Faith

On the [a]moral high ground?

~ admin ~ 1 Comment

Speculative misguidance?

Once again the BBC is to be thanked for bringing to our attention a prominent issue in our contemporary world by drawing attention to the Brattle report. The reference to the ‘19 million [who] include those Africans kidnapped and transported to the Americas and Caribbean and those born into slavery‘ which is indeed a blight upon those nations who participated in the slave trade originating in West Africa and conducted over many centuries, brings to our attention the extent of the harm caused by slavery, and also whilst pointing to the evidence that exists today of the transatlantic aspects of that slave trade by mentioning those ‘born into slavery‘ also leads us to ask where today is, and if there is none, why is there none, of the overland transportation of slaves from West Africa to the east? There is sufficient information available to provide an answer to that question, but I shall not rehearse it here lest the descriptions used infringe the sensibilities of the censors and my readers. Let me say nothing more than that some of the men at the least may perhaps have preferred the Western than the Eastern transport.

Secondly, whilst the report produces a fine analysis of the harm done and endeavours to place an economic or perhaps financial value of it, it focuses merely upon the small number of nations who participated in the transatlantic trade ignoring those nations who were involved and benefitting from the far more harmful overland trade and the African nations themselves who were the initial enslavers of those who were transported. The report itself acknowledges its limitation in this way: ’our analysis and results are structured and presented around the state or territory in the Americas that experienced the harm and the colonizing European or American state legally responsible for the enslavement. This paper does not take on the important issues of harms to African countries or how reparations should be implemented. Rather we focus on estimating the magnitude of the harm in the Americas from transatlantic chattel slavery.‘ You will note that it specifically ignores that the enslavement had taken place before the European and American states became involved in the African nations themselves. If reparations are due, then they should also be apportioned to those who initiated the enslavement. Quite rightly it does not take into account the harms to the African countries themselves, as those harms were, looking at it from the perspective of the modern nation states, self-inflicted though if you look on a more granular level the same kind of behaviours within those nations will be seen to have taken place, and perhaps still do, as are attributed to the Western nations.

Let me say, as I have before, I have no wish to belittle the horrors of the slave trade. There are other matters with which I would take exception in the report, for example in the manner of their calculations. They acknowledge the difficulty of the calculations for much is made of the shortcomings of their calculations when a case might be made that the figure is too low, but no attempt is made to measure what the outcome would have been ‘in [the] hypothetical world that never experienced transatlantic chattel slavery‘. A comparison between that result and the present situation might prove rather interesting and not lend support to the primary contention of this report. A quite different answer may have been obtained if, instead of measuring the financial consequences in relation to the economies of the thirty one nations they chose, they had measured the cost in the way an insurance company would measure the amount of a claim to be paid by asking the question: where would the claimant have been today had the event (ie the transatlantic trade) giving rise to the claim not taken place? If you have ever suffered the total loss of a motor vehicle you will understand that the outcome is not as rewarding as the claimant may have hoped. Where would the nineteen million and their descendant be today had the event giving rise to the claim not have taken place? The report mentions this aspect: ‘Restitution, [which] should restore the victim to their original situation before the violation occurred, e.g. restoration of liberty, reinstatement of employment, return of property, return to one’s place of residence‘ So, are they suggesting that as well as financial compensation the victims and their descendants should be returned to their former place of residence? You may read for yourself. Are they consistent with their own principles?

The report may seek to stand on the moral high ground, but utterly fails to do so, instead relying upon the prejudices of a small liberal group in the Western nations who appear only to delight in the destruction of the very nations which permit them to speak in the way that they do. (And yes, I reply, in acknowledgment of your thought as you perceive my own prejudices as I say this). This is very evident in the manner in which they choose the calculations that they perform and present. Rather than presenting a comprehensive report, they pick and choose the bits that support their case. In a sense that is exactly what you would want your lawyer to do. You do not expect him to present a contrary case. Perhaps however they should remember that if Stalin had been born into a Stalinist state, such a state would never have existed.

Finally, whilst this is a ‘hot topic’ today, there are other potential claims: when shall we see reparations paid by Assyria and Persia for the destruction caused in Lebanon, Israel and Egypt in the fifth century, that of the Italians in France, Germany and Britain in the first century (British slaves were available for sale in Rome as late as the sixth century), that of the French in Britain in the eleventh century, that of Turkey in the Balkans in the sixteenth century, or, do I need to add to the list, and I have only referenced the West, what was happening in the Steppes of Russia, China, India, and the other Eastern nations? Perhaps one case comes to mind, when will the outcastes be compensated by the upper castes? Of course many of the governments that I have referenced no longer exist in the form that they had at the time of the incursion of the damage. Is it only that the Western nations have somehow managed to survive since the abolition of the slave trade to which the report refers which provides the reporters the opportunity to press their quite misguided claim?

Perhaps the final nail in the coffin of this report is in its own admission: ‘The need for reparation…is much more than a call for monetary compensation and cannot be narrowly defined as such; rather, it is a call for a long-term commitment to stabilise and bring restitution to those who were oppressed and subordinated by the dominant colonial powers‘. We only need to look briefly at the chaos into which some of those nations which were formerly oppressed and subordinated by the dominant colonial powers to understand that the oppression and subordination of which the authors of the report are so fond, may not have been the solely harmful thing that they want you to think it was.

There is a suggestion in the report that the blame is on going, even though many, if not all, of the nations implicated by it have long since repented of and suppressed the behaviours which were previously expressed. How well they re-express the words echoed by the prophet:

The fathers have eaten sour grapes and the children’s teeth are set on edge.¹

But when we hear the reply we begin to understand that there is a day coming² when the Lord shall change that. All souls are mine, that of the father and that of the son. The teeth of the one who eats sour grapes shall be set on edge, not the teeth of another. The soul that sins shall die³. Our judgements in these matters are imperfect, but the day is coming when God will judge the world in righteousness by Jesus Christ of which has given assurance by raising him from the dead⁴. There shall be no imperfection in his judgement, after which he shall lead his people, of all nations, tribes, tongues, peoples, rich, poor, slaves and free, into his kingdom of everlasting joy⁵, peace and love.

Will you join him in that kingdom? Will you wait till Jesus comes, down by the riverside⁶?

  1. Jeremiah 31:29 and Ezekiel 18:2
  2. Jeremiah 31
  3. Ezekiel 18
  4. Acts 17:31
  5. Isaiah 35:10
  6. Slave song

Quantification of reparations for transatlantic chattel slavery

Freedom? With a price on your head?

~ admin ~ Leave a comment

Little has changed since 1524 when a young man began a work which would inflame the authorities in his homeland as he dared to defy the authorities who wished to silence him.  Two years later the book that he had published, and which had been smuggled into his homeland, was being burned in the streets. He had to go into hiding, where he revised and improved his earlier work using the profits from the first then having been burnt printing.  In 1530 he further enraged the chief executive who then sought his extradition. The extradition attempt failed for the lack of production of formal evidence. A price was however now on his head, and it would only be a matter of time before he would be betrayed by a ‘friend’, illegally held and then transported to a trial in which the charges were so designed that he could not be but convicted.

What was his crime? He had spoken out for freedom of speech. He had spoken out for the freedom of the people that they might not be in thrall to espouse the ideology of the elite but be free to question it and to form their own opinions based upon their own examination and understanding of the truth.

William Tyndale translated for the people of England the New Testament into English that ‘the boy that driveth the plow [should] know more of the Scriptures than [the bishop did]. The young ploughman would then be able to judge whether what the governor said was right and just. The authorities were afraid of this. They must keep the people in ignorance that they may control them.

Freedom to think, freedom to speak, freedom to question were not things that they would permit for their people. Let them remain in ignorance and fear, then we shall be able to control them.

Little has changed, a price has been placed on the heads of certain young people who asked for freedom but in doing so they have been driven into exile by those who should have defended them. The king of England lost his head not much more than one hundred years after Tyndale lost his* because he made war upon his own people. It is an illegitimate government that makes war upon its own people.

The apostle asked us that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.  We are encouraged to know of those in China who have come to a knowledge of the truth, may their leaders, and ours also, come to that same knowledge, that we and their people may live quiet and peaceable lives.

China accuses UK of harbouring Hong Kong fugitives

*Tyndale was actually burnt at the stake. The king was spared that humiliation.

Butterfly

~ admin ~ Leave a comment

Coco was thinking about Cio-cio-san the other day and noticed a striking similarity between Madama Butterfly and the young Shulamitess in the stage play by Solomon. Madama Butterfly will be no stranger to you, and perhaps the story familiar. Some would say that Puccini spent forty years trying to write this opera and the last twenty years of his life trying to write it again, it containing the epitome of operatic drama outside Bayreuth however could not be reproduced.

If you compare photographs of the two gentlemen you may see a striking similarity between the differences between their music and that which is between their temples.

Leaving that aside, as it is not a discussion into which we would wish to enter today, both the stage play (the Song) and the stage opera (Butterfly) contain all of the necessary elements for the success of what is known today as a soap. It is a strange use of the word, derived from the long form usage in soap opera which acknowledges the frivolous largesse of the manufacturers of epidermal cleansing products. The infatuation of a young lady with the promise of elevation in social status occasioned by the presence of an older eligible man, intrigue, infidelity, adultery, bigamy and dare I mention child abuse are all to be found by those who look even only on the surface. Puccini’s music goes some way towards sanitising the outstandingly flawed characters of the individuals employed in the action of the legend of Butterfly, but one cannot escape that the captain is no better, perhaps even worse, than that which is reputed to be true of every mariner. The sanitisation perhaps even earns the opera the grand accolade of soap opera extraordinaire even though it does not contain the multiple story lines and cliff-hanger ending of the later soaps. It remains nothing more than a tragedy, but nevertheless when you listen to it, in a language you do not understand, you can understand why it took Puccini forty years of practice before he wrote it and spent the rest of his life trying to imitate it.

You know the story, in brief it is of a young geiko, or perhaps even only a maiko, who catches the eye of a sailor and in it sees a way out of her poverty. A weak superior to the sailor permits him to marry her, knowing full well that he intends to abandon her, which he does when he returns to his homeland, where he bigamously marries a local lass. Returning to Japan a few years later he discovers that she has waited for him and that he has a son. He cannot face the consequences of his actions. She commits suicide. The only redeeming feature in the story being that the lass whom he deceived and married is willing to bring up the young child as her own.

In the story of the Shulamite, we have a young country girl, who though she is not exactly living in poverty as we discover towards the end of the play for her father is quite a wealthy man, also sees an opportunity for elevation in her social status when the king is caught by her eye on a royal visitation to the area in which she lived. It is not stated so clearly, but it would not be out of place to think that it was her father who hosted the king during that visitation. The prospective rise in status from country lady to queen somewhat outstrips that of a poor maiko to foreign ship’s captain’s wife. Her age however is similar to that of the maiko. The encounter leads to marriage, but not quite in the same way as the maiko’s, for the king makes her entrance into the royal household a very public matter as she is taken up to Jerusalem in a royal palanquin, a carriage festooned with all of the comforts that befit a future queen, in a grand parade that would shame even those military parades of our contemporary world’s most despotic of leaders. All seems to be idyllic.

We then find that she is not the first. There are already sixty other queens and to add trouble to trouble there are eighty concubines as well. She was number sixty-one or one hundred and forty-one however you may wish to count it. We know, but not from the play, that another eight hundred and fifty-nine would follow her. This king seems to be lower even than the captain of Puccini’s Butterfly, and it is true: his wives did turn away the heart of the king. There is a tragedy here, but it is not the tragedy about which Puccini sang.

The Song of Songs which Solomon wrote is a story of a love far greater than the love of a captain for a maiko, though it is written in such terms. The presence of the other queens and concubines in the play is not to demean or shame the new queen, but rather to exalt her, and in exalting her to exalt the others also. It is impossible for us to devote ourselves in marriage to more than one individual in the way that marriage requires, but this little play points us to the one who does so love each one of his people in such a way that each one of them can hear him say: ‘O my love, you are as beautiful as Tirzah, lovely as Jerusalem, awesome as an army with banners! Turn your eyes away from me, for they have overcome me. My dove, my perfect one, Is the only one, the only one of her mother, the favourite of the one who bore her. The daughters saw her and called her blessed; the queens and the concubines, and they praised her. ‘

John records for us that ‘before the feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that his hour had come that he should depart from this world to the Father, having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end’. John was speaking about the death of the Lord on the Roman cross, where he by paying, in a very public event, the price for our sins, so clearly shown in both Puccini and the Song as they reflect the world in which we live, became able to welcome us into the royal household.

Before he left his disciples he promised that he would not leave them: ‘I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you’. Later that evening he told them ‘I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the helper, the Holy Spirit, will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send him to you‘. Now we are granted entrance into the royal household of King Jesus, where we may hear, together with the multitude of other believers, far more in number than Solomon collected, his voice speaking to each one of us individually as Solomon in his play spoke to his queen – though perhaps not with quite the same words.

Despite the tragedy of Solomon’s life, the play speaks, as it speaks of a love far greater than we could ever know, of the love of Jesus for his people. Do you know his love for you? He does not keep it hidden. Speak to him: Remember me Lord, when you come into your kingdom.

Eurovision too

~ admin ~ Leave a comment

Backing track, back tracking or tracking back?

Vesna ‘are not your dolls’: Eurovision Q&A

Six piece girl band Vesna have already made the final, with a song that urges support for Ukraine.

When I saw the headline I thought this might be a political comment, for if typically you tried to make a political statement at a sporting event you would quickly find that sport is apolitical. Whilst the joining together of the indefinite article and the adjectival noun is intended to express that politics is not permitted to enter sport, that is patently untrue. It is a mere pretence to cover up some other motive. Politics does have a part to play. So, the strap line of the BBC article which gave the impression that a particular performer was not only permitted to make a political statement but that that statement was an integral part of the performance aroused some interest. Even where apolitical is abused in sport, to go that far is hardly permitted.

A careful reading of the article however suggests that superficially at least there is no political statement at all in what is said or done. It is a matter of interpretation in a particular context. In a different ages and places different interpretations may be placed upon the words expressed in a particular language, as it is for the words ‘Lead kindly light’. However, there was something of greater interest and concern, but as one who has used similar techniques I have to be careful how I criticise.

Imagine what it would be like if you turn up at the cup final and on the field you do not see twenty three men, but one man and twenty-two androids. Would you not feel somewhat cheated? ‘Oh no, the reply would come. Don’t worry each android would behave exactly as you would expect the individual upon whom it has been modelled to behave. It will be just like watching the real thing. Each android has been programmed with AI to imitate its model. It will do even better. It will avoid all of the mistakes that the star performer would make or could make. The game will be far better’. Is the placement of artificial turf a preparation for such a change? Imagine being able to watch Pele, Hurst and Beckenbauer again even if only in avatar.

Or, if having spent months writing the dissertation for your finals, you find that everyone else wrote theirs just the day before using ChatGPT; and that the examiners were quite happy about that. Or again, you hear that Menuhin shall perform the Beethoven in the RAH, but when you arrive there is an empty dais and the compiled sounds of a Deutsche Grammophon recording* booming out of the speakers.

It was the words ‘The technical complexity of Eurovision means that all songs are sung to a backing track’ that caught my attention. I had always thought that the performances were live, though of course very well rehearsed and flawlessly performed, just as in every other music competition throughout the country. What would you think if the Black Dyke Band turned up and simply mimed to their own playing, which was a compilation of several different ‘performances’ from which all of the faults had been ironed out. In Leeds the whole orchestra turns out to play live for the pianists. So why, in the light of so called technical complexity, is a band not permitted to play its own music in front of the audience. Do they think that in some way a wholly live performance will devalue the ‘competition’? Do they fear that the quality of the acts may not be as good as the organisers want you to think they are. It becomes a sham of a competition when you are permitted to iron out the defects in the backing track. Might as well project holographs of the group as mime.

In any event, what is this reference to a backing track? Has someone lost sight of what the music is. Is not the backing track an intrinsic part of the musical presentation? Erlkönig would not be as fearful as it is without its ‘backing track’. Or do they actually not care about the music at all, it is really simply about physical gyration? Nothing else matters.

How disappointing! But then that is what this world loves. It loves the appearance, but not the reality. The splendid buildings which rise up contrary to the building regulations, but collapse at a shifting of the ground beneath them. The war games fascinate and captivate many in their games’ rooms and virtual reality worlds, but place the same in the reality of Bakhmut, Dresden or Saigon; what then?

It is the same with godliness, men love the appearance of it, but ask them to change their way of life to live godly lives and they turn away. They are very happy with a religion which says: ‘Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,’ all of which concern things which do not endure. These are but the commandments and doctrines of men. They are regulations. ‘If we keep them we shall live’ is what they think. Well, these things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in a self-imposed religion, but it is a false humility and are of no value against the indulgence of the body. (Colossians 2:20-23) Ask them however to become lovers of God rather than pleasure, and they turn away. They want the benefits of religion, but do not want its power to change the way in which they live. We love ourselves, we love money, we love pleasure. This will all pass away, and then what? ‘What good will it do for a man if he gain the whole world and lose his soul?’ the Lord Jesus Christ asked us.

Let them have their backing tracks if they will, but let us, without hypocrisy, love the Lord our God, who gave himself to save our souls, with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength.

2 Timothy 3

But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away!
* Coco is not aware of any such recording

Coronas

~ admin ~ Leave a comment

Today is an important day for many reasons. We have crowned a man who is king, who in that crowning made certain clear commitments. We do not have to be monarchists to recognise the benefits of those commitments, and I would suggest that of whatever form of government you want if you do not require of the governor those same commitments then you do both yourself and your fellow countrymen a great disservice. There are only two, or perhaps three, on which comment shall be made here.

Firstly, a commitment is made to protect his people both from external troubles and from those within the kingdom who would exploit them. Now we cannot argue against that.  A king, or any governor, who exploits his people, leaves them defenceless or makes war against them is a not one any of you would want, but we do see such elsewhere in this world. We are called upon to pray for kings, rulers and all in authority, for why? Two reasons are given, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life (1 Tim 2:1). I shall come to the other later. This is an important commitment.

Secondly, a commitment is made to defend the Christian religion.  The Scriptures provide the foundation upon which our treatment of each other rests. If we have any other foundation then we shall conclude that some are second or even third or lower class, or that the death of a man is no more significant that the death of a fly on the wall, it being merely a rearrangement of the chemicals of which he is made. We are told: ‘Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.’ So God created man in his own image; in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth’ (Genesis 1)

I am not arguing here that we have been obedient to that instruction, the king whom we have just crowned has long spoken about many of the ways in which we have overstepped the authority that we have, but where else do we such a clear testimony to the value of a human life. We are made in the image of God; what could be a more beautiful image than that? Even more so, what this means is that we cannot relegate one of our kind to a lower position, or consider them to be soulless, for every one of us carried that image with him. It is this, and this alone, that gives us value not any other trappings that we may carry with us. Secondly, God declares: ‘Male and female he created them’. Men and women are not the same, otherwise we would have the same noun to describe us, but we are both made in the image of God, If not the same then, what are we? We are both made in the image of God, but made complementary to each other as we read later: And the Lord God said, ‘It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.’ And Adam declares: ‘This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man.’ I do not claim that my etymology is correct, but superficially the English words used here do show a similar connection as the Hebrew: she shall be called ishah, because she was taken out of ish. Jigsaw pieces could not all be the same for the jigsaw to fit together (except in certain special cases of which I am sure mathematically minded individuals would be delighted to point out), the pieces must be complementary to each other (the complementarity of the special cases is what makes the same special cases work as jigsaws). And so it is for us, men and women are complementary to each other.

What a great, glorious, enlightening and liberating teaching this is! No-one is second class; no-one is of less worth than any other.

Depart from the Christian faith and we shall descend into the abyss of superstition, idolatry, paganism, false religion and oppression, for it is only the Christian faith that demands that we love one another, even those who show themselves to be our enemies, and treat others, not as they treat us, but as we would want to be treated ourselves. As the king said on his arrival today: In [the name of Jesus Christ] and after his example I come not to be served but to serve. The example of Jesus Christ was to love his enemies, those who would hand him over to be crucified. Many of them later received mercy from the one whom they had, by means of the Roman nails and spear, pierced.

Thirdly, we are reminded of the importance of kingship. There is one true king, the true man, the perfect man Jesus. He is the only one who has fulfilled the law of God and the only one therefore who is fit to be king. The Scripture says of him ‘You love righteousness and hate wickedness; Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness more than your companions.’ (Psalm 45:7)  But each earthly king is to be like him, and to exemplify him before us. Some do it better than others. Many fail in many ways, as we may read in the books of the kings, and in our own history books, but their failings do not invalidate the value of a king. Rather let them learn what a true king is and learn to be like him. Even the wicked king Manasseh towards his end understood how badly he had failed and repented of his wickedness (2 Chr 33:13).

You see, we do not appoint a king, nor do we elect one, we acknowledge the one who is king. This one, some would say, is king by an accident of nature. So let it be. An accident of nature is certainly no less likely to choose the right man as the vicissitudes of an electorate choosing from a group of power hungry men, and probably more likely to do so. But I cannot say it in that way.  It is God who raises up rulers among men, and he has appointed one to rule over us:  Yet I have set my king on my holy hill of Zion, (Psalm 2:6) and later warns the kings of the earth to serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling, to kiss the Son (the king) as our Prince did his father today. That we do not choose our king reminds us of this, pointing both us and our king to the King of kings in whose name he was welcomed to the coronation today.

I mentioned that there were two reasons why we should pray for kings and all in authority. The second points us again to the king of kings, it is that it is good to do so in the sight of God our Saviour who desires all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth through the one mediator between man and God, the man Jesus Christ.

So, only three comments:

The king is our nation’s protector, just as Jesus, the king of kings is our protector.

The king is the defender of the Christian faith, from which we learn that our worth is that we are made in the image of God.

The king is appointed not by us, reminding us that we are to serve the one whom God has appointed, Jesus the king of Kings.

And this Jesus has been anointed by God, not men, so that the Spirit of the Lord God is upon him to preach good tidings to the poor; to heal the broken hearted; to proclaim liberty to the captives; and the opening of the prison to those who are bound. (Isaiah 61:1)

We have a king, who lives to serve his people not to be served by us, which points us to the King Jesus, who came not to be served but to serve and give his life a ransom for many. (Matt 20:28)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65503950

Further comments:

All remain standing. Samuel Strachan, Child of His Majesty’s Chapel Royal, addresses The King
Your Majesty, as children of the kingdom of God we welcome you in the name of the King of kings.
The King replies
In his name and after his example I come not to be served but to serve.

The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you. And with thy spirit.

Alleluia. Christ is risen.

He is risen indeed. Alleluia.

Will you to your power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgements?

Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England?

Give the king your judgements, O God, and your righteousness to the son of a king. Then shall he judge your people righteously and your poor with justice.

Alleluia. May he defend the poor among the people, deliver the children of the needy and crush the oppressor.

During the chant the Lord President of the Council exchanges the Sword of State for the Jewelled Sword of Offering, and delivers it to the Archbishop, who says: Hear our prayers, O Lord, we beseech thee, and so direct and support thy servant King Charles, that he may not bear the sword in vain; but may use it as the minister of God to resist evil and defend the good, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

The Jewelled Sword of Offering is placed into the king’s right hand. The archbishop says: Receive this kingly sword: may it be to you and to all who witness these things, a sign and symbol not of judgement, but of justice; not of might, but of mercy. The king rises. The sword is put upon the king, and he sits. The archbishop says: With this sword do justice, stop the growth of iniquity, protect the holy Church of God and all people of goodwill, help and defend widows and orphans, restore the things that are gone to decay, maintain the things that are restored, punish and reform what is amiss, and confirm what is in good order: that doing these things you may be glorious in all virtue; and so faithfully serve our Lord Jesus Christ in this life, that you may reign for ever with him in the life which is to come. Amen. The king stands and offers the sword at the altar, where it is received by the dean. The king returns to the coronation chair. The sword is redeemed and is returned to the Lord President of the Council.

It is very meet, right and our bounden duty that we should at all times and in all places, give thanks unto thee, O Lord, Holy Father, Almighty, Everlasting God, through Jesus Christ thine only Son our Lord. Who hast at this time consecrated thy servant Charles to be our King, that by the anointing of thy grace, he may be the Defender of thy Faith and the Protector of thy people; that, with him, we may learn the ways of service, compassion, and love; and that the good work thou hast begun in him this day may be brought to completion in the day of Jesus Christ. Therefore with angels and archangels and with all the company of heaven, we laud and magnify thy glorious name; evermore praising thee, and saying:

There are parts with which Coco may disagree! The Church of England is not fully reformed, and elements derived from paganism through romish errors have been retained. Notwithstanding this, though there is error as Paul said of those in Rome who spoke supposing to harm him: Christ is proclaimed. There was a clear proclamation at the start that he had been raised from the dead; the reading from Colossians spoke of his pre-eminence, creative and redemptive power; and the words of the communion the purpose of his death on a Roman cross.

O Miserable man!

~ admin ~ Leave a comment

An apology coming so soon after the previous one? One would have thought that cartoonists might have learned a thing or two by now. It is fitting however when two interesting articles are placed side by side they provoke an interesting thought, but given that this morning’s sermon was on Romans 12: Be subject to the authorities, I wondered whether political satire may sometimes be haram rather than kosher. But we do have Rutherford’s teaching also on the matter who promoted Lex rex rather than Rex lex, aptly illustrated by when on the appointment of one of his governors, Trajan handed to him a dagger with the words: ‘to be used for me (As Paul said: they hold the power of the sword) and [if I do wrong] in me’. How different from the lèse-majesté of another nation. On the basis of this, the interesting (or not so interesting depending upon your point of view) thought becomes public at the risk of offending those who by their nature are afflicted with the plague of sensitivity to that which is ill aligned with the contemporary notion of politica rectitude, and given with apologies to those who will recognise that I, being ignorant of such matters, have used the incorrect case.

Now the cartoon which has been hidden from view by the author, but not by many others who are not, is clearly an abomination in the good tradition of political satire from at least the end of the 18th century exemplified by Gillray. To show a former prime minister sitting on a throne hidden behind a pile of whatever you may wish to describe it but would be quite at home in a farmyard, with such a grotesque visage is at the best described as insulting, but perhaps a gentler form of treatment of the gentleman, if a gentleman, could have been found. The other gentleman has a face which AI may easily have produced if it had been asked to cartoonise a photograph of the gentleman whom the cartoon portrays but has actually been produced by the real intelligence of a real man. What a jolly description it is indeed of at least one of the ills of our times.

In the other article we are presented with a protest against laws and regulations by a government by which under the cloak of a ban on fake news, as the nation’s own judges recognise by the way they have been written, it would be possible to silence fair criticism including satire and parody. Now I suggest that that other nation perhaps needs to look at the Western approach (except of course it cannot because that would be to allow itself to be subject to the colonialists) to the banning of satirical literature, ideographs and cartoons. The Western approach is simply to get the PC brigade on your side and never again a word shall be spoken against you ever – even if it would have been spoken in jest – for those very comedians and comediennes will regulate themselves and keep silent being more afraid of the wrath of the liberal elite than that of the government. So, it would seem that as well as exposing as intended one of the ills of our time, it also unintentionally exposed another of the ills. I suspect the putative claim of the ‘offended’ is a cover for the real reason which is closer to that from which the lèse-majesté are designed to protect those who would wish to sit upon a throne but have proven to be unsuitable candidates for it.

As for caricatures, they are necessary and are necessarily built upon actual characteristics of real people. ‘Paint me, warts and all!’ the man said for it was well known that if the warts were painted out it would be said that it was not a true likeness. If we are offended by a caricature of our culture, race, tribe or even locality then remember it is a caricature because it is like that in some way, and we then should ask why? What is it that makes that particular caricature? What is it in the caricature that is offensive? What is it of which we, as members of that class, are ashamed? If it is something bad, we then need to further ask ourselves: is it found in me? If it is then I must expunge it from myself.

So when I hear words spoken about or see a cartoon of a particular class or group of people to whom I may, or may not, have a relationship or a belonging: ‘Though their pockets are deep their arms are short’ remember that this is a caricature. And then ask does it apply to me as much as it does to the miser. O miserable man that I am!

Guardian apologises over cartoon of BBC chairman Richard Sharp

Kunal Kamra: Why an Indian comedian is challenging fake news rules

The defiled mind

~ admin ~ Leave a comment

Der Spiegel: India anger over ‘racist’ German magazine cartoon on population

A good man once said: To the pure all things are pure, but to those who are defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure. So now, in the light of this and the recent reaction to a cartoon depicting a race between two trains which was perhaps as much of a contest as the legendary race in which a man and horse competed to be the first from London to York. To pit a new HSR (‘Bullet’ train) against an old diesel is surely a foregone conclusion, just as the outcome of the horse-man race would have been in the seventeenth century. Oh! distracted again so that my first intended sentence became little more than a noun and a qualifying subordinate clause I should resume where off I had left. So, in the light of the afore described colourful line drawing, if there is any element of race in it, and of course there is but perhaps not in the sense that has been expressed elsewhere, should I not now consider that there is an element of race in all things that are or could be said in the minds of some? It has often been said: ‘it takes one to know one’, but I would add that it is often incorrectly said in order to attribute, perhaps insinuate is a more appropriate word in this context, to attribute to the accuser the imputed qualities of the accused.

Whilst seeking to avoid the claim to any kind of purity in myself, if one sees impurity in a thing that is not in itself impure, does that not in the light of the words of our good and wise man, suggest that there is some impurity in the one who sees what he thinks is a kind of impurity in it? In which case the often ill-used saying: ‘it takes one to know one’ may also in this instance be true, that those who cry wolf are in fact wolves themselves, and that the same kind of impurity that they found in the pure thing is the very impurity which defiles them. But if you simply look at the cartoon as a cartoon depicting a race, is it not simply, purely, funny?

On the other hand, had the cartoonist given us the identities of the drivers perhaps we may have different views of the world.

The relations between the two drivers were quite cordial until the red train began to move ahead.

With thanks, and apologies for any possible infringements of copyright which may be found in this not-for-profit educational use of a small part of the material of the copyright holders, and in particular to Chappatte, Stuttmann, knowthenation, the Chinese Embassy authority and the BBC, without whose article this blog would never have been written.

A word you should not use

~ admin ~ Leave a comment

He was twenty minutes into the sermon when he heard the sound of a little girl’s voice in the congregation. She was speaking to her mother, who was desperately trying to tell her, quietly, not to speak. Then everyone one heard it: ‘But mummy, he used the word which you said we should never say’.  He thought back for a moment at what he had just said, and wishing to take away the mother’s now very public embarrassment, he addressed the little girl:

My dear, he said, you are quite right, and your mummy is quite right also, we should never use that word. It is all too often used in quite the wrong way, and for the wrong reasons. Let me explain to you, and to everyone else here why that is, but first of all I must say that we must not forget that the place described here really does exist and we have to give it a name, otherwise either no-one would know what we are talking about or we would have to use a very long-winded name for it which would be quite a mouthful to use as I hope shortly you will understand, and also understand why your mother said that you must never use it.

Let me first of all describe it, and the deprivations that all who go there would feel and know, and then I shall tell you why we should not use the word.

The Bible is not afraid to speak of that place, and the Lord himself gave us a number of descriptions of it, but I would like first of all to remind you of some words which you will have heard here which to me provide, perhaps quite unexpectedly to some, one of the most terrifying descriptions of what that place is like. It is found in Psalm 129, which is one of those Psalm that the children of Israel would sing as the made their way up to Jerusalem for one of their feasts. It closes with the words: The blessing of the Lord be upon you; We bless you in the name of the Lord!

You know that we enjoy many blessing from the Lord in this world. He gives us our daily bread. He gives us homes, and families, people who love us and care for us, and whom we love and for whom we care. He gives us friends, and a place in our community. He gives us sunshine and rain, seed-time and harvest-time. He clothes the fields with flowers, the trees with blossom, and provides such beauty as we see all-around us. He gives us the ability to make beautiful things, and to enjoy them, to have some understanding of the world around us and to influence it. He gives us his Word, by which we learn about him, and people in his church who will teach us, and point us to Jesus. Above all else he has given us Jesus, who died on a Roman cross in our place.

These are but a few of the countless blessings that we enjoy from the hand of God our Maker and Saviour, from the Lord our God. Where would we be without them? What would life be like if all of his blessings were taken away from us. It is unthinkable, is it not, that we should have to live without them for even one hour? What if the sun were darkened for one hour? I have heard that even in the few minutes that an eclipse takes we start to feel the cold. The hottest desert becomes at night a cold bleak place. What if this blessing were removed for ever? Could we bear it? But even still this is only the removal of one of his blessings.

What if he removed all of his blessings for one hour? Could we bear that? Perhaps we could for we would have some hope that after the hour had ended they would be restored to us. But what if they were removed for ever without any hope of restoration?

You may lose one of your favourite toys and find that it has gone forever, but you have another, you take comfort in that which is left; but if all of them are removed and you are told you shall never have another what then? What loss do you feel? You may sometimes find yourself alone in the shop and start to be afraid – but mummy and daddy are actually there still watching you – what relief you have when your parents come back into your view.

The blessings of the Lord, are countless, innumerable and manifold. How good he is to us. The absence of his blessing is intolerable for us. Our situation becomes hopeless.

Now consider, what appears to be the blessing of this psalm is not in fact a blessing it is an imprecation: Let not those who pass them by say: The blessing of the Lord be upon you.

We enjoy the blessings of the Lord because he has put them upon us. If they had not been put upon us we could not enjoy them, they would be far away out of our reach. This psalm is talking about those who hate Zion. Now Zion is the house of the Lord. To hate the place where God lives is to hate God. So the psalm is about those who hate God. We read about them here and elsewhere, perhaps more famously where the psalmist says: Why do the nations rage and the peoples imagine a vain thing? In Psalm 2. Here in psalm 129 the Lord tells his people they are not to put the blessing of the Lord upon those who hate Zion. The blessings of the Lord are not for the wicked, as we read in Psalm 1, who are like the chaff which the winds blows away.  

This is why the description is so terrifying. The blessings, that we all here today enjoy, will one day be taken away from the wicked. They shall no more know the blessings of the Lord upon them, and never have any hope that they shall ever even have one smallest drop of those blessings to cool their tongue.

Can you, my dear, imagine such a place as that, where you have no hope that anything good will ever happen again?

There are many other descriptions of that place, but this one that tells us that it is a place where all of the blessings of God are absent is terrifying enough. The Lord Jesus provides us with a great deal of information, as we may read in the Gospels, about that place.

So, we should not say that anything is like that place. There is no other place like it at all, just as there is no place like heaven: eye has not seen, ear has not heard, nor has it entered into the heart, the imaginations, of men, what God has prepared for those whom he loves. There is nothing like it and nothing can be compared with it. But it can be compared to other things, even though all of those comparisons are inadequate. Comparisons do not always work in two directions. You can say that an elephant’s legs are like trees, but to say that trees are like elephant’s legs simply does not work.

Nether should we wish that anyone should go to that place, or even suggest that they go there, for when we do, do we not forget that we are just as equally deserving, if not more deserving, to be sent there as anyone else? Do we really want the person who made us angry, or has upset us, to suffer the deprivations that I have described? We may feel that they deserve it, but do they deserve it any more than you do? Remember what the apostle said: How can a man say he loves God whom he has not seen if he does not love his brother whom he has seen? If we do not love God, then we are haters of God, and fall under the imprecation in this psalm.

So, you see, it is quite right that we should not use that word in our everyday speech. We should not tell people to go there, nor should we say that this is like it. The place is one of indescribable deprivation and suffering. My attempt to describe it, it is quite inadequate. The comparisons that I have made, and that we find in the Bible, all in some way fall short of what it is really is, but every one of them tells us something of what the place is like. A great preacher once met with another preacher one Monday, Monday being a day of rest for them. They knew each other well. ‘On what did you preach yesterday?’ one asked the other. ‘On the place of death and misery’ he replied. ‘And you did that with tears in your eyes, my brother?’.

There is no other way to use this word that to use it with tears in your eyes. Tears that it is necessary for such a place to exist, and tears that there are those who will find their way there having chosen to walk on the broad road that leads to destruction, and tears that they have refused the free offer of a place in the kingdom of God purchased by the blood of Jesus Christ who on the cross suffered all of the deprivations of hell including the abandonment of the goodness of God, so that he cried out: My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?

Should you ever find you need to use this word, little one, and you shall have need to use it, let the tears roll down your cheeks as you warn your friend by telling her what it really means, why you would never want anyone to go there and that there is no place on this earth that is as dreadful as it is. Then remind her that there is a way to avoid it. Go to Jesus, he will keep you safe from it.

A man of God

~ admin ~ 1 Comment

And so it will be in the resurrection of the dead, we were sown in weakness, we shall be raised immortal.

PLC came into my life something over fifty years ago. Though he was a Welshman among Welshmen, emotional beyond degree, and a true ‘bachgen bach o Ferthyr erioed, erioed’, the serious side in his character would have made the dourness of the Scot look like the elation of a Zulu.

A sermon preached by Stephen Jarvis at Hebron Dowlais Evangelical Church on the 26 February could easily have been preached by him, indeed it crossed my mind,  had he asked Stephen to preach on this matter? The text was Ecclesiastes 7:1  A good name is better than precious ointment, and the day of death than the day of one’s birth. It was the second half of that verse that he took as his text. The prospect of death is for many uncomfortable, but as, inter alia, the life insurance companies will confirm it is inevitable.

Philip lived a tidy (I think that is the correct Welsh adjective) life in South Wales travelling up and down the valley each working day. He had a canny (as understood in Yorkshire) job in the University which afforded him much opportunity for friendship, frivolity and fun, whilst conducting the serious side of the business with the utmost attention to detail for the sake of the safety and security of those whom he served.

It was service that typified his life, at work, in the home and in the church with whom he worshipped. The words that Paul had spoken to Timothy weighed heavily upon him: Study! Apply yourself! Shew yourself approved as a teacher rightly explaining the word of truth.  He could not abide those who only took the word of God in order to support what they wanted to say. He understood that the minister’s job is to let the word of God take him to say what God wants to say.

In the early years that we knew each other when we came across a difficulty in the Word, and it is unnecessary perhaps to say that there are not a few, we would look at many different explanations, but all too often found that even the ‘experts’ often did not address the question that we had asked. We were driven to the original languages, or else, then, before we had internet searches, we would scan through, say, the City of God looking for something that Augustine had, or might have, said, asking ourselves and each other: What did he really say?

Needless to say to those who knew him, Philip soon far outstripped me in his understanding and his ability to articulate the different understandings of many of our great thinkers. Whilst some struggle to even hold the names of two contrary positions in their head, he not only held the names, but a compete description of both sides of the arguments in his head at the same time.  

He cannot now mind something being said about his personal devotion. He was a man who had heard Paul say to Timothy: You, O man of God, flee these things and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, gentleness. He was always the first up at college, a good two hours before me however late the previous night had been. He would read, pray, then begin his study working meticulously almost word by word through the text. He had decided he would start at the beginning, the genesis of Genesis. It would take many years. But that part of his study did not prevent him from reading extensively. The daily train journeys when he started work were never wasted time, but an opportunity to read, and read he did. His son-in-law, running a bookshop, must surely delight in the library that Philip acquired.

Mention must be made of his memory, which had not only capacity for outstanding feats in theology, but also in the realm of humour. Often you would only know that the long story (examples are available) which he was relating was to pull your leg when you reached the final sentence, such was his ability to control his facial muscles. How did he remember the detail which made these stories so plausible?

When the lock-down came upon us just after the commencement of the recent viral outbreak and of a sudden we could not meet together to worship but only on-line, there was no panic at Hebron, Dowlais. For twenty five years Philip had recorded the services, extracting the hymn singing, meticulously cataloguing it and making collections of hymns available on tape and later more modern media for the housebound and sick. There was an almost complete set from the hymn book that they used available for use in the then on-line services.

Philip had become an elder in the church thirty-five years ago. He served the people well, and took the work of being one of the shepherds of the people seriously. They needed to be taught well. The teachers needed to be good, even exemplary, examples to them. He could not tolerate in himself any shortfall in what was expected of him. In his final months, which were characterised by much pain and suffering caused both by the treatment of and by the disease that had afflicted him, as the weakness of his body took over, he was greatly troubled. Paul speaks of this to the Corinthian church as his burden for the churches. The Lord had earlier spoken with Peter and asked, or was it told, him to feed the Lord’s flock. That is the work today of those who are recognised as elders in the church. Feed them with the word of God. But how could he then do it? The pain and the weakness that had taken hold of him prevented him from doing anything. It grieved his heart, though he knew that he was being asked then to learn the lessons that he knew were taught in the word of God.

For Philip whilst death was an enemy which separates us from those whom we love in this world, it was his death day on which the Lord would come and take him to the next. He would then be able to sing with cleaner hands and a purer heart than ever he knew in this world: My Jesus, I love thee, I know thou are mine…if ever I loved thee, my Jesus, ‘tis now.

For fifty five years, after his conversion, he lived in the first two verses of Featherston’s hymn. For a brief time in the third, but now he has gone home, and lives in the fourth.

My Jesus, I love thee, I know thou art mine; for thee all the pleasures of sin I resign;
my gracious Redeemer, my Saviour art thou; if ever I loved thee, my Jesus, ’tis now.

2 I love thee because thou hast first loved me, and purchased my pardon on Calvary’s tree;
I love thee for wearing the thorns on thy brow; if ever I loved thee, my Jesus, ’tis now.

3 I’ll love thee in life, I will love thee in death, and praise thee as long as thou lendest me breath,
and say when the deathdew lies cold on my brow: If ever I loved thee, my Jesus, ’tis now.

4 In mansions of glory and endless delight, I’ll ever adore thee in heaven so bright;
I’ll sing with the glittering crown on my brow: If ever I loved thee, my Jesus, ’tis now.

He would want to ask you, dear reader, this question, will you follow, not him, but rather:
Will you follow the Lord Jesus Christ to the place that he gone?

For examples of Philip’s humour with a gloss from Coco, who apologises for not being able to tell the stories as well as Philip could:
1 Steel works 2 The curious incident

On the job
Greeting
Across the generations
In the background
At attention
At home
A proud father
A proud father
At leisure
At leisure

Sermons from Hebron Dowlais pulpit:

AudioVideoTitle
Philip:
Utube
8 August 2021 pm 		Love From a Pure Heart
1 Timothy 1:5
Utube
8 August 2021 am 		Test Yourselves
2 Corinthians 13:5
5 November 2017 pm		Trusting God
Psalm 40:4a
5 November 2017 am		Making Known the Grace of God
2 Corinthians 8:1-7
25 December 2015 		The Impossibilities of Christmas
Luke 1:26-33
16 October 2011 		Our Every Affliction
2Corinthians 1:5-10
28 February 2010 		All for some
1Corinthians 9:22b
17 December 2006 		The mind of Christ
Philippians 2:5-11
18 December 2005 		God sent his Son
Galatians 4:4-5
19 December 2004 		The mother of my Lord
Luke 1:43
20 July 2003 		The Pharisee and the Publican
Luke 18:9-14
15 September 2002 		Firstborn Among Many Brethren
Romans 8:29
28 July 2002 		It is Time to Seek the Lord
Hosea 10:12b
6 January 2002 		A New Year’s Resolution
Psalm 27:4
27 August 2000 		Can God Deliver You?
Psalm 143:1-2
25 April 1999 		Waiting
John 5:8
28 December 1997 		Change and no change
Jude 3
14 September 1997 		Jude the obscure
Jude 1-2
20 July 1997 		Touch him!
Mark 8:22-26
3 November 1996 		Gaius the beloved
3 John 1
23 July 1995 		Peace for all
Ephesians 2:17-18
25 December 1994 		An old man’s testimony
1 John 1:1-3
17 April 1994 		Are you one of God’s elect?
John 6:37
26 December 1993 		Fear not
Isaiah 41:10
30 May 1993 		A fire alarm
Genesis 19:17
15 February 1992 		The Prince of Preachers
But not The Last of the Puritans
5 January 1992 		The goal of corporate maturity
Ephesians 4:13
29 July 1990 		Kiss the Son
Psalm 2:12
1 January 1989 		Show me thy glory
Exodus 34:67
Stephen Jarvis:
Utube
26 February 2023 		The day of death
Ecclesiastes 7:1
Philip’s funeral service shall take place on 22 March at 1030 in Merthyr

How to distract your auditor’s comprehension

~ admin ~ Leave a comment

When the message is weak, what do you do?

The answer of the preacher is often: Shout! but there is a better way

The ubiquitous presence of punctuated, percussive sound waves emanating from the large black boxes carefully positioned around the auditorium at 64hz or thereabouts in the modern age, but not only so but also in many ancient cultures, is an essential element of the many shared experiences of groups of individuals in our divers communities. It dulls the senses and raises the ire so that any criticism which may attend the auditor is directed solely at the manner of the presentation and not at the content thereof.

How different is the approach of those who wish to provide not only entertainment in a shared experience which is felt in the body, but also an enlightenment of the mind where such manipulation of that which so easily distracts us from what is important, that is the content of the presentation.

There are many who would dull our minds in order to persuade us to accept the message presented to us. So, scam telephone calls, email and text messages represent some of the worst excesses of this, and what will they be like when AI starts to generate them? How long do we have to wait before the scammers voice sound just like that of your friend who is being impersonated? Hot on the heels of such as these are those who would sell you their quack solutions to health, housing, communication and transport problems. It will only cost £xx/month but you do not hear increasing at 4% + inflation each year for the next ten years during which you are locked in, having to pay the full amount if you wish to get out early.

Then we have religious quacks: Do this and live!. It may be true, but you still have to answer for what you have done and in any event you are actually unable to do this Moses said: Their foot shall slip in due time. Be aware of the siren voices that would silence the only message that matters. There is only one name given among men by which we must be saved.

Coupled with the distractive sonic vibrations an attempt was made to provide a cathedral like oracular experience by means of beams of light in the otherwise darkened room, as if streaming through stained glass windows on a bright summer’s day. What a contrast all of this is with the buildings of the Reformers who thought that the lecture theatre was much more commodious to the reception and understanding of the message. In the light of such a place we are able to read the text for ourselves, to review it and take notes of what has been said. Such a context for the delivery of the message is much more fitting and provides a much greater probability that the message will be received and understood for the benefit of both the orator, the auditor and the clients of the auditors.

All of this was designed to create the right ambience for what was then to be presented to us from the dais. We were treated to an inspirational [an adjective that the marketing world would ascribe but not Coco] talk about how to live with stress and other issues in the world. Paul takes this up when writing to Timothy, where he says: For bodily exercise profits a little, (1Tim 4:8) but then points him to what really matters: godliness is profitable for all things, having promise of the life that now is and of that which is to come. (1Tim 4:8) It was interesting, perhaps entertaining, but for all the efforts to provide techniques, promote a proper understanding of self worth, Coco considers missed the mark ignoring what really matters as set out by the apostle.

Godliness with contentment is great gain.