‘Covid-19 is on the rise again in the UK. After multiple lockdowns and more than 197,000 deaths, experts are warning we’re now entering a fifth wave of the pandemic. So why are around four million adults in the UK still yet to receive a single dose of the vaccine? In this timely, eye-opening investigation Professor Hannah Fry seeks to understand why so many remain unvaccinated against Covid-19.
To fully explore this complex and deeply divisive debate, Hannah brings seven unvaccinated participants together under one roof to unpack long-held opinions, beliefs and fears that have prevented them from getting the vaccine. Together, they meet leading experts, confront the latest science and statistics to emerge in the field, and dissect how misinformation spreads on social media. At the end of the experiment, each contributor is asked if what they have learned has changed their mind, and whether they will now take up the vaccine.‘
If this is the same Professor Hannah Fry as in the Mathematics of Cities at the UCL Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis, then it seems to Coco that she brings the regimen of mathematics into disrepute. The study, which is designed to fully explore the complex and deeply divisive debate over whether to submit to vaccination or not, is hardly a scientific study, even by the standards of the least rigorous of the psycho-social , so-called, scientific disciplines. There is no parallel study to explore the opinions, beliefs and fears of those who have submitted to vaccination; no meeting of the vaccinated to discuss the contrary evidence and no question put to each of them whether with their greater knowledge they now understand the issues better and in the light of that would have refused the vaccination.
Whilst the setting, if the headline picture is of the location for the event, is quite pleasant, and certainly appears to be less ‘clinical’ than other centres used for similar, but quite different and putatively malicious, purposes, the description provided above suggests that this is nothing less than an attempt at re-education. It is an entirely one-sided, one-way effort to persuade individuals to change their views.
Coco is disappointed, but not astonished nor surprised by the BBC but disappointed, and astonished at UCL.
Just for the avoidance of doubt, this is not in itself a discussion of the reasons for and against vaccination. As mentioned above, the issues are complex; the science, such as it is, behind the modern vaccines is young; the language used to code biological systems is only partly and inadequately understood. There are many uncertainties. There are also complex social issues around our responses to threats, especially where there is a mixture of real, only perceived, and illusory threats some of which are propagated by those with special interests which are not fully aligned with the interests of the actual or potential patients.
Having made reference to one musical, Coco thought a reference to another would not go amiss. It has some catchy tunes, though be careful; if you listen too often to them you may start liking them. They are like roasted peanuts or salted caramel, sweet to the mouth, but heavy on the hips. The theology expressed in the words is a little bit off the mark as well. Coco would recommend you listen to it in Latin rather than a tongue that you understand. The poor and heretical theology will then bypass the mind and not cause offence.
If you have been at a reunion of school friends in recent days those words ‘Remember me?’ may not be unfamiliar to you. In the lunch queue for seconds one of my peers asked who Coco is, and Coco returned the question. We did not know each other. We were in the same year, but had never, at least in any meaningful way whether for good or ill, weal or woe, met in all of our seven, or perhaps it was only four years as there were some great, significant and perhaps to a few devastating changes whilst we made our progress through those years, together. The answer for both of us was: No, I do not remember you.
On the other hand there were many there who did remember each other. Some were not there whom we had hoped would be, but others came who had not been to any before. What a joy it was to be to meet again.
But it was not with a question mark that Coco had these two words in mind. They can be used in different ways, in an indicative sense as in the answer to the question whether Yes or No. Although the positive response is of course the one we want to hear: You remember me. After all these years, you still remember me. But it is not in that sense either Coco have in mind. It is in the imperative: Remember me! Do not forget me!
Are there times when your mind has lashed you when something happened that made you think, I forgot. It was years ago that you forgot, but it still comes back to you. I forgot. What did you forget? A birthday? An engagement? To make a ‘phone call? To pass a message on? But now it is too late, just as it was soon after the thing had slipped out of your mind.
There was a man, who appears in Jospeh (sic! To prevent FB recognising it) and his technicolour dream coat who did not remember, not that we are told that in the play. Coco told you it was inaccurate. Joseph had been committed to prison for a crime he did not commit. It is interesting that he, a slave, was only committed to prison for the alleged crime. It rather suggests that either his master was not entirely sure of truth of the allegation or that the accuser knew that it was a lie. Into the prison are thrown two others one of whom was Pharoah’s wine taster. After interpreting the dreams of these two men, Joseph said to the butler: Remember me. The baker lost his head; the butler went back to work.
The butler forgot, but there was a purpose in his forgetfulness which was not intended by him.
Two years later the butler’s master had a dream. He was silent at first, but when he saw that Pharaoh’s magicians and wise men could not interpret the dream, he spoke up. Coco rather thinks that as well as a pang of conscience over Joseph striking him it was the thought if Pharaoh found out about Joseph in any other way he would be in even more trouble than the first time he was thrown into the gaol house. So, the first thing he did was to admit his fault – if Pharaoh is going to be angry with him for being silent he should at least try to make it look as if this is a voluntary disclosure on his part: I remember my faults today. And proceeded to give the full account of what Pharaoh did and how Joseph had interpreted the dreams of the two men. Coco presumes that in the interval between this disclosure and Joseph’s arrival before Pharaoh Pharaoh would have learned much more about Joseph’s history that the butler related. The response to Joseph’s interpretation of Pharaoh’s dream and the subsequent preferment suggest that Pharaoh knew something of the service that he had given to his previous masters.
Remember me! The butler forgot; but had the butler not forgotten the consequences would have been quite different. Joseph would likely not have been around to interpret Pharaoh’s dream. Remember me! was remembered at the right time. But you know there is one who does not forget – hold on. There are four who called on the Lord: Remember me; and one who asked: Remember not!
Job, suffering under great affliction, economic, emotional and medical, cried out, in a way like Joseph but from a position of wanting to be imprisoned not in prison until God’s wrath had passed: Remember me! Hannah, a barren woman, asked the Lord to remember her and give her a child. Nehemiah, who rebuilt Jerusalem, asked the Lord simply to remember him for the good he had done.And then Samson, who would have done well rather to cry the other cry of the one who said: Remember not! Remember not the sins of my youth! But he actually cried out Remember me!
The Lord heard all of these, and we can read of how he answered four of them. Job’s patience was tested as he waited unwillingly for a reply, just as Joseph’s as he waited in the dungeon. Ours may also if we cry out to him: Remember me! But if we do cry out, he will not forget.
There was one who, like Samson, had not long to wait when he cried out: Remember me! Lord, Remember me when you come into your kingdom, he asked as he hung dying on a cross next to the Saviour. Today, the Lord said, you will be with me in Paradise.
We have come a long way from the technicolour dream coat, but the theology at this end is better than at the beginning. Read it in your mother tongue not in Latin.
The Dreamcoat
But remember me when it is well with you, and please show kindness to me; make mention of me to Pharaoh, and get me out of this house. Genesis 40:14
Then Samson called to the Lord, saying, “O Lord God, remember me, I pray! Strengthen me, I pray, just this once, O God, that I may with one blow take vengeance on the Philistines for my two eyes!” Judges 16:28
Then she made a vow and said, “O Lord of hosts, if you will indeed look on the affliction of your maidservant and remember me, and not forget your maidservant, but will give your maidservant a male child, then I will give him to the Lord all the days of his life, and no razor shall come upon his head.” 1 Samuel 1:11
Remember me, my God, for good, according to all that I have done for this people. Nehemiah 5:19
Oh that you would hide me in Sheol, that you would conceal me until your wrath be past, that you would appoint me a set time, and remember me! Job 14:13
Remember not the sins of my youth or my transgressions; according to your steadfast love remember me, for the sake of your goodness, O Lord! Psalm 25:7
Then he said to Jesus, “Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom.” Luke 23:42
Well that was not exactly the title of the article, but it will do. Do you remember the Jesus Christ Superstar, Life of Brian and other such protests? Paul said: If any one preaches a gospel other than we have preached let him be anathema. Just for the avoidance of doubt anathema is a Greek word which roughly translated means accursed. It is very clear that blasphemy is a great evil. But, unlike truth of which there can be only one (there are not contradictory truths), your blasphemy may not be my blasphemy. Coco may speak against the Queen of Heaven because Coco identifies her as a different person than you would. Another may deny the divinity of Jesus Christ, but, unless he openly claims to be an Arian, he is not speaking of the same Jesus of whom Coco would speak.
Secondly, Paul said ‘For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the [the ways of this world]. For the weapons of our warfare are not [of this world – swords, spears and as we would add guns] but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God’ Jesus himself said ‘My kingdom is not of this world. If it were my followers would take up the sword.’ From this we learn that however much another may offend us by what they say we are not to lift up the sword or issue threats of harm against them. If we did then we should expect the censure of the civil authorities to fall upon us.
Of course it is open to us to refuse to participate in the games, or to watch or allow to be shown in our own houses those things which we consider to be blasphemous, just as EMI pulled the funding of Life of Brian when they realised what it really was. George Harrison, so Coco understands, stepped in to pay for it.
So why was the Lady of Heaven cancelled? ‘To ensure the safety of our staff and customers.’ is given as the reason. That can only mean that threats, which should be referred to the civil authority for investigation, were issued. It was not cancelled because it was blasphemous, whatever that may mean in this case, nor because the owners of the venues thought it was inappropriate material. How sad this is. It was said by another (Baroness Claire Fox): the ‘same ‘I Find that Offensive’ cancel culture arguments [are] now being used far beyond campus activism. [It is] disastrous for the arts, dangerous for free speech, [and] a lesson to those who argue identity politics are no threat to democracy,’ Just because you find it offensive, does not make it offensive. When the little child watches 23 men on a green field and declares: ‘It’s boring’, it is not that it is not boring; he is bored. If you are offended and 99,999 are not, just get on with life, and they will get on with theirs, and say to themselves: ‘One day, kid, you won’t be bored.’
Just to be clear, Coco is not suggesting that the safety of staff and customers is not important. It is, but the threat to their safety did not arise from anything that the theatre was doing, it came from outside and outwith their control and was in itself unlawful.
So to conclude, if the lady concerned is as virtuous as claimed her character in itself will give the lie to all attempts to besmirch her reputation if that is what this film is. Since the beginning Satan has foul mouthed the Word of God. ‘Has God said?’ is the first thing we hear from his mouth. Does it surprise you that he continues to this very day to do so? But he cannot be fought with sword or gun, and threats do not move him. We must contend against him in the power of God, casting down his arguments, contradictory truths, and lies to expose the pride with which he exalts himself against the knowledge of God in Jesus Christ.
Harrison was right here: ‘back in 1966, Harrison was unruffled. “Why is there all this stuff about blasphemy?” he asked in the Evening Standard. “If Christianity is as good as they say it is, it should stand up to a bit of discussion.” Evidently, he still held that opinion when Idle asked for a little help from his friend.’
The corollary is also true: if a religion is not as good as they say, it will not stand up to any discussion. It is perhaps no wonder they wish to silence those with whom they disagree.
The day has arrived*; the dragons are unleashed. How excited are you? Two bank holidays and a weekend, and still it is May the twenty second for some. It is time to reveal the finale, having come across Lambton Worm, a tale about a young squire who went fishing on a Sunday morn when he should not have done with terrible consequences for the people who lived on both sides of the Wear, Coco thought Coco would paraphrase some of it with another dragon tale about a different young squire (young ‘un) in a not so proper dialect sung in an awful Geordie accent.
I would find it hard to think that anyone would take offence at the content of the video (you have been warned), but should you find that the link has been broken, there is a back up copy here: http://purechocolate.org.uk/music_other/auspiciousday.htm.
Apologies to those who understand neither spoken nor written Geordie. There is a partial transcription here, but if this works properly you shall see that embedded below in an iframe. Some words do still defeat Coco. Apologies to those who do speak and read Geordie also for orthographic, linguistic, dialectical, grammatical, innocent and deliberate errors. You’ll also find a link to the original Lambton Worm in the same place. Please pay careful attention to the refrain, as it asks you to do.
In nineteen hundred an eighty nine On May the twenty second A young ‘un walked into a skwah For a most auspicious date. It wuz the day when nuthin’ ‘appened But George the third wuz born. It wuz the day they aall escaped From Dunkirk where they’d aall gan.
Whisht! Lads, haad yor gobs, An aa’ll tell ye’s aall an aaful story. Whisht! Lads, haad yor gobs, An’ aa’ll tell ye’s ‘boot the skwah.
It wuz the day they aall be’aivd An brought to end the war, An the Treaty of Trianon was signed Which left sum very sore. It wuz the day when Tonga’s king Gave up his protection. They joined the Commonwealth, ye ken, In nineteen seventy nun.
Whisht! Lads, haad yor gobs, An Aa’ll tell ye’s aall an aaful story. Whisht! Lads, haad yor gobs, An’ Aa’ll tell ye’s ‘boot the skwah.
It wuz the day when nuthin’ ‘appened An ‘ad they aall be’aivd, They’d aall escaped, an ower young man Wud ’av lost out on his date. If nuthin’ ‘appened on that day, If they ‘ad aall be’aivd, Then why not yak aboot the skwah An tyen men who were there?
Whisht! Lads, haad yor gobs, An Aa’ll tell ye’s aall an aaful story. Whisht! Lads, haad yor gobs, An’ Aa’ll tell ye’s ‘boot the skwah.
Noo if ye canna unnerstand The werds that Aa’ve just said Then speak to Jules aboot his werk An to Greg’ry in ‘is stead. For it is safe so much to say But nuthin’ more, ye ken, For if they mind of ower tale They’ll hoy us in yon den
Noo lads, Aa’ll haad me gob, That’s aall Aa knaa aboot the story Ov ower skwah’s clivvor job On’ that aaful Sun’y morn.
☺
* At least it has if you are on CET, observing daylight saving, or on a more easterly time zone. For GMT users there are about 90 minutes to go 🙂
With apologies in advance for errors of syntax, orthography and grammar which may be found embedded in this document whether arising from oversight, incorrect application of language packs or generally any other misadventure; and in general for any offence given inadvertently or inappropriately or both taken or not taken by those whose sensibilities, whether grammatical, orthographical, moral or simply personable, have been offended whether, not or if you have not incorrectly misunderstood the content, intent, meaning and purpose of this article, and to those whose copyrights may have been inadvertently or wantonly infringed, but never as to cause damage the copy holder’s rights, and, if you have managed to read this far, for any errors or omissions whether wilful, unintended, innocent or deliberate in the content of this polemic, and with thanks to you who have made it thus far for your patience.
Coco hopes you have been able to celebrate May 20th 2022 JC well. 69 years since the coronation of our Queen who is now in the seventy first year of her reign. Coco thought (oh no, you say, please do not think just write/right) to offer a little something also. It was about fifty one years ago that Coco was introduced to a J Longdon, a philosopher so he understood, by one of his school friends, Ray Tester, with whom he had spent many happy hours drinking jasmine tea, listening to Beethoven string quartets and discussing everything from Plato to Teilhard de Chardin passing through forbidden German territory on the way. Ray thought it was time Coco met a real philosopher. Among other things the said JL was working on an equation of the universe, a representation of which was noted in his diary, but the untidy scrawl renders it now illegible, and phonetic substitution as a ciphering technique.
Coco has long since lost touch with the two gentlemen, and has no idea who holds, if anyone, copyright on the words, rather phonemes written above, but as it is likely that if there is copyright it is on the far larger tome (have you ever known a philosopher who writes smaller tomes?) of which it is a part, and therefore this small extract is fair use, and serves to advertise the larger work, if only Coco knew what that was.
It is left to you dear reader to decipher the phonetic substitution, but if you need help it may be found here.
You probably all have some idea of the story of Jonah who was swallowed by a great fish. One of the problems with the popular story is that it leaves out Jonah’s xenophobia. Though xenophobia was unlikely to be a word that he knew, the idea of it was thoroughly encapsulated in phrases such as the Greeks and the Barbarians.
I listened to a discussion recently between JD(elingpole} and Maajid Nawaz. It appeared to be in a quiet library or reading room setting at first, but very quickly it became obvious that the setting was a set (a fake) and this was not so much a discussion but a playing to the audience. The audience’s responses were important cues to the two actors who were engaged in the play. An interesting point was made toward the end of the discussion by MW to the effect that all of the Bible stories are to be found in the Koran. That was a little ingenuous of the man, as it would be difficult to fit all of the stories of a book with c.750k words into a book with c100k without some considerable concision or redaction. I do not recall any reference to the Levite’s concubine but I may be wrong about that. Perhaps the author was right to suggest that the scriptures had been corrupted, though not perhaps in the way that he meant at that time, but rather like Caiaphas who prophesied the substitutionary death of the Lord Jesus Christ for sinners by words that he intended for another purpose.
So, when we look at the redacted version of Jonah, like the popular version, the xenophobia is omitted. Why is this so? Well, it does not appear to be in an effort to photoshop Jonah. Perhaps it is more to do with the contrast that Jonah’s story provides between Jonah’s xenophobia and the Lord’s benevolence. Jehovah, the Lord, is the God of Israel and he pronounces a judgement against Nineveh, who are the enemies of Israel, that they will be destroyed unless they repent. Why would a xenophobic Jonah not want to deliver such a message that the enemies of Israel will be destroyed?
If you know anything about Nineveh of Jonah’s day then you might say it was fear that kept him away. The Ninevites were a violent people. We talk of war crimes today; but they are nothing but littles scratches compared with the behaviour of these men. Boy racers beware; the boy racers of Nineveh had scythes attached to their wheels.
But it was not that kind of fear that kept Jonah away. It was a much greater fear than that. He feared the Lord. You say then, if he feared the Lord why did he not obey him. That is to misunderstand Jonah’s fear. Jonah knew that the promises to Israel through Abraham which were derived from the first promise to Adam, said that through Israel all the nations of the world would be blessed. Jonah also knew that the Lord was slow to anger, and did not want any to perish but rather to repent of their wicked ways. It was this he feared, that in preaching judgement and repentance the Ninevites would indeed be granted repentance by the Lord and would be saved. The judgement would not, at that time, fall. Jonah’s xenophobia did not want the Ninevites to be saved.
Jonah learned a lesson when he finally did as he had been told to do as the Ninevites did indeed repent. The Lord spared them. Jonah, having complained about the death of the vine that protected him from the heat of the sun, began to understand that the goodness of God is for all men. The covenants and the promises belong to Israel, but the benefit of them to the whole world. As a later prophet with a similar name would say: Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.
There is a sequel to the story of Nineveh, which is to be found in the prophecy of Micah who lived about 120 years later than Jonah. We shall speak of that another day.
Part II
Now none of this is to say that the redacted version is not of use. But we must be careful. Redaction may be used in a variety of ways; at the extremes we may use it to obscure the truth by removing relevant details or to reveal the truth by removing irrelevant material, or for some other purpose. So which redacted version do we mean? Well, there is only one, which is probably the part that most of us remember, that Jonah was in the belly of a great fish, sometimes called a whale (be careful here too as our scientific categories for sea creatures may not neatly fit into the categories of another age), for three days. The importance of this version is that it is a sign, or picture. The Lord Jesus Christ gave it to us: ‘No sign will be given to this generation except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.’ Jesus spoke here about his death and three days in the grave followed by his resurrection.
This is important. Jonah’s disobedience provided the sign. It was after Jonah had been spewed out by the fish that he went to preach repentance to Nineveh. Ah, the Lord is good. He shows his kindness and willingness to forgive to all men in all ages. It was not until after the death and resurrection and resurrection of the Lord Jesus, after he had come out of the belly of the whale as it were, that repentance and salvation could be properly preached to all men. The sign of Jonah was necessary, because the death and resurrection of Jesus were necessary to procure the salvation of men.
Until Jesus had died, and paid the price of sin, men remained debtors to sin. But Jesus having died and paid the price men are free of debt. Before Jesus died for sin forgiveness was offered in the hope that another would pay the price as had been prophesied. After he had actually died the price had been paid. Justice had been done and God may now actually justify the sinner.
We do well to remember the story of Jonah for it tells us of the great mercy of God towards all nations, but even more the redacted version for it tells us that because of the death and resurrection of Jesus, God is just to forgive sinners, even those as wicked as you or me, and even those guilty of war crimes such as the Ninevites. If he will forgive the greatest of sinners, will he not forgive me if I come to him in the name of Jesus Christ to ask him?
Part III
The sequel is not easy reading. The grandparents and great-grandparents of the Ninevites of that day had repented at the preaching of Jonah, but when Micah pronounces judgement, they do not listen. Their position is far worse than that of the people of Jonah’s day. Their grandparents had not previously tasted the goodness of God, but this new generation knew of Jonah and of God’s goodness, but refused to listen. Their grandparents had some little excuse before Jonah arrived, but this generation has no excuse. They reject the message that they know is true.
It was the same in Jesus day: ‘No-one has authority to forgive sins but God’, they said, ‘but here is this man, Jesus, pronouncing forgiveness’. Jesus’s response to show that he has authority to forgive sins was to heal the man he forgave. On another occasion a rich young ruler, who should have known better, addresses him as ‘Good Master’. ‘Why do you call me good?’ the Lord asked, ‘No-one is good but God’. They knew. But they conspired to kill him, and in so doing secured the very thing that they sought to avoid. Jesus was obedient to the Father’s will, and paid the price, death, for sin but not his own rather ours, so that he may lawfully and justly pronounce the guilty sinner justified and free.
Is it not the same for us? The good news of forgiveness of sins is preached throughout the world, but many wilfully ignore it. Nineveh did not listen when the second prophet came. Will we listen to the Lord today?
My friend has gone to his final resting place. There awaits him, so I have hope, a glorious admittance to the place which the Lord had gone beforehand to prepare for him.
We had fellowship together in the Lord though we disagreed (and rarely agreed) on peripheral matters. He came as an elder to the church. He had already indicated where he was going, and soon he started to lead in such a way that we would become a congregation where each one had a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation, where everything would be done for the building up of the body of Christ. He would not tolerate, as James would not, those who showed partiality towards those who wear gold rings and fine clothing, giving to them the best seats but rather he opened up to the poor and needy providing support and homes to them.
Not all in the congregation were ready for all of this, some called it innovation, others a revival of some of the things which the church had long ago been instructed to give up (not the bits about the poor and needy I hasten to add). Others were ready, and eagerly listened to the teaching that our brother gave; impatient with what was seen as slow progress, though they had heard him say that when one of us has a grievance against another we should not dare to go to law before the unbelievers about the matter and so kept the matter within the church, they did not remember that no charge should be admitted against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses, and in so doing they grievously injured our brother, causing him to groan under the weight placed upon him. It is sometimes very hard for us to be patient.
One writer suggested that when Paul left Titus in Crete he was left among a people where everyone wanted to be their own king. As it was in the days of the judges: everyman did what was right in his own eyes. It seems now ironic that his ministry began by teaching us what amphictyony means. We are little different. We each want to be king. But the Lord has already made us a nation of kings and priests, to serve him who is King of kings, who said whoever would be great among you must become the servant of all. My friend sought to be such a servant. We should not assert our own authority. All power and authority has been given to him. Let us then, we who are in churches, remember what the Apostle said to the churches: obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls as those who will have to give account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning for that would be of no advantage to you.
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous, and say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.’
Whenever I read these words I began to wonder what the Lord meant when he said them. There seemed to be an incongruity about them. Of course when you read on you understand what he meant for the scribes and Pharisees were about to do exactly what they say of themselves they would not have done. But let us think for a moment about the perspective that the scribes and Pharisees were taking.
They had built monuments to prophets. Why had they done this? They wished to honour the memory of those who had been mistreated by the forefathers. The prophets had in the main been rejected by the people. We would like to say that they had been fearless in their denunciation of the sins of the people, but we only need to look a Elijah to see that fearlessness was not a quality that was in abundant supply among them. We might also want to say that they were men who wanted to be prophets – how many today desire to be prophets and how many search them out, whether they claim to be of the Lord or whether they are nothing more than necromancers? But again, we find that the desire to be a prophet was in short supply. Jonah rather than do the job tried to run away to Tarshish (somewhere in or perhaps beyond the western end of the Mediterranean Sea). Jeremiah complained that what he had to say burned in his bones; it wearied him. A later prophet found that the words which were sweet in his mouth were bitter in his stomach. No, it was not so. These men were ripped from obscurity: Amos a shepherd from Tekoa. Even Ezekiel and Isaiah, priests, could have remained in obscurity had they not been made a prophets.
The prophets were not popular men in their own day. Jeremiah complained that the words burned in his bones when he tried to keep silent. Isaiah who spoke his words openly in his early days, in later life had to speak more cautiously as the persecution grew and he spoke of the coming Messiah to the house churches before he was cruelly sawn apart by Manasseh’s crew.
They were honoured by the scribes and Pharisees of the Lord’s day, who said ‘we would never have done such things’, but in their hearts a cold December was waiting to be revealed.
What of today, we have statues and monuments to men, which men today find offensive. Those who pull them down say, ‘we would never have done such things’. Those who wish them gone say ‘We must change our practices’ and ‘Why is it such an agony to remove them’. But we benefitted from what they did, we are their descendants; they are our ancestors.
But are we any different than they were? Are those who pull down statues any different than the ones who put them up and the ones whom they represent? If they were slavers, are we any less so? Do they and we not buy at least some jeans, sandals, shirts, sweat shirts, t-shirts, track suites, trainers, trews, trousers, and whatever else men in these days wear from retailers who source at least some of their products from the sweat shops of south Asia made with cotton from the plantations of central Asia? Or are they the minority who go out of their way to discover the source of the materials in every item of clothing and refuse to do business with any who have any connection with slavers.
No, men are the same today as they were when they persecuted the prophets, as when they built monuments to them, as before slavery had not been abolished in the British Empire and as we are since that time. There may be external differences. Men may show their revulsion of certain things in different ways, but within the hearts beat in the same way, and the desires of those hearts are the same.
It is easy to throw stones at men of the past. They cannot answer back. Why do they not throw stones at the slavers of today or are the consequences too great to be contemplated? Ah, yes, I almost forgot, the Lord who said that those who build the monuments are no different than their forefathers who persecuted the monumented, also said that the one who is without sin should throw the first stone.
The people who are so vocal about the erasure of the memory of these things cannot throw stones at the ones who continue the practices which they claim to revile, for they are themselves as guilty as their ancestors. They continue to benefit from the things they claim to hate, not as a consequence of past actions, but of what they do in the present day.
The Lord goes on the speak of how those who built the monument will behave in contradiction of their words in the not very long coming after days:
Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers’ guilt. Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell? Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city, that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.
But he also weeps that they shall behave in such ways:
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! See! Your house is left to you desolate; for I say to you, you shall see me no more till you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!’
Men continue to reject the prophets of the Lord Jesus, and treat his people like this. Oh that they would yield to him and be gathered under his wings.
Finally, a word of caution before you tear what I have said apart, but if you wish to do so, then please do for I am willing to learn. It will help me to present the case in a better way next time round, but I am aware that it is possible to represent the prophets in a different way than I have done in the preceding paragraphs. I have chosen this approach deliberately in order to illustrate what I have to say but not to misrepresent them. I know that It is not a complete representation of the prophets. They, and we, are complex individuals. When we try to produce a line drawing of ourselves or anyone else it will inevitably fall short of providing a complete picture.
Credits: Noteworthy Composer for scoring and producing the midi file Melody Assistant by Myriad Software for producing the mp3 Virtual Singer for singing Powerpoint for producing the mp4 BBC for reporting the new content that inspired the song with refrain Tradition for remembering the music Wikipedia for providing a low resolution image of Test Card C
With apologies in advance for errors of syntax, orthography and grammar which may be found embedded in this document whether arising from oversight, incorrect application of language packs or generally any other misadventure; and in general for any offence given inadvertently or inappropriately or both taken or not taken by those whose sensibilities, whether grammatical, orthographical, moral or simply personable, have been offended whether, not or if you have not incorrectly misunderstood the content, intent, meaning and purpose of this article, and to those whose copyrights may have been inadvertently or wantonly infringed, but never as to cause damage the copy holder’s rights, and, if you have managed to read this far, for any errors or omissions whether wilful, unintended, innocent or deliberate in the content of this polemic, and with thanks to you who have made it thus far for your patience.
In Nigeria, I remember my grandmother saying that when she was a little girl her great grandmother always said, ‘be careful how you’re behaving, if you’re naughty I’ll give you two the slave catchers’.
That must have been a terrible, terrible thing to tell a child…
Coco also remembers being told: ‘Watch out or the bogey man will get you’, though who ever said it I do not now remember. It may even have been on my own lips to one of our many cousins. I suppose such things have often been said to little children to bring them into line.
These words were reported by the BBC being on the lips of professor who by reason of her provenance and vocation really should know better.
You see these words were said in connection with the Atlantic slave trade which was abolished by the United Kingdom over 200 years ago. Now it may have been possible that Coco’s grandmother’s great-grandmother may have been born before the act of abolition, but I think it hardly likely that the speakers’ grandmother would have heard her great grandmother saying these words to her before then. We must understand then that the slave catchers referenced here are not the same category of slave catcher that was involved in the European sponsored slave trade which we had long before then abolished, but perhaps they were; let ius see.
To whom is the reference made? We know that the slave trade continued in Africa long after we had renounced, and repented of our part in, it, for despite [colonial] efforts to do so in Nigeria it continued until the middle of the twentieth century. In effect we had to (perhaps were forced to) live with it. We also know that the slave catchers for the trade in which our ancestors had been involved was fed by the ancestors of those who today live in West Africa, and many Africans also made themselves rich on the proceeds of the trade.
Coco can only suppose then that the slave catchers of which the lady’s grandmother heard were those African slave catchers who refused to give up slavery during the twentieth century. So why bring them up in connection with a discussion about whether to retain statues of and monuments to men who were involved in the Atlantic Trade? We perhaps need to consider that the monuments may not be there because of their involvement but despite their involvement.
At least it is a little bit of an acknowledgement that without the willing co-operation of African slave catchers the Atlantic trade would not have been possible. Perhaps it is also an unwitting acknowledgement that the lady’s own ancestors, and perhaps even some of the close relations of the grandmother’s great-grandmother, were themselves slave catchers. The tip of the iceberg has been revealed, but when will the remainder of the iceberg of African involvement be exposed? I guess it is easier to transport an iceberg intact to Cardiff, Edinburgh and London than it is to Calabar and Bonny; to Birmingham than to Abuja. Coco doubts that reparations shall be required of the descendants of the real slave cacthers.
I love, I love my Master. I will not go out free, for he has paid the price for me. He has set me free (Frances Ridley Havergal alt.). I have referred to this before, but it remains true: ‘God has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their pre-appointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. ‘ From one blood, or from one man, means we of all nations have one common ancestor. We are all cousins, and it is his intention to gather his people from all of the many nations into one family.
Let us seek the Lord through the Lord Jesus Christ in whom alone we shall find salvation.
