Wing & a Prayer Productions

If I can't see it, it's not happening.

Mon, 09 May 2011 16:28:00 +0000

As the month just gone was apparently the UK's hottest and dryest April on record (and doesn't our garden know it?), it seems strange to think back to the beginning of Decemeber when the nation apparently ground to a halt under the weight of snow, Christmas post didn't arrive for weeks into the New Year and national tabloid's were declaring a deep freeze till the end of February.

I say 'apparently' because, in this little corner of Berkshire we saw virtually no snow. We had one morning where we had enough snow to cover the ground but it had melted by the afternoon. Other than that-zip, nil, nada, nothing. The mounting stories of schools shut, vital deliveries of food etc being held up, travellers stranded, the economy grinding to a stand still-all of this seemed increasingly unreal as our front path remained snowflake free. As my friends on Facebook will know, I mooted the possibility there that this was actually a grand conspiracy, that actually there was no snow, it was just a hoax brewed up by the rest of the country to see if the inhabitants of Reading would fall for it.

Obviously I would be silly to deny that last year was a harsh winter for the UK. Even though the evidence in my immediate surroundings did not support such claims, I would have been very foolish indeed to deny the combined weight of the media and the eyewitness testimonies of friends and family.

Because of the heavy snow, there were an increasing number of voices saying that perhaps global warming was, after all, a myth. All the inhabitants of the UK (bar Reading) could see was the heaviest snow for years; how could the earth be getting warmer?

Yet, at the same time, scientists were declaring that 2010 was the hottest year globally on record.

Now, I'm not a scientist but here's the thing: Just because I couldn't see snow in my part of the UK, I would have been a moron to hold to my belief that the entire UK was snow free when it was anything but.

By the same token, just because our part of the world appears colder than usual, why are some people so quick to dismiss the evidence that the rest of the world is warming up?

And in view of the month just gone, that sort of logic looks shakier still.

Christmas is a Pile of Poo

Fri, 07 Jan 2011 15:46:00 +0000

There are many things I love about the run into December: mince pies, mulled wine, cold weather (a result of a childhood lived in semi-desert conditions) especially if it involves hoarfrost or snow, sledging, buying presents (especially stocking fillers), making suet puddings, seeing bright holly berries in hedges and a good many things besides.

What I object to is when these things are described ‘Christmas’. These are all good things, beautiful and fun, they may be an accompaniment to Christmas, but they are not ‘Christ’s Mass’. And I am increasingly frustrated and bewildered by the assumption that they are.

This frustration reached its zenith last month, a few weeks before December 25th. Our Church is split into several smaller ‘home groups’ which meet during the week for support, encouragement prayer and study. Our home group decided to send a small package to a young man we know (who attended our group for a brief spell) who has spent a large period of his life fighting drug and alcohol addiction and who seemed likely to be spending Christmas Day back in prison (in the event he was released before Christmas). We collected different things to go into the parcel but it fell to me to get a card for us all to sign.

Foolishly in hindsight, I decided to go to our local supermarket to find a card. After considerable thought, I ended up walking out without one. It wasn’t that there weren’t any cards but that they were so inappropriate. They bore slogans along the lines of: ‘May the magic of Christmas fill you with a warm glow’ (What on earth is that supposed to mean? What precisely do you mean by Christmas ‘magic’? No, seriously, tell me, because if anyone could do with a bit of magic it’s an ex-con battling a heroin addiction) or ‘May you get everything you want this Christmas’ (Because Christmas is all about my wants?). There were others which seemed to suggest that alcohol was a key part of the Christmas experience (not so good for someone with an alcohol problem).

The overriding message seemed to be that Christmas is about some sort of sentimental experience at best or, failing that, at least an excuse to get some presents and get tipsy. Okay, my senses were heightened because the person I was searching for a card for is not in a great way but, really, I’d be ashamed to send such drivel to anyone.

The one thing Christmas should not be is sentimental. While I know not everyone will have warmed to Tony Jordan’s recent portrayal of the Nativity story, broadcast last month by the BBC (it is just one interpretation at the end of the day), the one thing I felt it brought home very strongly was the messiness of the first Christmas: of a human God born to desperate people on a shitty stable floor. That’s the God I believe in, a God who gets involved in our muck and doesn’t shrink from it.

Father Christmas, Santa Claus, whatever you want to call him; I hate to say this kids, but whether you’ve been good or bad doesn’t come into it: what it boils down to is whether or not your parents have got the cash (funnily enough he doesn’t come to many in the so called Developing World).

Jesus comes to all. Especially if you’ve been ‘bad’.

Who Would Jesus Waterboard?

Tue, 09 Nov 2010 16:56:00 +0000

Former U.S. President George W. Bush is in the headlines today for admitting that the U.S. used waterboarding on terrorist suspects on his watch and with his approval. He claims that this is not a form of torture (because a lawyer told him so) and that the use of waterboarding prevented terrorist attacks, not only on the U.S. but on London’s Heathrow Airport and Canary Wharf as well.

I am uncomfortable with this news (not that it comes as a surprise), for several reasons. Firstly, I find it distressing that Mr Bush does not see waterboarding as torture. I would like to ask if he would be willing to undergo it himself and, while undergoing it, be asked again if it doesn’t constitute torture. The process should be continued until he either changes his mind or it becomes clear that, yes, he’s right, waterboarding is a humane process. Given that trained CIA operatives have themselves have apparently caved in after just 14 seconds of being subjected to the technique, I don’t hold out much hope for the latter.

Secondly, I’m distressed that Mr Bush’s argument appears to suggest that the ends justify the means (though, if he truly believes that waterboarding isn’t torture, I wonder that he bothers to make this argument at all). In other words, it’s all right to resort to inhumane methods to deal with inhumane people. The problem with this is that if you try to defeat evil (a favourite George W word) by using evil methods (and I cannot see waterboarding as anything else) then you yourself have become the very thing you attempt to destroy (a lesson Francis Ford Copploa so admirably taught us in ‘Apocalypse Now’). I do not want to be part of a society which defends our freedoms by employing terror. Yes, much may be a lot at stake in terms of human lives; but there’s also a lot at stake in terms of human souls.

Finally, I’m distressed because this comes from a man who claims to be a Christian and who opposes abortion because it disrespects the sanctity of life. Jesus taught his followers to turn the other cheek, he taught respect for those made in the image of God (whether unborn or not), he taught that others should be treated the same way you yourself would wish to be treated. With this in mind, it baffles and saddens me that someone who claims to follow Jesus would be willing to allow such barbarity to be inflicted on another human being.

In some Church circles it’s common to see people wearing wristbands with the letters ‘WWJD’ embroidered on them, standing for ‘What Would Jesus Do?’ It’s meant as a reminder, in every situation, that followers of Jesus should follow in the footsteps of their Lord. With this in mind, I have to ask, Mr Bush: Who Would Jesus Waterboard? I have a mental images of Judas, sack over his head, being held down by Peter and John, while Jesus pours a jug of water over his head saying ‘Come on, Judas. How much silver did they pay you?’ But somehow I don’t think so. It somehow doesn’t ring true with the life of a man who came to set all people free that they may have life to the full.

To Mr. Bush and to all in the positions to make decisions over issues such as waterboarding I want to say this: Not in my name.

And, for Christ’s sake, not in His name either.

Note to America: Voting thoughts

Tue, 02 Nov 2010 16:55:00 +0000

As I write, Americans are going to the polls for the midterm elections (with the exception of those in the nation's capital; it seems incredible that those in the heart of the heartland of democracy don't get representation). All predictions seem to point to President Obama's Democratic party getting a battering in the polls as a punishment for the Obama presidency.

I don't have a big axe to grind here. I just want to make a passing comment as an outsider. It's clear that Obama has made a lot of Americans very angry. I'm not qualified to go into why; I don't pretend to have deep insight into US domestic policy.

But from an international perspective I simply want to say this: your President has done wonders for your country overseas. His predecessor left Amercia's reputation globally in tatters (again, I make no comment on domestic policy). Whatever his faults, Obama has shown himself to want to be a global player, rather than simply looking out for the interests of the USA. While the Nobel Peace Prize may have been awarded prematurely (though that's hardly his fault) he has worked to reduce worldwide stocks of nuclear weapons, he has taken seriously the need to reduce greenhouse gases (which the rest of the world accepts is leading to climate change) and he has helped to give credibility to the Middle East peace talks by showing that the United States will listen to both sides. These are things that go a long way with some.

Like I say, this isn't a deeply thought through argument. I just want to say to the States: go easy on the man. He's not faultless but he's done a lot for American PR. Doesn't that count for something?

Somehow though, I doubt it does.

Let the gay Jesus go

Tue, 21 Sep 2010 16:22:00 +0000

From time to time I get e-mails urging me to sign petitions or write letters to try to ban some play or film which is deemed by the sender to be ‘blasphemous’.

The e-mails I receive most frequently have to do with a play which portrays Jesus as gay (though the most recent e-mail I’ve received on the subject informs me that the play is due to be made into a film).

I want to assume that the senders of such messages have the best of intentions; that Jesus is close to their heart and they are angered by what they see as an insult to Him. So far I have sympathy. I get angry too when I see Jesus insulted. However, that’s where my sympathy ends.

In the first place, such e-mails usually have some form of guilt trip included: ‘If you do not do this for Jesus, then Jesus won’t remember you on judgement day.’

Really? That’s quite a big claim to make on Jesus’ behalf; are you sure He’s given you the go ahead? I tend to do things for Jesus first and foremost because I love Him to bits; having a big stick held over my head, allegedly on Jesus’ behalf, does nothing motivationally for me.

But this isn’t my main objection to this sort of e-mail.

(I have a specific quibble regarding the play/film portraying Jesus as gay. You see, as I see it, if you take the Bible seriously, then you have to accept the fact that Jesus had at least some draw towards homosexuality. Hebrews 4:15 clearly states that He was ‘tempted in every way, just as we are-yet without sin.’ If he was tempted in every way then that obviously includes sexually.

This surely is one of the greatest comforts to any follower of Jesus, not least those who are gay. To be honest, I don’t know how I could cope as a gay follower of Christ without the knowledge that He was tempted as I am. So I don’t immediately leap out of my seat exclaiming ‘A play that portrays Jesus as gay-how dreadful!’ The play might be incredibly offensive but without knowing any more details I can’t say and I’m not about to condemn it until I do; for all I know it might be a very insightful piece exploring the struggles of Christ in the area of homosexuality.)

No, my main objection to this kind of ‘Ban it, ban it, ban it!’ e-mail (apart from the fact that they don’t seem very motivated by love) is that it is counter productive. What, honestly, does the sender think their actions will achieve?

If a writer has written a script which is incredibly offensive they have done it for one of two reasons: Either they have done it in ignorance or they are deliberately going out to offend.

If you have offended me in ignorance and I come at you all guns blazing, you’re likely to get defensive; particularly if I don’t explain to you exactly why what you’ve done is offensive (and you’ll probably end up wanting to offend me deliberately). Far better to approach you calmly and reasonably, explain why your actions have offended me and hope that you will relent.

On the flip side, if someone is deliberately going out to offend, the best possible reaction they can have is someone trying to ban their writing. As a writer myself I would rather have ‘The film they tried to ban’ advertising my latest Hollywood blockbuster (I speak hypothetically, of course) than ‘Oscar nominated’.

Again, Christians should know this better than anyone. In countries which silence those who talk about Jesus, the good news about Jesus spreads all the faster. By contrast, the post-war slump in Church attendance in the UK was due, not to banning people from attending, but due to disinterest.

By all means, express disapproval (in a loving measured way that doesn’t make you sound like a religious nutcase with several pounds of semtex strapped to your torso) and explain why you find yourself hurt by what someone has done but think before you try to ban.

The Bible describes the good news about Jesus Christ as deeply ‘offensive’ to some. If those who call themselves Christians try to silence points of view they find offensive, how can anyone object to Christians being shut up when they express views others find offensive?

Besides, I think God’s big enough to take care of Himself.

The Limits of Liberality

Fri, 18 Jun 2010 09:21:00 +0000

(I originally wrote this several months ago; unfortunately I've had major technical problems posting blogs so that's why it's only being published now. My argument still stands though).

‘As long as it’s between consenting adults anything goes.’

So goes the received wisdom of the age with regard to sexual morality. Yet I wonder if people will be quite so willing to repeat this mantra in the light of the news of the last few months which has seen Messrs Woods, Terry and Cole dragged into the public eye for sexual misdemeanours.

Apart from the immense pain which they’ve caused their spouses, the consequences of their actions have rippled out far and wide. To pick up John Terry as a case in point, not only has his affair cost him the England captaincy but it has cost the England World Cup squad the services of Wayne Bridge who, having been one of the victims of Terry’s philandering, feels unable to play in the same team as him. Some may argue his loss won’t affect the England team that much but that’s not the point: the fact is that one man’s inability to keep his tackle in his pants has had national repercussions.

I’m not saying this to heap condemnation on Terry, Cole or Woods (I must confess though that the latter’s forename now seems like a rather distasteful joke). The consequences of their actions are enough punishment without them being vilified in the press. But they illustrate sharply just why ‘anything’ should not ‘go’ just because it’s between consenting adults.

They also illustrate the limitations of the other argument that as long as someone does their job it doesn’t matter what they do in their private life. Here are three men whose private lives have very dramatically spilled over into their working lives. I do understand that there are different roles that people play in the workplace and the home. Yet to argue that the two are not linked is blatantly false. Why else are the leaders of the three main political parties currently trying to make so much of their personalities in the run up to the general election? Why should I care about what David Cameron is like with his wife and children if that doesn’t have some bearing on what he might be like as a future Prime Minister? And to come back to the topic, if I discover that a politician is unfaithful to his or her spouse, doesn’t that also raise questions about his or her faithfulness to their country?

I know that it’s not always that clear cut. I’m not saying that every politician (or person from any walk of life for that matter) who has an affair is going to be awful at their job; of course not. But we cannot pretend that what goes on behind closed doors does not have a bearing, for good or ill, on the sports pitch, at the dispatch box or in the pulpit.

Sex will not fit into neat little boxes. A recent study highlighted the over-sexualisation of Britain’s children and made several recommendations to the Government of steps to combat this (Factors blamed were the increase of so called ‘lads mags’ and music videos). Most people would decry the sexualisation of children yet we are naïve if we think that we can draw a neat line in the sand and say ‘This is for adults, this is for children.’ Yes, there are limits to what we tell children about the grown up world but though we do not give them the full details, we do give them the basic outline. The values which we hold dear as adults will filter down to our children. If we value people by how sexually appealing they look, that will be picked up subconsciously. And it is. From working with young people it is striking how much girls under the age of ten are not only trying to dress like adults but are already posing and holding their bodies in positions which on an adult might be alluring but for a child are just wrong. No wonder Britain has the highest teenage pregnancy figures in Europe.

Human beings are complicated. We cannot divide our lives up into neat little compartments without expecting some overlap and we cannot expect our actions not to have some effect on someone else. If a man downloads pornography he may think that he’s the only one affected. But, quite apart from the effect on the women posing for the photos (who may or may not be posing willingly), what effect is the man’s action having on other women he encounters? If he is already in a long term relationship or married (or even if he enters such a relationship in the future), viewing pornography will mean that subsequent sexual encounters with his partner will be less sincere, less meaningful, because a little piece of himself has already been given to his pornographic fantasy. They are also likely to be more selfish; having had a pornographic sexual encounter which is all about lust and not at all about intimacy, his real life sexual encounters are likely to be the same.

Anything does not just ‘go’ between consenting adults. There may be no law against it but, if the headlines of the last few months have shown anything, it’s that the consequences of sex, good and bad, go a long way beyond merely the immediate participants.

Lady Di worthier than 'Wacko Jacko'?

Thu, 21 Jan 2010 16:54:00 +0000

It seems that, at last, one can now walk into a shop without it being inevitable that the music being piped around the store is by Michael Jackson. While I confess to owning copies of 'Thriller' and 'Bad' during the 80's, there is only so long that you can listen to the same tracks ad nauseum (which is also why it’s a mercy when Christmas is over).

Having said this I was genuinely disturbed at the fact that, within a week of Jackson being dead, satirists on the BBC and elsewhere were already making jokes at his expense. Some were very cruel, others less so, but I couldn’t help feeling that some respect should be reserved for the dead.

By contrast, I remember the outrage there was when Rory Bremner did an impression of the deceased Lady Diana (If I remember rightly she was enjoying spending time with Versace in the afterlife), several months after her death. Arguably it wasn’t in the best taste but certainly a lot better than many of the jokes about Jackson.

Why these double standards? I know some will argue that Lady Di was a great philanthropist whereas ‘Wacko Jacko’ was, at best, always a bit odd (and, at worst, there were those molestation allegations that never seemed to go away). But are we then saying that we grant people dignity on the basis of what they’ve achieved? To some degree I can understand this; those who’ve touched many lives in a positive way will naturally attract more praise. But shouldn’t there be some basic level of respect that all people deserve in death?

There is a side issue here and that is, whoever people are, at what point does it become right to make jokes about them after their death? Obviously we make jokes about great disasters in human history (be they Black Death or the Great Fire of London or the Norman Conquest) because they are so distant from us and many generations lie between us and those who experienced them (thinking of Monty Python’s ‘Bring out your dead’ from The Holy Grail, which still makes me chuckle). But if someone were to make a joke about the recent earthquake in Haiti we’d think they were sick. Yet is what’s being suffered by the people of Haiti now any worse than what happened in Europe when the Black Death swept through? Funny what a difference a few centuries make.

And there are some jokes that should never be told. Referring back to jokes about Michael Jackson, a number of jokes made about him in life were distasteful too. These become even worse when told at the graveside. It’s one thing telling a funny story about a dead friend we remember fondly; it’s another when we’re being cruel and unfeeling, just using another for a cheap laugh.

As so often, there are probably no clear cut answers on this one. But I think it is always the duty of anyone telling a joke, be it professionally or just to a friend down the pub, to think about the spirit in which we tell it, particularly when it’s about those who are no longer able to defend themselves.

Forget Christmas; bring on Winterfest!

Tue, 05 Jan 2010 16:23:00 +0000

I think I can just squeeze in a Christmas related post (seeing as we’re only on the eleventh day of Christmas)!

I realise this year that I’ve undergone a change in my views on Christmas. Hitherto I have bemoaned the fact that people no longer remember ‘the reason for the season’, railed against cards wishing ‘Happy Holidays/Season’s Greetings’, ranted at Christmas pop being more prevalent than Christmas carols and wailed about Father Christmas (or rather ‘Santa’) being the most recognised symbol of Christmas.

A couple of incidents have led to me rethinking what I think on the matter. The first was group of friends railing about some town in the tabloids which was proposing changing the name ‘Christmas’ to ‘Winterfest’ (or some similar trite ‘blah’ name). My friends were up in arms, complaining about undermining our Christian heritage for the sake of political correctness. In essence, I agreed. But here’s the rub: none of said friends would describe themselves as Christian (one is a proud atheist) or followers of Jesus. I found myself puzzling about what it was they valued so much about their ‘Christian heritage’.

A few weeks later another friend (of whom I am very fond, I hasten to add) was complaining because, at a Christmas Church service, one of the people leading the service had shared about what a difference knowing Jesus had made in their life. They complained that they hadn’t gone to Church for all that emotional nonsense. Surprisingly they made little response when I asked if the reason we celebrate Christmas wasn’t the fact that Jesus had come to make a difference in our lives.

I still hate ‘Happy Holidays’. I still groan when Slade come on the radio. I still wish that Christ, rather than Santa was central to Christmas. For my part I intend to try to keep Christ as the focus of my Christmasses. And I hope and pray that more people would do the same. But if people want the Christmas trappings (tree, stockings, snow, reindeer, etc) without Christ why don’t they call it Winterfest or Winterval or whatever? At least it would be more honest. Seriously, I keep wanting to ask ‘What on earth are you celebrating?’ It’s like organising a birthday party for someone and then forgetting to ask the birthday boy/girl to attend; just call it a party then and do away with the pretence.

However, for my part, I wish you all a very Merry Christmas (all twenty-four hours of it).

P.S. And where Christmas pop’s concerned, I look forward to seeing Rage Against the Machine’s ‘Killing in the Name of’ on ‘Best of Christmas’ compilations in future years (Best Christmas no. 1 of my lifetime, that’s for sure!).

Honestly, let's have sex.

Fri, 09 Oct 2009 11:00:00 +0000

According to the eighties romcom, ‘When Harry met Sally’, the majority of women have faked orgasm at some point during sex. Now, I am not about to take this as rock solid fact: I have no idea where the writer of the film got their figures from or even if they just made it up on the spot (and, either way, we are talking 20 years ago in another country).

But, my point is, how awful it is that anyone does fake orgasm. I know some will talk about protecting fragile male egos here (not that I’d know anything about fragile male egos!) but surely to fake anything is to go contrary to the whole point of sex.

In ancient Hebrew the phrase used of having sex was ‘to know’ someone. Therein, I think, lies the rub. The act of love making is, at heart, about knowing and being known. It is laying oneself bare before someone and saying ‘Here I am, all of me. I’m holding nothing back, good, bad, the ugly. Take me as I am.’ To be dishonest, to hold something back, is to miss the whole point. This is why the commitment of a loving relationship is so important as the context for sex: why do you want to open up on that sort of level if you don’t know that the other person is going to stick around?

Incidentally, this is where I have some reservations over the part of role play and costumes in love making. I am not whole heartedly condemning it (there is an argument about fun and playfulness to be made, I’m sure) but if someone is deliberately trying to be someone else in the act of making love, how honest is that being? (As I say, I’m not trying to make a definitive pronouncement here; as so often, I’m sure much depends on heart attitude).

So many popular magazines offer a raft of advice on ‘how to have the most amazing sex ever’. In almost every case they focus solely on the technicalities of the act. I have yet to read any magazine which talks about honesty and heart attitude.

Perhaps if they did, people might not rush into sex so mindlessly.

Birthday Honours

Thu, 03 Sep 2009 14:36:00 +0000

My Dad was recently made a Member of the British Empire in the Queen’s birthday honours. I’ve been wanting to write about my family for a while now and this seems a good excuse.

Obviously, I’m proud of my Dad for this (though, to be honest, I see the honour as belonging to both my parents. Their calling and work is intimately intertwined). Indeed, I’ve been very proud (though perhaps in the wrong sense) to belong to a family which has now received honours from the Crown for at least three centuries in a row.

And yet, what does it mean, really? So you get a title for doing something worthy. So what? I mean no disrespect to either my Dad or our forebears but, really, so what? There are many people who do incredibly selfless and serving things without recognition-is someone who gets a gong somehow worth more?

There is an argument for honours, I know, and if someone tried to abolish them I’m sure I’d come up with an argument for why they’re important. My Dad did ask me if I had any objection to him accepting the award and I couldn’t think of any. But, frankly, I don’t think any more of him for getting it.

Does this make me a terrible, disrespectful son? I might well be one of those but not for this. You see, I am proud of my Mum and Dad, fiercely proud (in a better sense). I could not ask for better parents.

My parents have lived through numerous war zones, they have been held hostage, they have had attempted terror attacks made against them, they have both battled serious life threatening diseases, they have been slandered, they have been accused of being spies, they have been accused of being power grabbing, they have been deported, threatened with execution and much more besides. Am I proud of them because of this? No. I’m proud because they could have avoided all of this (perhaps not the disease but the treatment might have been much easier) and yet, for the sake of others, they were willing to suffer.

And yet they make light of it all. My Mum said to me a couple of weeks ago ‘Panic isn’t known in this household’; and that’s absolutely true. My parents have got this wonderful ability to stay cool and laugh things off. It’s not because they don’t care. On the contrary, I’m humbled by how their hearts bleed for complete strangers. But there is a recognition that they cannot carry fears and worries with them, that they have to let them go.

I could go on about the qualities of my parents: their generosity, their patience, their encouragement, their hope, their joy, wisdom, self-control, humour. But the one thing I really want to highlight is their love of their Lord and God, Jesus Christ. They have poured themselves out for the sake of the broken and the hurting but all of that, ultimately, has been for Him. That is also, ultimately, why I’m proud to be part of this family with its heritage. Yes, it’s nice to be able to say that my great-great-grandfather was a knight (though I suppose it’s showing off to say that) but I’m far more proud of my relative who was clubbed to death in the South Pacific while trying to tell people that Jesus loved them.

Maybe that sounds strange to some people. But that is the true measure of character, being willing to die for the One you love. I’m very grateful for the fact that my parents have not had to go that far but there is no shadow of a doubt that they would be willing to make that sacrifice, as have so many of my family over at least the last two centuries.

As for me, I just want to bring honour to this family and, specifically, to my parents. I’m conscious that the things I do and achieve reflect on them, either to their shame or their glory. And I want to bring them glory.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t feel pressure or obligation from them on this. They have made clear that, if I never amounted to anything more than a bog cleaner, they would still love me completely. But I want to honour them in what I do.

But much more than that, I want to honour the One they honour. It’s ultimately for Him that I do everything-again, not out of duty but because He loves me no matter what and I want to do everything possible to show that I love Him. And I know that that is the best way that I can honour my parents.