O1B4F2E. JOURNAL-REVIVAL 1996

MOMENTS IN OUR LIFE-1 2026-05-03

O1B4F2E. JOURNAL-REVIVAL 1996

This is a remarkable collection of insights from your journal in 1996. It paints a clear picture of a period of intense introspection, in which you not only processed the political and social shifts in South Africa, but also unravelled the finer threads of human relationships and personal integrity.

INTRODUCTION: A WINDOW TO THE SOUL (1996)

The year 1996 was in many ways a time of transition - not only for South Africa as a young democracy, but also for me personally as I look back on the path I have walked. During this period, I rediscovered the value of the written word as a means of creating order in the chaos of thoughts, emotions and social shifts that we experienced daily.

These journal entries, which I have dubbed "Moments in Our Life", are more than just chronological notes. They are an honest exploration of my own value system - from the fragility of friendship and the complex dynamics of marriage, to the search for a balance between tradition and innovation. By dusting off these memories, I hope to give my children and grandchildren not just a record of events, but a glimpse into the heart of the man they call "Dad" and "Grandpa". It is my attempt to put the golden intentions of the past back into use.

REVIVAL

Often, one's good intentions gradually fade into the sand, so that in the end, there is barely a memory of them left. Life consists of so many facets, one crowding out the other. As with New Year's resolutions, one must pause every now and then and look at yourself, at what you are doing, and at what you are doing with your God-given talents. Look at the past in your own life, and if there are good, achievable intentions that have remained in the past over time, dust them off and put them back into use.

There is much to do in life, but not all of it is good. The dear Father has given each of us a mind to distinguish between good and evil. Everyone's view is very personally constructed according to your unique makeup and circumstances. Yet I believe that most people's view (maybe everyone?) of right and wrong is essentially the same. There are certainly good and bad people, but I believe that the bad ones know deep down in their hearts that they are acting wrongly - for selfish reasons they try to justify their wrong actions. The good and the evil are within each of us, but God requires us to consciously pursue and encourage/nurture the good. I believe very strongly that the vast majority of people are the so-called "silent majority", who just want to go on with their lives quietly and eat their bread in peace, and grant others the same and respect their desires. Most do not want to impose their will on others, but rather want to go their own way, guided by their own view of life and how they fit into it. As an old black man once said in a TV interview: “I don’t want the white man’s house. I want to stay here in my own house to see my umfana (son) grow up.” I emphasize here my belief in the universal human need for peace and self-determination over ideology.

These journal entries are rich in emotional truth. How did it feel to live in a changing South Africa? The problem comes from those who try to impose their will on others with the morality of “the greater good”. These people have a perpetual restlessness within them with themselves, and seek the solution in changing the existing. They invent norms and rules to order life. Everything sounds very good, and the intention is most likely also born of good.

But where there is change, there will be resistance. If it is you yourself who wants to change, it may seem right to you, but not to those on whom it is imposed. And what is important here is who exerts the strongest pressure, and these are usually those who want change. Those who want to go their own way quietly do not want to leave their peace to oppose those who want to change. And the restless will soon find others who are also dissatisfied with their lot, and then you have two against one if they propagate their thoughts. Before long you have a pressure group, the minority, who want to impose their opinion on the “silent majority”, but the majority all individually, because it is difficult to stand together. And if they are also gentle, it goes against their grain to act aggressively. Thus the small group of aggressors impose their opinion on others, justifying themselves with laudable ideals, with which there is often little fault in itself. Examples are Nazism, Communists, Pol Pot, Red Brigade. Apartheid. These people very soon no longer see the ordinary human, only their own ideals.

FRIENDS 1996-01-11

Last night when I came home, a bakkie with an engine in the back was standing in front of the garage, nose towards the street. It could only be Deon and Zilla. They were drinking coffee and looking at photos. After saying hello, I put on my old swimming trunks and a loose shirt and sat down with them and chatted. It must have been more than two years since we last saw each other, but it's as comfortable as if it were yesterday. And I only know them through Rinie: Zilla is related to Willie (Rinie’s first husband), and Deon was in Std 6 at Cradock Boys’ High School when I was in matric there, but I didn't know him then.

It's interesting how friendships work. We can't really understand it properly, because this easy connection between people happens very rarely, in our own lives anyway. Every day you come into contact with many people, but most of it is very superficial, as Rinie says "waaimaatjies/friends you just wave to" - people you know and greet when you see them, but you only talk to them about commonplaces - how hot it is today, and other safe topics about which there can practically be no difference.

Then you find others with whom you are a little more familiar - with them you can talk about how bad the violence is these days, what the pastor preached about last Sunday, and how your children are doing. Here you approach topics with caution about which there may be different opinions, and about which you know from previous experience that you are roughly on the same side.

There are further gradations, as your level of trust increases. I only know a few people with whom I am as comfortable as with Deon and Zilla. Johan and Elize Uytenbogaardt are also people whom we may not have seen for years, and then immediately pick up where we left off. It is not necessary to first go through a period of adjustment before you are completely at ease with each other. Even between people with whom you are good friends, after a long absence there is sometimes a stiffness that first needs to be “oiled” before you become comfortable with each other. Like Carine Naude.

Speaking of “oiled”. It reminds me of a guy I worked with at Natal Building Society as a young man. When we once had an office party directly after work, he went straight to the bar and quickly downed two double brandies, “to get in the right spirit” - Now that’s “getting oiled”, to get rid of your inhibitions.

But are these inhibitions a bad thing, the fact that we withhold certain things about ourselves from others? We know from hard-won experience that you should be more careful what you say or do to others. A few shots like that have different effects on different people. Some people laugh, others get angry, others get romantic, and still others just want to go to sleep. It also says a lot about you as a person what kind of reaction alcohol has on you.

Deon and Zilla have that spontaneous openness - you can just tell that these are no-nonsense people with no frills - as you see them, so they are. And what a joy such people are! You don't have to be constantly on your guard about what you say, that cautiousness that kills openness between people. True friends are people you can connect with immediately without a "honing period", where inhibitions don't have to be broken down with alcohol (the so-called "oil"). Our meeting with Deon and Zilla brings up the concept of spontaneous sincerity.

PEACE OF MIND 1996-01-25

What peace of mind means to a person became clear again last night. It started with a difference of principle between Rinie and me regarding honesty.

Since we got married 18 years ago, she and her Mom have been calling each other every week. I also talk now and then, but in the beginning I especially upset her father with what to me was honesty, but what their family interpreted as insensitive.

Rinie's father was deeply distressed by his daughter's unhappy first marriage. When we started making wedding arrangements, I asked him one day if it didn't bother him that I was taking his daughter so far away, to the Cape. He said: "Even if you go overseas, as long as you are happy". It was clear that he especially wanted Rinie to be happy again.

For me, honesty has always been the most important centre of my life, and the closer people are to me, the more open we should be with each other. There should be no hidden things between people who love each other. I am a person of feeling, and therefore how I feel has a tremendous influence on me. When I feel good, I can move mountains, but unfortunately, the life of people of feeling runs like a wave graph - when you feel bad, you don't want to live.

When her Dad occasionally asked to talk to me on the phone, the starting point, as usual in any conversation, was, "How are you, my son?". This is where a problem arose for me. According to my standards, this meant how are we, with me as a person, especially with our marriage, the relationship between us. It was very clear that he wanted to know this, because Rinie's happiness was so important to him. And I was honest, especially because they were close to us and therefore also to me. Typically, my answer was "Dad, sometimes it's absolutely fantastic, other times it's a collision of minds." People who claim that they are always doing well are lying, otherwise they are so insensitive that good and bad are only a difference of degree for them.

However, this caused Dad great sadness, probably because he wanted so much for his daughter to be happy. He didn't want to hear that there were any hiccups. During our first holiday on the farm, Rinie's mother told me one evening in the kitchen that he had tears in his eyes when I said this. He must have thought his daughter had remarried unhappily, and this time she was 1200 km away, beyond their reach. I immediately felt very sorry for him, but I also felt bad because he couldn't hear what I was saying in my honest words. I told Rinie's mother that I didn't know it upset him so much, and that from now on, as is normal, I would simply say "I'm doing very well, how are you Dad?", which to me is like saying nothing.

But it wasn't just a few word changes for me. Through this, an extremely important piece of open communication between us was lost. I opened up to them, and accepted that they know how it is in every marriage, that there are good times, and that there are also bad times, and that over time you learn how to ride the waves, so that the downside is no longer so upsetting. What I actually said is that I trust them with my feelings and believe that they will understand my sincerity. I am tired of hiding behind screens with "I'm O/K, Jack", which actually tells others that I do not trust them with what is private to me. There are indeed times when I am very happy with Rinie, and that was by far most of the time. But we are both people who were hurt in our first marriages, each with his own personality and view of right and wrong, which would grind against each other over time before we would fit as snugly as a glove.

Their family has a view of "Keep the crown on each other's heads" (Rosa).

However, I disagree with this - I would rather be honest than pretend. The conflict between Rinie and me about how to answer the question "How are you?" touches the core of my being. My feeling is that honesty is the pivot. "Collision of minds" is part and parcel of marriage and acknowledging it is a sign of trust. In contrast, Rinie's parents' stance is "Keep the crown on each other's heads." They interpreted my honesty as insensitivity, because it made them worry about Rinie's happiness, totally unnecessarily.

OUR CHILDREN - CONSERVATIVE OR LIBERAL 1996-02-20

How to raise your child remains a question from the beginning for all parents who care about their children. To what extent should you impose your views on the child in a conservative, prescriptive manner, and whether you should be more lenient and give the child's own character the opportunity to develop on its own. It's the age-old division of conservative versus liberal, rigid versus enlightened.

I think you yourself probably also change as you get older and (hopefully!) more mature. Surely almost all parents mean well for their children - it's just that their views differ from what is good for the child. I think something we should remember is that we don't have as much influence as we like to think. In “When Bad Things Happen To Good People” Harold Kushner writes "If we want to be able to pick up the pieces of our lives and go on living, we have to get over the irrational feeling that every misfortune is our fault, the direct result of our mistakes or misbehaviour. We are really not that powerful. Not everything that happens in the world is our doing." And that's mostly what we think: everything we do has a consequence. I struggle with the balance between preserving tradition (the "tried and tested" way), and searching for progress. I quote Harold Kushner to remind us that parents are not omnipotent and that too much guilt about children's paths is irrational. The conclusion is that balance must be found in the unique mix of both tradition and progress in our daily lives.

I think we are raised to think in patterns, that everything has form. If you do anything, it lays a foundation for a habit. Isn't that the root of conservatism? Be careful what you do, because it may have a consequence.

There is certainly much good to be said for both conservatives and liberals. The conservative holds to the good and tried of the past, which has been passed down by someone in his circles. They hold to the Bible, because it is God's Word, and nothing may be added to or taken away from it. As Revelation 22:18-19 says: "I testify to everyone who hears the words of this book of prophecy: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of this book of prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are written in this book." With our limited knowledge, and after such words, it is understandable that this would cause a spirit of conservatism.

But is it really God's will that we should stick to the past in everything? I believe God would have made us like animals if he wanted us to obey Him in everything, with instincts driving us instead of our own will. The liberal is always looking for a better way to do things, rather than clinging to what has been handed down to him. That is what causes progress. There is a constant stream of new products on the market, and likewise there are people who are looking for better methods on every level, especially thinking.

OUR CHILDREN'S EDUCATION 1996-02-20

The big problem is the extent to which and how widely conservatism or liberalism is applied, and here we are back to the beginning: it is personal to yourself. Everyone wants to believe that you are right; when your thinking clashes with others in conversation, then conflict arises, because everyone believes he is right. And no one wants to give in, because then you give up what you believe in. One typical reaction is to fight for your point of view, and because you want to win, you get worked up. On the other hand, if you do not want conflict, you just listen quietly without commenting, but inside you disagree, and/or you build up resistance. Often we are tired of such a fists-up attitude. However, it is not good for any person to constantly absorb pressure; it's better to get your differences off your chest. The downside of such outspokenness is that you become known as a real old moaner.

Where does the balance lie? Herein lies one of the great secrets of life: we all have both the seeds of conservatism and liberalism locked up within us, and what makes us who we are is the unique combination in which we mix these two in our daily lives.

THE LAW OR GRACE? 1996-02-25

This subject, the law versus the purpose behind it, the form (cup) versus the content (wine), is something that for me lies at the root of many of our problems. Some people cling to rules, laws and ordinances as if that is really what it is about. To me, it is first and foremost about the purpose for which the law was established. And in many ways the simple proverb is very true: "Rules were made by wise men for fools to obey." (This was often said by Douglas Bader, renowned RAF fighter ace during World War II.)

“THE BROWNING VERSION” - Albert Finney and Greta Scacchi

1996-06-01

This tender and sensitive portrayal of incompatibility in many marriages is a picture that no sensitive person should miss. Albert Finney plays the lead role of the quiet, disciplined teacher of classics at a traditional school in England, in which the relationship with his much younger wife is analysed, much more through body language than with words. The two other players in the drama are his younger colleague and one of the children in one of his junior classes. The story is based on a one-act play.

In broad terms, the story is about an elderly teacher who believes in strong discipline as the basis for the development of a society of civilized values ​​with lofty ideals. He has a very strong compassion and tenderness within himself, and is receptive to noble thoughts. He uses discipline only to keep the children, whom he is moulding for life, in line, but that discipline is unfortunately experienced by many as strict inflexibility, and by his wife as insensitivity by someone who does not want or need sympathy.

He is about to retire, and in one incident the principal, someone more interested in being popular in the school, asks him to speak first at his farewell, so that the young popular teacher who is resigning with him can speak last, so as not to let the occasion end on an anti-climax. Out of politeness he agrees, but is deeply hurt and later walks away unnoticed from the others, where the young teacher is busy batting for his century in a cricket match. As he stands alone under the trees, overcome by his emotions, Tatlow, one of his pupils, approaches him and politely asks if he can give him something. It is a translation of a classical piece, known as the “Browning Version”, and Tatlow has written in Latin at the front, "God looks from afar on a gentle master." He is overcome by his emotions and has to grit his teeth to keep from bursting into tears. Finney plays this role very convincingly.

Later that day at a dinner party he mentions to those around the table that he has received a gift from one of his pupils, and passes the book around on request, which provokes many positive comments, especially from one of the younger teachers who is his friend and understands him better. His wife, however, pours cold water on his feelings by saying that Tatlow is cunning and only gave the gift for personal gain, because she saw him impersonating him in front of his friends as a tyrant, to portray his nickname "The Hitler of the Fifth Grade". He stands up after a while and walks quietly out to his room, where his teacher friend later finds him. He tries to console him with "You have been treated badly. Make a new beginning - you can still find someone who will appreciate you, someone who will be faithful". To this he replies "Laura was only 22 when we were married. We were incompatible from the very beginning. We both needed love, but of different kinds. We were worlds apart." The acting is truly outstanding, and body language plays almost a more important role than the words, with all the characters, especially with Albert Finney.

This is so true to life for many of us, and I involuntarily thought of my Dad in particular. I remember how Mom once called him insensitive, to which I told her he was one of the most sensitive people I knew. And I told her about one occasion at our apartment in Stellenbosch, where he told me something and his eyes filled with tears, something I was not used to with him.

I believe my father was also very misunderstood, especially in his own home, by Mom and our children. Of the three of us, I think I understood him the best. We know so little about other people, and we criticize so easily. As I said to Rinie one day early in our marriage, "No one does anything without a purpose". She often reminded me of this afterwards, when she was unhappy about something I had done. And I had to point out to her just as often that, although everyone has a purpose in everything you do, she often draws the wrong conclusion about what my purpose really was.

Because we love to criticize others, we too easily accuse people of wrong motives that they did not have. No one really knows what is going on inside someone else. And by doing so, you not only often put those close to you on the back foot. You often drive them away from you when they see that you do not accept their explanation.

I FORGIVE, BUT WILL NOT FORGET - Genl Tienie Groenewald

1996-06-02

These words were the headline of an article by Phil Zaayman in Rapport of 26 May 1996. On closer inspection, the false Christianity and the meaning that some South Africans attach to the word "forgive" become apparent when Phil writes how Groenewald’s deep brown eyes spit fire when he talks about the anger that is bubbling up in him. And then he says that he is not bitter, but that he will not easily forget, especially not what FW de Klerk have done to him and his beloved Defence Force.

The day he was charged with the murders of 13 people in the KwaMakutha murder trial, together with Genl Magnus Malan and 10 other officers, his wife was admitted to hospital with cancer. She was given three weeks to live.

As Christians, they decided that prayer was the only way out. And to save her life, they would also have to pray as they had learned to pray in the Lord's Prayer: "And forgive us our trespasses against You, as we also forgive those who trespass against us." (Mat 6:12).

That is why they decided to compile a hate list of people who trespassed against them, who should be forgiven.

Genl Groenewald, Freedom Front senator, says: "It was only a short list. No one from the ANC was on the list. Not Joe Slovo or Ronnie Kasrils. But FW de Klerk was. I forgave him, but I will never forget or trust him again. Not for what he did to the Defence Force. Nelson Mandela saw to it that his comrades were given amnesty. Why didn't FW take care of the Defence Force?"

Herein lies a world of difference in understanding, in which a deep political divide between white South Africans lies just below the surface. The naked hatred that many conservative whites harbour towards FW, to quote Groenewald, that he is a traitor and a coward. While the enlightened half honours FW for his courage, the first South African leader who had the courage of his conviction to put his position as state president on the line for what he believes we had to cross, to get away from the dead end into which the policy of apartheid had plunged our people.

On March 17, 1992, President F.W. de Klerk called a 1992 whites-only referendum in South Africa to decide whether to continue negotiations to end the apartheid system. The "Yes" vote won decisively with a 68.7% support, effectively breaking the power of the white right-wing and paving the way for a negotiated democratic transition.

Let's take Genl Groenewald's comments above point by point:

1. What does it mean to me to be a Christian?

It is probably my view of God as infinitely almighty, far beyond our understanding, and our own nothingness, less than a speck of dust, which is part of my understanding of God. I think the opinion people have of themselves and their own ability, who believe they can move God to dance to their tune, is a soap bubble. Maybe I like Harold Kushner's thoughts so much, because I resonate with them in my nature. It is because we are so important in our own eyes that we can think God is interested in us acting so-called Christianly for our own gain. If we love Him, it is not at all about what we can get out of the transaction, but rather about us worshipping Him out of sheer awe. Perhaps, like Kushner, I have long since concluded that too many bad things happen to good people, and too many bad people get away with murder, to continue clinging to the Biblically propagated idea that you will be fine if you do what God desires, and vice versa. In essence, this reflects a selfish drive - I want things to go well for me, and the leverage I can use on God to do that is to do good, then He cannot help but see that things go well for me. And then I am also prescriptive - it has to be a red BMW M3.

It's because we don't want to or can't realize the scale of our relationship with God - it's infinitely greater than the difference between a human and an ant. It's like expecting humans to be aware and tread carefully so that they don't step on a "good" ant. Then there are many other things of much greater importance. It's not that I believe God isn't aware of our every thought - I just think it's logistically impossible for God to manipulate the circumstances of everything He has created individually.

And then we humans have the audacity to think we are the "crown of creation", that the rest of the animal and plant kingdoms have no emotions or thought patterns. The greatest stupidity of all is to believe that we are the only celestial body with life. This while the earth is less than a speck of dust in the universe - all created by God, and all of which is still maintained by Him through His natural laws.

2. Get instead of give

3. Forgive, but not forget

4. Spit fire of rage that boils up

5. Not bitter

6. Beloved Defence Force

7. Hate list of people who have transgressed against them

- No one from the ANC is on it, but FW is, because he did not take               care of the Defence Force.

8. Twisted sense of loyalty

9. Self-righteous sense of justice

- Because his wife was completely cured of cancer.

What a caricature of a God who allows Himself to be persuaded by such transparent false motives.

Here I am sharply criticizing the "transactional faith" where people try to manipulate God through good deeds in exchange for favours (such as healing). My view of God is one of complete awe and worship, rather than a God who "dances to our tune". I also contrast the hatred and forgiveness in the post-apartheid era, with a specific look at the emotions surrounding figures such as FW de Klerk.

CONCLUSION: THE SEARCH FOR BROTHERHOOD AND BALANCE

Rereading these reflections from 1996 today, I am struck by how timeless the human struggle for understanding truly is. Whether it is about the political divisions of a generation, the misunderstandings between a father and his son, or the fine line between honesty and sensitivity, the core remains the same - we all yearn to be truly seen and known for who we are, without masks or "crown-holding".

My conclusion from this period is that life is not about rigidly following laws or winning arguments, but about the content of the heart - the "wine" in the cup. I have learned that forgiveness without conditions is the only way to true peace of mind, and that our motives will often be misunderstood by others, just as we sometimes overlook the goals of those close to us.

May these pages serve as a reminder to you, posterity, that life is a constant "grinding process." Do not fear the waves - rather, learn how to ride them. Above all, strive to be part of that "silent majority" who eat their bread in peace, respect each other, and look upon the world with compassion. For in the end, as the Browning version so beautifully puts it, "God looks from afar on a gentle master."