“William Gladstone has not one redeeming defect.” Disraeli

Generally the last person to accept that a painting is a fake, despite all the evidence that this is the case, is the person who bought the painting. At least part of the reason for this is having to admit a failure of judgement. The buyer thinks it diminishes his standing in the eyes of those who know their paintings. So the buyer clings defiantly to the possibility that the evidence is faulty or in some way rigged. 

In the world of objects and artefacts having an ‘eye’ for the true is very important – or an eye for the fake. My father said once that the most useful person on a committee was the one who was invariably wrong. Once they had spoken he knew which way to go – the other way.

Never being wrong seems increasingly to be expected of those in many professions. In the Christian tradition there are high expectations with the recognition that making mistakes is part of the deal. It’s why forgiveness is so necessary. 

Perhaps those who do not believe that climate change is happening in the face of hard scientific evidence have invested their own self worth or self esteem in a view that is being proved wrong. It may be the admission of mistaken judgement that is difficult to make.

Many of us know what it is to have trusted someone and been let down. Part of that pain is not in the betrayal, however great or small, but in our own lack of judgement and misplaced trust.

Those who commit themselves to a political cause or more particularly to a political leader are caught in a terrible bind. The evidence against the politician may pile up but it is the personal commitment, the facing up to one’s own misjudgement in the face of the evidence that causes the problems.

When it comes to blind adherence to individual people rather than paintings, causes or policies I think the problem may be idolatry. 

It was in a letter in the morning free newspaper, ‘A text without a context is a pretext.’ I immediately thought in biblical terms. The letter was in response to a letter from someone who described himself as a ‘bible believing Christian’.  He had used a particular biblical text, out of context, to justify a general principle.

All too often a single biblical verse is used to support a view which is totally at odds with the spirit of the writing. I understand Islamic scholars face the same problem with their sacred texts.   

Being ‘misquoted’ is a common cry of public figures. Often it is not so much a ‘misquote’ as a quote out of context. If the context is a party a comment made then, with a smile, can be read quite differently in cold hard print the next day.

The interesting thought for me is when the text is used as a pretext for a whole argument.

‘My country right or wrong,’ was used to justify nationalism to a most extreme degree. People believed that you should stick to, and agree with, your country, whether it was right or wrong. The quote was often used as a justification for war, or other cruelties that countries inflict on other countries. 

We may not use the saying as often as in former times but I’m far from convinced that we don’t operate on that premise: ‘My country/class/political party/gender-theory/life-style/religion right or wrong.’

But the actual quote, said by German-American Carl Schurz in 1872, was, “My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.”

Of course I’m right on everything including what is right and wrong. But then I may be wrong.

Someone who understands about A I, Artificial Intelligence that is, came to lunch. I don’t understand A I. He explained. I understood a little. The one thing I did get was that he had an ‘App’ on this mobile phone with this A I on its and that you could ask the App questions  – any questions. 

Another guest went first and asked about the future of the war in Ukraine and we got nowhere with that. I had heard that this ‘intelligence’ could write poetry. I was told it could and that I might suggest style and mood.

I asked for a Shakespearean sonnet written in anger to a friend who had told me I was overweight. The sonnet came back in seconds. It began:

‘Thou tak’st offence at my most mortal frame, 

A body formed with flesh and blood entwined, 

Yet I, unfazed, thy cruel words disclaim,

For in my soul, true beauty lies enshrined.’

And so it continued more or less in my favour until the couplet:

‘I’ll not be swayed by thy unkind decree,

For self-love’s flame shall set my spirit free.’

‘Self-love’s flame’ touched a nerve even from A I. Is a strict diet is called for?

What if I had asked for a ‘Thought’ in the style of Simon Acland suitable for this website? I have no doubt it would have come up with something that sounded like me. However it would not be my thought. Would you have known?

It is easy today to see and deplore the faults of past generations. And as easy to apologise for them. Of course past mistakes seen in the light of today’s understanding can and perhaps should be acknowledged and lessons learned. However I cannot repent of someone else’s sins. What about the faults of today, our faults?

A policeman knocked on my door to ask if my security cameras worked. They are on the outside of my house and show both sides of the street.  There had been a theft and the thief had run away from the victim down Braganza Street. The cameras do work and he found images of the thief on my iPad.

We talked about youth crime. When we compared notes we realised that fifteen years ago where the policeman lived when he was a teenager, and at the same time here in Kennington, there were youth clubs – church and secular – Cubs, Brownies, Scouts, Boys Brigade units and Girls Brigade. No doubt there were other youth organisations as well. Now there are none. There are gangs.

One of the main reasons for this situation, we agreed, is that ‘Safeguarding Measures’, introduced to protect the young, are so complicated and time consuming that volunteers for youth clubs are simply not prepared to go through the hassle of getting the necessary ‘clearance’ to work with the young. You don’t have to do a safeguarding course to lead a gang.

One of the results of restrictions during the covid epidemic was the separation of people. Visiting family or friends was forbidden and to hug or to touch was out of the question. To hug a child outside your own family is also questionable under safeguarding guidelines.

Some years ago as I waited to pay at Waitrose I watched an elderly woman chatting with the, I think Philippina check out woman. She held her hand. When she realised she was holding up the queue she apologised profusely and said to me something like, “I’m so sorry but I live by myself and it’s wonderful just to touch someone.” I can’t remember what I said in return but she and I ended up sitting on a bench against the wall talking. I had my arm around her shoulders. I was wearing a clerical collar so I think that helped.

I heard recently of an incident at an old people’s home. One of the carers was washing the hands of an elderly resident with dementia who never spoke. The water was warm and he held her hand as he gently washed it. Out of the blue she said, “I have three children,” and she named them, correctly as it later turned out. The carer believes it was the touch that unlocked her voice.

The Christian tradition includes a lot of being together and of touching. The Eucharist is a communion with God and one another. Then there is the holding of an infant in Baptism for the pouring of water and the touch of the Bishop’s hands on the head at confirmation and ordination. Christian worship, ‘when two or three are gathered together’, makes the Church, ‘ecclesia’,  the Greek for an assembly of people. Zoom worship however useful doesn’t involve a real ‘gathering’.  There is no touch.

I think the future may judge us harshly for our separation of people under the guise of protection. Perhaps nothing breaks community or stifles relationships more than refusing to take a risk in love.

That other Greek word, Eucharist – Thanksgiving – may well be another area in which the future may judge us poorly: for our lack of it. We seem to be brilliant at blame but not at gratitude.

What of balance? Take Colonialism, certainly the cause of some terrible wrongs but it also often brought political, judicial, educational and health benefits. We deride nineteenth century missionaries in Hawaii, for example, for requiring women to cover their nakedness and to wear muumuus. Do we acknowledge that those same missionaries put an end to the practice of human sacrifice especially of girl babies?

Perhaps we will be judged for our love of negativity.

At coffee after church at St Agnes I said, “Why don’t we have a working bee.” There was a surprised silence. “You know,” I added, “to tidy up the church grounds.”  ”But what have bees to do with it?” I was asked.

Only after some investigation did I discover that the term ‘working bee’, for a group of volunteers undertaking a common task usually for a charitable cause, is peculiar to New Zealand. In England sewing bees yes, working bees no.

I’d discovered some time ago that while I grew up putting ‘sippets’ in my soup people in England were putting ‘croutons’ in theirs. The Edwardian English adopted many French terms leaving behind the 19^th Century words. My great grandfather in Devon had sippets in his soup and we continued to do so at Mt Peel in my youth.

‘Skiting’ was deplored in my New Zealand childhood and there were no ‘skites’ in England when I arrived here in 1962. There were some ‘show offs’ though, and ‘showing off’ was equally frowned upon. Different words with the same meaning. Now, thank goodness, children who show enthusiasm or talent are applauded not reprimanded.

There’s a story which illustrates the shifts in the meanings of words over time.

During the construction of St Paul’s Cathedral, it is said, the king was taken on a tour of the works by the chief architect, Sir Christopher Wren.  When the excursion was complete the king told Wren that the new building was amusing, awful, and artificial. Wren did not feel insulted. He was very pleased. In the 1600s amusing meant amazing, awful meant awe-inspiring, and artificial meant artistic. 

Whether the event happened or not the meaning of the words then is clear.  

And ‘amusing’ has had a very varied history. When Cousin Mary told me sometime in the 1980s that her manservant had cried when she left Persia in the early 1900s, she said, “it was most amusing.” And she did not mean ‘funny’. She was very affected by his tears.

Nowadays words seem to change their meaning very quickly certainly as far as slang is concerned ‘evil’ and ‘wicked’ have no negative connotations at all in some contexts. While the ‘cool’ of the sixties had nothing to do with temperature nor does the ‘sharp’ used by my optician to describe my  new spectacle frames have anything to do with knives.

My age seems to excuse me in my use and misuse of many words. However when it comes to politically correct speech I walk through a minefield and am likely to be ‘blown up’ at any miss step.