Saturday, December 28, 2019

A CHRISTMAS CAROL


A CHRISTMAS CAROL: A Brief Review

A December 2019 BBC adaptation of Charles Dickens’ Christmas tale about Ebenezer Scrooge.

Stuart McKinlay: We watched A Christmas Carol with Guy Pearce. It is a powerful evocation of Scrooge's wounding horrors as a child, careless brutality as an adult, a raw and shockingly frank psychological post-mortem of a damned soul teetering on the edge of Hell, and then... what? Magnificent acting from everyone, the ghosts real, the spirits physical, and supernaturally omniscient. It would scare the Dickens out of Dickens.

Neil McKinlay: A Christmas Carol (starring Guy Pearce) is like David Hume meets Charles Dickens. Pearce is excellent as Scrooge, reminding the viewer of one of those “having their conscience seared with a hot iron” (1Tim. 4:2), where his Hume-esque (Hume-anist) philosophical approach to human behaviour is empiricist, sceptic, and naturalistic, that is, until he meets some of his incarnated memories. Solid spirits who leave no footprints in the snow! Snowflakes abound as one would expect with Dickens at Christmas.

There is no background score as such, but what musical intonations there are, cellos and select and suitable piano notes et al, helps set the sombre mood of most of the movie, as do the almost subliminal moaning wind sounds.  

There are a lot of psychological demons creeping around and manifesting themselves from the mists, (reminiscent of the copious amounts of dry ice used in ye olde Hammer Films of Dracula and Frankenstein fame).

Blake’s “dark Satanic mills” are conjured up with Scrooge’s abuse of human labour. His totally unchristian profit over people mentality exemplifies his cauterised conscience. The spirits are trying to help enable him to discover his heart. His view of humanity as corrupted was formed at boarding school by a sexual deviant schoolmaster he had to spend summer and winter breaks with on account of his abusive father always making excuses why he couldn’t come home.

Scrooge moralistically views all of mankind as either already corrupted or easily corruptible. Money being the corrupting influence. He gains his sought-after empirical evidence of this through human experiment. The movie is more about Hume’s subjective Morality than Dickens’s Christianity.

The graphics are excellent, and the costumes and scenery enhance the tale of Scrooge’s intense course of deep psychotherapy. Part of our angst as humans is that we would like to, but cannot, revisit our past to fix things after we have realised the mess we have made. Scrooge gets to do this, but only after he exchanges the analytical apparatus of the cold empiricist, sceptic, and naturalist, for the kindness of Christian compassion. Thus, the warmth of Dickens melts the ice of Hume and everyone has a Merry Christmas rather than a Bah, humbug.

“Here I raise mine Ebenezer”. ‘Twas an enjoyable watch!

Stuart McKinlay: Brilliant observation. Bringing in Hume and the cold eye of empiricism in extremity. I was going to say it seemed Christianity filtered through Catholicism, tinted with tainted Calvinism, Bowdlerized as secularism meets moralising tosh enclosed in a wintry Victorian Christmas card; and a bloody great show that fair made ye think.

Sunday, December 22, 2019

GLOBAL WARMING

Global Warming

I must admit that I was warming ever so slightly to the possibility of “Global Warming” way back when my wife asked me if I had noticed that they (whoever “they” are!) no longer seemed to be calling it “Global Warming” but were now calling it “Climate Change”.

I guess the term “Climate Change” is a lot more encompassing (if not more accurate) than ye olde “Global Warming”. For example, if the January temperature at the corner of Portage and Main in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada drops anywhere below the usual minus 40-degrees then it safely can be attributed to “Climate Change”. Brilliant!

Mind you, now that I’m on to “their” scheming (as alluded to in “their” spin-doctoring use of terminology) I’m cooling somewhat in regard to “their” notion of “Global Warming”. And then came “Climategate” with their misuse of (ice) hockey-stick graphs.

No doubt the Climate Status Quo deniers and sceptics will see the East Anglia University e-mails as inadmissible evidence in this whole so-called scientific debacle regarding the earth’s mean climate. But regardless of how the irrefutable evidence was obtained, it was the smoking gun that killed the whole idea of Global Warming for me!

One Tim Flannery is an Australian “Climate Change” prophet of Doom. Yet none of his wild and fantastical “prophesies” (no more rain, rapidly rising sea-levels etc.) have come to pass. Old Testament prophets were to be stoned to death if any of their prognostications failed to materialise! Says an article in The Australian (note the year referred to),

Tim Flannery, The Age, Oct 28, 2006, “There will be no Arctic icecap in the next five to 15 years … James Hanson, director of NASA’s Goddard Institution, is arguably the world authority on climate change. He predicts that we have just a decade to avert a 25m rise of the sea.”[1]

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me! (I know, I know that the PC crowd actually believe that calling people names does indeed hurt, otherwise they wouldn’t be calling non-Lefties “Nazi! Hitler! Fascist! Misogynist! Islamophobic! Homophobe! Bigot! etc., etc., etc. However, before anyone calls me a “Climate Denier” (which sadly, in the minds of the Global Alarmists) is right up there with denying the Jewish Holocaust, I believe that the global temperature may be warming slightly. Is this slight warming caused by solar flares or burning fossil fuels or both? What difference does it make? Anything that we try to do about it has been proven to be negligible. This is one of the reasons why President Trump has pulled the USA out of the “Paris Agreement”.  

“Climate Change” scientists using data to make it say whatever they want it to say? This is right up there with that other great “scientific” sleight of hand, i.e., the molecules to man Theory of Evolution! The latter was and still is the slippery slope to the former.

Okay, so you may disagree with the connection I’m drawing between the “sciences” of Evolutionary Theory and that of Climate Change Theory, but both are desperate to make their “evidence” fit their pet theories. That’s unscientific in my book, (and in anyone's book!)

Back in the day Britain’s Prime Minister, Gordon Brown was calling those scientists who have not jumped on the “Global Warming” bandwagon, “Flat Earthers”. O yeah! Sticks and stones may break my bones… But this also was and still is unscientific. One should not mix Leftist politics with science.

It seems to me that two things were going on. It was being touted as a fact that

a)      the global temperature was increasing

b)      the (supposed) global warming is manmade.

It’s unscientific to call theories facts. It’s also unscientific to ban peer reviews of those who disagree with the theory, (as is the case in regard to the molecules to man Theory of Evolution and now with the Theory of Climate Change).

Like BBC Scotland being the propaganda department of the British Establishment, as exampled in spinning its anti-Independence “fake news” during the Scottish Referendum debate, so the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) is the propaganda wing for the Left Down Under. It’s tax-payer funded TV, Radio and online “news and discussions” programs are always about Lefties discussing and perhaps sometimes even disagreeing with other Lefties about issues that only Lefties see as important, such as Climate Change, the effect of Climate Change on the Great Barrier Reef, LGBQI etc. The ABC’s anti-Trump bias is embarrassing! But I digress, yet again.

Oh well, as I was with the “Global Cooling” fearmongering in the 70s, I was nearly warming to the idea of “Global Warming” (but still had a long way to go to embrace the idea that it was man made and that anything we can do will have any meaningful impact on its reduction). But that’s all fallen by the wayside now. I’m now of the view that it’s all a big hoax. It’s mostly about wealth redistribution, as in Socialism! Is your country going to be swamped by rising sea-levels caused by Climate Change? Here! Have some of our nation’s worker’s hard-earned cash which we’ve relieved them of by unfair taxes, such as, taxes on carbon, breathing even! And if any of our taxpayers disagree with our Socialist ideals we’ll just call them names. That will shut then up!

The issue of global warming is probably settled. The issue that it is manmade is still moot.

At the same time as people in hi-vis “yellow vests” were rioting in the streets of Paris over French President Macron’s draconian “Carbon Tax”, which is due to his adherence to the “Paris Accord”, at the UN’s Climate Change Summit in Katowice, Poland (November 2018), David Attenborough was saying,

If we don’t take action, the collapse of our civilsations and the extinction of much of the natural world is on the horizon… Right now we are facing a man-made disaster of global scale, our greatest threat in thousands of years: climate change.[2]

Talk about scaring the kids! While all of this was going on, there were teachers who allowed their classes to attend a protest instead of school. On Friday, 30 November, 2018, these scared kids gathered in Brisbane city. Says ABC News in an article,

Thousands of Australian students have defied calls by the Prime Minister to stay in school and instead marched on the nation’s capital cities, and some regional centre, demanding an end to political inertia on climate change. Protests were held in Sydney, Brisbane, Perth, Coffs Harbour, Bendigo and other cities, as students banded together to pressure the Morrison Government in the lead-up to a federal election. “The politicians aren’t listening to us when we try to act nicely for what we want and for what we need,” said Castlemaine student Harriet O’Shea Carre. “So now we have to go to extreme lengths and miss out school.”[3]

            Do you hear that music playing in the background? It’s Pink Floyd,

            We don’t need no education
We don’t need no thought control
No dark sarcasm in the classroom
Teachers leave them, kids, alone
Hey, teacher! Leave them, kids, alone!
All in all, it’s just another brick in the wall
All in all, you’re just another brick in the wall[4]

So, at the same time there was one lot protesting their President’s unwavering adherence to “The Paris Agreement”, we see another lot protesting their Prime Minister for not adhering to it enough! Who is right? Well, President Trump for pulling the U.S. out of the agreement. The Climate Change protests are all about unfair taxes. Macron listened to the Paris people who did not want the Paris Accord because it results in higher taxes, such as the fuel tax he tried to inflict on them. He reneged.

Purchase my eBook at:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07KJG5QDT/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i12


[1] The Australian, Nov 28, 2018.
[2] Evening Standard (on-line), 04 December, 2018.
[3] ABC News (on-line), Friday 30 Nov 2018.
[4] Roger Waters & David Gilmour, Pink Floyd, Another Brick in the Wall.

Saturday, December 21, 2019

IS PRESIDENT TRUMP WORTH DEFENDING?

Stuart McKinlay: The trouble with
Stuart & Neil, in the Dog House, Balloch, Scotland.
Trump the public figure is that I (for one) do not know who he is. I want to give his office of President proper regard as that of the US Head of State, and therefore cordial respect for the people of the United States, whatever their merits or faults.


The President is supposed to be America personified. Yet, I don't know who he is. He is accused of, and denies, base behaviour, particularly a habit of misogyny and predatory sexual behaviour, and of boasting of it, and laughing it off in coarse terms; with, we are told, at least a dozen women (one would be too many) complaining of this alleged behaviour. Is it true? We can't know without the test of evidence offered in court. It reminds me uneasily of “But Brutus is an honourable man.” It's surprising though that in throwing every calumny they can at him in seeking his impeachment, the Democrats in their hysterical desperation (including leadership disarray) haven't flung this in too. 

There we see Harvey Weinstein (I've just checked he isn't dead), whose insurance companies are counting the cost of the compensation he's agreed to pay out, before he even appears before the bench.

And we see women with complaints, some horrendous, all symptomatic of systemic abuse or a culture of acceptable outrage, encouraged to come forward at personal, traumatic cost to say they too can be silent no longer. It is against this background that here I am, having read four books on President Trump, three “against”, one “for”, really none the wiser. I can’t say yet that I see him as an Abe Lincoln, but I hope he's no Weinstein.

My instinct (for what it's worth) is to defend him among friends, especially during this impeachment which from what I’ve read I judge to be malicious and will fail. This, we must remember, is against a background scenario of the Swamp he has attacked striking back with the power of wealth and privilege, and of old money wielded by seasoned elitists entirely used to looking to the interests of their own whatever the truth.

I admire him for stirring up a nest of vipers, this malignant undemocratic, exclusive powerhouse, in “draining the Swamp”, and having the wherewithal in both guts and cash to fight the consequences. But, as Mr C Dickens says in Hard Times, “Now, what I want is facts.. Stick to the Facts, sir.” I hope that we are defending someone worth it.

Neil McKinlay: I hope you don’t mind if I cobble together two things that you mentioned, as I think they sum up what you are driving at, and the importance of it. You wrote, “The President is supposed to be America personified … I hope that we are defending someone worth it.” As I see it, we are primarily defending two things, viz., truth and honesty. The former has to do with facts and the latter has to do with how we interpret those facts. There are no such things as “brute facts”. ("There are no brute facts … All facts are interpreted facts." Cornelius Van Til.)

What are the facts about President Donald Trump? What is the truth about him? Who do we listen to? Remember, we’re talking about what Donald Trump is doing currently as President, and not any past indiscretions he may or may not have committed, depending on who you listen to. And there’s the rub! In politics the opposition invariably tries to use the blackest paint to smear their opponent. E.g., I was aghast at the dishonesty of the Democrats trying to stop Brett Kavanaugh become Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Baseless allegation after baseless allegation were lined up against against him. Now, no doubt many, and perhaps all of the women used by the Left, had been sexually abused by someone while at the same college as Kavanaugh. But it was clearly shown that he was a boring bookworm who kept a diary of his college years, and not some rapist, thereby helping to clear his good name. The point being, “The first one to plead his cause seems right, until his neighbour comes and examines him” Proverbs 18:17.

Discernment between good and evil (see Genesis 3:5) was one aspect of the wisdom Solomon asked God for. “Therefore give Your servant an understanding heart to judge Your people, that I may discern between good and evil” 1 Kings 3:9a. What President Trump calls “fake news” is what we’re talking about here. With your journalist background you know full well the difference between news reporting and someone simply giving their opinion. “Fake news” has confused the two.

We all have opinions. These opinions, in turn, are based on our worldview. Our worldview is based on that by which we are influenced most, usually your mum and your dad to start with. Then as you grow older, the company you keep, whether face to face or in books, magazines, music, and movies etc. I consciously try to base my worldview on the Bible, (understood as being God’s full revelatory Word to fallen mankind)

We are trying to discern whether President Donald Trump is worth defending. What do his friends say about him? I read, e.g., what a personal friend, Judge Jeanine Pirro in her Liars, Leakers, and Liberals had to say about him. Praise! And I see daily on the television and here on the radio (mostly Australia’s ABC) what his enemies say about him. Constant put downs. You wouldn’t think it’s the same person they’re talking about! Then there’re are some who are less biased, such as Victor Davis Hanson as per his A Case for Trump. (To me Hanson’s like the late Charles Krauthammer, always worth listening to). He likens Donald Trump to Clint Eastwood as Dirty Harry. Hired, not to be a Sunday school teacher, but simply to get the job done. (Regarding the issue of "Fake News" see e.g., Mark R Levin's valuable book Unfreedom of the Press. See also David Limbaugh's great book, Guilty By Reason of Insanity: Why the Left Must Not Win.)
So, how do we tell who’s telling the truth about President trump? Discernment. As President, is he doing or striving to do what he promised he would in the run up to his election? The old adage springs to mind, “Action speaks louder than words.” President Trump may come across at times as bombastic, but his record shows (but not on “fake news” channels!) that the truth is that he has been upholding his promises – in spite of all the forces of the “swamp” elitism, i.e., the establishment Washington DC rising up against him!

The partisan impeachment farce is as vapid as anything the Democrats have tried to throw at him. His impeachment is simply swamp gas. It’s a Democrat Party collective fart!

Is President Donald Trump worth defending? Of course he is! Why? Because he is the epitome what it is to be an American. He is America personified. Why? Because he is a success story. He exemplifies the notion that anyone can become President of the United States.

Stuart McKinlay: Bravo! Brilliant positive defence. Bombast and fractured syntax is okay with me: there is an unforced sincerity to it. I enjoy listening to President Trump's distinctive and rather creative use of the non sequitur in dismissing the mad Lilliputians trying to fell him, while the forces of darkness gurgle epithets from the gaseous swamplands.

The standards of journalistic abuse and praise once giving satisfaction to choice of prejudice have been reduced to a competition between fake news and even faker news: What’s a President to do but keep swatting away? The internet has unleashed social media upon the courts of the nations and it's hard to tell whether it's Halloween or Christmas.

Friday, December 20, 2019

JEFFERSON's TEARS - The Screenplay

Short sample excerpt from seminal work on Jefferson's Tears: The Screenplay. WARNING: Some distressing material.


Scene 36

Ext. Monrovia Three Days Later – around lunchtime.

Jefferson has been living at the beach, sleeping in an old burnt-out car, while he tries to locate his aunt’s house. He has ventured into a busier part of Monrovia where he is trying to find some food scraps to eat.

THOMAS

Jeff Kollie? Is that you? You and me were at school together.

Thomas is carrying an AK-47, and is wearing a baseball cap, the front of which displays the distinctive letter “B” of the Boston Red Sox. He is standing guard for his compadres, who had begun to entertain themselves with an obviously very pregnant young woman.

JEFFERSON WILLIAMS KOLLIE

I didn’t recognize you with your baseball cap on. And your face looks different. Thomas!

THOMAS

Yeah, I’ve been doing some growing up.

O.S.: I bet you can’t guess if it’s a boy or girl!

Angle on:

The six armed young men surround the pregnant lady who can see where this is going and tries in vain to avoid them.

FIRST YOUNG MAN

A boy!

SECOND YOUNG MAN

No, I bet it’s a girl.

THIRD YOUNG MAN

Three of us say boy and three say girl. A dollar each to who’s right from who’s wrong!

The pregnant girl is creaming and struggling as they hold her down and cut open her abdomen. The screaming stops.

THIRD YOUNG MAN

(holding up the fully formed foetus to examine it) Pay up! (yelling) Look, it’s a boy! (throws the helpless little baby into the gutter and wipes his hands on the tatters of the dead woman’s clothing)

Jefferson watches it all in wide-eyed horror as his old schoolmate runs off with the pack of drug-addled murderers as they piled itself onto the back of an old pickup truck and take off down the street. 


Purchase paperback or eBook version at Nordskog Publishing Inc.

https://www.nordskogpublishing.com/product/jeffersons-tears-liberias-founding-and-fall-one-mans-horror-and-hope/

Monday, December 16, 2019

THE DAY WE WENT TO ROTHESAY O

THE DAY WE WENT TO ROTHESAY O

Stuart, my older brother, turned the ignition key of his French car and waited for it to rise like a hovercraft. With wind firmly caught in our sails, it was anchors away! In no time at all we were running late! Immediately I was introduced to a variety of interesting cul-de-sacs and back streets as our vessel tacked the wind while navigating and occasionally plumbing the depths of a series of great lakes on the way to Wemyss Bay from Glasgow. Our hearts became one with the windscreen wipers as they, with great rapidity, attempted to slap the descended mists of clime and time into submission: Late for a date.

The original plan had been to scale that part of the West Highland Way that scrambles breathless over the “Conic” from somewhere near Drymen. Our party was to wet its feet and/or whet its whistle in the hotel in/at Loch Lomond at Balmaha.  The first plan had been washed away down the drain on account of Noachic deluge the dark night before. The contingency plan was for Stuart to take his exiled brother, (who had departed Scotland’s sultry shores some twenty-seven years previous) on a wee trip of nostalgia “Doon the Watter” (or a portion thereof).

The car ferry was to set sail by the clock at the Victorian Wemyss Bay Railway Station Pier and deposit its cargo (including the Citroen) at Rothesay Pier on the Isle of Bute. Lunch was then to be enjoyed ashore before the five or so mile drive to the short ferry trip at Rhubodach which was to deposit us on a scenic road back to Glasgow via The Rest and Be Thankful. But what did Robert Burns have to say about our day trip to Rothesay? The best laid schemes o’ mice an’ men gang aft a-gley… A barb from the bard.

Reminiscent of marble tombstones, a solemn row of porcelain urinals met the tourist in his time of need at the old railway station lavatory before departing Wemyss Bay. Silence echoed like chanting monks interrupted as the tourist left his mark. A moment was ceded to indecision on account of the many washbasins. All offered to baptise the visitors’ hands. The station clock quietly applauded as it checked the flow of the spent-penny water going down the drain. Wise clock. The solitary blow-drier began to huff and puff in a huff because it was in the hands of another. With screwed-up dial our tourist tried to wipe away the worst of the wet on the thighs of his sterling five-pounds bargain jeans. Stoically he left his hands to match the wetness of the day.

The traveller strained to read the history of the Wemyss Bay Railway Station that hung like an ancient trophy on the wall. Closer scrutiny was afforded by fording a boggy moat of sorts. The obligatory station pigeons were soggy and the bay’s seagulls could have done with the downdraft of the “Mens” solitary hand drier.

Stuart would be great at poker. He betrayed no glint of emotion when charged 38 pounds sterling for our return fare to Rothesay, Bute. As a gunslinger goes for his gun he covered the event with plastic. A lightning flash in a thunderstorm! As they saddled up, our visitor resolved within himself to pay for the prophesied lunch.

One of the four things too wonderful for Agur, in the Book of Proverbs, to understand was, “The way of a ship in the midst of the sea.” True to Scripture the “Juno” with cargo aboard launched herself sideways from the pier. The salty-sojourner mused, With a propeller fore and aft could each end of the ferry in theory go its separate way? A launch for lunch.

The thirty-five minute trip across the Clyde estuary was over in no time! Landmasses quickly floated by not wishing to be seen. The pair peered at these through ragged curtains of cloud flapping in the wind. Low-flying pairs of birds dressed in scuba gear patrolled the strangely calm waters for seafood lunch. The ferry soup-spooned its way through peaty channels. A taste of Scotland at sea: scotch broth garnished with sprigs of heather. Unable to get his bearings, Stuart struggled to name the points and promontories that also floated past under the weather. But rain-soaked buildings soon began clinging to Juno’s brow like tresses of distress on a cold and damp damsel. Rothesay had glimpsed us from a window and was curling herself into view.

There was a couple, fellow ferry sailors; a man with a woman. Conversation struck. He hadn’t been back to Scotland for twenty years. She never said a word. They were living in Stratford-upon-Avon. Niceties about the English bard were exchanged as the unmistakeable sounds of Glasgow bubbled forth from his vocal chords. He reminisced about days in Rothesay lang syne: all pubs and “benders”. To this day she never said a thing on that ferry ride. And how is it possible to live so close to Scotland and not come back for twenty years? Prison? In deference to the Good Book the Tasmanian tourist took that thought captive. Not wanting it to interfere with a good pub-crawl the couple had left their vehicle at home. Car less and care less.

The ferry did its thing “too wonderful” and embraced the Rothesay pier like a long-lost brother. Lead on MacDuff! Like Columbus in the Americas, Stuart’s “hovercraft” gallantly splashed ashore in slow motion. Subsequently it deflated itself as it docked in a nearby “free” parking lot.

First port of call was a visit to plumber’s heaven. The Victorian Gents at Rothesay is no “wally close”. The marble tombstones at Wemyss were rows of derelict tenements compared to this. Monastic! Standing on end, side by side, was an open white satin coffin after white satin coffin. Polished brass with shiny copper pipes and timbrels played water-music in this acoustic mausoleum. None of Jeremiah’s “broken cisterns that can hold no water” here. One expected to see goldfish in the lofty glass see-through tanks designed to water the white lilies of the valley below. Truly fit for a king!  Fifteen pence to spend a penny was money well spent! A flash flush.

The drive to the Mount of the same name as my brother had to be cancelled due to inclement weather. No need to waste time ascending a mountain to view scotch mist when a valley will do. Time was multiplied on the contingent journey to a hotel for lunch. This, of course, was due to the aforementioned inclement weather, not to mention the car of a slow-moving tourist blocking the road in front. The secondary lunch destination was eventually reached but exuded a damp and deserted look. So it was back to Rothesay post haste.

The back door entrance to the Black Bull in Rothesay kindly escorted us into a warm and dry place. The atmosphere was friendly and the menu tasty. With wet jackets removed, sausage, egg, and chips times two was the order of the day. The late lunch arrived promptly, over which the course of action was plotted. A wee walk around, a quick look at the castle, perhaps? Then it was off up the island to Rhubodach for the ferry over to Colintraive which would lead us back to Glasgow, apparently. With appetite assuaged we squeezed through the front door, ready to meet the elements, broadside if need be. Coming in the Inn through the out door we went out the Inn through the in door. Excited we exited.

A damp cloth was cast in the face of our joy while a tear of quiet contemplation got lost forever somewhere in Bute precipitation. Through moist eyes Rothesay was seen to be still mourning the sad passing of her most famous young daughter, Lena Zavaroni. Many shopfronts wore her name, like black armbands. The Pavilion lay shrouded in silence. The streets were empty, awash with the tears for a day bygone.

Even Rothesay castle was unable to rouse itself. It looked every bit of picture-postcard ruin, even when viewed through rain-spattered glasses and steamed-up car windows. Does it always have a moat all the way round all the year round? No time for storming castles! Our Tasmanian tourist had a pressing appointment that very evening which was fast approaching. His wife and he were to visit old acquaintances long forgot at six. Time was of essence. To the ferry!

All that separates Rhubodach from Colintraive is a ferry. In fact they are so close that three or four such ferries laid end to end would just about join the two points! The wait for the ferry, therefore, wasn’t long. Like the merry-go-round when we were kids, we were hardly on before it was time to get off. The scenic route to Glasgow begins on the other shore.

A sort of jovial woman met and welcomed us to the other side. As Stuart handed her the ferry ticket through the rolled down window of the Frenchified automobile he asked if this was the road to Glasgow.

“No,” she said. “It’s not.”

“It’s not?” re-inquired Stuart turning to me with a questioned look. I looked, and sure enough the signpost pointed to the way to Glasgow. “This is not the road to Glasgow?”

“No,” she said again. By this time Stuart was out of the car. However, this time she did add a bit about the road being blocked and washed away in places ahead due to flooding.

“What should we do?” was my big brother’s next question.

“O, you need to go back and catch the Rothesay to Wemyss Bay ferry. Anyway,” she added, “This ticket you’ve given me is no good for this ferry. It’s only good for the Rothesay to Wemyss Bay one.”

Stuart apologised for his honest oversight.

“You need to get back on this ferry,” she directed.

“Thank you,” said Stuart. But as he tried to get back into his vehicle he was mugged from behind.

“That will be twelve-pound fifty,” said the jovial ticket lady. A sense of humour? No! She was serious!

This time Stuart had on his face one of yon bewildered looks as he turned his head toward me. It seemed Dick Turpin had ridden north of the border for the “summer!” And she did have us over an empty whisky barrel. When Stuart began to fumble in his pockets, the tourist, all the way from Tasmania, cracked under the pressure and said, “I’ve got it!” A tourist trap on a tourist trip.

The six-mile drive got us into Rothesay just in nick of time to see the back (or was it the front, it’s so hard to tell!) of the ferry as it once more did its thing “too wonderful”. Forty-five minutes is an awful long time to wait when you are really needing to be well on your way.

The day we went to Rothesay. O, what a day that was! Rain can be a pain.

Purchase a copy of the eBook at:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/THISTLES-TREES-Neil-Cullan-McKinlay-ebook/dp/B0078H2GG4/ref=sr_1_5?keywords=neil+cullan+mckinlay&qid=1576443503&sr=8-5

Monday, December 9, 2019

SECRETS & REVELATIONS


Many people erroneously refer to a book in the Bible as ‘Revelations’. I’ll let you into a well-known secret, there is no ‘s’ at the end of Revelation. Revelation is the opposite of secret. Not just the last book, but the whole sixty-six books of the of the Bible are the written revelation of God. In short, the Bible is God’s revelation about how the world and everything in it got here, i.e., Creation. Why creation is the way it presently is, i.e., The Fall. Then the Flood, God’s becoming also a Man, the Redemption (of God’s people and His creation), the coming Judgment. However, God has left some things hidden from us. ‘The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law’ Deuteronomy 29:29.

No doubt the saying, ‘A little bird told me’ comes from the following verse, ‘Do not curse the king, even in your thought; do not curse the rich, even in your bedroom; for a bird of the air may carry your voice, and a bird in flight may tell the matter’ Ecclesiastes 10:20. Indeed, we ought to watch all our words, as the 3rd and 9th Commandments warn us; ‘You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain’ and ‘You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour’ respectively. Jesus gives us this stern reminder of the Omniscience and Omnipresence of God, (never mind a little bird!), where He says, ‘For nothing is secret that will not be revealed, nor anything hidden that will not be known and come to light’ Luke 8:17, (cf. 12:2). The Woman at the Well had an encounter with Jesus. ‘The woman then left her water-pot, went her way into the city, and said to the men, “Come, see a Man who told me all the things I ever did. Could this be the Christ?”’ John 4:28-29.

Secrets and revelations are the stuff of the Bible. When Jesus spoke in parables, He was doing both at the same time. Says Jesus, ‘To you it has been given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but to the rest it is given in parables, that, “seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not understand.” Commenting on this verse, says Matthew Henry, ‘Happy are we, and for ever indebted to free grace, if the same thing that is a parable to others, with which they are only amused, is a plain truth to us, by which we are enlightened and governed, and into the mould of which we are delivered.’ It reminds us of what Jesus said to Nicodemus, ‘If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?’ John 3:12. The Bible is just another book to the unbeliever. But to the believer it is the Book of books! Without God’s free grace the pearl of God’s truth remains firmly hidden within the clam, which is to say that the Bible is a closed Book to the closed mind, its revelations remain as secrets, and that which was revealed is still very much concealed.

What is the key that unlocks the Bible? Well, you’d need to be like those men after the woman at the well had spoken to them. ‘Then they went out of the city and came to Him’ John 4:30. Why? Because ‘[Jesus] holds the key of David. What He opens no one can shut, and what He shuts no one can open’ Revelation 3:7b. Therefore, ‘Repent and believe in the gospel’ Mark 1:15. Why? ‘For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord’ Romans 6:23.

Saturday, December 7, 2019

Boundaries are Biblical

Boundaries are Biblical

‘Do not remove the ancient landmark which your fathers have set’ Proverbs 22:28. This verse, of course, refers to God’s people upon their entrance into the ‘Promised Land.’ In short, they were to honour their God-given inheritance by respecting each other’s private property (cf. Duet. 19:14; 27:17; Job 24:2; Prov. 15:25). This, upon reflection, is merely an application of the 8th Commandment, which is, ‘You shall not steal’ Exodus 20:15. None of us would like it were our neighbour to move his boundary fence onto our property. It would be theft. He would be stealing what is rightfully and lawfully ours. The freedoms and economic prosperity we enjoy in the West have a great deal to do with the concept of private property or ownership as defined in the Bible. Boundaries are Biblical.

Before we look at the application of this Biblical principle we need to acknowledge that boundaries are grounded in the Triune God. The Father is not the Son or the Spirit. Nor is the Son the Father or the Spirit. Nor is the Spirit the Father or the Son. Though the three Persons in the Godhead are equal in substance, power, and eternity, ‘The LORD our God, the LORD is one’ Deuteronomy 6:4. Each Person interpenetrates the Others. But each owns private property: Fatherhood, Sonship, and Spiritness. The Ten Commandments collectively express the character of God. Each Commandment individually expresses some certain aspect of the God who has from all eternity loved God and His Neighbour as Himself in the eternal Triune Godhead from eternity. The Father does not try to steal sonship or spiritness. Nor does the Son wish to rob either the Father or the Spirit of Their private property. Nor does the Spirit wish to steal fatherhood from the Father or sonship from the Son. Thus Each Person respects the ‘landmarks’ in the Godhead.

God has written His Moral Law on the heart of every member of the human race (Rom. 2:14-15). This is what is known as the Law of Nature or Natural Law. This Moral Law was also written as the Ten Commandments. Because our nature is now fallen, the Law written on stone tablets (as expounded in Scripture) helps us to understand the Law written on fleshly tablets, i.e., our hearts. 

Today we are witnessing a removal of many of the ancient and Biblical landmarks our fathers set in human society. Take the way the Revisionists have been busy rewriting and redefining history to suit their social engineering agenda in which all reference to the God of Christianity and even Christianity itself is removed from the Western nations in an attempt to transform it into their own image and likeness. Examples of this form of Political Correctness are legion. For example, in the USA there is now a grassroots movement rediscovering the real George Washington. Indeed there is a renewed interest in rediscovering all of their founding fathers as they actually existed. For decades America’s founding fathers, through sloppy scholarship (or perhaps something more ominous), have been portrayed in school textbooks as Deists at a best or Atheists at worst! Yet, one only has to read their own writings (which are abundantly extant) to see that most were Bible believing Christians. Their God, the One they prayed to and worshiped and honoured in their writings, is the Triune God who has revealed Himself in Scripture. Scholars quoting other scholars do not make for accurate and dependable textbooks. Only by sourcing the original will we bypass their obvious biases.

The West’s ancient landmark is the Bible. Like those of the USA the Legal Systems of the Commonwealth nations are based on the teaching of Scripture through the likes of Sir William Blackstone (1723-80), the Westminster Assembly (1643-52), the Declaration of Arbroath (1320), the Magna Carta (1215), King Alfred the Great (849-99), the early Church, all the way back to Moses and the Decalogue (B.C. 1400). In the West, through its system of Common Law, the Ten Commandments are applied in light of the Gospel, which is to say that, when required, justice is to be tempered with mercy. To be sure the West at times drifts away from its Biblical moorings. Social landmarks get shifted or removed as the tide ebbs and flows between political philosophies. Says Francis Nigel Lee, (who was a qualified Barrister), ‘The Biblical contribution to our notion of justice and legal consciousness has been widely acknowledged. Jurists see in the Biblical Scriptures one of the main foundations of Western civilization and the “rule of law.”’ Common Law: Roots & Fruits, p. 92. 

Under inspiration of the Spirit, the Psalmist says, ‘If the foundations are destroyed, What can the righteous do?’ Psalm 11:3. Who would seek to destroy the foundations of Western Civilization? Who would wish to remove the ancient landmarks our fathers have set? My prayer is that it is not you.

Tuesday, December 3, 2019

MORAL INJURY - Introduction

INTRODUCTION

As an ordained Presbyterian minister I qualified to become an Army Chaplain in early 2008. At that time I began work as a Reservist (part time) and started working fulltime in early 2013. Immediately I began rubbing shoulders with individuals suffering from ‘problems’, some of which are now being labelled as Moral Injury. I got to interact with doctors, Mental Health nurses and various psychologists. What could a Presbyterian Minister such as myself have to say about mental health issues? Says Sarah Gibson,

Moral injury is not just a ‘mental health’ issue because it relates to much more than the mind. Moral injury is also a state of the heart and a condition of the spirit. As a chaplain I know something about these things and believe my chaplain colleagues have something worthwhile to contribute as we discharge our overarching duty of care.[1]   

Moral Injury pertains to having ones view of the world violated resulting in an adverse effect of feeling guilt and shame. A worldview is that aspect of our humanity that focuses on things in the world that are (in our own personal opinion) right or wrong, and true or false. Thus morals relate to who we are as a person. Therefore morals are the personal apparatus which we use as individuals to determine, judge or deem what measures up or fails to measure up to our own set of moral standards.

Moral standards vary from individual to individual. In other words some individuals have a high moral standard and some have a low moral standard. But who gets to judge whether a moral standard is high or low? Upon what does one base ones morals? The tendency might be to posit “Common Sense” as the answer. However, this approach is to take too much for granted.

Morals are rules. They are a set of laws by which we police the world in which we live. They govern our interactions with others and our behaviour towards them and they determine how we perceive the interactions between others, whether as individuals or in groups.

Moral Injury occurs when as individuals we go against our own set of moral values and cause harm. It is important to note that this harm may or may not involve other parties (whether human, animal, objects or anything else). The bottom line is that Moral Injury is an injury to self! And, because morals vary from individual to individual it would be wrong to say that morals are simply the application of “Common Sense” to life issues. Says Tom Frame,

The term moral injury gained currency from the late 2000s among researchers in the United States who believed that something distinct, and perhaps new, was adversely affecting American service personnel returning from combat operations… Sufferers of moral injury struggle to discern good and bad, right and wrong in personal morality and social conventions after being somewhere when the norms of civilised society were collapsing, or after engaging with a people displaying little or no regard for basic human rights and entitlements… The health of a person’s soul and state of their moral being are not the privileged possessions of behavioural scientists.[2]

Moral Injury is self-inflicted! It is caused when you as an individual do not measure up to or have violated your own code of ethics and your conscience accuses you with regular reminders (usually in the wee small hours of the night) resulting in you experiencing feelings of guilt and shame.

       Guilt is one of the most powerfully paralysing forces to the human spirit.[3]

Human beings demonstrably are moral agents. But where do our morals come from? From our parents? Our community? Thin air? If morals are really just applied “Common Sense” then why, no matter how low they are, do none of us ever live up to our own moral standards? And why then do we judge the conduct of others to be wanting at times?

In the following we shall argue that morals are spiritual. By spiritual we mean that morals reside in the innermost being of humans, i.e., the conscience so-called, and as such, morals are invisible to the naked eye. The individual’s conscience is injured when the conscience refuses to excuse his/her thoughts and/or words and/or deeds.

Our actions (whether thought/word/deed) have consequences, moral consequences, i.e., spiritual consequences. Thus Moral Injury is a spiritual problem.

Sarah Gibson underlines the need for theological input into the Moral Injury question,

I can readily understand why a healthcare professional can look at a religious practitioner or spiritual counsellor and wonder who they are encountering and what the patient or client might be getting from them. But I also note that healthcare professionals are not generally educated in the nuances of existential thought, they are not trained to deal with spiritual questions and moral dilemmas. They will have their own opinions, of course. But they have not been required to immerse themselves in the history of ideas, to become familiar with philosophy’s response to enduring questions of identity and destiny, to recognise and respond to the heart’s yearnings for point and purpose in life. These are existential matters in which healthcare professionals cannot generally claim any expertise.[4]

Theology[5] is the study of God as He has revealed Himself in His creation and in His written Word. The Bible teaches us about God, His creation and ourselves as human beings. It teaches us about what is wrong with us and what God has done, is doing and will do about our problem. Therefore, Moral Injury: Toward a Theology will help us to understand why Moral Injury exists and how it can be cured in terms of the Bible.

Purchase eBook at Amazon:
 https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00VFBJ72A/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_taft_p1_i3
   


[1] Sarah Gibson, Moral Injury: Unseen Wounds in an Age of Barbarism, (Edited by Tom Frame), University of New South Wales Press Ltd, p. 234, 2015
[2] Tom Frame, Moral Injury: Unseen Wounds in an Age of Barbarism, (Edited by Tom Frame), University of New South Wales Press Ltd, p. 2, 2015.
[3] RC Sproul
[4] Sarah Gibson, Moral Injury: Unseen Wounds in an Age of Barbarism, (Edited by Tom Frame), University of New South Wales Press Ltd, p. 230, 2015
[5] The author writes from a Biblically Reformed theological perspective commonly known as “Covenant Theology.”

Tuesday, November 26, 2019

Jefferson's Tears, Christianbook Interview

Interview about my writing of Jefferson’s Tears as per Christianbook website:

https://www.christianbook.com/jeffersons-tears-neil-mckinlay/9781946497345/pd/497345?fbclid=IwAR1fFMfMj-RTYGqr4qxUzfV5DOnsv1NwvghRyusFZwA2kDS7jtcqbHOiAbU

Author: Neil McKinlay
Located in: Brisbane, Australia
Submitted: December 25, 2018

Tell us a little about yourself.

I’m a Christian, married with three daughters, four grandchildren a West Highland Terrier. I love reading, writing and playing soccer.

What was your motivation behind this project?

Jefferson's Tears was a story that had to be told. I met and interviewed Jefferson only to discover that he was named after Thomas Jefferson. Thus I began to research the story of Liberia and, like Jefferson's name, its multiple connections with America, its founding and founders. Liberia (ie, the Land of the Free) is essentially a black version of USA. Like the US, after its founding Liberia descended into civil war. Jefferson was born into this and miraculously survived its terrors. God is given the glory for safely guiding Jefferson through this and subsequently delivering him. Both my and Jefferson's motivation behind this project is the glory of God.

What do you hope folks will gain from this project?

I hope folks will gain a deeper appreciation of the God-given freedoms we in the West enjoy and seek to retain them. The USA is the great Christian experiment on the North American continent. Liberia, based on the American one, is the great Christian experiment on the African continent. Both hit roadblocks, civil war, relating to race. This issue will never be fully be resolved unless and until we get back to the Declaration of Independence generally, and particularly those words of Thomas Jefferson, “All men are created equal”. Whether white or black, Americo-Liberian or white resident of Liberia etc. the full ramifications of those Biblically endorsed words need to be studied and fully understood. It is the very essence of human freedom on earth. folks will gain a deeper insight and hopefully a deeper appreciation of The Declaration, Constitution and Bill of Rights of these two related countries.

How were you personally impacted by working on this project?

Jefferson's resilient character and nature impacted me. How can someone who has gone through what he has gone through still have it all together? How does he manage to keep it together? He loves his job in the Australian Army. He smiles and sings as he does his work. But what about all your painful baggage Jefferson? The Lord is his Shepherd. As we read your harrowing story may it help encourage us to trust in the Lord daily too! Jefferson's childlike faith impacted me as worked on this project. It still does.

Who are your influences, sources of inspiration or favorite authors / artists?

Though not necessarily my favourite authors, both the styles of writing of Bill O'Reilly and Dan Brown influenced me in the writing of Jefferson's Tears. O'Reilly for his time and date at the head of each chapter in his “The Killing of...” series, and Brown for his cliffhanger appraoch at the end of each of his chapters. The "time and date" at the beginning of each chapter serves to get and hold the reader in the “present tense” of the action, also it supplies the reader with the important historical context. The cliffhanger at the end of each urges the reader to want to return to that part of the story while reading new action and information. I like the poetic prose of Scottish writer James Barke, but I tried to keep Jefferson's Tears cinematic rather than verbose.