Faith

Charitable Incorporated Organisations

~ admin ~ 6 Comments

An opportunity or a threat?

A critique from the perspective of religious organisations through the lense of public benefit

It was quite an innocent question really, a local charity had been thinking about trustees’ liabilities. There was a management group which looked after all of the day to day affairs of the charity, whilst the trustees held the assets, which consisted some land and buildings from which the charity conducted its affairs, and bank accounts, which were actually operated by the management team. The trustees had little to do, as trustees, with the day to day affairs and conduct of the charity. They had however woken up to the fact that should anything go wrong at the charity, they would be held responsible for it, and had in mind that the financial penalties may not be trivial.

For many years that had not been the case. There was no or little possibility of damage arising out of the activities of the charity, but things were changing. People did not have the same trust in each other as before, and there were some who, in order to indulge or facilitate illegal activity looked for easy targets, gaining confidence of the local people and acquiring places of responsibility, which could be used to cover up their lawless deeds. Others outside the charity began to look for ways in which they could criticise the charity for no other reason than they wanted to shut it down, or obtain some pecuniary advantage for themselves by claiming damages for a personal injury which they had suffered. Often the difficulty with defending such claims is that the ‘injured’ had no connection with the actual event, occasion or individual whose words or actions gave rise to the ‘injury’, the injurious action may simply have been reported to them by a third party.

In the past such claims would have been dismissed as, as they might say in law, nefarious, illegitimate or capricious, but changing views and attitudes in society, as well as the increasing propensity of those who are looking for opportunities to take offence at views with which they simply disagree, to take matters to law, has started to mean that the courts are taking seriously the claims and awarding in some case substantial damages for offence taken, when no offence was intended. It had become so bad that even comedians were disinclined to commence their stories with ‘Did you hear about the Englishman, Welshman and Scotsman?’ it having become far too dangerous to use Irishman as the second guy even many years ago.

Now before you read on, you may care to note that I might here say, and perhaps already have said, things which some would want to consider offensive, or at least suggest have an element of conspiracy theoretics about it, so let me say that I do not subscribe to conspiracy theories and anything in here that may suggest otherwise is a misconstruction or misconstrual of my meaning or alternatively the consequence of an extrapolation from what has been said to an insupportable conclusion. And for those who would want to consider something as offensive, let me add that if what I say is read correctly, and as I intended it to be read, there will be found to be no offence in it, but if it is deliberately misunderstood because I have used an ambiguous grammatical construction, placed a gerund where an adjective should sit, used a preposition to leave it dangling at the end of a sentence or caused an infinitive to be split into its inseparable parts, then let it be known that such may or may not have been deliberate upon my part, or may have been quite accidental, and where clarification of the particular grammatical device is required, then I shall be happy to receive due corrections explaining the error into which I have fallen providing it clearly explains fully all the possible misconstructions of meaning that may arise, or have arisen, as a result of the alleged gaffe, together with a reworking of the text such that its correct inoffensive meaning may be fully, perfectly and completely be understood by the newly proposed text. With that in mind, let on the reader read.

The question involved the possible conversion to a Charitable Incorporated Organisation (CIO). Now CIO is a type of corporation which is regulated by the Charity Commission. This document is not the place to discuss the types of CIO available nor the manner of their incorporation. Information may be found on the Charity Commission website to address these issues and to help you to understand which type of CIO is most suitable for the purpose that you have in mind. CIO Practice Guide 14a is a good place to start if you have questions about this. The writer will also be happy to take questions from you.

A significant advantage of a CIO over a company incorporated under the Companies Acts, is that it is not regulated by Companies House. As a consequence there is a reduced administrative burden for charities which operate through a corporate structure to be a CIO than for example a company limited in any other way, eg as is often the case, by guarantee. A company limited by guarantee is registered under the Companies Acts, and if a charity also, is required to make annual returns etc to both Companies House and the Charity Commission. For many larger charities this is not a significant burden, as they will have professional staff to deal with these matters, but for many smaller or local charities, we may have amateur trustees who may not have ready access, or only expensive access, to the necessary professional skills. Incorporation as a CIO is an advantage to them.

A CIO has advantages also for charities that do not operate through corporate structures, but as unincorporated associations or as trusts. Most of these charities are, and in due time, all of them shall be, registered with the Charity Commission and must make annual returns etc to them.  None of the objects of such organisations must change, apart from one particular group of organisations recognised as charitable to which I shall revert later, nor, in general terms at least, their governance. The chief advantage for the unincorporated charity is that incorporation as a CIO gives the trustees, governors, managers, or whatever else the charity trustees might call themselves, the financial protection of limited liability.  

Whilst unincorporated trustees can protect themselves from financial liability to some extent by insurance, this may not be such good protection as that afforded by a limited liability company (a CIO or a company limited by guarantee), additionally trustee insurance may be more expensive for the unincorporated charity than the incorporated, which puts a greater pressure on the limited resources of the charity which are used to support its work.

The introduction of the new incorporated organisation, the CIO, was welcomed by the charity sector for providing the possibility of both a simplification of their regulatory obligations and financial protection to trustees in an increasingly litigious environment. However, it is not a suitable vehicle for all charities.

Some sub-sectors of the charity sector had objects, some of them very long standing – the writer is aware of charities whose objects and structures have remained unchanged for upwards of 100 years – which are incompatible with the requirements of the CIO. How can this be? you may well ask.

Well to understand that we have to look briefly at the history of charitable causes. Whilst the list in the preamble to the Statues of Elizabeth I did not form part of the law, the contents of that list have for four hundred years informed the law so that by the twentieth century it could be said that a charity is a organisation set up for one or more of the following purposes:

The relief of poverty

The advancement of education

The advancement of religion or

Any other purpose beneficial to the community.

These categories did not however provide a definition of what a charity is, they merely provided guidance to those who needed to assess whether a particular organisation was a charity or not. It was not until early in the twenty-first century that a definition was brought into law. In the Charities Act 2006 the original list of ten specific things, which had become a short list of four characteristics at least one of which should be found in a charity, became a new list of thirteen:

•             the prevention or relief of poverty;

•             the advancement of education;

•             the advancement of religion;

•             the advancement of health or the saving of lives;

•             the advancement of citizenship or community development;

•             the advancement of the arts, culture, heritage or science;

•             the advancement of amateur sport;

•             the advancement of human rights, conflict resolution or reconciliation or the promotion of religious or racial harmony or equality and diversity;

•             the advancement of environmental protection or improvement;

•             the relief of those in need because of youth, age, ill-health, disability, financial hardship or other disadvantage;

•             the advancement of animal welfare;

•             the promotion of the efficiency of the armed forces of the Crown or of the efficiency of the police, fire and rescue services or ambulance services;

•             any other purpose already recognised in law as charitable, along with other purposes analogous to, or within the spirit of, other purposes that are recognised as charitable.

It is a new age, calling for new things. One could argue that the nine new items inserted into the 19th century list between the third and the fourth are all included in the fourth item of the 19th century list. What then was the point? Well, one could point to the greater and greater specificity introduced into the law in during the twentieth century. Perhaps one only need ask: in law how many different ways can you kill a man? Do we really need more than two, murder and manslaughter? But we do not like the law to tell us what we can and cannot do, so we multiply laws as people invent ways around the ones that are already there. Is this propensity in our natures the cause of the rapid expansion of Elizabeth’s list? Or is it much simpler than that? The nineteenth century short list of guidance gave far too much leeway to the courts to interpret matters, so a statutory definition was introduced to provide certainty.

As the same time however the idea of public benefit was given a much greater role in assessing whether an organisation set up for any of these purposes was a charity. There would no longer be a presumption that organisations set up for the first three, and the fourth, elements, of the nineteenth century guidance conferred public benefit, though there was no suggestion that those who had already been recognised as charitable under those heads would lose their status, it would become necessary to demonstrate a continuing public benefit in the activities of the organisation. This is why organisations in their report will in describing their activities say something to the effect that ‘the trustees … believe the charity satisfies the public benefit test’. 

Public benefit has always been at the heart of what is charitable, but there had been a presumption that particular types of activity would always have a public benefit. It was of the essence of the activity, so the maintenance of the walls of a city would be a charitable activity. Nobody would have any doubt about that. Certain other activities would also be seen as essentially providing public benefit. So, religious activities notwithstanding the often hard opposition of the establishment, were seen as providing public benefit. Not all religious activities were recognised as charitable however, but not because they did not provide public benefit, but that the benefit they did provide was not susceptible of legal proof.

The new position today really is not ‘does the organisation qualify under any of the heads of the new list?’, but firstly ‘does it confer public benefit?’. If it does confer public benefit, then it may qualify under one of the specific items in the list, but if not under the final catch all, any other purpose. So why have a list at all? It helps us to think about the particular aspect of public benefit that may be provided by, and therefore what to look for in, any particular type of organisation.

Now we have to be careful when we talk about public benefit. It is a concept as slippery as quicksilver. It is not benefit to the public. You may hear some presenters turn the words around in this way, perhaps thinking it will make the idea easier to understand, but instead that clouds and misrepresents the meaning. The maintenance of the city walls is of no immediate benefit to the public. The charity whose object is for the relief of poverty in the parish of Nevernewthem in a well-to-do area of the Home Counties, may struggle to actually find any thing it can do in any particular year. Perhaps for many years in a row it provides no benefit to anyone let alone to the public. It is nevertheless established for public benefit. Things can be done for public benefit, which provide no benefit to the public. So, a statue may be placed on the harbour wall in Bristol for public benefit, but parts of the populous, perhaps even a significantly large part consider that it confers no benefit on the public at all. It is a hideous statue, much like a carbuncle on the nose of an old friend. The public do not have to agree that there is a public benefit for there to be public benefit. That there is public benefit is a matter of law not of fact. And, perhaps in the context of this article two things to note about public benefit (see  Public benefit: an overview) in relation to the organisations that we are about to consider are: it has not been considered by the courts in relation to every charitable purpose and it keeps changing. We are back to where I started on this matter: the law of public benefit is like quicksilver.

We may now return to our questions about the CIO. Why would it, being a charitable company, not be suitable for all charities? The answer lies hidden in the depths of what is public benefit. As we have seen it is a legal concept, and furthermore it is an unstable concept. The Charity Commission acknowledge that it has not been tested for all charitable activities, perhaps because there has not been any need to test it as before the 2006 Act there was a presumption that it existed in certain types of activity that were considered to be charitable.

Before the 2006 Act it was the objects of an organisation that determined whether it would be charitable, whatever those objects were. If the objects determined under the then current understanding of the four headings public benefit would be presumed and the organisation would be charitable. Unless it fell under a limited number of exemptions it would have to register with the Charity Commission. So an organisation with a trust deed which sets out a number of specific objects, without calling them charitable but fell under the general heading of religious, concluding with a final statement that ‘the remainder of such moneys funds and property shall be applied for such purpose of a religious or benevolent nature as the Trustees or Trustee shall in their or his absolute and uncontrolled discretion think proper’ was considered to be a charity. But note here, that the Trustees had power to apply funds firstly to purposes of any religious nature. The deed does not require that the religious nature be charitable, and it is known that not all religious activities provide a public benefit which is susceptible to legal proof and thus they fail to qualify as charitable.

This particular organisation was established as a religious organisation not a charity. It was an accident of the understanding of what constituted public benefit at that time, and the presumption of public benefit that religious organisations provided, that it was considered to be a charity. It was not envisaged at the time, not indeed later, that any of the funds of the organisation would ever be applied for the purposes of a religious organisation that was not considered to be charitable, but the trustees had unfettered power to do so, and if the only religious organisation that could benefit because of restrictions elsewhere in the trust deed the trustees would be obliged to apply the funds that they held for that non-charitable organisation with all of the consequences, eg income tax may become due on its income, that might follow.

If such an organisation became a CIO there is the very great risk that its original purpose would be defeated. It could be prevented from applying the funds which had been provided by the benefactors for the very purpose for which they had been provided. In this particular case, presently there would be many religious organisations which would still qualify as charities to which the trustees could apply their funds, but as we have seen the law on public benefit is unstable and has not been tested in all cases. There is no certainty that what is today understood to be religious activities that provide public benefit will still be understood to provide public benefit tomorrow.

Even today there is talk of fundamental and religious extremism which gives rise to activities that clearly do not provide public benefit. The law is a blunt instrument, and it does not take much when parliamentary time is limited for law which is intended to deal with the harmful aspects of extremism to include within it provisions that harm the beneficial aspects of extremism. There are also other pressures within society for organisations to conform to a particular moral ethic, just as in authoritarian or totalitarian systems there are pressures to conform to a particular political view. These pressures place those who hold a different moral ethic at risk. These pressures also change the perception of what public benefit is, and are likely to influence the understanding of what public benefit means in relation to religious activity.

Any change in understanding of public benefit in relation to religious activity should not however require a change in the religious activity of an organisation that has been established for that purpose. The organisation should, unless its activity is overtly harmful and immoral, be allowed to continue to operate in accordance with its objects as a non-charitable organisation. The organisation does not change, but its standing in society changes.

It is this that makes the CIO such a dangerous vehicle for a religious organisation. The CIO can only engage in charitable activities. A religious organisation may become a CIO today because its activities are considered by reason of precedent to be charitable. Tomorrow the law of public benefit may be tested in relation to the activities such as that organisation undertakes and it be discovered that our understanding was incorrect. The precedent was wrong. That organisation’s activities were not charitable and have never been charitable, but it is too late to undo the past; the new understanding applies only from tomorrow. But for that organisation it is too late. It is a CIO, and must now conduct religious activities that comply with the new understanding of the law. It was never established for those new activities. It had been established for a different set of activities which are no longer considered to be charitable. It is known that the original benefactors were agnostic to the charitable status of those activities, and did not provide the endowment for a charitable purpose but for a specific religious purpose. The CIO cannot comply. The objects of the organisation have been defeated.

It is this aspect of a CIO which makes it so dangerous for churches, that is the body of people, the organisation, not the building which that organisation or body uses. Similar considerations apply to the congregations that meet in synagogues and mosques, but I am not speaking to their specific affairs or manner of organising and conducting themselves. I can make no comments at all in respect of the congregations of temples of Hindu or Buddhist leaning.  Different consideration apply to the building, which I submit, do not require that it be on anything other than a simple trust for the use, not the ownership, of a religious organisation (narrowly defined of course). Churches are religious organisations first and foremost. They are not established as charitable organisations, though most of them are recognised as charities. I understand that a few congregations because of their peculiar structure are not presently recognised as charitable.  That they are recognised as charities is an accident of our present understanding of the law of public benefit.

If they become CIO these churches are first and foremost charities which conduct religious activities. In today’s world the understanding of what constitutes public benefit permits churches to do what they have done for two thousand years. In tomorrow’s world there is no guarantee that those activities will be recognised as providing public benefit. The CIO will not be permitted to continue to engage in those activities. If it does there is the very real possibility that the Commissioners will dismiss the trustees and replace them with trustees who will be compliant with the public benefit requirement.

I had almost suggested earlier that the CIO represents State control of a particular type of charity, but thought it better to leave that suggestion for a later point in our discussion. It is no problem for organisations that engage in other types of activity such as the relief of poverty, or the advancement of amateur sport, for these activities are firstly charitable. But for religious organisations, as CIO they are at the mercy of the current understanding of public benefit. Whether the Commissioners step in to change the trustees or not, the possibility that they can if the religious organisation continues to engage in non-charitable activities, place the CIO under the control of the Commissioners who are an arm of the State.  

Religious organisations, whether they are protestant evangelical, Roman Catholic, Jewish or Islamic should not become CIO. There are other forms of incorporation, eg a company limited by guarantee, which provide financial protection to the trustees. I grant that the other approaches do not simplify your routine administration, but they do simplify what happens when what you do ceases to be recognised as charitable. As long as what you do is recognised as charitable, you will be supervised by the Charity Commission. That supervision is good for you and for the communities that you serve. If the law changes and what you have always done ceases to be charity, as a CIO you have to change what you do, but as say a company limited by guarantee you do not have to change what you do, but rather the Charity Commission, after giving you fair warning must remove your registration as a charity and cease to supervise you. The lack of registration as a charity changes your status in society. It may mean that you lose certain exemptions from taxes, but it is the taxing authorities which make those decisions not the Charity Commission.

In summary then, religious organisations are charities only because the law recognises that the activities undertaken by them are charitable. It is not the other way round. Religious organisation do not undertake religious activities because those activities are charitable. The recently introduced Charitable Incorporated Organisation (CIO) turns this on its head. It is a charity first. It can only do charitable things however broadly its objects may have been written.  A religious CIO can only undertake religious activities that are charitable.

A day may come when such religious activities, and those of many other eg evangelical groups (using evangelical in the broad sense of seeking converts to a cause) may not be seen as satisfying the public benefit test. Evangelism causes conflict. Religious moral views also are often contrary to the views of the secular society. Those differences cause conflict. In the Christian tradition we know that the apostle Paul knew that well enough. If religious organisations continue to do those things that are no longer understood to satisfy the public benefit test, then they are free to continue to do them, but they lose their status as charities, and the Charity Commission ceases to have authority to regulate them (unless they continue to do other things which would satisfy the public benefit test, but then only in regard to those matters). A CIO does not have this option. It is a charity, and it cannot conduct activities that are not understood to be charitable. It never ceases to be supervised by the Charity Commission, who can step in to take control if it continues to do ‘bad’ things.

You will hear advice which is contrary to what I have written here in many quarters. Indeed there are some, who promote CIO as if they are exactly what this charity sector needs. I suggest that those who speak in this way have either not understood the risk or have underestimated the magnitude of it.

Churches, and some other groups, are religious organisations. CIO are charities which may undertake approved religious activity. Religious organisations should not become Charitable Incorporate Organisations.

The following documents which are referred to either in the article above or the comments below are included here in case they should cease to be available or their form and content be changed to reflect changes in the law after the date of publication of this article. There is no intention to infringe copyright by the copies available here, nor is there any commercial benefit in doing so. The use of the documents is for academic and educational purposes only :

1 gov.uk: Practice guide 14A_ charitable incorporated organisationsDownload
2 gov.uk: Public benefit an overviewDownload
3 gov.uk: Managing faith charities as trusteesDownload
4 gov.uk: Excepted charitiesDownload
5 fiec.org.uk: Should Your Church Become a CIODownload
6 walkermorris.co.uk: Charitable Incorporated Organisation – is it the right structure for youDownload
7 stewardship.org.uk: Charitable Incorporated Organisations for church charitiesDownload

8 Whilst I have included a pdf copy of these documents here, as the Stewardship document referred to is behind a registration wall it is not included. Should it cease to be available from the Stewardship website, in the first instance please ask Stewardship for a copy, but otherwise I may be able to make my copy available for inspection.

A pdf copy of this article is available hereDownload
A pdf copy with items 3, 5, 6 and 7 of the material referred to above. Download

Letzte Hoffnung in der Wüste

~ admin ~ Leave a comment

Letzte Hoffnung in der Wüste

Having received visitors this last week, a small gift was tendered wrapped in newspaper. It was no insult to receive the gift in newspaper, for it is the gift that matters not the wrapping in which it comes, unless of course you are under three years old when you want to play with the wrapping and the boxes more than the gift. The newspaper was not the kind of newspaper that you would find in the chippie, it was actually quite good quality paper, it was crisp and pleasing to the touch, and certainly gave the impression that the ink would not soon be found on your hands if you handled it, so clearly it derived from a news outlet that thought rather more of its output than that it was merely ephemeral.

That impression was reinforced by the words that were so clearly visible on the paper as it had been folded, and they had been left revealed: Hoffnung in der Wüste. This I concluded was a serious paper with a serious intent and reflected well upon the character of our visitors. This was not an article about Gerard Hoffnung, or an extract from Hoffning’s Tales. Hope in the Wilderness was the title. What was it about? I wondered. What was the hope, and what was the wilderness? Was the wilderness a symbolic wilderness, a representation of the society in which we live? What was the hope? How was the hope to be had? Perhaps there are many things that trouble you about our society, for all of its optimism, there is much that leaves us asking Why? The recent tremors in Anatolia rather diminish the troubles we see in the Hesperos.

Sadly, as the unwrapping proceeded it became clear that the intent of the article was not quite what the premonition had suggested. A word had been concealed. The title was not Hoffnung in der Wüste, but rather Letzte Hoffnung in der Wüste – the last hope. It was not so much an expression of hope as of despair. How quickly our hopes can be dashed in this world. A mere addition of a word changes everything. In a few hours or days our plans may be brought crashing down, and not for anything that we had done. Even more the mood was changed when the strap line of the article was revealed: Eine göttliche Komödie. And, no, that is nothing to do with Komodo dragons. Your first thought was correct, it is a comedy. There was no serious intent either in the article itself, or in the thing that it was describing. Could we fall further? Well, it is not wholly kosher, and perhaps then not at all kosher, and neither is it halal. But what does that matter? As the Lord said a man is not defiled by what goes into the mouth, but by what comes out of it, for what comes out of it proceeds from his heart, whether it is good words or evil words. Have you tried to stop the evil words coming out? Try it. Even stopping the smallest ones is quite tricky. It will quickly show what the heart is really like. And if the heart is like that we really do need a good hope. We do not want a last hope, for the last hope will be no better than any of the other false hopes in which we have pinned our success.

There is a hope, which is wholly kosher, it is the hope of Israel. It is the hope in which God subjected the whole of creation to its present state, in order that in due time it would be restored to a glory far greater than has ever been known. ¹God has promised that as a result of the work of his Son, saying, ‘Yet once more I shake not only the earth, but also heaven.’ Now this, ‘Yet once more,’ indicates the removal of those things that are being shaken, as of things that are made, that the things which cannot be shaken may remain.

We have this hope in Jesus Christ of a new world which cannot be shaken. It is a sure and certain hope, not an empty hope or the last hope of the man in the wilderness, but in a sense it is the last hope for in the fulfilment of this hope we shall receive what has been promised, and there shall be no need of hope any more.

Letzte Hoffnung in der Wüste

Hebrews 12:26-27 …now He has promised, saying, ‘Yet once more I shake not only the earth, but also heaven.’ Now this, ‘Yet once more,’ indicates the removal of those things that are being shaken, as of things that are made, that the things which cannot be shaken may remain.

The mercy of God

~ admin ~ Leave a comment

You might ask: why is he saying this on this day? Well plough on…

It was the sinking of the Thai destroyer a week or so ago that provoked the thought, but it could have been any other of many recent and not so recent events. King David spoke in this way: Those who go down to the sea in ships, who do business on great waters, they see the works of the Lord, and his wonders in the deep. For he commands and raises the stormy wind, which lifts up the waves of the sea to mount up to the heavens and go down again to the depths. Their souls melt because of trouble. They reel to and fro, and stagger like drunken men, and are at their wits’ end. Then they cry out to the Lord in their trouble, and he brings them out of their distress. He calms the storm, so that its waves are still. Then they are glad because they are quiet; so he guides them to their desired haven. Oh, that men would give thanks to the Lord for his goodness, and for his wonderful works to the children of men! Let them exalt him also in the assembly of the people, and praise him in the company of the elders. (Psalm 107)

We often think of the old tars as a rum lot. Men can be shamed by the suggestion that their language is such as even a sailor would not use. And we shall leave aside any comment on their personal lives which are likely more chaotic than what is common place in Neighbours or East Enders.

But they are men who despite their overtly godless lives display a fear of God. As the king spoke in the storm they cry out to the Lord. Yes, they feared the storm, but they also feared God. Not only do they fear him, they hope for something more. The psalm shows us what this is, it is the greatness of the mercy of God. The sailor who is swept overboard, to whom does his soul cry as his voice screams out above the roar of the sea to his ship mates? Who is it that hears him, and who rescues him? He is lost to the sea, but his mates are sailors who commit the lost of their fellow crewman to the sea and to the mercy of God their Maker.

We have an innate sense of the mercy of God, just as we have of his justice and his being. We carry it with us in every generation, in every nation, tribe and tongue. It may be deeply buried, covered with layer upon layer of religiosity or political dogma, but it cannot be suppressed. If God is god, he must be just and merciful. A god who is just but not merciful is a tyrant. A god who is merciful but not just is a failure. But the true and living God showed his justice and his mercy at the beginning when he spoke to Adam and Eve, and the memory of that remains with all of us to this very day.

It was about two thousand years ago that he fulfilled the promise he made; if you celebrate Christmas according to the Gregorian calendar, then today is the day you remember the birth of the one who would be born to die not as we do for our own sins, for he had none, but as the sinless Lamb of God to take away the sin of the world. In the birth of this one, the mercy of God is demonstrated in superlativity, God takes flesh to die in the place of men.

When we consider our own lives, we may despair of them. What good have we done? We search it out and we find none. We find only mistakes and failures. Even the things we think we did well, we look more carefully and what do we find? Did we do good for its own sake, or for the praise that it brought to us? How have we treated others? As we want them to treat us, or merely as slaves to do what we want for us? Or we may look at what we think we have done of good, and find that it is illusory or ephemeral. It lasted a day, and it was gone. Like the ripples on a pond after stone has been thrown in, they wane and vanish. The wind blows and no trace remains. We do not deserve the mercy of God. No-one does. If mercy were deserved, it would not be mercy.

When the King wrote ‘they cry out to the Lord in their trouble’ he did not follow it with ‘and God asked, Why? What good have you done?’. No, the king simply added: ‘he brings them out of their distress’. The rescue was unconditional. They cried he rescued.

The terrorist (for that is what he really was) spoke to the King of Glory as he hung on the cross, but was not asked ‘Why should I remember you?’. He was simply told: Today, you shall be with me in Paradise.

How many others who go down to the sea in ships, and were lost but cried out to him who was born in Bethlehem and died on the cross have also heard his voice ‘Today! Today, you shall be with me.’

We do not deserve his mercy, but he sent his Son, as many remember today, to show his mercy to the children of men.

O that men would praise the Lord for his goodness to the children of men.

Abyssal

~ admin ~ 1 Comment

I came across a new word today and thought to look it up. Well, it is not exactly a new word, but it was used in quite an unexpected context. The abyss is what we expect it to be, a deep, unfathomable hole, pit, mine labyrinth or whatever else may have the physical quality of depth, such as the sea. We speak of the abyss for depths beyond the fathoms we can count on two hands. So what is abyssal?

We also speak of the unfathomable wisdom of God. Paul declared: ‘O the depths of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgements and how inscrutable are his ways.’ His thinking is unfathomable, and therefore we could say abyssal. We speak of quiet rivers that run deep, in the context of men of few words but who think deeply, and when they speak, speak wisely. We could say of them that they are abyssal thinkers. They have abyssal thoughts. Just in case it needs to be said, but I hope the next few words are wasted, abyssal (deep) is not abysmal (out of the deep). Abysmal has a similar meaning, but it is, perhaps we could say, the negative form of the word. Abysmal thinking does not bear the fruit of wisdom but rather of folly.

So, when I heard the word used of thinking in a sociological context my understanding was quite straightforward. We need abyssal thinking in order to evaluate, analyse and understand the particular set of data that was being presented to us. I could hardly disagree. Deep thinking is indeed required to understand a complex data-set. Sometimes I wonder why we use jargon like that – data-set – a list of facts. We have to marshal our facts, place some on the right, and some on the left, and between them, the abyss. Woe to you who place the facts on the wrong side, your conclusions will be as defective as your placements.

But no, so it seems, we do not need abyssal thinking. We have to abandon it. At that point I understood that perhaps there is a meaning hidden somewhere in the abyssal depths of language to the word which I had failed to grasp. A quick read of a Wikipedia article might be a good place to start before reading the academic paper, so I looked up ‘abyssal – sociology’. Yes, Wikipedia has an article. What happened next may have been an artefact of the bug within my browser, but this is the article as you may see (or otherwise) in the picture below.

Abyssal – sociology

Yes, I have edited the screen shot. I have removed the endless (following an example and to use the word incorrectly) list of other open tabs, cut out my favourite icons, and removed some of the white space at the bottom of the screen, nevertheless what you see in this picture is what I see in the browser. I took it to be a message about the true meaning of abyssal. Just as it means unfathomable, it is itself unfathomable, as I was about to discover.

The article does exist. Refreshing the page brought it back out of the albanic abyss. Now recently I found myself in agreement with a sociologist, but today perhaps not. The opening words of the paper seem innocuous enough: Modern Western thinking is an abyssal thinking. I think (sic!) that that statement would even be true firstly without the first word and then also without the second. When we think we do it in order to reach a conclusion. We have to work something out, and that working out requires that we separate one side of the arguments from the other. There is an abyss between the arguments for (pros) and the arguments against (cons). Our thinking must identify that abyss and correctly position the evidence around it. (My quantumly minded friends may leave aside any notion they may have of the possibility of tunnelling through the abyss, and fans of Star Trek should for the time being refrain from using their warp drives). This is the way that logic works.

The paper then goes on however to present quite a different understanding of abyssal thinking. The abstract gives the game away by telling us that in the context of a particular struggle that a new kind of thinking is required, a post-abyssal thinking. I have misunderstood the use of the word abyssal. Indeed, if I have any kind of correct understanding at all of what is being said, it would not matter what word was used, as it is simply being used as a peg on to which to hang his argument that the ‘West’ (whatever that may mean) has a lot for which to answer if it is going to redeem its ‘colonial’ past, suggesting indeed that what is actually required is the overthrow of ‘Western’ thought.

We could have easily as said ‘Modern Western thinking is Tweedledeedum thinking‘. The paper does identify some parts of some Western thinking that is flawed, and clearly where thinking is flawed (Tweedledeedum) then it should be abandoned. A little careful abyssal thinking will help us find out those flaws.

Secondly, the paper does not appear to be about active thinking, that is what we do when we work with our minds to solve a problem, but rather about passive established opinions, which may be held thoughtlessly, and which may drive our actions and our views of other people.

I expect to be told that an overthrow is not what is meant. I disagree. The modern solution to many problems has involved an overthrow. The French revolution fell into the trap. Marx clearly propounded it, and we see the consequences in the countless deaths both in the Soviet Union and China as a consequence of the ruthless application of his doctrine. It is not true to say if we destroy everything we shall have a better world, but it suits those who want power in their own hands and not the hands of somebody else.

Thirdly, the paper appears only to be destructive in its intent. It characterises all modern Western thinking as abyssal (actually, I think it really intends to say abysmal), but there is much in Western thinking that is quite different to the straw man that it sets out.

Where is honour, respect, personality and individuality given to women if not in Western thought? Where is equal honour given to all men and women before the law without distinction as to class, caste, or religion if not in Western thought? Where is the rule of law respected above the rule of the despot if not in Western thought? And what is the invisible hand beneath this, if not the hand of God in his Word, which shows what he in his providence has established for the good of mankind? Without the influence of the Word of God in our society, we would be as bleak as those that are characterised here as on the other side of the line. I am not suggesting that all is as it should be, but certainly it is the case that not all is not as it should be.

I would like to take some words from the paper and apply them in a different context.

“To give an example based on [events in the past twenty years, Cathay’s] modernity may be characterised as a socio−political paradigm founded on the tension between social regulation and social emancipation. This is the visible distinction that founds all [eastern] conflicts, both in terms of substantive issues and in terms of procedures. But underneath this distinction there is another, invisible one, upon which the visible one is founded. This invisible one is the distinction between metropolitan societies (Peking) and colonial territories (Hong Kong). Indeed, the regulation/emancipation dichotomy only applies to metropolitan societies. It would be unthinkable to apply it to colonial territories. The regulation/emancipation dichotomy has no conceivable place in such territories. There, another dichotomy would apply, the dichotomy between appropriation/violence, which, in turn, would be inconceivable if applied on this side of the line. Because the colonial territories were unthinkable as sites for the unfolding of the paradigm of regulation/emancipation, the fact that the latter did not apply to them did not compromise the paradigm’s universality. “

Perhaps a Marxist would disagree with the suggested emendations.

As for abyssal thinking, I suggested at the start that this word does indeed characterise our thinking, whether we are Western, Eastern or Southern, but let us be careful that it does not also characterise the outcome of our thinking. Our words to others should not be abyssal, lest they be unfathomable, incomprehensible and abysmal.

It is only God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit who is unfathomable, unsearchable, inscrutable, abyssal, which we may sum up in but one word, ineffable, but revealed to us in Jesus Christ. Glory to his Name!

The paper by the way may be found here: https://www.eurozine.com/beyond-abyssal-thinking/

And a refutation of abyssal thinking in the context of racialised bilinguality here: https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10134372/1/Rejecting%20abyssal%20thinking%20in%20the%20language%20and%20education%20of%20racialized%20bilinguals%20A%20manifesto.pdf

Exposing the truth

~ admin ~ Leave a comment

Three rather interesting short articles on the BBC, the first clearly shows how seriously we should take Critical Race Theory.

Lack of ethnic diversity among egg and sperm donors
Richard Drax: Jamaica eyes slavery reparations from Tory MP
Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie: Author warns about ‘epidemic of self-censorship’

The fault, and cause, of a shortage of resources in a minority culture is clearly to be attributed to the dominant culture for whom the greatest of opprobrium is to be reserved. The particular shortage is of the shortage of the two essential elements in the making of a human being, and though the answer is of course a mother and a father that is not what they mean, they focus purely on the biological elements, eggs and sperm derived from a minority culture in the UK. It is described as a lack of ethnic diversity by the HFEA. In this instance the minority culture highlighted was West Indian, and by inference Afro-Caribbean. Common sense may find a different and more plausible cause and dismiss the suggestion of fault and blame altogether.

The second also takes us to the Caribbean, and in particular to the island of Jamaica, whose government joining arms with Barbados is considering seeking reparations from the current British owner of a plantation for the treatment of slaves before 1833. The grounds of the case may rest in Critical Race Theory or Identity Politics – as these are mercurial concepts I leave it as an exercise for you, dear Reader, to make the correct assessment. The article does not say whether reparations will also be sought from those who made their fortunes and built their kingdoms in West Africa from the enslavement of those who were taken by sea to the Caribbean or overland to the Middle East. I dare say any law firm which takes up the case will be kept busy for many a day, whether or not their solicitors benefited from the education they received at the institutions which were established or funded out of wealth derived from estates established long before 1833.

The third article reports on an author who, seeing through all of this nonsense, speaks of an epidemic of self-censorship and the inability to ask questions because of a fear of asking the wrong sort of questions. This author speaks of a place for valid criticism, which is essential if there is to be meaningful debate, but of no place for an ugly, violent backlash against those who speak a view which is contrary to your own. The aim of debate is not to silence but to convince. Where would we be without the progressive Hypothesis-Antithesis cycle which leads to greater understanding and better hypotheses? But in Cancel Culture the Antithesis must not be spoken. What progress can be made? The proponents of Darwinian evolution have successfully cancelled academic examination of their stories, despite Darwin’s own warnings to them that his hypothesis would fail in the absence of certain conditions, one of which remains absent, a second of which has been strongly overturned. This cancellation has turned biological science into a blind alley seeking to prove that which cannot be proven and failing to pursue enquiries which will yield beneficial results.

It is good to see their willingness to expose, albeit perhaps unwittingly, the short falls, indeed perils, of that which has taken deep root in a society which, in its post-modernist thinking (if thinking is a post-modernist activity), has lost its moorings, Critical Race Theory, Identity Politics, Cancel Culture and a host of other ‘critical’ theories which are no more nor less critical than the sledgehammer used of the builder to demolish* a wall. How we need to return to the law of the Lord which makes men wise.

Look at how King David spoke of it: Restoration – pursuing the right paths. Making wise – enabling us to understand the vast universe in which we live. Rejoicing – do we not when we look at all of the marvels of nature: the stars, the galaxies, the cosmos, the depths of complexity in the living cells, the molecular machines that keep us alive. Enlightening – revealing the secrets of the universe to us. Enduring – they are not fickle, they are unchanging, we can rely on them. Righteous – they provide the grounds on which human society can flourish.

The law of the Lord is perfect, restoring the soul;
The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple;
The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart;
The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes;
The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever;
The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.
More to be desired are they than gold,
Yea, than much fine gold;
Sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb.
Moreover by them Your servant is warned,
And in keeping them there is great reward.
Psalm 19

*The oxymoron is deliberate. Builders do not demolish, they build. In true Critical Language Theory style as set out by Lewis Carroll so long ago: builder “means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less”.

Evil: the problem of it

~ admin ~ Leave a comment

You will have heard it said: I cannot believe in God. Look at the evil in the world! Or perhaps more personally: I saw how they treated each other even though they believed in God. I cannot believe in that.

I should like to show that the very reason that is given for not believing in God, is the very reason that says you must believe in him. Now this is a short article and will not necessarily answer all the questions you may have, and certainly will not be an exhaustive description of all the possible understandings of the problem.

We do not shy away from the fact that there is evil in the world. We acknowledge it. It exists. Nor do we shy away from the fact that evil must be redressed. There is within each one of us a sense of justice. That is wrong, we say, it must be put right. The perpetrator must be punished! We want justice. At times we want revenge, but that is a desire for justice coupled with an evil intention on our part. The one who does wrong must pay. Recompense for wrong must be made. Compensation is required. All of these thoughts and the feelings associated with them arise because evil exists and we know it is wrong.

So, there is a problem of evil which we must face. There is also its corollary, the problem of justice. If there is a problem of evil, then there is also the problem of justice: how shall evil be dealt with fairly and rightly?

In a world where gravity rules, and objects without support fall inexorably to the ground, it is no use pretending that we as human beings can fly. We shall learn quickly, but only briefly, that we cannot. Of course it is possible to mitigate the effects of a fall. It is also possible to design machines that will support us in the air, and allow us to fly, no, rather fly for us. In order to do this we must have both a correct understanding of gravity, and its operation, even if we do not understand, and as yet we do not, how it operates and a correct understanding of the materials used and their interactions, for example aerodynamically, for the construction of the machines.

In the same way in this world where evil is, it is no use pretending that evil does not exist, though of course we wish it did not. As with gravity we must try to understand it, in order to mitigate its effects and potentially overcome it. It is when we commence this journey of understanding that we discover how difficult it is.

So we might ask: who opened Pandora’s box? This is an old, but the not oldest explanation, of the problem. There was a time when evil was safely locked away in a box, but the box was then opened. The solution then is to put everything back into the box. That is more easily said than done. I shall not describe the failure of the process of repacking the box, it is really self-evident. In any event, this explanation ignores the obvious. It sets evil apart as if it were distinct from men and our actions.  We know however that it is men who commit acts of evil against other men. The problem is one in our own hearts, as each of us knows. We find it in ourselves, though we say that we are not as bad as Mrs Neredogood or Mr Al Waysbad.

The atheist, building upon the nineteenth century works of uniformitarianism and Darwinian evolution*, has come up with the novel explanation that our evil acts are in fact good acts. Nature is red in tooth and claw for the benefit of the species. The arms race which we see in nature is necessary for the progress of the species. The rule of law is non-existent, unless the survival of the fittest is regarded as law. Death is non-existent; it is merely a rearrangement of the cells and chemical machines which make up the cells. Disease is simply a mal-functioning of the machines, or evidence of a potentially lost battle in the war between the species. There is no problem of evil, it is simply the way we describe the important and necessary tools which brought the human species out on top and will pave the way for the emergence of superior races in the future.

This atheistic hope, or religion, however fails on its own grounds. It believes that the war must continue. It believes that the individual has no intrinsic value apart from being a type of the species, but it is unwilling to reach, or is that articulate, the obvious conclusion that it is right, as we see in nature, that the weak, the sick, the lame, the blind, the deaf, the deprived are entirely disposable. It is the fit that must propagate, not the weak. Just as nature promotes the survival of the fittest not of the weak, so then should we. But the atheist does not go around disposing of the weak, rather he shows humanity and care for them. He promotes their rights. But what rights are they? On the basis of his doctrine, no man has any rights, he is just a chemical machine. The atheist cannot suppress his humanity, the doctrine of which rests upon an entirely different foundation than that on which he rests his faith. The atheist also wants to defeat the very forces (of evil) which brought us into (in his understanding) existence.

The atheist offers no answer, only contradictions.

Many religions recognising the problem in this world lay before us a separation of good and evil. In this system of apartheid, there is the prospect of another place in which there shall be no evil, and a system of rites is set out which may enable the devotee to gain access to that other place. On the other side, set apart, there is the place where evil continues to be perpetrated by beings which are wholly evil on those who fail to acquire the right to enter the better place. There is a way to escape they say. Do this!

Others recognising the problem of evil is actually in our hearts look forward to a dissolution of our whole being into a cosmic enlightenment. More properly this could be regarded as the dissolving of our identity and personality in the eternal being. What ’being’ means in that context is a disputed concept, and I suppose if true, cannot be properly understood until you are there, but the generally considered view is that when you are there you are no longer you. You have not ceased to exist, but rather you have been completed. In being completed the things that made you you have been taken away. I found it helpful to think of an extension being added to a house. Whilst it is being built (life on earth) it has a separate existence to the house, but the day arrives when it is assimilated into the house. It does not cease to exist, but has no existence apart from the house. It has no personal identity, it shares the identity of the house, and before long no-body knows that it was ever not there.

Both of these positions address the problem of evil, and face up to it, but both do not deal adequately with the problem of justice. The way they face up to the problem of evil is however only to offer an escape from it.

In the first case they say if you do right you may go into this good place. That does not deal with evil. The one who goes into the good place takes with him his own nature which has within it all the elements of evil that were present in this world. How soon then will it be, and it matters not whether it is a short time or an eternity, before the evil in that heart is manifest in the good place? The problem of evil has not been taken away.

Secondly, it does not address the problem of justice. There is an acknowledgement that all do evil, but the good that is done may at the end outweigh the evil and allow entrance to the good place. What about the evil that has been done by these, and which has not been dealt with justly? What if that evil had been done against one who had not been admitted to the good place, will that one not have a valid complaint that justice has not been done on his behalf? The solution offered is one that appeals to the wicked heart: I am alright Jack.

In the second case evil in the heart has to be dealt with before the dissolution or completion can take place. Various rites are proposed for the dealing with this evil heart, which can lead to an almost endless cycle of being. The rites however only deal with the appearance of evil, not its internal roots. The washing of the flesh; the discipline of the body concerning food or sleep; the provision of alms; these are all external matters, and do not deal with the desires of the heart, soul, mind or eyes.

And again the problem of justice is not addressed. We sometimes say: he escaped justice. We mean the man died before he could be brought to court to be punished. A man may reach the completion stage before those whom he previously wronged have been given justice.

Religions in their many forms merely offer an escape. The escape is both from the evil of this world, and from the justice which they justly face.

If there really is an answer to the problem of evil, it must also answer the problem of justice. I have shown so far that men only offer two answers. One says there is no problem. The other offers an escape from one and no answer for the other. So is there no hope? Is there really no answer?

No, there is an answer which satisfies both the problem of evil and the problem of justice, but it is not an answer of men’s devising. It runs contrary to our ways of thinking, turning on their heads our ideas of success, wealth, health, prosperity, goodness, love, wisdom, leadership and many others, most of which we have no space to consider here.

There is only one teaching which addresses completely the two problems. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, everything in them and man in his own image. The man failed to be obedient to God and brought sin into the world. On that day God placed a curse upon the world, and gave a promise that one day he would lift that curse through a child born of a woman. We have a saying: like father like son. Some we know escape from that, but in general terms it is true. We read that Adam had a son in his own image. That image contained the same rebellion and disobedience that Adam had admitted into his own heart, and the heart of every man since has been tainted with the same disobedience, so that we cry out: we shall not have this man to rule over us. It is as true today as when it was first said. We hear it often – only recently in both of the United States the supporters of the loser have raised the same cry against the winner. The cry may be against men, or against our Maker.

This is the problem of evil which we clearly recognise. It is both external, in the curse upon the world, and internal, in the state of our hearts. The external evil is both punishment (eg in toil you shall eat bread) and reminder (eg thorns and thistles the ground shall bring forth). The whole of creation is pictured as groaning under the curse longing for the day that it shall be lifted. And we are the cause of it. The state of our hearts results in all manner of evil in our lives. Some exhibit these things more than others, and some in different ways than others. They may be described in this way: Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like (Galations 5:19-21). Now you may not agree with all of the items on the list – the adulterer may not like the first item, but the one who is wronged who is his partner is unlikely to want to remove it – but you will agree with at least some of them. These are the things that are in our hearts and which cause evil in this world in the mistreatment of others.  The problem of evil is not ignored and not downplayed.

The problem of justice is also addressed: Rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. (Romans 13:3-4) Provision has been made for justice to be done in this world. Of course there are always those who escape this justice, but cannot escape justice itself. Given that God has made provision for justice we are told (Romans 12:19) do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; and then to show that no-one shall escape justice for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. Men may escape the justice of the underlords of this world, but cannot escape from the overlord.

So Christian doctrine then clearly recognises the problems of both evil and justice; is a solution also provided? Christian teaching does indeed provide a solution, again not based on the ideas of men, but revealed to us from God.

Firstly we note what God has said: (Deuteronomy 11:26-28) Behold, I set before you today a blessing and a curse: the blessing, if you obey the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you today; and the curse, if you do not obey the commandments of the Lord your God, but turn aside from the way which I command you today, to go after other gods which you have not known. This is echoed back in the New Testament (Galatians 3:10): Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.

The religions of men set before men rites, rules and regulations to follow, but fail to make it clear that it is not a matter of measuring how many times you keep them against how many times you fail. It is made very clear you must continue in all things, not just some of the time but all of the time. Any failure, no matter how slight, breaks the law (James 2:10) For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all. Many say: Oh, it is but a peccadillo. But if it is such a little thing, why do it? The law says drive at 20mph, but you drive at 21. It does not matter you say, it is only a little thing. If it is only a little think why is it such a difficulty to you to obey the law? To stumble in one point, however small, reveals the attitude of the heart towards the law, and the readiness of the heart to break it. Christian teaching places everyone guilty under the law. The problem of evil is not ignored.  

Furthermore, the manner of cleansing from the guilt of this evil is not downplayed. Religions often have regulations concerning washings, food and drink, but what do we read? (Matthew 15: 17-20) The Lord Jesus said: Do you not yet understand that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and is eliminated? But those things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile a man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. These are the things which defile a man, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man. Again, we see that it is not external things that can assist or defile us. They do no good, but are merely (Hebrews 9:9-10) symbolic for the present time. In [the Tabernacle] both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make him who performed the service perfect in regard to the conscience –  [they were] concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation.

The washing with water, whether in a baptism or a river; the sacrifice of food or drink, whether on an altar or by denial; these things do not change our hearts though they may discipline our bodies.

The solution is not in a system of rites, regulations and rules, but that system does provide a symbol of what is required. In the system gifts and sacrifices were offered which could not make perfect, clean or complete, but each one was symbolic of a sacrifice that would achieve that.

For the solution we go back to the first promise, that a man would come to deal with the curse. That man, Jesus, came born of a virgin as foretold. He is the seed of the woman, not of Adam. Here we have a real man, born of a woman but not of the will of man. This man came into the world to be born. We came into the world when we were born. This one was in the beginning with God, by nature was God, and is a real man, who could be touched and handled.

This man is the one who would deal with the problem of evil in both its internal and external forms and the problem of justice.

There is no solution unless it addresses with both of these problems.

Jesus in his ministry demonstrated his ability to do just this. He showed his power over external evil by healing the sick, giving sight to the blind, casting out demons, feeding the hungry, crushing the power of the storm and in many other things. He taught that the heart had to be changed, and that we could not do that of ourselves a man had to be born again of the Spirit. It was not a making better of the old that was required, but a new heart altogether. He would be the provider of that new heart. The old would be taken away. Paul expressed it in this way: (2 Corinthians 5:17) Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.

He demonstrated an approach to justice which took some aback. A lame man was brought to him. Jesus pronounced his sins forgiven. An adulteress was brought to him for stoning, and he refusing to condemn her told her to sin no more. When asked by his disciples how often they should forgive their brother he replied: (Matthew 18:22) I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven. He then told them a story about a lack of forgiveness at the end of which he intimates that if we wish to be forgiven, and we may be, then we must also forgive others. The servant who refused to forgive another was required to pay his debt in full for justice is required: so my heavenly Father also will do to you if each of you, from his heart, does not forgive his brother.

But on what basis could forgiveness be offered? Justice does not provide for forgiveness and cannot require that a man forgive another for the wrong that has been done. Justice requires a penalty which exactly fits the wrong. It is an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and a life for a life. Justice may require a pound of flesh, but it cannot in the process also exact even a millilitre of blood. Our attempts to measure the penalties for any wrong doing are flawed and inadequate, but in some measure in our societies we try to achieve a balance between the demands of the wronged and the rights of the wrong doer in order to fulfil the requirements of justice. There is one who has no difficulty, and whose judgement is never flawed or misdirected. David recognised this when offered a choice of penalties for his sin: (2 Samuel 24:13) Please let us fall into the hand of the Lord, for His mercies are great; but do not let me fall into the hand of man. Only if justice is done can we think about forgiveness.

So then, we have found that Christian doctrine takes seriously the problem of evil and the problem of justice. Justice requires a penalty for evil, all men have in some way contributed to evil, and none is able to make any change to the situation. We are condemned, and any right minded person must understand this. Men’s religions recognise this, but in seeking to minimise the implications can only offer failing solutions.

The solution is found in that justice is done.  Jesus himself declares that it was for this very purpose that he came into the world. Whilst teaching his disciples about leadership he said of himself Mark 10:45: For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many. If men are condemned by the law, then a penalty must be paid. This penalty is the ransom price. The price is high; it is a life for a life.

And so Jesus in due time was taken by his enemies and handed over by them to be crucified as a ransom for many. He did not deserve to die. Even the man who condemned him asked: Mark 15:14 What wrong has he done? And on more than one occasions stated John 18:38 19:4 and 6: I find no fault in him. The Lord gave his enemies an opportunity to present their case: John 8:46 Which of you convicts me of sin? And if I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? They did not answer him but rather suggested, as they knew well he was not, that he was a demon possessed Samaritan.

The real man Jesus then was crucified, becoming a curse for everyone who hangs on a tree is cursed (Galatians 3:13). In becoming a curse he becomes able to lift the curse that is on creation. He had already demonstrated his power over creation, in his death he acquired the legal right to give effect to the necessary transformation. In his death he also paid the ransom price, by paying the penalty that was due to us for our sin. The penalty was paid not for himself, and as the penalty he paid was far greater, for though he suffered death as a man, it was God who hung on the cross. The price he paid then is a ransom price not for one but for many.

On the basis of having fulfilled the law’s demands therefore he acquired the legal right to forgive sins. We have already mentioned that the Lord had said: Vengeance is mine, I will repay. On the cross he did that. He exacted vengeance and paid the debt. Now he may offer and give forgiveness to men. And we who receive that forgiveness learn to forgive those who do evil against us. Justice is satisfied.

The Christian doctrine then takes seriously the problem of evil and the corollary problem of justice. It does not play down any aspect of either but faces squarely up to both. It also holds that God in his Son Jesus has dealt with both of these problems by an act in our history and the history of this world.

No other religion, ethic or philosophy faces up to the problems adequately, leaving either one or the other unfulfilled.

Another aspect of the Christian doctrine of evil is that it is intrinsic in the heart of man, as we have shown above – out of the heart of man proceed… – but that God deals with this by giving men new hearts. Again we made reference to this above – a man must be born again. This is a radical change in the nature of a man. It is not completed in this life, for the new heart is born into the old body. This life for a believer in Christ become a place of conflict. It is not an external conflict, but an internal one in which the new heart struggles to overcome the old. The Christian is encourage not to be conformed to the [oldway] but to be transformed and become like Christ. The transformation is guaranteed to be completed on the basis of the promise and the power of God in Jesus Christ and his faithfulness to his own word.

Christian doctrine thus address both the problem of evil and the problem of justice. Forgiveness is obtained by ensuring that justice is done, thus satisfying the problem of justice, and the evil heart of the forgiven man is removed and a new heart given thus removing the root of evil in men.

Concerning the future, there are rightly identified two outcomes for men, but neither are the outcomes posited by men’s religions. Neither outcome would adequately address the twin problems of evil and justice if any aspect of Christian doctrine were removed.

If we may refer to these as the good and the bad outcome in order to avoid prejudgements, the good outcome is that the curse shall be lifted from the present creation, and believers shall live on a renewed earth, which shall be the same as, but utterly different than the present earth, in bodies which shall be the same as, but utterly different than our present bodies. There is not another place for us. The characteristics of this place may be described in the following terms which Paul uses immediately after describing the characteristic actions of evil: the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control (Galatians 5:22-23). The detail is left for another day for (1 Corinthians 2:9) eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor have entered into the heart of man the things which God has prepared for those who love him. If we enjoy the blessing of God in this world, alloyed as it is with evil and sin, what joy will it be when sin has been removed from the world and your hearts!

The bad outcome is not as posited by some a place of torment by demons and other evil creatures. It is a place of justice. Vengeance is mine, I shall repay says the Lord. The Lord described it as a place of weeping and gnashing of teeth, where the worm does not die and the fire is not quenched. It is a fearful description and the physical reality of it is beyond our imagination, but it is not a place where demons have a free reign of terror over men. They too are consigned in chains so that they cannot torment men ever again. The weeping and gnashing of teeth hint at what is going on. One of the Psalms references the place also, in a description that is perhaps more fearful than we find here: Psalm 129:8 Let not those who pass by them say, ‘The blessing of the Lord be upon you; We bless you in the name of the Lord!’ I have only quoted one verse, it is enough. That place is a place where the blessing of God is absent. All of the good things we enjoy here shall be gone. The love of family and friends, the sound of singing, the sound of gladness of heart, the sight of dancing will all be gone. Men will grieve over what has been lost never having given God thanks for it, and now having lost it curse God for their loss. The punishment will not be anything more or less than is deserved, and men will know that. As one thief cried out to the other: (Luke 23:40-41) Do you not even fear God, seeing you are under the same condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong, they will know that they are there justly. And this worm shall not die.

Conclusion

You will have heard it said: I cannot believe in God. Look at the evil in the world! Or perhaps more personally: I saw how they treated each other even though they believed in God. I cannot believe in that. But no, I can only reply: Look at all the evil in the world! Look at how they treat one another even though they believe in God! I must believe in him for he is the only one who has, and has provided, the answer to all of this.

* This article is not the place to discuss the failure of both uniformitarianism and Darwinism. Suffice it to say that whilst they fail as a consequence of external evidences, they actually fail on their own terms and internal structures.

Editors

~ admin ~ Leave a comment

There is increasing evidence that the editor no longer reads the articles placed in the newspaper critically. Sometimes the most obvious mistakes are made, up with which the later Sir Winston would not have put but which featured often in the Grauniad. Take this as a recent example:

“Up to half of people died when the Black Death swept through Europe in the mid-1300s.”

I wondered whether the editor had read the title, saw who wrote it and concluded that having obtained his own degree at the LSE he would not have a hope of understanding what the gentleman scientist had said so simply signed it off. Perhaps the words following ‘A pioneering study analysing the DNA…’ confirmed him in his misconception.

However, such mistakes are evident even to the man on the Clapham omnibus to whom the learned judge appealed, and are just as likely to appear in the work of this uneditored writer as in that which has passed the mis-scrutiny of the most eagle-eyed editor when presented with academic superiority. ‘Trust the science’ we have often been told of what was heralded as a new Black Death, but as the ASA has noted recently in relation to the green-washing of a bank without borders, it is possible to present the science without disclosing all of the relevant and material facts.

Now I am sure you have seen the obvious mistake that the editor missed, but did you see the second? The context of the article is Europe, so we do not need to consider death rates outside Europe, which may have been more or, it is thought perhaps, less than that among Europeans. There is a missing article in the sentence; possibly also a qualifier, and adjective or adjectival phrase, for the word people which would be helpful towards the understanding of what is said.

But the second mistake is perhaps even more clear: that there are no survivors today of the Black Death that swept through Europe in the 14th century, tells us quite clearly that all of the people of Europe have died who lived in the time of the Black Death. It was not simply half of them, and in the manner of counting deaths from the recent plague, all of them having had contact with the Black Death and were therefore Black Death deaths.

Science is useful, but when you hear the words ‘Trust the science’, ask: Which science? The science of yesterday, of today or of tomorrow? Let the scientist remember that the science of today is often overturned by that of tomorrow. Is the certainty of what science says 5%, 70% or 95% ? But as every man who goes into a betting shop knows, even a cert (100%) does not win every race.

But there is one who is the same yesterday, today and forever. Do not be carried about with various and strange doctrines). He may be trusted when he speaks, so when you hear his voice do not harden your hearts against him. Jesus cries out: Come to me all who labour and are heavy laden, and I shall give you rest. We of today must all die as those of the 14th century did, but he has overcome death by giving his own life on a cross, and as he rose from the dead, he shall raise us from the dead when he comes again.

Trust the science, but know its limits, and do not be carried about with various and strange ideas that are like shifting sands. But better trust Jesus who said: Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will by no means pass away.

Harvest time

~ admin ~ Leave a comment

It is the end of harvest time.

If you received the letters ‘himnnsy’ in Scrabble, you might think you had been dealt a loser, unless you were second to play and the first word put down before you was ‘groin’. On the other hand ‘harvest’ is full of possibilities, you would stare at the vast array knowing that would not starve for choice as you share the heat with your opponents, just as the pastor demonstrated in his children’s talk today, and when you add a single letter to them the field is fully ripe to harvest. There will be no tares or tears when your turn comes round. But there were two words he did not mention, probably because they were not in line with what he wanted to say today, but do you see them?

‘Have rest’ – which seems to be quite appropriate after the harvest. The summer was long, warm and wet enough; the fields have enjoyed the prolongation of this most suitable of weathers; the work of harvest in the fields was hard, onerous, perhaps dull and tedious also, but ultimately rewarding. The recompense for the work is safely stored away, delivered to the miller, and whatever else needs to be done before the winter falls upon you, and what then? You have rest. Surely, after the harvest you have rest, and there it is in the very word itself.

As we look at this world, we see that the fields are white unto the harvest. Unto – what a word! It is not often used today, but it is familiar in this context. The fields are white ready to harvest. This is the Lord’s saying to his disciples. He described the world as a field in which a crop is growing, and amongst the crop are weeds (often called tares) which are also growing. We find it hard to tell the difference between what is the good growth and the weeds as they look alike until the fruit is produced. One day, when the harvest is ready, he shall send his angels to gather in the harvest. The sickle shall be thrust in; the harvest gathered home; and the tares to be composted shall be sent.

On that day of his harvest, we shall have rest. In this world we toil, struggle, suffer pain, illness, disease and affliction but in the new world that shall follow the harvest God will wipe away every tear from our eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away.

Are you ready for that day? The ancient Latin text, not stated here in full, expresses it well:

Dies iræ, dies illa,
Solvet sæclum in favilla:
Liber scriptus proferetur,
In quo totum continetur,
Unde mundus iudicetur.
Rex tremendæ maiestatis,
Qui salvandos salvas gratis,
Salva me, fons pietatis.
Recordare, Iesu pie,
Quod sum causa tuæ viæ:
Ne me perdas illa die.
Quærens me, sedisti lassus:
Redemisti Crucem passus:
Tantus labor non sit cassus.
Iuste Iudex ultionis,
Donum fac remissionis
Ante diem rationis.
Ingemisco, tamquam reus:
Culpa rubet vultus meus:
Supplicanti parce, Deus.
Qui Mariam absolvisti,
Et latronem exaudisti,
Mihi quoque spem dedisti.

It speaks of the coming harvest day, the unveiling of the book recording all of our deeds, the judgment that follows, and of the pardon that has been bought for us by the Lord Jesus by, following his incarnation, his death on the cross. Hope of pardon for the guilty is underlined by a reference to the woman taken in adultery (here named as Mary (Mariam)) and one of the two who were crucified with Jesus. The poem goes on to speak of the worthlessness of our own prayers, representing all of our religious devotion and effort, to obtain pardon and salvation for us, it is the gift of God to those who commit themselves to the one who died for them, as the adulteress and the thief did, closing with a reminder that we must prepare for that day.

When the harvest has been brought home, will you have rest?

History

~ admin ~ Leave a comment

It had escaped Coco’s notice, but in 2011 EIIR said:

Although we are capable of great acts of kindness, history teaches us that we sometimes need saving from ourselves from our recklessness or our greed. God sent into the world a unique person, neither a philosopher nor a general, important though they are, but a saviour, with the power to forgive.

On the other hand Georg Hegel said:

The only thing that we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history.

There is somewhat a contradiction here, until we look at the paradigm which drives these two assertions concerning history. Whilst one is derived from a paradigm, which whilst it sought to go beyond the scepticism and nothingness of Platonism with its vast empty abyss by the introduction of concepts such as the negation of certain determinations, which may be called determinate negations, and do not result in an empty, abstract nothing, but rather a determinate nothingness which has content, does not take us much beyond the former position, but rather lays a foundation for the ever more meaningless paradigms taken up later in the 19th and 20th centuries as men built upon the ephemeral concepts of eternal matter underpinned by an irrational cleavage to uniformity, which lead to the conclusion that we have no purpose and no responsibility towards any outside authority let alone to each other. Each of the words used to summarise the Hegelian position, you must understand, has a technical meaning into the discussion of which we shall not enter here. You may also disagree with the summary, and Coco shall be pleased to receive alternative concise summaries of Hegel’s paradigm.

The other however stands on a solid foundation, which is forever not having been laid by the hands of men, but rather by the One who made all things. Matter is not eternal; matter has a beginning. But the self-existent God has built this universe, made of matter, on the solid foundation of his own eternal faithfulness and righteousness.

The one paradigm leads to a hopelessness which results in pessimism about ourselves, our past, present and future; the other leads to an optimistic hope that despite ourselves, our past, present and future behaviours, that as a result of God’s past intervention, there is a future intervention that will straighten everything out. This universe is not to remain a vast dangerous wilderness where wild beats roam and men devour each other, but it shall be renewed in a way where the wolf shall dwell with the lamb; the leopard shall lie down with the young goat; the calf and the young lion and the fatling together… they shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea. In that day the tabernacle of God shall be with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people. God himself will be with them and be their God. God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away. Nothing shall hurt or harm, and men shall live in love for one another as they serve, and walk with, and enjoy the living God in the city that he has built.

But note that her Majesty does not say that we shall achieve this ourselves. God’s intervention is required, and so he sent his Son into the world as a saviour with the power to forgive. Yes, he came also teaching, preaching and healing, but primarily as he said when speaking of his death by crucifixion: Now my soul is troubled, and what shall I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour’? But for this purpose I came to this hour. Father, glorify your name.) The prospect of crucifixion is indeed troubling; later we hear him speak in this way: Father, if it is your will, take this cup away from me; nevertheless not my will, but yours, be done. But it was for this very purpose that he came into the world, to die to save sinners. In this way he became the Saviour of men.

Concerning his power to forgive, very early in his ministry we find this affirmed when he was presented with a paralysed man by the man’s friends: When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, ‘Son, your sins are forgiven you.’ This provoked outrage among some. And some of the scribes were sitting there and reasoning in their hearts, ‘Why does this man speak blasphemies like this? Who can forgive sins but God alone?’ They were quite right in their reasoning, but wrong in their conclusion. To show them that he had power to forgive, he healed the man who had been brought to him.

On what basis then does he forgive? Justice, as we know, demands a penalty. Forgiveness is not cheap. It is not right, as we know, to justify the wrongdoer. Are we all not revulsed when the guilty escape justice? How then can God let off the sinner? That was his dilemma, but in the infinite wisdom of God he found the way that he could be both just and be able to justify the sinner. The penalty for sin is too great for the sinner to pay, so God himself must pay it. For this reason, we read, and this is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.

De morte

~ admin ~ 1 Comment

We were in the Republic when the day came, and even though not on this occasion in a Chambre d’hôtes where Louis XXII had once resided, great consolation was shown towards us, but it was not until subjects of the House of Orange also came for refreshment, rest and repast that in the brotherhood of equality, liberty was granted to cry out:

La Reine est morte; vive le Roi.

If in the day of the death of King Saul, King David could say ‘This a day of mourning and weeping’, how much more we who have lost a Queen who had proven herself more worthy of her name in the keeping of her promises to God and to men than many others who would clothe themselves with the trappings of leadership. What freedom we have that we do not have to fight or contend over and vote for who shall rule over us, but simply lend our support and allegiance to the one who has been chosen not by the hand of man.

Long live the king! May he too be faithful to serve the people over whom the Lord has appointed him. And may the Lord give to him, as he gave to Solomon, an understanding heart to judge the people and to discern between what is good and what is evil.