You are currently browsing the monthly archive for June 2012.
Today’s post begins a study of a series of passages of the Gospel of Mark which are not in the Lectionary for public worship.
As such, they form part of my Forbidden Bible Verses, also essential for our understanding of Scripture.
Two passages from Mark are already among these verses: one relates to what we put in our mouths and the other to a reason for the snake-handling churches in parts of the southern United States.
Today’s passage is from the English Standard Version, with commentary from Matthew Henry and John MacArthur.
Jesus Calls Levi
13He went out again beside the sea, and all the crowd was coming to him, and he was teaching them. 14 And as he passed by, he saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting at the tax booth, and he said to him, “Follow me.” And he rose and followed him.
15And as he reclined at table in his house, many tax collectors and sinners were reclining with Jesus and his disciples, for there were many who followed him. 16And the scribes of the Pharisees, when they saw that he was eating with sinners and tax collectors, said to his disciples, “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?” 17And when Jesus heard it, he said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”
————————————————————————————
Yesterday’s post gave some background on St Mark as mentioned in the New Testament. Sunday night’s post will give a bit of insight about Mark’s Gospel and what to expect when reading it.
In summary, this short, pacy Gospel is all about miracles. Mark wanted readers to be able to confess afterwards that Jesus Christ is Lord.
In the first part of Mark 2, Jesus heals a paralytic. Mark 2:11:
“I say to you, rise, pick up your bed, and go home.”
In Mark 1, Jesus already chose some of His Apostles. In this passage, He calls another, Levi the tax collector.
First, however, after He leaves the house of the now-healed paralytic, Jesus spends more time ministering to those who came to hear him along the shore of the Lake of Galilee (verse 13). How generous He was with His time. Matthew Henry says that so many people came to see and hear Him that a house or larger building would have been too small a meeting place. Henry adds (emphases mine):
… our Lord Jesus had a strong voice, and could and did speak loud; for wisdom crieth without in the places of concourse … Wherever the doctrine of Christ is faithfully preached, though it be driven into corners or into deserts, we must follow it.
At this point, Mark tells us that Jesus happens to see Levi at the tax booth (verse 14). Jesus tells Levi, ‘Follow me’, and with that, Levi leaves his stand forever.
Levi is the Apostle whom we know as St Matthew:
a former tax collector from Capernaum who was called into the circle of the Twelve by Jesus. He is also named among the number of the Twelve, but without identification of his background, in Mk 3:18, Lk 6:15 and Acts 1:13. He is called Levi, son of Alpheus, in Mk 2:14 and Lk 5:27. He may have collected taxes from the Hebrew people for Herod Antipas.[2][3][4] Matthew was “called” by Jesus of Nazareth to be one of the Twelve Disciples.[3][5][6][7][8] According to the New Testament he was one of the witnesses of the Resurrection and the Ascension.
Matthew was no mere tax clerk shuffling scrolls all day long. His position was rather privileged and, as so often happens, privileged professions are vulnerable to corruption. Whilst it does not appear as if Matthew succumbed to this, many other tax collectors did, which is why they had such a bad name in Jesus’s day.
Tax collectors were known as publicans during this time — no relationship to the later meaning of the word referring to a person who runs a pub. They belonged to the Roman class of equites, which is also referred to as the equestrian order, an elite group of high-ranking men, mostly military, but also independent businessmen who held tax franchises, or tax farms. This development came about around 218 BC, when Roman law ruled that too much commercial activity on the part of senators and their sons was unbefitting of their status. As a result:
Equestrians became especially prominent in tax farming and, by 100 BC, owned virtually all tax-farming companies (publicani).[44]
During the late Republican era, the collection of most taxes was contracted out to private individuals or companies by competitive tender, with the contract for each province awarded to the publicanus who bid the highest advance to the state treasury on the estimated tax-take of the province. The publicanus would then attempt to recoup his advance, with the right to retain any surplus collected as his profit. This system frequently resulted in extortion from the common people of the provinces, as unscrupulous publicani often sought to maximise their profit by demanding a much higher rates of tax than originally set by the government. The provincial governors whose duty it was to curb illegal demands were often bribed into acquiescence by the publicani.[45] The system also led to political conflict between equites publicani and the majority of their fellow-knights, especially senators, who as big landowners wanted to minimise the tax on land outside Italy (tributum solis), which was the main source of state revenue.[46] This pernicious system was terminated by the first Roman emperor, Augustus (sole rule 30 BC – 14 AD), who transferred responsibility for tax collection from the publicani to provincial local authorities (civitates peregrinae).[47] Although the latter also frequently employed private companies to collect their tax quotas, it was in their own interests to curb extortion. During the imperial era, tax collectors were generally paid an agreed percentage of the amount collected. Equites publicani became prominent in banking activities such as money-lending and money-changing.[45]
It would appear that by the time Levi — Matthew — held his post as tax collector, reform was underway and any dominance would have been restricted to the local region where they worked. That said, their reputation had not improved and they were still despised, no doubt partly because they earned a lot of money (sometimes dishonestly) and
their role as public contractors, especially as regards building projects, was still significant.
Yet, Jesus managed to undo this within a second and with Levi’s full acquiescence.
John MacArthur has more on this rather dramatic calling:
It tells us in verse 14, “As He passed by…as He moved away.” He’s leaving the scene by the lakeshore where He has done this teaching and no doubt had done some healing as well. Back in chapter 1 verse 39, He went into their synagogues throughout all Galilee, preaching and casting out demons. So maybe even that very event on the lakeshore involved healings and the casting out of demons as well as teaching because He under-wrote, as it were, or gave credence of His message by the power of His miracles over t he physical world and the supernatural world, disease and demons. So He did what He did all the time.
And when it was done, He moves away. And then the story gets very interesting. He saw Levi, the son of Alphaeus sitting in the tax booth and He said to him, “Follow Me.” And he got up and followed Him.
Now this is shocking. This is really, really shocking, because this one is a tax collector … This is scandalous beyond comprehension. No self-respecting teacher of any kind would want anything to do with a tax collector. It would literally be the biggest stain on anyone’s career to have a follower and an intimate who was a tax collector. That was the worst of the worst, the dregs of human society in Israel …
But Jesus was different. Jesus shattered all the stereotypes. As He goes back toward Capernaum, He passes the first toll station. Very possibly, kind of a major toll station on the road from the tetrarchy of Philip which was a small tetrarchy, or the region of Decapolis, a little further south and east, into the tetrarchy of Herod Antipas. And when you cross the border into that tetrarchy or the category where Herod Antipas rules, there’s a tax station there, like a border tax station. This would be the main road from Damascus, a great city in the east, through Capernaum headed toward the Mediterranean, and right along that road there was a tax booth.
The Romans dominated that part of the world. They literally ruled by sheer force and power in the land of Israel. There were some puppet kings like Herod Antipas and Philip. They were beholding to Rome for their position and they were in league with Rome, so perhaps a combination of the Romans and Herod Antipas worked the tax system in the tetrarchy of Herod Antipas.
The way it worked was, Rome offered tax franchises and they were sold to the highest bidder. So you had to have some money to get one and once you got one, it was just a way to make a fortune. Now sitting in this tax booth is a man named Levi. He is named, obviously for one of Jacob’s sons, a son born to Leah, so he’s Jewish, obviously, which means he sold his soul to the Romans for money. The Romans are idolaters, the Romans are hated by the Jews. They are Gentiles, they are unclean. They despise them. There’s a general hatred for Herod Antipas as well because he’s a non-Jew. And here is someone who has sold his soul to these Gentiles, these unclean for the sake of extorting money out of Jews.
If you were a tax collector, you were the worst of the worst of the worst. Now this man, his father’s name is Alphaeus, we don’t know any more about him. That’s a common name. Two of the disciples had a father named Alphaeus, but it’s such a common name, it wouldn’t be necessarily the same Alphaeus. But you don’t know this man is Levi, you know him as Matthew because in the account in Matthew, Matthew writing the account in Matthew, calls himself Matthew.
How did his name get from Levi to Matthew? I don’t know, we don’t have any record in the Scripture. My guess is that Matthew changed his name. I mean, if you had been a tax collector, it might be good for your future to alter your identity. It might save your hide. And if he did choose his own name, he chose well, it means gift of the Lord…for he had been given a gift of the Lord in the gift of salvation …
Now I can tell you this, Matthew must have been shocked, he must have been absolutely shocked that this Jesus knew what he desired, and the response? He followed Him. Luke 5:28 says, “He forsook everything.” Now if you had been a fisherman, you could always go back. He fished there for anybody who could catch them, right? He could always go back and be a fisherman. But once you walked away from your tax franchise, believe me, the vultures sitting on the brink waiting to take over, would take over and there wouldn’t be anything to go back to.
So when Luke adds, “He forsook all,” he means that. There was no return. This is dramatic. Without an explanation, the man abandons everything which for him has always been everything. He was a man of the world. He was a man who didn’t care about religion, he didn’t care about his place in society, he didn’t care about friendships, he didn’t care about prestige, he didn’t care about honor, he didn’t care about respect, all he cared about was money. He was as crass, greedy as you can get. He didn’t care what God thought, what the Pharisees thought, what the people in his town thought, what the synagogue leaders thought. He didn’t care anything about anything but money. He would live any way he wanted to live, he was content with the scum and the riff-raff who circled around the tax collectors.
But, suddenly, Jesus added another Apostle. And Matthew never looked back. He went on to write the eponymous Gospel.
However, this would not go down well with the Jewish population. We get a taste of that in verse 15. Incredibly, Jesus goes to Matthew’s house to spend time with him, other tax collectors and various undesirables. The scribes and possibly also the Pharisees (according to some translations) wondered why Jesus would recline and eat with such people (verse 16).
MacArthur elaborates on the general outrage on their part. He explains that there were two types of tax collector. One — the gabbai — collected general taxes (e.g. property) and the other — the mokhes — collected various levies on whatever moved, which is where the system opened up to bribery and corruption:
They put a tax on everything…tax on import, tax on export, tax on transport. They put tolls on roads, bridges, harbor tolls. They put tolls on the number of wheels, how many legs your donkey had, animals, packages, letters, kind of like today, right? Tax everything.
… They were the worst because they weren’t fixed taxes, they were flexible taxes and the criminal element found its way into the mokhes group and there was such a thing as a great mokhes, he employed all the little mokhes. The Great Mokhes lived in the big house way up on the hill, as far away from the people that he could get. And the little mokhes was down in the booth, reaping the hatred and vitriol and scorn of the people whose money he extorted for the sake of the big guy on the hill.
Well Matthew was a little mokhes, but if you were a good little mokhes in the sense that you were efficient, you could make a lot of money. And if you had the right thugs around you, you could get it out of people, if by pain. Nobody in their right mind would want to be an associate of a little mokhes.
Jesus calls Matthew out of that sinful profession and, by joining Him and becoming a faithful Apostle, Matthew repents.
Back to the scribes and Pharisees now. Matthew Henry notes that they purposely never went to hear Jesus teach, yet they somehow noticed that He associated with tax collectors and other sinners. Having seen Jesus associate with such people enraged them further. They were set against Him from the start, and this deepened their enmity further. Of course, we should remember that the Jewish hierarchy were about as perfect as one could get — in their self-righteousness.
Jesus overhears their indignation (verse 17) and responds that those who are well have no need of a doctor. He makes it clear to them that He has come to heal the spiritually sick — sinners. Ironically, the scribes and Pharisees also fall into that category — even moreso, as we know. Matthew Henry interprets Jesus’s response as follows:
“I am not come to call the righteous, the proud Pharisees that think themselves righteous, that ask, Wherein shall we return? (Mal. 3:7), Of what shall we repent? But poor publicans, that own themselves to be sinners, and are glad to be invited and encouraged to repent.”
It is easy for Christians to become pharisaical in their exclusivity, outer ‘holiness’. Some risk becoming whited sepulchres and miss the larger Gospel picture.
MacArthur has interesting observations on Jesus in His own time and in ours, discoursing on what would happen if Jesus were physically walking among us today:
Then and there in first century Israel, He was rejected, He was despised, He was hated and He was murdered. And the reason? He was not religious enough. That was the reason. By standards of the Jewish religious leaders, predominantly the Pharisees, He was not holy enough…if holy at all. He was not righteous enough, if righteous at all. He was not demanding enough, He was not legalistic enough, He was not condemning enough. He was not tolerable…intolerant enough. He was not judgmental enough. He was not separatistic enough. He was sub-par to a dominantly religious world view.
Now if Jesus came today to our country in our time, He would be way too holy, far too righteous, too demanding, too legalistic, too condemning, too intolerant, too judgmental and far too separatistic. And our generation would kill Him for that…the very opposite, two different perspectives, two different societies in two different times. Our culture is highly secular and extremely immoral. Their culture was highly religious and extremely moral.
We would hate Jesus for condemning good people. They hated Him for forgiving bad people. The Jewish leaders very soon into our Lord’s ministry began to develop a deadly hatred for Him. The motive was the very thing I just said, He was not holy enough. In fact, He was so unholy that they conclude that He did what He did by the power of Satan. He was so unholy that He was energized by hell itself.
They condensed this viewpoint down into a mantra and they called Him with scorn, “the friend of sinners.” That was the worst they could say about Him. That was the most scornful epithet they could come up with. The friend, in fact, of tax collectors and sinners. We will read that in Matthew 11:19 and Luke 7:34.
Why did they conclude that? Because He seemed so welcoming to the people who were sinners. He seemed so comfortable with the people that they deemed to be Satan’s people. And so the ultimate scorn that they could heap on Jesus from the perch of their sanctimonious self-righteousness was that He was the friend of sinners. He cannot possibly be the Messiah if He has a lower standard of righteousness than we do, if He has a lower standard of separation, legalism, holiness, etc., etc., than we do. He can’t be the Messiah.
This was the problem. Jesus wasn’t even as loyal to God, to the Law of God, as they were, how could He possibly be their Savior?
And we would say, ‘If you really are Jesus, you aren’t being nearly Christlike enough. Where’s the support for gay marriage? Why don’t you eradicate poverty? Why don’t you overturn the political system? Why don’t you bring us a utopia?’
Most of us, like the self-righteous of His own time, would want Him done away with. Then, as now, His message of salvation and redemption for the world to come would be lost on our materialistic, itching ears.
Tomorrow: More on the Gospel of Mark
Next weekend: Mark 3:1-6
Tomorrow, Churchmouse Campanologist begins a study of passages in the Gospel of Mark which do not appear in the Lectionary.
St Mark’s symbol is the lion (pictured at left in the eponymous square near the eponymous cathedral in Venice). He ended up being a great evangelist. However, before that, he deserted St Paul’s ministry and Paul distrusted him for many years before recommending him again. Mark later served as a helper to St Peter. Therefore, he served under two great saints — both martyrs — Peter and Paul.
Mark founded the original Church of Alexandria in Egypt and was its first bishop. Posthumously known as Mark the Evangelist, he is credited with taking Christianity to Africa.
Pagans, resentful of the Christian presence, killed him in 68 AD by tying a rope around his neck and dragging him along a road in Alexandria. As did his apostolic mentors, Mark died a martyr for the faith.
We have seen with some of the other disciples that creating their biographies is not always so simple, and below we’ll note slight differences in accounts of the life of Mark.
The 17th century Calvinist minister and Bible scholar Matthew Henry believed that Mark was one of the 70 disciples who followed Jesus and his Twelve Apostles and received the Holy Spirit on the first Pentecost. John MacArthur gives the impression that Mark came along later.
First, Matthew Henry (emphases mine):
His name is Mark. Marcus was a Roman name, and a very common one, and yet we have no reason to think, but that he was by birth a Jew; but as Saul, when he went among the nations, took the Roman name of Paul, so he of Mark, his Jewish name perhaps being Mardocai; [according to the scholar and philosopher Hugo de Groot] Grotius. We read of John whose surname was Mark, sister’s son to Barnabas, whom Paul was displeased with (Acts 15:37, 38), but afterward had a great kindness for, and not only ordered the churches to receive him (Col. 4:10), but sent for him to be his assistant, with this encomium, He is profitable to me for the ministry (2 Tim. 4:11); and he reckons him among his fellow-labourers, Philemon 24. We read of Marcus whom Peter calls his son, he having been an instrument of his conversion (1 Pt. 5:13); whether that was the same with the other, and, if not, which of them was the penman of this gospel, is altogether uncertain. It is a tradition very current among the ancients, that St. Mark wrote this gospel under the direction of St. Peter, and that it was confirmed by his authority; … Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, being sent from Rome by the brethren, wrote a concise gospel; … Why should we have recourse to the authority of Peter for the support of this gospel, or say with St. Jerome that Peter approved of it and recommended it by his authority to the church to be read, when, though it is true Mark was no apostle, yet we have all the reason in the world to think that both he and Luke were of the number of the seventy disciples, who companied with the apostles all along (Acts 1:21), who had a commission like that of the apostles (Lu. 10:19, compared with Mk. 16:18), and who, it is highly probable, received the Holy Ghost when they did (Acts 1:15; 2:1-4), so that it is no diminution at all to the validity or value of this gospel, that Mark was not one of the twelve, as Matthew and John were? St. Jerome saith that, after the writing of this gospel, he went into Egypt, and was the first that preached the gospel at Alexandria, where he founded a church, to which he was a great example of holy living … He so adorned, by his doctrine and his life, the church which he founded, that his example influenced all the followers of Christ.
Now for John MacArthur’s highly detailed version from 2009, excerpts of which follow. MacArthur walks us through each appearance of John Mark in the New Testament. He supplies not only canonical but also socio-political history which will be familiar to those who read my previous entries on James the Just’s and Peter’s epistles [see my Essential Bible Verses page for both]. Furthermore, he explains the structure and the events of the Book of Acts as well as the timeline of certain apostles and epistles.
Although this is a lengthy post, MacArthur’s sermon provides much useful information about the New Testament. If you are pressed for time, the highlighted text supplies the essence of what believers and enquirers should know.
Now this is Mark’s history. And it is unique from the others … By the time the gospels were written, there were already other New Testament books in existence. The book of James … was already in existence. The book of Galatians had already been written by the Apostle Paul. They were the two earliest New Testament books and they were written before any of the gospels were written.
There is certainly reason for that, in one sense. The people needed direction as given in Galatians, so that they could be protected from the false gospel that the Judaizers were preaching. The suffering persecuted believers needed comfort and encouragement, and that’s why the book of James was written. But it wasn’t as crucial early on that the gospels were written because eyewitnesses who had been with Christ and seen Christ and heard Christ were still alive. And so there were plenty of folks who could give testimony to the story of Jesus Christ. The last Apostle, John, died after 90 A.D.
The gospels then begin to appear about midway through that first century. The first one that was written was Matthew. The next one that was written was Mark. And then came Luke. And about 30 years later, around 90 A.D., the gospel of John.
But before the gospels were written … there were many living eyewitnesses of the life of Christ. And there were some written fragments that Luke refers to in Luke chapter 1 verses 1 and 2. So those written testimonies to the life and ministry of Jesus Christ, as well as the verbal story of eyewitnesses, constituted the source of the truth about Christ before the gospels were written.
By the middle of the first century, the eyewitnesses begin to die off. And it is really imperative that the record be written down. And so the Holy Spirit selects the men to do that, Matthew, then Mark, then Luke and then John.
After the four gospels were written, no other writings about Jesus Christ were ever accepted by the believers as authoritative and inspired Scripture. It is these four gospels and no more. The universal affirmation of the early church was that these were the true gospels. Yes, later on spurious gospels appeared with false identification, like the gospel of Peter, the gospel of Thomas, etc., etc. They were Gnostic, anti-God, Satanic forgeries intended to confuse people and undermine the truth. But the universal testimony of the church was that these are the four gospels. They have withstood the scrutiny of scholastic effort during the two thousand years since they were written. Their harmony is magnificent. It is unequivocal. It is true that they had one single divine author because they are in perfect harmony with each other.
Somewhere between 50 and 60, Matthew writes. Somewhere around 60-61, Luke writes. In 90 John writes. And you can slip Mark in there between Matthew and Luke, perhaps in the late 50’s. You would think then that Mark being the second gospel written would be viewed as elevated in its rank. But it always ends up last. And I’m living testimony to that fact. But I started [preaching] with John and then I did Matthew, and then I did Luke, and finally I get around to Mark [2009].
… no author of any of the four gospels identifies himself as the author. While the story of Matthew’s conversion and Matthew’s inclusion among the Apostles appears in Matthew, Matthew never says he’s the author. Luke never appears in his gospel at all, nor does he claim to be the author of it. John, while appearing in his gospel necessarily because he’s an intimate Apostle of Christ, never refers to himself as John, but always by some other descriptive, like “The one whom Jesus loved.” So we don’t have these gospels beginning with a claim to authorship. It is clearly an indication of the fact that these authors wanted to give all the glory to Christ, they wanted the story to be about Him and they hid themselves, as it were, behind the history of the One who should receive the preeminence.
However, we still know unequivocally that Mark wrote this, that Matthew wrote his, that Luke wrote his, and that John wrote his. That is the universal testimony of the early church going all the way back to the first century. But let’s meet the author since he doesn’t appear in Mark and he doesn’t appear in Matthew, or Luke or John, we have to find he first place where he shows up and that’s in the book of Acts…Acts 12. Let’s go to Acts 12, get to know Mark.
Now when you come to the twelfth chapter of Acts, just to give you a little bit of historical settings so you know where we are, you’re at a point of very significant transition. The gospels end with the resurrection of Christ. The resurrection of Christ brings the story of Christ on earth to an end. The book of Acts then which picks up the history and is written by Luke, begins with Jesus spending 40 days after His resurrection, teaching His disciples things pertaining to the Kingdom of God, getting them ready to fulfill the commission that comes in chapter 1 verse 8, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, you’ll be witnesses unto Me in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and the uttermost part of the earth.”
…
In the first twelve chapters, the gospel in Judea and Samaria, the primary preacher, the dominant preacher is Peter. In the second half, the gospel…”To the uttermost part of the earth,”…the dominant preacher is Paul. So the book of Acts splits into the first half being Peter, the second half being Paul. The first half, Judea/Samaria, the second half the uttermost part of the earth, fulfilling the mandate of chapter 1 of verse 8.
So when we come to chapter 12, we are at the end of the ministry of the Apostle Peter. Peter has dominated the apostolic preaching of the gospel, and dominated the growth of the church in Judea and Samaria. And he is about to fade and the Apostle Paul is to ascend to the stage or the expansion of the gospel to the uttermost part of the earth. The first half of the book of Acts is closing as we come to verse 1…chapter 12. Now, about that time.
… go back to verse 27. Some prophets came down to Jerusalem to Antioch. You always go down from Jerusalem, even if you go north, because Jerusalem is elevated. They went down from Jerusalem and then headed north to Antioch. One of the named Agabus stood up and began to indicate by the Spirit that there would certainly be a great famine all over the world. This took place in the reign of Claudius Caesar in the proportion that any of the disciples had means, each of them determined to send a contribution for the relief of the brethren living in Judea.
What we learn here is that there is a famine coming, prophesied by the inspiration of God, and there’s going to be a need to relieve the distress of the believers in Jerusalem because of the famine. So the church at Antioch … determined to collect a contribution and to send it down to Jerusalem to be distributed to the believers there who would be in the famine. And they did it, verse 30, and they sent it in charge of Barnabas and Saul, or Paul, to the elders of the Jerusalem church. So that’s the time it is. It’s the time of famine and the time of the gifting coming from the Antioch church by the hands of Barnabas and Saul to the elders at the church of Jerusalem.
… Herod…this would be Herod Agrippa I. He was educated in Rome. He cultivated favor with the Jews. He was a politician’s politician. He didn’t really like the Jews but he knew it was to his advantage if he was to be wealthy and prosperous and powerful to court their favor. So you have that very statement made, verse 3, “When he saw that it pleased the Jews.” That’s what drove Herod. He was not a Jew, he was an Idumaean, but he was kind of a petty king in that part of the world. And he prospered much better if he pleased the Jews. And so that’s what he did. And knowing what pleased the Jews, verse 1, “He laid hands on some who belong to the church in order to mistreat them.” He launches a persecution against the church. The church now is resented. It is hated by the Jews as you well know. And so Herod launches a persecution, verse 2. He had James, the brother of John, one of the Apostles, put to death with a sword. This is the first Apostle martyred. Stephen, not an Apostle, has been martyred, this is the first of the Apostles to be martyred, none other than James, the brother of John. And when he saw that pleased the Jews which predominantly refers to the Jewish leaders and all who were under their influence, he proceeded then to arrest Peter. If they liked the death of one Apostle, let’s kill another one. So he arrests Peter.
… twenty-four hours a day each of those squads had a six-hour turn, and so for 24 hours they guarded him. They had him chained as well … intending to wait till the Passover was over to minimize the trauma to the people and then bring him out and bring about his death.
So Peter was kept in prison, verse 5. But prayer for him was being made fervently by the church to God. So the church is praying. That’s their strategy, not to break into the prison and get him out, but to pray. The very night that Herod was about to bring him forward, Peter was sleeping. This would be the last time that this could happen because the next day he would be brought out and executed like James was. He’s sleeping between two soldiers. How close are they guarding him! They’ve got him sleeping between two of them and he is bound with two chains…guards in front of the door watching over the prison. “And behold, an angel of the Lord suddenly appeared and a light shone in the cell, struck Peter’s side, woke him up, said, ‘Get up quickly,’ his chains fell off his hands. The angel said to him, ‘Gird yourself, put on your sandals. Get your inner tunic, get your sash, tie it up, put on your sandals.’ And he did so and he said to him, ‘Wrap your cloak, that’s your outer garment, around you and follow me.’ He went out, continued to follow, didn’t know that what was being done by the angel was real but thought he was seeing a vision.” He had had a vision back in chapter 10. So he knew that a vision could happen and he wasn’t sure. I mean, it’s in the middle of the night and he’s not sure exactly what’s going on.
“And they passed the first and second guard. They came to the iron gate that leads into the city which opened for them by itself. They went out, went along one street. Immediately the angel departed from him. The angel took him where he needed to go, now he’s in the street alone. Came to himself, he said, ‘Now I know for sure the Lord has sent forth His angel, rescued me from the hand of Herod, from all that the Jewish people were expecting.’”
So this affirms again that Herod was trying to please the Jews and the Jews were expecting to do away with Peter. “When he realized this, he went to the house of Mary, the mother of John who was also called Mark.” Here’s the first time we meet John Mark. John was a Jewish name, Mark was a Gentile name.
Now it doesn’t tell us anything about him. It just says Peter went to the house of Mary. The fact that a house is identified with a woman rather than a man, probably means it’s a widow. So here’s a widow with a name that just about every other woman in the New Testament gospel account has…Mary. So in order to distinguish this Mary from all the other Marys, it is the Mary who is the mother of John who is also called Mark. That’s the only reason his name is even mentioned here.
At this point, he’s a non-descript guy. He’s only a way to identify his mother. Peter went to this house because no doubt the church met in this house, which meant that Peter had probably many times been to that house. Nobody needed to take him there which meant that Peter knew John Mark and John Mark knew Peter, though John Mark was very young. The year the best we can discern is 44, 14 years after the death of Christ. Peter’s been powerful preacher of the gospel since the Day of Pentecost for those 14 years…essentially. So he’s well-known. And he goes to a familiar place, meets with a dear widow who is the mother of John Mark.
People are in her house praying. He knocks on the door, servant girl named Rhoda comes to the door to answer. She recognizes Peter’s voice and she’s so joyful, she doesn’t even open the gate. She just turns around, ran in, announced, “Peter is standing in front of the gate.” And they said to her, “You are out of your mind.” Great faith, huh? Let’s have a prayer meeting but let’s not believe it could ever happen. She kept insisting, “It is so…it is so. And they kept saying, ‘Nah, it’s his angel,’” That’s probably sarcasm.
Peter continues knocking. “When they had opened the door, they saw him and were amazed.. Motioning with his hand to be silent, he described to them how the Lord had let him out of the prison and he said, ‘Report these things to James.’” This is not James the brother of John, he’s been martyred. This is James the half brother of our Lord who is the author of the epistle of James and was the leader of the Jerusalem church. So Peter says, “Tell James because he’s the leader of the church, and the brethren. He left and went to another place.”
So here for the first time, we meet John Mark, incidentally. And the first time we meet him, he has a connection to Peter, even if it’s a very loose connection. But we know he knows Peter. We know Peter’s been to his house because he went there, a familiar place. And that plays out very importantly in the future of his life.
James, as I said, the brother of John, had been already martyred. This James, our Lord’s half brother, was also martyred. Tradition says 62 A.D. they threw him off the pinnacle of the temple and he was smashed on the ground below. And they took clubs and beat any remaining life out of him.
Why do I tell you this story? Because it is the first mention of John Mark. No writer of any gospel gives us his name, so this is where we meet him. And we meet him in connection with Peter. File that in your mind. It tells us nothing about him, character, nothing. We just know his name.
Now let’s follow the history a little bit. Go to the end of chapter 12. Barnabas and Saul have come from Antioch, right? They’ve come with a gift to bring relief to the Jews, to the believers in Judea, Jerusalem because of the famine. They deliver their relief and then they go back to Antioch. Remember now, Saul is in the church in Antioch. He’s returning with Barnabas. They serve as pastors of the church at Antioch. So they were sent with the gifts. They go back.
However, “Barnabas and Saul return from Jerusalem when they had fulfilled their mission to bring the gift, taking along with them John who is also called Mark.” Well this is very interesting. They return to Antioch to their responsibility and the only person they take with them is this young man named John Mark. This is a first indication of his usefulness, the first indication of his character. Was he a preacher? No. Was he a pastor? No. Was he an evangelist? No. Was he an Apostle? No. Was he a prophet? No. Was he a leader? No. He was none of those things. He is really a non-descript guy.
You say, “Well why out of all the options would they take him?” Colossians 4:10 says that Mark was the cousin of Barnabas … So Barnabas knew him, trusted him, knew something about his talents and his gifts and suggested to Paul to bring him along because he could help them not only in the journey but he could help them in the ministry in Antioch. And, by the way, Barnabas was a Levite, and if you were a Levite, you served the priests in the temple. All the way through Jewish history, those from Levi who made up the Levites served in the temple and assisted the priests. Barnabas was a Levite.
If this man is his cousin, then perhaps he too was in the Levitical family descent. Therefore he had perhaps served in the temple, was used to serving, had experience in temple service and temple worship, and had the attitude of one who serves. John Mark then goes back to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. He remained there. He stayed there. He was faithful there until Paul and Barnabas were ready to leave.
You remember the story. Look at chapter 13 verse 1. “Now there were in Antioch in the church that was there, prophets and teachers, Barnabas, Simeon, called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen and Saul.” Please notice Mark’s name isn’t there, he wasn’t a pastor, he wasn’t a teacher.
And they were ministering to the Lord and they were fasting and the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart from me, Barnabas and Saul, for the work to which I’ve called them. They fasted and prayed. Laid hands on them. Sent them away.” That’s the first missionary journey. Now Paul and Barnabas go on the first missionary journey to the world. They go down to Seleucia …sail to Cyprus. When they reached Salamis, they began to proclaim the Word of God in the synagogues of the Jews and they also had … John Mark as their…what?…helper.” That’s the operative word to understand this man. He is a helper.
He had proven to be helpful to them in the time that they had used him in Antioch. We don’t know exactly how much time had gone on, but he had proved to be so helpful to them there that they decided to take him with them on the first missionary journey. That, by the way, friends, is the only description of him that tells us anything about the kind of ministry that he had. He was a helper. So they took him along.
It wasn’t easy. Tough ministry. They ran into Elymas, the magician in verse 8, who was opposing them. It was tough. He was identified as one full of deceit, son of the devil, verse 10, enemy of righteousness. And there was a miraculous handling of him in verse 11.
So, right from the very beginning, it was tough going, tough travel and opposition. Come down to verse 13. “Paul and his companions put out to sea from Paphos. Came to Perga in Pamphylia, John [Mark] left them, returned to Jerusalem.” This is a sad moment. A deserter, he left them. He disappeared. He disappears from the New Testament record, by the way, for a few years. He left. And he didn’t go back to Antioch, that wouldn’t sit well with the Antiochian church had sent him out trusting he would serve the two preachers. So he went to Jerusalem. He disappears for a few years.
The next time he’s on the scene is in chapter 15. Turn to chapter 15 verse 36. A few years have passed. John Mark hasn’t been an issue because he’s not around. But Paul has not forgotten his defection, his desertion, his cowardiceness…his cowardice, I should say, his weakness.
They have a conversation in verse 36. They have come back from the first journey. They’ve given the full report of what God did on their first missionary journey. Time has gone by. Paul finally says to Barnabas after some time has passed, “Let’s return, visit the brethren in every city. Let’s go on the second missionary journey, go back to the places where we founded the church, planted the church, proclaimed the Word of the Lord and see how they are doing. Barnabas wanted to take John called Mark along with them also. But Paul kept insisting…” Paul kept insisting I’m not taking John Mark … [he] who had…and here’s the operative word…deserted.” That’s the only way to define what had happened. There’s no reason given for his leaving in chapter 13. There’s no rhyme or reason for it in that context, but here we learn he was a deserter. He deserted them in Pamphylia and hadn’t gone with them to the work. The discussion got so heated, it became what verse 39 calls “a sharp disagreement,” so sharp that not only did John Mark’s cowardice cause him to have a relationship severed with Paul, but it caused Paul to have a severed relationship with his companion Barnabas.
So, Barnabas took Mark with him and went on a trip to Cyprus where he was from, to proclaim the gospel there. Paul chose Silas to take Barnabas’ place and traveled through…verse 41 says…Syria and Seleucia, strengthening the churches. Paul’s refusal to take John Mark was legitimate. He didn’t trust him. He had showed he lacked courage, strength, commitment. He was a defector. He was a deserter.
Barnabas, by the way, takes John Mark and Barnabas disappears for two years in history. We don’t know where he is for two years. John Mark disappears for ten years … Ten years later he shows up again. Turn to Colossians 4. His name shows up in a letter written from Paul to the church at Colossae. By the way, Paul is in Rome when he writes this letter. When he was in Rome the first time as a prisoner, and he had two imprisonments, the first time and then he was released, and then he had ministry and then he was imprisoned again in Rome a second time and he was martyred. This is the first imprisonment. He is in his first imprisonment in Rome and he writes three letters…Ephesians, Colossians, and Philemon.
Chapter 4 verse 10, “Aristarchus, my fellow prisoner.” He’s a prisoner in Rome, from prison he writes these letters, including this one. “Aristarchus, my fellow prisoner, another believer in prison, sends you his greeting and also Barnabas’ cousin Mark.” Wow, ten years later Paul’s a prisoner in Rome and guess who’s his companion? The defector, Mark. “About whom you received instruction, if he comes to you, welcome him.”
Something dramatic has taken place. Something dramatic. In his letter to Philemon, verse 23 at the end of that letter, “Epaphras, my fellow prisoner in Christ Jesus, greets you as do Mark and Luke,” and some others.
Here we are ten years later. Paul is in Rome. Mark is in Rome with Paul…again. And Paul says, “I’m sending Mark on my behalf. When he gets there, welcome him.” He’s back in the good graces of Paul.
How long did that relationship last? Turn to 2 Timothy. Second Timothy, Paul wrote from his second imprisonment some years later. It’s…it’s is last letter…66-67 A.D. Twenty two, twenty three years since the incident of Peter’s release from prison. This is the end for him. He says, “I’m ready to be offered. Time of my departure is at hand.” He’s going to have his head chopped off, and he did. But he has this last letter to Timothy. Verse 9, says to Timothy, “Make every effort to come to me soon. Come, I want your fellowship, Timothy.” Why? “Demas, having loved this present world has deserted me.” He had another deserter, Demas. Gone to Thessalonica. Crescens, he’s gone to Galatia. Titus, he’s gone to Dalmatia. Only Luke is with me. Then he tells Timothy … “Pick up … Mark, bring him with you for he is useful to me for ministry.”
From the time of his first imprisonment, he had Mark at his side. A few years later in his second imprisonment on the brink of his death, he wanted Mark with him. So I say to you, this is the story of the restored deserter. What kind of privilege is that, folks? What kind of privilege is that? For a guy who’s not an Apostle, not a prophet, not a pastor, not a teacher, not an evangelist, not a leader, just a helper, to be given the privilege of serving alongside the Apostle Paul, defecting from that privilege and being restored years later to become so intimately associated with Paul, so loved by Paul, so trusted by Paul that Paul would send him to the Colossian church on his own behalf and that when Paul is facing death at the end of his life, the one person he asks to come in addition to Timothy is … Mark.
You’re not surprised by that, are you? That the Lord would use people like that? Those are the only kind of people there are, recovering sinners, restored deserters, recovered defectors.
Now that part of the story is interesting, isn’t it? His relationship to Paul is monumental. Can’t imagine a simple, humble helper being an intimate friend and companion of the great Apostle Paul. But his relationship to another Apostle is far more significant. That other Apostle is Peter.
… He became the companion and confidant of Peter. If Paul was the greatest Apostle in terms of the volume of things that he wrote. Peter was Christ’s most intimate friend. What kind of privilege would it be to spend years alongside Paul and years alongside Peter?
Did he know Peter? Sure he knew Peter. Peter had come to his house many times in the years of the early church. Had he heard Peter preach? Absolutely he heard Peter preach. But it wasn’t the early acquaintance with Peter that was so significant, it was the later acquaintance with Peter. Remember those ten years when John Mark disappears? Part of the time he was with Peter. You remember when he left he went back to Jerusalem? He didn’t stay in Jerusalem. Peter took him somewhere.
Turn to 1 Peter chapter 5 and I’ll tell you where. First Peter chapter 5, Peter writes his letter that we know as 1 Peter, his first general epistle, and he is in Rome when he wrote this letter … Peter is … in Rome. He is writing in Rome to the Roman believers and others beyond. He makes reference to Rome in chapter 5 verse 13. “She…meaning the church…who is in Babylon.” That’s a code word for Rome, and the reason he uses a code word is because persecution has begun to break out, severe deadly persecution. And so in a cryptic way he substitutes Babylon for Rome so as not to exacerbate the persecution. “She…the church…chosen together with you who is in Babylon, or Rome, sends you greetings.” The greetings extend from the church in Rome to the other churches that will read the letter. “And so does my son, Mark.” My son, Mark?
Oh, not his physical son, but his spiritual son. No doubt Mark had come to Christ listening to Peter preach way back when he was young. No doubt Peter was the first great impactful spiritual influence on his young life. Peter was responsible for his conversion. There is consistent historical testimony that goes all the way back to the first century that after Paul left his first imprisonment in Rome, after he had been there with Mark, after he had written Ephesians, Colossians and Philemon, he left Rome, was let out of prison, came back at a later time, but in the middle period of time, Peter went to Rome … The consistent historical testimony is that Peter spent at least a year there, maybe more than a year and he was in Rome and he was preaching constantly the gospel day after day after day after day. He died in Rome as a martyr in the summer or the autumn of the years 64 A.D., right at the time Nero burned the city and blamed the Christians and launched the persecution. And while Peter was there, he sends greetings and he says, “So does my son, Mark.” Mark was with Peter in Rome.
Can you imagine being the companion of the Apostle Paul? That would be enough. But then to be the companion of Peter? And he was, just an astonishing privilege. He wrote it from Rome. And he was in Rome with Peter.
You say, “Why is that important? Why does that matter?” Because Mark’s gospel is the product of Peter’s eyewitness testimony. The source for Mark from a human viewpoint is Peter. His gospel is based on Peter’s eyewitness accounts of the life of the Lord Jesus which Peter rehearsed day after day after day after day, as he went out into the streets and the buildings of Rome and preached the gospel with Mark at his side. And, believe me, Mark had heard it before that, going all the way back to his childhood. This is Peter’s account through John Mark, not an Apostle, not a prophet, not a pastor, not a leader, not a teacher, just a helper. He is given this immense incredible privilege of writing what he calls the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God. Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit who controlled all the information that had come to him through Peter he wrote this gospel.
Monday: The Gospel of Mark
Since England’s privatised water companies instituted a hosepipe ban (that’s a watering hose and sprinkler ban for my overseas readers), it’s rained most days.
Some companies have since lifted their bans, but only recently. Even with the wettest June in a century — and nearly daily rain since April — a few still have theirs in place.
An online commenter asked if this ‘the wettest drought on record’.
Although the rain has been good for Britons around the country who were concerned about lugging watering cans around their gardens, something not everyone is able to do for physical reasons, a number of areas in the North were flooded. More rain followed, which hampered clean-up efforts.
It reminds me of 2005, when it started to rain practically non-stop after the General Election in April right through the summer. (Someone can correct me if I’m wrong on this one.) We had a lot of flooding.
At the weekend, the north of England had once again been hit by damaging deluges. Yahoo! News reports:
… families forced to flee their inundated homes after a month’s rain fell in 24 hours across the north of England are now beginning clean-up operations.
The deluge battered revellers at the Isle of Wight Festival and brought havoc to Cumbria which buckled under the worst of the wet weather.
Overnight, as much as 100mm of rain fell on the North West region, while unusually heavy rain fell on south-west Scotland, Northern Ireland and Lancashire.
Severe flooding also hit areas of West Yorkshire overnight into Saturday, especially in the Calderdale area. The centres of the towns of Hebden Bridge and Mytholmroyd were inundated and Todmorden was also badly affected, firefighters said. Overnight, the River Calder at Hebden Bridge measured a record 3.2 metres.
An [Environment] agency spokesman said: “There is a low risk of some localised flooding on Sunday across parts of south-west England due to heavy rain, so we urge people to remain vigilant. Further showers are expected across northern England, however further significant flooding is not expected here.”
Even some areas of the Home Counties of the southeast had been hit with localised flooding in May, although nothing to match this scale.
The comments following the article point to areas of improvement:
– Since privatisation of the water companies in the 1990s, personnel cleaning drains and ditches were made redundant or transferred to other areas of the business. Seasonal maintenance seems to have gone by the wayside.
– Residents have been concreting their front gardens over in order to create off-street parking. A garden helps to absorb rainwater, whereas a solid surface does not. It is possible to have off-street parking along with a bit of garden — a bit of attention to design can help.
– Housing developments are being built on flood plains. There is a reason why these areas were left deserted for centuries.
Oddly, someone wrote from Spain to say that they have hardly any rainfall yet somehow manage to use hosepipes to water their gardens.
Something doesn’t add up.
It seems as if there is a certain amount of personal as well as corporate selfishness and greed at play here, although, as usual, the guilty parties don’t seem to care.
UPDATE – June 29: Note what the Environment Agency said above — ‘no further significant flooding expected’. What was the headline today? ‘Travel Havoc Ahead Amid Heavy Flooding’ in the same areas (emphases mine):
Train services between Scotland and England have been axed in the wake of Thursday’s freak deluges that saw rail lines blocked by floodwater, landslips and fallen trees.
One man died after being swept away in a Shropshire stream, while roads were closed, properties were flooded and hundreds of homes were evacuated.
Northern England, the Midlands, Scotland and Northern Ireland were worst hit by storms that brought lightening, giant hail stones and reports of damage from squalls and tornadoes …
North Tyneside Council said it dealt with more than 200 flood-related incidents in the borough and that at least eight schools will be closed today due to flooding or water damage following the afternoon deluge …
Northern Ireland and the Irish republic were also hit by floods and at the height of disruption, more than 10,000 homes in the Cork area and 1,000 in Northern Ireland suffered blackouts.
Once again, ‘the worst is over’:
The Environment Agency had 10 flood warnings in place in the Midlands, North East and North West, but forecasters have said the worst of the weather looks to be over.
Whilst one can never be 100% sure about weather forecasts, especially in this country, my prayers go out to the many people who have been working day and night cleaning up their properties and neighbourhoods only for another flood to put paid to their efforts. This is a repeat of 2005. Then, too, the worst was over time and time again.
I was sorry to see that one of the comments on Yahoo!News following this story received such a poor rating that one has to click on it to see it. This is what the comment from Maria said:
Let’s pray to God, He will settle the situation.
Indeed.
On Eric Brunet’s show Monday, 25 June, on RMC, the subject was prostitution.
I almost turned it off until I found out a Catholic priest was on the show. Brunet is RMC’s only conservative and quasi-libertarian talk show host, so it seemed worth a listen.
The Parti Socialiste (PS), now in power and having won a majority in the Parliamentary elections a week or so ago, wants to ban prostitution in order to create ‘a better society’. Yes, there are any number of women, especially from foreign countries, who are effectively sex slaves. They are promised work as an au pair or a cleaner — normally to pay off a family ‘debt’ of some sort — taken by people they don’t know to a foreign country and have their papers confiscated by their overlords who beat and starve them for any sign of personal dignity or gentle pushback. Prostitution trafficking is a terrible thing, which deserves much more attention and prosecution than it gets.
There are already laws against human trafficking. Let the PS, with the full support of Interior Secretary Manuel Valls enforce them. Because if girls are brought in from Eastern Europe, Africa and Asia as prostitutes, you can be sure that children are brought in from those countries and continents to be slaves; adults are brought in as indentured servants to work who knows where for how much; and many other atrocities which we must excuse on the grounds of political correctness.
Prostitution is but the thin end of the wedge. You cannot get rid of it any more than you can prohibit alcohol, tobacco or illegal drugs. A ban will not work.
Yet, the banning perspective mirrored the one I had in secondary school, which also tells you something about the Left — and young minds.
My father and I had the same discussion after we watched a television programme about New York City’s crackdown on prostitution in the mid-1970s. I was in favour of some form of intrusive vice police and was disappointed to find out that the city was ‘only’ going to pursue kerb crawlers more vigorously instead. Dad said, ‘We’ll have this talk again in a few years’ time and see what you think then.’
Thirty-five to forty years ago, as I’ve said in other posts, no one then, except for a few cranks, wanted to ban anything. Even regulating automobile safety and factory pollution was not held in high regard. This was my dad’s argument in a nutshell, 1970s style: ‘Is this what we’ve been fighting wars for? This is a free country. It should stay that way. As for prostitution, how can you ban the oldest profession in human history?’
Unfortunately, my dad and I never did have that follow-up talk because he died a couple of years later. Shortly after that, I moved out on my own and got to know a man in his early 30s, who told me one night, ‘Look, prostitution goes on all the time. My on-off girlfriend is a single mother of three. She has a hard time making ends meet. You don’t think I slip her a bit of money on the bedside table when I leave her early in the morning while she’s still asleep? You would call that prostitution. I would call it helping a friend.’
A male caller to Brunet’s show said the same thing, which surprised even Brunet and the priest. I thought of my former acquaintance. The words could have come verbatim from him.
One can prosecute kerb-crawling on the part of potential customers. That might work with a certain degree of success if a sting operation can be mounted, but selling one’s wares will carry on as it has done throughout history.
This might be why the Bible advises against engaging in certain activities. They are prohibited for Jews and Christians, but someone somewhere will still continue with the most ancient of sins.
Brunet’s guest, the Catholic priest, said that this was what St Louis — King Louis IX of France — found. (Wikipedia’s image at the top is said to be the king’s most lifelike representation. This is the saint in whose honour various cities (e.g. St Louis, Missouri) and cathedrals around the world are named.) The priest said that Louis IX was intent on banning prostitution and issued an edict to that effect. However, the practice carried on — moreso than before. Although he did not want to, Louis IX regulated prostitution so that the Parisian women engaging in it had to live in a district along the waterfront, which, for them, was the River Seine.
In French, ‘waterfront’ is au bord de l’eau. More astute readers might be able to put together a word from that: bordel. Bordel is a corruption of au bord de l’eau. In Italian, the word is bordello.
In other words, despite his deep personal holiness — and he was the only French king to ever be canonised — St Louis realised that he only made prostitution worse by trying to ban it. Doing so only drove the practice underground in places where it should not have been. The priest said that St Louis’s regulation seemed to keep prostitution in check. You can read more about it in the English-speaking Wikipedia entry.
It should be noted that the French Wikipedia entry says it was Louis XI who was responsible for reneging on his own ban. Perhaps he also tried to enforce another ban then had to renege. However, the priest on Brunet’s show discussed Louis IX at some length, and, as he is a man of the cloth, I would place more credence in what he had to say than in Wikipedia on this occasion. That said, it was Louis XI who instituted the red light. Shutters had to be closed, but a red light could be illuminated.
Today, bordel can also be used to indicate a mess or a dump, as in ‘Quel bordel!’ And that’s pretty much what prostitution leads to: messy morals, messy health, messy relationships and messy priorities. If that’s the life some women and their customers wish to lead, fine, but it’s not for me — and let’s hope it is not for believing Christians, especially given the biblical prohibitions against it.
Although I couldn’t listen to all of the show, it seems the priest — rightly so — found prostitution distasteful. He asked one woman why she was in Paris’s Bois de Boulogne most nights. She replied:
Simple — it’s easy money and a lot of it. Why would I want to work when I can do this for a living?
Some prostitutes did acknowledge that trafficked girls were dropped off by strange vans every night in their patch, for which they were sorry. However, they said that trafficking occurred in very few instances and that they themselves felt secure in their profession. Hmm. I’m not so sure, but they know more than I do about it.
All the prostitutes interviewed said that they paid taxes. Brunet asked how that was possible when there were so many restrictions around income generated from it. They said that they also worked as escort girls and masseuses, so could register their income through those companies.
Another surprising aspect came to light when a prostitute from Cameroon rang in. She said that many women customers cruise streets and parks for prostitutes. My, how things have changed. I wonder what my father would have thought!
In any event, although the PS wishes to do a moral ‘clean-up in aisle seven’, as it were, it is unlikely that any attempts they make to eradicate the world’s oldest profession will succeed.
It is only by embracing the truth of Jesus Christ that we will be able to move away from the immorality of prostitution.
A ban is simply unworkable. The PS might do well to reopen their history books and read up on the compromises their despised monarchs — dead white guys with lice and greasy hair — had to make centuries before.
Several years ago my better half and I watched Roman Polanski’s (yes, I know) gripping film The Pianist, starring Adrian Brody.
Brody’s character is transferred to various safe houses — flats — in order to evade the Nazis. He must be perfectly quiet at all times and be prepared to leave at any moment. At one point he is living in a block of flats and needs to get something off the top of his kitchen cabinet. Unfortunately, his tenuous grip slips and a cup or plate, if I remember rightly, falls to the floor with a crash.
He has a choice: either stay and risk a knock at the door or grab his small case with some clothes and leave the building. He opts for the latter. Just as he quietly opens his door and furtively checks to see the coast is clear, a woman comes running up the stairs to see what’s happening. She spots him and yells out, ‘Jew! There’s a JEW in the building!’
I turned to SpouseMouse and said, ‘How long do you think smokers have?’
The hunt, repression and mistreatment of smokers has been going on for some time. Although still isolated, it is no different from 17th century witch hunts or the 20th century round-up of Jews under the Third Reich.
Frank Davis’s blog has been exploring these developments over the past few days.
Housing in California
– The State of California passed a law, effective January 1, 2012, requiring that all landlords show what parts of multi-family dwellings are non-smoking. As Frank says, that the flipside of this is that all tenants will know which flats and open areas permit smoking.
– The City of Pasadena, California, has passed a law — also effective January 1, 2012 — requiring that all multi-tenancy buildings be non-smoking. The City says it will enforce this law and does not expect its citizens to do so.
In both instances, only tobacco smoking is mentioned. Therefore, may we assume that cannabis smoking is allowed?
Is it ethical to prohibit tobacco smoking everywhere in a community when cannabis smoking is acceptable? Cannabis has resin. Look into a well used cannabis pipe; it will be full of it with an appearance indistinguishable from tobacco tar. Cannabis also makes its users high, something one cannot say about tobacco.
Is it ethical to deprive tobacco smokers of a place to live?
Is it time for tobacco smokers to leave California? Some have lived there all their lives.
If so, where do they go?
Is it ethical to simply forbid people to smoke when they may have valid reasons for so doing? Isn’t tobacco preferable to mind-altering drugs? Do the people of California honestly think that a smoker will no longer feel any cravings living in a non-smoking city, working in a non-smoking office environment and having no place to smoke?
It’s no different from forbidding people to consume fatty snacks in the privacy of their own dwelling. I’ll be coming back to food in a future post, by the way.
After all the bogus science surrounding tobacco (see ‘The bogus science behind Tobacco Control’ on my Recipes / Health page) it seems churlish, spiteful and hateful to exclude smokers not only from employment but also to deprive them of housing.
It’s amazing that people actually believe that cigarette smoke passes through … walls! Poorly sited ventilation shafts are one thing which also allow lingering, noxious food odours to circulate into another unit (I’ve experienced them daily over a couple of years in the past) — but walls?
What are reasonable adults thinking?
Of course, California is not the only state doing this, although they are the grand engineers and originators. San Francisco is the birthplace and international HQ of Tobacco Control.
Two of Frank’s readers from California provide additional insight (emphases mine):
Tom: There w[ere] a massive amount of expensive billboard sized subway and transit signs all over downtown SF this last month that were hailing this new state law as a major victory and demanding that all renters in SF and California for that matter go to their landlords and demand full disclosure of a) where “the smokers” live and b) the dangers of SHS … it’s been highly promoted all over SF this month, encouraging people to run to landlords and complain about SHS – using highly provocative anti-smoker propaganda of the hateful and devisive variety to accomplish its goals …
Tom: … Berkeley Rent Control Board makes clear, it is perfectly okay to discriminate against smokers – and another, Pasadena in SoCal making smoking illegal inside your own apartment or condo unit entirely, including balconies … now the anti-smoking industry is test-marketing new hate campaign billboards in SF for their effectiveness before springing them onto the rest of the state (and by way of international anti-smoking cohorts, elsewhere in the world, given time).
Berkeley, for example, only: http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/ContentDisplay.aspx?id=10436
Q: Can I refuse to rent to smokers?
Yes. The fair housing laws do not specifically protect smokers, and addiction to nicotine does not qualify as a handicap for purposes of the laws protecting the rights of the disabled. Although the California Supreme Court has ruled that the Unruh Civil Rights Act bars arbitrary discrimination on the basis of a person’s “personal characteristics” (e.g., hair style) or “personal traits,” and it might be argued that refusal to rent to smokers is this type of discrimination, it is unlikely that such an argument would be successful in court because there are valid business reasons for refusing to rent to smokers, e.g., concern for the health of other tenants, fire safety, lower insurance costs, reduced cleaning and maintenance expenses. The federal Fair Housing Act, in fact, provides that a landlord is not required to rent to anyone whose tenancy would constitute a direct threat to the health and safety of others or pose a risk of damage to property. As long as a no-smoker policy is applied uniformly, it is likely to be legal.
…
I also found online a CDC [Center for Disease Control] federally sponsored 45 page handbook that explains step by step how to go about enacting these ordinances in other jurisdictions outside of CA (hardly a “grassroots effort” if CDC, a government taxpayer sponsored agency is providing political organizing materials and support to lobby for what the government clearly already is supporting) – but that link seems to have closed up and not handy – but it was under the CDC website, illustrating it is a government agency that is manufacturing this so-called “grassroots effort” that the anti-smoking fake-charity in SF is helping out with their hate-campaign against apartment and condo smoker posters this last month on trial run in downtown SF.
This has nothing to do with health and everything to do with hate — which is state and federally funded.
It does make one wonder how the Baby Boomer kids — the vast majority of whom either lived with smokers or encountered tobacco smoke elsewhere nearly every day — turned into such hateful and fearful people. Did our generation drop like flies? Certainly not. In fact, our parents, our children and we ourselves are promised the greatest longevity in history.
Please note that this applies only to tobacco smokers. Cannabis smokers are widely encouraged in California. Magically, second-hand cannabis smoke and residue carry no dangers or inconvenience. Therefore, whilst high, a renter can inadvertently set fire to whatever he likes. He is also free to create a mess which might also cost the landlord extra money. Anyway, isn’t that what a security deposit is for? Having rented for several years, I know that one did not get the security deposit until one vacated the premises and the landlord assessed whether he needed part of it to refurbish the flat.
Physical violence
Since paranoia about second-hand tobacco smoke has hit the media non-stop over the past decade in the United States, certain individuals have been taking matters into their own hands.
This was supported by a comment from Tom (also in California):
Seeing smokers threatened with a beating by fist in the streets of SF – there is no link – I have seen that – with my very own eyes and encountered something very close to that personally as well. Links to one infamous SF Chronicle editorial a few years back prior to the outdoor bans from an attorney advocating violence against outdoor smokers and saying that she would defend the attackers in court and no judge would dare find the attackers in any way guilty as well as links to another infamous Asian Weekly editorial entitled “Filthy Chinese Smokers” just prior to the outdoor bans …
And I can also say, anectdotally, since I have no “link” to what I actually saw, but a perhaps mid-30′s well-dressed black professional on the corner of Diamond and Bosworth, directly across from the BART subway station, during mid-afternoon on a sunny breezy day, go up to an older white gentleman in his 50′s or 60′s who was standing to cross the street and had a cigarette in his hand – and yell at the man in his face, telling him that if he did not get away from him with that second hand smoke he was going to punch him out – to which the older man did a kind of confused laugh behind the younger man’s back after the light turned and the younger one scurried to make his distance from the older one who had the cigarette. And I have personally experienced an incident, not quite so serious but slightly surprising when it happened in downtown SF when a woman dressed in extreme finery got out of a Mercedes unbeknownst to myself, came up beside me and started screaming and thrashing her hands around my face crying that second hand smoke would get on her fancy clothes and it took her husband rushing up behind her to drag her away to the Palace Hotel, where a dinner can easily run $400 and they must have been going there for something important. There is also the matter of the “Filthy Asian Smoker” article that the Asian Times newspaper ran, condemning smokers in Chinatown, many of whom are elderly men and women in their 80′s and 90′s, and that was the kick-off for Supervisor Alioto to have smoking banned outdoors in parks, squares and plazas with a $500 fine.
Back to the body of Frank’s post:
And Michael McFadden (who lives in Philadelphia) weighed in with:
I wouldn’t be at all surprised to hear of isolated incidents by nuts. I have documented news stories of a 13 year old smoker being beaten to death by a 15 year old Anti, a pregnant smoker being shot for smoking while pregnant in a parking lot, a daughter being “branded” with a hot iron by her mother for smoking, a girl being strangled in her bed by a next door neighbor because the girl had shared a cig with the neighbor’s daughter, and a girl being tortured for hours with a homemade flame thrower etc because she’d smoked around a friend who was pregnant. I’ve also witnessed a smoker being severely gut-punched by a passerby at a folk festival for no apparent reason other than the smoking, and another smoker at the same festival the following year having a bedpan of urine and feces thrown at her.
If spousal abuse and child abuse disturb us, then, surely, this should, too. What people personally think of tobacco is neither here nor there.
This is assault and battery, possibly with intent to murder.
Is this the sort of society we wish to see? One hopes not.
Unfortunately, as Frank says:
… it’s a development that is wholly in line with the Tobacco Control Industry’s ‘denormalisation’ programme, whereby smokers are evicted from pubs and restaurants, and thereby from society, and turned into a demonised underclass, and the object of derision, contempt, and ultimately violence.
For the truth of the matter is that, even though the top echelons of the Tobacco Control Industry generally make no explicit calls for violence against smokers, more or less everything that they do encourages precisely such violence … rather than building up fanatical support using marches and rallies, it’s built up using the mass media to continually portray smoking as a disease, and smokers as subhumans.
It’s also occurring in other Western countries:
Antipholus Papps: I was assaulted by a bicycle courier in downtown Vancouver the other week. This [guy], who spends each and every working day trailing buses, cars, and pick-ups around downtown Vancouver, took exception to me smoking on the kerb of one of Vancouver’s major arteries and slammed his bike into my leg.
Once one segment of society is seen as being less than human, it will not stop there.
Suppose that, starting tomorrow, every tobacco smoker gave up. Do people honestly think that our world would be free of scapegoats?
Who would be next? Welfare mothers? Fat people? Christians?
Shall we turn a blind eye then? If not, why do we do so now?
Over the past few days I have been researching tobacco use by notable Christian clergy and authors.
An article from 2010 at Christian Century, ‘The nicotine journal’ by Rodney Clapp, provides a good précis of famous Christian smokers from the 20th century. Excerpts follow, emphases mine.
… Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s Letters and Papers from Prison in Fortress Press’s extraordinary new edition of his collected works … remains almost endlessly suggestive and stimulating theologically. But in this reading I noticed how often the imprisoned Lutheran pastor mentioned tobacco. There are, in fact, no fewer than 20 entries in the index under “Smoking.”
“I am very grateful for any smoking supplies,” Bonhoeffer mentions in one letter. In another he adds his “special thanks for the smoking supplies and to all the kind donors of cigarettes,” and elsewhere he offers gratitude for “cookies, peaches, and cigarettes.”
Bonhoeffer often reinforces his gratitude with superlatives and exclamation points. “Maria’s and Mother’s cigarettes were magnificent,” he writes. “I thank Anna very much for the cigarettes.” And: “I thank you very much for everything, also for the cigars and cigarettes from your trip!” He praises a Wolf cigar for its “magical fragrance” and on another occasion declares, “I’ve lit the big cigar and am enjoying it immensely—thanks very much!” When his dear friend Eberhard Bethge delivers a cigar sent by Karl Barth, Bonhoeffer finds it so fine that he staggers at its “truly improbable reality.”
Bonhoeffer’s nicotine encomia brought to mind other theological figures who smoked. C. S. Lewis incessantly smoked cigarettes and a pipe. J. R. R. Tolkien appeared almost elfish in the author photo for The Hobbit, grinning and gripping a pipe. Barth, too, liked a pipe but sometimes smoked cigars. Other confirmed smokers include Paul Tillich, Reinhold Niebuhr, James Gustafson and Richard John Neuhaus.
Enthusiastic smokers can also be found in the ranks of conservative evangelicals. The British Baptist C. H. Spurgeon believed cigar drafts prepared his throat for preaching. Challenged on this practice, Spurgeon replied that he would continue unashamedly to “smoke to the glory of God” …
Strenuous objections to tobacco use arise not only in fundamentalist or evangelical circles. When theologian Paul Ramsey appeared on the cover of the Methodist magazine the Christian Advocate, it was not his remarks on war but the photo of Ramsey with a pipe in hand that sparked a storm of controversy …
Given the health concerns related to smoking, I will attempt no theological apologia for the activity other than observing that the existence of volcanoes—not to mention liturgical incense—suggests a God who apparently has a special interest in fire and smoke.
We cannot be sure about the Presbyterian theologian John Gresham Machen, although Clapp notes that Machen did write his mother about smoking, saying:
When I think what a wonderful aid tobacco is to friendship and Christian patience I have sometimes regretted that I never began to smoke.
Clapp editorialises, making it clear that he has no time for cigarettes, which he is sure are harmful. (Why? Tobacco is tobacco. Smoke is smoke.) His choices are pipes and cigars. Such a rationale surely excludes the ladies who would look a bit eccentric smoking either, although some do.
Setting cigarettes aside, I think pipe and cigar users enjoy smoking because it provides three substantial pleasures. First, a high-quality cigar or a well-packed pipe presents occasion for patience (as Machen noticed). It takes at least 45 minutes to finish a decent cigar. That is time set aside for backyard meditation or contemplation. Few things better slow down a busy day and bring it in for a relaxed landing than a burning stogie and an iced bourbon.
Second, smoking in the company of others enhances conviviality. Conversation assumes a satisfying pace as the talkers pause periodically to draw on their pipes or cigars.
Third, smoking is an excellent aesthetic pleasure. There are the tools—cigar cutters, lighters and pipe cleaners—whose use is a soothing ritual. And smoke itself moves with visual elegance, in serene white or blue undulations, with a languorous ascent into the sky.
The two comments he received are disappointing but typical of our times. ‘The horror!’
Still, it’s good to know of more clergy and notable Christians who enjoyed and appreciated the rituals and comfort which are unique to tobacco.
More to come.
Before the month of June comes to a close, let this blog be on record as stating that our Queen’s Diamond Jubilee was unforgettable — despite the weather!
(At left is our monarch at her coronation on June 2, 1953, courtesy of the Daily Mail).
Sunday, June 3, 2012, was the day of the Thames Diamond Jubilee Pageant. One thousand vessels participated — some rowboats — sailing from Albert Bridge in Battersea eastward to Tower Bridge. It was a long way for those relying on good old-fashioned oar-pulling. Participants had to be ready mid-morning. The weather was chilly, not unlike Coronation Day itself, although it stayed dry until an hour before the end of the pageant, when the heavens opened sometime around 4 p.m.
Here in the mousehole, we watched the BBC’s coverage. SpouseMouse and I had hoped we would receive more information about the vessels, especially the Dunkirk Little Ships and the music barges. However, by the end of the programme at 4 p.m., we were none the wiser. A number of equally disappointed viewers expressed their opinions to the BBC. Although the presenters were enthusiastic, they did not cover much of the history of the Thames or deliver much quality reporting. Particularly poor was the young reporter interviewing the old soldiers; why couldn’t the BBC have helped her out with what questions to ask? There were many interesting things they could have said about their their memories of the Coronation at a time when Britain was rebuilding after the Second World War (and rationing was in effect until 1954), but her interview was vapid. A missed opportunity.
Stephen Pollard, writing for the Telegraph, put it this way:
Like many viewers, I watched the BBC on Sunday with incredulity and mounting anger. It has become a truism that our national culture has been infantilised and made stupid. But if ever anything could be relied on to provide a temporary halt in that slide it would, surely, be the BBC’s coverage of the Diamond Jubilee. Much to the irritation of other channels, we turn to the national broadcaster at times of national togetherness. The BBC just gets it right.
Not any more. Sunday’s broadcast was not merely inane, it was insulting. The instruction had clearly gone out from on high that the audience would comprise imbeciles with a mental age of three and a 20-second attention span. And that any celebrity sighting, no matter how minor, would trump anything happening on the river.
So the flotilla – an event so awe-inspiring that it drew well over a million people, on a cold wet day, to stand 10-deep on the banks of the Thames to try to catch a sight – was treated merely as background for the witterings of the BBC’s most lightweight presenters and the D-list celebrities they had lined up to lurk anywhere but on the river. How else to explain the decision to cut away from the flotilla just as the Spirit of Chartwell, with the Royal family aboard, sailed through Tower Bridge with its gates up – one of the highlights of the afternoon – and switch to an interview by Fearne Cotton so cringe-makingly inept that it should be shown to all wannabe presenters as an example of how good looks are not enough. Miss Cotton was with some Second World War veterans, but appeared to have no idea what that war was or why she was interviewing the men. “This is obviously a huge ship, this is a weighty ship. How have you enjoyed your day cheering the Queen?”
However, the Beeb did tell us that planning for the Pageant had started three years ago. It went off beautifully. The Queen, Prince Philip and their immediate family were together on the Royal Barge, specially fitted with two thrones. However, our 86-year old monarch and her 90-year old consort stood the entire time in windy, chilly conditions. From what I recall, no one sat down, possibly taking their cue from Her Majesty.
Meanwhile, where we were it rained most of the day. Despite that, our area had one of the largest street parties with over 1,000 people showing up. The council put bunting up along the high street in late May and, because of the unpredictable weather, it’s still there, adding a bit of happiness in a rather bleak time socio-economically.
The Telegraph reported that more women than men helped to put together Jubilee celebrations. In our area, it was a 50-50 effort with regard to residential bunting and flags which stayed up for a week and a half. There’s still a bit of bunting up in the next road over — and why not?
And, people are still in a happy mood where we are — a bit like it is in the run-up to Christmas. Putting up bunting between houses allowed neighbours to renew acquaintances or meet for the first time. The Diamond Jubilee was a welcome distraction and official occasion for a celebration.
Nevertheless, there were detractors. Some bloggers thought it was appalling: the Queen is a dastardly member of the global controlling elite, the street parties were a test run for the United Nations’ Agenda 21 communitarianism, etc., etc.
What about previous street parties, for which England is known? We have a tradition of these types of celebrations.
As for the Queen being part of a global cabal working to her subjects’ detriment, a number of other bloggers believe that the Queen should have put her foot down over developments involving the European Union and so on. They know more about English history than I, but what about the Glorious Revolution which tempered the monarch’s influence in favour of Parliament, as did the Acts of Union in 1707? We cannot have it both ways, although it would be nice. And who really knows what the Queen has said to the six Prime Ministers whom she has known during her reign?
Tory MP John Redwood discussed this on his blog, including the role of the Privy Council (emphases mine):
The Queen invites PCs to Privy Councils as needed, usually drawing on current Ministers who are also PCs. The Privy Council transacts formal royal business. The Queen is a constitutional monarch, so she does not see it as her job to seek advice and seek to influence current political questions through active political dialogue with Ministers and MPs, nor to interfere with the deliberations of Parliament about the relative powers of the EU and Westminster. Blame Parliament, not the Queen, and look to Parliament for change. She has a weekly private audience with the Prime Minister, so he can keep her informed. She needs to know the government’s intentions, so she can host state occasions intelligently. The audience is not designed to allow her to reshape the Manifesto or political agenda the ruling party has set out.
Now back to the celebrations.
The Diamond Jubilee concert took place on Monday, June 4, and from a terrace in Central London I was able to briefly hear Sir Elton John sing ‘A Song for You’. It’s very odd listening to open-air concerts from a short distance. You can hear the sound move in waves — most peculiar and fascinating.
I felt somewhat sorry for the Queen having to sit through the concert, as I would have wished to hear only certain performers. That said, each one represented the music of her reign, from Shirley Bassey to Paul McCartney to Will.i.am.
Madness played from the top of Buckingham Palace, which Suggs said on ITV the next day was wonderful. And for those watching live or from home, their ‘Our House’ was one of the best numbers, with a delightful light display superimposing a video of Madness’s Camden Town terraced houses across the facade of Buckingham Palace.
That seemed to typify a running theme of the Diamond Jubilee: the Royal Family celebrated with the national family. The immediate Royal Family was on the Royal Barge on Sunday; thousands of families came from near and far to line the banks of the Thames to watch the Pageant and wave flags in honour of the Queen. This also played its part during the concert, when Prince Charles paid tribute to his mother. And it continued on Tuesday for the Service of Thanksgiving at St Paul’s Cathedral.
We tuned into ITV on June 5, where historian David Starkey helped with commentary. When the coverage started, we learned that Prince Philip had suffered a bladder infection, confining him to a hospital bed for a few days after Sunday’s Pageant. The Queen rode to St Paul’s with one of her ladies in waiting instead.
The Archbishop of Canterbury gave a sermon focussing, unsurprisingly, on the need for communitarianism adding that we must rid ourselves of the ‘fear of strangers’. Meanwhile, back in ITV’s commentary box, David Starkey, moved to tears by the Jubilee events, took strong exception to the Archbishop’s words and said it was against the nature of the Englishman to perform compulsory actions in specific ways. If I remember rightly, he emphasised England’s longstanding tradition of charity and volunteerism and that no one should be dictating how or where we should exercise that charity.
Another ITV guest was Barbara Windsor of the Carry On films. She was all decked out in red, white and blue, including a sequinned Union Flag handbag. The presenters asked her how she viewed the future of the monarchy. After Queen Elizabeth II, she said, she wasn’t very sure what direction it would take. The expression on her face said it all. Let us hope that her concerns are misplaced.
When the Queen returned to Buckingham Palace for her balcony appearance the throngs of people — more than a million — making their way down the Mall was breathtaking and moving. They waved flags and banners — among them one which read ‘Elizabeth the Great — She’s a diamond!’ (BBC copyright picture at link). These were people who are fed up with morally derelict politicians and the European Union. They are tired of people putting down their identity, history and heritage.
They came to celebrate the one untainted remnant of our 21st century society: Elizabeth the Great.
I could not believe how happy everyone looked that weekend — no matter where they stood along the royal route.
The Queen took particular care to show the line of succession the whole weekend. Only Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall, along with the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Prince Harry were with the Queen and Prince Philip on the Royal Barge.
This was also true of Tuesday’s royal balcony appearance (except for Prince Philip). How the crowds cheered — their enthusiasm never flagging even though they had come early in the morning to take their places in eager anticipation of a glimpse of the Queen. Their cheers were incredible. Even after the Queen and her heirs went back into the palace, the crowds stayed and cheered. Some sang the National Anthem again. It took some time before any of them turned around to leave.
Saturday, June 16, marked the Queen’s official birthday with Trooping the Colour on Horse Guards Parade. As Trooping the Colour was so close to the Diamond Jubilee weekend, I wasn’t sure if as many people would turn up. Yet, they did — in what some commentators said were record numbers. Some Britons were unable to attend the Jubilee celebrations and opted for Trooping the Colour. Yet, others attended both. One hip twentysomething happily told BBC’s Claire Balding, ‘We came for the Jubilee and we’re here today — we’ve caught the bug!’
Again, for the balcony appearance, hundreds of thousands of people lined the Mall and stood in front of the Palace, waving flags and cheering. The enthusiasm was every bit as strong as it was during the Jubilee events.
It was reassuring to see all generations of Britons, most of whom are English, participate in these celebrations. One lady interviewed by ITV on the day of the Service of Thanksgiving said that she is 72 years old and has never missed standing along the Mall for royal events. Many younger people from toddlers to students to twenty- and thirty-somethings showed up with flags, banners and painted faces.
An Ipsos Mori poll which appeared on June 16, revealed that 90% of Britons approve of the way the Queen is serving the nation. Pollster Tom Mludzinski pointed out that these were:
approval ratings politicians could only dream of.
The Jubilee hasn’t stopped, nor did the Queen or her immediate family put their feet up on the afternoon of June 5. Receptions followed that evening and the rest of the week, hosted by the Queen. The Prince of Wales, the Duke of Cambridge and Prince Harry had official duties the following day, so it was back to work for the Royal Family.
Between the Jubilee weekend and Trooping the Colour, the Queen toured the West Midlands, where local councils were amazed to see the turnout, which far exceeded their plans and expectations.
Her Majesty has four more national tours remaining this year. The Jubilee has not come to an end just yet.
On Monday afternoon, I caught a bit of a documentary on Elizabeth I, who reigned from 1558 to 1603. The presenter said that she was the first monarch who went on royal walkabouts and wanted to meet her subjects on her travels, asking that her carriage stop where there were the greatest numbers of people in town centres. It seems that Elizabeth II has embraced this tradition wholeheartedly, not only at home but abroad, throughout her 60 years of service to Great Britain and the Commonwealth nations.
As an Australian Lutheran pastor, the Revd Mark Henderson, put it:
… the constitutional monarchy and the Westminster system of government it heads has provided the politically stable foundations on which modern Australia’s prosperity and relative peacefulness has been built. That’s not to say this is a perfect system of government, but to paraphrase Winston Churchill’s remark apropos democracy generally, it is the least imperfect system that we have found. Thus the attitude of a majority of Australians to the question of a republic is “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”, especially given the political turmoil which we see presently engulfing many republics. In tumultuous times it would appear there is much to be said to for having an apolitical head of state who, unlike the American or French president, for example, can sit above the fray and provide a sense of unity, continuity with the past and hope for a future under the blessing of God. Constitutional monarchy “has the runs on the board”, to use a cricket analogy we are fond of “down under”, while republics seem apt to fray at the edges until the fabric of society tears irreparably and chaos ensues (cf the Weimar republic of post WWI Germany). And besides, the Queen, like her predecessors, is highly respected and personally popular among Australians, even republicans!
Pastor Mark posted a Diamond Jubilee prayer from the Lutheran Church of Australia, one well worth reciting this year in grateful thanks:
Gracious Father, you have exalted your Son as the King of kings and Lord of lords and yet he rules as the humble servant of all. We thank you that under him you have established governments and rulers for the world and blessed us through them. Today we give you thanks for Elizabeth, our Queen, and for the 60 years of her reign. Grant her joy and peace in her duties, sustain her with good health, and strengthen her to continue in faithful obedience to you and devoted service to her lands and peoples, now and all the days of her life; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
May our loyal and gracious Queen reign over us for many more years to come and may she enjoy the rest of her Diamond Jubilee year.
In closing, the following video (H/T: Nik Lowe) is for the charity Afghan Heroes. Proceeds from the sales of Anton Lorien’s single help to support British soldiers serving on the front line.
‘We Are the Brits’ is a song putting the ‘Great’ back into Britain, tracing all the best of our history with images to match. And, given this month’s events, who can put on a party better than Great Britain?
Onwards to the Olympics!
This blog’s examination of the Epistle of James — James the Just — concludes with this post. Previous entries discussed James 1:1-16, James 2:6-7 and 11-13 and James 2:19-26.
This is one of those rare occasions where I agree with those theologians who compiled the standard three-year Lectionary used in public worship. I can understand why they suppressed today’s passage, for reasons you’ll read below.
In short, parts of it read like a toxic church charter.
Whilst many Protestants have problems with James’s use of the word ‘works’, which I think of as ‘fruits of faith’ and not semi-Pelagian deeds, what follows has been abused by some fundamentalist and toxic churches, especially those with mandated small groups and public confessions. This is much more difficult to rationalise as it can easily end up hurting the congregant being reviled by his peers and pastor.
As this passage is not in the Lectionary, it is part of my ongoing Forbidden Bible Verses series, also essential to our understanding of Scripture.
Today’s reading is from the English Standard Version with commentary from Matthew Henry and the Revd Gil Rugh (Indian Hills Community Church, Lincoln, Nebraska).
11Behold, we consider those blessed who remained steadfast. You have heard of the steadfastness of Job, and you have seen the purpose of the Lord, how the Lord is compassionate and merciful.
12But above all, my brothers, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or by any other oath, but let your “yes” be yes and your “no” be no, so that you may not fall under condemnation.
The Prayer of Faith
13Is anyone among you suffering? Let him pray. Is anyone cheerful? Let him sing praise. 14Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. 15And the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. 16Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working. 17Elijah was a man with a nature like ours, and he prayed fervently that it might not rain, and for three years and six months it did not rain on the earth. 18Then he prayed again, and heaven gave rain, and the earth bore its fruit.
19My brothers, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone brings him back, 20let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.
————————————————————————————-
The first six verses of James 5, which are read in church, contain a strong warning to the wealthy Jews exploiting other Jews — originally from Jerusalem — who have converted to Christianity. This post explains more about the socio-political persecution James’s converts were under, not only by wealthy Jews but also the Roman government. James wrote his epistle between 37 and 50 AD. The Romans destroyed the temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD — God’s judgment against these unrepentant Jews?
The rest of James 5 is addressed to his converts who are under great material burden. Peter’s epistles (available on my Essential Bible Verses page), which follow in the biblical canon, are also addressed to James’s audience and have many of the same ‘wisdom’ themes concerning Christian conduct.
James is in the midst of giving his faithful advice in bearing up under their persecution, urging patience (James 5:7-8). Another useful verse is James 5:9:
Do not grumble against one another, brothers, so that you may not be judged; behold, the Judge is standing at the door.
This also applies to us in the present day. This is one of the reasons why our parents have taught us how to respond with ‘Fine, thank you — and you?’ when asked how we are. A litany of complaints can cause us unease in reciting them. Similarly, they may cause the listener discomfort in listening to them. God does not wish us to distress others or for us to wallow in self-pity; therefore, we mustn’t grumble. Furthermore, when we grumble, we tend to pass judgment on others who we feel have wronged us. Sometimes we think we’re being picked on when we’re not — something to keep in mind.
One of my late grandmothers-in-law — London born and bred — always answered ‘Mustn’t grumble’ when asked how she was. She was as poor as a churchmouse (!) and suffered from rheumatoid arthritis. Despite that she was a faithful free-will Baptist (originally a Primitive Methodist) and did her best to remain cheerful in spite of her situation. ‘Mustn’t grumble’ was a standard English response to a greeting; sadly, one rarely hears it any more, as younger generations who have not been taught the Bible are likely to respond with a complaint of some sort.
Onto to today’s reading. As he did in James 2:19-26 with Abraham and Rahab, James uses another Old Testament reference in verse 11 — that of Job. James cites Job’s steadfastness in the face of plagues and desertion, urging the Jewish Christian diaspora to do the same. Whatever we undergo as faithful Christians, we are to remember that the Lord is all merciful and He will alleviate our suffering if only we ask. Our travails should strengthen our faith — although in today’s world, many resent God because of them. As parents and teachers used to say, ‘What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger’. This used to be called character building. We can pray for more grace and a more resolute faith when we are in adversity. Materially, we can recall President Lincoln’s words, ‘This, too, shall pass’ and it often does; sometimes we need to change our perspective on a situation — here, too, prayer helps enormously. Our God is not a remote Father, but one who loves us with constancy and mercy.
The Revd Gil Rugh adds practical advice regarding patience and steadfastness:
- Don’t focus on the situation, or you’ll become angry.
- Don’t focus on yourself, or you’ll become filled with self-pity.
- Don’t focus on someone to blame, or you’ll begin complaining.
- Don’t focus on the present, or you’ll miss the point of what God is wishing to achieve in your life.
Verse 12 instructs us not to ‘swear’. This is a two-fold instruction: against profanity and exaggerated oaths (e.g. ‘I swear on my mother’s grave’).
As to profanity, Matthew Henry explains the background to James’s warning:
Profane swearing was very customary among the Jews, and, since this epistle is directed in general to the twelve tribes scattered abroad (as before has been observed), we may conceive this exhortation sent to those who believed not.
Incidentally, Henry, a Calvinist ‘dissenter’, also accuses the Anglicans of his day (early 18th century) of this sin:
It is a sin that in later years has most scandalously prevailed, even among those who would be thought above all others entitled to the Christian name and privileges. It is very rare indeed to hear of a dissenter from the church of England who is guilty of swearing, but among those who glory in their being of the established church nothing is more common; and indeed the most execrable oaths and curses now daily wound the ears and hearts of all serious Christians.
As for taking the Lord’s name in vain, when He commands us not to (emphases mine):
… how many are there who mind this the least of all things, and who make light of nothing so much as common profane swearing! But why above all things is swearing here forbidden? (1.) Because it strikes most directly at the honour of God and most expressly throws contempt upon his name and authority. (2.) Because this sin has, of all sins, the least temptation to it: it is not gain, nor pleasure, nor reputation, that can move men to it, but a wantonness in sinning, and a needless showing an enmity to God. Thy enemies take thy name in vain, Ps. 139:20. This is a proof of men’s being enemies to God, however they may pretend to call themselves by his name, or sometimes to compliment him in acts of worship. (3.) Because it is with most difficulty left off when once men are accustomed to it, therefore it should above all things be watched against. And, (4.) “Above all things swear not, for how can you expect the name of God should be a strong tower to you in your distress if you profane it and play with it at other times?“
As for substitutes for God’s name as Jesus observed in Matthew 23:21 of the use of ‘temple’ for Chi-Eloah (‘the living God’):
And whoever swears by the temple swears by it and by him who dwells in it.
Henry explains:
The Jews thought if they did but omit the great oath of Chi-Eloah, they were safe. But they grew so profane as to swear … as if it were God; and so advanced it into the place of God; while, on the other hand, those who swear commonly and profanely by the name of God do hereby put him upon the level with every common thing.
As for the second connotation, that of the oath, Christians are to ensure that their words are worthy of the Lord at all times. We are to avoid making false promises, disingenuous affirmations and so on.
Rugh unpacks this for us and acknowledges that some churches have misinterpreted it (highlights here in the original):
do not swear – This command is amplified by a couple of examples and then by a general, all-inclusive statement. This is similar to the instruction of Christ in Matthew 5:33-48. (cf. also Matt, 23:16-22.)
The Jews had devised various ways to invalidate oaths. Thus they regarded some oaths as binding and others as non-binding.
let your yes be yes – The point in this is that the word of a believer is to be totally trustworthy. If everything we say needs to be established by an oath, it is an indication that our general speech is unreliable. In effect, we are liars unless bound by oath. This is the presupposition of the oath taken in our courtrooms.
so that you may not fall under judgment – In this context James warns believers of the danger of judgment for functioning like the world (cf. 5:9).
A question that immediately comes to mind when reading this passage is whether or not a Christian should take an oath in the courtroom. It does not seem that this is the kind of situation in view here. There are times when oaths are legitimately used in the New Testament:
- Christ responded to an oath – Matthew 26:63,64.
- Paul used an oath – Romans 1:9; 2 Corinthians 1:23; Galatians 1:20.
An oath is a guarantee of reliability, a confirmation of truthfulness (cf. Heb. 6:16,17). God used an oath to show men the absolute trustworthiness of His promise to help them believe.
It does not seem that every oath in every situation can be ruled out by the command of James. Rather, it is the common, everyday use of oaths that reflects the fact that our word is not reliable (cf. Col. 3:8,9; John 8:44).
Our words are to be a manifestation of our transformed lives. This happens only through personal faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Through faith we are born into the family of God and thus can now manifest the character of God in our words as well as our actions (cf. 2 Cor. 5:14-21).
In verse 13, James reminds his faithful of communicating with the living God in times of good or bad. Those who are suffering are called to prayer, and those for whom things are going well are reminded to praise God in thanksgiving for His many blessings. It is all too tempting, especially today, to be angry with God when life gives us a few lumps. If we only ask Him for more grace and ask the Holy Spirit for fortitude, we will be sustained until such time as our adversity passes. And it is important for us to thank God for the good things in life, not to take them for granted or think that we alone are responsible for our own comfort.
Verses 14 and 15 deal with sickness, resulting sin and healing prayer. These are troublesome verses, which some Christians misinterpret to mean that all illness is punishment for sin. The vast majority of clergy would caution against this interpretation, certainly if it is a congenital condition. It distresses those who are ill, especially with terminal conditions (e.g. cancer), as well as their friends and families. This essay explains the two points of view regarding illness and sin. We should avoid necessarily correlating the two — only God knows for sure — and instead offer our prayers, empathy and comfort.
Our two commentators enlighten us on this passage and on the reasons why Protestants reject the Catholic sacrament of Extreme Unction (now called Prayers for the Sick and Dying).
Rugh says (emphases in the original):
The elders are commanded to pray over the sick person (aorist imperative). This is the prime ministry they perform on behalf of the one who has called them.
anointing him with oil – While the basic command is to pray over him, they are also to anoint him with oil. This has occasioned much discussion as to exactly what is happening.
Some make much of the distinction between the two words used for “anointing” in the Scriptures. The word chrio is used of sacred or religious anointing, while aleipho, the word used by James, is a more mundane word. This is taken to indicate that James is recommending the anointing as a medicinal practice. Thus we have a combination of medicine and prayer.
It is true that anointing with oil was used medicinally in biblical times. However, we should note that it is the prayer that brings about recovery, not the anointing with oil (v. 15)
There is the question of why the elders would be involved in giving the man an oil rubdown or bath if indeed this is a medicinal use of oil. Physicians were available.
Some see the oil as symbolic, representing the Holy Spirit and picturing His ministry in bringing healing through the prayers of the elders.
The Bible makes reference to the common practice of using oil in connection with grooming and bestowing honor.
- In Matthew 6:17 it is used to express good grooming and joy (cf. Ruth 3:3; 2 Chron, 28:15).
- In Matthew 26:7 and Luke 7:38,46 it is used as a mark of honor (cf, Ps. 23:5).
(Each of these passages except Matthew 26:7 uses aleipho for “anoint.”)
This seems close to what James had in mind. It seems fitting that the anointing with oil in the name of the Lord pictures the joy and happiness of this occasion (cf. “oil of joy,” Ps. 45:7; “oil of gladness,” Isa. 61:3; Heb. 1:9).
5:15 –
James has already stressed the importance of faith in our prayers (cf. 1:5-8). The prayer of the elders offered in faith is effective in restoring the health of the sick person.
The word translated “will restore” is the normal word for salvation (sozo) and is translated “will save” in 5:20, It is used often in the gospels of restoration to health (cf, Matt. 9:21,22; Mark 5:23,28,34; 6:56; John 11:12; etc.) and that is the idea here.
if he has committed sins (third class condition) – This is the first indication that sin may have been the cause of the illness, This does not say that sin has clearly been the cause, but raises the possibility, While these sins may have been a pattern or repeated, they have been stopped – although the consequences are now being experienced.
they will be forgiven him – God stands ready to forgive, In this case the forgiveness seems related to the healing. The first part of verse 16 seems to support this.
Henry says the following (emphases mine), although it should be noted that the present day Catholic sacrament of the sick and dying is, in the case of the former, administered with the hope of healing in mind. This is why the old name of Extreme Unction is no longer used.
In the times of miraculous healing, the sick were to be anointed with oil in the name of the Lord. Expositors generally confine this anointing with oil to such as had the power of working miracles; and, when miracles ceased, this institution ceased also. In Mark’s gospel we read of the apostle’s anointing with oil many that were sick, and healing them, Mk. 6:13. And we have accounts of this being practiced in the church two hundred years after Christ; but then the gift of healing also accompanied it, and, when the miraculous gift ceased, this rite was laid aside. The papists indeed have made a sacrament of this, which they call the extreme unction. They use it, not to heal the sick, as it was used by the apostles; but as they generally run counter to scripture, in the appointments of their church, so here they ordain that this should be administered only to such as are at the very point of death. The apostle’s anointing was in order to heal the disease; the popish anointing is for the expulsion of the relics of sin, and to enable the soul (as they pretend) the better to combat with the powers of the air. When they cannot prove, by any visible effects, that Christ owns them in the continuance of this rite, they would however have people to believe that the invisible effects are very wonderful. But it is surely much better to omit this anointing with oil than to turn it quite contrary to the purposes spoken of in scripture. Some protestants have thought that this anointing was only permitted or approved by Christ, not instituted. But it should seem, by the words of James here, that it was a thing enjoined in cases where there was faith for healing. And some protestants have argued for it with this view. It was not to be commonly used, not even in the apostolical age; and some have thought that it should not be wholly laid aside in any age, but that where there are extraordinary measures of faith in the person anointing, and in those who are anointed, an extraordinary blessing may attend the observance of this direction for the sick. However that be, there is one thing carefully to be observed here, that the saving of the sick is not ascribed to the anointing with oil, but to prayer: The prayer of faith shall save the sick, etc., v. 15. So that, 4. Prayer over the sick must proceed from, and be accompanied with, a lively faith. There must be faith both in the person praying and in the person prayed for. In a time of sickness, it is not the cold and formal prayer that is effectual, but the prayer of faith.
Verse 16 is another troublesome verse, as some toxic churches demand public confession — one ‘sinner’ in front of the congregation who is ordered to recite his wrongs aloud. Other churches gravitating towards the heinous ‘small group’ which is mistakenly in vogue today, also urge public confession within the group. The group leader later makes notes on what was confessed and the manner adopted when giving this confession; these notes are then given to the vicar or pastor. Never join a small group unless you wish to be humiliated like this.
Henry interprets it in a more sensible way, as in going to someone whom you have hurt or offended, stating your sin towards them with a pledge that you will not do it again — and keeping that pledge. A public sin, perhaps a politician who has spoken in the press about his support for abortion, may merit a brief voluntary statement to his own congregation acknowledging this sin — provided he has repented. In any event, heartfelt prayer that the person maintains his repentance should follow confession.
In verses 17 and 18, James refers to someone else from the Old Testament: Elijah. This is to demonstrate the power of prayer, something Christians through the ages often discount. James’s audience was no different. Yet, James says, Elijah fervently prayed — the way we might plead with someone in power — that it not rain, then following it with an equally sincere prayer for rain. God answered both of Elijah’s prayers.
Henry exhorts us to prayer, even if God does not answer it in quite the way we had hoped:
If Elijah by prayer could do such great and wonderful things, surely the prayers of no righteous man shall return void. Where there may not be so much of a miracle in God’s answering our prayers, yet there may be as much of grace.
James’s final verses — 19 and 20 — are exhortations to the faithful to convert sinners to repentance and new life. These, too, are troublesome as some churches and Christians effect false conversions, as dangerous to a man’s soul as sin. We should be careful how we exercise our methods of evangelisation, especially if it involves displays of outer holiness as evidence. We might be creating whited sepulchres.
About Christians who can properly and prayerfully effect conversions with His grace, Henry has this to say:
Those that turn many to righteousness, and those who help to do so, shall shine as the stars for ever and ever.
Next time: Mark 2:13-17
Today’s entry is a guest post by English blogger Lleweton of the eponymous blog about personal memories past and present, which make for a beautiful portrait of England.
Nearly a year ago, Llew wrote a guest post about the relatively recent False Memory Syndrome, another questionable ‘therapy’ which is gaining traction in the West. To those who have been falsely accused of child abuse, it seems as if they undergo a never-ending witch hunt, which is the aspect of which Llew writes below.
Llew will be stopping by to check comments, so if you have anything you would like to ask or write about on this subject, please feel free to do so in the comments box following this post. Many thanks.
—————————————————————————————————–
Smoke and Fire
The saying ‘there’s no smoke without fire’ can be prejudicial, in the legal meaning of the word. It can presume guilt on the basis that the murky substance perceived is believed to be smoke.
Look again. It’s not smoke at all. It’s mist, vapour, fog, something which clouds the view. But by now it may be too late. The damage is done. Someone or something is condemned. A few hundred years ago a village might have been puzzled by the failure of its crops or disease in its cattle. Why? ‘Well there’s old Meg in the cottage by the wood: always brewing herbs and muttering to herself. They do say she’s a witch. There’s no smoke without fire.’
And so, sadly, ironically and horribly, the innocent Meg in time, becomes the fire, atop a pile of kindling ordered by the magistrates. For a moment the villagers feel better about their crops and cattle. And about themselves.
The ‘smoke’ which condemned Meg was unfounded baseless gossip, feeding on the upward spiral of excitement it generated, a kind of gluttony for more, a prurient fever, and the villagers’ fear for their livelihoods, the need for an explanation: somewhere to dump the blame, and to feel secure again. As the fervour mounted, maybe there were some doubters: one or two people who remembered that the old lady’s herbs helped their cough or cleaned their wounds. If they spoke up would anyone listen? By then, if anyone did speak up, it would have taken courage to do so.
And as self-righteous anger swelled against the harmless old woman, so reputations were established. Her tormentors soaked up the gratitude of the villagers. They were needed. This made sense of their lives. Now they had status. Now they were respected. It was almost fun.
No smoke without fire. I have seen this happen in modern times. I’ll plunge straight in here and say it crops up when people are accused of historic recovered memory of sexual abuse. Something in Meg’s village caused the crops to fail and the cattle to ail but it was not the old lady. And something causes the frailty among accusers which leads, men, often elderly, to find themselves facing allegations that they had abused their children when they were young.
Evil happens. I’m not saying it doesn’t. There are accounts of witchcraft in modern times. Child abuse happens. But just as, in past times, fortuitous suffering could be attributed to the effects of witchcraft, so, today, much psychological suffering has found its rationalisation in recovered ‘memories’ of child abuse. And mainly, those accused are as innocent as old Meg.
No-one has been burned at the stake but innocent people have gone to jail on the basis of unsubstantiated historic allegations of abuse. I have talked to one of these people myself. His conviction was quashed after he had completed six years in prison, with no early release, because he would not admit to guilt. He didn’t do it – as the courts eventually recognised. I also know several people who have been through the dread process of months or years on bail and then trial, and then, thank God, acquittal. But what damage in between? And it all stems tragically from the worthy, human desire to get things right.
In the 1980s there was a reaction against what was seen as a refusal by the authorities to believe allegations by women that they had been raped or sexually abused. Campaigners rightly championed accusers against an unfeeling, unsympathetic legal establishment. And in time a culture developed in which it was quite properly demanded that accusers must be given a sympathetic hearing, But the pendulum swung to its other extreme. An accusation came to be regarded as evidence.
We are talking here not about cows and corn which fail to thrive but about psychological ills. I was, in the 1980s and 1990s, involved, as a volunteer with trying to give support to people facing troubles in their lives. It was taken as a fact among other workers I knew that if someone had an eating disorder it happened because they were sexually abused when they were young children.
Seems fantastic at this point, today. But no-one questioned it. Patent nonsense, but how many families were destroyed by it? Diagnosis of an eating disorder led to psychotherapy which then led to this neat, one-size-fits-all attribution of the cause of the illness.
There is a seminal book which I will refer to here: ‘The Courage to Heal’ by Ellen Bass and Laura Davis, two Americans – they were reported to be lesbians – whose book, first published in 1988, (my copy, 1997, Vermilion, London) said: ‘If you think you were abused and your life shows the symptoms, then you were’ (page 22).
Anything goes here as a symptom: depression and eating disorders, for example.
Goodness, how this idea took off. It was thoroughly challenged in a paper published by ‘The British Journal of Psychiatry’ of April 1998 Vol 172.296-307 ‘Recovered Memories of Sexual Abuse – Implications for Clinical Practice’. But too late for thousands of families across the world. And as far as I understand, the report was welcomed by the psychiatric/psychotherapeutic/counselling establishment like a lead balloon.
The BBC reported at the time that although the paper was originally commissioned by the Royal College of Psychiatrists, ‘it caused such a row within the college that two years after it was completed it has been printed as an independent paper’.*
And the scientific fallacy that a psychological symptom can prove CAUSE became an issue in a court action. I refer to one of case histories of recovered ‘memory’ cited in ‘Miscarriage of Memory’ edited by William Burgoyne and Norman Brand, British False Memory Society, 2010, Chapter 12, Page 71.
( http://bfms.org.uk/links/books/ ) (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Miscarriage-Memory-Historic-Abuse-Cases/dp/0955518415/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1339070868&sr=1-1 (Amazon).
This refers to a charge in which the prosecution wanted to present ‘postdictive evidence’’ – i.e. symptoms – as evidence against an 81-year-old man accused of having indecently assaulted a young man, many years earlier. In the event, this approach was not used by the prosecution.
The ‘evidence’ was claimed to be the psychological condition of the accuser. In this case this was not a family situation. The accused man had been a Sunday schoolteacher. Thank God he was acquitted and freed. But what an ordeal!
‘Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.’ Not fire. Fog.
There is a sea of sadness here: broken families; parents who fear to say why their children have gone away; cousins and grandchildren who do not know each other. Where does it come from? Accusers yearn to feel ‘validated’ – to use a modern term from psychotherapy. They’re in a state. They’ve failed in their lives. They’re lonely. Why? It must be forgotten sexual ‘abuse’:
‘It’s not your fault (says the counsellor). It’s because you were abused and you don’t remember it. But you will, with my help. Oh and don’t tell your family about me or our work together.’
And so the counsellor becomes the parent. But in the wider sense the culture changes. It is fuelled by all the human motives which fuelled the witch hunt: someone to blame, the intoxication of righteousness, validation; comradeship against ‘evil’. Career advancement even.
But the evil is in the accusing. The devil lives, unnoticed still, there.
Lleweton
(Norman Brand)
Yesterday, I asked whether Tobacco and Alcohol Control are trying to drive us away from legal relaxants towards illicit drugs. A French journalist writing for a left-wing newsweekly whom I cited wrote recently (emphases mine):
The worst part is that those favoring all these bans and fines are the ones supporting legalisation.
After writing that post, I ran across a blog post dated June 16, 2012, from Dr David Nutt, neuropsychopharmacologist, professor, author and former government advisor under Labour (before being dismissed in 2009 over a controversy about cannabis and psychosis).
In his post, Dr Nutt expresses his disappointment with the British Lung Foundation (BLF) for saying that cannabis smoking harms the lungs. He explains his position and reproduces the graph from his book, Drugs without the Hot Air.
The graph is not wrong — its premise appears to be drugs which will not ‘harm’ people. Consequently, many media commentators over the past several years have taken this to mean that, overall, illicit drugs — with the exception of heroin — are safer than tobacco or alcohol. Nutt’s graph shows us that LSD and magic mushrooms are the ‘safest’, whilst tobacco is right up next to heroin as the most dangerous.
It seems hard to believe that someone could function at work whilst on LSD or mushrooms. Cocaine quickly becomes habit-forming, leading to aggression and violence. And imagine working or driving after smoking dope. Not a good idea.
The drugs which Nutt purports to be relatively harmless are habit-forming and mind-altering. It’s frightening to think what sort of society we would have if everyone eschewed drink and/or tobacco for LSD, cocaine, amphetamines and so on.
Again, it seems to me as if this strategy is aimed at those of European descent. Ethnic minorities will have too much nous and too little desire (rightly so) to be taken in by this.
In the comments section of Nutt’s post is a comment from … Clive Bates, former director of ASH (Action on Smoking and Health):
Dear David – excellent post, just what’s needed to counteract this rubbish. BLF has been knowingly pulling this trick since 2002. I wrote a critique of similar arguments in 2002, when I was director of Action on Smoking and Health – it is preserved here: http://www.ukcia.org/research/SmokingGun/critique.php . We gave them the opportunity to change course then, and they declined. Not sure why they qualify to be a charity. What purpose is served by this. Good luck with the corrections… that’s important work. Clive
The article at Mr Bates’s link is clearly headed Action on Smoking and Health — ASH — with the actual title, ‘Smoking Gun’ in much smaller type.
It’s worthwhile reading the article to assess ASH’s pro-cannabis position. Note that we do not hear about this in radio and television interviews with ASH, only about the health of Britons.
It would be interesting for those tobacco smokers interviewed along with ASH in broadcast media to ask them on the air what their position on cannabis is.
Here are a few excerpts from the ASH article from 2002:
The reported claim that three cannabis joints per day equate in risk to 20 cigarettes has a very dubious basis.
The two 1987 studies on which the claim is based examine only a limited range of respiratory illness symptoms, and did not estimate the risks of lung cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD – eg. emphysema), which are the main fatal lung diseases caused by smoking tobacco. In the UK, lung cancer and COPD are responsible for almost half of tobacco related deaths (heart disease taking most of the rest). The BLF report acknowledges “conflicting findings” on the link between lung cancer and cannabis, and calls for more research “to establish what link (if any) there is between COPD and cannabis smoking”. Given that the data used don’t actually cover the main risks and the link between these major risks is acknowledged to be uncertain, it is premature to draw overall risk comparisons between cannabis and tobacco – and certainly not with precision like 3:20. BLF did limit the scope of the claim in its report – but it was widely interpreted as a measure of overall relative risk.
The very high risks due to tobacco use really arise from its addictiveness, which causes many tobacco smokers to continue to smoke well after they would want to stop. It is common for tobacco smokers to consume 20 cigarettes per day every day for several decades. However, this is not a common pattern of use for cannabis, which appears to be much less addicting than nicotine.
It is plausible that cannabis users control the dose they receive by varying their smoking pattern – as it has been shown that tobacco smokers do for nicotine. Stronger cannabis may therefore mean that LESS smoke is inhaled for a given dose of the active ingredient. There is a large literature on ‘compensation’ and the tendency of smokers to titrate nicotine, though the subject is much less well understood for cannabis. A better working assumption that dose is controlled by the user rather than by the cigarette, and anecdotally, cannabis smokers say that they smoke rather than eat the drug because it is easier to control the dose.
The claim that there are 50% more carcinogens in cannabis tar in tobacco smoke also demands caution given the wide variation in carcinogens within even the same cigarette brand.
It is difficult therefore to see much educative value in these [British Lung Foundation] pronouncements, especially as they contrast with more carefully and credibly formulated information and analysis in recent independent assessments, some of which we describe below.
ASH admit that data are less clear for cannabis in some areas yet they appear to conclude that they have ‘carefully and credibly formulated information and analysis’ showing cannabis to be safer than tobacco.
It sounds murky to me, just as it sounds murky for ASH to demonise and denormalise tobacco throughout the Western world.
It would be interesting to find out what Alcohol Control’s position is on cannabis.
More next week.
Churchmouse Campanologist 