Author: admin

Two Old Men

~ admin ~ Leave a comment

Tolstoy appeared on my listening list this week, which was somewhat intriguing. Why would Tolstoy appear? But I had been listening to John Lennox, and Tolstoy’s short story illustrated one of Lennox’s brief characterisations of the distinction between true and false religion, between true and false love. The resurrection of the Lord Jesus, which is celebrated by many in the West, but in the East, and so not also for these two old men, for another five weeks, is the evidence of this distinction. The tomb in which he was lain is emptied, and despite attempts to cover up the resurrection it is well attested in history.


Two Old Men: Tolstoy

Tolstoy’s two old men had in their younger years agreed together to go on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. He tells us of their adventures on their way, after Elisha had finally persuaded Ephraim that they must go else they shall become too old to do so. They also faced difficulty and adversity, not always their own. Elisha had set out in thankfulness for the forgiveness that he knew resided in the faith of the Lord Jesus. Ephraim set out in the hope that his obedience and pilgrimage would count him in good stead in the final reckoning.

This is the essence of faith in Jesus. In his death he cried out: Finished! He did everything, and obtained everything, that would be required to make us acceptable to God. When we walk with Jesus we walk knowing that we have already been accepted by God, and so do not need to earn any points. Jesus has enough for all of us. If we try to walk any other way, we are in a continual struggle to earn enough points to become acceptable to God, and are only certain of one thing – failure to earn enough.

John Lennox puts it slightly differently, and use a cook book in his illustration. Tolstoy speaks in the same way. Elisha fails to reach Jerusalem. Ephraim arrives and returns home, convinced that somehow Elisha overtook him on the way.

Chris was born. Christ died. Christ has risen. Christ will come again.

Extremist?

~ admin ~ 2 Comments

Given the changes to the definition of extremism, Coco thought he should examine his own position to check whether or not his views fall under the censorship of any part of the definition now put forward. According to the BBC report:

Under the new definition, which comes into force on Thursday, extremism is “the promotion or advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance, that aims to:

  1. negate or destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms of others; or
  2. undermine, overturn or replace the UK’s system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights; or
  3. intentionally create a permissive environment for others to achieve the results in (1) or (2).”

The previous definition, introduced in 2011 under the Prevent strategy, described extremism as “vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and belief”.

The government says the new one is “narrower and more precise” and will help “clearly articulate” how extremism is “evidenced” in behaviours.

It also says there will be a “high bar” to being classed as extremist and the policy will not target those with “private, peaceful beliefs”.

The opening words are familiar territory to those who are involved charitable activity ‘promotion and advancement’. So, for example the actual doing of education is not charitable, but the promotion and advancement of it is (or at least under the new charity law could be provided it also conferred public benefit). From the very outset then Coco concludes that the new definition of extremism does not include any of the acts which may arise out of an ideology which is based on hatred, violence or intolerance, it merely ostracises the promotion or advancement of such an ideology.  Coco then feels quite safe, it is not what Coco does that matters (unless it infringes other aspects of criminal or civil law), but rather only the seeking to persuade someone else to share the same views that he holds. Perhaps then there is no need to go any further, but Coco wishes to do so, for if Coco has misunderstood the first few words, then there is still a risk that he may fall foul of what is later enshrined in the definition. Even in writing this, Coco wishes to persuade you of certain things, and so promotes and advances ideas with which you may disagree or agree.

The second part of the definition speaks of an ideology which may be characterised by any one of three options: violence, hatred or intolerance. Note the use of or here, only one of these characteristics is required before we move on to the three tests that have been set out. We need definitions here of all three words, for each of the words may be used in common, or specialist ways and in different contexts though carrying the same meaning carry a different force. Coco may well respond violently when asked to partake in the degustation of a tomato sandwich where the bread has been spread with the contents of even a newly opened jar of Nutella, displaying both his hatred of such a combination and intolerance of those who would even consider it, just as much as another Coco would perhaps have recoiled from the wearing of even the most elegant of attires in only purple and pink.

However, to be more serious about the matter, whilst violence may almost always be considered to be a negative activity, hatred and intolerance are not always so, as may be understood from the hideous examples given beforehand. Are hatred and intolerance towards those who cause harm in our society (do not require Coco to try to define what harm may mean here, or to limit its extent) to be denigrated or applauded? Should we not all be intolerant of that which causes harm? The fly-tipper who poisons our drinking water, is he to be hated or loved? Are we to discourage his activity or to encourage it? Coco does not think that he needs to supply the answer to those questions.

Hatred and intolerance are necessary parts, when correctly understood, of the ideologies which allow us to live together. Coco listened to the rant of one who said, quite eloquently in many different ways, but only said one thing: ’I don’t mind it if you are a religious freak, but don’t push it in my face’ all the while pushing her own ideology in the face of those who disagreed with him (the alternating gender of the pronouns is used to indulge the satisfaction of the ignorance of Coco’s publishers).

Moving on however there are some helpful tests which are designed to enable us to understand what kinds of violent, hateful or intolerant ideologies fall within the scope of the definition. It will be clear, Coco opines, from these that the intolerance towards the provisioner of tomato filled Nutella sandwiches does no violence to this definition of extremism, however extreme the culinary landscape of the provisioner. Note again that the tests are not cumulative, it is only necessary to fall under one or any of them to meet the definition.

So, Mr A (and it is only a Mr A who would hold this view) who owns a white van has an ideology that is intolerant of every other road user. He believes that everyone else should move out of the way for him, that it is his right to tailgate everyone who is ahead of him on the road, sounding his horn at them until they move aside to let him past. Providing that he does not talk about this or encourage others on a Friday night to behave in the same way, he is ok. But if he promotes such a view in any way he falls foul of the first test. In terms of the definition: He promotes or advances an ideology based on intolerance, that aims to negate or destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms of other [road users]. Is he an extremist? Is the Club of White Van Owners an extremist organisation? Coco must declare a conflict of interest. Coco knows and has known white van owners who are not members of the CWVO.

Supposing the organisation passes the first test, the second is a slightly higher bar. It speaks of seeking to undermine, overturn or replace the UK’s system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights. The use of the term UK does perhaps limit the scope of the article somewhat but not entirely, for the formation of the UK did not overturn any of what had gone before. The formation of the UK built upon what already existed. So, we have to ask, as no definition of ‘liberal parliamentary democracy’ is provided, what is meant by it. But before we do that we have the words undermine, overturn or replace. We presently have a first past the post system in relation to voting for individuals.

In Wales the Senate are seeking to replace that with a system of voting for an organisation rather than an individual. Does that mean that the Welsh Senate is an extremist organisation? It is clear that they are seeking to promote the new system. It is also clear that the new system replaces the current system of parliamentary democracy, though not in the entire UK, so they may escape (which does beg the question of whether if an organisation limits its activities to one of the nations of the UK it can ever fall under this test). Before we apply this test the Senate must also fall under one of the earlier hurdles, is the ideology on which the replacement is based violent, hateful or intolerant? You may or may not be surprised to find that the answers are all yes. It is violent, for it does violence to the current system of voting. It is hateful for it introduces a new system which retains nothing of the old: such an action provides evidence that the old system is hated. It is intolerant, for the new system is to be introduced despite opposition from others. Coco concludes, the Welsh Senate falls under this definition of extremism an extremist organisation. You are free to disagree.

There are others who would seek to undermine, replace or overturn (though they may be quite happy to say undermine, replace and overturn) the current system. Some seek proportional representation. Some seek the abolition of hereditary positions. Some seek a second elected chamber. Some seek their own exaltation. The analysis, which Coco apologises is not comprehensive, of the terms violence, hatred and intolerance apply to them as they do to the Senate.

But we must turn to what is meant by the UK’s system. The current system has historical roots. How far back do we look when we consider what is fundamental to the system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights. Coco offers some possibilities: Do we look back over a thousand years to Alfred who based the system of law in this land upon the Ten Commandments of the Law of God? Or do we look back perhaps only to Charles I? Or is it to those who due to his intolerance overthrew him? Or to the Restoration? Or to 1662 when the intolerance of the State was exhibited for the whole nation to see? Should we look to the system before or after the Glorious Revolution? What of the changes in the 18th century which saw an Evangelical Awakening which saved this land from the kind of revolution seen across the Channel? What of the reforms of the 19th century? There has been a progression in the development of the current system. Some of it has been positive, and some of it has been negative. Are we to seek to better it, or to leave it as it is. Any effort to better it falls under the test of undermine, overturn or replace. Even to refuse to participate in the system, or rather to encourage, promote or advance the ideology that non-participation is a means to do this, will cause the organisation to fall under this test and so be an extremist organisation.

Much of the change over these thousand or so years has been promoted by religious and social changes. The 20th century has seen many changes also some of which have been a disaster for the system. The promotion of the ideology of individual choice comes into conflict with the ideology of mutual respect as may be clearly seen in the parable of the CWVO. The constant call for the balancing of rights is only there because one man’s right is another man’s restriction. If it belongs to you, it does not belong to Coco. Coco must remember that.

Perhaps the greatest hurdle we have is that words no longer mean what they used to mean. The only pronoun of whose meaning Coco is certain is it in this post-modern world. How then can we be sure of the meaning of liberal parliamentary democracy. Our current system is not a different system than that of earlier generations. It is not descended from the earlier forms. It is the same system, though it has, we might say, matured though not in the way of a maturity which endows wisdom, but rather like a cheese or a cask of the distilled wine of Scotland would mature. Do you want strong, mature or extra mature cheese? Is it five, ten or eighteen years you sit waiting by the cask before you discover how great or small the angel’s share was? The maturing, and changing, must and shall continue.

Why ascribe the adjective liberal? What need is there for this? How does it change the meaning of parliamentary democracy? Then we have the use of the word democracy itself. Would the fathers of democracy recognise the system of patronage that we have as democratic? Again, Coco begs leave not to answer the questions for you, dear reader, may find them quickly enough without difficulty. Perhaps you consider that the answers do not matter; perhaps you are right, but should you ever have to stand in court before a judge to defend yourself from the extremist charge, you shall find that the judge holds the view that the meanings of words do matter.

You may also notice the use of and in this second test, which perhaps would put Coco’s previous analysis in the shade. The second test is not whether the ideology would aim to undermine, overturn or replace the UK’s system of liberal parliamentary democracy or democratic rights but ratherboth the system and the rights. Coco wonders whether this is merely a drafting error, but given the very careful use of or elsewhere Coco is probably mistaken and the use of and here is deliberate. It severely limits the scope for the test, for it requires the aim to be directed at both the government and the people at the same time. An organisation which seeks only to change the system of government or only seeks to change the rights of the people cannot fall under this test.

The third test though it appears to be a new one, it is a restatement of the others in a different form. It is there, so it seems, to catch those organisations who think that they can be one or more steps removed from the organisations that themselves would fall under tests one or two. An organisation may intentionally create an environment within which others who are intent upon extremist activities may operate and raise the resources that they need without detection.

The definition moves a long way from the old one of 2011, which was open to abuse by many who would wish to silence another for merely expressing a contrary view to their own. It however, as Coco hopes you may understand, raises a new set of questions, and is perhaps too widely drawn. A clear statement of the meanings of the words used is required.

Coco rejoices that the official commentary on gov.uk, provides better guidance and some examples of what they think the definition means, but notice that whilst paragraph 3 provides examples of what could constitute extremism it is not exhaustive, neither is it part of the definition. It does not qualify the definition, it merely illustrates it. It is open to others to challenge and perhaps expand the range of activities which the definition is intended to cover, as in part Coco has shown is possible here. In other words you may illustrate the definition in different colours.

In the meantime, did Coco pass the test? If you allow Coco to be both Judge and Jury in the matter, yes, of course: Coco passed the test. The question remains, what does passing the test mean? Is it a negative result or a positive result which provides a pass?

The Lord, the most loving and caring, person this world has known, who even when they crucified him called out, Father forgive them, they do not know what they are doing, said: If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. And whoever does not bear his cross and come after me cannot be my disciple. Luke 14:26-27

Schrödinger

~ admin ~ 2 Comments

If you have have not read Schrödinger, read this first. As this is a disturbing and not an easy read, perhaps the BBC would be a little easier to grasp.


Schrödinger, The Elusive Intellectual Cat – An Oration
If you prefer to listen than read, you may do so here.

Warning:

This post contains material which may be difficult for those of a sensitive disposition to read and view. If you are likely to take offence at the site or sight of an iron maiden, then you are advised not to proceed but to press the back button on this webpage, to clear your cache, and remove any links to this page from your web-history. Please do not remove any links to the home page but retain them for future delectation and degustation.

If however you are you have understood Schrödinger, then you will understand that no felines have been hurt in the production of the image, which for the most part has been produced by artificial intelligence as instructed by the mind of Coco, which has a modicum of real, though still imaginary, intelligence, and if you have ever visited the Far Side you will also understand that the image is not an attempt to produce a pastiche of the works that you may find there. The skill, albeit aided by computer generated imagery, used in this production cannot match the skill of the artists on the far side, nor their ability to represent and interpret unlikely, but not impossible, social circumstances in a novel, and often bewildering, manner, so as to catch the readers and viewers off guard in their understanding of the words written and the images presented.

Finally, did you hear the radio presenter talking about Coltrain recently? He, in the generic sense, though a musician spoke of always listening to music as a listener and not as a musician. Coco thought that rather odd, because the only way you can listen to music is as a listener. You cannot listen to music as a spectator for the organs of spectacle are not susceptible to providing interpretable responses from the brain (except perhaps for those of allodynia), you must use the organs of hearing to understand the perturbations of pressure in the atmosphere which envelops you. Whether, if you are a musician, you are capable of laying aside your musicianship when listening to another musician is a moot point, but not relevant for there is no disagreement between being a listener who is not a musician and a listener who is, except perhaps when it comes to an interpretation or criticism of the performance to which the listening had been applied. Both the listening musician and the listening non-musician heard, and listened to, the same sounds.

Penultimately, yes, that should precede finally, but Coco now considers that Coco has written enough, though you may disagree and consider that Coco has written far more than necessary (Coco would not wish to disagree with you over your concluded opinion for then we would both waste much hot air, or finger energy should the discussion, debate, argument or conversation proceed in a written form over that which is of less than ephemeral interest to any of the readers of this page) and that this page may now be long enough to have prevented the image below from being viewed before you had read the warning above. If you have not read the warning, please return to the top of the page to read it. If you consider that it is safe to do so, you may proceed.

Please note that if you do proceed, you confirm that you have read the warning, have taken heed to it, and shall hold harmless Coco, his representatives, this website and anyone and everyone else should you suffer any feeling of offence after proceeding other than yourself. Furthermore, if you feel any sense of let down after proceeding, you also hold yourself responsible for following your fingers rather than your nose and your conscience and thus provoking the response within yourself.

You have been warned!

Kitty considered the position carefully and, despite her feline disposition, realised that whatever Schrödinger may have said, there was only one way she would come out of the box.

Anti-scientific?

~ admin ~ Leave a comment

It was a recommendation of and a listening to Professor Angus Dalgleish, physician, oncologist, pathologist, medical researcher and author that prompted the thoughts.

The Professor makes a good point. There is a lack of consensus in many areas of science, and perhaps especially true in the context of cosmological and the design of bio-chemical machines, where radically contrary views may be held by main-stream scientists, but who rise up together when anything approaching a Biblical perspective on the known facts is introduced to silence the proponents of what is an alternative and more credible explanation than their own. Even Coco’s use of the word design in the preceding sentence will provoke the ire of such opponents of the scientific method to which they pretend to adhere but abandon when it does not suit their ideology or philosophy.

It is difficult however for the layman to assess and test the different points of view and ultimately comes down the question, as Coco read elsewhere in a different context, ‘who are you prepared to believe?’ whilst at the same time keeping only a tenuous hold on the current scientific thinking, for as has been seen very clearly in the last 500 years at least, current scientific thinking can be rapidly overturned by a new and aberrant ‘fact’ or a new explanation for a well-known fact that had previously not been adequately explained.

What Coco would suggest however is that we should not believe those who seek only to silence the opposition and are not prepared to let you listen to any alternative presentation or explanation.

The first one to plead his cause seems right, until his neighbour comes and examines him. Proverbs 18.17


Anti-scientific woke

Coloured

~ admin ~ Leave a comment

South Africa’s Tyla sparks culture war over racial identity

English is a very difficult language as we who were born to speak it know from the moment we meet someone from the other side of the railway track (Coco would have said over the border but English speakers from other parts of the world may misunderstand what that means). It is not merely the orthography that confuses. Every English reader, who has read the preface of the OED, knows how to pronounce ghotti and what also it means.

Words can sound exactly, well quite closely, the same, but it is in the spelling of them, there, their contrasting meanings are displayed. Other words may be spelt in exactly the same way, but have different meanings, so after this sentence which we read, read it we have. When you speak it out you may hear it said that the people of Ware wear warehouse wares where once were were-wolves.

Some words have the same spelling and the same meaning but different sounds depending upon where you find them in the sentence. The hour the hole in my argument appears, let me know. Whilst that example is, Coco reckons, always true, there is much controversy about some words and their vocalisation wherever they may appear in a sentence.

Yet other words have identical spelling and sound but completely contrasting meaning. You rely upon the context to understand which word is being used. So, when Coco says He cleft the bond what does he mean? There is insufficient context to understand which verb is being used.

Be careful in English then when you are dividing the spoil, that you give it not to two too many for fear of making spoil of your reputation.

Perhaps however the one of the most irritating parts of English is that there is no common authority to define spelling. Orthography matters, but not enough. The English are not governed by Roman law, at least not for the past 1600 years, and neither is its spelling unlike some other European languages, but when English breaks out from Europe, then it loses much of its freshness. For example, we have two similarly spoken and spelt words, but quite different Saviour and savour, both of which suffer from manipulation in the hands of others becoming Savior and savor. Coco supposes that it does bring them both closer to a single root word which means to cleanse, wash, purify or save, but the second of the two is actually from a different root word. The original L has been dropped in Saviour, and the original P has become a V in savour. There are words which link the two, so though the etymology may not be quite this clear: salver and salvor. You may also find that there is a close link between the flavour and taste of something to the testing of the food for the presence of a poison, potentially suggesting an ancient overlap in the uses of the derivatives of salve and saporo. Do not rely upon Coco for this analysis, please check it out yourself. Coco’s labyrinth has a number of misleading paths.

Coco has not mentioned, but in passing, yet the variety of vocalisation of words across dialects. When hat, hut, heart, hurt, and heat can only, in one dialect, only be distinguished by spelling having identical vocalisation is fascinating. My hat in hand my heart hurt at the heat of the hut afire.

The variety of the representation of English then in its orthography and vocalisation offers both confusion and opportunity. The referenced article indicates that the use of the word colored(sic.) is offensive in a certain circumstance. Coco would agree, it is most offensive when written on paper and should at all times be corrected, other than when used for didactorial (English words may easily be derived from others) and academic purposes. However, coloured in the same circumstance is no offence but a mark of honour. In some cultures the colouring of the body, quite apart from the natural colours, is a means of embellishment. It is cosmetic. Coco rather thinks that the majority who do this do not have the burden of English as the mother tongue so a different set of words is likely to be used [see Proscription].

That being the case, the learned use of English is to understand that though the words have similar, though not identical, vocalisation, the spelling indicates that they have different meanings, as different as remarked above as is between cleave and cleave. So, it may be an offence to say the man is colored but it is a great honour to say the man is coloured.

As is said elsewhere: Why do they not get it? How many different ways can you spell it in the English language?

A dangerous work(around)

~ admin ~ Leave a comment

You may have heard the expression: Rubbish in, rubbish out.

Forty years ago Coco used a early version of SuperCalc (SC2 – a spreadsheet like Excel for those who cannot remember) for the preparation of monthly reports under the operating system C/PM. It was ‘cutting’ edge at the time using simple lists of transactions which were converted into a report showing monthly, cumulative and projected figures against a flexible budget. Coco shall not go into the technical details of this. It was not many months before Coco noticed that the report sometimes did not balance.

How could that be? The original data was complete, and balanced. Careful examination of the code indicated that nothing had been left out. It was only when Coco had set the code to run step by step, updating the display at each step, that quite by accident the problem revealed itself. As you will know, and if you do not, ledger accounts have two sides, a debit (on the left) and a credit (on the right). The code identified separately each debit total and each credit total for every account. This is important for the grand total of the debits and the credits must agree. In order to obtain the balance on the account for the report, the difference between the debits and the credits on each account must be determined. That was a very simple action. Put the debits into column A, the credits into column B, calculate the balance in and pick it up from column C.

This is where the mistake occurred. As SuperCalc accepted the values in column B it erased the value in every 16th row, and only every sixteenth row, in column A.

It is said that, for a given set of inputs a computer will always give the same result. You may give it that set of inputs any number of times, nothing will ever be different. If something is different, then it you must look at the programme not the inputs.

Coco never found out what it was in the SuperCalc code that prompted it to do this, but it was consistent. The correct solution was to fix SuperCalc, but my solution was not to try to fix SuperCalc but to fix the data to work around the error. Coco added dummy accounts into the system, each of which would have no data assigned to them and would fall onto these 16th rows. After that the reports balanced. It was a concern however that there might be something else lying around which would creep up unawares. We found such things were lurking later, when the then victorious Excel now and again got an arithmetic calculation wrong. The problem is still with us today if we expect say +(1-0.1-0.1-0.1-0.1-0.1-0.1-0.1-0.1-0.1-0.1) to be 0, it is not quite zero.

So we consider the mRNA vaccine, where it is reported (Covid study: mRNA vaccines could be fine-tuned) that there is a one in three probability that the ribosome will incorrectly read the data held in the mRNA. The solution is, so they say, to use non-slip mRNA, which will eradicate the incorrect reading of the data. They speak of the data as code, and code it is, just as this note is itself written in an alphabetic code which we read with our eyes and interpret with our brains.

The data, the code, however is read (just as Coco’s data was read by the SuperCalc code) by a ribosome, which is itself a complex chemical machine with its own code that interacts with the data in the mRNA. If one in three times the reading of the data produces a different result it suggests that it is something in the ribosomes that are reading the data that is different. Changing the data may, as it did for Coco, skip the thing that we do not understand that actually makes the difference, but the thing we do not understand is still there waiting to catch us out in different circumstances.

There is another possibility. Coco mentioned above that a given set of inputs will always yield the same output. We have seen many situations in the electronic world where this did not seem to be the case. Careful examination showed however that the starting conditions, which we thought were identical were not. A prior process, which may or may not have taken place, influenced the results of the later inputs. There was, if you like, an unknown input over which we had no control, which changed the result. This was unlike Coco’s SuperCalc problem.

Should we not try to understand why the same set of data, the same code, produces different outcomes one in three times before we say we have fixed it? Coco did not fix his problem, Coco merely worked around it, not knowing what other problems may arise later. What is it that causes the ribosome to read the data ‘incorrectly’ one in three times? Or is it that it is the two in three times that it does what we want it to do that is the incorrect result?

The unintended result of the misreading, or possibly correct reading, of the mRNA is the production of a few unintended proteins. Coco thinks that the implication is ‘harmless’ proteins, but that is not actually said. So the workaround is to change the mRNA, the data, in such a way that the ribosome will always read the data as we want it to: but do we understand why it read the original data in two different ways, not just occasionally but quite regularly? What else was going on? What was the unknown input that caused the data to be read in either of the two different ways? We have not addressed that, have we?

To address the matter with a workaround in the data is both reckless and negligent. When Coco used a workaround, he was only dealing with the reporting of how money gathered and how it had been used, the reporting is important, yes, but mRNA affects people’s lives.

Translation

~ admin ~ Leave a comment

We use the word translation in many different ways, accountants and theologians having quite specialised uses of the term which may befuddle, without a translation, the poor man on the Clapham omnibus.

When you try to translate Do you feel special? and Do you feel different? into certain Romance languages the distinction found in Germanic languages may be lost. Difficulties abound when seeking to give the correct and proper meaning of words in one language in a second. But have you noticed that there is as much difficulty when translating from even very closely related languages?

The Wesleys wrote many hymns which are in use today, but they wrote in a different language than we speak today, though their language and ours are for the most part mutually intelligible. John Wesley was aware of the problem of translation however, for he is recorded as saying: I desire that they would not attempt to mend them; for they are really not able. John Wesley was a very able poet and not a mean user of the English language. Certain publishers thought that perhaps however he had not quite said what he intended to say and sought to ‘improve’ on the work of the author.

Coco is quite sure that were Mr Wesley to have lived in the 20th and 21st centuries his hymns and expressions would be just a sure footed as they were in another land and a different language. He knew what he was saying and said what he meant.

Sometimes however, modernists wish to translate into contemporary English that which was written in a different dialect and then fail to ensure that when they attempt to do so they have not changed to meaning of the author. Some also erase the obvious and leave behind the ridiculous:

Crown Him the Lord of years,
the potentate of time,
creator of the rolling spheres,
ineffably sublime!

is the 19th century English

Crown Him the Lord of years,
the potentate of time,
creator of the rolling spheres,
in majesty sublime!

is the modern substitute

There is a subtle distinction. Incidentally, whilst ineffable may not be in common usage, it is not an archaic word. It surprises Coco that the translator did not know that. The concept of the rolling spheres is however an archaic description of the cosmos however ‘poetic’ it may appear to be to our ears. Much more serious errors however can be made.

In the hymn Beneath the cross of Jesus, written by Elizabeth Cecelia Clephane (1830-69) in the middle of the nineteenth century we have these words:

The hymn begins:
Beneath the Cross of Jesus
I fain would take my stand.
later we have:
O safe and happy shelter!
O refuge tried and sweet!
O trysting-place where heaven’s love
and heaven’s justice meet!

Which becomes:
Beneath the Cross of Jesus
O may I take my stand.
and later:
O safe and happy shelter!
O refuge tried and sweet!
That awesome place where heaven’s love
and heaven’s justice meet!

The changes may seem to be trivial, until you consider the difference in meaning between the former and the current expressions. Elizabeth knew her theology, and so apparently do the translators, but they have forgotten the fundamental principle of translation which is to express in the target language as precisely as possible what was said in the original. There are two significant errors here, which Coco suggests reflect badly upon the theology of the translators and perhaps illustrate a tendency in contemporary thought to downgrade the robust theology of the Bible.

Coco must admit that fain and trysting, unlike ineffable, are archaic words, though we are quite capable of understanding them. They may derive from a foreign language, that is the English of the nineteenth century, but many of our contemporary words derive from foreign languages and we are quite unashamed to use them: bhaji springs to mind, though Coco is as fond of them as Tigger is of thistles. The difference in meaning between the translation and the original is however considerable in both its modern and original understandings.

Fain is not an expression of a request for permission to do something, but rather an expression of a sense of unworthiness to take part in something of great importance. When you wish to see the king or some other important official, you must ask for permission, May I have an audience?, and then you must turn up at the appointed time, if you are granted an audience. This is not what Elizabeth meant, otherwise she would have used that expression herself. May I? was not foreign to the nineteenth century speaker of English. Elizabeth knew precisely what she meant: She had not sought an audience with the king, but rather the king had sent a letter to her: By Royal command we require the presence of Elizabeth at such and such a time and place. In her heart was both joy and fear. How could she appear in the presence of the king? She shrank back from it. Suppose she arrived and her attire was unsuitable or unpleasing to the king? Suppose she made some stupid or silly remark in his presence? I fain would go, she cries out, and go I must for I am compelled by his command to do so.

But the translator should understand this: God has commanded men everywhere to repent and to believe the gospel. Obedience to this command requires that we come to the cross of Jesus. It is not a matter of may but must. I must stand beneath the cross of Jesus.

The theology has been changed. To ask if I may stand beneath the cross is to ignore that we have been commanded to do so. Do I think that if I ask for permission, then the obtaining of that permission will suggest perhaps some element of good in me which prompted the king to allow me to stand there? Ah, that is not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, who calls everyone to come to him. It is only those who think they have something to give him who will not come. They do not hear his voice, because they want him to reward them for the ‘good’ things they have done.

Secondly, the second change strips out of the hymn the most delightful doctrine that God’s love and his justice work together for the salvation of men. God is one. His attributes are not in conflict with one another. The place where love and justice meet is indeed an awesome, Coco would prefer to say aweful in its proper sense with a different spelling than use the contemporary term, but let it be, an awesome place. There is no doubt about that, but it was not that aspect of that place about which Elizabeth was writing, otherwise she too could have used a different expression than trysting. Trysting is nothing to do with awe. Trysting is to do with love and courtship. It is an aspect of our culture which perhaps our modern English world has forgotten.

Elizabeth knew exactly what she meant when she used that word to describe the place where love and justice meet. They had not gone to that place to settle their differences. There would be no great battle between love and justice. Love and justice had gone to that place as lovers. Love and justice had only one common purpose and aim, which God had expressed from before the foundation of the world, that the Son would be given the nations as an inheritance. For this to be fulfilled the Son would give himself for his people. The cross of Jesus speaks to us of both his love and his justice. It is their trysting place. In this way God would demonstrate that he is both just and justifier.

William Vernon Higham 1926-2016 speaks of the awesomeness of that place in his hymn:
Great is the gospel of our glorious God,
where mercy met the anger of God’s rod;
a penalty was paid and pardon bought,
and sinners lost at last to Him were brought.
Mercy and anger, love and justice, meet to fulfil the work of God.

In another nineteenth century hymn we have the very thing that Elizabeth expressed. It seems unlikely that Elizabeth would have known it at least in the English translation. First of all it was written in Welsh by William Rees (1802-83):
Here is love, vast as the ocean,
lovingkindness as the flood,
when the Prince of life, our ransom,
shed for us his precious blood.
Who his love will not remember?
Who can cease to sing his praise?
He can never be forgotten
throughout heaven’s eternal days.

On the mount of crucifixion
fountains opened deep and wide;
through the floodgates of God’s mercy
flowed a vast and gracious tide.
Grace and love, like mighty rivers,
poured incessant from above,
and heaven’s peace and perfect justice
kissed a guilty world in love.

William Edwards (1848-1929) translated it to English and expressed in it what Elizabeth captured in her use of trysting place. Heaven’s peace, joins with heaven’s justice to kiss a guilty world.

Do not be misled by the bad theology that sees God’s justice being at odds with his love, or that which suggests that the God of the Old Testament is not of the New. Our God, Father Son and Holy Spirit, is one God, in whom there is no conflict between his love, peace, mercy, grace, anger and justice. Jonathan Edwards described heaven as a world of love. God is love, and where God is, in his love, anger, mercy and justice we have a trysting place to which all may come. Yes, we may fear to come, but we may come for the royal command has been issued:

Come to me, all you who labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.
Matthew 11:28-29

International Lymphoedema Framework – Uganda Framework

~ admin ~ 1 Comment

There is excitement in the world as the ILF begins an epidemiological (for those of you who do not understand that word, let Coco stand alongside you) study to ascertain the prevalence of lymphoedema in Uganda.

It is well known that lymphatic filariasis is endemic in tropical countries, alongside other mosquito borne diseases, but the real extent of the problem and its expression among the people is not properly understood.

Lymphatic filariasis is only one of the causes of lymphoedema in East Africa, all of the other causes, whether primary or secondary are also present, though the mix will be different than in Europe, and other parts of the world.

The International Lymphoedema Framework, through its chairman, has provided funding for the study which will be lead by Dr Arthur Bagonza of Makerere University in two districts in the village regions of Uganda.

Basic training in the identification of three stages of progression of the disease has been completed in Kampala this week and the lead field workers are ready to take the tool out into the field to complete their survey. Dr S Narahari of the IAD, India, and Professor Christine Moffatt will act as referees to confirm or vary the stage assessments made by the field workers.

The survey will assess the numbers and proportion of individuals in the community affected together with the impact of the disease upon the quality of life of the sufferers. The results will be used to inform the Ministry of Health, who have given their unqualified support to the study, in the allocation of resources to combat the problem and relieve the suffering.

Dr Arthur with Dr Alfred Mubangizi, Assistant Commissioner Health Services – Vector Borne and Neglected Tropical Diseases, Ministry of Health with the rest of the team who attended the inaugural meeting.

The Ugandan framework, lead by Dr Arthur Boganza and Lydia Kabili, is a newly formed framework within the International Lymphoedema Framework and benefits from a longstanding relationship with Prof. Linda Gibson and Makerere University.

John to Gaius

~ admin ~ Leave a comment

When John was an old man, and probably in gaol on Patmos, he wrote to his friend Gaius in Ephesus a short letter essentially about three things, but there is a fourth hidden there also which lies behind all three.

It is a personal letter, and the manner in which he writes, hiding in some ways the matter of the things of which he is speaking, makes it clear that he wanted the letter to get to Gaius even if it meant that he would have to leave Gaius to make an intelligent guess about what he meant. Gaius knew John. He would know what John meant even if the uninformed reader did not.

John was probably about ninety years old when he wrote the letter. John had walked with Jesus. John had had some privileges in Jerusalem. It was John who had obtained entrance for Peter to the high priest’s garden at the time of the Lord’s trial. John had been at the foot of the cross with Mary. Gaius would know that he must interpret all that John wrote with that in mind. John therefore speaks a little in riddles to his friend. In this way the letter when read by the prisoner governor would get past his scrutiny and on its way to his friend.

Three things then:

His first subject is something quite close to the hearts of all of us who have any interest in medicine, and also to those who do not. That it go well with you – health and prosperity if you like – a good and normal common greeting of the day in which he wrote this letter, just as it still is in some parts of the world today – but notice what he says next: the good of his body is predicated upon the health of his soul/spirit.  John knew that health and prosperity are nothing. He had heard Jesus tell the story of the rich man and Lazarus: Tonight your soul is required of you, what will become of your wealth then. A man may gain the whole world, but if he lose his soul, what has he gained? Gaius was to look after his soul first.

John goes on to speak of how glad he is when his children walk in the truth. Again Gaius would have understood. Jesus in replying to a question from his disciples said, I am the way, the truth and the life, no man comes to the Father except by me. Pilate had asked him, What is truth? John expresses his desire, and his joy, that Gaius, and all others (his children) should walk with Jesus. Whatever your outward position or status – health or lack of it, prosperity or poverty – if you do not walk with Jesus you have nothing, you are poor indeed. It was John’s first desire, and nothing gave him greater joy than this, that they know Jesus and walk with him. Do we?

Secondly, he warns them about Diotrephes, perhaps those should call him who are medical people, Di-atrophies – two atrophies. Medics know what atrophy means.  The teaching and practice of Diotrephes lead to only one thing the atrophy – the weakening, the decay, dying of the spiritual life of the people.

John had walked with Jesus. He remembered those times when the twelve had argued among themselves about who was the greatest. He remembered that most embarrassing occasion when his own mother had asked Jesus for thrones for the two sons of Zebedee (for his brother and for him). He had walked with the one who really was the First, the Best, the Greatest – the one who holds the highest place, and is seated at the right hand of God. But here he speaks of Di-otrephes who loves to be first. Jesus said, if I your Lord and Master wash your feet…

But Di-otrephes behaves in quite the opposite way so that he demands obedience from everyone in the church, and puts out of it anyone who refuses. We have some like that in England – they are the ones who say: If you are not with me, you are against me! Do as I say! Believe exactly what I tell you! You probably have some where ever you are as well. Beware of them. When the disciples saw someone who was not with them speaking in the name of Jesus, Jesus taught them: Leave him alone, no-one can do these things in my name and not honour me. Even those who teach and lead must remember that once they did not understand and if once they did not understand, then they (and we) may still not understand, so do not be quick to cast someone out. Listen with all patience, and teach carefully. Jesus also reminded John that there will be many who will say: Did we not do this that and the other in your name? but they never knew Jesus. Diotrephes, who wants to be first, who demands obedience, appears to be such a man. What he does he does for honour before men, not for the love of the Master. John says to Gaius and to us, beware of him, and of those like him.

Gaius would also remember that John heard Jesus say: I came not to be served,  but to serve and give my life as a ransom for sinners.

The second atrophy, the message hidden behind this, is: Do not imitate the world – and those like Diotrephes who themselves only display what is important to worldly men –  but Jesus who died for you. The imitation of the world leads to death, but the following of Jesus to life.

Thirdly he turns Gaius’s attention to Demetrius. Dimitry – I want to call him Di-meter – Two Measures.  Dimitry is a man against whom you can measure yourself. No doubt most of us, just as when we measure ourselves against Jesus, even if we measured ourselves against this man, would find ourselves to be wanting. We certainly fall short of what he required. Perhaps that is why he is two measures – we can only ever hope to be one measure if that! – he stands tall spiritually speaking, twice as high as the rest of us. But there is another reason for two. John mentions two characteristics of Dimitry and in doing so John turns our attention again to Jesus.

Demetrius is one who has a good testimony. What can John mean? He has already spoken of it. After telling us that we are to imitate what is good not what is evil, he then exhibits Demetrius to us as one who does those very things. He has a good testimony. No-one speaks evil of him. Indeed nothing can be found against him. Just as Demetrius measured carefully, judging what was good and to be imitated, and what was evil to be shunned, so we should also. Do we not want a good testimony from the truth itself? Do we not want to hear, when we stand before the returning king the Lord saying to us: Well done, good and faithful servant, enter into the joy of your Lord? Demetrius was one who would hear that call.

Finally, John did not continue writing. There is more he could say, just as when he ends his gospel account he tells us that the world does not have enough room for all that could be written about Jesus, but he will not write it down. To write too much could of course provoke the governor of the gaol to reject the letter, but John has a better purpose. It is better to meet face to face than to write. We are not designed to cut ourselves off and away from each other. God has made us to have fellowship with himself in his Son, and in so doing to have fellowship with one another.

Do you want to know what heaven is like? Jonathan Edwards wrote a short book in which he answered the question, but also did not answer the question: Heaven, a world of love. This is what heaven is like. Gone are all of the things that separate us from each other. Gone are all of the things that we do not want other people to know about us. In his first letter John says: Perfect love casts out fear. We shall love God then with all of our heart, soul, mind and strength and our neighbours as ourselves. But of course Edwards also does not answer the question for he knew that Paul had said that it has not entered even into the imagination of the heart of men what God has prepared. But we know this, and John points to it, that then we shall speak face to face. Then, Paul says, we shall no longer look as if into mirror, but shall see the Lord face to face.

For that day we wait. Are we ready? Has Jesus made you ready?