My friend has gone to his final resting place. There awaits him, so I have hope, a glorious admittance to the place which the Lord had gone beforehand to prepare for him.
We had fellowship together in the Lord though we disagreed (and rarely agreed) on peripheral matters. He came as an elder to the church. He had already indicated where he was going, and soon he started to lead in such a way that we would become a congregation where each one had a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation, where everything would be done for the building up of the body of Christ. He would not tolerate, as James would not, those who showed partiality towards those who wear gold rings and fine clothing, giving to them the best seats but rather he opened up to the poor and needy providing support and homes to them.
Not all in the congregation were ready for all of this, some called it innovation, others a revival of some of the things which the church had long ago been instructed to give up (not the bits about the poor and needy I hasten to add). Others were ready, and eagerly listened to the teaching that our brother gave; impatient with what was seen as slow progress, though they had heard him say that when one of us has a grievance against another we should not dare to go to law before the unbelievers about the matter and so kept the matter within the church, they did not remember that no charge should be admitted against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses, and in so doing they grievously injured our brother, causing him to groan under the weight placed upon him. It is sometimes very hard for us to be patient.
One writer suggested that when Paul left Titus in Crete he was left among a people where everyone wanted to be their own king. As it was in the days of the judges: everyman did what was right in his own eyes. It seems now ironic that his ministry began by teaching us what amphictyony means. We are little different. We each want to be king. But the Lord has already made us a nation of kings and priests, to serve him who is King of kings, who said whoever would be great among you must become the servant of all. My friend sought to be such a servant. We should not assert our own authority. All power and authority has been given to him. Let us then, we who are in churches, remember what the Apostle said to the churches: obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls as those who will have to give account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning for that would be of no advantage to you.
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.
Credits: Noteworthy Composer for scoring and producing the midi file Melody Assistant by Myriad Software for producing the mp3 Virtual Singer for singing Powerpoint for producing the mp4 BBC for reporting the new content that inspired the song with refrain Tradition for remembering the music Wikipedia for providing a low resolution image of Test Card C
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.
Sometimes Coco’s posts are far too wordy, so he thought he would keep it simple today. See, there are already far too many words!
Explanations of art work flow quite readily from artists these days, Coco supposes in part it is because the art cannot speak for itself, but Coco hopes that what he presents here requires no explanation and that you will all fully understand it. It is, with a little thought such as you might give to a cryptic crossword, completely self explanatory. Coco had noticed that the BBC had presented some striking pictures from around the world today, so he thought to present you with a striking picture also. He was going to give it a name but that is entirely unnecessary, it shall be left simply with the adjective that has already been provided.
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.
Just before 11h yestermorn, the BBC played Silent Night by a composer whose skills excelled in the use of the propensity of violas to play in unison with themselves. Alfred Schnittke was a master of the improbable and novel, even taking into account the built in weakness of the tuning system of the instrument. Viola players are well known for overcoming the stiffness of the tuning pegs in their instruments by applying wax rather than chalk to their stems. They are also one of the boldest and most brash of musicians, outdoing even the infamous ‘bonists, in their ability to overcome what may appear to the untrained ear to be a mistake. In a word they are the toreadors of the musical world.
On the BBC playlist it was item 17. You would have had to wait nearly two hours to hear this exceptional piece of violistic virtuosity, or scroll forward to 1:54, just after the adverts, which just like June 4th, are not there. At the time of posting it would have only been available for a further 29 days, so you had had to be quick…to listen, but now that the 29 days have expired all that remains for you is this faint and feinting echo of the performances of that day.
As always, Coco must apologise for any inaccuracies, or deviations from the facts of the matter, but one must not let the facts get in the way of a good story, as every viola player knows, and secondly, to the two excellent musicians for any misrepresentation of their performance. Coco should add that the instrument – it is actually a violin that is being played in this performance, demonstrating even more the extraordinary ability of the performer, which approaches that of Mike Yarwood, to be able on that most well-behaved of instruments, to imitate one of the most incorrigible.
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
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.
A warning to Wiebo users: do not share this. And yes, Coco does know that word this is miss-spelt as Coco does incorrectly spell ohters.
Freckles are apparently a diplomatic matter in one oriental country. Well perhaps Coco is overstating it, but apparently pizza is, which not being Italian Coco would not of course understand. We begin with the BBC in 2018 Dolce and Gabbana cancels Shanghai fashion show amid racism accusations:
‘Another user adds that a wave of companies and individuals have been smeared over “insults to [Seres]”, noting that the D&G incident was “raised to diplomatic level”.’
which was about an apparently entirely inappropriate pizzese incident.
Others have gone further, questioning whether Zara was “insulting” or “defaming the [Serenites]”, with one saying: “such pictures featuring an Asian model with freckles and an expressionless pie-shaped face mislead Westerners’ impressions about Asian women, and can lead to racism against Asian women.”‘
In an editorial by the [Peking] Daily, the model in the Dior photo was described as having a “gloomy face” and sinister eyes”.
“The photographer is playing up to the brands, or the aesthetic tastes of the western world,” the editorial said. “For years, Asian women have always appeared with small eyes and freckles from the Western perspective, but the oriental way to appreciate art and beauty can’t be distorted by that.” Meanwhile, a commentary by [] Women’s News said that the image of the model with “swollen single eyelids” made people feel “uncomfortable”.’
Well, a face is a face, whether it is a freckly face or not is not your choice, but photoshopping a photograph of a face is the real distortion. In most of these extracts from the BBC articles quoting comments, by Coco assumes orientals, we could substitute references to orientals with occidental, perhaps even accidental, references or references to any other racial stereotype.
Perhaps the question should rather be, in the light of the deliberate malicious hyping up of photographs in advertisements of absolutely no consequence, why does that country suggest that the controversy, which does have consequences, surrounding tennis star Peng Shuai has been maliciously hyped up by others?
Of course, Coco hopes that Peng Shuai is well and free, but in the face of obstruction and obfuscation, by a government that hope has little on which to hold, which perhaps brings us back to Wuhan.
Daniel provides a commentary one who outgrew his boots: “‘Is not this great Babylon that I have built for a royal dwelling by my mighty power and for the honour of my majesty?’ While [this] word was still on the king’s mouth, a voice fell from heaven: King Nebuchadnezzar, to you it is spoken. The kingdom has departed from you. They shall drive you from men and your dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field…until you know that the Most High rules in the kingdom of men, and gives it to whomsoever he choose.’ … Nebuchadnezzar was driven out .. and ate grass like the oxen. His body was wet with the dew till his hair had grown like eagles’ feathers and nails like birds’ claws. “
