(THE CHURCH AND POLITICS {1} [continued(3)])[4th April 1987]

[Redbook3:108-109][19870404:1821c](THE CHURCH AND POLITICS {1} [continued(3)])[4th April 1987]

.1821

[continued]

The Government has no soul to be saved: the Church, in the shape of its Ministers and its Members, should do what it feels it should for the poor according to the Spirit of Christ's words, and preach to all of us, including but not especially members of the Government, what we should do and why we should do it as Individuals*, then leave us to make our own decisions. We are not likely to abolish the Welfare State. Does the Church** care more for the state of Men's bodies than for their Souls?

*both individually and through Institutions. <890930>  Institutions, however, are intimately interconnected with Individuals. <890930>

**(as such)(=?)

[continues]

[PostedBlogger31012016]

(THE CHURCH AND POLITICS {1} [continued])[4th April 1987]

[Redbook3:107-108][19870404:1821b](THE CHURCH AND POLITICS {1} [continued])[4th April 1987]

.1821

[continued]

I thought at first that the Moderator* was referring to Jesus' sheep and goats division**:

'I was an hungered, and ye gave me no meat:

I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

I was a stranger, and ye took me not in:

naked, and ye clothed me not:

sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.'

'Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these,

ye did it not to me.'

This is much more suggestive of a desire to see the outer inequities of the World put right, and a readiness to tell others to do it when one is not necessarily doing it oneself. Jesus' own role was to preach the Gospel, I believe: not himself to do these specific*** things he listed here (so far as I know there is no record of him having done them himself)****. He preached this to Individuals, specifically to his Disciples: not to Governments, not even to the leaders of the Jews as a group#. The emphasis seems to be on individual action and the consequences for the individual of not taking it: virtually the whole Chapter is about the consequences for the individual of not doing what should be done. I suspect that even if there had been a welfare state then (as we have now#*), one where the State really did take care of everyone's serious needs (as ours does not), Jesus would still have preached these words: because they have to do, not with the material inequalities of Society, but with the inner condition of a Man.

Not all of the items on the list are wholly remediable by political action (e.g. sickness); all of the actions are attributed to individuals. The result may be the same, but the emphasis is different: in fact, given the creaking and monolithic inefficiency of much of our Welfare State, the effect of the whole population of Individuals operating according to these principles would probably be far greater and more beneficial to the poor, 'the deprived and the destitute'#**. Conversely, there might be #*** no unemployed, no underprivileged (how underprivileged?), no deprived and no destitute; and Individuals could still end up on the wrong side of the division between sheep and goats, because they had not lived in the Spirit of those words.

*[Of the Free Church Federal Council: see last previous entry.]

**Matthew XXV.31-46.

***(outer)

****(except healing)

#Mt.XXIII comes close. <890930>

#*[in the United Kingdom.]

#**This is a million miles away from Mrs. Thatcher's partial rejection of the Welfare State in favour of 'charity'. <890930>

#***{i.e in a theoretical society.} [<890930>?]

[continues]

[PostedBlogger30012016]

(THE CHURCH AND POLITICS {1})[4th April 1987]

[Redbook3:106-111][19870404:1821](THE CHURCH AND POLITICS {1})[4th April 1987]

.1821

The article today by the Moderator of the Free Church Federal Council re-iterates the responsibility of the Churches to speak on behalf of the poor, the unemployed and the underprivileged, bringing about a reassessment of our priorities as a nation (and as Christians). It is uncomfortable to find oneself criticising this, but at least in an academic sense, criticised it must be (the conclusion, one would hope, being open at the beginning).

I did* miss two of perhaps the most important of Jesus' statements on this point, to one of which perhaps the Moderator refers as Jesus' speech of a 'Spirit-inspired identity with the poor, the oppressed, the blind and the imprisoned' – 'Jesus' manifesto from Nazareth'. **Jesus reads from Isaiah***, that****

[l1] 'The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,

[l2](R) because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; (O)

[l3](A) he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, (I)

[l4](R) to preach deliverance to the captives, (O)

[l5](R) and recovering of sight to the blind, (O)

[l6](A) to set at liberty them that are bruised, (I)

[l7](R) to preach the acceptable year of the Lord.' (?)

Notably, all direct action ('A') is directed at inner conditions ('I'). All outer conditions ('O') are met with Revelation ('R'), not action (Even so, the actions may be read as metaphors of revelation or of its effects). I think one must read 'bruised' as referring to the inner condition, otherwise 'set at liberty' makes no sense. Specifically, there is an immense difference between preaching the gospel to the poor and preaching to the Government on behalf of the poor, against their material poverty. It is not that the latter course is not worthy; it may well be, depending on the circumstances. It is just it is a second-grade, perhaps Outer Circle activity, tending towards outer action rather than revelation in that it is 'the truth about' rather than 'The Truth'. It is not for the Church.

*{i.e. when writing previously. [[Redbook3:73-74][19870329:1210w](Church Material)[29^th March 1987ff]].}

**Luke IV.16-21 [KJB/AV].

[Marginal notes converted to footnotes:]

***Isaiah [61:1-2] differences :

[l2] good tidings

[l2] meek

[l3] gird up

[l4] proclaim liberty

[l5] (Inserted)

[l6] (to proclaim) the opening of the prison

['The Spirit of the Lord God is upon Me,

Because the Lord has anointed Me

To preach good tidings to the poor;

He has sent me to heal the broken-hearted,

To proclaim liberty to the captives,

And the opening of the prison to those who are bound;

To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord,

And the day of vengeance of our God;

To comfort all who mourn....'

Isaiah [61:1-2] (KVB/AV)]

****Notes on text &/or New Jerusalem Bible translation: <890930>

[l2] [because =] for

[l2] [preach =] bring

[l2] [gospel =] good news

[l2] [poor =] afflicted

[l3] [to heal the broken-hearted] not in NJB

[l4] [preach =] proclaim

[l4] [deliverance =] liberty

[l5] [and recovering of =] (proclaim)

[l6] [set at liberty =] let go free

[l6] [bruised =] oppressed

[l7] to proclaim a year of favour from the Lord.

['The spirit of the Lord is on me,

for he has anointed me to bring the good news to the afflicted.

He has sent me to proclaim liberty to captives,

sight to the blind,

to let the oppressed go free,

to proclaim a year of favour from the Lord.'

Luke IV.16-21(NJB)]

[continues]

[PostedBlogger29012016]

(INNOCENCE{:[xS]}[continued (3)])[4th April 1987]

[Redbook3:105-106][19870404:1005n](INNOCENCE{:[xS]}[continued (3)])[4th April 1987]

19870404.1005

[continued]

But that* (luckily for me) is not my point of view: I have loved xS for as long as I can remember, certainly since long before I wrote of her (in '[2]'; and possibly in '[+]'; and even, faintly, in a couple of stories**, as a character in a novel '[JW]'?, and in a poem***, as 'Tena', which may be a dim pre-cognition of her) and long before I knew who she was (in [2]).

Several times I have 'fallen in love' wretchedly with girls who were xS look-alikes, to a greater or lesser extent, without ever consummating the affair; the earliest of these was when I was about sixteen. None of these girls were remotely like xS; they just looked like her (up to a point, and without the eyes). I cannot trace any earlier influence which might give rise to this phenomenon. Nor have I, so far as I recall, ever 'fallen in love' in the same paralytically miserable fashion with any girls who did not up to a point resemble xS: with other girls I have had constructive and enjoyably loving relationships of one sort or another.

It is arguable therefore that xS is a consequence of unsatisfied attempted relationships, but as I cannot find any other origin I prefer to see xS as the origin, especially as others also have seen her, and to regard the unrequited love affairs as doomed attempts to find xS in ordinary girls outside before I recognised that the Archetype was arising within.

In any case, “the Eyes have it”: no ordinary human being, I think, could have those eyes, those blue**** eyes, and the Innocence of them.

*[See last previous email.]

**[One at least of which was in places, on the most generous interpretation, erotic, I seem to recall.]

***[[Redbook2:67A-B][19750327:1950][Tena in Araby][27^th March 1975]]

****(or blue-grey!)

[PostedBlogger28012016]

(INNOCENCE{:[xS]} [continued])[4th April 1987]

[Redbook3:104-105][19870404:1005m](INNOCENCE{:[xS]} [continued])[4th April 1987]

19870404.1005

[continued]

'Innocence' is a strange concept: if I remember rightly, the Latin root would be 'Nocens'(?), harmful, and a negative prefix: i.e. unharmful, harmless. But as we judge everything now by its ability to harm us, to be 'harmless' is regarded as rather a denigration; Innocence is much more than that.

Neil Gunn's Green Isle of the Great Deep* had a fascinating girl, Sweet Innocence, who in life had been a terrorist and shot dead a number of people: the last encountered had shot faster than her, and she wanted to meet him.** Although it is hard to imagine xS ('Sweet [xS]' as +Mk teases her***) killing, her Outer Circle Tarot is XIII, Death, and Death is another name for ****Simplification.

From one point of view, xS is perhaps the most dangerous Archetype of the Circles, which may be why many hurry past her with eyes averted, and go round again.

*[The Celtic Otherworld/Afterworld; from 'The Green Isle of the Great Deep', 1944.]

**There is a horrifying description in today's [Daily] Telegraph, 2^nd part, front page, article on Peru(?), of a 'Shining Path' terrorist atrocity led by a teenage girl. <890930>

***[in [2]]

****or an aspect of? /extreme version of? <890930>

[continues]

[PostedBlogger27012016]

(INNOCENCE{:[xS]})[4th April 1987]

[Redbook3:103-104][19870404:1005l](INNOCENCE{:[xS]})[4th April 1987]

19870404.1005

[continued]

I have referred to 'Innocence', above*. The concept arose during [2], as a description mostly relating to xS, although I was aware of its use during the final march, in [0], towards the centre point of [...]land: the phrase was 'the inner sense of innocence'. I think. (This was long before xS had come to mind.) Innocence is perhaps the first example of a Quality attached to the personality of an Archetype as it develops, as contrasted with the qualities attached to the Inner and Outer Circle points at which the Archetype develops.**

xS's Circle qualities are Simplification (or, in static rather than dynamic terms, Simplicity) and Love; but the overwhelming quality of her which I have experienced in the inner sense is her Innocence, which is in some way closely related to both simplicity and love, and is apparent (to me) particularly in those wonderful eyes. The innocence of those eyes is far more than the innocence of a baby's blue eyes: it is dynamic, intense, and full of an indefinable meaning, the type of meaning which cannot be described as it comes across to you, but will become apparent later within your own meaning. xS owes something to my memory of Michelangelo's ***sybil, but it is some time since I saw a reproduction and my memory may well have altered.

The eyes of xS, Sybil of the Circles – at this point, after going to look up what I have now crossed out (from '[2]'), and writing it, I found I had forgotten what I was going to write****, which is a pity. xS in '[2]' is, I think, still 'immature' even by contrast with xS as I saw her when I wrote '[2]'; there is a tradition that the apparent age of such figures reflects not their development, but that of the observer# (i.e. [the Narrator] in '[2]').

*[[Redbook3:67-70][19870329:1210r](THE BIBLE AND CHRIST/JESUS)[29^th March 1987];

[Redbook3:98-99][19870404:1005g]{Resonance [continued(3)]}[4th April 1987];

[Redbook3:101-102][19870404:1005k]{The Righting of Wrongs}[4th April 1987].]

**But it is proper to +C, from which it comes direct to her. <890930>

***Delphic <870603> [in the Sistine Chapel ceiling] – the wrong location, as it turned out (cf S&C [original, full paper version] 12.4 [Why?]) <930412> {– but see [this Journal Vol.] IV.4-5}.

****'Cupbearer and High Priestess of the Most High' (crossed out).

#cf. Apocryphal Gospels?

[continues]

[PostedBlogger25for26012016]

{The Righting of Wrongs [continued(3)]}[4th April 1987]

[Redbook3:102-103][19870404:1005k]{The Righting of Wrongs [continued(3)]}[4th April 1987]

19870404.1005

[continued]

Circumstances vary. I do not think I have got this quite right in practice myself; but then, I started before I had properly thought it out: I sent off my statement of facts before I had really come to terms with it (i.e. righted myself), I think partly out of fear that I would forget what should not yet* be forgotten; although I did feel a great relief afterwards, I am not sure that my statement was the reason for this relief,** as I suffered periods of bitterness about it subsequently. The end of bitterness does not bring an end to remembrance: in fact, funnily enough, it does bring an end to the guilt feelings which perhaps are a reaction to the strength of the bitterness; so that one is enabled to see clearly, and without passion, and to go forward, come what may.***

*{N.B.}

**(Despite 19870326, p25 [Redbook3:25-26][19870326:1543d]{The Round House [continued(3)]}[26^th March 1987]].)

***There were relapses even subsequent to this.... They ended with Forgiveness. {890930} [Later general statements of never having felt bitter about anything are clearly wrong, but not dishonestly so: perhaps a testament to the success of the process.]

[PostedBlogger25012016]

{The Righting of Wrongs [continued]}[4th April 1987]

[Redbook3:102-103][19870404:1005k]{The Righting of Wrongs [continued]}[4th April 1987]

19870404.1005

[continued]

The wronger (responsible for the original wrong)* also has a need to right himself, which I should think is generally far more difficult, as it is far easier (for most people) to admit that you have been wronged than that you have wronged – especially if the latter [sic]** [state] indicates that you should right your wrong: the wronged generally has little to lose, the wronger much, after the event. (There are, of course, people too proud to admit they could have been wronged....).

It seems to me, therefore (and this will seem insufferably pious*** to some) that the wronged has the primary responsibility after the event (as the wronger has the primary responsibility before it, presumably).

{1) The wronged must, first, decide whether he has been wronged, on the facts, avoiding the pride that denies it, and the resentment that invents (or exaggerates) it, and taking account of his own contribution, and of any wrong he may have done; he should remain open-minded about this in particular.

{2} Second (if he has been wronged) he must right himself without recourse to the wronger so that he no longer feels (emotionally) wronged, although still aware of the wrong.

{3} Third, he must try to help the wronger, by giving the wronger the opportunity**** to face and recognise the wrong he has done: this means that he must approach the wronger in a fashion that will maximise the chance of the wronger voluntarily recognising the wrong, which in practice I guess (and I hope I am correct) would mean [the wronged] presenting [to the wronger] without rancour a statement of facts with an opportunity to correct them, and an implied opportunity to put right the wrong from the wronger's point of view. (The wronged, having already righted himself, must not seek this last thing as his own objective, or the matter is likely to be distorted by the original wronger suffering resentment in his turn, as he my well feel compelled to put right the wrong before he has fully recognised it.)

*[See last previous entry.]

**[i.e. the fact(s) of having wronged (presumably).]

***[And perhaps a trifle pompous?]

****(The opportunity my, of course, be refused.)

[PostedBlogger24012016]

{The Righting of Wrongs}[4th April 1987]

[Redbook3:101-102][19870404:1005k]{The Righting of Wrongs}[4th April 1987]

19870404.1005

[continued]

Perhaps the key to coping with resentment by oneself is to be aware of the existence of a wrong – I do not think that Innocence implies at all the inability to tell right from wrong – but not to feel wronged; if oneself has been the victim of a wrong, one must right oneself without waiting for those who were responsible for the wrong to put things right (or one might wait forever).

Needless to say, righting oneself is primarily an inner development, on the Circles, although outer matters may also need to be attended to; I think that the outer matters will more easily be put (or come) right (one way or another) when the inner transformation is accomplished.*

If the inner or outer 'righting' in any way depends upon or involves the wronging of those who were responsible for the original wrong, then I should think that something had gone horribly wrong with the righting process: it would not be right. This is from the point of view of the wronged one, in righting** himself.

*(The Outer Circle is about inner states as well as outer conditions.)

**(Writing helps righting!)

[continues]

[PostedBlogger24for23012016]