Paul Hart's Ruminations on Faith, Family and Photography

'Radical'

2011-10-03T22:59:00.003Z

This is the title of a book I'm reading at the moment, which has (perhaps happily) distracted me from the book by Keith Ward.

This book is written by David Platt, and the subtitle is 'Taking back your faith from the American Dream.' It is a challenge to consider how we have manipulated the gospel to fit our cultural preferences. It is the most hard-hitting and challenging book I have read for years.

Here's one paragraph, taken from page 111:

"So what is the difference between someone who wilfully indulges in sexual pleasures while ignoring the Bible on moral purity, and someone who wilfully indulges in the selfish pursuit of more and more material possessions while ignoring the Bible on caring for the poor? The difference is that one involves a social taboo in the church and the other involves the social norm in the church."

Ouch.

Keith Ward: 'What the Bible Really Teaches - A Challenge for Fundamentalists"

2011-07-26T21:40:00.003Z

Keith Ward used to be the Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford University. He published 'What the Bible Really Teaches - A Challenge for Fundamentalists' in 2004.

The title and subtitle attracted and repelled me in equal measure.

It was the title that repelled me. Anyone - even a former Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford - who can presume, after millennia of Christian reflection by some of the world's finest brains, to tell us what the Bible really means, is not lacking in confidence.

And yes, the subtitle attracted me. 'Fundamentalist' is now a term of art. In theological use, it no longer means someone who believes the core doctrines of the Christian faith. Life would be simpler if that were so. It has come to mean someone who is anti-intellectual and anti-science. It means someone who has a rigid commitment to a literal interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis, even though this arguably trivialises the text and misses its point.

The book begins in a beguiling way. The opening lines are: 'I am a born-again Christian. I can give a precise day when Christ came to me and began to transform my life with his power and love.'

Taken at face value, that's promising. Could this be an intelligent expose by a Christian scholar of the unhelpful contributions of modern fundamentalists?

Sadly, the next sentence raises doubts. 'He did not make me a saint', says Ward. Perhaps he understands the word 'saint' less well than he understands the word 'fundamentalist'. If God really has imparted new life to Keith Ward by what the Bible calls the 'new birth' (and I hope he has), then he is a saint in the Biblical sense of the word.

Anyway, I don't want to nit-pick. I will read on, and see what he has to say about my fundamentalist friends.

S'no Joke

2010-01-10T17:42:00.002Z

Well, we've only had snow for about a fortnight (off and on), and I've had enough already. Not of the snow, mind you. That looks pretty, and offers some photographic opportunities, so its inconveniences are forgiven.

My beef is that while the snow covers the land, it exposes the abject poverty of language in ordinary use. I am weary of the sound of the word 'treacherous'. It is evidently the only word in the whole of the Shorter Oxford Dictionary that is capable of describing conditions underfoot in the UK at present. No matter whom I read or listen to, the conditions underfoot are described as 'treacherous'.

My online dictionary defines this word as meaning 'guilty of or involving betrayal or deception'. I have watched the snow in our garden carefully, and it has no charges to answer along those lines.

However, there is a secondary definition: 'hazardous because of presenting hidden or unpredictable dangers'. That looks more like the making of an indictment. However, is it really? Everyone knows that snow is cold, and will become slippery. That's not unpredictable.

You may have thought there would be more to hope for from those ambitious souls who reach for an analogy to add a touch of colour to the incessant weather-related conversations we are all compelled to have, or listen to. But no. "It's like an ice rink" says granny who's never seen an ice rink in her life. "It's like an ice rink" says the fat bloke whose only exercise is to reach for the remote. It is so wearisome that the phrase "It's like a skating rink" seems like a ray of light bursting through the otherwise solid cloud of linguistic monotony.

I can hear dripping outside, so I hope it's about to disappear. It will be good when it does.

However, prepare yourselves for the post-snow 'how I survived the treacherous weather' anecdotes.

Christ: unique and universal

2009-12-30T08:06:00.001Z

Christ: unique and universal

Posted using ShareThis

Lost Industry

2009-12-28T15:44:00.003Z

Not had time to write anything for a while. However, I have signed up with Zenfolio to host my photographs (and you can buy them if you think they're worth it).

It also does 'embedded slideshows', and here's one I prepared earlier. Taken on a pleasant day in Wallsend, wandering around the disused shipyards that once buzzed with life but have now been dismantled.

Autumn in Norway

2009-10-05T21:03:00.002Z

Here's my favourite shot from our holiday in Norway...taken with a Mamiya 7ii and a 150mm f4.5 lens on Fuji Velvia 100 film then scanned on an Epson V700 and processed in Adobe Lightroom.

Holiday Reading

2009-10-04T22:37:00.005Z

We've been on holiday. It was our first experience of a 'cruise'. We cruised down the coast of Norway. Much of the time, the weather and the scenery were so good that we were out on deck, camera in hand.

Some of the time, the weather was bad. So I read some books. One was by Charles Foster. He's a barrister, poor chap. He's also tutor in Medical Law and Ethics at the University of Oxford, and sits part time as a judge. His book is called 'The Selfless Gene - Living with God and Darwin'. The title is obviously derived from the book 'The Selfish Gene', published by Richard Dawkins in 1976.

Let me give you one or two quotations from the book. But first, a definition. When he speaks of 'creationism', he does not mean the Christian belief that God is the creator of all that is. No, he uses it as a term of art, since it has become shorthand for the theory that God created all that is in 6 days of 24 hours, between 6000 and 10,000 years ago. (NB: it's worth noting that creationists allow themselves what is, in percentage terms, a larger margin for error than they would ever allow their scientific opponents).

Now that the definitions are out of the way, here are some quotations.

Preface, XIV: "Creationism has inoculated a whole generation against Christianity."

Page 18: "Creationism has done untold harm to Christianity, and untold good to Richard Dawkins's bank balance."

Page 19: "As a phenomenon, then, Dawkins is a creature of the creationists."

Is he a lone voice?

Here's Denis Alexander, Director of the Faraday Institute for Science and Relgion, St Edmund's College, Cambridge, in his book 'Creation or Evolution - Do We Have To Choose?' (2008).

Page 352: "Christians who make it their mission to attack evolution, in the mistaken assumption that it is anti-God, are embarrassing and bring the gospel into disrepute...The public promotion of creationism and ID [Intelligent Design] continues to create intellectual barriers for scientists, significantly diminishing the likelihood of their taking the gospel seriously. Some very high-profile scientists, now atheists or agnostics, were Christians in their teenage years but gave up the faith because some well-meaning member of their local church told them that they couldn't be a real Christian and believe in evolution at the same time.'

2009-09-12T21:39:00.003Z

We've been listening to Brian Edwards at our church this weekend. If you haven't come across him, he's written quite a few books and is widely used as a Christian preacher. One of the points he made was that Christians don't think with the crowd.

There is remarkable narrow-mindedness in the world at large, and few are willing to stick out like a sore thumb. Most yield to the pack-pressure to think much the same thing as everyone else (maybe with a small and inconsequential personal 'take' on it so as to appear 'original').

Well, in my photographic life I think I've drifted away from the pack. The world and its dog have embraced digital, and who can blame them? It's easy and quick. That's how folk like things these days.

Now I don't have a problem with digital photography. I don't see the need to choose between digital and film. Do them both.

But I do have a problem with it. My favourite cameras are beautifully engineered gems made by the German firm Leica. Built to last, these cameras are clockwork jewels that can go on and on. And their lenses are second to none.

Leica has just announced the M9, its first 'full frame' digital rangefinder camera. Without doubt it will be capable of producing images of excellent quality. However, as it's part-camera and part-computer, swift obsolescence is guaranteed. Within 2 years at the most, technology will have moved on so far that this camera will be, well, old-hat. And it costs almost £5000.

People are queuing up to buy it. Bless 'em.

My wife and I are going on holiday soon to a very beautiful part of the world. I'm taking a medium format rangefinder camera that takes images on film that measure 6x7cm. That's over 4 times the size of the 'full frame' images that the M9 makes. It has lenses that can look Leica glass in the eye without blushing. And it costs a fraction of the price of the Leica.

I'll be using Fuji Velvia, a lovely transparency film that has vibrant colours. I can look at them on my light box. I can scan them and view them on my computer if I want to. I can have my cake and eat it.

'Who steals my purse steals trash...'

2009-08-23T05:46:00.008Z

You may have noticed that I have more than a passing interest in photography. Like others who have been bitten by the snappers' bug, I had accumulated more gear than was strictly necessary. What you may not know is that I also enjoy driving. I have to get around quite a bit for work, so I've always had a decent car. Again, if pressed, I would have to admit that my car was a bit better (and a lot quicker) than was strictly necessary for A to B.

Anyway, we arrived home from a social event at church last Friday evening to discover that the car and the bulk of my photographic equipment had been lifted by Burglar Bill. Two days have passed, and still no sign of any of the swag.

Now some may think, "That's a bit rum. You go to church - on a Friday evening of all times - and God fails to protect your stuff while you're out." However, to be fair, he had warned me. He told me not to lay up for myself 'treasures on earth', where 'thieves break in and steal' (Matthew 6:19).

Without looking up the commentaries, I take it that this isn't telling me not to have material possessions. The key word, I suspect, is 'treasures', which says something about one's attitude to those possessions.

The good bit is that God doesn't tell us not to have treasures, and he even advises on where to invest them. 'Store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where...thieves do not break in and steal.' A reminder of the truth of that advice is welcome and probably necessary, so when I've got through all the phonecalls, paperwork and lock-changing I'll have learnt a valuable lesson.

If Burglar Bill is reading this, take a look at the Bible that was in the front passenger door, because it's worth more than all the rest of the stuff you took.

Sheep

2009-08-02T02:42:00.002Z

We're just back from a week in Scotland, where we stayed on a remote farm surrounded by 3000 sheep. Here's one of them. I took it with my Mamiya 7ii, a medium format camera that takes big photographs measuring 6x7cms.

We were there for sheep-shearing, which was good to watch. The sheep made a row before they were shorn, and carried on making one afterwards, but not while it was being done - which was something that the prophet Isaiah had noticed when he wrote, '...he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before its shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.' (Isaiah 53:7)

Stating the Obvious

2009-05-24T22:03:00.004Z

I had always assumed that the folk at Eton College were highly intelligent until, walking past it recently, I noticed this sign at the entrance. Reminds me of the saying, 'In England, justice is open to all - like the Ritz.'

Nature, Red in Tooth and Claw?

2008-11-25T23:55:00.005Z

Shot at Pennington Flash earlier today...

From Alfred, Lord Tennyson's work 'In Memoriam'

Who trusted God was love indeed

And love Creation's final law-

Tho' Nature, red in tooth and claw

With ravine, shriek'd against his creed-

Who loved, who suffer'd countless ills,

Who battled for the True, the Just,

Be blown about the desert dust,

Or seal'd within the iron hills?

Baby P

2008-11-15T10:46:00.003Z

The circumstances surrounding the appalling death of a child known as 'Baby P' are in the headlines in the UK at present, with much debate about the expanding drug/alcohol fuelled part of society this child's mother is said to occupy.

The child is known as 'Baby P' to preserve confidentiality. I'm not sure why he's called 'baby', since he was 17 months old when he was killed. Perhaps 'Toddler P' doesn't have quite the same ring or emotional impact.

However, while we hope it is not so, the unfortunate irony is that 'Baby P' may be the most sensible name he has ever had. Far too many parents seem to regard it as their unfettered right to burden their offspring with names that range from the absurd to the offensive.

Lawyers conducting care proceedings frequently pass some of the waiting time in the court robing room comparing the silly names in each others' cases. I am reluctant to give examples, lest I upset otherwise sensible friends or acquaintances by alighting upon an aberrant name in their family, though I hope I'm on safe ground with one from a couple of years ago: 'Pagan'.

By contrast, the Bible has many instances of names given with great care. As Christmas approaches all too quickly, we think particularly of one: '...you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.' "Jesus" is the Greek equivalent of "Joshua", which means "Yahweh is salvation" or "Yahweh saves".

These words bear mulling over. I'm glad the promise was not that 'he may save' or that 'he will help his people to save themselves' or that 'he will set a good example'. No! The One whose birth was announced came on no uncertain mission that required our help if it was to succeed. He came to do the work of saving sinners, and he has done what he came to do.

Confessions

2008-11-09T00:50:00.005Z

My name is Paul Hart and I've got an iPhone.

There, I've said it. I'm booked in for therapy at the Priory Clinic.

In the meantime, I'll swish the touch screen, turn it through 90 degrees then turn it back just to make it change from portrait to landscape, download pointless applications, delete those pointless applications, sync it with my laptop, my desktop, my toothbrush, check the weather reports that I have no interest in, and then polish the screen.

I enter an appointment on it when I'm in Blackburn County Court, and, thanks to Mobile.Me and the 'cloud' (don't ask), I find that by the time I've got home, the appointment has appeared on my desktop. I enter non-existent appointments just to make it do this, and make a mental note to myself that I must not start talking about this to friends if I want to be asked out to dinner.

It's a white one with 16GB...oh, bother. Can I still come to dinner?

Keep Out Of Church

2008-10-31T15:44:00.006Z

We've just had a short half-term break in Pembrokeshire, South Wales. It's impossible to travel through the towns and villages without thinking of the great evangelical revival that swept the land in 1904. The buildings are still there - chapels that were well built from local stone.

However, their use is another matter. Buildings that were built by converts have themselves been converted. Some are homes, some are carpet stores.

This one caught my eye as one of the sadder examples. It is situated in Tabernacle Lane, Narberth, so I guess the lane took its name from the building. Nobody has converted this one. It has just deteriorated and become unsafe.

On one level it's amusing, and to be honest, that's why I took the shot. However, perhaps some sober thoughts are called for.

The original tabernacle in the wilderness conveyed much the same message as this functional sign. While the whole thing spoke of a way back to God, the structure nevertheless sent the strong message, 'Keep Out'. The time had not yet come when men and women could approach God freely. We should be thankful that in Jesus Christ, that time has now come.

On the other hand, there are some churches today that manage to say 'Keep Out' without having a sign like this one outside. They say 'Keep Out (unless you agree with us about absolutely everything)'. They say 'Keep Out (unless you dress up as we do)'. And so on. Like Narberth Tabernacle, they have just degenerated and become unsafe.

Send me their addresses on the back of a postcard and I'll try to take an amusing shot of these buildings.

Autumn is here in the UK

2008-10-16T22:28:00.003Z

A Creationist agrees with Dawkins...

2008-10-15T10:33:00.007Z

Following on from my last post: my attention has been drawn to a website called 'Creation Research', which appears to be the vehicle for the views of John Mackay, who modestly styles himself 'International Director of Creation Research'.

Readers of this site should bear in mind that Mackay evidently has not a single theological qualification to his name. He has a first degree in geology, and that's about it. He has never been a practising geologist. He has never had a peer-reviewed article published in any scientific journal.

Mackay is clearly proud of the fact that he has debated with Richard Dawkins. His website triumphantly announces that, "Dawkins, by the way, readily agreed that if anyone accepted evolution they would have a problem accepting Christianity." Mackay evidently regarded this as a success, a concession wrung from a reluctant Dawkins by his skilful debating technique.

Sadly for Mackay, it seems he was blissfully unaware that Dawkins had him exactly where he wanted him. Of course Dawkins agreed with this proposition. It is absurd to think that he would not. Dawkins is never happier than when he's persuading people that you can't have both evolution and belief in God - not because it's sound reasoning, but because the false antithesis drives people towards atheism.

The cause of Christianity is not helped by naive campaigners like Mackay trying to box well above their weight. There are few sights so sad as the boxer who has been hit so hard that he thinks the applause is for him...

False Antitheses

2008-09-20T22:04:00.004Z

I've let this blog slip a bit, which is not good blogging. So I'm going to say something about two of my interests in one go, in an attempt to catch up: theology and photography.

The link that holds them together in my mind as I write is the 'false antithesis'.

All that means is holding two things out as opposed to each other - and so forcing a choice between them - when they are not opposed to each other at all. "Which one do you love - your wife or your daughter?"

A false antithesis in theology is hitting the headlines in the UK at the moment, and I imagine that Richard Dawkins is delighted because he trades on keeping it alive. Here it is: "Which do you believe in - creation or evolution?"

Fundamentalist atheists have been trying for years to drill the equation 'evolution = atheism' into the popular mind, and they have largely succeeded. So, when faced with the false antithesis of 'creation or evolution' many Christians naturally feel compelled to say 'creation'. Michael Reiss of the Royal Society has unfortunately felt obliged to resign recently on account of the superficial, sound-bite-driven popular mentality surrounding this issue.

All this is a bit heavy, so how can I link this to photography and so lighten the tone?

Well, here it is: for 10 years or so, photographers have held guns to the heads of other photographers, saying "Which will it be - film or digital?"

As I'm on the dark side of 40, whenever I take a photograph my right thumb instinctively does a semicircular motion to wind the film on. I started using and developing film when I was still at school, and I still use it. Only today I bought a film camera that was made just 6 years after I was. It's a Leica M3, and is in much better shape than I am. It will still be working when I am not. Film cameras are very good.

However, I also have digital cameras. True, they will be obsolete before breakfast tomorrow - but if I want to give a print of my newborn second grandson to his parents before they leave, I reach for the Canon digi-wonder and fire away.

It's another false antithesis, which is not a phrase to repeat when you've removed your false teeth.

Bullies in Church?

2007-09-28T13:37:00.002Z

Nobody likes a bully. I am therefore writing this post to report some bullies. Mind you, these are not the normal sorts – physically strong, with rocks for brains. No – these are different.

For one thing, these are Christians. They believe the Bible. They believe the Christian gospel. But they are bullies.

How? Why?

First let me tell you where to find them. Not behind the bike sheds, waiting to jump on Smith from Form 1 and beat him up. Instead, these are to be found clustered around the books of Genesis (and chapters 1 and 2 in particular) and Revelation (and chapter 20 in particular).

It’s the ones to be found standing around Genesis 1 – 2 I have in mind, though you will find that if you go there and take their names, then walk through the Bible to Revelation 20, many of the same people will be waiting for you there.

So what do these committed Christians do that warrants the serious charge of bullying?

In a nutshell, they vociferously insist that their interpretation of these chapters, and the fundamentals of the Christian gospel, stand or fall together.

As I write, I have in front of me a small book produced by an outfit called ‘Answers in Genesis’. Incidentally, I am amused to read on the cover that this anti-evolutionary publication has been ‘updated and expanded’. Don't tell them, but that means it has evolved.

At page 34 it says, ‘…adding the supposed millions of years to Scripture destroys the foundations of the message of the cross.’

You see the technique being used here?

First, they claim that Scripture teaches a 'young Earth' (by which they mean about 10,000 years old) and that a universe of great antiquity therefore adds 'supposed millions' to what Scripture says. Now let me ask you this: where in the Bible does it date the creation? Correct - it doesn't. No - millions of years are not being added to Scripture, but rather to these peoples' idiosyncratic notion of what the Bible says. There is a very important difference.

Second, they hold a gun to your head. What they say amounts to this: ‘If you do not accept our interpretation of Genesis 1 – 2, you cannot be truly Christian.’

They take their interpretation of Genesis 1 - 2 (which is not central to the gospel) and try to weld it to the message of the cross (which is), in the hope that their readers will conclude that they cannot hold to the latter without buying into the former.

The process of reasoning by which they arrive at this contention is shallow and flawed. It should not take any reasonably well-read, thoughtful Christian more than 2 minutes to work out why.

However, the point I am making relates to their technique. They profess to be people who humbly submit to the Bible. The reality is that they arrogantly insist that their interpretation is the only possible one, and browbeat their readers into swallowing it by making out that to hold any other view is incompatible with true Christian faith.

No doubt this intimidates many Christians. I suspect that is what they intend, though they would not admit it. Treat them as you would any other bully.

Applause in Church?

2007-08-15T11:24:00.000Z

Well, not quite church - but the Keswick Convention, which some perhaps think is even more sacred.

This year's convention was marked by what is thought to have been the final sermon preached by John Stott, arguably the most influential figure in Christian circles in the last half century. He is 87, and visibly frail.

The chairman began by intimating that he had considered giving only the briefest of introductions to John Stott, given that his sermon was to be focussed on Christ. However...and yes, you will have guessed...he could not restrain himself. There followed a lengthy recital of all John Stott's achievements, many of which are well known anyway.

As if that were not enough, up popped someone else to tell us all that John Stott's books had profoundly influenced his understanding of the Bible. Now that's something new, isn't it? That took another 5 minutes or so, during which time my impression was that the man himself was increasingly uncomfortable with the whole jamboree.

The result of this was all too predictable: someone began to clap, and before long the whole convention (well, almost) had joined in. It then occurred to someone in the crowd that mere applause was insufficient for John Stott, and he stood up. Within seconds the whole convention (well, almost) was giving him a standing ovation.

Whatever became of the rudimentary principle that all the glory goes to God? That lay at the heart of the sermon John Stott preached, as it has been the focus of his ministry throughout his life. Did the convenors ask him whether he wanted this public adulation? I suspect not, because his answer would have been clear. What could have been a very moving, dignified finale was turned into a circus by an unfortunate lapse of judgment.

A Long Weekend in Helsinki

2007-07-01T15:11:00.000Z

In early June, Ruth and I (and Barney) went with some friends to Helsinki for a weekend break. For no good reason, I expected to find a slightly drab eastern bloc type city. To my pleasant surprise I found a bustling, cosmopolitan, modern city with fine architecture and a very attractive harbour. There were plenty signs of prosperity and a thriving cultural life.

The weekend provided a good opportunity to indulge my interest in photography. The tourist photos were easy to come by: here's one of the huge white Lutheran cathedral that dominates the city.

These photographs aren't really much of a challenge. I prefer the candid street photographs that just present themselves for a fleeting moment and are gone unless you're quick on the draw. Here's my best one of these from the weekend. The young lady was just leaving a concert in the cathedral, in which she had been performing. She was struggling to carry the large double bass (I think that's what it was). I suppose I could have offered to help her, but then I might have missed the photograph...

Cosmic Child Abuse?

2007-05-06T06:03:00.000Z

Central to the Christian doctrine of salvation is the principle that 'Christ died for our sins'. It is nowhere spelt out more clearly than Isaiah 53: '...he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed.'

A few years ago someone fairly prominent in Christian circles started a row when he described this doctrine (called 'penal substitution' in the big books) as 'cosmic child abuse'. The fallout is still being felt; the famous Keswick Convention has withdrawn from collaboration with another Christian convention over it.

A term like 'cosmic child abuse' is unhelpfully emotive. Putting that to one side, is the objection valid?

One answer that can be given is that Christ's sufferings were borne voluntarily. The Bible is clear about that. If Bill Snr punishes Bill Jnr for the misbehaviour of Fred, it is more acceptable if Bill Jnr has stepped forward and offered to take the punishment.

But is is a complete answer? Are we not still a little uneasy about Bill Jnr suffering anything - even voluntarily? I think we are, which brings us to the second point.

And that is the elementary principle that 'God is one'. 'Hear O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.' (Deuteronomy 6:4)

That points to the fundamental unity that is God. So, when God 'laid on him the iniquity of us all', it is completely misguided to think of God punishing a completely separate being for our sins. He bore them himself.

Silence in Church!

2007-04-21T07:12:00.000Z

Yesterday, The Times carried a story about the pastor of a church in Hove, East Sussex who had been fined £400 by the local magistrates. I read on to find out why, expecting that it would be for some new-fangled offence of 'Reading The Bible Out Loud' introduced by our tolerant government in the Criminal Justice Act (No.666) 2007. That was close, but not quite right.

Pastor Yeboah and his church had been made the subject of a 'Noise Abatement Order' 3 years ago because of the racket he was making in his 2 hour services. How did he respond to this? Not by moderating the din. According to him, he spent £15,000 on soundproofing. I'm sure he thought that was a responsible way to spend the collection.

Anyway, council officials measured a service last November at 74.4 decibels, which is apparently the equivalent of a lorry driving past. The report didn't say whether they also prosecuted the lorry driver. Their Worships thought the worship was a little OTT, so the poor chap has to cough up the fine plus £800 in costs.

I was brought up in Christian circles where services were conducted in reverential near-silence, and the singing from Sankey's 1200 hymnbook never got near 74.4 decibels. Of course the Scriptures do tell us to 'Make a joyful noise unto the Lord, all the earth: make a loud noise...' (Psalm 98:4, KJV). Maybe his solicitor didn't think of that defence.

However, the moral of the story is: either keep it below 74.4 decibels or have a special collection for the fine.