"A Brand Plucked?"
(Or has Russell Brand seen the light?)
"Saved as a brand from the burning."
Some religious types might recognise this title.
It takes us back several centuries to the early life of the Church of England vicar, itinerant preacher and founder of Methodism, John Wesley. In February 1709, when John was only six years old, the Epworth Rectory in which he lived, caught fire.
Only in the nick of time was he rescued from an upstairs window, an event that convinced his mother he had a divine mission, saved as he was "as a brand from the burning."
It was indeed a miraculous deliverance, which embedded itself in his own view of his life to be dedicated to God and the preaching of a New Testament and non-conformist, Gospel.
The term 'brand from the burning' was however lifted from the Old Testament - in which the family was well versed.
Zecharia 3 1-2 reads: "And he shewed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right hand to be his adversary. And the Lord said unto Satan, The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan; yea, the Lord that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee. Is not this a brand plucked out of the fire? "
Or as in Amos 4:11:
"I overthrew some of you as when God overthrew Sodom and "Gomorrah, and you were like a brand snatched from the fire; yet you did not return to me."
A 'brand' in this context is a 'piece of burning wood used to give light', but of course it has more modern connotations in relation to branding cattle - i.e. the mark of ownership - or in connection with the easily recognised visual or reputational representation of a product, company or even person.
It takes us back several centuries to the early life of the Church of England vicar, itinerant preacher and founder of Methodism, John Wesley. In February 1709, when John was only six years old, the Epworth Rectory in which he lived, caught fire.
Only in the nick of time was he rescued from an upstairs window, an event that convinced his mother he had a divine mission, saved as he was "as a brand from the burning."
It was indeed a miraculous deliverance, which embedded itself in his own view of his life to be dedicated to God and the preaching of a New Testament and non-conformist, Gospel.
The term 'brand from the burning' was however lifted from the Old Testament - in which the family was well versed.
Zecharia 3 1-2 reads: "And he shewed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right hand to be his adversary. And the Lord said unto Satan, The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan; yea, the Lord that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee. Is not this a brand plucked out of the fire? "
Or as in Amos 4:11:
"I overthrew some of you as when God overthrew Sodom and "Gomorrah, and you were like a brand snatched from the fire; yet you did not return to me."
A 'brand' in this context is a 'piece of burning wood used to give light', but of course it has more modern connotations in relation to branding cattle - i.e. the mark of ownership - or in connection with the easily recognised visual or reputational representation of a product, company or even person.
That a person by the name of Brand is now caught in a media storm of serious allegations of sexual misconduct, gives a poignant modern twist to the above quotes. We may ask, will he also be plucked as a brand from the burning? In other words will he survive the reputational fire in which he is now engulfed?
A Bible dominated world view
The early part of the 18th Century was a time when Bible reading was still central to all education - if a child was lucky enough to have one - and in which competitive reading materials were relatively expensive and limited in nature. Secular and fictional texts were relatively scarce by todays standards and the novel was yet to find its forte.
The early part of the 18th Century was a time when Bible reading was still central to all education - if a child was lucky enough to have one - and in which competitive reading materials were relatively expensive and limited in nature. Secular and fictional texts were relatively scarce by todays standards and the novel was yet to find its forte.
In the famous words of Victor Hugo, 'England has two books, the Bible and Shakespeare. England made Shakespeare,but the Bible made England.' In the 21st Century this close affinity is virtually lost and arguably with it, the cultural and moral tradition it produced, individually and societally.
18th Century change
Daniel Defoe's Robinson Crusoe dating from 1719 and Jonathan Swift's Gulliver's Travels from 1726, are two notable examples of a burgeoning genre, which from the mid-century onwards was illustrative of a subtle and progressive change in public attitudes to the relationship between the spiritual and profane spheres of literature and discourse. It was promoted by the philosophical writings of thinkers like Hobbs, Descartes and Locke, and was continued in an ever more aggressive manner by such luminaries as Voltaire, Kant, Rouseau, Hume and Paine, shaping the modern world view and the Victorian era of romanticism and rationalism.
Locke and Wesley
Wesley, incidentally, was born the year Locke died. His was a life-long mission to the common people that promoted salvation through faith in Christ's redemptive work on the cross. There is also no doubt it also had a profound effect on personal morality and behaviour, with knock-on consequences for society generally. In Locke's time for example, the African slave trade caused little soul searching, whilst in Wesley's, it became increasingly repugnant.
Some historians have suggested that had it not been for Wesley, Britain would have undergone its own 'French Revolution', with all its bloody consequences. Whether we are better or worse for it is open to debate, as the new King Charles III pays a State Visit to riot-torn France. Some might say that Locke's empiricism was a foretaste of the future, whilst the later Wesley's teaching was stapled to the past.
Public morals in the past
Contrary to Philip Larkin's suggestion that sex was discovered in the early part of the 1960's, it has of course been an integral part of humanity for always. Public attitudes to it have changed with time and place, influenced largely by religious belief and teaching. We currently live in an era of increasing indifference to, and influence of, organised religion, nevertheless people retain moral principles to guide lives, which includes sexual behaviour. It is this that currently placed Russell Brand under the spotlight.
Infidelity is still condemned, not so much for breaking some divine law but because it breaches trust. Real or attempted sex with unconsenting adults or children is almost universally condemned as unacceptable. However in the last fifty years there has been a huge shift in attitude to physical intimacy between people of the same sex, at least in the liberal West. Of course this is not true in much of the world where it is still considered anathema and illegal.
Promiscuity is generally still treated with a certain degree of caution and disfavour but in some louche circles may be regarded as a badge of honour and cult status. In the early 'noughties', Russell Brand certainly wasn't coy about it and if anything it enhanced his celebrity status.
The modern era
But the changes that have taken place with time, have been far more pronounced and subtle than the matter of who sits atop the political system. Nations have been born of nothing in a phase of early European colonisation, transferring laws, customs and language of the invading country to the new one - although we prefer the term 'settlement', less accurate but also less loaded.
Science, technology and material prosperity has advanced in leaps and bounds from the Great Exhibition of 1851. Locke and Wesley would have been stunned into silence by the nature of the modern world, its sophistication, its luxury, its huge population and not least its attitude to morality and religion.
Brand has been hoist by his own petard of sexual liberation and admitted promiscuity. It seems at the time no one much objected but individual accounts after many years have elapsed, still have the power to ostracise an individual and seriously undermine his ability to earn a living. The morality of media enterprising fishing for them, is very much open to question of 'trial by media' or even the naming of an accused before having been proved guilty of a sexual case. Just an allegation is enough to ruin a professional and personal life.
No criminal charges have been brought against Brand but police both in Britain and America are investigating and we know where this can lead. Charges may follow, particularly if others come forward with similar. The bigger question is whether this has been orchestrated by clandestine forces, in order to silence and remove his influence, as in fact Brand and others have suggested?
Ironically, even in the licentious eighteenth century, and despite his status as a Christian preacher, John Wesley's brother was caught in sexual scandal and John was entangled in a love affair that seems to have forced him to flee the new American colony of Georgia. No one it seems is exempt from the temptations and pitfalls of the flesh. It is why generally speaking secrecy surrounds them. Both the Catholic Church and famous TV preachers in the modern age, have proved all may not be as upstanding as congregations have expected. Scandal lurks in the Catholic Booth, Anglican Vestry and Evangelical Crusade.
Emblematic Russell Brand
Russell Brand is in a reputional, and possibly legal bind, over his past behaviour. His 'brand' has undoubtedly been damaged. He has built a huge following on the new Internet technology and the platforms it has spawned. This would lead us to believe he is somewhat emblematic of the beliefs and attitudes of a generation. Russell Brand and the controversy surrounding him may be indicative of the sociological and ethical milieu we find ourselves in today.
Around ten million people or more have followed him on different platforms, some of which were monitised. This has now been seriously curtailed, and access to media outlets for him will probably become more difficult. Ubiquitous YouTube has demonitised his appearances, Rumble has, in an extraordinary move, been threatened by the Chairwoman of the Parliamentary Committee for 'Culture Media and Sport' for continuing to allow him on its platform. This rather confirms Brand's assertion, that the plot goes a lot deeper.
Russell Brand is currently forty-eight, but the average age of his followers and acolytes is probably much younger. He may be middle aged but has maintained a 'hippy' and unconventional image that clearly appeals to a younger generation. Some may think he has never matured beyond his twenties. This may not such a disadvantage when wishing to appeal to a younger more sceptical audience.
His message may be categorised as 'new age' mysticism,
preaching love self actualisation, questioning of power structures and prevailing narratives, specifically in relation to the 'Covid Epidemic' and war in Ukraine. There is no difficulty in seeing how this might upset those in government and the interests beyond it.
Background
Wikipedia tells us he was born in Essex in 1975 and was brought up by his single mother, his parents having separated when he was only six months old. He seems to have maintained some sort of contact with his father - at one stage going to Thailand with him in his teens when he was introduced to prostitutes there apparently.
It seems he got his first thrill as a performer in a school production of Bugsy Malone when he was fifteen and although expelled from the Atalia Conti Academy for drug use and poor attendance, this set his course as a performer in front of audiences. He has been addicted not only to drugs but also to public acclamation. He also admits to being obsessed by and addicted to heterosexual sex, although given his proclivity, it is unlikely he is bisexually naive.
His first big break was with the Channel Four Big Brother spin-off Big Mouth for which he was perfectly qualified. Indeed his loquaciousness and grandiloquence is probably his defining feature. He never seems short of an adjective or adverb. His oratory is in stark contrast to his Essex working class accent.
His comedy when he was a stand-up, relied heavily on smut and less on sexual innuendo than factual detail. People will of course laugh at anything sexual in the right environment. I can't remember seing anything he said or did that made me laugh, although I did not always disagree with his later diatribe.
A modern man for a modern age?
So far so good. In many ways, the above is somehow typical of many of his generation. Single parent, disrupted education, alcohol and drugs, and louche life-style. He then pursued a career as a stand-up comic. The titles he gave to these shows is revealing: Better Now (2004) (How he had given up drugs); Eroticised Humour (2005); Shame (2006); Russell Brand: Only Joking (2007) (DVD: Doin' Life); Russell Brand: Scandalous (2009) From 2013 there is evidence of a change of direction.
Wiki has this: "Brand presented and toured his comedy show Messiah Complex, in which he tackled advertising, the laws on drug addiction and the portrayal of his heroes, such as Gandhi, Guevara, Malcolm X and Jesus, and how he is, in comically contrived ways, similar to them.
"In January 2017, Brand announced his new tour Re:Birth, which debuted in April 2017 and was meant to go through November 2018. However, on 30 April 2018, he was forced to cancel the remaining dates after his mother was critically injured in a hit-and-run accident. Russell Brand: Re-birth, which was filmed in London in April 2018, was released as a standup comedy film on Netflix on 4 December 2018.
(As an aside, I have not looked into the circumstances of the 'hit and run' but it is not beyond the realms of possibility that it was a targeted attack aimed at warning Brand away from career path. It rather reminds me of the recent bicycle accident to Dan Walker in the Bulley case, where despite video evidence, no driver has been identified, come forward or prosecuted!)
Back to Wiki:
"Over the years, Brand has named Richard Pryor, Bill Hicks,[31] Peter Cook, Lenny Bruce, Tony Hancock, Jack Kerouac, Stewart Lee,[32] Tenacious D,[33] Eddie Murphy,[34] and Monty Python among his comedic influences. In choosing one comedy film among his five favourite movies he picked Monty Python's Life of Brian." (Wiki quote end)
Religious allusions and connections
From the above and particularly the titles he gave to his perfomances, it is evident, if we can take them seriously, that over the years Brand has gone through a transformative process, relinquishing much of his earlier bravado and sexual profligacy. The religious allusions need no great interpretation.
'Shame' suggest a realisation his behaviour was not something he was proud of, repeated in the title 'Scandalous Behaviour'. However from 2013 the titles carry an overt religious, even Christian connotation. 'The Messiah Complex' obviously but probably satirically abrocating a Jesus title to himself. The Bible's injunction 'to be born again', is suggested in 'Re-birth'. Again his favourite comedy was the Monty Python 'Life of Brian', hardly a reverent appraisal of the man Jesus.
Clearly playing the comedic role of chief sceptic is hard to reconcile with genuine belief or commitment to Christian theology. Nevertheless, since the recent allegations have emerged he has referred to, 'Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ', and 'Forgive them Lord, for they know not what they do'!
We may take a leaf out of this sceptical lexicon and think this latter day conversion is just a ploy to curry sympathy, favour and even forgiveness but on the other hand it might be genuine. St Paul had his famous Damascene conversion. St Augustine of Hippo in a North African garden when he was 33, in 385 AD, in his own words,
"I quickly returned to the bench…snatched up the apostle’s book…and in silence read the paragraph on which my eyes fell: “Not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying, but put on the Lord Jesus Christ and make no provision for the flesh to fulfill the lusts thereof” (Romans 13:13)…. I wanted to read no further, nor did I need to. For instantly, as the sentence ended, there was infused in my heart something light the light of full certainty and all the gloom of doubt vanished away.” Augustine, Confessions 8
Nearly 1400 years later, when John Wesley was 34 in 1738, he relates how, "About a quarter before nine, while he was describing the change which God works in the heart through faith in Christ, I felt my heart strangely warmed. I felt I did trust in Christ, Christ alone for salvation, and an assurance was given me that he had taken away my sins, even mine, and saved me from the law of sin and death."
So just from these few examples it is clear that mature men with much in common with Brand, have been 'plucked from the (metaphorical) burning' and experienced a spiritual awakening. Maybe he has too?
Related comment
Laws of slander and libel still apply.
Defamation is actionable at law and can involve huge compensation, particularly when directed at newspapers and media companies, as recent cases have demonstrated.
The only problem is that legally speaking, truth is a defence against them. It is why most libel lawyers advise against going to Court.
Brand admits to being very 'promiscuous', which may make a jury, were one ever empaneled, more reluctant to believe in some of those instances he did so without consent. It is akin to the old problem of juries taking prostitues complaints seriously.
Times and the law might have changed, but the harbinger of Oscar Wilde and Reading gaol still hang, as if from chains, from that distant gibbet.
As usual the public and media attitude is hypocritical, winking at misbehaviour in a comedy setting, but taking a more puritanical moral position later on.
There are certainly parallels with Saville and that alone bodes ill for his reputation and career henceforward. Whether it moves from just allegations and a civil dispute, to a criminal confrontation, remains to be seen, but there is no doubt, as Brand suggests, more than a whiff of conspiracy about it all, not least that the exposé involves at least three outlets (Times; Sunday Times; and Channel 4) not to mention all the others world-wide, that have run with the story.
Whether covert government agencies have had a hand in it also remains to be seen (or not as the case may be) but it is clear overt government is taking an active interest, and it seems likely on two counts: the suppression of views that run counter to its prevailing narrative - some would say propaganda - and two, to accord and reinforce its current policy on control of internet platforms.
Brand as an international celebrity with a huge internet following, could not be a better 'goose' to be served up on a plate to satisfy the insatiable public appetite for gossip and scandal.
Litany of Sexual Encounters
Russell Brand has, by his own admission, has had a 'LITANY' of sexual encounters and used it to advance his notoriety and following - and with a questionable wit and locuacity, made his living from it. As he admits he has been very transparent about it in the past but perhaps not quite as transparent as he might have been.
I wonder if his 'transparency' was in fact carefully coreographed 'cover' for actions he apologised for at the time or subsequently regretted ?
In common with all humans, time changes outlook and circumstances. Brand is probably not the man he was, and it is the old Brand that is now catching up with him, and which he obviously sees as both embarrassing and a threat. Lesser mortals may feel a certain empathy and say "there but for the grace of God - and absence of fame - go I."
Government out to get him?
We have witnessed how the British Parliament has point blank refused to admit to the enormous damage done by its co v id policy and specifically the jab roll-out, from which millions have been disadvantaged, made ill and even killed, yet it has the audacity to attempt to silence those who have drawn attention to the scandal.
Brand is only the latest in a long line of such interventions, using various laws to limit free speech where it criticises or goes counter to the preferred narrative. Even past American Presidents are not immune to contrived prosecutions!
"The Online Safety Bill" is probably yet another 'wolf in lambs clothing', professing a laudible aim of protecting children, whilst hiding its true purpose of greater government control over independent voices on social media platforms.
Does anyone believe Channel 4 (of all organisations!), Murdoch's Times, Savile's BBC, or Sunak's government are genuinely concerned about Brand's past alleged misdeeds? Or rather that he had built a platform of 6.5 million sceptical followers, that challenges their preferred view?
The people and organisations who are now leading the charge, are the same ones who applauded his success, laughed at his comedy, supported his awards, employed him and were in on the act. If this is not hypocrisy in action, what is?
Meanwhile in China, Sophia Huang Xueqin goes on trial for her ‘Me Too’ output. Compare and contrast! Constantly we see western democracies aping the behaviour of tyrannical dictatorships. With every Act and every statement by government, every day we are becoming a Chinese Communist State.
We only have to mention the name of Julian Assange to realise innocent men can still be gaoled for life despite all the notional protections of the 'Rule of Law', 'Bill of Rights' and 'Habeas Corpus'. The covid lock-down was an affront to all notions of enshrined freedom, yet the nation succumed to it with hardly a murmur.
Are we expected to go gentle into that dark night?
8.10.2023: Holman Hunt's 'Light of the World'
This painting says as much about the aesthetics and religious outlook of the 19th Century as it does of the theology. It is a long way removed from the historical man and his message, although it carries a Victorian view of it, in keeping with vague sentimental notions of Christian belief. The setting is an English orchard, that already locates it in an appealing fantasy land. It is obviously autumn as there are fallen apples, with all their metaphorical significance. Jesus is dressed inexplicably as a mediaeval King, reminding us of the romantic yearning of the Pre-Raphaelites and the harking back to pre-industrialisation times - a presumed golden era of art and architecture. He could be a re-embodied Henry III. Is that a halo around his head or a full moon? Is the sun the light of the world or the moon? Darkness, which is certainly suggested is the real and metaphorical 'night', that we are asked to believe Christ can save us from. He points upwards - before the invention of the aeroplane - when it was still the province of science fiction, but this is a finger pointing up to heaven and the divine realm; to fate and the future; of benediction; a reminder of Christ's words, "I am the way, the truth and the light." The painting encapsulates and compounds an interpretation of religious belief, that itself we now look on as historic and interpret in the 'light' of a modern age, where 'darkness' still abounds, and people are more lost, confused and fearful than ever.
Russell Brand is in the spotlight for the wrong reasons. He is feeling persecuted and aligns himself to Jesus on the cross, using his words, "Forgive them Lord, for they know not what they do".
People have had enough of the Big State bossing them around and treating them like idiots. We know we are constantly being deceived and ripped off and government is pursuing policies we have never voted for and don't want. What are the big themes it is pushing that have left us behind? The fear of infection and the requirement to vaccinated with an unsafe substance that it refuses to acknowledge. The need for ever greater surveillance and the perverse use of laws to silence free speech and dissent. A police force more interested in PC than the PC on the beat; more interested in infringing free movement and expression than defending it; more interested in criminality than prosecuting crimes. Pursuing 'net-zero' policies when they clearly have neither global impact or make rational sense, whilst damaging nature and the economy. Ruining local government, the NHS, water industry, the railway network, education, in fact everything with its Midas Touch of privatisation that everyone can see is just an excuse for 'jobs for the boys' and making the gap between rich and poor wider. Promoting increased debt at every level including its own on crazy policies like HS2, unreliable aircraft carriers without planes, covid fraud and mismanagement, foreign wars. This ruling party came in on the back of financial collapse and 'no money left', and has only made matters worse by bankrupting the country. It is now in a hole of its own making and facing defeat at the polls, but who are we to vote for? An opposition that has shown no opposition and walked out on Bridgen with all the rest? A plague on all their houses I say. What we need is a thorough clean out of the Stygian corridores of power, with a re-establishment of Common Law principles to protect us from an all enveloping, all powerful state, bent on destroying our individuality, independence and freedom to choose. Revolution is in the air.
