are masters of making excuses (while we are quick to point fingers when others do the same wrong we just excused ourselves from doing). Our spiritual compass cannot pick the true north. Going by this diagnosis, we do not just need a new record (forgiveness) but a new vital principle (spiritual life, regeneration). We don't just need the heavenly courtroom to cancel the record, we need a new condition in our hearts and mind. We need our spritual compass to come alive, to sense the true 'north' and gravitate towards it, to find satisfaction in Him who is greater than we can think or imagine.

In the book Titus 2:3-8 (simplified message version), we have a description of this change:

^3-8 It wasn’t so long ago that we ourselves were stupid and stubborn, dupes of sin, ordered every which way by our glands, going around with a chip on our shoulder, hated and hating back. But when God, our kind and loving Savior God, stepped in, he saved us from all that. It was all his doing; we had nothing to do with it. He gave us a good bath, and we came out of it new people, washed inside and out by the Holy Spirit. Our Savior Jesus poured out new life so generously. God’s gift has restored our relationship with him and given us back our lives. And there’s more life to come—an eternity of life! You can count on this.

 This tells us that our condition, not just our position (status) needs a change. It tells us about a change so great, that only God can do this to us, we are powerless to bring it about. But unless you accept the radical diagnosis, you will not see the necessity of the cure. But your natural eagerness to make excuses should be a clue that maybe this state of spiritual lifelessness is a reality after all.

As for the use of the term "born again", no doubt many who use it have no clue what it means at all. It is time we pay attention to defining our church terminology. Otherwise it may be just another public secret, like the word BOMA.

The deeper the roots, the stronger the tree

The deeper the roots, the greater storm it will survive

Starved by drought and disaster

This tree is now a master

Of the elements; Standing tall come wind or rain

All the hardship was not in vain

In the thirsty days its roots dug deeper

When the strong wind came, (that mighty reaper)

Other trees fell but this one stood tall

Unmovable like a defense brick wall

Deep roots are the secret of standing tall

Deep roots; the invisible strength unseen on the surface

Knowledge and faith quietly fed

Power and character building up inside

Roots growing deep and wide

Its not all about what you surface

The surface can be deceitful

Like on so many trees that fell

who could tell that they wouldn't stand?

The secret is the foundation

The eternal Rock - solid and eternally true

The word and prayer giving life to you

Daily doses slowly building you from the inside

The more growth, the better in warfare

You can't fatten the cow on the day of battle

You can't study when the exam has begun

Training should begin before the storm has come

The deeper you go the stronger you'll be

How deep are your roots?

Understanding the Book of Proverbs

"A proverb is a concise, memorable saying, usually in poetic form, expressing a generally accepted observation about life as filtered through biblical revelation. From this definition, we can observe that a proverb is characterized as being concise and memorable, simple yet profound, specific yet general, usually expressed in poetic form, and observations about life as filtered through biblical revelation. To clarify our understanding of the nature of proverbs, we will examine these five characteristics in individual proverbs." - Dr. Robert V. McCabe

An interesting article on how to break down the Book of Proverbs:
http://www.oldtestamentstudies.org/my-papers/other-papers/wisdom-literature/interpreting-proverbs/

The good old days - Making sense of the endless longing

Do not say, “Why were the old days better than these?”
    For it is not wise to ask such questions. - Eccl. 7:10

Every one has those 'gold old days' moments, when we recall some exciting moment in life. Sometimes it is even years later when we look back and say "Those days were so much fun! I didn't realise how good things were!" This is something good, a way of appreciating  the good things in life. A grateful attitude is also good going forward, it makes us less complacent, less self-pitying and more open to enjoy the good we come across today. This can also give us hope for making more golden memories in days ahead!

But there is a danger, a "twisted" form of remembering the past. We can create a "golden age" in our minds, and turn that into a debilitating excuse to stop really living in the present. We can get stuck in fantasies of that "peak moment" in life and refuse to do anything significant today.

Different people have different "peak" exciting moments in life. Others will talk of their early days (pre-teen), others speak of secondary school (high school?) days, other still college days, and others life after thirty. There is nothing wrong with such memories. They are good and we should be thankful. But the problem is when we begin to moan "Why were the old days better than these?"

The Pulpit Commentary describes someone who thinks like this as follows; "in his moody discontent he looks on what is around him with a jaundiced eye, and sees the past through a rose-tinted atmosphere, as an age of heroism, faith, and righteousness." He goes on to say, "Every age has its light and dark side; the past was not wholly light, the present is not wholly dark. And it may well be questioned whether much of the glamour shed over antiquity is not false and unreal." So the problem is, we forget the past had its own challenges. But because we no longer have to wrestle with decisions and danger, the 'past' has become a safe place. This mindset is dangerous for the present!
Sometimes the Pan-African philosophy can reach this extreme. As much as colonization was a horrible injustice, we must also remember that Africa was not a paradise before then! Wars, slave trade and abuse were real. In the desire to become Afrocentric, we must not imagine it was all garden of Eden two hundred or one thousand years ago. Like all cultures, we had our strengths and weaknesses. But in our attempt to paint a picture of the past, we must be wary of creating a false historical apex. Otherwise our goal will be an imagined point which did not exist. When we are deceitful are the past, we will fail to truly learn from history, and map a prudent way forward. We get stuck in a fantasy, and grumbling and complaining about the present.

In truth, the only garden of Eden was the garden of Eden. The root problem is not how the African paradise was disturbed, as much as that was unprovoked hostility. The root problem goes deeper.

Two things we need to remember. The first: 

 There is a time for everything,
    and a season for every activity under the heavens:

²     a time to be born and a time to die,
    a time to plant and a time to uproot,
³     a time to kill and a time to heal,
    a time to tear down and a time to build,
⁴     a time to weep and a time to laugh,
    a time to mourn and a time to dance,
⁵     a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them,
    a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing,
⁶     a time to search and a time to give up,
    a time to keep and a time to throw away,
⁷     a time to tear and a time to mend,
    a time to be silent and a time to speak,
⁸     a time to love and a time to hate,
    a time for war and a time for peace.

-Eccl. 3:1-8

Some things end simply because time is up. Our safe places are, at best, only here for a short time, not forever. At least in the present world. The second is, (I forget who said this), the dividing line between good and evil is not simply between countries, ideologies or parties, but runs right through every human heart. We are fragile and faulty, struggling internally and externally.

Once we accept the nature of our world, this will not placate our longing for permanent security, emotional and otherwise. Rather, it can only be a pointer to One who promises to fill our longing for never ending purpose, secure identity, love and spirituality. All the good things of this life, as really and truly good as they are, are only a hint of what the world always should have been. As C. S. Lewis put it, if we have desires this world cannot satisfy (but only hint at) this shows we were made for another (permanent) one. What we do with this hint, and how we satisfy the longing, is another matter entirely. But for Lewis and others, the answer lies in the Easter story, the one man who conquered the ultimate enemy that cuts short life - death itself.

Let's be real: Why some biographies are more depressing than helpful

Would you rather read the story of a perfect hero who has never had any struggles or real temptations, or a hero who had to overcome problems and discouragement to succeed? Most people would want the hero they can identify with. What good is  hero who is immune to the struggles I face every day?

Zambia is 50 years old this year, as as we approach this anniversary I have taken special interest in books recording our 'brief' history. One danger when recording true life stories is that we can exaggerate events in people's lives, turning them into 100% heroes or villains. In the name of presenting an inspirational story, writers can edit out any signs of weakness or frustration, any mistakes and any bad decisions along the way. The motive is commendable right? Wrong!

When we create 'superhuman' heroes, we make someone who we can admire, but never aspire to become! If that hero was immune to mistakes and indecision, then we are so far removed that we have someone to admire, but not someone to imitate. This person cannot be a role model. Secondly, when we make our role models emotionless legends, we cause frustration because we know it is beyond us to ever become that. We are glad spectators, but we will also just sit around waiting for more heroes like that to show up and fix our problems. Our role becomes passive observers. We never react by saying "I want to do that!" The third issue is how we can be tempted to look down on those who are struggling to become better. We tend to feel pressured to always appear as if everything is alright, and hide our struggles, as if it is 'sub-human' or taboo to be facing any kind of struggle.

As more people write biographies, they should be mindful to present three-dimensional human beings, with dreams, frustrations, challenges, temptations, mistakes, skills, friends, enemies, tears, laughter, anger, fear and hope. Only then can me move beyond admiring our national heroes, to aspiring to become like them, in all the ways that they overcome evil around them and within.

In many business and church circles it seems taboo to present ourselves as going through the motions of human life in a fallen world. People want to pretend that all is well all the time or they are already in heaven, and look down on others. We are too image conscious, and pride ourselves in painting that perfect image, no matter what the reality is. So we end up with people that paint a plastic image of being happy day and night, free from struggles and temptations which the rest of us face. But we know that is only skin deep. They need to get past the image they are fighting to preserve, if they are to truly rise above the problems that are being swept under the carpet. After all, we are supposed to follow the 'Man of sorrows' who was 'acquainted with grief' (Isaiah 53) and who, though completely victorious, was tempted in every way (Hebrews 4). It takes more faith to admit "I am hurting" and "help" when everyone expects a novel image, than imitate the plastic smiles all around. And maybe, just maybe, someone might be encouraged by the sight of our honesty too.

What do work and music have in common?

Music is almost universally enjoyed. Almost everyone has some kind on sound they enjoying hearing in rhythm.  I love the sound of a good acoustic guitar, skilful voices accompanying the instrument (not the other way around!) and it feels like the world stands still. Other music makes you want to jump up and wave your hands. Still other music makes you shout for a friend to come hear a common favorite, as you turn up the volume!

Music is like language. It is used to express every emotion and almost every occasion. It is used at weddings, parties, funerals, official ceremonies, advertisements, funerals, competitions ... almost every area of life can have a song to express something.

If you could choose three songs, to say "These express what I feel and what my life is like", what songs would you choose?

Our choice of music may tell something about our lives and attitudes as well. Some music is always angry, some is always broken hearten, some is always joyful, and other music doesn't make sense (not even tot he one who sang the song!) At other times, the music rubs off on us, and we being to reflect the language and attitude of the songs in everyday life. It becomes a kind of peer pressure.

Work is a lot like music. Sometimes we endure music (when we are visitors) but it is not really our type. Sometimes we endure work as well! There are days when a favorite song does not appeal, much like work too. Other times we endure a popular song because everyone is singing in, then we find that we begin to like it. Same with work, we can start a new task and despise it, then find we enjoy it over time. We can also despise certain music because we believe it is offensive, destructive and simply rude. Some work also raises ethical questions.Sometimes, a song which has an offensive message may have a catchy tune, and we ignore the words for the love of the song. Some people endure work that makes them sick!

We should also say that work, principled and good work, is also beautiful. Human creativity, bringing order and provision to life is a beautiful thing. Hard as it may be, the order (or music) of life is lovely when we can use our gifts and talents to do something that expresses our mandate to nurture and shape life. A good biography is like a lovely song, tracing the path of work, love and challenges through ups and downs.

Some people ignore music as so much noise. The same way others see work as the disturbance between the weekends! But life is a rhythm and every point in the song matters, adding value to the next part. Our rest and our work both matter. Our skills and talents properly used are as much a part of the song of our lives as the weekends. The challenge is to live every part of our lives, to write every part of the song, that it makes the rest all the more beautiful. No sacred/secular divide. In the end, all of life can be a song of praise.

Looking for wisdom in the 21st century

When most people think of wisdom, they will either imagine someone with incredible academic skill (and language that only professors can understand) or street smarts (usually a fast talker with the ability to sell sand to Bushmen, perhaps a Katondo street salesman).  Alternatively they may think of a man with a long grey beard sitting on a hill side gazing at a waterfall in deep thought. But the real picture of wisdom is very different. Most importantly, real wisdom is available to all of us.

Wisdom is about skilful living. More accurately, wisdom would be understanding life and skilful living would be called “prudence” (i.e. timely application of principles), but they fall in the same “family” of words. Wisdom is timeless, that is why it can be passed on from generation to generation. Let us also remember that human nature does not change, even if technology does. That means that, in principle, wisdom has value across the generations, no matter the context it will be applied in. David Atkinson, writing about the book of Proverbs, tells us:

despite the centuries which separate us from the authors of these sayings, the unchanging continuities of human existence remain: making friends, coping with sexuality, handling money, responding to poverty, making  a living, learning through loss, muddling through difficulties, facing death, and so on. These are the constant human themes, and Proverbs addresses them all. Wisdom is about helping people to cope; about seeing things in a fresh way which gives resources for living… it puts a mirror up to our behaviour and says, ‘Are you like this? Is there a better way to live?’ 

This presupposes, as I have already said, that there is a common thread connecting us, a shared human nature. This nature, both physical and moral, can be called an order or law of nature. Atkinson goes on to say:

We know deep inside us, what moral obligation means, and that it confronts us from without. Moral obligation is not simply something we make up for ourselves. We know that recoiling in horror against genocide in Rwanda or ‘ethnic cleansing’ in Bosnia is not a matter of personal taste and preference for those who do not like that sort of thing. There is an objective moral order which confronts us.

This is now more an African and Asian perspective than it is Western. Post modernism has swept through the first world and with it the idea that each person can choose their own right and wrong, their own wisdom. Now the voices protest about anyone insisting on moral standards at all. Hopefully, the tide is turning. Atkinson further explains:

in recent decades there have been moral philosophers who have argued that morality, if it means anything at all, is essentially private and personal. That usually means subjective and relative. More recently, however, there has been a recovery of the fact that moral obligation has an objective dimension (which ordinary common sense tells most of us anyhow).

Once he has made a case for objective morals which apply to all human beings, he focuses on the personal, omniscient source of these standards. “Christian believers identify that source of moral value with God.”

The search for wisdom only makes sense if there is a standard which applies to all people of all times. That standard only makes sense if there is a guarantee that the system will continue to work, to bring a satisfying foundation for our true identity, the road to a fulfilling purpose and that life can have meaning even in the midst of meaningless trouble and apparently senseless times and chance.

For Atkinson, as for those who share his faith, there can only be one conclusion:

The God whom Jesus Christ reveals is the Creator whose ordering wisdom lies behind everything that exists, whose moral character gives meaning to our awareness of right and wrong, and whose Holy Spirit infuses us with life, light, love and creativity.

We cannot begin a search for wisdom without accepting that there is a standard of right and wrong that is bigger than all of us. If we fail to do this, then there is not only no point to the hunger and longing, but there is also no logic is any of us ever again saying “It’s not fair”. But somehow even the most confident agnostic will not say “This is inconvenient” or “this is illogical” but “It’s not fair, it’s not right” when they are wronged (however they may interpret wrong in the post-modernist philosophy). Learning wisdom begins in seeing right and wrong. It’s that simple. But this is only the beginning of the journey, which leads us to the source, and all that is in store for those who hunger and thirst for more.

What is Zambian fashion?

When you look around you see that Zambians like an army of ambassadors, with fashion from every corner of the world. We see the Nigerian Boo-boo, the Congolese Chitenge, the Italian pointed shoes, the Rockers tight jeans, the Rumba baggy trousers, the Cowboy hat, the Indian Sari, the Che Guevara t-shirts, not to mention tattoos, dreads, pierced noses, ankle chains, Alaskan boots...

So what is the Zambian fashion? Some go to traditional ceremonies and say "there it is!", and we all pretend it is modest and acceptable while people who are more covered in mini-skirts are condemned! Somehow watching "Shaka" is a family activity, but not "Baywatch". What do you think, what is Zambian dressing, and why the double standard?

The bottom line is we seem to have parallel systems of dress and modesty. Newspaper front page pictures of a traditional ceremony with bare chested women is modest, but a picture of women in a night club in the Friday Post is unacceptable. You find teens who are ready to wear swimsuits around their friends, but would flee for cover if their guardians showed up. Why be ready to dress like that with strangers but not around family?

 Stemming back to colonial times, parallel systems of dress, education, belief and lifestyle were perfectly acceptable. This has resulted in both good and bad in society.

People effectively marry three times in Zambia even when they marry once; that is, traditionally, by civil law and in church. But any one of the three would be acceptable for it to be considered a real marriage (not one third of a marriage!)

Similarly, people seem to accept having three different types of "morality", freely choosing to live by traditional, Christian or post-modernist thinking. (Post-modernists believe there is no right and wrong, no taboos and moral limits, but 'whatever makes you happy' is acceptable). It is more common for people to switch between the three according to what is "convenient" at any one moment.

There are no easy answers to this situation. In some ways it has made us very tolerant and accommodating people. But at the same time, we need to rethink our worldviews, to actually believe something and stand for something. Otherwise, we are living the life of a shadow, changing shape according to who is around. Sometimes we have to stand for or against something. Our reputation as peace loving is not a bad thing, as long as it does not mean we throw principles out the window in the name of expedience.  We need to find answers for these hard questions. There is a saying, "If you do not stand for something, you will fall for anything."

So the question of fashion is part of a wider questions of values and worldview. Then the fashion can reflect that identity. Values are, after all, a question of what we prize and promote, and what we find offensive. But then again, perhaps but unique blend of everything in the global village might be a true reflection of where we are.