Faith

Monuments

~ admin ~ Leave a comment

The Paradox of Monuments

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous, and say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.’

Whenever I read these words I began to wonder what the Lord meant when he said them. There seemed to be an incongruity about them. Of course when you read on you understand what he meant for the scribes and Pharisees were about to do exactly what they say of themselves they would not have done. But let us think for a moment about the perspective that the scribes and Pharisees were taking.

They had built monuments to prophets. Why had they done this? They wished to honour the memory of those who had been mistreated by the forefathers. The prophets had in the main been rejected by the people. We would like to say that they had been fearless in their denunciation of the sins of the people, but we only need to look a Elijah to see that fearlessness was not a quality that was in abundant supply among them. We might also want to say that they were men who wanted to be prophets – how many today desire to be prophets and how many search them out, whether they claim to be of the Lord or whether they are nothing more than necromancers? But again, we find that the desire to be a prophet was in short supply. Jonah rather than do the job tried to run away to Tarshish (somewhere in or perhaps beyond the western end of the Mediterranean Sea). Jeremiah complained that what he had to say burned in his bones; it wearied him. A later prophet found that the words which were sweet in his mouth were bitter in his stomach. No, it was not so. These men were ripped from obscurity: Amos a shepherd from Tekoa. Even Ezekiel and Isaiah, priests, could have remained in obscurity had they not been made a prophets.

The prophets were not popular men in their own day. Jeremiah complained that the words burned in his bones when he tried to keep silent. Isaiah who spoke his words openly in his early days, in later life had to speak more cautiously as the persecution grew and he spoke of the coming Messiah to the house churches before he was cruelly sawn apart by Manasseh’s crew.

They were honoured by the scribes and Pharisees of the Lord’s day, who said ‘we would never have done such things’, but in their hearts a cold December was waiting to be revealed.

What of today, we have statues and monuments to men, which men today find offensive. Those who pull them down say, ‘we would never have done such things’. Those who wish them gone say ‘We must change our practices’ and ‘Why is it such an agony to remove them’. But we benefitted from what they did, we are their descendants; they are our ancestors.

But are we any different than they were? Are those who pull down statues any different than the ones who put them up and the ones whom they represent? If they were slavers, are we any less so? Do they and we not buy at least some jeans, sandals, shirts, sweat shirts, t-shirts, track suites, trainers, trews, trousers, and whatever else men in these days wear from retailers who source at least some of their products from the sweat shops of south Asia made with cotton from the plantations of central Asia? Or are they the minority who go out of their way to discover the source of the materials in every item of clothing and refuse to do business with any who have any connection with slavers.

No, men are the same today as they were when they persecuted the prophets, as when they built monuments to them, as before slavery had not been abolished in the British Empire and as we are since that time. There may be external differences. Men may show their revulsion of certain things in different ways, but within the hearts beat in the same way, and the desires of those hearts are the same.

It is easy to throw stones at men of the past. They cannot answer back. Why do they not throw stones at the slavers of today or are the consequences too great to be contemplated? Ah, yes, I almost forgot, the Lord who said that those who build the monuments are no different than their forefathers who persecuted the monumented, also said that the one who is without sin should throw the first stone.

The people who are so vocal about the erasure of the memory of these things cannot throw stones at the ones who continue the practices which they claim to revile, for they are themselves as guilty as their ancestors. They continue to benefit from the things they claim to hate, not as a consequence of past actions, but of what they do in the present day.

The Lord goes on the speak of how those who built the monument will behave in contradiction of their words in the not very long coming after days:

Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers’ guilt. Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell? Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city, that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.

But he also weeps that they shall behave in such ways:

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! See! Your house is left to you desolate; for I say to you, you shall see me no more till you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!’

Men continue to reject the prophets of the Lord Jesus, and treat his people like this. Oh that they would yield to him and be gathered under his wings.

Finally, a word of caution before you tear what I have said apart, but if you wish to do so, then please do for I am willing to learn. It will help me to present the case in a better way next time round, but I am aware that it is possible to represent the prophets in a different way than I have done in the preceding paragraphs. I have chosen this approach deliberately in order to illustrate what I have to say but not to misrepresent them. I know that It is not a complete representation of the prophets. They, and we, are complex individuals. When we try to produce a line drawing of ourselves or anyone else it will inevitably fall short of providing a complete picture.

Resolving

~ admin ~ Leave a comment

Spero meliora?

Thinking about the new year, Coco had been locked in a discussion with a linguistical friend, who could turn your Latin homework into better Latin than ever Pliny’s grandson would have even dreamed he could write, trying to find a better expression of ‘Spero meliora’ than is offered either by Google translate or by the owners of the motto. It seemed to Coco to be far too weak to be a good motto, though Coco had no doubt that to the literate Roman it carried much more weight that Micawber’s ‘Something will turn up’, which is all the poor English language can muster. Coco had hoped for better. ‘Semper ad Meliora’ is hardly an improvement, though ‘Semper meliora’ may be closer to that for which Coco had hoped. It was inevitable that Coco should come out of the discussion with a turnip nose, as in cauliflower ear, of which Coco had learned from the Third Programme’s heir at about 1845 this evening¹. Beware if you have such a thing lest when you use tobacco and blow smoke from it the fire wardens are not called out!

So what is the outcome of this, this is a new year, but we bring into the new year all that the old year has left with us, and no amount of resolution will change that – Brecht later in the evening², as a Marxist criticising Marx, said for all his agreement with the economic theory that Marx had failed to take into account human nature – but there is One who has not failed to take into account human nature and has given us not only a resolution but the power to change: ‘I press on, that I may lay hold of that for which Christ Jesus has also laid hold of me.’ If he has taken hold of me that I may take hold of the prize, then surely we can know that we shall take hold of it.

So in this new year, it does not matter whether we say it in Latin or in English, it is the doing that matters: let us all press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.

    1. BBC Words and Music 2 January 2022 quoting an extended version of Samuel French Acting Edition of Bernhardt/Hamlet pages 89-90
    2. Brecht: The Mother here and elsewhere.
    3. The nose: 

    Blame

    ~ admin ~ Leave a comment

    Why look for a scapegoat when the answer is obvious?

    Putney High Street
    Congested traffic near the Post Office on Putney High Street, London, February 1910. (Photo by Topical Press Agency/Hulton Archive/Getty Images

    The BBC reported it, and no doubt others, but why look for a scapegoat when the answer is obvious?

    London congestion: Cycle lanes blamed as city named most congested

    Coco thinks they are talking about motor vehicular congestion which is surely caused by motor vehicles. If there were not so many of them there would be no congestion.

    Sometimes we look for blame where there is no blame.

    Another article reported: Racism: Vaughan Gething (a Welsh government minister) talks about everyday prejudice, saying that he was often asked if he is a member of staff at restaurants because of his skin colour. And followed up with an astonishing remark: ‘If I were a white man relatively smartly dressed going to a place like that, that isn’t what people would ask.’

    Is it indeed a terrible thing to be approached as if you were a member of staff. It is something which happens to Coco also, often in large, largely empty stores. Coco would apologise that he was not; then learned that sometimes you can just go along with it, after all Coco might know the answer to their questions, and members of staff are like policemen there is never one around when you want one; then finally settled on the reply: I’m not a member of staff, but what is your question? After all customers can help each other.

    What was Coco’s ‘crime’? It might have been the colour of Coco’s skin, but no, the most common reason given was the white shirt and tie.

    To turn the minister’s words around: [As Coco was] a white man [relatively] smartly dressed going to a place like that, [that is precisely] what people would ask.

    There are many reasons why we may be identified as staff members. It is not an insult, neither is it racism. It is a misunderstanding; and when the other person does not know you from Adam, who can blame them?

    So when you go to a smart restaurant, please remember it is not the beach, nor is it a sports arena, then we shall all look as tidy as the waiters do.

    The Lord said: When the king came to see the guests he saw a man there who did not have on a wedding garment. So he said to him, Friend how did you come in here without a wedding garment? The man was speechless. Then the king said to his servants: Bind him hand and foot, take him away and cast him into the outer darkness where there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

    The king I am sure had made provision for the robing of his guests as he had previously sent his servants out to gather people from all over and bring them straight to the feast. There would be tailors and carpenters, butchers and farmers, merchants and servants, candlestick and carpet makers none of whom were allowed home to dress properly. Our king, Jesus, has made provision for his people to be at his wedding feast. We can never be good enough (clothed in righteousness) to sit at the feast, but in his death on the cross he took our filthy work clothes off us and gave us a robe of righteousness fit for the wedding feast of God. (Matthew 22)

    The High Street after road improvements were put in place

    African slavers

    ~ admin ~ Leave a comment

    Slave catchers galore

    In Nigeria, I remember my grandmother saying that when she was a little girl her great grandmother always said, ‘be careful how you’re behaving, if you’re naughty I’ll give you two the slave catchers’.

    That must have been a terrible, terrible thing to tell a child…

    Coco also remembers being told: ‘Watch out or the bogey man will get you’, though who ever said it I do not now remember. It may even have been on my own lips to one of our many cousins. I suppose such things have often been said to little children to bring them into line.

    These words were reported by the BBC being on the lips of professor who by reason of her provenance and vocation really should know better.

    You see these words were said in connection with the Atlantic slave trade which was abolished by the United Kingdom over 200 years ago. Now it may have been possible that Coco’s grandmother’s great-grandmother may have been born before the act of abolition, but I think it hardly likely that the speakers’ grandmother would have heard her great grandmother saying these words to her before then. We must understand then that the slave catchers referenced here are not the same category of slave catcher that was involved in the European sponsored slave trade which we had long before then abolished, but perhaps they were; let ius see.

    To whom is the reference made? We know that the slave trade continued in Africa long after we had renounced, and repented of our part in, it, for despite [colonial] efforts to do so in Nigeria it continued until the middle of the twentieth century. In effect we had to (perhaps were forced to) live with it. We also know that the slave catchers for the trade in which our ancestors had been involved was fed by the ancestors of those who today live in West Africa, and many Africans also made themselves rich on the proceeds of the trade.

    Coco can only suppose then that the slave catchers of which the lady’s grandmother heard were those African slave catchers who refused to give up slavery during the twentieth century. So why bring them up in connection with a discussion about whether to retain statues of and monuments to men who were involved in the Atlantic Trade? We perhaps need to consider that the monuments may not be there because of their involvement but despite their involvement.

    At least it is a little bit of an acknowledgement that without the willing co-operation of African slave catchers the Atlantic trade would not have been possible. Perhaps it is also an unwitting acknowledgement that the lady’s own ancestors, and perhaps even some of the close relations of the grandmother’s great-grandmother, were themselves slave catchers. The tip of the iceberg has been revealed, but when will the remainder of the iceberg of African involvement be exposed? I guess it is easier to transport an iceberg intact to Cardiff, Edinburgh and London than it is to Calabar and Bonny; to Birmingham than to Abuja. Coco doubts that reparations shall be required of the descendants of the real slave cacthers.

    I love, I love my Master. I will not go out free, for he has paid the price for me. He has set me free (Frances Ridley Havergal alt.). I have referred to this before, but it remains true: ‘God has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their pre-appointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. ‘ From one blood, or from one man, means we of all nations have one common ancestor. We are all cousins, and it is his intention to gather his people from all of the many nations into one family.

    Let us seek the Lord through the Lord Jesus Christ in whom alone we shall find salvation.

    Slavery: ‘Time for decisions’ on slave owner statues and street names

    Blacklisted

    ~ admin ~ Leave a comment

    Carpenters, Cleese, Cambridge and Christmas

    Coco was not sure what was the most astonishing the Carpenters, Cleese or Cambridge and Christmas.

    The carpenter stretches out his rule, he marks one out with chalk; he fashions it with a plane, he marks it out with the compass, and makes it like the figure of a man, according to the beauty of a man, that it may remain in the house.

    He cuts down cedars for himself, and takes the cypress and the oak; he secures it for himself among the trees of the forest. He plants a pine, and the rain nourishes it. Then it shall be for a man to burn, for he will take some of it and warm himself; yes, he kindles it and bakes bread; indeed he makes a god and worships it; he makes it a carved image, and falls down to it. He burns half of it in the fire; with this half he eats meat; he roasts a roast, and is satisfied. He even warms himself and says, ‘Ah! I am warm, I have seen the fire.’ And the rest of it he makes into a god, his carved image.

    He falls down before it and worships it, prays to it and says, ‘Deliver me, for you are my god!’

    They do not know nor understand; for he has shut their eyes, so that they cannot see, and their hearts, so that they cannot understand. And no one considers in his heart, nor is there knowledge nor understanding to say, ‘I have burned half of it in the fire, yes, I have also baked bread on its coals; I have roasted meat and eaten it; and shall I make the rest of it an abomination? Shall I fall down before a block of wood?’ He feeds on ashes; a deceived heart has turned him aside; and he cannot deliver his soul, nor say, ‘Is there not a lie in my right hand?’

    It is good to see that Monty Python is as effective as it ever was in challenging the assumptions of society. I would have liked to see what sort of sketch the team would have made of the words of Isaiah about the carpenter, but I think they did not address that particular topic, though they did tread on many a sensitive toe. It seems that Blacklisting himself was a very effective weapon, subverting all expectations in true Monty Python style ‘Oh no! Please, not the comfy chair!’. It precipitated a very rapid climb down from Cambridge, which perhaps indicates that they too could not see the lie in their right hand. In the face of the loss of an opportunity to meet with the great man, they decided that to play with trifles, to turn Rommel’s words on their head, they would have to over turn their own principles.

    So Cambridge does not have a black list. Well that is encouraging, but Coco suspects that that is simply another form of whitewashing. To call the list black after all might impugn a certain section of the population who may take [unnecessary] offence just as Cambridge did at a certain art historian, doing what all historians do, quoting the words of the past. So in ungood 1985 style, they do not have a blacklist, nor indeed a list of any sort, it is simply a list. or one might say a Platonian (rather than Platonic, which might incorrectly in these days of gross word abuse suggest harmless) list, but Coco wished to avoid any form of adjectival qualification of the meaning of the word. On the other hand, just as an aside, as a Platonian list is the idea of a list without any qualification as to purpose, style, or any other quality which may be possessed by a list, it is the ideal list, it serves to show that those who indulge in philosophical, semantic or logical discussion to justify themselves will find themselves contradicting the very thing that they sought to prove. Leave such arguments to the mathematicians, who will quickly find that they fall into the trap of infinity or zero if they make such a mistake. We should note however that to say ‘An ideal list is an unqualified list’ is in Plato’s world both true and untrue apparently at the same time. Schrödinger may have been able explain that. For the ideal list is, in modern expression, the null list from which all other lists are constructed, but the ideal list, in original expression, is the idea of a list as it exists in the mind. Now Coco contends that the idea of a list without any content can exist in the mind of an infinite being but in the mind of a finite being a list only exists when it has content, hence when the modern world speaks about the ideal list it means the list drawn up for the Germanic (not Germanian for that would be silly) World Cup squad. Notwithstanding these discussion about the Ideal World then Coco now wishes to return our ideas and thoughts back to Cambridge.

    It seems to Coco that for Cambridge to say ‘I misspoke’ is simply a euphemism for ‘I have a lie in my right hand’.

    Isaiah is not being negative by the way, he continued:

    Remember these, O Jacob, and Israel, for you are my servant; I have formed you, you are my servant; O Israel, you will not be forgotten by me! I have blotted out, like a thick cloud, your transgressions, and like a cloud, your sins. Return to me, for I have redeemed you. Sing, O heavens, for the Lord has done it! Shout, you lower parts of the earth; break forth into singing, you mountains, O forest, and every tree in it! For the Lord has redeemed Jacob, and glorified Himself in Israel.

    These are the words of the Lord, who has blotted out our transgression. Our lies, our offences have all been covered by the blood of the Lamb of God, whose birth shall be remembered in a mere six weeks.

    A happy Christmas to you all

    Credimus

    ~ admin ~ Leave a comment

    Words which are familiar

    If you were born before 1965 or sing in a choir then these words may be very familiar to you. They form the core of many a choral work. But did you know that a similar set of words is used frequently but for a far different, yet incoherent, purpose? First of all, let me turn you to what the Bible says: There is no god, so says the fool in his heart.

    What does this lead the fool to do? To live as if there is no accounting for his behaviour, to live as if there is no meaning (or at least attempt to do so as some apologetics for atheism try to say) in life, and to say that we are nothing more than a chemical factory which operates for a time on this planet along with many others and eventually wears out. It leaves morality as a mere construct of social normality or expectation and to, as many have noted, a breakdown in society. It is strange to Coco that it cannot clearly be seen that if it is society that defines morality and then it is that same society that conforms (or deviates) from it that this is an iterative process and, as experience has shown, results in positive feedback causing the expectations of morality to be lowered further. It is a dangerous road to follow.

    The alternative is to say that there is at least one god. This provides accountability, meaning and morality. But if you get the character of the one god wrong, or if you have many gods who are in competition with each other, or who behave in the same way as men and women only with greater power, then the morality that is approved, or the accountability and meaning are at best questionable, and at worst more dangerous than not having any at all.

    The fool then is content to remain in his ignorance, but the one who is not a fool must seek out to know who the god is who exists, and then choose whether or not to believe in him. Many quickly make their own impression of what the god is like, and fill in the bits that are not clear by their own imagination. They then decide that they do not want to believe in this god, for the god they imagine for themselves is not attractive to them. Still others produce the picture of an indulgent grandfather type figure, in whom they would quite like to believe and hope is true, but provides no basis at all for the morality that they would like others to hold. Neither results in the gain of any real understanding of the character and nature of the true God, because these efforts stem from a misguided understanding. A friend, having being told by a stranger I don’t believe in god, replied: Tell me about the god in which you do not believe. I probably don’t believe in him either.

    We are also not helped by these efforts to answer the question whether there is a god. But experience may help us to do so for we know that there is a god as we consider next.

    During the course of each day we hear many confessions that there is a god in which to believe, for the name of this one God is often taken in vain, exclamation or as blasphemy. If there is no god in which to believe all such things are empty nonsense, meaningless and not worth the breath which was used to give them utterance. But the fact that those who do speak in this way use these words intentionally and with effect shows that although they may say ‘I do not believe in god’ they do not say that a god does exist. The common understanding of man, notwithstanding the words of the fool, is that there is a god.

    Secondly, a British prime minister recently replied to a journalist using the text with which I started The foolish man has said in his heart, there is no God as his reply. It was not a confession I believe in God as if to take a different position to the leader of the opposition party who had said that he did not believe in God*, but rather saying to the journalist who had asked it: You are asking the wrong question. It is not a matter of whether you believe in God or not, but whether there is a god in which to believe or not believe.

    The statement I do not believe in God is as much a confession that there is a god in which to believe as the statement I believe in One God. The unbeliever may take pride in his confession I do not believe in God but it is nevertheless as much an affirmation that he believes in the existence of the god in whom he does not believe as a believer’s confession I believe in God. Neither statement addresses the existence of God, but rather the attitude and leaning of the person making the statement.

    What then, if there is a god? Should we not discover who this god is? We must one day answer to him. But if there is a god, and that god is God, then he is beyond our understanding: the word for this is ineffable. If we are to know him, then we must rely upon his own revelation of himself to us. In other words we cannot work out ourselves what he is like, we must listen to what he has said about himself. When we look we find that he has not been silent, he has not left himself without witnesses, he has spoken, in times past in many divers ways but at the last in his Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. Philip asked him, Show us the Father and we shall be content. The Lord replied: Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. We are then without excuse if we ignore what he has said to us, and continue to try to do it our own way.

    Credimus in unum Deum, Patrem omnipotentem, factorem coeli et terrae, visibilium omnium et invisibilium, et in unum Dominum Jesum Christum, Filium Dei unicum.

    The creed tells us who this God is: I believe in one God, the Father almighty, the creator of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten the Son of God according to his own revelation to us.

    It is quite unexpected to be able to add to this after only one week. That the self-same prime minister has had to back track on proposals to modify his own construct of morality as a consequence of them not being quite aligned with the self-defined moralities of others, thus precipitating the obviously required, whether innocent or not, resignation of a fellow MP serves well to illustrate that those who build their morality upon the shifting sands of opinion, shall, in this quickly, fall upon the rocks making shipwreck of their unbelief.

    We were reminded of Paul’s discussion with the Epicureans (the ‘awkin’ (D…s and H…g) of his day) and the Stoics (fatalist, whom I shall fail to identify, but if the cap fits, let them wear it) in the Athenian intellectual market place, where he addressed and undermined the issues which afflicted them and us today, pointing them to the God who made the heavens and the earth, who has appointed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness, not by a mere social construct, but by Jesus Christ. And what is the proof of this some may ask. He raised Jesus from the dead, as is well attested.

    So if this market place is able to transform itself (metamorphose), let us listen to the command to transform ourselves (metanoö – repent) and believe.

    Offended?

    ~ admin ~ Leave a comment

    Why academia is offensive – when difficult questions offend

    The BBC article here set Coco wondering. First of all why the inhabitants of Britain have never had an apology from the Danes for the way they treated them a mere 1500 years or so ago when they repeatedly invaded those islands and badly treated the natives. Or perhaps it might be better to ask the French, though perhaps they would claim that the invaders were not in fact French, for an apology for the harrying of the North after the Norman conquest, which is very much closer to the present time than the Danish incursions. But an apology cannot expected for both, as it was the united English and Danes who suffered under the Norman [mis]treatment. So, rather than expect an apology Coco turned his head to a question instead, which is intended to provoke an active, careful, critical discussion of both sides of the argument.

    Here there is an invading people who wish to inhabit peacefully the land which they have ‘inherited’, though there was some doubt at the time concerning the claim to the inheritance, and the people were unwilling to co-operate in their subjugation. The question is first of all a setting out of facts, presenting some interesting descriptions of the events and some opposing opinions on the matter and asking the student to weigh up the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments and the opportunities and threats that faced the opposing parties.

    To what extent do you believe that the treatment of the native British has been exaggerated?

    Now, in the context of the question it may be clear what is meant, but the context is a little lacking here so let Coco state the question again, this time in full:

    To what extent do you believe that the treatment of the British people by the Norman French after the invasion of 1066 in particular during the period known as the harrying of the North has been exaggerated?

    Are you offended by the question? Does the question trouble you? Coco thinks it is an excellent question, if it were not for some linguistic bungles, to provoke in the student the best use of his critical skills to present the arguments for and against the proposition that there has been exaggeration, to produce an analysis and critique of the arguments from both sides and to hone his skills of debate and argument.

    Coco recalls one of his English teachers once explaining to the class how important it was in a debate to understand the other side. He went so far as to say that if you cannot accurately and faithfully represent the position with which you disagree, then you cannot argue against it. He meant of course you cannot successfully argue against it.

    Now concerning the linguistic bungles, whilst they may give the less diligent student cause for celebration, it is obvious that they are bungles and the diligent student will not rely upon finding a loophole in the question in order to avoid the trouble of answering it in the proper manner.

    So firstly, the question is badly phrased as it is a question that does not beg a reasoned argument but merely an expression of opinion ‘What do you believe?‘, but in the context of the use of the weighing scales it is very evident that the examiner is expecting a presentation of the arguments for and against the proposition that there has been exaggeration and to produce an analysis and critique of the arguments from both sides, but he did not ask for it.

    ‘I believe that there has been exaggeration to the extent of deliberate outright lies.’ is as valid an answer as ‘I believe that there has been no exaggeration in any of the reports’, for both are correct. They tell us what the student believes, but neither answer is that for which the examiner is looking.

    Secondly, the question asks: Has the treatment of the natives been exaggerated? Surely it should be asking about the reporting of the treatment. The treatment itself does not have a quality which can be qualified by exaggerate, but the reporting of the treatment does. Of course the treatment does have the qualities of goodness and badness, which brings me to the third objection.

    Thirdly, the original question is ambiguous. Is the reference to treatment here a reference to the good things that were done for the native Americans (David Brainerd, albeit in a much earlier day than under consideration here, did much good among the natives of New England), or to the bad things? The question does not ask about the mistreatment of the natives.

    It seems to me that the ambiguity of the question is deliberate, so that the student is left unsure which side of the arguments may have been exaggerated, if any. In this context although the ambiguity is a weakness in the question, it will make the answers more interesting and provide greater scope and freedom for the student when preparing his answer.

    So then to correct his question further Coco needs to ask:

    To what extent has the reporting of the treatment of the British people by the Norman French after the invasion of 1066 in particular during the period known as the harrying of the North been exaggerated? In your answer you should provide a critique of the available reports, and a reasoned argument leading to and supporting your conclusions.

    The words after the question should strictly be taken as read by our hypothetical student, but they are included here for the avoidance of doubt.

    Coco considers this to be a good and valid question, a legitimate question, which should provide significant opportunity for an A-level student to demonstrate his analytical, debating and logical skills to the examiner regardless of whether either the student and the examiner actually agree with the conclusion drawn in the answer.

    So then, why is the question, in a given context:

    To what extent do you believe that the treatment of the native Americans has been exaggerated?

    not an acceptable question to ask?

    As Coco has set out above, there are linguistic problems with the question, but these do not detract from the usefulness of the question for the instruction of students, as the meaning of the question and the kind of answer that the student is expected to give can be clearly seen from the context in which the question is asked. Apparently there were some who did find reason to complain. It seems to Coco that the complaint was ill-founded and unnecessary. Whilst the wording of the question may leave a little to be desired, the question itself is quite valid.

    Finally, the question will be asked of course, and if it is not answered and debated in a public forum, then it will go underground and be answered without any peer review, and probably be answered badly.

    And post-ultimately, Coco mentioned David Brainerd. He worked tirelessly among the native Americans to show them their worth, to show them that they had inestimable worth in the sight of the one true God who gave his Son for them as a propitiation for their sins, and not for theirs only but for the whole world. In his short life he saw many come to faith, abandoning the false gods and idols which had previously enslaved them and finding freedom in Jesus Christ.

    ☺





    		With apologies in advance for errors of syntax, orthography and grammar which may be found embedded in this document whether arising from oversight, incorrect application of language packs or generally any other misadventure; and in general for any offence given inadvertently or inappropriately or both taken or not taken by those whose sensibilities, whether grammatical, orthographical, moral or simply personable, have been offended whether, not or if you have not incorrectly misunderstood the content, intent, meaning and purpose of this article, and to those whose copyrights may have been inadvertently or wantonly infringed, but never as to cause damage the copy holder’s rights, and, if you have managed to read this far, for any errors or omissions whether wilful, unintended, innocent or deliberate in the content of this polemic, and with thanks to you who have made it thus far for your patience.

    Rapid Alter[c]ation

    ~ admin ~ Leave a comment

    Change comes quickly and unexpectedly

    The remarkable speed with which the recent changes have taken place in Afghanistan reminded me of words spoken 2500 years ago in Israel:

    For indeed I am raising up a bitter and hasty nation which marches through the breadth of the earth, to possess dwelling places that are not theirs. They are terrible and dreadful; their judgment and their dignity proceed from themselves. Their horses also are swifter than leopards, and more fierce than evening wolves. Their chargers charge ahead; their cavalry comes from afar; they fly as the eagle that hastens to eat. They all come for violence; their faces are set like the east wind. They gather captives like sand. They scoff at kings, and princes are scorned by them. They deride every stronghold, for they heap up earthen mounds and seize it. Then his mind changes, and he transgresses; he commits offence, ascribing this power to his god.

    The description of the warfare may be different, but the swiftness with which the forces moved is described for us quite vividly. It is also to be noted that the same attribution for their success is made.

    The prophet was speaking about the shortly to follow invasion of Isreal by the Chaldeans, whom perhaps I should mention came from an area, at least in geographic Asian terms, not far removed from Afghanistan, though in historic and cultural terms quite distant.

    It is a fascinating prophecy. The prophet goes on to say about the victors: They (the victors) take up all of them with a hook, they catch them in their net, and gather them in their dragnet. Therefore they rejoice and are glad. Therefore they sacrifice to their net, and burn incense to their dragnet; because by them their share is sumptuous and their food plentiful.

    Of course the victors rejoice and are glad. Their victims see the matter quite differently however.

    But there is much more going on than the prophet can see. And in our days too there is much more going on than we can see. I shall come back to this. Did you notice the opening words? I am raising up. This was preceded by: Look among the nations and watch – Be utterly astounded! For I will work a work in your days which you would not believe, though it were told you.

    The Chaldeans thought that they were in control. But no, it was God, the Lord who had raised them up, and it would be an astonishing work. Indeed it was as history records for us. The Chaldeans came across the land as if they were locusts devouring everything. But look at what the prophet said about them: O Lord, you have appointed them for judgment; O Rock, you have marked them for correction. You are of purer eyes than to behold evil, and cannot look on wickedness. Woe to him who builds a town with bloodshed, who establishes a city by iniquity! You are filled with shame instead of glory. You also (they had made others drink their wrath) – drink and be exposed as uncircumcised! The cup of the Lord’s right hand will be turned against you, and utter shame will be on your glory.

    When the Lord stood before Pilate, having been asked whether he was a king, replied: My kingdom is not of this world. Those whose kingdom is of this world fight for it. They go to war. They attribute their success to their god, but their gods are false gods. They fall under the judgement of the God who made the heavens and the earth.

    The King of kings does not command his people to fight in this way against flesh and blood, but rather commands all men to repent and believe the Gospel and in this way, through the blood of Jesus Christ, to enter the kingdom which is not of this world, for he intends that the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.

    In the meantime there will be wars and rumours of wars, for the end has not yet come. But one day it will come, and the kingdom which is being built, as it were invisibly, by the Lord Jesus Christ shall be revealed and his glory shall fill the earth.

    Diversity increases?

    ~ admin ~ Leave a comment

    There was a school class which comprised only fifteen boys – it was a privileged area and the boys, unable to cope with competition from hard working girls, had been segregated – one of whom had black skin and two had brown, the rest all had white, perhaps you could say albino, but that may be misunderstood. The class was therefore racially diverse.

    During the year a Chinese boy joined the class and so it became more racially diverse than it was. It then represented four different races. Seven more boys joined the class later but the racial diversity did not change: some of the new comers had black skin and some brown. The class still only represented four different races. Taking a very simplistic view of the world and the number of races that there are Coco supposes that only if a Red Indian had joined the class would the racial diversity have increased from a representation of four races to a representation of five.

    So how does they conclude that racial diversity has increased in the USA?
    ‘US census data charts increasingly diverse America ‘Population shifts revealed by the 2020 census herald changes to come in US politics as the country becomes more diverse.’’ Coco knows that they do not say racial diversity here, but in the context of the article you try to fit into it a different adjective which does not imply a connection with race. Let Coco know by the comments box if you succeed.

    It is clear from the article that there has simply been a change in the relative proportions of the different races, so that the proportion of ethnic minorities (Coco does not like that description but uses it here because you understand it) increased relative to the majority ethnic group. So this is not racial diversity that is at work but a dilution of the white majority.

    Is that not what happened in the school class? There was a dilution of the representation of white skinned boys from 12/15 to 12/23. This was quite a significant change, but it did nothing to change the racial diversity. Nor indeed, Coco might add, did it happen to do anything to reduce the representation of the majority ethnic group, as the school, which is postulated and was not previously revealed, is situated in a majority Chinese enclave in a different oriental country whose ethnic identity is not Chinese. Coco struggles to work out which is the majority ethnic group in such a location.

    So, commentators when they need to describe a spade they should not call for a shovel. Coco considers that they make more of the material at hand than they should.

    By the way, and it is probably not the BBC’s fault that, though it is not so easy to read, the aggregate of the proportions of the different groups identified on the chart appears to exceed the maximum possible proportion of the whole.

    US census: Hispanic and Asian-American driving US population growth

    There is some recognition of this in the last words referenced by the BeeB: ‘We’re in an age where there’s a lot more suspicion about all sorts of stuff, and data is one(sic.) of them.

    When the Athenians heard the truth they were told: ‘The God who made the world and everything in it .. made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling places.’ There is only one race (unless by race we mean a synonym of breed as used for cats and dogs) which is the one Paul goes on to describe which is ‘that they should seek God and perhaps find their way towards him and find him’. God has himself provided the way to run this race now commanding ‘all men to repent because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by the man [Jesus Christ] whom he has appointed.’

    His coming has heralded a far greater change than that posited by the article, which we shall see when he comes again to judge the world. Are we ready for that day?

    Questions

    ~ admin ~ Leave a comment

    that should not be asked

    You have noticed that the French do not ask questions

    Vous mangiez ici?
    Vous alliez au football?

    unless you see the sentence written down, or have a good ear for the French inflexion? This is because of a certain authoritarian regime, a republic ruled by an emperor, rather like an earlier Latin republic, from whose language the language of the French was derived, in which the asking of questions was a thing to avoid?

    It is considered perhaps that if you are able to instil subservient fear into a rebellious people they will obey you. A certain oriental businessman* spoke about that before his recent detention. It is also clear that if you can be inhibited from asking questions, then the authority, or indeed anyone, need not answer and so cannot ever be accused of telling a lie?

    A start must be made to this process of course, and there is no better start than to strike at a question which we must all ask ourselves and each other almost everyday of the month. The date used to be ubiquitous. It was printed on every sheet of newsprint, so half of the litter in our streets would display it to you. It would be seen on calendars hanging in almost every place you visit, and the desk of everyone in the office. Such things have all but disappeared, and now you might have to resort to a visit to the bank, if you can find a nearby branch which is open, or a post office. It is there on your computer screen, often in its default position of the bottom right hand corner of your screen, but, oh, the default view is not to display the date only the time, and the default status is, well quite naturally, the default status. So it is only natural that we should ask the question:

    What is the date today?

    Perhaps it is only the French who would escape republican ire and justice if they ask the question on the fourth of June. I should also remember that the fourth of July is also a day of disgrace and dishonour but for a different reason, you understand?

    There was another day of disgrace and dishonour when the late Latin empire crucified a man for no wrong that he had done, indeed his judge acknowledged as much: I find no wrong in him. But that day was the day when God revealed his glorious grace towards a rebellious people in such a way that he had never done before nor shall ever need to do again. On that day the man upon the cross died for all who questioned his right to rule over them, paying the price himself for their rebellion. God has therefore raised him from the dead and given him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that he is Lord to the glory of God the Father.

    * Xiaohongshu social media account blocked after Tiananmen post
    E-commerce app Xiaohongshu’s social media account disappeared after a post on the sensitive date.