Faith

Genus reassignment

~ admin ~ Leave a comment

Times were very hard. The countryside was being squeezed by the urban population, rows and rows of solar panels were being placed not only upon the most productive arable fields but now even upon the pastoral land where sheep may have safely grazed. The panels it was true provided much needed shade from the summer sum, but the diminution of the number of animals put pressure on the economy of the canine population, making life very difficult for the wolves who had families to feed.

As a young wolf Adolphe recognised that the situation was very grievous indeed. How could he raise a family if he could not provide for them was a question he frequently asked himself until one day when he met Flora.

Flora was a Pomeranian who visited the moorland beyond the fields one day. Adolphe was resting in the shade of one of the few trees on the moor when her mistress disturbed him, also looking for shade from the noon-day sun. Adolphe retreated to a safe distance in the bracken, waited and watched. Adolphe never saw her walk. She was always in the arms of her mistress, who treated her more like a cub than a dog he thought. Just then, as it did to Newton when he waited under an apple tree, it occurred to him. It would be a bold experiment, he said to himself, but it may work.

It was many days later that he saw Mutton, a member of the Salish family, running freely among the solar panels. He made her acquaintance and learned that her master was nearby, but she was allowed to run as she will. Adolphe was perturbed by the reference to the master being nearby, and watched carefully. Often the masters carried iron sticks which had deadly accuracy. It was that which he feared.  He bid his time. Mutton and her master continued to visit the area with quite some regularity. Slowly Adolphe got to know her better.

One day her master saw them running together and called her back. She encouraged him to follow, saying that all would be well, as long as he did just the same things that she did.

It was difficult for Adolphe to roll over onto his back to allow the human to rub his belly with a pair of heavy boots, but he noticed that there was no long iron stick on the human’s back. The human allowed them to eat together, though there was not a lot as he had only prepared enough for one dog. Mutton encouraged Adolphe to eat the most.

On the next occasion the human told Mutton to find her friend. A few hours later they both arrived and ate together again, but this time the human had prepared two meals. The lying on the back took place again, and then – this was not part of Adolphe’s plan – something was placed around his neck. He had not noticed before but Mutton also wore one. A vine was attached to it and held firmly by the human. It was time to go. Adolphe remembered what he had been told. ‘It will be alright. Do as I do.’ Adolphe was about to learn new things.

Some months later they returned to the moor. The vine was slipped from his neck and he and Mutton ran freely again. They returned that day to the human’s den, and so for the rest of the week. Mutton later told Adolphe that he was free to go if he wished. The human would be happy either way. Mutton returned home.

They continued to meet on the moor, then one day Mutton asked to see his den. She did not return home that day. Her master, his friends and their dogs, spent the next several weeks looking for her but to no avail. Though they often found evidence of her recent activity – that she was alive and well that was very clear – there were no sightings. The spy-cam that they set up caught many images of the wolves, including Adolphe, but Mutton never strayed into view.

Five months later Mutton arrived back at her former home with a litter of woolly, wolves. They were perhaps six weeks old. She returned to the moor shortly afterward, but continued to make regular visits to her old master.

The leopard changes his spots

Adolphe reflected on the success of his experiment. How much easier it would be for his offspring to remain hidden from the ever watching eye of the shepherd.

As Farmer Giles raised his gun he heard a voice coming from the flock.

The wolf bleated: Don’t shoot – I have had a genus reassignment!

Lupine to Ovine?

The prophet asked: Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard its spots? Then may you also do good who are accustomed to do evil. (Jeremiah 13:23) The Lord is speaking against his people in Jerusalem, giving them warnings of what is to come if they will not change their ways. The words sound harsh, but they are full of compassion:

Hear and give ear: Do not be proud, for the Lord has spoken. Give glory to the Lord your God before he causes darkness, and before your feet stumble on the dark mountains, and while you are looking for light, he turns it into the shadow of death and makes it dense darkness. But if you will not hear it, my soul will weep in secret for your pride; my eyes will weep bitterly and run down with tears.

Jeremiah 23:15-17

The people are comfortable in their ignorance. Everyone of them wants to do it my way and not the Lord’s way. Pride and godlessness fill the streets. This soon overflows into violence against others. If we insist on my way, and never give in or consider others, we shall soon come into conflict with those around us. If pride fills our hearts, then we shall soon disrespect those around us who do not have quite the same view of ourselves that we have. The apostle rejoins us to not to think of [ourselves] more highly than [we] ought to think, but to think soberly, as God has dealt to each one a measure of faith. So he warns them that they must change, but so accustomed to them have their wicked ways become, they cannot change them any more than a leopard can change its spots.

But he problem goes much deeper than that, as intimated by the double simile. It is not just a bad habit which we must shake off, it is an intrinsic part of our make up as human beings just as the colour of our skin. The change required is impossible for us, just as impossible as gender and genus reassignments are. Who then can be saved? the disciples asked Jesus, in a different context (Mark 10). A change is required which is fundamental. The Lord provided the answer: With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible. John records for us as many as received him, to them he gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in his name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Just as the wolf cannot become a sheep, even if he were able to grow woollen fleece as a sheep, we cannot by the will of man become children of God. We must be born again, born from above, born of the Spirit, born of God. With man it is impossible, but with God, simply come to Jesus and receive him.

DNA

~ admin ~ Leave a comment

It is a wonder indeed. How complex is life! 160 billiard pairs in a single molecule. It is right that they wonder what the functions of all of its parts are. Having measured its length, the really hard work now comes when trying to identify the several different parts, and assessing their possible single or multiple functions. As they have said ‘[m]any plants have big genomes and scientists want to find out why’. One can but wish them success.

The BBC reported as much in their article World record broken for living thing with most DNA.

Is it true however that “[t]he genome is the complete set of DNA instructions within a cell containing all the information needed for a living thing to develop and grow”? We do not begin life with only DNA, we begin life as a complete cell, which contains the machinery required to read the DNA*. Does that machinery not also contain information which is not necessarily, and does not need to be, carried by the DNA? We have at least two complex independent, but interdependent, structures within our cells both of which carry the necessary information to enable them to interact with each other in the processes which sustain our life. It is a wonder indeed. One could wish that a mind such as Darwin’s had been introduced to these things, what difference that would have made to On the Origin of Species? Coco leaves the answer to that to better minds than his own.

But what a wonder life is: I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvellous are your works, and that my soul knows very well.

My frame was not hidden from you, when I was made in secret, and skilfully wrought in the womb, king David says in the 139th Psalm, I will praise you.

* Molecular Biology of the Cell. 4th edition: Fertilization

See the paragraph: The Sperm Provides a Centriole for the Zygote [redacted here]

Once fertilized, the egg is called a zygote. Fertilization is not complete, however, until the two haploid nuclei (called pronuclei) have come together and combined their chromosomes into a single  diploid nucleus. In fertilized mammalian eggs, the two pronuclei do not fuse directly as they do in many other species. They approach each other but remain distinct until after the membrane of each pronucleus has broken down in preparation for the zygote’s first mitotic division (Figure 20-34).

Figure 20-34: The coming together of the sperm and egg pronuclei after mammalian fertilization.

The pronuclei migrate toward the center of the egg. When they come together, their nuclear envelopes interdigitate. The centrosome replicates, the nuclear envelopes break  down, and the chromosomes of both gametes are eventually integrated into a single mitotic spindle, which mediates the first cleavage division of the zygote. (Adapted from drawings and electron micrographs provided by Daniel Szöllösi.)

In most animals, including humans, the sperm contributes than DNA to the zygote. It also donates a centriole [Short cylindrical array of microtubules, closely similar in structure to a basal body. A pair of centrioles is usually found at the center of a centrosome in animal cells.] – an organelle [Membrane-enclosed compartment in a eucaryotic cell that has a distinct structure, macromolecular composition, and function. Examples are nucleus, mitochondrion, chloroplast, Golgi apparatus.] that is lacking in unfertilized human eggs. The sperm centriole enters the egg along with the sperm nucleus and tail and a centrosome forms around it. In humans, it replicates and helps organize the assembly of the first mitotic spindle in the zygote (Figure 20-35). This explains why multipolar or extra mitotic spindles form in cases of polyspermy, where several sperm contribute their centrioles to the egg.

Figure 20-35: Immunofluorescence micrographs of human sperm and egg pronuclei coming together after in vitro fertilization.

Spindle microtubules are stained in green with anti-tubulin antibodies, and DNA is labeled in blue with a DNA stain. (A) A meiotic spindle in a mature, unfertilized oocyte. (B) This fertilized egg is extruding its second polar body and is shown about 5 hours after fusion with a sperm. The sperm head (left) has nucleated an array of microtubules. (C) The two pronuclei have come together. (D) By 16 hours after fusion with a sperm, the centrosome that entered the egg with the sperm has duplicated, and the daughter centrosomes have organized a bipolar mitotic spindle. The chromosomes of both pronuclei are aligned at the metaphase plate of the spindle. As indicated by the arrows in (C) and (D), the sperm tail is associated with one of the centrosomes. (From C. Simerly et al., Nat. Med. 1:47–53, 1995. © Macmillan Magazines Ltd.)

Fertilization marks the beginning of one of the most remarkable phenomena in all of biology—the process of embryogenesis, in which the zygote develops into a new individual. This is the subject of the next chapter.

The prior section, though not relevant to this article, is rather interesting:

The Mechanism of Sperm – Egg Fusion Is Still Unknown

containing in the light of more recent controversies in its final paragraph the ominous sentences: As the cell biology of mammalian fertilization becomes better understood and the molecules that mediate the various steps in the process are defined, new strategies for contraception become possible. One approach currently being investigated, for example, is to immunize males or females with molecules that are required for reproduction in the hope that the antibodies produced will inhibit the activities of these molecules. 

Given that it was published in 2002 it can neither be accused of bias in relation to the present controversy not can it be represented as fake news.

– with apologies for the false spellings of uncertain words.

James Webb – multiverse fake

~ admin ~ 2 Comments

It was a fake image that prompted the concern:

Chris Gale and Barnard Van Loggernberg had commented on the image. Barnard in sublime praise of the God who made all things, and Chris with a reference to the erroneous understanding promulgated by our contemporary propogandists of atheist thought that “A belief is based on what you have been told and what you personally hold as true. A belief doesn’t need to be supported with factual evidence in order for it to exist and be powerful. In short, beliefs are not facts.”

A belief which does not rest upon evidence is nothing more than a dream. Our belief, and consequently our faith, in God rests upon the evidence of demonstrable historical facts not least of which is the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. The multiverse hypothesis rests upon a quirk in our present ephemeral understanding of the physics of our universe which requires as a sine qua non that the other objects cannot be observed or detected, hence neither a proof nor a negation of the hypothesis is possible, We may therefore understand that there can never be found any evidence for the hypothesis, and therefore it is merely a dream.

Fake image - it should not be difficult to spot

It should not be difficult to spot the errors in the images….

The source is acknowledged, but to follow the link is not recommended.

JAMES WEBB SPACE TELESCOPE User: Astronomy Girl

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