Dear Christis,

I am writing in reply to Kristin Malet’s Letter in issue 33, in response to my article in issue 31. Due to the large amount of effort that those involved in Christis do behind the scenes, this will no doubt appear in issue 35, and hence a good memory will be required, or dig out past copies of ‘I can’t get rid of that’ Sitting in the corner of your room.

Firstly, thank you for taking the time to put your thoughts into writing. I have to admit that several people spoke to me about the article, but have unfortunately been too busy to actually write in to Christis. I am sorry that you found it hard to follow my ‘argument’, although I would myself prefer the word ‘postulate’, although I am a physicist. As for “dismayed”, I feel almost complemented, since it has made at least one think about what they have read, enough to disagree so strongly as to write in.

If I can be so awkward as to deal with the last point first, as to the title of What’s going on?. This was not my title, I have checked the copy saved on my hard disc to be sure. I sent in the article with no title, and therefore the Editorial of Christis for issue 31 are responsible for the title. Certainly catchy though. However, like everyone who thinks rather than follows blindly, I do want to know ‘What’s going on’. (I think that my degree choice mentioned earlier in part demonstrates my will to know what, why, when and how.)

Your presumption is, I am afraid wrong. The narrator is not God, but one of the band of human people who were in ‘control’ at that time. While it is true to say that this may sound a stupid proposition; since why would one of those who has power be eroding it from themselves and their comrades at the same time, the medium term effect appears to have worked, as so prescribed in the article in part. Even I would have doubts about publishing an article in Christis , or any other publication for that matter, in which I stated I knew the mind of God. It is a most untenable position, in my mind at least. As for ‘the populace’, this is dealt with by my definition of my narrator above. (It has occurred to me that some might say that God acted directly through the chosen narrator and so I am thereby stating God’s position. That is no doubt a valid point of view, although the wording used in the article would then have to be seen as the human reflection of God’s will enacted.)

As a penultimate point, you state that this appears to be an attack on the bible and so forth. However, in order to prove that this is unjustly aimed, you direct me to this same book that I have allegedly been deriding. It would be surely more convincing to this alleged position if you were to direct me to some of the other evidence from the same period, that I would deem slightly less biased to say the least, to prove the case for the bible. Indeed, you even take a quote from the bible, although the assumption that Jesus’ coming ended the need for rules I find slightly interesting, but that is another issue.

Finally several people have asked me, (including a Chaplain’s wife), as to whether I believe in what I have said. While it is fair to say I do not subscribe 100% to the whole postulate, I do believe adamantly that in part, the bible was written for the postulated reasons. Please note that I use the word believe, and not know, since I have not seen enough evidence. (Unlike Kristin who “know[s] He is the way, the truth and the life.”, a most fair remark in her defence I believe.)

Magnus Smyley