Life & Work Magazine
Life & Work Magazine


6 mins

LETTERS

Feet of clay

In his meditation “Heroes and painful memories” (November Life and Work), the Very Rev Dr Chalmers highlighted an issue which had left me wondering how to equate my long-held admiration for Jean Vanier with the disturbing discovery after his death of his abusive side. Dr Chalmers’ exposition of Daniel’s interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream and the reminder it gives of our heroes having feet of clay has shone the light that I needed.

I too had revered Jean Vanier as someone close to a living saint. Now I feel I can still revere the sinner but not the sin.

We are all flawed human beings and I particularly loved his final phrase “it is a good thing to consider that in honouring our heroes we bring to the surface painful memories for others”. I find that very humbling.

Glennys Ardin, New Abbey, Dumfries.

I read with considerable interest the meditation by the Very Rev Dr John Chalmers, entitled ‘Heroes and painful memories ‘ (November Life and Work). He reminded us that Daniel, a young Hebrew captain, had advised King Nebuchadnezzar about what the King’s dream meant, part of which was about a huge statue with feet ‘partly of clay’, which provides the background to our saying today about ‘heroes having feet of clay ‘.

Dr Chalmers went on to observe that there are few heroes whose feet were ‘not or are not made partly of clay‘. He pondered about how we should calculate the overall effects of lives lived by important personages in our history. Have all the good and the bad, public and personal, to be weighed in detail in the balance? What are all the various factors which should be taken in to account? To what extent are post-existence considerations and influences to play a part in forming a judgement?

In attempting to respond to these questions, I would say that I concur with the view expressed by the philosopher Miranda Fricker, who once stated: ‘The proper standards by which to judge people are the best standards that were available to them at the time.’

Ian W Thomson, Lenzie, East Dunbartonshire

Origins of life debate

With regard to the ongoing debate concerning the origins of life, it seems that Kristine Kerr and the topic originator Prof Eric Priest would have us understand that Genesis chapter one is no more than poetry and allegory. On the contrary, the book of Genesis, as a whole, deals with history.

When studied objectively and, taking into account, the original Hebrew meanings of certain key words, the accuracy of the detail is remarkable. The vocabulary was very limited, especially when describing events and details that we associate with scientific phenomena. Existing English translations could be failing to convey what could be the correct meaning.

Cartoon: Bill McArthur

Not only does the first verse state clearly that there was a beginning to the universe (a concept that “science” rejected until fairly recently) but it is argued that the order of the appearance of living things from such an ancient text stacks up very well against present perceptions. Picking up one of Kristine Kerr’s points, v1 describes the initial creation of the cosmos, of which the sun was a part. The subsequent ‘days’ or ‘phases’ can be understood as ‘eras’. The Hebrew word, ‘asah’ used in v16 translated ‘made’ can also have the meaning ‘shewed’ (Young’s Concordance). The sun, moon and stars would not have been visible initially owing to the thick vapour layer that surrounded the young Earth. As that vapour layer condensed forming the oceans, the atmosphere cleared and the ‘lights’ became visible, defining the days, months and seasons, for earthlings on ‘day’ four.

We shouldn’t make the common mistake of denigrating the simplicity of the Genesis account. Nor must we consider that its simplicity implies inaccuracy. Kristine Kerr helpfully indicates that her own appreciation of the first chapter of Genesis was enhanced by new scientific understanding and some false preconceptions resulting from a science teacher were dispelled. Perhaps we all require to examine our in-built prejudices regarding the first chapter of the Bible and consider it with new objectivity.

Tony Crow, Bearsden

I wonder if Alex Glen is picking the wrong target in the evolution debate (Life and Work, November). It really does not matter if God creates through one, two or a thousand steps, or if new species separate out from earlier forms. Alex shows that his real concern is when Darwinism is used to teach “that a purely arbitrary process is responsible for all life”. Such teachers are misusing the science and this is where he should concentrate his fire.

An arbitrary action has neither rhyme nor reason but the evolution of life demonstrates both. To take reason first: all scientists witness to the laws that underpin the universe and there is nothing arbitrary about scientific laws. Although there is an element of randomness, which is essential to provide a myriad of opportunities for change and choice, order is even more important and no development is possible without it.

Moreover, the overall development of life appears to be purposive. It is not a simple progression, for there are diversions and blind alleys but it clearly evolves towards ever greater complexity and the growth of intelligence. Far from being arbitrary, biologists routinely expect the same laws and the same progression to apply in other parts of the universe.

That the process has rhyme as well as reason is not so obvious but it is most certainly there. With the development of consciousness, imagination and creativity, humankind becomes the observer, whose notions and theories rhyme with the reality that surrounds us. Einstein saw this as the greatest mystery - that we can “learn the secrets of the Old One”.

Any teacher who sees evolution as simply arbitrary is not looking at the depth and scope of the picture and misrepresents Darwin, who told William Graham in one of his last letters, “that the Universe is not the result of chance.”

Graham Hellier (Rev), Marden, Hereford

Remembrance broadcast comment

Impressed as I was with the “national” Services broadcast by the BBC, I found it seriously disturbing that the traditional second purpose of Remembrance Services - “that the evil of war shall not be again” - was not spelt out. And I write this as a retired parish minister who had the immense privilege of conducting such public services over five decades in Dundee, Leith and the Borders.

Now, I have been a soldier, but this was the obligatory two years’ National Service in “post-war peace-time”. In later years, my wife and I were always very conscious that people who knew about war were active peace-makers in politics so that our sons were not called up and war-damaged as our parents and grandparents had been.

The national broadcast services did give proper emphasis to the first purpose of remembering so much sacrifice but it brought considerable relief and satisfaction when the online service from Caddonfoot Galashiels Trinity Church gave proper and normal weight to the lessons from the Gospel and from personal suffering of the urgency for unremitting peacemaking.

Jack Kellet (Rev), Innerleithen

Life and Work welcomes letters from readers of not more than 350 words which can be sent by email to magazine@lifeandwork.org during the Coronavirus Covid-19 epidemic.

For verification purposes letters must be accompanied by the writer’s name, address and daytime telephone number. Anonymous letters will not be published. In exceptional circumstances the Editor will consider publishing a letter withholding the details of the writer, provided verification can be made. The Editor reserves the right to edit letters for space and legal reasons.

This article appears in the January 2021 Issue of Life and Work

Click here to view the article in the magazine.
To view other articles in this issue Click here.
If you would like to view other issues of Life and Work, you can see the full archive here.

  COPIED
This article appears in the January 2021 Issue of Life and Work