Coco’s dear old Corsa was so far out of condition.
One of the problems of lockdown is not being able to go out on those long runs that that you need to take to remain healthy and in good trim. She had fallen from grace and was running at an average of only just 34mpg. You may recall how much better she thought she was doing last fall, but see what too much sitting around, drinking too much fuel, and not enough hard work has done. Letting her off the leash however has done wonders. After a good cross-country run she came back with an cumulative average of just over 40mpg. Well done, old girl, a much better performance.
We can all suffer like that. Drinking too much fuel, sitting around, not enough hard work and we become unfit. Study to show yourself approved, the apostle said. Don’t misunderstand the word study, it means examine, test, watch, work hard, be careful. He tells us elsewhere to strengthen the hands that hang down and the feeble knees to walk straight. And the Lord himself tells us that it will not be easy, we must take up a cross if we would follow him. But it is far better than that because he took up his own cross to die in our place. He did not leave us to try to do enough for ourselves, he did everything that was required on our behalf.
So trust in him, and one say it will not just be, as to Coco’s dear old Corsa: Well done, old girl, but you will still end up on the scrap heap, but rather: Well done, good and faithful servant, enter into the joy of your Lord.
Did you see it? Yet again a modern man extracts words from an ancient poet and is vilified: better be careful then when we quote Shakespeare, who did not mince his words but it must be said was careful in his allusions, or even our more recent Gilbert of G&S fame, who was certainly more colourful in his language than we would be permitted to be. We must not of course forget the villainous John Green who in the middle of civil conflict was unable to quench his patriotic fervour when he wrote his Babylonian work.
But such things are not new. The first burning of books, of which Coco is aware, please let me know of any earlier, took place around the time of the events related in Green’s opera. Nabucco had invaded Judah, as foretold by Isaiah, and left Jehoiakim as a vassal king in Jerusalem, and probably at this time had taken away Daniel when returning to Babylon as emperor. Jeremiah had spoken many true words to the king, but the king hated him, but there were still some in the city who afforded protection to Jeremiah. Jeremiah had his secretary Baruch to write down his words on a scroll. Some months later in 604 BC the opportunity arose to read the words in the temple to the people and some of the leaders, who decided that these words must be heard by the king. They were afraid of what Nebuchadnezzar would do, he having returned to receive tribute from his vassals. King Jehoiakim not being impressed, ordered in vain that Jeremiah and his scribe be abducted, but they were already well hidden. He did however allow the scroll to be read to him, and as it was read he displayed his contempt of it by cutting off the scroll each section after it had been read to throw it into his fire pot.
We are aware of the trade routes across Asia, which existed at this time. The words which Jeremiah had spoken were taken by Nebuchadnezzar’s captives to Babylon. His empire stretched afar to the east and his successors were influenced by the Jews who lived in the empire, some attaining exceedingly high rank in its government. It is not unreasonable to consider that something of these things would be taken outside the empire. However perhaps the book burning that we find in China by the king Qin Shi Huang is altogether uninfluenced by the history of another king in Jerusalem some four hundred years earlier.
We must not forget however that the burning of books has taken place in our own land and much more recently. Just as Jehoiakim showed contempt for the word of God spoken by Jeremiah, the bishop of London did also in 1526 AD. There was a fear of the word of God. Reading it would expose the cracks in the religion of the day, actually I would like to suggest that it would expose the shroud over the true religion which had been hidden under precept upon precept of man in a rather similar way that the true faith of Abraham and the prophets had been hidden by the rabbis and teachers of the law in Jesus’s day. William Tyndale had completed his translation of the New Testament into contemporary English and it had been published on the continent. When the books became available in England the Bishop bought up the books to burn. They were dangerous books. If the people read them they would see the errors that were being taught in the church, and understand what true religion is all about. This would upset the status quo and the authority of the leaders. Coco reckons it was the similar for Qin Shi Huang though for somewhat different reasons. Coco would like to suggest that this book burning continues today, but some would say that Coco is then being uncharitable to do so, perhaps as we do not see the literal burning of the Book, but the ignoring of its teaching is the first step towards the book burning pit.
The burning of the books did however have a number of good effects. It brought attention to the availability of the translation and secondly the price paid could finance a new edition to remove the errors of the first. The burning of the scroll by Jehoiakim also had similar benefits. Jeremiah and his scribe wrote the content out again on a new scroll with many similar words added to it. So we are able to read today the words that Jehoiakim burned.
Returning to the poem written by Zhang Jie briefly, 焚書坑 竹帛煙銷帝業虛，關河空鎖祖龍居。 坑灰未冷山東亂，劉項原來不讀書。 Coco was unimpressed by the translation offered, though it seemed literal enough, and Google did no better, which was somewhat shocking as Coco would have thought that such a famous text would have translation already stored: ah, well. So here is another, based purely upon a single commentary on the words:
It was books in the burning
That destroyed the Qin.
In vain flood and pass were guarding
As the Dragon fell in.
Before the ash cold had turned
Shandong’s riot burned.
To illiterate peasants now
The people all must bow.
Coco is sure fault may be found with it, and you can do better, but it serves its purpose. There are many today who would suppress free thought, as there were in the past. Rome sought to suppress the truth. A simple ‘Caesar is lord’ would save many a life, but many died. The Lord taught us that his kingdom is like yeast in bread, it will as it is mixed in fill every part, and just so his kingdom will fill every part of this world. Rome fell in. Other empires will fall in under the sway of the King of kings.
Jehoiakim tried to destroy the word of God; The bishop of London tried to do so; Men still do so today; The grass withers, the flowers fades away but the word of our God stands forever. (Isaiah 40:8)
It was the reference to a woman of colour that prompted Coco to speak yet again on this matter, Coco was going to remain silent, having spoken before but the reference shows nothing has changed . Coco noticed the article is still fairly close to the top even today; it had not gone away.
In the days of regulated discrimination, upon which we frown, we had whites and coloureds, but it is now acceptable to speak of people of colour. What is the difference? As great as the difference between a rook and a castle I should think. But it set Coco thinking, that these are terms that are defined by one particular stereotype. We have many such ways of speaking of the whole world whilst at the same time making a distinction between two parts, and not necessarily the same parts. There are the Greeks and the Barbarians, the Jews and the Gentiles to name but two, oh, of course, how could Coco forget?, England and the Rest of the World, but he is not sure that in the third case the ‘Rest of the World’ actually includes the whole of the rest of the world, nor perhaps that England only includes England. Perhaps a sports fan is able to explain the matter. But what does the other group think of the first? It is ok for the Jew to speak of the Gentile, but among the Gentiles are the Greeks, who include the Jew among the Barbarians. It is no honour to a person of colour from Africa if a person of colour from India is honoured by presumably a person of no colour. The person of colour from India may well consider that the world is also divided into two parts, those who are Hindu and those who are not, but not all Indians are Hindu, or, dare Coco suggest, persons of colour?
Have you heard the one about (in alphabetical order of course so as not to offend those whose judgements have been seared by political correctness) the Scotsman, the Welshman and the Englishman? Where would the punch line be without racial stereotypes? As a stereotypical green Wellingtonioned, tweed jacketed, urban farmer (not really) Coco had long ago appreciated the Cloth, cloth Capp, bumbling bespectacled Genius, bowler hatted [word removed lest it cause offence], genteel Gentry, not to mention men of Kent, Essex and the other side of the Pennines stereotypes that are often portrayed in putatively comic literature, only later to discover that even better caricatures could be produced of nations: one which never laughs but is terrifyingly efficient; another has never worked since it lost its empire before anyone had ever even thought about Yorkshire; another only drinks coffee and eats gelato, of the best kind of course, where no-one remembers how to speak their own language properly; another cannot bear to be without their own bread, cheese and wine, and would dearly love the Rosbif to be taken off the menu; another is so laid back the [removed] could dry up and they would only notice he next time a bath was required a year later; another so committed to community they would on the underground tie the thing that was out of place, the other unknown person’s undone shoe lace without even thinking about what they are doing – you, dear Reader, know far more than Coco does – but USAsians what folly! So busy every day in the office and factory making sure that every box in every regulation has been ticked, they don’t have time to make sure that everything is actually safe, secure, that no one will be hurt, let alone find the time do any real work, and whose consciences are troubled: ‘When I WFH, am I allowed to waste as much time in idle chatter as when I am in the office or do I have to do real work?’ Cloth Capp has little hope when faced with the flint stone of regulation proceeding from a son of Simp.
So we get very hot under the collar about stereotypes when we find them in a cartoon, but when they are portrayed as ‘real’ life in a soap, who cares? The stereotypes are still there, and in a far more dangerous and offensive way: ‘real’ people get hurt. In the cartoon, the same people are there every week, they may treat each other badly, but they always come back in exactly the same way and they continue to treat each other in the way they have always done, and none of them change for the better or the worse. And we continue to laugh at them; they are not real people.
The cartoon shows us the stereotypes, and the judgements that we all would make if we thought the stereotypes are a true reflection of everyone or anyone. We learn from this. It is amusing because it is necessarily grotesque. And we know that it is not the way to behave or to copy. The soap presents us with stereotypes that appear to be real life, and being real life we learn from them too, but dangerously so, for in real life we copy the behaviours of others, and what sort of behaviours are the easiest to copy: good ones or bad ones? If they can behave like that so can we. Perhaps the soaps should portray behaviours worth the copying; but that is not for today’s post.
Paul quoted an ancient poet who said: All [of my own people] are liars, evil beasts and lazy gluttons. Stereotypes have been around for a very long time. We shall not be able to suppress the ability of men to define other men by certain characteristics (think of emotional, analytic, driver and amiable: is that nothing but stereotyping? But it is not politically incorrect to do so, yet), but we can as Epimenides and Paul did learn to use those stereotypes.
Paul showed that the answer to the stereotype proposed was to teach the people the sound doctrine of Jesus Christ, that they, and we, might turn aside from these things that defile us and the ways of behaviour that corrupt us, and instead turn to serve the living God in love, joy and peace through Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. Only in that way will there be peace between us, and xenophobia (Greek and Barbarian, etc it is as old Babel) shall be replaced by xenophilia as we rejoice in the things that make us different.
Thinking about the new normal again (oh dear, did you say, we would prefer that you did not think too much): we have had a year of, in alphabetical order, Zoom, Webex, Teams and other rooms’ meetings. I suppose we are getting used to that by now. We can meet anyone, anywhere at almost any time. Some have become so accustomed to this kind of meeting that they even say, ‘Let’s meet for coffee’. The virtual room is set up and wonderful face to face chat takes place over the coffee at the your own kitchen table. Then of course are the long and tedious lunch time office meetings with bacon and avocado, ham and pickle, cheese and tomato sandwiches laid on. At least in the virtual room it is easier to pretend that you are paying attention. And the committee meetings, all day or evening, which you can now do in the comfort of your own armchair. But no matter how heavily your own table is laden with caviar, smoked salmon, trout, olives, cucumbers, garlics, brie, mozzarella, cheddar, brioches, croissants, fruited breads and oysters you cannot but yearn for the dried up ham sandwiches and soggy cheese and tomato just to be able to be with your colleagues, peers and committee members, to be able to hear their real voices instead of replicas emanating from the inside of a loudspeaker. As one of my colleagues said as the others were glued to the admittedly much better pictures on their computer screens, whereas we had simple rigged up a pinhole camera to display the event on a sheet of paper, at the transit of Venus: Come and watch the real thing. You can see the missing photons. We were watching the real shadow cast by the Sun of Venus as it happened.
But I thought, there are some good things about this virtual world, and this thought was inspired by a lady who always liked to make sure she would be on night duty at this time of the year. We have become, as we said accustomed to it. It no longer feels as unnatural as it did before. We can join in with people anywhere in the world, or even out of this world if you count the ISS among your contacts. It is good to join in with things. The physical limitations of our being have meant that we could not choose to do so wherever we liked, but the virtual world overcomes that. On a UK visit, one contact was not put off but continued to meet in the virtual gaming world with his companions until they banned him, as he had managed to secure a better connection from the UK to the controller than they could. But for a time he was effectively in two places as one. In this virtual world not only can you meet with people anywhere, you can yourself be anywhere. You can travel around the globe in a matter of minutes, though I would not recommend it as that would be rather like playing knick-knock on the doorbells down your street, better perhaps to spend a while with the ones whom you visit on the way. If you plan it well you can have morning coffee every hour for twenty four hours, and if by then your hands are not shaking your arms out of their shoulder joints, you could start again. I can think of a few people who would be overwhelmed by the prospect of such a thing especially if it involved chocolate with the coffee. So I thought I would modify my degustational habits, and as I have met a few people there, and for this purpose and this purpose only, I shall be in Alice Springs. I shall breakfast just after sunset.
But what is fasting?
Fasting is a difficult thing to do, as you will know if ever you have tried it. When you fast, anoint your face, the Lord said, so that people do not know that you fast. So you go about your business as if nothing has changed, and suddenly you notice it. It seems that almost everyone has a fixation on eating, and more to the point getting you to eat. You go to the office, and on the way the free gifts are being handed out at the station: a new energy bar. As you arrive, they are handing out the croissant: a bit of an embarrassment really, the caterers delivered the clients’ breakfast to the office and not the convention centre, and so not to let them go to waste… The catering failure at the convention centre brings some back to the office early, and they want you to join them for lunch. In the middle of the afternoon, the dreadnoughts come round: but it is Tuesday. Thursday is dreadnought day. It’s a busy day, and you notice how wherever you go, people offer sweets: boiled sweets, chewy sweets, toffee to glue your teeth together sweets, chocolate – you can’t say no to that surely. And all the while you hold your tongue and do not say ‘I can’t, I’m fasting’ but you are also fast running out of other excuses, then a ‘phone call arrives from Jim who is in town just for the day…
There are the days of course when nothing happens, until one person comes by and you are caught unawares. Deeply engrossed in whatever work you had to do, there he is someone with whom you had never spoken before. He wants to talk, he has some questions but does not quite know how to begin, so to break the ice offers you a sweet; without thinking you accept and in it goes. You can do nothing. Although it is not too late to remove it from the buccal cavity to do so would not provide a propitious opening to the conversation which was about to begin. You remind yourself that fasting is not a matter of law; your attention is given over to the business that the one time stranger has brought to you.
Fasting has benefits. There are physiological benefits, but of that I shall not speak. The time that we retrieve by not eating, preparing to eat, and dealing with its effects, can be spent in prayer and meditation.
Moses fasted for 40 full days when he received the law from God and neither ate nor drank. How did he survive that? We sometimes hear what hunger strikes do to men. The Lord reminded us that that the law itself says that man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. If the Lord was able to provide manna in the wilderness for a people numbering millions for forty years, then he was also able to sustain Moses through his exhausting fast. Remember however that the miracle of the manna ceased when the people entered the promised land. The sustention of Moses does not provide us with an excuse to test the Lord by our fasting.
The Lord himself after his baptism by John in the Jordan went out into the wilderness to fast, also for forty full days. It was at the end of this time that he was tempted by the devil to satisfy himself, test God and take his kingdom in way other than that which had been planned from the foundation of the world. He rejected these things. The temptations prepared him for the work he had come to do: ‘I have not come to do my will but the will of him who sent me. I have not come to be served, but to be a servant, to carry my cross and give my life for my sheep.’
We noted that fasting provides an opportunity for prayer and meditation, but take care: Fasting does not provide cleansing, or the forgiveness of sins. These are only available because Jesus has made the only acceptable sacrifice for sin in his own death. That you fast, pray and meditate may show that you have received cleansing but it will not give it to you. James in his letter reminds us that just as we know that a tree is living when it produces fruit, we know that faith in the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation is living (real) when it produces fruit (good works, etc). The good works do not provide salvation any more than the fruit can cause the tree to live.
So, we learn that fasting, just a physical training, has some value, but it can do nothing to cleanse the soul. The Lord told us that if our hand leads us into sin to cut it off for it is better to enter the kingdom of God maimed than be cast into hell whole. The point of this is not that it is our hands that cause us to sin; he tells us elsewhere that sin proceeds from the heart. If we would be clean in heart, we shall be clean in hand and foot as well, and if we would be clean we must look to the Lord Jesus Christ and set our hope on the living God who is the Saviour of all.
So, fast if you will, but if you do not hold fast to the Lord Jesus, there is no salvation.
It is far, far better that he hold you fast, than that you hold a fast.
It has been overshadowed in the last few days by the passing of a great man. The Duke is rightly to be remembered and his life celebrated for all the good he has done and in the idiosyncrasies that he displayed. His death reminds us that life does not remain the same; time moves on; until now in recent days, and I suppose that it shall return, there had been much talk in these parts about what the new normal will look like. I don’t know what you hear elsewhere, but what we hear doesn’t sound to me very much unlike the old.
Holidays in the sun is good for vitamin D deficient sun lovers unless they also have a melanin deficiency in which case extra strong skin cream is required. Racing to return to the gym, which provides bodily exercise for those who do not have to labour hard in the acre of land that the government allows them on which to grow maize and other crops. Eating out and visits to the cinema, theatre, opera, shows, concerts, dance halls, gigs (is that orthographically correct, or should it be gigues?) and the like are, well, without the need for justification of any sort, a necessary part of the new normal. Let us eat drink and be merry¹, seems to be the message.
Are we any different? There has been much celebrated over the past year of dedication, selfless giving, service, but little (but not nothing) has been said about the cleaner who was no longer needed because her employer now WFH had recovered two hours a day not being required to travel, or the employer who simply told his staff not to bother to return the next day, they would not be paid. The poor still had mouths to feed and bills to pay.
Do not think I am about to suggest that wealth is bad, Abraham² did not berate the rich man for enjoying the things that he enjoyed in this life but for failing to believe in the Son of Man. He was not asked to give half his wealth to Lazarus who sat at his gate, but rather to remember justice, righteousness and compassion. It was this that he forgot.
In the new normal, will we simply revert to type, and behave as we always have done? Noah³ left a world that was filled with violence to sail into a new world. What sort of violence? Physical, economic, emotional, therapeutic? Did Noah hope for better in the new world into which through the flood he had sailed? But his own behaviour and that of his sons soon showed that the world that they had left behind had come with them. The new world was no better. We today seek to deal with violence, but the very need to do so simply exposes our shame that it continues to exist.
The last year is no cure for our condition; it has shown many good things about the image of God in which we are made, but it has also exposed that our condition is unchanged.
There is but one cure, the man, who himself suffered violence at the hands of his own people, is our cure. Jesus now sits at the right hand of God⁴ and will come again to take his people to a world which really shall be new and different than this one, where there shall be no violence, no hurt, no harm. That will be the new normal; it will be an extraordinary, previously unimagined normal⁵, but it is the only new normal for which it is worth waiting.
Offences, which do not like a joke – an open letter
Have you heard the one about the Yorkshireman, the Cornishman and the man of Kent? It doesn’t quite have the ring about it as an opening line as ‘Have you heard the one about the Irishman, the Scotsman and the Englishman?’ But if Coco used the latter, Coco would get away with the rest of it in an English public house, providing none of the English liberal elite were present, and might regret the long, but deserved, stay in hospital if Coco tried it in Clonmel. What the reaction would be in Aberdeen is as clear as whether Schrödinger’s cat is alive or dead.
But, in using the second opener Coco is not being racist, Coco is making a professional judgement; the joke needs something on which to hang the three preposterous remarks, and as we know a joke will not succeed if it is longwinded.
We all characterise others, and recognise characteristics in our own stock. Coco is a man of deep pockets and short arms, which says nothing of Coco’s wealth nor physical incapability, when Coco’s part of the country is the butt of the joke. Does Coco take offence at that? No, why should Coco, when Coco only need to take offence if Coco is insecure in Coco’s belief that all such characterisations are at the same time far from the truth and close to the truth. Schrödinger’s cat lives again.
Some people are though quick to take offence. The BBC, about whom you complained, ran an article some years ago which had a picture of whited up Nigerians. If it is appropriate to white up, then why not also to be able to black up? A more recent report suggested that one ballet dancer felt humiliated that she had been asked to white up in Berlin, but when you look at cosmetics in countries which are populated predominantly by darker skin colours than ours, how many whitening products does one find? Another aspect of the report referenced an idea that when you are on stage you can retain your own identity. Coco had thought that the whole point of being a stage actor was to take on the identity of the person you were to portray, which of necessity requires the giving up of your own. If Coco were to watch a spy film, Coco would not want to see Sean Connery but James Bond. Whiting up for the stage does not imply a loss of identity any more than it did for the Nigerian men, for whom it was probably part of their identity.
The present malaise about racism has much which is unforgiving in it. An elder of a church said recently that these movements have much for which to answer. For years we have had people coming in and out of our church of a huge variety of hues, and all I have ever seen are believers in the Lord Jesus Christ who want to love, serve and worship him. Now I am asked to take note of whether they are black or white – with nothing in between?
Racism is thinking about race as marking someone else different to (and probably also implied less deserving than) me. But this gentleman, and probably many thousands like him, had never had race in his thinking in his dealing with others. Your reported comments suggest that you are probably one like him. Anti-racist sentiment however forces us to think in racist terms. It is not something that either you or Coco want to do.
Recently Coco complained that a professional institute had set up a black section. Coco asked that as it would be considered inappropriate to have a white section, why did they think it appropriate to have a black section. The response did not address the question, but merely referenced the usefulness of the section to the minority group. Coco has no doubt at all that the section is useful, but Coco still considers that it is an inappropriate use of the funds of the organisation. Such a view as Coco has is however unpopular.
The recent mantra that ‘diversity is required for the prosperity of our company etc’, seems to forget that the UK and its companies were at their most prosperous when the very opposite was true. It is not a message that people want to hear today. [For reasons other than diversity Coco would not want to return to those days.]
In Coco’s view you were right to point out that there was a lack of diversity in the Gospel Singer of the Year. Coco was not aware of the event, and Coco has not troubled his own self to find out any more about it yet. It does not really however surprise Coco to hear that the finalists were all black. It is nothing however to do with race but rather with culture and skill. The culture promotes a particular style of gospel singing which is popular today. Coco quite understands that and in some settings quite enjoys listening to it*. There are other styles of gospel singing which probably, due to the preferences of the present day, would not get past the first round. How far would George Beverly Shea have got today? Perhaps even Graham Kendrick or Stuart Townsend would not survive many rounds. A presbyterian a cappella precentor would probably not even have been allowed in the first round, but it seems to Coco that the precentor is much more of a gospel singer in terms of what the Scriptures require than any of the others.
Whilst the organisers have no control over the line-up of finalists, it is difficult however to understand what wisdom the organisers saw in not ensuring that there was ‘diversity’ in the other members of team, judges, presenters etc. unless they wish to say there was diversity as they had representatives of several different racial groups such as Shona, Zulu, Igbo, Fulani, Ethiopic, Somali and the hundreds of others whose names Coco has never known. But would that sort of diversity not in itself be an acknowledgment of racism in their thinking?
Coco is sorry that you were taken to task for merely pointing out the obvious. There are times when the emperor does not wear his clothes and it does no harm to others, but there are times when it does do harm and it behoves us to mention it in the most polite way that we possibly can.
A difficulty we have though is that we know that by speaking in apparently anti-cultural [unpolitically correct is close but not quite right] ways we shall become objects of opprobrium. We can hope however that those that take offence at our words do so only because they have not fully understood what was said, and have not yet understood the contradictions in their own position. Coco is glad to have read that you have discussed the matter you raised with some of these groups of people and are willing to continue to do so. The report on the BBC seems to show that they have failed to understand what you actually said. Coco hopes that does not also reflect an unwillingness to understand, and that by discussion they will learn.
Racism is a problem, and some people are hurt by it. Racism is however not just practiced by white people. You could say that the Atlantic slave trade, for which we are still vilified even though we abolished it, was driven by racism within West Africa. The slave trade across Africa to the east clearly shows all the signs of racism. But it is rife worldwide: the dominance of the Han in China, the endless in fighting between tribes in the African republics, the Iberian dominance in South America; Coco is sure you know of many other specific examples and far more than Coco knows.
For some however it is a tool that can be used for advantage: a complaint is made by A ‘You didn’t choose me because I am a different colour than you’. The complaint is not entirely unfounded. A was not chosen because A was both not the right person for the job and secondly because A is racist. The employer believes in diversity and does not want to employ someone who thinks that race matters and should be brought into the considerations for a job.
But race does matter. You are an Irishman. Coco has often offended an Irishman by saying we are all British here forgetting that my friend is from the south. She is still a friend. Coco cannot enter into the cultural secrets of a Japanese family any more than a South African can understand how a UK business planning meeting works. Where it matters we must recognise it and allow for it, but where it does not we are all equal before a sovereign God to whom we must answer for the way we treat those who have also been made in his image.
Let the world do as it will. If it wants to promote racial differences under the guise of anti-racist sentiment, let it do so. Let us present the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ in whom there is neither Jew nor Greek, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, male nor female. Let us not regard any man by the flesh, but according to whether they love the Lord. In this way we shall be truly anti-racist whilst celebrating the diversity of culture that God has given to us. The gospel of free grace, an incarnate God and a crucified Saviour has more offence in it than any offence of which the world is capable to the pride of man.
On the day that new opportunities arise for some, this is the day of reckoning for many others. There are but a few hours left to complete your reckoning to HMRC, have you done so? Or are you exempt? If you must still do so, and are not yet ready, do not let Coco delay you any longer.
This day of reckoning reminded Coco of another day, we have heard much of the effect of the consequences of the new coronavirus and of excess deaths. In very broad terms seventy-five thousand excess deaths is a very real and great tragedy. You do know that there were six hundred and fourteen thousand deaths in 2020 – an even greater loss. This reminded Coco of the even greater day of reckoning that is to come to every one of us. You may often hear it said ‘we only live once’ which of course has a corollary ‘we only die once’ and after that there is a crisis. Well, crisis is the original word, it means judgement. There is a day for the reckoning that each one of us must make to his Maker. Are you ready for it?
Between now and the end of the day of reckoning for your tax return in England and Wales there may be a further seventy times seven (one of whom on the basis of statistics alone will not have completed his tax return) who have gone to the ultimate day of reckoning. As the Bible reminds us that just as we must die once, so Jesus Christ has appeared once to take away sins, and shall appear a second time for those who are waiting for him to bring salvation. Are you waiting for him or waiting for judgement?
A tautologous repetition of conceptual ideas will not produce the making of a taxonomic classification of factual data items however well clothed with an investment in a garb of reasonable logic, but it may provide a cane with which to rod those with whom your tolerance will have nothing to do.
There were four schools on the remote populous Atlantic Island of South Withering, we call them A, B, C and D. The Island had overall a poor reputation for the education of its people and wished to improve its standards. A report was commissioned and after much deliberation it was agreed by the educational sociologists that the recommendations would be implemented subject to some minor modifications which they assured all would not invalidate the new measures. It was a stick and carrot approach but as with most social sociology the emphasis was upon the carrot. There would be rewards for increasing standards of achievement amongst pupils as this was felt to be the most appropriate way to encourage both schools and pupils.
The targets were ambitious, but given the abysmal starting point generally recognised as not unattainable. Over three years there was a hope, it was not expressed as an expectation, of a ten percent improvement in educational achievements. The teachers at school C were quite concerned about the targets, but nevertheless threw their weight behind the initiative and after learning that their colleagues at school D were struggling offered them help in the form of additional coaching and tutoring. The teachers at schools D and C worked together over the following years. Schools A and B continued to make steady but not remarkable progress.
At the day of assessment all four schools were astonished at the outcome. School D received prestigious rewards for its achievements. Schools A and B were commended, but school C would be placed in special measures for its failure to draw anywhere close to the targets that had been set.
The results table was as follows:
Grades
α
β
γ
Overall
υ
A
10%
13%
20%
15%
-50%
B
12%
10%
10%
11%
-69%
C
0%
3%
-5%
0%
0%
D
50%
25%
30%
31%
-68%
Increase in numbers passing exams at grades and decrease in unclassified results
What was not disclosed however were the actual numbers of pupils before and after (the before numbers have been scaled to match the current numbers):
Before
After
Grades
α
β
γ
υ
α
β
γ
υ
Total
A
150
230
200
170
165
260
240
85
750
B
130
180
210
80
146
198
231
25
600
C
450
30
20
0
450
31
19
0
500
D
90
250
350
310
135
312
455
98
1000
Total
820
690
780
360
896
801
945
208
2850
All of the teaching staff knew that without the dedicated support of the staff at school C, in guiding her teachers but primarily in motivating her students, school D would have made little or no progress. But in their hearts, they knew, it was useless to say anything. For school C even the best possible result would have been regarded as a failure: +11% at α -100% at β -100% at γ -0% at υ.
What has that to do with Welsh farmers one may ask? I too do wonder why they are in December 2020 to be given new reduced greenhouse gas emission targets when they already have one of the lowest rates of emission in the world?
Jones, the farmer, who had been very active in the farmers’ union throughout his working life, on his retirement had been asked to present to his colleagues on the techniques that he had used and tried over his many years’ of active life. Some months later in the course of his closing remarks he mentioned that he had farmed 1000 hectares for over forty years, and through the implementation of systems of active land management and rotation in his last twenty or so years had increased his average five year yield from 6 tonnes an hectare to 8, but in this latest year he had achieved over 10 tonnes per acre.
His peers were impressed by his long term achievement, but what had he done recently? ‘Remarkable’, they spoke to one another in the reception afterwards. ‘Indeed’ would be the reply, ‘what had he done, what is the secret?’ And all and sundry wanted to ask him the burning question, but he seemed to take control of every conversation and steer the discussion away from the question of yield to techniques and environmental impact. Eventually the younger farmers gave up, until another retired gentleman farmer spoke out, and asked Jones to explain to the company what he had meant and how he had done it, giving Jones, as only an older man could do, no escape. Jones replied quite simply, ‘if you are willing to put in the effort then ten tons per acre is not in anyway unachievable, but, he added, I knew that if I planted more than one square yard I would not be able to devote sufficient care to the crop to produce such a yield.’
‘By the grace of God given to me, Paul, do not think more highly of yourself than you ought, but let each by careful judgement measure yourselves according to the faith that God has given you. ‘ Of course, if we have no faith then we have no standard by which to measure, but nevertheless our standard is Jesus Christ, who loving his enemies, gave his life for us that we may receive from him faith and so be able to serve and love him in his eternal kingdom (Romans 12:3 and elsewhere).
There are, as you, dear reader, well know, four types of sieve. This conclusion is founded upon the well-established theory of sieves, which states that a sieve is an object with two properties each of which may be in one of two states. The two states are of permission and denial. The properties relate to the passage of fluids (liquids and gases) and solids. Thus a sieve is an object which will either permit or deny the passage of liquids or solids. Where both states are set to denial (Permissio Aut Nunquam), we have a pan sieve, which as a result of the dropping of the noun and retention of the adjective as an adjectival noun – a common occurrence in the English language – is commonly known as a pan. We must be careful however in any discussion of the theory of sieves to use the correct terminology. Where both states are set to permit (Permissio In Propter aEternum) we have a pipe sieve, which becomes known to us, for the same reasons, as a pipe or where the pipe has zero thickness a ring or hoop. The second order of sieve is where the fluid property is set to permit and the solid to deny. This is the, somewhat perhaps confusingly but it has become the standard convention, the solid sieve (Solidum Obstructus; Licet fluidum Ius Detur). In everyday use in the kitchen or garden we would simply refer to it as a sieve. The fourth order of sieve, which is a fluid* sieve has a state of deny to fluids and permit to solids. It is under standard convention known as the exotic sieve. It is thought to have significant technological advantages over much that is presently used in engineering, for the storage of fluids and the building of engines which rely upon clean fluid fuels. It would be possible to clean fluids in a static environment, the fuel tank of your car for example, rather than using a filter in the pathways to the combustion chamber. Exhaust gases similarly and waste liquids could be cleaned and solids collected safely. The possibilities for use in a waste treatment plant are considered to be inestimable.
As yet the exotic sieve has not been observed in the real world, but early work in the late Soviet Union under Lysenko, who was primarily an agricultural scientist but saw the potential benefits of this sieve made some progress, but sadly the work ceased to be funded in 1989. It is thought that the work may be continuing in Xin-Jiang or perhaps Wuhan, but no official confirmation of this has been possible to obtain.
So what has this to do with standees, well we shall now see. Coco was astonished to see the use of the word so Coco thought: Coco should consider other words which use this construction. You may care to correct the following:
It is an anchorage. The anchors anchor the anchee, which then becomes the anchored. Hmm, I think that is wrong. It is the boat, carrying the anchor, which is anchored.
It is an appointment. The appointors appoint the appointee who then becomes the appointed.
It is a beavering. The beavers beave the beavees which then become the beaved.
It is a colouring. The colours colour the colees which then become the coloured. It is better in US English.
It is a donation. The donors done [to] the donees, who then become the done[d]. Well, a three year old might say I have doed it, but I have doned it, perhaps not.
It is an execution. The executors and executrices execute the executees, who then become the executed.
It is an escape. The escapers escape the escapees, who then become the escaped. I seem to remember reading somewhere that it was the escapees who escaped, but the -ees and -ors cannot be the same surely?
It is a firing. The firer fires the firee, who then becomes the fired. Well, you probably would not say it quite like that, but it makes sense at least.
It is a footballing. The footballers football the footballee, which then becomes the footballed.
It is a going. The goers go to the goee, which become the gone.
It is a howing. The howers how the howee, which becomes the howed.
It is an idling. The idlers idle the idlee, which becomes the idled.
It is a jambing. The jamborors jambor the jamboree, which becomes the jamboreed.
It is a joke. The jokers joke the jokee, who then becomes the joked.
It is a killing. The killers kill the killee, who then becomes the killed.
It is a laughing. The laughers laugh [at] the laughee, who then becomes the laughed.
It is a mortgage. The mortgagor mortgages the mortgagee, which then becomes the mortgaged.
It is a mourning. The mourners mourn the mournee, who then becomes the mourned.
It is a numbering. The numbers number the numberee which then becomes the numbered. After this my days probably are too.
It is a ornamentation. The ornamentor ornaments the ornamentee, who/which then becomes the ornamented. That should rather probably be: The ornamentrix ornaments the ornamentee, who then becomes the ornamented.
It is a payment. The payers pay the payee, who then becomes the paid.
It is a quelling. The quellors quell the quellee, which then becomes the quelled.
It is a ramble (like this). The ramblers ramble the ramblee which then becomes the rambled.
It is a registration. The registrars register the [interest of the] registrant which then becomes the registered.
It is a sizeuppance. The sizeuppers size the sizeuppees up, who then become the sizedup.
It is a spectacle. The spectators spectate the spectatees, who then become the spectated.
It is a standing. The standers stand (on/in front of/behind/below/above/next to etc?) the standees, who then become the standed.
It is a tidying up. The tidy-uppers tidy up the tidy-uppee, which then becomes the tidied-up.
It is a usurpation. The usurpers usurped the usurpee, who became the usurped.
It is a vivisection. The vivisectors vivisected the vivisectee which became the vivisected.
It is a waiting. The waiters and waitresses wait [on/for] the waitees, who then become the weighted.
It is a wedding. The wedders wed the weddees, who then become the wedded.
It is a weighing. The weigher weigh the weighees who then become the weighed.
It is a xysteration. The xysterators xysterate the xysteree, which becomes the xysterated.
It is a yanking. The yankers yank the Yankee, which becomes the yanked.
It is a zincing. The zincers zinc the zincee, which then becomes the zinced. Coco knows Coco should have said galvanising, but z-verbs are fewer and further between then x-verbs. Zoom does not cut the mustard.
Has it become obvious to you that the -ee-or endings, like the famous donkey, are rather morose. They speak of an empty head which has seen the -ee-or elsewhere and thought ‘that can be used in place of ‘standing’’. On a bus, there is likely to be a notice indicating that it is licensed to carry 30 seated and 20 standing. What has clearly been forgotten is that this is a common English way of saying 30 seated passengers and 20 standing passengers. Standing is an adjective without its noun, just as pan in the initial discussion is an adjective without its noun. Coco suspects that perhaps they were told that standing is an adjective and thought ‘O, we cannot use that then’. Did they forget, there is already a noun implied in the notice which does not need to be said, but sometimes is, or at least used to be, and therefore standing is the correct word to use. Better than standee then would have been to use orthostatis, at least the correct form of that word is definitively defined, if Coco may use a tautologous repetition of a conceptual idea.
By the way, the second purpose of the discussion of the sieve was also to show that just because a theory suggests the existence of a particular state of matter, the real world does not have to provide it. There may be an apparently empty slot (*as above for the Fluidum obstructus; licet solidum ius detur seive) in our design for the world, but it is perhaps just as likely that the design is wrong as that the thing for the slot exists.
For in saying: where is the promise of his coming, they wilfully forget that God made the worlds of old out of water and destroyed them with water (ie the cataclysm). Just so he shall destroy the present world (at the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ) with fire (2 Peter 3 and elsewhere). Do you have a conception of this world which excludes that? Does your paradigm omit judgement and retribution? We must not forget that God has shown his wrath, and mercy towards sinners, in the death of Jesus Christ who for sinners received the just judgement and retribution that our sins deserved in order that God may justly show mercy and provide forgiveness to sinners.
Coco has a friendly Corsa who is ever the optimist In fact she is in his view overly optimistic even in the face of the facts.
When topped up with a mere 41.32l of petrol she will announce that she has a range of 499 miles. Coco is pretty sure that she announces only 499 miles because that is the upper limit on the metre she uses. But the facts so obviously fly in the face of this optimism. The other day and three miles before being topped up she announced that she had less than 19 miles left, sulked bitterly and refused to do any more calculations. She also knows that she has a range of 39.1 miles for every gallon she holds. Now to his mind that mean that after the top up she would have a range of about 41.32*39.1/4.546 + 16 say 370 miles. Well Coco can only attribute the additional 129 miles to optimism or perhaps merely to hubris. Such optimism is entirely misplaced, would you not agree?
We can all be like that, and have an optimism which is misplaced. We live in a harsh world, in which the difficulties which are common to us all will not be effaced, and in which there are hardships which are of our own making and others made by other people for us. There is no excuse of course for the making of those hardships, and those who mistreat others, as we are reminded by the recent references to the Nuremberg trials, shall be brought to account.
But lest we sink into pessimism, there is an optimism which we may have which is even greater than my Corsa’s, which if she had anything like it she would use to claim a range, if her metre allowed it, of ∞: Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor has it entered into the imagination of the heart of man what God has prepared for those who love him.
Do we love the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ? Do we love him?
Optimism based upon the work of Christ on the cross, unlike that of the friendly Corsa, is never misplaced.
