Of Kings And Prophets Season 1 Episode 2: Review

March 17, 2016 Leave a comment

There are two ways to drive from Pretoria to Cape Town. The one is straight forward: you get onto the N1 and you drive straight, not turning off anywhere. The other way is to digress constantly, taking the scenic route, discovering small towns and seeing sights you otherwise never would have. The end result is the same: arriving in the Mother City. One of the routes gets you there quicker; the other enriches you. There’s no need to fight about which is the right one.

This week’s episode, “Let The Wicked Be Ashamed”,  were something of a “scenic route”-take, which I assume is going to be par for the course for this series. Again, not necessarily problematic when it comes to interpreting the Old Testament. The Bible tells a lot of things; it also omits a great deal. How would Saul’s sons react to a statement made by Samuel such as the one that he has? How would the kingdom’s people react? What would his wife have said? Why can’t we ask these questions just because the book of 1 Samuel doesn’t? The Israelites did not have silver and had to trade with the Philistines for weapons (1 Samuel 13:19-22). It would be quite plausible that people would try a lot of things to gain the upper hand when it comes to battles and wars. The portrayal of the tribe of Reuben’s effort to betray Saul was quite interesting in this regard. Not included in the original narrative, but also not implausible. This is part of the art of adaptation – and, as all visual renderings of Biblical narratives are, this remains an interpretation and one that this viewer is getting more and more on board with.

Olly Rix continues to give a strong performance as David, setting up quite a few of his far-off future flaws. This man is not necessarily against, well, sexual adventures (Bathsheba anyone? But that is still a long time coming) and found himself this week in a kind-of Joseph-Potiphar’s Wife situation with Ahinoam (Simone Kessell) that he didn’t see coming, prompting his return to Bethlehem, just in time to be anointed by Samuel (Mohammad Bakri), who still annoys the crap out of me. He is not believable as the great man of God he is supposed to be. This oke reminds me of a cross between the Soothsayer in an Asterix-comic and the blind Seer in Vikings, but with a lisp and a nifty little blood-axe. I almost wish he got assassinated, even though I knew it wouldn’t happen. Maybe they are trying to portray him in the same violent way that the Old Testament portrays God? There might be a correlation there. Either way, he doesn’t work for me as a character.

Saul, on the other hand, continues to be absolutely tremendous. Whether Ray Winstone is simply the best actor on the show, or that the writers are nailing his journey as a troubled king – I think he’s brilliant. There were some gems that Saul planted this week (“This is the price of kingship!” – something David will learn in many ways when he is to rule in future) that foreshadowed the trials that he is yet to go through, which works really, really well. Not every little decision he makes gets sanctioned by God – neither does God sanction every decision we make today. It should not come as a surprise to any viewer.

Lastly, Mikhal (Maisie Richardson-Sellers) continues to be intriguing. Along with her dad, they seem to be the only two real believers in Israel. Ish-Baal (James Floyd) and Jonathan (Haaz Sleiman) are still to really turn into something other than stereotypical bloodlusters (I am sure we will see more dimensions to them further on) and her sister is still mourning her dead husband-to-be. So, she is the still small voice of religion that the show opts for, while David is seemingly not yet “the man after God’s own heart”. The show desperately needs to bring some of that in, otherwise we will fail to care for David out of any other reason than that we simply have to. An opportunity for this is very much present in the next episode which apparently will give us the epic battle that inspired a plethora of songs, sayings, pictures and renditions.

This week the show also wisely omitted the explicit nudity that I guess the producers were tempted to show between David and Ahinoam. Less is more, my friends, and suggestion in film is often stronger than simply blatantly forcing stuff down a viewer’s eye.

Building up, setting up, carving away at the marble statue that is to come, this week’s episode scores a strong 7.5/10.

Of Kings and Prophets Season 1 Episode 1: Review

March 13, 2016 Leave a comment

 

It is always tricky with Biblical epics: how true do we stay to the source material and how far are we allowed to digress without losing the essence? The first episode of this new Old Testament-based series walks a tight rope when dealing with this question, but succeeds for the most part, drawing the viewer into a story that can potentially become one of the television greats – as it is supposed to be*.

Partial to Biblical storytelling as well as film making myself, I was firstly struck by the attention to detail of the production design. It was wonderful to see proper set design, cinematography and grading that is very much on par with the likes of Game Of Thrones and Vikings (even to the point of mimicking some of that, but more on that later). This, thankfully, breaks the notion that just because it is based upon or an interpretation of religious material, it needs to be skimmed over in favour of some pushed-down-the-throat, overtly religious message. Of Kings And Prophets steers very clear of this and opts to ask some very serious questions: if Israel is supposed to be “the light for the nations”, a notion that King Saul himself utters twice in this episode, then why must the Amalekites be vanquished in their entirety? Why must women and children be murdered in the name of Elohim? It is unfortunate that the matter of the anathema did not get explained. Instead the episode fell into the Game Of Thrones-trap, which started with earlier historical series such as Rome, of using gratuitous sex and nudity as a flimsy exposition device, all the while stating itself as a “mature” series. It didn’t need to do that to get its point across. It could have used that space to explain to more uninformed viewers why Samuel said what he said.

Which brings me to the most interesting parts of this episode: the portrayal of the characters. Ray Winstone as King Saul shows convincingly that this man would be tethering on the brink between greatness and madness from the get go. I admit I was a bit uncertain about the choices for him and David at first, but throughout the episode they grew on me. I am anticipating how Winstone will have us see-sawing between rooting for and hating Saul in future episodes. Saul’s wife is a delightfully cunning woman and it would be interesting to see where her character will be going in the next few episodes. Jonathan was solid, as was Mikhal, who is to become David’s wife at some future point (this is not a spoiler, it is in the Bible). David’s portrayal became more convincing as the episode carried on, which is weird considering that filming is rarely done sequential, but nonetheless, he became someone we can root for as the series progress. The little seeds of romance between him and Mikhal as well as the bit of tension between him and Saul at the end of the episode provided some nice foreshadowing, albeit not necessarily surprising for those acquainted with the Biblical narrative. But it does make you want to see how it will be portrayed (and how far they will go with David and Jonathan’s friendship, eventually, seeing that they are not scared to shy away from, well, explicit sexposition). Garth Collins as Goliath was a treat and I can’t wait to see David throw his famous stone into his big Granite forehead. Yoab, who is to be a general in David’s army some day in the future, was fine and his relation to David was set quite firmly. The biggest question mark to me was the portrayal of Samuel the prophet, who doesn’t really explain himself or draw Saul into his reasoning, but simply commands  holy war in a “God wills it!”- fashion. He didn’t convince me to be the sturdy but slightly disappointed man of God** as he was supposed to be and his lisp did not help either. But, all things being equal, he should die within an episode or three of old age anyway, so we will let that pass for now.

As far as narrative goes, it seems that some liberty will be taken with the order of certain events so as to make for suspenseful storytelling, something that is not necessarily a problem. Anyone familiar with the problematic behind Old Testament history will know that oral tradition allows for certain events to be switched around, as well as leaving some blanks that needed to be filled in by the modern-day screenwriters. They did a fine job inserting some almost literal renditions of lines from the book of 1 Samuel (Samuel the prophet’s lines at the end of the episode especially sounds chilling when heard out loud). They also cleverly set-up certain other points of future action, such as the mole inside Saul’s household and the reason(s) for the war against the Philistines, which will be intriguing for viewers both familiar with the tales to come as well as those who are not.

All in all this was as strong a start for a series as anyone could hope for, with a strong narrative and characters that, thank God (pun intended), we can distinguish from each other and whose names we can actually pronounce. The strongest card in the series’ suit (or biggest stone in their slingshot, if you will) is the potential to ask difficult questions regarding the will of God, how people understood Him back then, how we are to do it now and how we are to react to His participation in our lives, without having to become overtly spiritual (although there was some very ethereal lighting in a cave at some point, hinting towards the whole Lion of Judah-theme, but let’s let the gaffer and his team have their fun). It also has the power to reintroduce the Bible to a generation that has forgotten how to read it. Let’s hope it continues to keep its balance on the tight rope it created for itself.

8/10

*This viewer is especially proud of all the South African involvement on this production. May it serve (along with Mad Max: Fury Road’s recent Oscar success) to install the deserved trust from international investors that our filmmakers and technicians know what they’re doing.

**Samuel was disappointed that the tribes of Israel wanted a king just like the nations around them, instead of remaining a theocracy, under the rule of God by voice of the prophets. He reluctantly anointed Saul and was especially saddened by Saul’s disobedience throughout his reign. He was a bit happier to anoint David in Saul’s stead, but even that wasn’t exactly what he envisioned for the nation of Israel. It would serve to know a little about this to understand his seemingly curt actions.

Oh What A (South African) Circus

December 10, 2013 Leave a comment

With apologies to Sirs Andrew Lloyd Webber & Tim Rice:

 

Oh what a circus, oh what a show
South Africa has gone to town
Over the death of a boxer called Nelson Mandela
We’ve all gone crazy
Mourning all day and mourning all night
Falling over ourselves to get all of the misery right

Oh what an exit, that’s how to go
When they’re ringing your curtain down
Demand to be buried like Nelson Mandela
It’s quite a sunset
And good for the country in a roundabout way
We’ve made the front page of all the world’s papers today

But who is this Saint Madiba?
Why all this howling, hysterical sorrow?
What kind of god has lived among us?
How will we ever get by without him?

He had his moments, he had some style
The best show in town was the crowd
Outside the Union Buildings crying, “Oh, Madiba”
But that’s all gone now
As soon as the smoke from the funeral clears
We’re all gonna see and how, he did nothing for years

Salve regent pater misericordiae
Vita dulcedo et spes nostra
Salve salve regent
Ad te clamamus exules filii Adam
Ad te suspiramus gementes et flentes
O clemens o pia

You let down your people Madiba
You were supposed to have been immortal
That’s all they wanted, not much to ask for
But in the end you could not deliver

Sing you fools, but you got it wrong
Enjoy your prayers because you haven’t got long
Your king is dead, your king is through
And he’s not coming back to you

Politics kept us all in the score
Since 27 April 1994
But the star has gone, the glamour’s worn thin
That’s a pretty bad state for a state to be in

 

Instead of government we had a stage
Instead of ideas, a terrorist’s rage
Instead of help we were given a crowd
He did say much and he said it loud

Sing you fools, but you got it wrong
Enjoy your prayers because you haven’t got long
Your king is dead, your king is through
He’s not coming back to you

Salve regent pater misericordiae
Vita dulcedo et spes nostra
Salve salve regent mandela
Ad te clamamus exules filii Adam
Ad te suspiramus gementes et flentes
O clemens o pia

Please cry for me South Africa
I am not ordinary, I am important
And I’m deserving of such attention
And yes, we all are, I think we all are
So share my glory, so share my coffin
So share my glory, so share my coffin

It’s our funeral too

 

Bou Die Koninkryk/Build The Kingdom Beach Outreach 27 December 2011 – 6 January 2012 at T.O. Strand – information and banking details

November 29, 2011 Leave a comment

Dutch Reformed Church
Vryheid Klipkerk

P.O.Box 35 Vryheid 3100
Tel 034– 982-2862
Fax 034-9832687
E-mail admin@vryheidklipkerk.co.za

November 2011
To whom it may concern

Sponsorship for outreach

From 27 December 2011 – 6 January 2012 the Youth Group from the Dutch Reformed Church Vryheid (“Klipkerk”) will be going on an outreach to T.O. Strand Beach Resort at the KwaZulu Natal South Coast. During this outreach the teenagers will minister to other teenagers, young people and families by presenting fun and spiritual activities and engaging the holiday goers in a positive and spiritually uplifting way.

An outreach like this requires much organization and preparation. The team consists of roughly 30 people that needs to be transported all the way to the South Coast and back and who must eat three times a day. We hereby take the opportunity to ask whether it will be possible for you/your company to assist us through means of a sponsorship. Your help will be highly appreciated.

Warm regards

______________________

Jacolien Fourie
Dutch Reformed Church Vryheid
083 670 2600

Bank details:
Stranddiens
ABSA Vryheid
Acc no. 9133129338
Ref: Name

Categories: Blogroll

Ja ja ja…en dit wat nog kom…

November 14, 2011 Leave a comment

Okay, ek weet ek het Augustus laas geblog, lyk my. Hierdie is net om te laat weet ek is nog hier, ek het nog nie die blog toegemaak nie. Het wel die afgelope tyd ‘n paar dinge gehad om oor te dink.
Verwag maar in die toekoms nog steeds ‘n paar fliek posts. En verseker nog (meer) rugby/Blou Bulle posts. Dalk meer en meer gereeld as voorheen – daar is ‘n vooruitsig oor beter toegang tot Loftuskaartjies in die nuwe jaar wat wag, so dit kan net opwindend raak!
En dan oorweeg ek dit om oor ‘n ander, meer sensitiewe tema te begin blog. Maar voordat ek die aap uit die mou laat, sal ek eers nog goed gaan oorweeg of en wat ek daaroor sal skryf. So, wees maar solank nuuskierig!

Categories: Life, movies, rugby

Steve Hofmeyr – Die Verste Uur: beslis die lees werd!

August 7, 2011 2 comments

Okay, so ek het al ‘n vorige keer oor Steve geblog, maar hierdie is anders. Dis die eerste keer dat ek fiksie uit sy pen lees (ek het nog nie die laaste paar hoofstukke van Mense Van My Asem klaargelees nie!) en ek was aangenaam beïndruk.

Spoiler alert: die konsep is ‘n bietjie Back To The Future, ‘n bietjie Sliding Doors, ‘n bietjie The Butterfly Effect. Dis baie Steve. Dit vra die lekker ou-ou vraag van “wat as?” Ons almal het dit al gevra. Ons almal het al gewonder of ons anders sou kies as ons weer die kans kon kry. Ons almal het al gewonder wanneer die kwantum-fisici nou uiteindelik hulle gatte in rat gaan kry sodat ons kan time travel en ‘n paar dinge in die geskiedenis kan gaan verander. Dit hoef nie groot goed te wees nie: ‘n bietije harder geswot het vir ‘n toets. Net een stel sit-ups meer gedoen het. Net vyf minute vroeër gery het en betyds gekom het vir daai belangrike vergadering. Of net eerder stilgebly het toe daai simpel opmerking gemaak is. Kleinighede.

‘n Val van ‘n perd af is ook nie juis ‘n aardskuddende gebeurtenis nie, maar dit verander die verloop van die geskiedenis grootskaals. Baaaie grootskaals. Die Jakarandastad word die Akasiastad. Hamiltonstraat is nou Ignatius Ferreirastraat. Die Beeld bestaan nie, maar bands soos eMossie en Spermatosa wel. Pick ‘n Pay is weg en Kies en Keur is in. En daar is nie so iets soos Afrikaners nie, maar wel Boere. En midde-in dit alles is ‘n jong manstudent vasgevang in ‘n maalstroom van tyd, keuses en die musiek van Jean-Philippe Rameau…

Die Verste Uur was vir my nooit iets anders as wat dit is nie: goeie wetenskapfiksie en ‘n blik op hoe dinge kon wees. Dit was nie vir my ‘n weirderige sosio-kritiese kommentaar of what not nie. Granted, dit lees bietjie funny met die storielyn, die liefdesbrief en die wiki-agtige info oor Rameau en ‘n paar ander goed wat grootliks parallel op die bladsye verskyn, maar na ‘n rukkie raak ‘n mens dit gewoond. Persoonlik het ek nie regtig oor die komponis en sy miskende genialiteit geworry nie, maar ek wou meer weet oor watse keuses Jamie gaan doen of wat met hom gaan gebeur. Maar die komponis se genialiteit is obviously belangrik, anders was daar nie ‘n tydsreis nie – hoewel ons met minder info ook daardie link sou kon maak.

Waar die verloop in Hoofstuk I dalk ‘n bietjie stadigerig was, skiet dit in Hoofstuk II met ‘n tollende spoed vorentoe (of is dit agtertoe?). Nou raak dit regtig juicy en ons sien hoe noodlottig ‘n niksbeduidende afval van ‘n perd af nou eintlik kan wees. Die slim ding wat Steve in hierdie verhaal doen is om nie die karakter as homself terug te laat reis nie, maar as een van sy voorgeslagte. Dit maak dinge nogal anders, want dis nou nie meer die karakter wat ‘n ander hede manipuleer nie, maar die mense in daardie tyd self wat dinge effe anders laat uitdraai.

Maar die regte juice kom in die alternatiewe Pretoria, 2011. Dis quirky, om die minste te sê. Hier het ek gewens kon ons baie meer tyd spandeer, doodeenvoudig om te sien hoe Steve se visie oor hierdie alternatiewe hede verder sou uitpan, want dit wat hy beskryf is fassinerend. Die feit dat ek in Pretoria bly en self as student, en nou nog, baie van daardie strate bewandel en bery het, maak dit net nog meer boeiend. Ek bly wonder: wat sou gebeur het as Jamie langer daar gebly het? Hoe sou Kaas gewees het as hulle mekaar sou raakloop? Wat sou tussen hom en Juliana gebeur het? Hoe sou TUKS gelyk het? Sou Morné Steyn nog vir die Blou Bulle gespeel het? Hmmm…
Op die ou end konfronteer die boek jou met die ooglopende vraag van “wat sou jy gedoen het?” Dalk ‘n bietjie vinnig, want Jamie maak daardie keuse maar baie blitsig vir ‘n ou wat uiteindelik die kans staan om die girl van sy drome te hê (die ander nimfomaniese opsie is ‘n bietjie craaaazzzyyyy) en dan tog besluit om die geskiedenis te gaan reg skryf. ‘n Mens glo dit amper nog nie, ‘n mens wil hom langer in Alternatiewe 2011 hou. Ja, goed, op die ou end moet hy teruggaan en dinge regmaak en al daai, ons weet. Ek vra net: “wat as hy langer gebly het?”

All in all was dit ‘n goeie lees en was ek jammer dis so gou verby. Self lief vir die klassieke meesters, het ek nog nooit van Rameau gehoor nie, maar na dese sal ek beslis ‘n plan maak om van sy werke op te spoor. Dalk kry ek daardie magiese akkoorde en kan ek teruggaan as my oupagrootjie en self ‘n keuse of twee anders maak😉 !

Dis goed. Lees dit. Die enigste vraag wat oorbly, is: Hoe op aarde (en wanneer) gaan ons die draaiboek vir die blockbuster fliek skryf?

My probleem met Steve se “Ons sal dit oorleef” – video.

May 16, 2011 2 comments

Okay, so Steve Hofmeyr se nuutste video en liedjie, Ons Sal Dit Oorleef, maak die verwagte opslae. Geen verrassings daar nie. Daar was hype en die Afriforum-Julius Malema hofsaak gaan eers Donderdag na die verkiesing voort, hoewel vandag se ruling dat die woorde “Kill The Boer” nie net haatspraak is nie, maar ook ‘n aanhitsing tot moord groot implikasies daarvoor het. En laat ek sommer nou al sê: ek is bly oor vandag se uitspraak, regtig. As ons nie mag ‘k****r’ sê nie, mag julle nie ‘Kill the Boer’ sê nie. Dit is tog in kort waarop die hele betoog neerkom, of hoe, Steve? Want eintlik is ons almal so onderling ‘n bietjie rassisties, of volksisties, of etnies-bewus, of watokal ‘n mens dit wil noem – ons like ons eie ‘groep’ meer as die ‘ander’ groep. Ek erken dit. Dit beteken nie dat, net omdat ek my eie groep verkies, ek uit my pad uit gaan gaan om dinge vir die ‘ander’ (wie hulle ookal mag wees volgens die definisie wat ‘n mens aanhang) moeilik te maak nie. Of met hulle lelik te wees nie. Dom, common witmense irriteer my net soveel soos dom, common swartmense en dom, common bruinmense en dom, common Indiërs. Maar ek kamp net so lekker saam met die skerp, slim klein Indiërtjies as saam met die skerp, slim klein swartetjies en wittetjies en bruinetjies, soos wat ek die afgelope naweek op ‘n laerskool-leiersontwikkelingskamp gedoen het. En ons kan maar vergeet dat ons gaan integreer – ons moet dit eerder vir hulle los, want hulle het dit al klaar reggekry. Almal is pelle. Hulle nuwe generasie-groep is anders as ons groep. Al klaar.

Okay, maar terug by my punt: die video. My probleem is dus nie die feit dat die liedjie bestaan nie (hoewel, en ek is jammer om dit te sê, ek dink Bok van Blerk se My Kreet is ‘n nicer song). Die woorde is duidelik ‘n direkte teenpool vir die KTB-‘strydkreet’ (hulle hou mos voor dis nie ‘n liedjie nie): dit gaan oor ‘oorleef’, eerder as ‘to kill’; dit gaan oor ‘ons’ eerder as oor ‘the Boer’ (m.a.w. ‘hulle’). Aldus Steve op sy Facebook-page: “Dis my trotste Afrikanerlied met pragtige (voormalige) tradisionele byvoeglike naamwoorde wanneer of indien Malema en die ANC die “Kill the Boer” saak wen. Hier kom Boere karma in enorme porsies.”

Groot woorde. Dis ons teenoor hulle. Hulle wat ons wil doodmaak – toemaar, ons sal dit maak. Met daai skildery van die Trekkers wat die ossewa wat dreig om by die steil Drakensberg-helling af te donder met toue vashou terwyl die verslae hulpelose vroue toekyk wat strategies in die mise-en-scene verskyn.
Dit volg met verwysings na die oormag en die engele wat staan by ons vroue en kinders wat sterf. Dan sien ons ‘n mengsel van NP van Wyk Louw, Langenhoven en Sheila Cussons – en, natuurlik, die FAK – terwyl die kamera by die boekrak verby pan.

Tot sover in die song kon dit netsowel uit ‘n musical oor die Anglo-Boereoorlog gedateer het, iets soos Ons Vir Jou. Ek dink dit sou goed gepas het daar. Maar nou met vers 3 kom die gedeelte – met die strategiese toonaard-verandering om aan te dui dat hierdie wat volg significant is – wat volgens my problematies is.

Ek lig my oë tot die berge op
Waar sal my hulp tog vandaan kan kom

Met ‘n Psalm 121-agtige aanroep om hulp en die skildery van “God ziet mij, hier vloekt men niet” in die agtergrond. Sjoe. What a statement. Volg die link
http://flanders-inside.skynetblogs.be/archive/2008/05/16/rewind-van-god-ziet-u-mij-hier-vloekt-men-niet-a-rewind-of-g.html
vir ‘n verduideliking van wat dit beteken – baie interessant en natuurlik opsetlik gekies. Saam met die leë stoel wil ‘n mens wonder of dit regtig wys na ‘n Ander Persoon wat nou moet inspring om te help.

Ag my God jou woorde lê deur my geweef
Ons sal dit oorleef…

Ek staan vandag op jou plaas ou vriend
Daar hang stof oor die stilte sovêr ek kan sien

Na ‘n vinnige flits van ‘n kierie word twee skape gesien: ‘n witte en ‘n bruine. Ek weet ek gaan nou in nitty gritties in, dalk, maar ons leer om hierdie goed raak te sien in filmskool, so ek vra die vraag: is wit en bruin dalk almal skape? Wat net blêr, sonder om regtig te dink wat hulle vir en van mekaar sê? Dalk is dit net om te wys Steve is op ‘n plaas, soortgelyk (indien nie dieselfde nie) as Eugene Terre’Blanche s’n.

“Maar die geeste van gister sal more herleef
Ons sal dit oorleef

Eugene Terre’Blanche: Dankie o God vir die vermoë, dankie o Here wat U my geleer het, en wat U vir my so gratis geskenk het, vandag gee ek alles terug, tot eer en verheerliking van U naam en die uitbouing van U koninkryk”

Terwyl Eugene Terre’Blanche se gebed opklink, natuurlik ‘n visual van die getalle afgestorwenes tydens die ABO.

So wat is my probleem? Ek weet nie of die gebede inpas nie. Nie omdat dit gebede is per se nie, maar veral Eugene Terre’Blanche s’n se woorde maak ‘n ander appeal as wat die res van die song doen:
Hy sê dankie vir die vermoë – maar ons weet nie die vermoë om te wat nie – onderskeiding dalk?
Hy sê dankie vir wat God hom geleer en geskenk het, en nou gee hy alles terug – sou ‘n mens kon verstaan dat hy alles opgee en, a la Paulus in Filippense 3, alles wat hy vroeër as bate gesien het nou as waardeloos beskou?
Tot eer en verheerliking van U naam – duidelik het die nie meer oor homself gegaan nie
en die uitbouing van U koninkryk – okay, beslis het dit nie meer oor homself gegaan nie. Ook nie oor die uitbouing van die koninkryk onder Afrikaanses, of sy volk nie. Is ek reg? Of het dit? Hy sê dit nie.

Deur dit by die song in te sluit, sonder om dit op dramaties-ironiese wyse te gebruik soos die Oupa se gebed aan die einde van PG du Plessis se Fees van die Ongenooides, is dit mos ‘n teken dat Steve met hierdie gebed saamstem.

My vraag is: as ons dan nou saamgaan met ‘God se Naam en Koninkryk’ – het Jesus nie kom leer dat dit in God se Koninkryk juis andersom werk as “oog vir ‘n oog” en “tand vir ‘n tand” nie? Want ernstig nou, wat is hierdie song anders as dit? Ja, ons vloek nie die swartmense en als nie (ek weet daai woord is gebliep, maar dit tel nie juis nie), maar soos Steve self gesê het, dis sogenaamde Boere-Karma.

Wow. Ons sluit ‘n song af met ‘n gebed dat God se wil sal geskied, net om daarna die wil in ons eie hande te neem. Dít is dramaties-ironies.

Ek het weer hoofstuk 11 van Mense van my Asem gaan lees en ek is oortuig Steve is ‘n gelowige. Nie jou mainstream of charismat of gereformeerde of watter boksie jy ookal wil kies nie, maar gelowig none the less. Inteendeel, ek dink hy is bitter ernstig oor sy geloof in God. Wat in hulle twee se persoonlike verhouding aangaan, is hulle saak en nie my besigheid nie. Maar wat my pla, is: waar kom die ding van ‘draai die ander wang’ in? Word ons nie belowe dat, deur dit te doen, maak ons ons vyande vuurrooi van skaamte nie? En ou Salomo het in Spreuke al geobserveer dat ‘n krenkende woord woede opvlam. Ook Oom Langenhoven was wys genoeg om dit raak te sien.

Ek sê nie dis reg om KTB te chant nie. Ek het dit al aan die begin gesê. Maar om in reaksie daarop ‘n song te skryf met die voorwaarde dat die bliep sal verdwyn as hulle wen net omdat dit die polities-regverdige ding sal wees om te doen…I dunno. Dit sit ongemaklik aan my.

Sê nou Julius Malema word wel skuldig bevind. Ek weet nou nie wat sy straf gaan behels nie en ek glo nie hy sal ooit sê hy is jammer nie. Maar sê nou maar net hy sê hy is jammer – gaan ons dan ‘n song skryf waarin ons sê ons vergewe hom? Want dis tog wat God van ons verwag, is dit nie? Om ons vervolgers te seën? Om ons naaste lief te hê soos onsself?

Ek dink ek is besig om weg te beweeg van ‘n godsdiens waar ek verwag dat die God wat ek aanbid my te hulp moet snel vir die geringste dingetjie, waar ek net die “victory moet claim” en als sal okay wees en al daai goedjies (die wat my ken sal anyway weet!). En ja, ek verstaan die gesprek tussen Terblanche Jordaan en Steve in daai betrokke hoofstuk van MVMA waar hulle tot die conclusion kom dat God niks van mens verwag nie want niks wat ons kan doen, gaan God se dag opkikker nie. I get that and I am fine with that, ek hou actually daarvan. Maar daar word tog ‘n manier van mense hanteer in die Bybel voorgehou wat condusive is tot vrede en tot ‘n beter samelewing. En om vuur met vuur te beveg sien ek nie daar nie.

Ek weet nie Steve, dalk verstaan ek jou heeltemal mis? Sal graag ‘n reply wil hoor. Help my dink hierso. Ek sal dit waardeer.