Have you read your budget commentaries yet? If not, I have no wish to distract you from them.
We read in David Copperfield that Mr. Micawber was waiting for me within the gate, and we went up to his room (top story but one), and cried very much. He solemnly conjured me, I remember, to take warning by his fate; and to observe that if a man had twenty pounds a-year for his income, and spent nineteen pounds nineteen shillings and sixpence, he would be happy, but that if he spent twenty pounds one he would be miserable. After which he borrowed a shilling of me for porter, gave me a written order on Mrs. Micawber for the amount, and put away his pocket-handkerchief, and cheered up.
The man who ended up in the King’s Bench Prison had some wisdom; we read later on that Mr. Micawber was a thoroughly good-natured man, and as active a creature about everything but his own affairs as ever existed, and never so happy as when he was busy about something that could never be of any profit to him, but if I have read it correctly, even with his wisdom he still increases the level of his borrowing by one shilling.
I have no wish, as perhaps some do, to impugn the intellectual abilities of our government; to have even appeared on University Challenge is something to which the brain of this writer could not have aspired, but to have succeeded there also would have been, had it not been seen, incredible. It is entirely credible that those who are in leadership have the aptitude for it, and the intellectual ability to be busy about something of such importance.
It is perhaps then of no surprise that as Mr Micawber ignored his own wisdom, others today have ignored theirs only to borrow more with a further promise to pay the bearer on demand the extra shilling when required to do so.
E&OE If I have misunderstood the English of the dialect used by Mr Dickens, which is no longer commonly spoken in this land, then I apologise, but I carry some hope that you may comprehend with some satisfaction that a modified interpretation would not entirely invalidate the conclusion that has been drawn.
It had escaped Coco’s notice, but in 2011 EIIR said:
Although we are capable of great acts of kindness, history teaches us that we sometimes need saving from ourselves from our recklessness or our greed. God sent into the world a unique person, neither a philosopher nor a general, important though they are, but a saviour, with the power to forgive.
On the other hand Georg Hegel said:
The only thing that we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history.
There is somewhat a contradiction here, until we look at the paradigm which drives these two assertions concerning history. Whilst one is derived from a paradigm, which whilst it sought to go beyond the scepticism and nothingness of Platonism with its vast empty abyss by the introduction of concepts such as the negation of certain determinations, which may be called determinate negations, and do not result in an empty, abstract nothing, but rather a determinate nothingness which has content, does not take us much beyond the former position, but rather lays a foundation for the ever more meaningless paradigms taken up later in the 19th and 20th centuries as men built upon the ephemeral concepts of eternal matter underpinned by an irrational cleavage to uniformity, which lead to the conclusion that we have no purpose and no responsibility towards any outside authority let alone to each other. Each of the words used to summarise the Hegelian position, you must understand, has a technical meaning into the discussion of which we shall not enter here. You may also disagree with the summary, and Coco shall be pleased to receive alternative concise summaries of Hegel’s paradigm.
The other however stands on a solid foundation, which is forever not having been laid by the hands of men, but rather by the One who made all things. Matter is not eternal; matter has a beginning. But the self-existent God has built this universe, made of matter, on the solid foundation of his own eternal faithfulness and righteousness.
The one paradigm leads to a hopelessness which results in pessimism about ourselves, our past, present and future; the other leads to an optimistic hope that despite ourselves, our past, present and future behaviours, that as a result of God’s past intervention, there is a future intervention that will straighten everything out. This universe is not to remain a vast dangerous wilderness where wild beats roam and men devour each other, but it shall be renewed in a way where the wolf shall dwell with the lamb; the leopard shall lie down with the young goat; the calf and the young lion and the fatling together… they shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea. In that day the tabernacle of God shall be with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people. God himself will be with them and be their God. God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away. Nothing shall hurt or harm, and men shall live in love for one another as they serve, and walk with, and enjoy the living God in the city that he has built.
But note that her Majesty does not say that we shall achieve this ourselves. God’s intervention is required, and so he sent his Son into the world as a saviour with the power to forgive. Yes, he came also teaching, preaching and healing, but primarily as he said when speaking of his death by crucifixion: Now my soul is troubled, and what shall I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour’? But for this purpose I came to this hour. Father, glorify your name.) The prospect of crucifixion is indeed troubling; later we hear him speak in this way: Father, if it is your will, take this cup away from me; nevertheless not my will, but yours, be done. But it was for this very purpose that he came into the world, to die to save sinners. In this way he became the Saviour of men.
Concerning his power to forgive, very early in his ministry we find this affirmed when he was presented with a paralysed man by the man’s friends: When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, ‘Son, your sins are forgiven you.’ This provoked outrage among some. And some of the scribes were sitting there and reasoning in their hearts, ‘Why does this man speak blasphemies like this? Who can forgive sins but God alone?’ They were quite right in their reasoning, but wrong in their conclusion. To show them that he had power to forgive, he healed the man who had been brought to him.
On what basis then does he forgive? Justice, as we know, demands a penalty. Forgiveness is not cheap. It is not right, as we know, to justify the wrongdoer. Are we all not revulsed when the guilty escape justice? How then can God let off the sinner? That was his dilemma, but in the infinite wisdom of God he found the way that he could be both just and be able to justify the sinner. The penalty for sin is too great for the sinner to pay, so God himself must pay it. For this reason, we read, and this is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.
We were in the Republic when the day came, and even though not on this occasion in a Chambre d’hôtes where Louis XXII had once resided, great consolation was shown towards us, but it was not until subjects of the House of Orange also came for refreshment, rest and repast that in the brotherhood of equality, liberty was granted to cry out:
La Reine est morte; vive le Roi.
If in the day of the death of King Saul, King David could say ‘This a day of mourning and weeping’, how much more we who have lost a Queen who had proven herself more worthy of her name in the keeping of her promises to God and to men than many others who would clothe themselves with the trappings of leadership. What freedom we have that we do not have to fight or contend over and vote for who shall rule over us, but simply lend our support and allegiance to the one who has been chosen not by the hand of man.
Long live the king! May he too be faithful to serve the people over whom the Lord has appointed him. And may the Lord give to him, as he gave to Solomon, an understanding heart to judge the people and to discern between what is good and what is evil.
‘Covid-19 is on the rise again in the UK. After multiple lockdowns and more than 197,000 deaths, experts are warning we’re now entering a fifth wave of the pandemic. So why are around four million adults in the UK still yet to receive a single dose of the vaccine? In this timely, eye-opening investigation Professor Hannah Fry seeks to understand why so many remain unvaccinated against Covid-19.
To fully explore this complex and deeply divisive debate, Hannah brings seven unvaccinated participants together under one roof to unpack long-held opinions, beliefs and fears that have prevented them from getting the vaccine. Together, they meet leading experts, confront the latest science and statistics to emerge in the field, and dissect how misinformation spreads on social media. At the end of the experiment, each contributor is asked if what they have learned has changed their mind, and whether they will now take up the vaccine.‘
If this is the same Professor Hannah Fry as in the Mathematics of Cities at the UCL Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis, then it seems to Coco that she brings the regimen of mathematics into disrepute. The study, which is designed to fully explore the complex and deeply divisive debate over whether to submit to vaccination or not, is hardly a scientific study, even by the standards of the least rigorous of the psycho-social , so-called, scientific disciplines. There is no parallel study to explore the opinions, beliefs and fears of those who have submitted to vaccination; no meeting of the vaccinated to discuss the contrary evidence and no question put to each of them whether with their greater knowledge they now understand the issues better and in the light of that would have refused the vaccination.
Whilst the setting, if the headline picture is of the location for the event, is quite pleasant, and certainly appears to be less ‘clinical’ than other centres used for similar, but quite different and putatively malicious, purposes, the description provided above suggests that this is nothing less than an attempt at re-education. It is an entirely one-sided, one-way effort to persuade individuals to change their views.
Coco is disappointed, but not astonished nor surprised by the BBC but disappointed, and astonished at UCL.
Just for the avoidance of doubt, this is not in itself a discussion of the reasons for and against vaccination. As mentioned above, the issues are complex; the science, such as it is, behind the modern vaccines is young; the language used to code biological systems is only partly and inadequately understood. There are many uncertainties. There are also complex social issues around our responses to threats, especially where there is a mixture of real, only perceived, and illusory threats some of which are propagated by those with special interests which are not fully aligned with the interests of the actual or potential patients.
The James Webb pictures have started to be released.
If you know anything about William Blake you will know of his impressive imagination. When you see something like Gerrard Hoffnung’s the Symphony Orchestra you might wonder whether it was inspired by Blake’s last judgement, turned on its head of course. What is the point of this? Well it was Martin’s The Great Day of His Wrath that set me off. It is but a short ride in a fast machine, if you can bear with it.
Did you see the James Webb Telescope’s pictures that were released a week ago? Perhaps more to the point did you watch through the live broadcast covering the release on the NASA/ESA channel? I shall refrain from any comments on that lest impunity be found in them. The pictures are as they say ‘out of this world’, but unlike Blake’s visions not of things out of this universe. I do wonder how we can say that anything is ‘out of this world’ if it clearly is in this world, but that is a different blog. What was interesting was the process by which the images are made presentable to us with the limitations of our eyes, as the new telescope does not operate in the wavelengths that are visible to us. Whilst the use of the infrared produces a great deal of information for those who can interpret it – things like spectra which reveal the presence of elements in the star light and, by inference, in the stars which produce the light – the process is not unlike that of an artist colouring in his painting. He can see what he wants to paint, and has probably already drawn the cartoons underneath – think of paint by numbers – and now he is applying the oils.
Every brush stroke matters. The precise colour will convey what he wants to convey. This is a process through which the images from the Webb must go. The people at NASA and ESA must decide how to present the images in a way that we can see them. They even have to go down to the level of each pixel – is it the right colour? Perhaps it is a faulty pixel and must be washed out. That reminds me of the little red buoy of which Constable complained: ‘He [Turner] has been here and fired a gun’ (a somewhat different understanding of the incident is set out here). When human art is imposed on a picture the nature and meaning of the picture can change.
Looking recently at the requirements for identity photographs there is a requirement that the image should not have been altered electronically in any way. The workings of modern cameras probably mean that not anything they produce is suitable, but we know what they mean. We all know of the dangers of image manipulation. Turner did it. Constable took fifteen years doing it over his painting (also here) prior to the time that it stood next to the little red buoy. NASA and ESA must do it.
This process does not detract of course from the splendid images that they have produced. Take a look at the Cosmic Cliffs:
Whatever the reality is behind the photograph, the beauty of the universe in which we float in this significantly special sweet spot within the Milky Way it is more than our minds can comprehend. Men have striven long to understand the universe, and the longer we look, the more we see. The more we see, the better we understand how little we understand.
The Psalmist was right to declare: The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows his handiwork. Day unto day utters speech, and night unto night reveals knowledge. There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard. Their voice has gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them he has set a tent for the sun, which is like a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoices like a strong man to run its race. Its rising is from one end of heaven, and its circuit to the other end; and there is nothing hidden from its heat.
Let us then, as we look at the sky at night, in the day, or these pictures so beautifully produced for us remember that they declare the glory of the God who created them, and worship him.
It was the report of an attempt to ban the standard rainbow that prompted Coco to think that it had not rained for many years in the desert, but when it did the rainbow was quite extraordinary:
Having made reference to one musical, Coco thought a reference to another would not go amiss. It has some catchy tunes, though be careful; if you listen too often to them you may start liking them. They are like roasted peanuts or salted caramel, sweet to the mouth, but heavy on the hips. The theology expressed in the words is a little bit off the mark as well. Coco would recommend you listen to it in Latin rather than a tongue that you understand. The poor and heretical theology will then bypass the mind and not cause offence.
If you have been at a reunion of school friends in recent days those words ‘Remember me?’ may not be unfamiliar to you. In the lunch queue for seconds one of my peers asked who Coco is, and Coco returned the question. We did not know each other. We were in the same year, but had never, at least in any meaningful way whether for good or ill, weal or woe, met in all of our seven, or perhaps it was only four years as there were some great, significant and perhaps to a few devastating changes whilst we made our progress through those years, together. The answer for both of us was: No, I do not remember you.
On the other hand there were many there who did remember each other. Some were not there whom we had hoped would be, but others came who had not been to any before. What a joy it was to be to meet again.
But it was not with a question mark that Coco had these two words in mind. They can be used in different ways, in an indicative sense as in the answer to the question whether Yes or No. Although the positive response is of course the one we want to hear: You remember me. After all these years, you still remember me. But it is not in that sense either Coco have in mind. It is in the imperative: Remember me! Do not forget me!
Are there times when your mind has lashed you when something happened that made you think, I forgot. It was years ago that you forgot, but it still comes back to you. I forgot. What did you forget? A birthday? An engagement? To make a ‘phone call? To pass a message on? But now it is too late, just as it was soon after the thing had slipped out of your mind.
There was a man, who appears in Jospeh (sic! To prevent FB recognising it) and his technicolour dream coat who did not remember, not that we are told that in the play. Coco told you it was inaccurate. Joseph had been committed to prison for a crime he did not commit. It is interesting that he, a slave, was only committed to prison for the alleged crime. It rather suggests that either his master was not entirely sure of truth of the allegation or that the accuser knew that it was a lie. Into the prison are thrown two others one of whom was Pharoah’s wine taster. After interpreting the dreams of these two men, Joseph said to the butler: Remember me. The baker lost his head; the butler went back to work.
The butler forgot, but there was a purpose in his forgetfulness which was not intended by him.
Two years later the butler’s master had a dream. He was silent at first, but when he saw that Pharaoh’s magicians and wise men could not interpret the dream, he spoke up. Coco rather thinks that as well as a pang of conscience over Joseph striking him it was the thought if Pharaoh found out about Joseph in any other way he would be in even more trouble than the first time he was thrown into the gaol house. So, the first thing he did was to admit his fault – if Pharaoh is going to be angry with him for being silent he should at least try to make it look as if this is a voluntary disclosure on his part: I remember my faults today. And proceeded to give the full account of what Pharaoh did and how Joseph had interpreted the dreams of the two men. Coco presumes that in the interval between this disclosure and Joseph’s arrival before Pharaoh Pharaoh would have learned much more about Joseph’s history that the butler related. The response to Joseph’s interpretation of Pharaoh’s dream and the subsequent preferment suggest that Pharaoh knew something of the service that he had given to his previous masters.
Remember me! The butler forgot; but had the butler not forgotten the consequences would have been quite different. Joseph would likely not have been around to interpret Pharaoh’s dream. Remember me! was remembered at the right time. But you know there is one who does not forget – hold on. There are four who called on the Lord: Remember me; and one who asked: Remember not!
Job, suffering under great affliction, economic, emotional and medical, cried out, in a way like Joseph but from a position of wanting to be imprisoned not in prison until God’s wrath had passed: Remember me! Hannah, a barren woman, asked the Lord to remember her and give her a child. Nehemiah, who rebuilt Jerusalem, asked the Lord simply to remember him for the good he had done.And then Samson, who would have done well rather to cry the other cry of the one who said: Remember not! Remember not the sins of my youth! But he actually cried out Remember me!
The Lord heard all of these, and we can read of how he answered four of them. Job’s patience was tested as he waited unwillingly for a reply, just as Joseph’s as he waited in the dungeon. Ours may also if we cry out to him: Remember me! But if we do cry out, he will not forget.
There was one who, like Samson, had not long to wait when he cried out: Remember me! Lord, Remember me when you come into your kingdom, he asked as he hung dying on a cross next to the Saviour. Today, the Lord said, you will be with me in Paradise.
We have come a long way from the technicolour dream coat, but the theology at this end is better than at the beginning. Read it in your mother tongue not in Latin.
The Dreamcoat
But remember me when it is well with you, and please show kindness to me; make mention of me to Pharaoh, and get me out of this house. Genesis 40:14
Then Samson called to the Lord, saying, “O Lord God, remember me, I pray! Strengthen me, I pray, just this once, O God, that I may with one blow take vengeance on the Philistines for my two eyes!” Judges 16:28
Then she made a vow and said, “O Lord of hosts, if you will indeed look on the affliction of your maidservant and remember me, and not forget your maidservant, but will give your maidservant a male child, then I will give him to the Lord all the days of his life, and no razor shall come upon his head.” 1 Samuel 1:11
Remember me, my God, for good, according to all that I have done for this people. Nehemiah 5:19
Oh that you would hide me in Sheol, that you would conceal me until your wrath be past, that you would appoint me a set time, and remember me! Job 14:13
Remember not the sins of my youth or my transgressions; according to your steadfast love remember me, for the sake of your goodness, O Lord! Psalm 25:7
Then he said to Jesus, “Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom.” Luke 23:42
Well that was not exactly the title of the article, but it will do. Do you remember the Jesus Christ Superstar, Life of Brian and other such protests? Paul said: If any one preaches a gospel other than we have preached let him be anathema. Just for the avoidance of doubt anathema is a Greek word which roughly translated means accursed. It is very clear that blasphemy is a great evil. But, unlike truth of which there can be only one (there are not contradictory truths), your blasphemy may not be my blasphemy. Coco may speak against the Queen of Heaven because Coco identifies her as a different person than you would. Another may deny the divinity of Jesus Christ, but, unless he openly claims to be an Arian, he is not speaking of the same Jesus of whom Coco would speak.
Secondly, Paul said ‘For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the [the ways of this world]. For the weapons of our warfare are not [of this world – swords, spears and as we would add guns] but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God’ Jesus himself said ‘My kingdom is not of this world. If it were my followers would take up the sword.’ From this we learn that however much another may offend us by what they say we are not to lift up the sword or issue threats of harm against them. If we did then we should expect the censure of the civil authorities to fall upon us.
Of course it is open to us to refuse to participate in the games, or to watch or allow to be shown in our own houses those things which we consider to be blasphemous, just as EMI pulled the funding of Life of Brian when they realised what it really was. George Harrison, so Coco understands, stepped in to pay for it.
So why was the Lady of Heaven cancelled? ‘To ensure the safety of our staff and customers.’ is given as the reason. That can only mean that threats, which should be referred to the civil authority for investigation, were issued. It was not cancelled because it was blasphemous, whatever that may mean in this case, nor because the owners of the venues thought it was inappropriate material. How sad this is. It was said by another (Baroness Claire Fox): the ‘same ‘I Find that Offensive’ cancel culture arguments [are] now being used far beyond campus activism. [It is] disastrous for the arts, dangerous for free speech, [and] a lesson to those who argue identity politics are no threat to democracy,’ Just because you find it offensive, does not make it offensive. When the little child watches 23 men on a green field and declares: ‘It’s boring’, it is not that it is not boring; he is bored. If you are offended and 99,999 are not, just get on with life, and they will get on with theirs, and say to themselves: ‘One day, kid, you won’t be bored.’
Just to be clear, Coco is not suggesting that the safety of staff and customers is not important. It is, but the threat to their safety did not arise from anything that the theatre was doing, it came from outside and outwith their control and was in itself unlawful.
So to conclude, if the lady concerned is as virtuous as claimed her character in itself will give the lie to all attempts to besmirch her reputation if that is what this film is. Since the beginning Satan has foul mouthed the Word of God. ‘Has God said?’ is the first thing we hear from his mouth. Does it surprise you that he continues to this very day to do so? But he cannot be fought with sword or gun, and threats do not move him. We must contend against him in the power of God, casting down his arguments, contradictory truths, and lies to expose the pride with which he exalts himself against the knowledge of God in Jesus Christ.
Harrison was right here: ‘back in 1966, Harrison was unruffled. “Why is there all this stuff about blasphemy?” he asked in the Evening Standard. “If Christianity is as good as they say it is, it should stand up to a bit of discussion.” Evidently, he still held that opinion when Idle asked for a little help from his friend.’
The corollary is also true: if a religion is not as good as they say, it will not stand up to any discussion. It is perhaps no wonder they wish to silence those with whom they disagree.
What did she say? It has been all but impossible to discover; all but everyone appear to be afraid to quote her. Not the Scripture however; there are many places where the Lord has permitted to be recorded for us that which is insulting to him. Just a few instances will suffice: ‘There is no god’; ‘Who is the Lord that I should obey him and let you go?’; The words of the king of Assyria to reproach the Lord: ‘The Lord told me to destroy this city. Have the gods of the nations delivered them? Where are the gods of Samaria, have they delivered them. [Will] the Lord deliver Jerusalem from my hand?’; ‘He trusted in God; let him deliver him.‘; ‘If you are the Christ, save yourself as well as us.’
Why is this? ‘I am gentle and humble in heart’ he says, but he is also our creator and judge. It is however his gentleness which allows him to let others speak in the way they do, though at the right time they must answer to him for their speech, which is to say, you must understand, that we must not require them to answer to us for it. He does not, as we would say, get ‘hot under the collar’ about these things. You only have to look at the courts to see how men react to defamation and libel against themselves. We may want to defend ourselves against such things, but whether we do or not is our own decision. Others may defend us also, but they cannot demand penalties or compensation, they are not the ones who have been wronged. Some may say upon hearing of allegations of defamation: They don’t know the half of it! A man may also choose not to defend himself: ‘Do you not hear what they say against you? Have you nothing to say [in your own defence]?’ Pilate asked Jesus.
Coco wonders then whether the ‘hotness under the collar’ of the zealots arises not because of the offence against the god but rather because of their own insecurity that the god of their own making is impotent to defend himself. Well if the god is incapable of speaking for himself then of course his makers must do the work for him.
Listen to Jeremiah: Do not learn the way of the Gentiles; Do not be dismayed at the signs of heaven, for the Gentiles are dismayed at them. For the customs of the peoples are futile; for one cuts a tree from the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They decorate it with silver and gold; they fasten it with nails and hammers so that it will not topple. They are upright, like a palm tree, and they cannot speak; they must be carried, because they cannot go by themselves. Do not be afraid of them, for they cannot do evil, nor can they do any good.
And Isaiah: Those who make an image, all of them are useless, and their precious things shall not profit; they are their own witnesses; they neither see nor know, that they may be ashamed. Who would form a god or mould an image that profits him nothing? Surely all his companions would be ashamed; and the workmen, they are mere men. Let them all be gathered together, let them stand up; yet they shall fear, they shall be ashamed together. The blacksmith with the tongs works one in the coals, fashions it with hammers, and works it with the strength of his arms. Even so, he is hungry, and his strength fails; he drinks no water and is faint. The craftsman 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?”
Do they not understand? No, they do not understand. But the living God is quite different. ‘Vengeance is mine,’ says the Lord, ‘I shall repay’. The living God has no need of men to defend his honour, though of course we should always seek his honour in the way that we conduct ourselves. ‘Defend the Word of God!?’ said the preacher, ‘I would as soon defend a lion.‘ But the gods of wood or stone or of the imagination of the heart of man cannot defend themselves.
What did she say? Coco does not know, but it has been reported that whatever was said was in response to the discovery of a stone object in the ground. There appears to be some dispute as to what the object represents; Coco has not seen it, nor even if Coco had could Coco be able to identify it, but there appears to be no dispute about its stony qualities. If the wood from the trees of the forest must lie silent, then stone taken from the ground must be doubly silent whether it is carved and gilded or not.
Coco supposes that if men, who were created by the living God, are to be allowed to be creators of their own gods; then they must also be allowed to defend their own gods, but let it be without attacking others who also have their own gods. As the king of Assyria said to Hezekiah: “Have any of the gods of the nations at all delivered their lands from the hand of the king of Assyria? Where are the gods of Hamath and Arpad? Where are the gods of Sepharvaim and Hena and Ivah? Indeed, have they delivered Samaria from my hand? Who among all the gods of the lands have delivered their countries from my hand?” If they do attack, then they are no better than the Assyrians, and a little knowledge of their history may confirm to you that you would not want to be thought to be as bad as they were.
Coco had thought at first to make comments on the ingenuity exposed by a response to criticism following publication of the words which cannot be known: [the] “absurdity of a serial violator of minority rights commenting on the treatment of minorities in another nation is not lost on anyone. The world has been witness to the systemic persecution of minorities including Hindus, Sikhs, Christians and Ahmadiyyas by Pakistan.” which may be found here IndianExpress Comment is unnecessary, it speaks for itself, whether it is true or not.
Those who serve gods of this world, whether of gold, silver, stone or merely the imagination of their own hearts, created in their own image must defend those gods in this world for it is only in this world that those gods have any existence. The living God, whose kingdom is not of this world needs no defence, neither our testimony (though we gladly give it), nor our strength, he is quite capable of speaking for himself, as he has and shall do. The sky above us, space that surrounds us, this vast universe and all that is in it, declare his glory clearly. Do you not see it? By his Spirit he shall act, and shall build his kingdom which is an everlasting kingdom and shall in due time reveal that kingdom for the whole of creation to see and then all men shall acknowledge that Jesus is Lord.
You may be aware of what some call conspiracy theories, such as the prospect of the WHO imposing restrictions on and within sovereign states in the event of another [so-called] pandemic, and the plans of the ‘liberal elite’, the few individuals who have more wealth than many sovereign states, to form a world government. Coco is not suggesting that Coco agrees with those who promote these theories, nor with those who might promote these alternate ideologies, but it does present an interesting prospect. We have seen how the restrictions imposed over the recent three years have provided significant economic opportunities for some but have left others impoverished due to an inability to work. For those who are able to gain in such times a return to them, in a more controlled way through the new institutions which may be established if these theories are correct, would not be something to be shunned, but rather embraced with open arms. But where does that leave those who are not able to benefit? The combination of these two ideas tends towards a dystopia of unparalleled dimensions; or is that really so?
After the death of Solomon, the new king promised his people one thing about which perhaps he would have been wiser to remain silent, but wisdom was not something for which he, unlike his father, was noted. He rejected the advice of his counsellors and made it known that his own ‘little finger shall be thicker than [his] father’s waist’. What did he mean? He intended by it to say that, paraphrasing into contemporary culture: Though taxes under my father were not light, under me they shall be much heavier. Naturally, the people decided that they did not want that king to reign over them. Remarkably it did not lead to an outpouring of blood, though preparations for that had been made, but the consequences of the rebellion were to be felt for many hundreds of years afterwards.
Now what does this mean? Let Coco remind you of a three things, briefly, before putting them together. Solomon means peace. In his day Israel enjoyed peace after the days of David, a man of war. However Solomon was a flawed man and did as the Lord had warned the people kings would do. The yoke on the people was heavy. Secondly, Jesus Christ is the true king of peace, whose yoke is easy. He is not a flawed man. And thirdly, the David of whom we have spoken, wrote a psalm: ‘Why do the nations rage, and the people’s plot in vain? The kings and rulers take counsel together against the Lord and his Christ saying: Let us break their bonds in pieces.
What are the people saying? They want to throw off the bonds of the one who says, my yoke is easy. With what shall that yoke be replaced, if not another yoke? We throw off the bonds of God, which are easy, only to take on the bonds of man, which are hard. We hardly blame the people for rejecting Solomon’s heir when his intention was not to ease the burden that his father had placed on the people, but rather to increase it. There was an injustice about it because it came from a flawed king. Would we not say that they were right when they said of the new king: let us break his bonds in pieces? Men always want to break the bonds that appear to shackle them; did we not mention a few days ago every one wants to be king, everyone does what is right in his own eyes?
But note in David’s words that it was the kings and rulers who led this cry. Who are they in today’s terms if not the sovereign nations and the liberal elite of wealthy individuals aforementioned? They wish to throw off the bonds established by God and replace them with their own rule. If these conspiracy theories have any truth in them then the WHO, the liberal elite, if they rule, what bonds, burdens, will be placed upon ordinary men in order to maintain their positions of new authority? We have only to look at the consequences of the recent lockdowns to gain a glimpse of what may be. Coco commented on the new normal quite a while ago, but will it ever come back? The economic crisis, caused by lack of opportunity to work and a printing of money, may mean that the parties and travel cannot return as they used to be, the new normal becomes an impoverished version of the old normal.
What is the solution? Well, the Lord pronounces his solution in that same psalm: he shall laugh them to scorn. Just as he pronounced his judgement on an earlier attempt to establish a world government and authority in opposition to his when he said: Come, let us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech. And at Babel man’s attempt to throw off the yoke of God was thwarted, but we now laboured under a new yoke, but that is not today’s topic.
The real solution then is, as we mentioned a few days ago also, not to seek to throw off the yoke of God, but to submit to it. Come to me, the Lord says, my yoke is easy. I am gently and lowly in heart. I shall give you rest. As for the conspiracy theories, and the prospects of world government, or indeed any government, the Lord has set the boundaries of the nations, the extents of their empires and the length of their existence. They cannot overstep the boundaries that he has laid out for them. They rise up, but in their pride they shall fall. He shall laugh them to scorn. Governments come and go, perhaps not on the scale of the lifetime of many individuals (though the Alexandrian and Soviet empires may be exceptions), and shall do so until the everlasting kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ is revealed.
