Faith

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

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

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

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?

From the River to the Western Sea

~ admin ~ Leave a comment

Coco had wondered whether a lengthy introduction would be wise, as Coco has been reliably informed on several occasions that a lengthy introduction, as well as being long-winded, normally puts potential readers off so that they do not become actual readers but merely passers-by, but having learned a lesson of late of one who did precisely that in order to avoid provoking the wrath of the censor, which in his case would have been the Roman governor of his gaol, Coco thought perhaps that he too should seek to avoid his wrath, but by placing this introductory paragraph to the introduction he has probably rather more drawn his attention to the possibility that what is about to be said may be more than a little controversial, though if you, dear reader, carefully read you will note that that there is not a single note of controversy about it at all.  The argument is clear; it is precise; it is too the point; it is not rambling; it does not stray; it is compelling, to the point and it leads to an inescapable and unavoidable conclusion which many may wish to avoid.

With that in mind then Coco wishes to report that whilst we were victualling one evening a friend made reference to the pining for the fjords, which was offered by the pet shop owner as the substantive reason for the rather undesirable state of the parrot which had been brought back in to the shop. Coco failed to hear the reference to the Monty Python sketch, but instead heard and was reminded of an ancient Chinese poem which expresses the pining of the beloved in this way:

不知乘月几人归，落月摇情满江树。
How few by moonlight find their tryst
but pine alone by stranded trees.

Zhang Ruoxu (660-720 AD) wrote this delightful work quite some years ago. There is a copy here on this blog, but it is certain that there are many other copies of it available on line. You can hear in the poem the longing of the beloved for the return of her husband. We hear the same expression of longing at the end of the Song of Songs, where Solomon put these words into the mouth of the Beloved after her husband has departed:

Make haste, my beloved,
And be like a gazelle
Or a young stag
On the mountains of spices.
Song of Songs 8

There is delight even in listening to this Chinese ode read in a tongue which you do not understand for you can hear the rhythms and cadences of it so clearly and artfully worked in the construction of the lines. Even when we take into account that mistakes may well be made in a modern reading, for the expression of languages changes over the years. If, as it has been suggested, that the French spoken in Quebec is much more likely to sound like the French that was spoken by the French kings than the French that spoken in Paris today, then the language and tones of the English language as spoken in New England may well be much more appropriate for the expression of Shakespeare than any of our contemporary British dialects. We only need to remember that Summer is ycumen in is not a song for the ending of spring but rather for the height of summer to know that we cannot take for granted that we would correctly understand all that was said and written, nor indeed know how to vocalise and stress our own language as it was spoken even five hundred years ago correctly – we must remember that the past is a foreign country – but even allowing for such difficulties this poem as read by Google in modern Mandarin, and not the Mandarin of thirteen hundred years ago, contains much to show the beauty of the work and the skill of the writer. How much more it would if we could but hear his own contemporaries intone it.

But it was not of the references to the pining that came to mind, but rather more to where the gentleman had gone. These words come immediately before the beloved expresses her pining:

斜月沉沉藏海雾，碣石潇湘无限路。
The moon sinks down into the mist
which parts the rivers from the seas.

Have you ever thought about what it is that separates the river from the sea? Where does the river cease to be the river and become the sea? We know that moving downstream we must travel from the river to the sea but we cannot say where that transition takes place, we only know that has taken place after it has occurred. We may want to say that the translation happens when the water becomes salty, but that does not explain all rivers. Many may indeed become salty, by reason of tidal influx long before they reach the sea. Some are so powerful in their flow that the sea itself is fresh water where they leave the land. The poet alone can answer the question for us. There is a mist, not just any kind of mist but a special one into which the moon sinks down. It is this that suggests to the poet where to find the the boundary between the river and the sea. And so we may say in passing from the river to the sea we must enter this mist.

From the river to the sea has taken a new meaning today, but we see that the poet Zhang Ruoxu used the expression a thousand years ago. Indeed when we enquire further we find that the expression is older than that. It was first used two thousand years before, earlier even than when our beloved Shulammite yearned: Make haste, my beloved, and be like a gazelle or a young stag on the mountains of spices. We find it in Moses where he is speaking to the Hebrews in the wilderness:

Every place on which the sole of your foot treads shall be yours: from the wilderness and Lebanon, from the river, the River Euphrates, even to the Western Sea, shall be your territory.
Deuteronomy 11:24

This is, you may note, not simply a reference to the Jordan, but beyond the Jordan to the River, that is to say, the Euphrates. It was not until Solomon that that became a reality, as we read in the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel:

So Solomon reigned over all kingdoms from the River to the land of the Philistines, as far as the border of Egypt. 1 Kings 4
So [Solomon] reigned over all the kings from the River to the land of the Philistines, as far as the border of Egypt. 2 Chronicles 9

That the land of the Philistines is specifically mentioned here is significant and entirely congruent with the special place that they had. The Philistines were not to be one of the nations to be removed by Joshua from the land. That special place continues to be seen, though obscurely, in the Chronicles from time to time.

Whether or not the present occupants of Gaza, Ashdod, Ashkelon, Ekron, and Gath are descendants of the people who lived there three thousand years ago is not part of this discussion. They may be, they may be not. There have been many movements of population in the nations from the River to the Western Sea, some voluntary but many involuntary in the intervening period; we would have great difficulty to unravel the knot of past generations. It is however clear that there are a people who occupy this place.

So we see that from the river to the sea is an ancient phrase, not a modern one. We have seen that including our first record of it being used that it has been used in three different ways, and Coco is sure that there are many other ways in which in it has been and may be used other than these. Where it has reference however to a location what we need to note is not the actual location of the land but what it represents. For the Hebrews it represented the fulfilment of a promise made to Abraham, expressed as a land flowing with milk and honey:

Therefore you shall keep every commandment which I command you today, that you may be strong, and go in and possess the land which you cross over to possess, and that you may prolong your days in the land which the Lord swore to give your fathers, to them and their descendants, ‘a land flowing with milk and honey.’ For the land which you go to possess is not like the land of Egypt from which you have come, where you sowed your seed and watered it by foot, as a vegetable garden; but the land which you cross over to possess is a land of hills and valleys, which drinks water from the rain of heaven, a land for which the Lord your God cares; the eyes of the Lord your God are always on it, from the beginning of the year to the very end of the year. Deuteronomy 11:8-12

Moses here contrasts the land with the land of Egypt out of which they had come. What he is expressing is the same longing which has been in the hearts of men since the day on which Adam fell. It is a longing for a better place. We find Lamech saying: This one [Noah] will comfort us concerning our work and the toil of our hands, because of the ground which the Lord has cursed Genesis 5:29. It was not however to be as Lamech thought or hoped for Noah saw the greatest cataclysm that this world has ever yet seen since the fall.

Adam toiled as he sowed the seed in the field, just as the Hebrews did in Egypt. Work, which had been given for our good, had become a hardship. We became slaves to it finding in it toil rather than pleasure – though let Coco not be accused of saying that there is no element at all of pleasure in work. There is still a remnant of it for those who are able to find it. The people in Egypt longed to be released from the toil of their slavery to Pharaoh. Do we not today also? The expression of this longing is found in Swing low, sweet chariot, coming for to carry me home. It is not just the slaves’ expression of longing to be free, but rather a reference to the Lord’s chariot coming to take Elijah out of this world to a better place. It is an expression of the desire of all men, the longing to be home, the hiraeth of the Welsh.

So we are brought back to the pining not to the pining of the dead parrot but rather to that of our Chinese lady for the return of her mariner husband, and to that of the Shulammite for her king to come as a gazelle over the mountains of spices. The Chinese lady saw the river as a barrier for her mariner. The Shulammite saw the mountains in an entirely different way. They are delightful mountains, they are mountains of spices. What a contrast, but the contrast derives from the difference in their relationship with their Lord and who he is. For the Shulammite he is the supreme commander. He is in charge of all things. Nothing could ever really separate her from his love for all things are his. We hear this expressed at the end of the John’s revelation. So we come back to John as well, who provided Coco with the excuse for the long introduction. The king speaks:

I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last.

And just as Moses had done, John adds a reference to obedience: Blessed are those who do his commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city. And provides a warning (Moses did also, but Coco did not include above, if you read the words in the book you will quickly find it): But outside are dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie.

I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify to you these things in the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, the Bright and Morning Star.

And the Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” And let him who hears say, “Come!” And let him who thirsts come. Whoever desires, let him take the water of life freely.
Revelation 22

Three thousand years ago the Shulammite cried out, as a representative of the people of God, expressing the pining of our hearts for the return of the king:

Make haste, my beloved,
And be like a gazelle
Or a young stag
On the mountains of spices.

A thousand years later the Lord replied: “Surely I am coming quickly.” (v20)

Truly, he is coming to take us, not to the land from the River to the Western Sea, but to the land that is actually flowing with what the milk and honey of Moses represent, to his eternal kingdom. In that day the pining shall be over. We shall work with him in work that is no more toil, and we rest with him.

Amen! Even so, come Lord Jesus!

Never too late

~ admin ~ Leave a comment

It was a warm afternoon when Elmer and Wilma drove up the mountain from Brenzone through Prada. As they drove behind another tourist, whom they recognised as a tourist from the British number plates, for some reason his thoughts turned to his elder brothers, Barney and Homer. He missed them both, though they were quite different both in the characters and their careers.

He had lost Barney some thirty years earlier to malaria which he had contracted whilst working with indigenous tribes in the Amazon basin. He and Wilma had nursed Barney in his last months at their home and then in Elmer’s clinic in their home town, Milan, in Georgia. It was the name Milan had initially brought them across to Lombardy, but it was the coffee and gelato, which never failed to please that brought them back year after year.

Homer had taken a different path. Early in life he studied in seminary and taken up a pastoral role in a church simply known as Bethel not far from the family home. Upon the retirement of the senior pastor, he took up that position and remained in it for the next forty-five years. Upon his retirement the congregation asked him to remain with them, which he did supporting the new pastor in whatever way he could for a further ten years. Elmer spoke warmly of his elder brother at the funeral celebration only a few months earlier. He had few words to say however as he strongly believed that both Barney and Homer had wasted their lives and though he had often said it to them, he did not wish any hint of that to be heard by the outside world.

Intellectually he regarded them as his superiors, and not simply because they were his elder brothers. He had often tested them out and had never found them wanting in their thinking and reasoning when they were in possession of the correct data, which most often they were. They were also, and especially Homer, ready and able to show him where his own thinking and reasoning was deficient. Homer often corrected him to strengthen his arguments even when his arguments were counter to Homer’s own beliefs. Elmer had greatly valued their help for it had greatly benefitted him in his academic medical work. Homer was never slow to praise where it was due, and so was always quick to read his papers. In addition to giving appropriate praise, he would point out where his argument was weak, or the evidence he had provided did not support quite as well as he had hoped what he wanted to say. Elmer puzzled at times over this as Homer had had absolutely no medical training whatsoever, but when he examined matters again, Homer was never off the mark.

Elmer was ten years younger than the two of them. As a teenager he had watched them grow into men and make their choices. They had all grown up in Milan at the local SB congregation. His two brothers had been baptised when they were twelve, but it was some years later that the faith they professed began to take shape in their lives and influences their choices. Their behaviour changed in their late teens as they became serious, committed believers. At twelve Elmer had refused to be baptised. Despite his brother’s efforts to persuade him, he wanted to play ball and the training matches were Sunday morning. The Sunday morning training was frowned upon by most of the community, but there were enough families who participated to make it happen. It also resulted in better team play and consequently more wins for Elmer’s team.

Leaving college Elmer went to medical school in the north states where he obtained distinctions in all of his exams. He had planned to be simply a local doctor, but his time of study changed his thinking. He went on to become qualified as a surgeon and then took an academic position. In his thirties he became a professor at which point he decided that as to be a local doctor had been his target, that is what he would become. Such was his reputation however that his colleagues, both local and international, persuaded him that he should not do that. He therefore compromised.

It was that compromise that led him and Wilma to set up the clinic in Milan. It would be a new type of clinic, offering both local medical services as well as conducting specialist research and surgery. It was ambitious, but his academic community supported him in it, as did his local community when they eventually understood what he was trying to do. It was in this clinic that Barney had spent his last few weeks.

Barney’s presence in the clinic had had a big impact upon the staff. He was quite different to Elmer. He knew how sick he was. He knew that he was dying, yet he had a quiet confidence in the God who raises from the dead. Though Milan was a religious community most of its inhabitants would not be looking forward to death preferring to find a way, any way, to put it off. Barney was expressing what few could say: Komm! du süße Todesstunde! which some of the Lutherans recognised but not many others. Some of the staff tried to talk with Elmer about this, but Elmer dismissed in the most polite way possible, but privately saying to himself: Nonsense, Barney.

Elmer had often rebuffed his brothers who had questioned him about his world view. He could not argue against them successfully, he knew that, and as related above Homer when pointing out the weaknesses of his argument would show him how to strengthen it. Even when he did follow Homer’s advice, Homer still managed to unpick the argument! Elmer dismissed their thoughts of eternity as religious phantasy. He would do what he did in his way for the good of those around him.

Then it happened. A vehicle coming down the road, misjudged the road as much as the British driver did in the car ahead of them. There was a passenger in the car who had taken much of the force of the impact. Elmer stopped.

The British driver got out, and Elmer shouted: I am a doctor. You need help?

Clearly they did. Elmer moved over to the vehicles as quickly as he could where he realised that they must get the passenger out without any delay. The other vehicle had to be moved back. The passenger, a young lad of barely sixteen years was dazed and bled greatly. Elmer tried to staunch the flow. Wílma ran back to bring tourniquets from their car in the hope they might be of use, but too little could be done.

After a short while the young boy opened his eyes. His father’s countenance brightened, but Elmer knew otherwise.  The boy spoke only briefly: Don’t worry about me; I’m with Jesus. It was the last moment of his breath. In the thrall of death the young fight, but cannot overcome. The old acquiesce.

Elmer reflected: If the British car had not been there, I would have been in that same seat as the young boy. If the car in front had not been British, the boy would have not have been in that seat. He had come from Milan to Milan to hear what his two brothers had told him for sixty years from a boy who was only a little older than he had been when he had stopped listening to his brothers and had dismissed their teaching, from the same boy who had now died in his place. He remembered what John had written to Gaius: Beloved, I pray that you may prosper in all things and be in health, just as your soul prospers. It burned through him. In his life he had focussed simply on prosperity and being in health, he had not seen before that John premised Gaius’s external well-being upon that of his soul. Elmer knew he had neglected, even rejected, the well-being of, his soul.

It was not Barney and Homer who had wasted their lives as Elmer now saw so very clearly. He returned to Bethel to be baptised, and to follow Jesus just as Barney and Elmer had done.

Based upon a true story….whose origin Coco has forgotten

Darwin’s Finches

~ admin ~ Leave a comment

It was the proposal of the American Ornithological Society to rename some of the native birds of their homeland for reasons apparently dismissed by their counterpart body the National Audubon Society as reported by the BBC (US ornithological society says dozens of birds will be renamed) that prompted Coco to write. Once again it is evidence of a failure on the part of modern society to face its history – the journey it has taken to get where we are today – and it ready preparedness to efface its history in order to give the appearance of not participating in the sins of its fathers.

Why should the thick-billed longspur not be known as rhynchophanes mccownii (the Thick Billed Longspur of McCown rather like the Kyle of Lochalsh except it looks like a sparrow to this non-ornithologist)? Why should the names of Wilson’s warbler and snipe be changed? Or is it that what is really being said here is that we should suppress the names of all who are called Wilson or McCown in order to completely eradicate any memory of anything untoward that those of those names, and many others, did in our history? Perhaps Coco’s suggestion is merely an innocuous conspiracy theory.

McCown's Longspur

The Lord spoke of those who seek to efface history in these terms: 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.’ Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets*.

If Darwin had known what we know today he would not have been so quick to label his finches as multiple differentiated species evolved from a common ancestor, but rather a single species of birds as diverse in their morphological appearance as humanity. His comment that ‘two species may be often seen climbing about the flowers of the great cactus-trees; but all the other species of this group of finches, mingled together in flocks, feed on the dry and sterile ground of the lower districts’ should have alerted him to ignore the conclusions of Gould, which would only mislead him further. He did not benefit from contemporary genetic work nor the field work of the Grants so we should not treat him too harshly; he was as much a man of his day as McCown, Aubudon and Wilson. Perhaps though if Coco were to wish to efface our history, and the impact of the Darwinism in the provocation of at least some of the atrocities of the twentieth century Coco may wish to remove the epitaph of Darwin’s Finches, but let it stand as a witness to the folly of contemptorary(sic.) thought on our origins.

The witness of those who built the tombs did indeed fall upon themselves for it was not many days later that they were instrumental in bringing to pass what had long been foretold, the death of the Innocent One for we who are guilty. God accepted his sacrifice for us and raised Jesus from the dead. We cannot erase our past, but must face up to it, acknowledge it to him, and he will blot it out, efface it in the blood of Jesus.

Matthew 23:29-31, 32-36
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.’ 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.

Luke 11:47-51
Woe to you! For you build the tombs of the prophets, and your fathers killed them. In fact, you bear witness that you approve the deeds of your fathers; for they indeed killed them, and you build their tombs. 49 Therefore the wisdom of God also said, ‘I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they will kill and persecute,’ that the blood of all the prophets which was shed from the foundation of the world may be required of this generation, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah who perished between the altar and the temple. Yes, I say to you, it shall be required of this generation.

Antisemitic?

~ admin ~ Leave a comment

After Paul had left Titus in Crete to complete a very necessary task in the churches Titus found that there was no little discouragement and some opposition to the work. Paul therefore wrote a letter to him in which he included clear instructions and warnings. When we read the letter it is obvious that Paul intended it not just for Titus but also for the churches with whom Titus was working. He wanted them to know that the work Titus had been given to do had been given with apostolic authority and therefore from the Lord himself. Whether you accept that latter point or not is neither here nor there, as we shall see in another instance shortly, it was enough that Titus had apostolic authority for his work. Paul had some difficult things to say to Titus, and in order to avoid any charge of xenophobia (at least so I infer), he enlists one of the Cretans’ own poets to make a point that would have been obvious to anyone, and was probably the root cause of the difficulties and discouragements that Titus faced when he first began. Coco shall not quote it here, you, dear reader, may easily look it up. In itself it and what it says are not relevant to what Coco is going to say here, but the importance of the manner of its use should not be overlooked.

There is much division in this world, and particularly in recent weeks, one of those divisions has been brought, in a tangible and most brutal way, to the surface. The astonishment, and perhaps irony, is that whilst part of it is called anti-semitism, the division is between two semitic peoples, the peoples who now inhabit the land of Philistia and the inheritors of Canaan. A similar division between the descendants of Ham and of Shem resulted in the well-known encounter of the then future king, David with the giant of Gath, Goliath. It was also the reason that an older and proven warrior David was not permitted to march with the armies of the Philistines against the armies of Saul, the king of Israel.

Some five hundred years later the prophet Jeremiah was raised up in Israel and pronounced some words which in part at least bear witness to the cause of something of what we see in the world today and which suggests perhaps reasons for the persistence of this attitude for the past two and a half thousand years:

I shall scatter you to the nations….and you shall become a byword to be spoken against.

Now had Coco have said these words, even though clearly Coco would not be able to put them into effect, then you could rightly accuse him of antisemitism, in the narrow sense of being anti-Jew, for they were spoken primarily against the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, though there were people of the other ten tribes mixed in among them, and the charge may stick if you could also prove intent to stir up hatred, except that the words do not indicate any attempt to stir up hatred at all if you read them carefully. If hatred is found in the people towards those who were exiled among them, the cause is not the scattering, nor the utterance of the words but rather it derives from the hearts of those to which the people were scattered, not from the mouth of the utterer of the words.  

But Coco did not say these things, they were spoken the one of Israel’s own prophets, hence my reference above to Titus’s work among the Cretans, and Jeremiah was merely reporting what the Jehovah had said to him. You will find them in the 25th chapter of Jeremiah. Again, whether you accept the latter point is neither here nor there, it was a Jewish prophet who spoke those words against his own people.

There will be some who would say that this simply proves how bad the OT religion was, but no, if you understand it incorrectly then yes, but read this carefully. The Lord is simply setting out what the inevitable consequences will be. This is hinted in the Jonah’s account of his attempt to escape his assignment to Nineveh. During the storm the sailors berated Jonah for not calling upon his god to save them. When the Jews were scattered to the nations, of course the nations would understand that they had been scattered because they had been unfaithful to their god. That would be the inevitable consequence for in any animistic religion if you did not appease your gods then bad things will happen to you, and the only reason for not appeasing them is that you are yourself a bad person. There is a truth hidden in this partial mis-understanding but we shall not explore that here. The nations, in their own minds and understanding of the way the world worked, apart from any possibility of the presence of xenophobia, would come to the conclusion that these people, who had betrayed their own god, are to be a byword to be spoken against. And that attitude would be entirely in line with their own moral code.

We need to read on in Jeremiah to understand more fully what is happening. The nations, whilst thinking they were right, were actually wrong. The attitudes that would grow up among them would be bad attitudes. The religion of the OT says exactly that: the stranger within your gates shall be as one of you. Moses made that very clear in every way. The stranger would be permitted even to take part in the Passover feast. The religion of the God of Israel is to benefit the whole world not just one nation.

As we read on we find that though the attitude adopted by the nations is entirely predictably, the Lord is not pleased with it. At the end of the 26th chapter of Jeremiah we read:

He shall judge

The prophet Habakkuk is troubled in much the same way by the wicked actions of wicked men, who are destroying the innocent in the most violent of ways they could imagine. Again however the Lord shows him that the actions of these men, though necessary, shall not go unpunished. They shall give an account of what they do. Notice the word necessary. It was necessary that the people be scattered in Jeremiah’s day. It was necessary that the Chaldeans build an empire in Habakkuk’s day. Later it was necessary that Greece and Rome build their empires but once the purpose of each had been accomplished in the providence of God, they gave way the next.

We have in our day seen actions undertaken by men against men which, from whatever perspective you look, are wicked. We can also, from all perspectives see necessary reasons, which may be contradictory reasons, for the actions taken, just as the pagan nations of Jeremiah’s day would reach their conclusions concerning the scattered people. We may be, and we must in some respects be, incorrect in our conclusions for we do not see everything that takes, and has taken, place, nor do we see into the hearts of the men who initiated or performed the actions.

We know this however, that those who take part in this wickedness shall be brought to account. Both Jeremiah and Habakkuk, having had to announce a righteous judgement on the nation of Israel, were then shown that the executors of that judgement would themselves be held to account for the wicked things that they did as they executed that judgement.

It is beyond our understanding how this will be done, but it shall, in the words, which we sing to the Londonderry Air (perhaps Coco should say Derry Air) written by William Young Fullerton (1857-1932)):

I cannot tell how he will win the nations,
How he will claim his earthly heritage,
How satisfy the needs and aspirations
Of east and west, of sinner and of sage.

But we know this, Peter saw an even greater wicked act than ever Jeremiah or Habakkuk saw and reported it in these terms, echoing words that Joseph had spoken to his brothers some twenty five hundred years earlier:

Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves also know— him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death; whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that he should be held by it … Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ … Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.

This Jesus whom you with wicked hands handed over to the Gentiles, God has raised from the dead, and now commands you to repent. God intended their wicked act for good. It was necessary that this wicked act take place, just as we mentioned earlier of others though the reasons for the necessity are partially obscured from our view, but if he can turn the most wicked of acts for good, what will he not do for the good of his people?

Directed Energy Weapons

~ admin ~ Leave a comment

There is talk recently of what is claimed to be new, and that these new things are only available in two locations one of which is Nevada (you only need listen to the few of seconds). How much truth is in the claim is not to be decided by the reference Coco makes to it, nor is Coco’s reference to it to be taken as supportive, or otherwise, of the claim that has been made.

It seems to have been forgotten that all weapons are directed energy weapons. We only need to consider a simple stone. David took five stones from a brook when he walked out as Israel’s champion to match the Goliath of the Philistines. He also took with him that which would make the stone deadly and effective, a piece of cloth.

David, though a young man, knew, though perhaps he did not think of it in these terms, that the throw of a stone at a target would cause damage to the target (and possibly also to the stone), but it would not often cause enough damage to stun or kill the target due to an insufficiency of energy in the stone. When the stone was brought to an abrupt halt in collision with the target the kinetic energy in the stone had to be dissipated in some way, preferably in the hunting game by being absorbed by the body of the prey. The impact of the stone and the resultant absorption of energy may break bones and damage the flesh. The greater the energy to be absorbed the greater the damage would be. Hence the piece of cloth was to be used.

The transformation of the cloth into a sling would propel the stone at a much greater speed towards the target than would be possible simply by using the human arm. A simple doubling of the speed of the stone would increase the energy carried, and therefore directed towards the target, fourfold. As is well understood the energy carried increases as the square of the speed, so a threefold increase in the speed of the stone yields a nine-fold increase in the energy carried. David could easily have outstripped an Australian bowler with his sling, but that sort of speed was probably unnecessary to topple the giant.

It was his adept use of a simple but effective directed energy weapon that brought the giant down.

Every other weapon is of the same class, though they use different techniques and engineering methods to direct the energy payload towards the target, it is the dissipation of that energy payload at the target that achieves the (un)desirable object.

We however do not use directed energy weapons, but rather the Word:

10 Now I, Paul, myself am pleading with you by the meekness and gentleness of Christ—who in presence am lowly among you, but being absent am bold toward you. 2 But I beg you that when I am present I may not be bold with that confidence by which I intend to be bold against some, who think of us as if we walked according to the flesh. 3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh. 4 For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, 5 casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ, 6 and being ready to punish all disobedience when your obedience is fulfilled. 2 Corinthians