Meditation: On Bricks

I had a rather unusual experience the other morning; I had a dream that seemed to consist of philosophising. At least, I’m almost certain I was asleep, though just about to awaken; when someone called my name, I sat upright with a start. Here’s what I was thinking (or dreaming!) about.

People sometimes ask, if God knew when He created everything that evil was going to follow, why did He go through with it? Doesn’t this mean that evil is God’s fault?

Well, the Bible tells us that God is good. And we have free will, which is a good thing. If we choose to do the very things that God doesn’t want us to, blaming Him for creating us won’t wash. A fairer way to put this challenge might be to say that God could have saved himself a lot of heartache by not creating the universe, so why would He go through with it? The answer to this might become a little clearer if we take a brief detour and consider the humble brick.

Bricks are a good invention. With them you can build garden walls, houses that don’t blow down (like wooden houses might in a hurricane), hospitals, churches and so on. They are small enough to work with but substantial enough to be part of something sturdy. The flat surfaces and right-angled corners are a massive improvement on the jigsaw of assorted natural stones we might otherwise have to use, saving us from wasting cement on gap after awkward-sized gap, and when the wall is finished, bricks offer a pleasingly even result. They can be mass-produced, which is a big plus when you consider the alternative: endless hours of effort spent by stonemasons chipping and hacking stone into the right shape.

However, bricks can also be used as murder weapons; they can be used in riots and in smash-and-grab robberies; they can be used in brawls to cause all kinds of grievous injuries. In view of this, would it have been better if the brick had not been invented? Of course not. Whoever first thought up the idea of mass-produced bricks of the same size with flat surfaces and sharp corners presumably did not have the least intention that they should be used in riots and murders.

Here we arrive at the point in the discussion where light should begin to fall on our theological question. I want you to notice that I am not arguing that the brick is somehow a neutral thing, that its goodness or badness is all about what someone might do with it. As I said before, it is clearly a good invention. I’m going to suggest that the best way to sum up what we can say about bricks is this: the invention of the brick is a good thing which logically entails the possibility (but not the necessity) of something negative. Though it is not a physical object, the same thing applies to free will. Sin is not inevitable; but in order for free will to be real, disobedience must be a logical possibility.

I will go even further: in any rational universe, it would be very hard, if not impossible, to conceive of any entity in it that did not have that kind of duality. Such a concept would be mere nonsense, like expecting a floodlight not to cast shadows, or the notion of a piece of paper with only one side. The universe that God creates is – must be – rational; it could not be otherwise.

David Ferguson is an author and musician. You can find his books on Amazon and you can find his music online on Spotify, Apple Music, Amazon, etc. (Search for David J. Ferguson. Don’t forget the “J.” because there are apparently a bazillion David Fergusons out there.)

Enjoy the tune, and feel free to dig deeper!

Gender as a Linguistic Phenomenon

There’s been a lot of conversation (that’s the polite word for it!) on social media recently about the practice of self-identifying as this or that gender, and a lot of it seems to me to have generated more heat than light; so this short article is me trying to think my way through it to a sensible conclusion.

You have probably heard the remark “Gender is a social construct.” It would certainly be hard to argue that such a statement has no truth at all to it. But let us be clear what we mean. To say that gender is a social construct is not the same as saying that gender is completely arbitrary and that you can choose to be whatever you please.

You might get that idea if you looked at the French language, where everything has a gender and the assignation of masculine or feminine to a given object seems in some cases to be entirely arbitrary – why should a book be le and a window la? Why not the other way around? But the French are driven to gendering everything because they have no equivalent to our little word it.

Things become clearer when we examine the matter of gender in English and see that it is not best described as a social construct, but as a linguistic phenomenon.

In literature and poetry, we have a technical term that will be helpful in this discussion: it is personification. This is a word that is used to describe the way that a writer may find personal characteristics in (or assign them to) things that are not people; Human characteristics in things that are not Human. It is something we have probably all done at some point (though poets more than most!) How it applies in the case of inanimate objects is what I want to explore here, because the concept of gender grows out of that.

A simple example of personifying an inanimate object would be the following. At the launch of an important ship, a dignitary with a champagne bottle may give a speech that ends with the words “May God bless her and all who sail in her!” and then smash the bottle on the side of the ship. Now a ship is not a woman; it does not have female reproductive organs; it is sexless. Obviously the people who speak of it as “she” and “her” are not under the least misapprehension that the ship is actually a woman. They designed and built it; of course they know it is not female. But the builders (in most eras, usually men) feel that their ship is more than merely a floating box, all sharp corners and straight lines; it has pleasing curves, which they perceive to be a female-like characteristic. So we arrive at a point in the discussion where, in order to avoid having to use clunky hyphenated terms such as woman-like or female-like, we need a word that conveys the idea that something which is not a woman can be like a woman: so we use feminine. (Likewise, a mighty bank of guitar amplifiers, the growl of a powerful motorbike, or even God – anything that seems to be male-like but which isn’t actually male – for that sort of thing, we use the term masculine.) And to help us talk more generally about that class of ideas, we have the word gender.

So (in English, anyway) the practice of assigning gender to inanimate objects is clearly something that is involved with what it means to personify things. In everyday use (despite how some up-to-date “woke” dictionary may define the words), the most basic meaning of masculine is male-like; the most basic meaning of feminine is female-like.

Clearly this has implications for the current debate on gender. Male and female are nouns, each the name of a sex. Masculine and feminine are adjectives which suggest some degree of likeness with male and female. So to say that someone “chooses” to identify as this or that gender (or none) is really to say only that they wish they were this or that sex, or that they feel that they somehow are (much like the ship-builders feel about their ship). I suppose nobody can stop them if they choose to present themselves in a way that matches their preference. But people are not obligated to respect their choice; for though you may wish to be described a certain way, obviously it is for other people to pick their own words when describing you. (We may all hope, of course, that everyone remains courteous.) A name is a different matter – but even then, people call you what they feel comfortable with, despite how you introduce yourself. I’ve been called David, Dave, Davy, Fergy, and a lot of other names that I liked a whole lot less.

One last item. People discussing this topic will sometimes insist that sex and gender mean different things (I agree) but then go on to make statements such as “A trans-man is a man” or “A trans-woman is a woman”, which can’t be true if sex and gender are different. For to make either of those statements is to say that the gender you wish to be described as actually matches your sex. But if that were so, you wouldn’t need hormones or surgery or different clothing to make it match, would you?

So, what’s the bottom line here? What conclusion have I reached? It’s this: gender is a feature of poetical language rather than a social convention. The proper, most meaningful usage of sex and gender is to speak of individual Humans (and animals) as having a sex; but of non-Human or inanimate objects as having a gender.

Ats Us Nai

Above the mirrors in my local barber’s shop there is a sign that reads: “Ats Us Nai”. It’s a phonetic rendering of a phrase you might hear used by someone from Belfast (or a little further afield): that’s us now. It might be used when a certain task has been satisfactorily completed, or some situation resolved, or when you’ve completed your preparations and are feeling ready to face some challenge; or perhaps when your hair has at last been properly cut.

Moses wasn’t from Belfast, but if he was, when he saw the people ahead of him finally entering the promised land and that Israel’s wanderings were over, he might have said “Ats us nai.”

When Nehemiah saw the walls of Jerusalem taking shape, he might have uttered: “Ats us nai.”

When Solomon’s work crews saw the last brick of the temple being put in place, they might have remarked, “Ats us nai.”

When the disciples began to realise the Messiah had come and the Kingdom was at hand, they might have told each other, “Ats us nai.”

When they finished collecting the scraps after the five thousand had been fed, they might have said: “Ats us nai.”

When Jesus gave a blind man his sight, or healed a leper, or restored a deaf man’s hearing, it would have been perfectly appropriate for him to comment, “Ats us nai.”

When Jesus was on the cross, he shouted: “It is finished!” But he might just as well have said, “Ats us nai.”

When Peter and the other disciples saw thousands repenting at Pentecost, they might have exchanged the remark, “Ats us nai.”

The Bible says that there is rejoicing in Heaven over each sinner that repents. If the angels work among Belfast sinners, they could well greet the event with the words, “Ats us nai.”

At the end of the age, when the sky opens and Our Beloved appears in all his glory, believers will be able to say to each other, “Ats us nai.”

…and when we sit down to the wedding supper of The Lamb who was slain for us, everyone at the table will be able to say most joyously and resoundingly, “Ats us nai!”

David Ferguson is an author and musician. You can find his books on Amazon and you can find his music online on Spotify, Apple Music, Amazon, etc. (Search for David J. Ferguson. Don’t forget the “J.” because there are apparently a bazillion David Fergusons out there.)

Audiobook: Five Steps Beyond

WARNING: spoilers!

It’s quite a few years ago now since I did audio recordings of some of my short stories – so long ago that I had almost completely forgotten about them; decades now, actually. I recorded stories written by a local writers’ group (I had a Tascam four-track tape recorder, a great little gadget that allowed me to do overdubs, add music, etc.) and I contributed a couple of my own stories too, Michelle and The Slap (which you can find in my short story collection Twilight Dreams). I burned them onto a CD and ran off some copies. Not too many, of course – the group’s ambitions were fairly humble, and anyway nobody wanted to end up with a great stack of unsold CDs taking up space in their garage!

It was fun to create the CD, though, so I thought I’d have another go, this time with all my own of my material. As before, I only ran off as many copies as I thought I could sell, which wasn’t very many. Apart from the fact that you don’t want to become a nuisance to people by continually trying to flog something to them that they are lukewarm about, it was a bit of a bother to duplicate the CDs with my rather unsophisticated set-up, and my printer wasn’t really up to the job of producing professional-looking inlay cards.

I should mention that this was back in the day when posting things online wasn’t really an option unless you had a super-duper computer, expensive software and a subscription to the CostaFortune internet provider. Also, my expertise (!) with computers had not yet developed to cover stuff like that.

So, the project lay in abeyance… until a few weeks ago, when I rediscovered the recordings and had the idea of posting them online. Obviously, the quality is not A1-recording-studio standard (and my N.I. accent might be an issue for some listeners), but it’s not bad, and anyway squashing files down to a size that streaming platforms can handle smoothly means that audio quality diminishes a bit anyway even on professional recordings. I’ve posted a link to the stories at the bottom of this blog. You can hear them for free, but you can choose to pay for the download if you should feel moved to do so, which I would appreciate!

In the meantime, let be tell you a bit about the stories themselves. They make a slightly eclectic combination. The Slap and Michelle are both set in the real world. The Slap is about the dangers of thinking Mother’s opinion doesn’t matter. Michelle is about unrequited love.

The other stories are a little longer: The Rich Idiot’s Interference is actually an episode from my sci-fi novel No Paradox, but it was originally conceived as a short story, so it stands up well on its own. The germ for Stepping In, Stepping Out was the idea that there are people existing outside of our continuum who pay for the privilege of observing us – but from the inside, as if they were us. Something like this concept has turned up in the work of other sci-fi writers (for example, Brian Aldiss), though I wasn’t aware of that when I wrote it. Anyway, I think my particular take on it is original enough that nobody will claim that I have ripped off so-and-so’s work. Fans of C.S. Lewis’s theological works will recognise the title of the story God’s Quarantine. Lewis floated the idea (with tongue in cheek, I think) that the interstellar distances were God’s quarantine measures to stop the infection of a fallen race from spreading. I wondered what it would be like to be on Man’s first interstellar mission and find that some kind of field had been erected around our solar system which inhibited the function of the ship’s drive, because nobody out there wanted to meet us… I had some fun with this recording using the function on my computer that read text aloud. I was obliged to change the spelling of some words to get the right pronunciation, and tweak punctuation to get the vocal tones appropriate for the part of the sentence being spoken! (I think that modern text-to-speech programs are much more natural-sounding than they used to be.)

I should say that the short story collection that most of these tales appear in, Twilight Dreams, attracted a very critical review from one American reader. I’m not convinced that this person actually read the book. They probably dipped into their free Kindle download (it was on offer at one point), read a line here and there and went “Meh!” Exactly why they thought that qualified them to review it is more than I can tell. So I (and the great company of all writers everywhere) would like to appeal to you: if you haven’t read it, don’t review it!

In the meantime, happy listening!

David Ferguson is an author and musician. You can find his books on Amazon and you can find his music online on Spotify, iTunes, etc. (Search for David J. Ferguson. Don’t forget the “J.” because there are apparently a bazillion David Fergusons out there.)

Here’s the link to the audiobook:

https://davidferguson.bandcamp.com/album/five-steps-beyond-audiobook

To All Those Who Have Longed For His Appearing

I thought that it might be a useful introduction to my album To All Those Who Have Longed For His Appearing to give a little background detail on a few of the songs.

In My Time Of Dying

This was originally a gospel blues song, and there have apparently been umpteen versions of it, including one by Blind Willie Johnson. Led Zeppelin, masters at plucking old blues songs from obscurity and revamping them, have come up with what is probably the definitive version, not least because of the extraordinary uptempo second section which has Jimmy Page’s songwriting style stamped all over it.

I have always been unhappy with some of Robert Plant’s lyrics, which I feel trivialise the gospel, so I’ve followed his example and tweaked the words to please myself, bringing them back towards the original message again, though hopefully without making them unrecognisable.

This may seem like a slightly grim title to present to an audience in these days of Covid-19, but I don’t think that a reminder of the right way to approach the subject of our own mortality is entirely inappropriate just now.

Recording and performance stuff: I used a glass slide with my Irish Les Paul throughout, which was tuned to DGDGBG. It’s a tuning that’s a bit more forgiving when you accidentally hit the wrong string! I’ve done my best to replicate John Bonham’s most distinctive rolls and riffs and I think I’ve done a pretty decent job of it. The bass on Zeppelin’s version was lost in the mix a bit, so in this version you might feel that it’s poking through a little too much; but you’ll get used to it!

Tiocfaidh ár lá

What’s a song with an Irish Republican slogan as a title (it means “Our Day Will Come”) doing on a Christian album? Well, it occurs to me that this is actually a pretty fitting slogan for Christians (supposing we needed one). There is a special day coming when a new age will begin in earnest, freedom will arrive, and servants of Jesus will be vindicated. All the times we’ve had to eat humble pie for the sake of the Kingdom have not gone unnoticed. The notion of that special day coming is also echoed in the title of the album. We long for Him to come again in his glory, when all those who lift the fist and the sword and the gun against the people of God will be bowing the knee to Jesus. For guns cannot defeat Christ’s church any more than a cross could defeat Christ. In the meantime, we wonder about those violent revolutionaries: “Will you ever understand? / There’s a better place than this / This is not the promised land.” I wrote this song quite a few years ago (while Northern Ireland’s “Troubles” were still going on apace), but I think the message remains relevant.

The first recording I did of this track years ago had an uptempo ending, but I think the song stands perfectly well without it. The dissonant harmonics at the end of the guitar break were deliberate. They were achieved using the edge-of-the-thumb technique (sometimes called “pinch” harmonics).

Jesus Just Left Chicago

The songwriters (ZZ Top) have done a decent job of getting into the mindset of the people who followed Jesus about Galilee watching him do extraordinary things, and to help them do it they’ve used modern settings: Chicago, California etc. Just imagine Jesus travelling about the towns in your locality, doing amazing things like healing people who were incurable, showing people God cared, teaching the truth about God – in fact, “taking care of business”. Social media would be ablaze! “Where is he today?” – “I heard he was heading such-and-such direction…” “Let’s go and find him!”

I used to play this song with my band The Unknown, but that version had entirely different lyrics. For copyright reasons it seemed wiser to go with the one on this album, not least because the line that provided the title wasn’t in the rewritten version!

Lazy blues tracks like this aren’t everyone’s cup of tea as they can sometimes seem to stretch out forever, but I happen to love them… though actually they can rise and fall in intensity as the song unfolds. It’s all about how they’re arranged and about the passion brought by the individual musician or singer. I hope I’ve delivered that here.

Our Beloved / What A Friend We Have In Jesus

The piece acting as a long intro here to What A Friend gets its name from a phrase in C.S. Lewis’s Voyage To Venus. In the book, the Green Lady refers to Maleldil (Christ) as “Our Beloved”. The instrumental was originally conceived as a handful of different pieces which weren’t really strong enough on their own, but which married well, and with the tempo adjusted to match the song following, I think it works nicely to bring the listener into an unfamiliar tune to a well-known gospel song.

Some people will ask, if it ain’t broke, why fix it? Why write a new tune when the old one is so well beloved? Well, some years ago when I was in my local church’s praise band, I was given a recording of a new version of What A Friend and asked to learn it. I’m afraid I wasn’t impressed; I thought it was pretty indifferent. I felt sure I could do better. If there had to be a new tune, surely it ought to have something more to offer than some effort that I forgot as soon as I had finished playing the tape!

I had not long previously been to see BB King live, and the support band (whose name I don’t recall) played some slow-to-medium tempo songs where they had a trick of building up the intensity to a point just short of a storm, then falling back again without letting the storm happen. I have tried something similar here with my arrangement. You’ll notice that the first line remains identical to that of the original tune, except that the chords underneath go in an unexpected direction. That was the starting point for my new version.

The link below is to the album playlist on YouTube, but you can find the album on all the usual streaming and download services; just search for To All Those Who Have Longed For His Appearing, or my name, David J. Ferguson (don’t forget the “J.” because there are apparently a bazillion David Fergusons out there). Obviously all plays, follows, likes and shares on social media will be greatly appreciated!

That’s all for now. Enjoy!

Some thoughts on “Devs” and determinism

Warning: spoilers ahead!

I’ve been watching the BBC TV series “Devs”, a sci-fi show that plays with a lot of philosophical and religious ideas.

Forest, a computer entrepreneur who lost his wife and daughter in a car accident, has become obsessed with the idea of getting his daughter back by using a quantum-based computer system called Devs – or more correctly, Deus, the Latin word for God. His corporation, Amaya, is named after his dead daughter, and her image is everywhere; there is even a 60-metre tall statue of her in the grounds of the Amaya complex. (He does not appear to be similarly troubled by the loss of his wife. I can only suppose that is because a man as rich as he is should not find candidates for a new wife hard to come by.) Forest himself looks like a slightly unkempt version of how Jesus often looks in popular art, which is presumably deliberate; there are shots where the camera catches him standing in front of a circular light that looks like a halo around his head. He is a powerful man, a man who must be obeyed, a man with the power of life and death over the other characters; yet he is curiously ineffectual when it comes to restraining his rather villainous Head of Security, or generally preventing bad things from happening. He blames determinism; the universe is fixed – everything couldn’t have been other than the way it is, so nobody is to blame for anything bad, though he is sympathetic when bad stuff happens.

The central idea of the plot is that a quantum computer of sufficient complexity could in theory simulate the entire universe, extrapolating all data from relatively little input (so Forest’s supercomputer is able to act as a chronoscope, an invention not unfamiliar to sci-fi fans – it turned up in Doctor Who away back in the 1960s, and I also used it in my own book No Paradox. See also E.E. “Doc” Smith’s Lensman series of books, where he has a godlike character explain that any sufficiently able mind could deduce the entire universe given only one fact.)

Forest believes that because of something called quantum entanglement, changes to the simulation will result in changes to the real universe, enabling him to reprogram it and get his daughter back again. But he has not taken account of the “fact” that the multiverse is real. Every possible universe is out there, which means all possible choices are real. The universe can be manipulated, but not in the way he thought. The story finishes in a way that is not exactly what he was anticipating, but not radically different either: we have a happy-ever-after scenario where God is (metaphorically speaking) elbowed out of the way by the multiverse.

Now, determinism as explained in Devs seems perfectly reasonable and logical, right up to the point where you realise it must mean free will is an illusion. Everything happens because the previous thing happened, so given that the previous thing was what it was, whatever happens next must be inevitable. The philosophy of determinism is not just something from a TV show; it is an old argument against the idea that God could condemn us for being sinners. How could He blame us when we had no choice?

The writers of Devs are correct to point out that this idea of determinism won’t do; it needs to be refined, nuanced. I would begin by asking you to think about what you are. You are a being that thinks, that feels, that hopes, that believes, that chooses, that observes, that has opinions, ambitions, experiences… This should be the starting point of any argument. It constitutes data that the determinists are simply ignoring. It requires an explanation, not dismissal as an illusion. We know that machines do not require a personality; they require parts that interact in just the right way and no other. If the universe is basically just a great machine – if your body is just a machine – then whence comes this observer with his opinions about how it all works? The observer is real. Even the word “illusion” blows the gaff: an illusion by definition needs an observer to perceive it. If there was nobody there to be deceived, no explanation would need to be offered that what was being experienced was an illusion. There would be nobody having the experience. There would be nobody choosing this opinion about it over that one.

Devs suggests that the further missing element in the determinists’ explanation is the existence of other universes (or more properly, other continua) where literally every alternative has actuality. This doesn’t hit the bullseye, but there is an element of truth in it which I will come to in a moment. The reason that it is not the solution is simple: wouldn’t everyone in one of those other universes be locked into the chain of cause and effect that determines that universe, just as much as we are (apparently) locked into ours?

Here is the answer: spirit. Yes, there is at least one other continuum, or level of reality. Causes in that continuum can have effects in this one (and vice versa), but the relationship is not symmetrical. The ability to interface on that level was, to begin with, a basic part of Human construction. This is what enables free will, and why sin diminishes it. Of course, determinism still applies in the material world, so our free will was always going to be constrained to a certain extent. There is even a kind of non-physical determinism where one thought leads to another by association, and still another where thought leads to thought by reasoning. But we must not let ourselves be argued out of believing in spirit. It is the most essential part of our being. It is the part that wills. It is the part of us that is most like God.

God spoke, and everything began. He wills something, and it is. That’s how the universe works.

David Ferguson is an author and musician. You can find his books on Amazon and you can find his music online on Spotify, iTunes, etc. (Search for David J. Ferguson. Don’t forget the “J.” because there are apparently a bazillion David Fergusons out there.)

This is a sci-fi story featuring time travel.

All Hallows

The house was definitely haunted. The monster haunting it had been not-quite-unknowingly invited in by the brutal wickedness of its first occupants, selfish, abusive people with more money than good reasons to spend it. It rejoiced in their sin and nursed them along to a place where they presently gave in to their most base impulses, and in one foul night of rape, murder and suicide, every one of them perished and was gathered to the bosom of Hell.

Over the next hundred and fifty years, the house was passed on from relative to relative, none of whom were inclined to stay long (the brute saw to that); then it was let out to a succession of hapless tenants who were unaware of the place’s grim history, and certainly unaware until it was too late of who, or rather what, they were sharing their home with.

Then the house lay dank and empty for nearly twenty years, its history hanging around it like a bad smell from a swamp. The monster waited impatiently for new victims, making do in the meantime with terrorising the dreams of the neighbours’ children and enjoying the frisson of fear from those who were obliged to walk past it on gloomy evenings. It drifted about the neighbourhood conjuring illusions of crying children, terrified women and dark men in masks with long, wickedly curved knives.

Every Halloween, some foolish teenagers, dared by their friends to break into the house and spend the night there, left the place with unseen scars on their soul, foul images of rats and spiders and decay tattooed on their minds where there ought to have been dreams of hope and warmth and love. The monster rejoiced at every small success it had in smearing foulness on their hearts and kept hoping that one day it might repeat its first great triumph, using murder and suicide to send more unsuspecting fools on to the next world unprepared.

Then an opportunity to do just that seemed to develop. A woman in a dark business suit arrived at the gate one dull Autumn afternoon. She pushed her way through the brambles that overlapped the path like old women’s bony fingers, and stood looking at the house. It seemed to stare back at her with a threatening expression. She shook her head and stepped forward to the front door. She unlocked it and pushed it open, then stood in the entrance for a moment waiting for the dust to settle. Fumbling in her bag for a moment she found her mobile phone, summoned up the camera app and began taking pictures. Then she moved inside, photographing the rest of the rooms, being careful not to allow herself to brush up against anything.

The monster watched her carefully, understanding that it needed to allow her to do her work undisturbed, yet unable to resist planting at least one dark suggestion in her mind; it was a slave to its own unpleasantness. She finished what she was doing in a hurry and left.

Several days later, workmen arrived. They smartened up the overgrown land at both front and back, installed new windows, replaced shingles on the roof, rewired the place and did a hundred other things to bring it, kicking and screaming, into the twenty-first century. The result was actually surprisingly pleasing: the house had scrubbed up very nicely.

The monster was pleased too. It was only a matter of time before someone snapped up this very desirable residence.

The workmen finished up, gathered their tools and left, glad to be shot of the job so they could move on to some location that did not bring unexpected shivers and disturbing daydreams.

Only a fortnight later, a young couple with a van full of boxes pulled up outside the house. They stood for a moment grinning and looking at their new home, full of the hope of a new life begun together, still not quite able to come to terms with their good fortune in acquiring such a big property with their limited means, and hugged each other before going inside to have a look around.

By the time the day ended, they had their home about as well furnished as it was going to be for a while: a bed, one sofa and one armchair, an oven and a fridge that had both seen better days, and just about enough knives, forks, cups and plates to do the two of them and maybe one visitor. It didn’t matter. They were delighted and thankful.

The monster watched them, affronted by their naïve happiness, feeling a monumental rage building. It would soon put them in their place. These poor fools would be sorry they had ever seen this house.

Evening drew in. The new man of the house busied himself with the routine of checking that everything was locked up and switched off while his wife went upstairs and got ready for bed. He finished it off by dropping into the armchair and just sitting there for a moment, enjoying the novel feeling of being in his very own home. Then he leaned forward and bowed his head.

Upstairs, the lady was sitting on the edge of the bed with an open book before her. She read just a few lines, but it seemed to be enough for her; she bowed her head too.

If the monster had been a creature of flesh and blood, it would have clenched its fists and ground its teeth. Prayer, indeed! And was that book really a Bible? It forgot all its plans of a gradual assault. It would rip these two apart. There would be blood and screaming before they had been here a week. It would show these stupid animals how useless faith was in the face of horror.

It gathered itself up in a sense that there are not really any adequate words for, except that it was perhaps the spirit-equivalent of drawing a great breath to scream, or a tensing of the muscles to strike a ferociously heavy blow.

The young woman suddenly raised her head and opened her eyes, holding still as if listening. She did not quite know what was amiss, but it was immediately clear to the brute that her faith was not something sleepy or wishy-washy. It was alert, sharp as a kitchen knife being brandished in the face of an intruder. The brute’s rage increased.

The woman uttered something. The monster could not have told exactly what it was, but it felt something beginning to shake at its very core.

Downstairs, the young man raised his hands heavenward and began to sing quietly.

It was too much to bear. The brute let out a long, wordless, soundless roar, the greatest roar it had ever articulated, the expression of the very deepest hatred in its being.

In the houses surrounding, children sprang upright in bed and screamed for their mothers. People felt their knees and their bowels turning to jelly but had no idea why. On arms and on the backs of necks, hairs rose. Lights flickered. Everyone felt the impulse to draw a blanket around themselves, as if a wind from the coldest part of Hell had blown over the roof. One old man’s heart gave out, and he slipped into the next world before he could call on God to save him. It was the monster’s last victory.

The young woman spoke quietly once more, words that were at once simple, decisive, incomprehensible and incomprehensibly unsettling to the creature threatening her; and everything changed.

The monster had the sensation (- sensation! How could it have a sensation? It was a spirit-being!) of being grabbed by the shoulders by great blunt fingers that dug into it painfully, mercilessly, like the serrated edge of a mechanical digger’s bucket digs into the earth. Something – no, Someone – roared at it with a depth of wrath that made its own wrath a moment before seem unspeakably puny. It was like being held in a jet of blazing napalm. The unseen hands endlessly shook the monster like a rag doll, and it could not even entertain the notion of resistance.

Then the material world seemed to retreat an infinite distance, and the brute felt itself being flung backwards, skinning its arms as if on the uprights of a doorway before hitting the wall beyond and bouncing off it to land with a wallop on the floor. There was a great crash as of a metal door slamming, then the sound of bolting and double-bolting on the other side.

In the silence that ensued, the monster tried to get to grips with its situation. It was in the most complete blackness imaginable, but it could feel that it had a body, and it was able to touch a cold steel floor and steel walls all around. It roared its fury again, as if expecting the metal cell to fly apart at the mere sound, but the yell was weak and pathetic; the cell trembled no more than a brick wall would in the face of a toddler’s tantrum. It held itself still and listened again. Very, very faintly, it thought it could hear the sound from above of dirt being shovelled and then patted down. Then there was nothing, for ever and ever.

The monster wanted to cry out and ask what was happening and how this was possible, but it knew the answer even before the question had been asked. They don’t want to think about their final fate, but all monsters know it is coming. They have always known. Holiness terrifies them much more than they have ever terrified us.

Silence and darkness settled on the monster with the weight of a millstone. Its long, long Halloween was over. All Hallows had finally arrived.

David Ferguson is an author and musician. You can find his books on Amazon and you can find his music online on Spotify, iTunes, etc. (Search for David J. Ferguson. Don’t forget the “J.” because there are apparently a gazillion David Fergusons out there.)

How Do You Shoot People Into The Kingdom?

I just read a pro-gun posting from an American FB friend.

Postings like this trouble me on so many levels, even apart from the bluster and nonsense they inevitably come wrapped up in, such as the Holocaust was the result of gun control, gun control will bring about a nightmare socialist state, etc.

As you may know, I come from Northern Ireland, where, after many years, terrorists stopped bombing and shooting when they subscribed to the Good Friday Agreement.

Nobody here now wants guns to be a part of everyday life. The military and the Police service have guns; nobody else here wants or needs guns except wicked people who would like to stir it all up again. Every decent person is glad to see the back of that sort of thing. We have seen the trouble that is brought by trying to solve things by shooting at them. And we are not in the least bit worried by the prospect of Nazis (of whatever stripe), or socialism, or some other -ism suddenly overtaking us because individual citizens don’t have guns.

But I think the thing that troubles me the most is when it is a Christian who is advocating guns. If you are a soldier or a Policeman, fine; using a gun is part of your job. For everyone else, especially Christians – how do you shoot people into the Kingdom? Aren’t you, by ending someone’s life, more likely to be taking away any further chance they may have had to repent? Where does it say in scripture that this is your choice and not God’s?

Imagine yourself in the position of Stephen, the first martyr. If you had a gun, would you have shot the people who were trying to stone you? If your answer is “Yes,” perhaps you don’t understand what is at stake as well as you think you do. Jesus said that it was better to enter Heaven with one eye, or one hand, than to enter Hell with both. The needs of the King (and the Kingdom) sometimes require that we let go of what is really precious to us. If Jesus appeared to you in person and said “No more guns for you,” would you obey him? – Because I think that is exactly what he is asking of His servants in America. We need to remember that the Kingdom matters much, much more than any right to bear arms or fight for some cause (yes, even freedom).

For years Northern Ireland was “That place where the Christians are killing each other,” and even in these days we sometimes find our efforts to spread the gospel obstructed by having to waste time responding to the inevitable “Ah, but what about Northern Ireland?”

Unfortunately, it looks to me as if we are long past the point where America has stepped into our (unwanted) role as the place unbelievers routinely reference with Ah, but – “Ah, but what about gun-mad Christians in America?” My American brothers and sisters, listen to me. You need to deal with this now. It is already set to be a millstone around the necks of evangelists, especially American evangelists, for many years to come. All that effort put into defending gun ownership should be going into a more worthy cause, the cause of the Kingdom.

Modern Christians: too sophisticated to say we’re “Saved”?

Back in the day (at least in Northern Ireland, where I live) you could use the word “saved” and nobody thought it was the least bit out of place. “So-and-so got saved last Sunday.”  “He doesn’t drink any more, he’s saved.” “I’ve been saved for thirty years.”

For some time now, though, the word has had the sort of quality that makes people – even Christians – cringe a bit. We associate it with working class people who go to wooden-built, tin-roofed mission halls and say “thee” and “thou” and “thy” when they pray; with painfully square young Christians with guitars (usually plastered with stickers that say “I ♥ Jesus”), trying and failing to be hip; with those awkward moments in casual conversations when religion surfaces and we don’t quite know the right tack to take.

In short, we’re snobs. We don’t want to own a word like “saved”, even though the Bible is not shy about mentioning salvation; even though we’re happy to sing that God is “Mighty to save”; even though we actually believe that we have been saved to the uttermost. “Saved” just isn’t sophisticated enough for us.

I’m not just saying this as a slap on the wrist. What I would really like to highlight here is that there is a more serious angle to this.

Once upon a time, I went in for the ministry. (I didn’t get to be a minister… but never mind. It’s a long story.) One of the stages in the process back then was a “residential interview”. This meant spending a couple of days in Union Theological College, where candidates took part in various activities, including being interviewed a couple of times by a panel. In one of the downtime moments, when the candidates and the panels were mixing, having tea and biscuits in the canteen, I sat at a table with some folks who were discussing a certain person. Said person was apparently guilty of some rather unChristian behaviour. I felt sure I must have missed an important part of the context and got the wrong end of the stick about this person. I asked, “Is he saved?”

The man opposite me (I don’t know whether he was a candidate or someone sitting on one of the panels) replied in a tone of utmost scorn: “Saved from what?”

I was flummoxed by this. It was not what you would expect to hear from someone in that particular company. (I also happen to be one of those unfortunate people who can always think of a good reply long after the opportunity to offer it has disappeared.)

Some time later I heard the same thing… from a Mormon. You can have quite long conversations with them, trying to tease out the differences between what they believe and what mainstream Christians believe, and get nowhere fast because they use the same religious terminology (and don’t let on that it often means, for them, something entirely different).  On this particular occasion, the person I was speaking to must have allowed her impatience to get the better of her; in response to my use of the word “saved” she said (with the air of someone whipping the carpet out from under a debating opponent): “Saved from what?”

Saved, it seems, could be a very useful means of smoking out wafflers, people who are religious but not necessarily authentic Christians (something they themselves need to see). So I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, and I’m not going to be ashamed to say I’m saved.

In the meantime, I have put the answer that I should have given that man and that Mormon woman into a song, and I recommend that you memorise at least the first verse of it for those moments when someone says to you, “Saved from what?”

Saved from death, saved from Hell, saved from sin
One day saved from the troubles I’m in
Saved to serve, saved to love, saved to give
Saved to follow the Christ, saved to live

Saved from enemies dragging me down
He saved me for honour and a crown
Saved to know deepest peace, saved to see
Saved to be everything I should be

Saved to know satisfaction and joy
That no-one can steal or destroy
Though each day may bring tears till I die
One day He’ll wipe every tear from my eye

Hallelujah, hallelujah, hallelujah (x2)

I am saved, yes I’m saved, I am saved (x2)

If you have the Spotify app, click here (if not it’ll give you other options and an extract of the song):

David Ferguson is a musician and author. You can find his books on Amazon (search in the books section for David J. Ferguson); and you can find his music online on Spotify, iTunes, etc. Do have a look (and a listen)! (Again, search for David J. Ferguson.)

Meditation: On Transhumanism

Those of you who have been watching the BBC TV drama “Years And Years” (at the time of writing, I’ve just seen the first two episodes) will have come across the ideas of a group of people who call themselves Transhumanists. This isn’t just something that the writer has dreamed up. Transhumanists think that technology provides opportunities for Humans to become more than we currently are. This might mean small advances like surgical implants that augment our natural abilities; we can already do stuff like audio implants and pacemakers, but in the show, a teenager has her mobile phone implanted so that it becomes a part of her. Much more radical things are conceivable.

But the most radical of all is the idea that you could do away with your body altogether: your mind could be uploaded into a virtual environment that will simulate every sensory input. Assuming that the computing resources are up to the job and that there are no issues in the physical world, you could in theory experience anything at all. You could “be” a man, or a woman, or a dog. You could be Elizabeth Bennett or Superman. You could live your life over again and win the sweetheart you failed to get in real life. You could experience things that are utterly impossible in the real world, like travelling to the far side of the galaxy. You could experience any religion’s version of Heaven or Hell.

Of course, there is a catch; more than one, in fact. Firstly, who is in charge? Is it you, or the person in the real world whose job it is to programme and maintain the system? Is it one of the other people “in” the system? Ideally, each user would be protected against malicious interference; but people have a way of finding loopholes in things. You could be trapped in someone else’s fantasy. If the programmer has a wicked sense of humour, there is no telling how he might spoil your perfect world. Secondly, some extraordinary disaster might damage the system and leave you without any sensory input; you could spend years of virtual time like one of those unfortunate people who return from a war blind, deaf, and with both arms and legs blown off. Thirdly, if the virtual environment is so marvellous, why would anyone want the dull job of staying in the real world to maintain the system?

The fourth catch is more important still: the Transhumanists proposing to upload themselves just don’t understand how computers work. When something is uploaded or downloaded, say a file from a computer in New York to a computer in London, nothing is actually transferred from New York to London except information. That means a duplicate of the original file in New York is assembled in London. So in any attempt to upload yourself to a computer, at the end of the process you’d still be you, right there in your own body; only a duplicate of whatever was in your head would be in the computer. (We had better hope that people don’t get routinely tranquilised for this process, to make disposal of the body less troublesome… “Hey! What’s going on? I’m still here! Nothing happened! Wait! Where are you taking me? I can’t speak or move… Stop! Stop! I’m alive! No, don’t put me in that waste disposal chute!” Edgar Allan Poe’s grim, claustrophobic little story “The Premature Burial” springs to mind at this point.)

The fifth catch is, in my opinion, the biggest. It is simply that your inner self doesn’t reside entirely in your head. Let me explain.

It used to be thought that people only used a small fraction of their brainpower. The plot of the movie “Lucy”, starring Scarlett Johanssen, hinges on this notion. However, advances in neurology have shown that pretty much every part of the brain has a function. So, in the very little neurological territory that hasn’t been mapped, where is there room for your memories? We still don’t understand the chemical basis for biological memory. But clearly your memories must take up many terabytes of data (at least). How does the brain have room for them all?

My idea is this: it doesn’t. The scientists have ended up with this conundrum because words like “soul” and “spirit” are no longer part of their vocabulary. You and I are not just biological machines; each of us is based in the material universe, but not the entirety of who we are. Your brain is a tool you use to interact with the world; it’s not necessarily the place where your memories are stored or where your actual self is grounded. (This doesn’t mean injury or dementia won’t still reduce your brain’s ability to summon up your memories for you or perform its other functions. Even if a TV station is broadcasting perfectly well, the TV won’t show the programme if a brick has been hurled through the screen.)

Where is the evidence for this? Well, you are the evidence. You can feel and wish and choose and reason, none of which ought to be possible if the material world is all there is. You can choose, despite the logic of the sceptics telling you that you shouldn’t be able to because free will is “really” an illusion. And the only thing that could make your ability to choose possible is if some part of you – that part that does the choosing – is not locked into this world’s great chain of cause and effect in the same way as your physical body. You must have (or be) a soul.

The upshot of all this is: you can’t upload someone’s soul into a computer.

David Ferguson is a musician and the author of ten books. You can find his books on Amazon (search in the books section for David J. Ferguson); and you can find his music online on Spotify, iTunes, etc. Do have a look (and a listen)!