A Blessed Holy Week to All our Readers
†

April 2014

“At present we see as through a glass darkly, but then face to face.”
I Corinthians 13.12

“The Canon of Rightness: There is running through the nature of the Universe something that we call a canon. It is the thing which is referred to in the Gospel of John as the logos or the word. The engineer and the artist refer to it when they say that they have got something right. Other people mean the same thing when they talk about absolute truth or reality. Genuine success only accompanies a consistent attempt to discover and to conform to this canon in no matter what sphere our activities may lie. There is one single test which can be applied to any financial scheme which is put to you for consideration, and that is, whether it represents reality...”
E.D. Butler from “Social Credit and the Christian Philosophy”

“Words cannot convey the truth alone. They can only point to it, like signposts, but unlike them, they are unattached, not firmly fixed in the ground pointing the right way. It is the hearer who has to pick them up, as you might a fallen signpost, and fix them correctly in the ground of his experience with the real world. To drop the analogy, the truth in words can be found only by seeking the sense in which they are true — and discarding the many interpretations in which they are not...”
Geoffrey Dobbs in “Trinity and Reality” 1983

The Seen and the Unseen - And what of the healing of the man who was blind from birth?
John 9.25: “Whether he is a sinner or not, I don’t know. One thing I do know. I was blind but now I see!”
Just as John Newton, the former captain of slave ships could write: “Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound that saved a wretch like me. I once was lost but now am found, was blind but now I see.” It is a spiritual insight - and we all need to seek it. “Amazing Grace" is one of the most recognizable Christian hymns in the English-speaking world. The text by English poet and Anglican clergyman John Newton (1725–1807) was first published in 1779. The words describe in first person the move of a "wretch" from a "lost" to a "found" state by a merciful act of God.” ... Wikipedia

God clothed the lilies of the field
I am reminded of Geoffrey Dobbs’ words when I read the words of Jesus in Matthew 6:28-30: “And why are ye anxious concerning raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: yet I say unto you, that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. But if God doth so clothe* the grass of the field, which today is, and tomorrow is cast into the oven, shall he not more clothe ye of little faith?” Surely as one considers the lilies of the field, one has to: reflect on; think carefully about; give careful consideration to; look at attentively; analyse carefully; see. But what is it that we are seeing? Remember words cannot convey the truth alone – they can only point to the truth. Are not Jesus Christ’s words pointing to God clothing the lilies of the field before the very eyes of the onlooker? Raiment is what human beings are concerned about; that is, the physical/material world we can see and touch and feel. But it is God who continually forms the lilies of the field, giving them shape, structure, substance, colour and fragrance. We cannot ‘see’ God continually creating and forming and structuring, but we can see the effects! Just as God ‘clothes’ the lilies of the field He also ‘clothes’ us: “Shall He not more ‘clothe’ ye of little faith?” *Take a look at some of the Time-Lapse photography on the Internet… and then you might begin to ‘see’ the truth taking shape before your very eyes

L. D. Byrne left a word picture of what C.H. Douglas could ‘see’ which has inspired Social Crediters down through the years:
“There is running through the warp and woof of the Universe the law of Righteousness - Divine Law – which C.H. Douglas termed the Canon. Because of the higher intelligence and freewill accorded to him, Man cannot rely on instinct to guide him in his adherence to the Canon. He must seek it, and to the extent that he finds it and conforms to it, he will achieve harmony with the Universe and his Creator. Conversely, to the degree that he ignores the operation of the Canon and flouts it, he will bring disaster upon himself.

Byrne continued: It was inherent in Douglas's writings that he viewed society as something partaking of the nature of an Organism which could 'have life and life more abundant' to the extent it was God-centred and obedient to His Canon… Within it (this organism) the sovereignty of ‘God the Creator of all things visible and invisible’ being absolute, there must be full recognition of the sanctity of human personality and, therefore, of the individual person as free to live his life, and within the body social, to enter or contract out of such associations as, with responsibility to his Creator, he may choose. And no person may deny to another this relationship to God and his fellow men without committing sacrilege. This concept, reflecting the ideal of Christendom as the integration of Church and Society which was the inspiration of European Civilisation for centuries, involves adherence to a policy in every sphere of social life, economic, political and cultural. This is the policy, which Douglas termed 'Social Credit'. Looking out upon the world with a clarity of vision which was unique in his time, Douglas saw a Civilisation doomed to the opposite policy, stemming from a conflicting policy, a philosophy which defied Man and sought to subjugate the world to him…”

Comment by editor: At this most holy time in the Christian year, it is not for a layman such as myself to do more than refer to the Mystery of Golgotha, but I do know that as I spend time in contemplating the events, it is impossible to think of the Mystery of Golgotha without thinking of the Risen Christ. It was St Paul who profoundly uttered the words: “If Christ be not risen then all our faith is vain.” And as the Christian Church joyfully proclaims at the culmination of the Holy Week services:

Christ is Risen! He is Risen Indeed!

Letter to US President Reagan from a Russian Patriot
Alexander Solzhenitsyn recognised the fundamental need for a national spiritual renewal, not only among his own people but recognised the western world was also involved in this great spiritual battle - and was losing. A spiritual renewal, he believed, was how a sick society gained the path to moral soundness. Material well-being, intellectual accomplishments, technological breakthroughs, captivating new ideologies would not cure the sickness. In some quarters, Solzhenitsyn’s uncompromising vision didn’t win him any friends. But he had often laid his life on the line for what he believed, and the carping of the intelligentsia was a small thing. Anyway, prophets aren’t interested in popularity contests.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn was tragically misunderstood by Americans
by Donald Hank

Solzhenitsyn is known as a writer who addressed issues like the lack of freedom in the USSR, for example, in his novels “Gulag Archipelago” and “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich”. But few are aware that his greatest contribution to the world was his thorough fact-finding research on the early years prior to the Russian Revolution and the first years thereafter.

Solzhenitsyn would go to the local library and ask for copies of pre-revolution newspapers. He would laboriously copy out passages that contradicted the Soviet revisionist histories. He also frequently checked out any items of interest in this regard, making library officials suspicious. He was soon tailed by Soviet agents, who interrogated him and ultimately had him arrested.

He was able to hide much of this copied information from them and later use it in his novels. Thus Solzhenitsyn was much more than just a novelist. He was a chronicler and historian. And he was the only living Soviet who did this to such an extent. He filled a dark void and it is hard to imagine a world without his contribution. Solzhenitsyn admitted that he was, initially, just another Soviet citizen who hardly questioned the regime and its motives and agenda. Yet, his curiosity led him to knowledge, and knowledge ultimately led to freedom.

But it was a long hard journey, and few understand the sufferings he went through. Even fewer understand his sufferings in America, where he lived for a few years while employed by Harvard University. Here he was snubbed by those who should have befriended him. And he was snubbed – ultimately – simply for being a Russian patriot. President Reagan’s advisors wrongly categorized Solzhenitsyn as an extreme nationalist, when he was nothing but a man who loved his country. No wonder then that he returned disillusioned to Russia and became reconciled with some of the people who were once his persecutors.

Who knows what direction Russia would have taken if America had befriended Solzhenitsyn instead of marginalizing him? And it didn’t have to be that way. American conservatives must divorce their feelings about evil regimes from their feelings toward the people who have suffered under those regimes. How can God bless us if we do not? I had stumbled across Solzhenitsyn’s letter to Reagan, and had long wrestled with the idea of translating it but was thwarted by 2 considerations:
1-Perhaps the letter had already been published in English;
2-Perhaps it would not change any minds or produce any tangible benefit for Americans.

But now that our dear friend of freedom is gone, I decided to investigate and found no mention of the letter in English anywhere on the Web. And I thought perhaps someone may benefit from reading it. Not that I wish to highlight the failure of those Americans responsible for offending the writer. It is rather my desire to help Americans of our generation to learn from our past mistakes.

I am not a “nationalist” at all – I am a Patriot
Letter to President Reagan - published in the book “Aleksander Solzhenitsyn”, Yaroslavl, Verkhnaja Volga, 1997, translated by Donald Hank.

Former US President Ronald Reagan

Russian Patriot Alexander Solzhenitsyn

Cavendish, May 3, 1982
Dear Mr. President,
I am delighted with many aspects of your activity, and am happy for America that it finally has a president like you. I never cease to thank God that you were not killed by those malicious bullets.

However, I have never had the honour of being received at the White House — neither in the Ford administration (the question arose there without my participation), nor later. In recent months, roundabout inquiries have come to me through various routes asking under what circumstances I would be willing to accept an invitation to visit the White House. I always responded that I was willing to go for a substantive discussion with you under circumstances providing the opportunity for a serious effective conversation, but not for an open ceremony. I do not have time in my life for symbolic meetings.

However, I was offered (in a telephone call from advisor Pipes) not a personal meeting with you but a luncheon with the participation of emigrant politicians. The same sources announced that this would be a luncheon for “Soviet dissidents.” However, an artistic writer in the Russian sense does not belong to either of these groups. I cannot allow myself to be assigned a false rank. Further, the fact, form and date of the reception were sent and released to the press before I was informed myself. To this day, I have not received any information on even the names of the persons who were invited along with me for May 11.

Still worse, the press reported various hesitations on the part of the White House and publicly announced that the White House had not refuted the statement of the reason why a meeting with me was considered undesirable, namely, because I was “a symbol of extreme Russian nationalism.” This statement is offensive to my countrymen, to whose suffering I have dedicated my entire literary life.

I am not a “nationalist” at all. I am a patriot. In other words, I love my country — and that is why I also understand why others love theirs. On more than one occasion, I have publicly stated that the vital interests of the peoples of the USSR demand the immediate cessation of all global seizures by the Soviets. If people who think as I do came to power in the USSR, their first step would be to pull out of Central America, Africa, Asia and Eastern Europe, leaving these nations to decide their own fate. Their second step would be to stop the murderous arms race, devote the country’s efforts to healing the internal nearly century-old wounds of an already moribund populace. And, of course, they would open the doors to those who wish to emigrate from our hapless country.

Amazingly, none of this suits your nearest advisers! They want something else. They call this [my] program “extreme Russian nationalism,” and some American generals are proposing selectively destroying the Russian population with an atomic strike. It is odd that in the world today Russian nationalism evokes the greatest fear both in the potentates of the USSR and in the people around you. Here is evidenced the hostile stance toward Russia herself, the country and the people, independently of government forms, which is characteristic of a substantial segment of American educated society, American financial circles and, sadly, even your advisers. This attitude is harmful to the future of our two nations.

Mr. President, it is with heavy heart that I write this letter. But I think that if a meeting with you somewhere were considered undesirable because you are an American patriot, you would also be offended. Once you are no longer president, if you are ever in Vermont, I will be sincerely happy to meet with you at my home.

Since this entire episode has been subjected to a distorted interpretation and it is quite likely that my motives for not travelling there have already been distorted, I feel that I will be obliged to publish this letter. Forgive me.

With sincere respect,
Alexander Solzhenitsyn