I am a pastor not a politician so it is not for me to pontificate dogmatically that in the run-up to June’s EU Referendum the then Prime Minister, Chancellor of the Exchequer, Foreign Secretary and Home Secretary were definitely wrong to back Remain. But for the New Year here is a hopefully constructive Christian reflection on leadership in the light of 17.5 million British people defying the wishes of their political establishment.

Percipient establishment politicians are now well aware that the Brexit vote was a plebiscite against themselves. When, for example, Theresa May says ‘Brexit means Brexit’ she is deliberately distancing herself from the mendacity that is perceived to have surrounded the Blair administration, particularly over Iraq.

This vicar’s daughter, who in Stephen Glover’s phrase ‘exudes probity’, understands the perception that modern politicians have about as much in common with the old-fashioned public service ethos as Nigel Farage has with teetotalism. She knows that the view that politicians are in it for themselves has become an entrenched electoral reality in the past decade, particularly following the MPs’ expenses scandal. She knows that the enthusiasm for the EU among establishment politicians is perceived as their personal liking for the jet-set, internationalist, elite club they appear to enjoy high-fiving in.

But the question must be addressed: would political leaders with the previous Christian ethic of public service – for in this country it was Christianity that used to inspire that ethic – ever be popular? We may as an electorate know what we do not want in our political leaders, but do we know what we do want? This is by no means clear.

This lack of clarity results from the fact that since the 1960s the teaching of Jesus Christ on the character of leadership has been disappearing rapidly from our culture. How many British people today would know that the word ‘minister’ in the title Prime Minister owes its origin to His teaching as mediated by the 1611 King James Bible?

To quote Christ teaching His disciples: ‘Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them. But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister: and whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all. For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many’ (Mark 10v42-45 – King James Version).

It would be wonderful if 2017 were the year when we as an electorate began to realise that the price of disconnecting with the ultimate Minister tends to be self-serving political ego-trippers rather than good ministers who want to serve the public interest. But such a realisation can only dawn in the light of a grass-roots Christian revival and that is down to British churches proclaiming the gospel faithfully in the communities Christ calls them to serve.


  1. Rev Mann. It is not renewed Christianity that would restore faith in our Westminster Village Idiots. However, honesty, integrity and capability would be very good places to start.

    • You miss the point. Those who serve Christ have honesty, integrity and capability. Thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not bear false witness, thou shalt not commit adultery ……. And love your neighbour as yourself. Anyone striving to live a life in accordance with these beliefs is not self absorbed!

      • We are talking about secular serial liars and deceivers. Do you really believe they give two hoots about all that religious stuff? I don’t believe they will. Anyone who expects them to is at best an optimist.

        • Christianity teaches you that you will be judged, so instils in its adherents a sense of morality.
          This morality that says think of others before oneself. i.e, When you have a position of power it should be used for the good of others not the feathering of one’s own nest.
          Secularism teaches you that the self is the only judge.
          This morality says that a long as you don’t actually do harm to others then it is okay to think first of oneself.
          It is only a baby step to saying as long as no one else knows I can do what I like – and that is exactly the type of politician we have now and have had since Thatcher.
          And, we, the great unwashed are sick of it.

          • It seems to me that this isn’t a Christian morality issue at all, when you are in a position of power given by other people it isn’t a Christian-morality issue, it’s a real versus representative democracy issue.
            The Swiss have much more of a real democracy and vote specifically for and against issues like open borders and immigration on a regular basis, it doesn’t need a referendum to institute the process.
            MP’s can vote for their own interests because they have a system which allows them to.
            The theory that is should be about self sacrifice is wrong, because the MP as a voting member of the public is also servicing his own interest, however the motivation that he/her has, is not just their own, but as metered out by the whips for the party involved.

          • I’m an agnostic and I’m definitely sick of it.

            What’s more people don’t need to be religious to be moral. To be told I don’t have that choice is also something else I’m sick of.

          • The low-of-intelligence Phil R would disagree with you.

            Apparently, according to him, if you are agnostic or atheist you are obviously selfish with no morals.

            Only people that get told their morals out of a book have morals according to him, the rest of us are all going to hell for never ever considering other people’s needs or feelings.

          • Here is how much I give credence to what Phil R thinks:

            Pulls out nanometric agree-o-metre and gets a sub-zero reading.

          • In my case, from my parents, from my head and from my heart.

            I don’t need to believe in God to know it is wrong to steal from your fellow man, to be unfaithful to your wife, to give false evidence etc.

            I don’t need to believe in God to know it is a good thing to give to charity, to help the sick and needy and to have honesty and integrity in my work.

            To turn it around, if you seriously HAD to be told these instructions out of the bible and would not have automatically done so otherwise, I would worry about *your* morality.

          • It then makes me wonder where our parents received their morality from, and so on and so forth?

            Spending time with toddlers tells me that humans are not born with a set moral code. Knowing good from bad is not innate it seems. That is why every parent has to teach their child how to behave. If morals were innate as you say then there would be no need to raise children with the correct manners and behaviour would there?

            It appears to me that we do need instruction of some kind, especially in our early lives.

          • Agreed. We’ve all seen what happens when they don’t. But you don’t need to be religious to learn what is right and what is not.

          • You may not need religion to be taught right from wrong – But it seems we need some sort of unshakeable foundation to make the laws that we all live by, and forgetting them or sidelining them would be at our peril.

            So what is the spur for people to do what is right instead of wrong? If someone is not religious and commits a wrongful act knowing they may get away with it, what repercussions would they incur?

          • I’m not religious and I don’t steal, murder or cheat on my wife or my employer even in cases when I know I would absolutely get away with it.

            What is the spur? Just something inside my head that tells me it is the wrong thing to do. I didn’t need an ancient book to tell me that, it’s just instinct.

          • Nobody asked you if you did murder, steal or cheat – But others do, why are they not blessed with your innate abilities to know right from wrong?

            And it is not just “in your head” because as I said above with my example, we are not born with morals. They are passed down through culture, law and teaching.

          • As to why other people don’t have morals is up to them. I do however have lots of secular friends who have these innate abilities and don’t need the fear of a mythical hell to persuade them to behave in an honest way. I believe there are probably millions of secular people who are just the same.

          • The repercussions incurred will be more lawlessness. We are seeing it happen in the courts right before our eyes. Bleeding heart liberal judges and mangistrates who encompass every bogus mitigation sob story need to do the job they are paid for and that job is not to mollycoddle recalcitrants and recidivists.

          • Same place you received yours, I suspect. My family were big church goers in their day. I was christened and confirmed. Although I am agnostic I still identify as C of E on official documents because, unlike those idiots who renounced their christening as “child abuse”, it is still a part of my family and national heritage.

            Bik sums the situation up admirably.

          • You had a Christian upbringing. This is residual but each generation it becomes watered down. The number of people who now think it is OK to cheat their employers is massively increased. My daughter works in fraud and frequently finds people in senior roles on good salaries who lose it all because they had no moral compass to “not steal”. We are running on the fumes of previous generations Christian moral values.

          • Boll-x. Some Christians steal. They’ve done so for the last 2000 years.

            And where do you get off telling me that my son can’t possibly be raised in a moral way because I don’t head-butt the back of a pew every Sunday?

            How bloody dare you!

          • Feigning outrage and personalising your argument to include your son when ‘Tricia’ did not mention him is not the best way to debate. Using emotionalism to avoid engaging her point is a poor tactic.

            Evidence of our weakening of the morals is everywhere when you look; from abortions, weakening of euthanasia laws, children out of wedlock, divorce, dating sites for those who wish extramarital affairs, mass stupification through 24hour drinking and lax drug laws, theft being declassified as “petty” by our police and violent crime on the increase…

          • All enabled by the State. But that doesn’t mean that secular morality doesn’t exist. I am sick to death of people telling me that my morals are worthless because I don’t subscribe to the sky pixie club.

            And get this straight. My outrage isn’t feigned. It is very, very real. And it was Tricia herself who brought up the so called moral turpitude od secular generations. And I stand by what I said. It’s all boll-x.

          • It was feigned outrage – no one mentioned your son and you only did so to claim victimhood and personalise the argument. Sadly Tricia apologised when she needed not to (but probably did so out of her own kindness)

            What you did was one of the hallmarks of political correctness* and i think it is the first time I have seen anyone use it in the comment section of this blog. Tricia cited a reasoned example, you only have bad language and emotionalism.

            (* Browne, A. 2006, The Retreat of Reason:Political Correctness and the Corruption of Public Debate in Modern Britain. 2nd edn. London: Civitas)

          • Bull. You picked the wrong person to do cod psychology on. I have every right to defend my position. It has stuff all to do with PC and everything to do with freedom of speech. I haven’t attacked Tricia’s faith. She is entitled to believe what she wants. I am equally entitled to disagree with her views on what does or does not constitute morality. What you are trying to do is close down my opinion. And THAT is textbook PC. So back atcha!

          • I have not used psychology at all in my answer, I have merely read your replies to ‘Tricia’. And reading them I have backed up my point that you did use PC to try and shut her down (and duly did). No one has claimed you have attacked her faith, so I am at a loss as to where you got that.

            No one has taken away your “right” to defend your position. You can disagree with her, but you couldn’t manage a reasoned answer in your “My Son…!” reply to her.

            You are squirting ink because you have been found out to use poor debating tactics. I haven’t closed down your opinion, I challenged it. If you think that asking questions is closing down opinion, then you are more sensitive than I first thought.

          • You tried to bluster me into silence by arguing from authority. You accused me of being politically correct and insisted my outrage was “feigned. Let’s put this into perspective shall we.

            1) According to your book I cannot be outraged on my own behalf because – political correctness.

            2) You reserve the right to be outraged on the belhalf of a third party because – your outrage is pure, unfeigned and not politically correct in any way.

            3) That makes you a hypocrite and your weapon of choice is most definitely psychological because you are trying to modify what I think, trying to make me look small and feel guilty by hurling accusations of PC my way because your “expert” is right.

            4) Tricia and I both manned up and apologised to each other but that clearly isn’t good enough for you. She was “wrong”. By extrapolation I was wrong to apologise for being tetchy. Let’s forget the fact that a PC warrior would be too smug and superior to apologise back. A PC warrior is never wrong. Have you looked in the mirror lately because what you are wibbling on about is coming over as a large dose of projection.

            5) What questions? You didn’t ask me any questions following Tricia’s previous post. You jumped on your self righteous soapbox and hurled accusation.

            6) A lot has been said about the superior values Christianity allegedly brings to people who are religious but somehow lapsed Christians who adhere to those same values are inferior.

            Strange then that those very values are not actually Christian in origin but have been borrowed from the Talmud. Moses was a Jew last time I checked. Jesus was born, lived and died a Jew. Christianity is but a sect broken away from the older faith and has itself splintered into many sects. The Protestant church was founded not on any religious precept but because a monarch wanted to trade in his wife for a newer model. Very auspicious.

            7) I want to put a hypothetical scenario to you. I can assure you it is hypthetical because this is something I would never dream of doing.

            I toddle along to a site frequented by devout Christians who like to talk about the Bible and other devotional subjects. I begin a tirade accusing them of being intellectual pygmies because they refuse to recognise the smug certainty of atheism. I then accuse their immediate descendants of, if they continue to stray away from the path of worldly reality, the prospect of eventually regressing into mouth breathing, knuckle dragging troglodytes. Because no one with any brains does God, right?

            Such a thing would be undiluted poppycock and you would be right to call me out on it and tear me a new one. Well guess what. When the shoe is on the other foot the same rules apply. You wouldn’t like being unfairly called a brainless nitwit for doing God and I don’t like being unfairly accused of lacking moral fibre for not doing God.

            8) Where is it carved in stone that I cannot use whatever example I feel is necessary? A. Browne isn’t the last word on what is and isn’t acceptable in the modern world. You want to religiously (sic) hang on to his or her every pronouncement that’s your choice. I prefer to shop around for my information.

            9) I am not politically correct. You’ve been posting on TCW long enough to understand that I occupy the opposite end of that particular spectrum. Accusing me of being PC because I hotly disagreed with a blinkered point of view is a straw man. Nothing more than a device on which to base your spurious accusations and display your fondness for the “expertese” of A. Browne.

            10) I am not the one trying to argue a fallacy and hiding behind nonsensical rhetoric while I’m about it.

            Squirting ink. Poor debating tactics. Feigned outrage. Couldn’t manage a reasoned answer.

            More projected mumbo-jumbo.

            I’m still waiting for proof that my failure to be a practising Christian is a handicap to my moral values and my conscience. That this same failure will be multiplied in my descendants. This is the issue I have with Tricia and anyone else who espouses this nonsense. If you have a problem with that it’s too bad.

            As for my sensitivity. It’s true. Sometimes I can get naffed off when people like you come along claiming they know more about me than I do. You should go into politics. There’s a lot of people in Westminster who think they know better too. You’ll fit right in.

          • Wow, quoting an actual real textbook, that must make you feel really intelligent, in contrast to your regular daily life when everyone around you seems to treat you as someone really stupid.

          • Its not a textbook, its a well written pamphlet that I recommend to everyone.

            Given that you often bark “Evidence?” to many peoples opinions on here, I am amazed you belittle such an action.

          • ‘Evidence’ is quoting facts, not quoting ‘here is the opinion of somebody else who has the same as my opinion’

          • I studied and obtained a degree in the days when degrees were harder to obtain than they are today.

            Nowadays even people who are too stupid to know the difference between “suites” and “suits” can get a degree.

          • In fairness, I don’t believe the outrage was feigned.

            With regard to your second paragraph, you might be surprised to hear that I agree with every word of it.

          • I apologise if you feel that I made any comment about your son’s integrity. My daughter does not attend church with me but has a strong residual faith.
            My comment is that this becomes watered down over the generations.
            Christians who are endeavouring to follow Christ will not be stealing from their employers. Their conscience would not allow it.
            When head butting the pew it is generally when I am asking forgiveness for my negligence, weakness and own deliberate fault – tends to concentrate the mind on trying to do better!

          • Apology accepted. I reciprocate the apology with one of my own for being so sharpe. But you must understand that there are a lot of secular people out there who do not agree with the way the country is sinking into the mire. As I said to Charles Dawne below, moral turpitude is being enabled by the State. People are rewarded for being feckless. And it is wrong.

          • The moral sense can be attributed to human intuition and/or social learning. (Where the “intuition” comes from is a question we needn’t get into for now.)

            Rational reflection can also get you to the same terminus. So an argument that the justification of moral rules requires God as a starting assumption is not likely to be listened to by atheists.

          • An argument that the justification of happiness requires a cat as a starting assumption is not likely to be listened to by women who are happy yet don’t have cats because they clearly know from their own personal experience it’s not true.

          • I made an observation about the difficulty of justifying moral rules using God as a starting assumption. If you haven’t come across it before, maybe you shouldn’t advertise your ignorance.

          • I don’t need to explicate what ought to be obvious to the meanest intelligence. Of course, if you have comprehension difficulties that should be taken into account.

          • I actually feel a bit sorry for you and Phil R. It mustn’t be nice not having many friends and a lot of decent people trying to avoid contact with you.

            Now I’ll wait for the predictable response that actually you have a happy and exciting life and lots and lots of friends.

            But deep down, both you and I will know that that’s not true.

          • Why are you talking nonsense? Just stick to the substance of my comments and stop making a fool of yourself.

          • I know the truth hurts and you’d rather shift the topic, but we both know I’m not wrong.

            The reason for your Christianity as a crutch is that if God exists, maybe your drab uninspiring pen-pushing life has had a meaning to it after all.

          • You seem to have no idea of how incredibly childish and foolish it is to speculate on this message board about my personal life, my “lack of friends”, etc. Conservative Woman isn’t just another Twitter or Facebook where juvenile malice is endemic.

            As strangers on the internet, you know nothing about me and I know nothing about you. That’s the way it should be. We are here to respectfully exchange views – and nothing more.

          • If you were an intelligent person, you should be thanking Rebecca for highlighting the flaws in your personality and going away to address them in an attempt to improve yourself.

          • Next time I notice you buzzing up and down a thread like a demented gadfly, telling people how thick they are etc., and boasting about your toy degree, I shall remind you of your threat to report me to the moderator for giving you a dose of your own medicine.

          • You are too stupid to read my post and understand it. I don’t intend to report you at all, you are entertaining me far too much.

        • That is precisely why we need to change them from within – redemption, renewal and a new beginning. That is what Christ offers. A comment from a mayor in China from a town which had seen thousands convert to Christianity – “if the whole town becomes Christian we won’t need a police force”.

      • I know that. But our politicians don’t even pay lip service to Christianity these days. They think that Shari’a is acceptable on these shores. And that includes disMay.

      • Not correct. “Christianity” (in the UK) is itself an amalgam of old values and customs from older cultures as well as the churches of Celtic, Roman Catholic and Anglican variety. The Anglo-Saxon pagans were far more moralistic than given credit for and our values have been shaped by both our pagan ancestors and by Christianity (in all its forms).

        • Nonsense. The unmistakable imprint of Christianity is largely common to all its branches, both the Latin western derived Churches and the Eastern Orthodox Churches, within which the UK is but a very small part. Our Common Law has deep Anglo-Saxon roots but its standards reflect Christian belief and practice.

          • It’s not nonsense in any way. All you need to do is read about the Anglo-Saxon pagan culture, and how Christianity in this country was built upon it. Yule, for example.

          • Many old customs change and live on in small and interesting ways, like the days of the week for example, but overwhelmingly the weight of our cultural norms, assumptions and laws derive from Christianity.

          • I’m sorry David, but that’s not correct. Truth, honesty, honour and bravery (just four common values) were all hallmarks of the Anglo-Saxons and to believe otherwise is simply ignoring history.

          • I hear what you say, and do not refute your specific point above, but maintain that, “overwhelmingly the weight of our cultural norms, assumptions and laws derive from Christianity”.

  2. Yes and the kinds of Churches that will grow in 2017 are those that are on the right side of history. The left wing churches, who support refugees welcome, the muslim invasion and the climate change scam will lose more members at the same time as those that are bible based and non political will continue to grow!!!

    • Spot on !
      The left-liberal type churches are shrinking. Those that are growing are the conservative, Biblically led churches.

    • As a devout atheist, I have always loved Christian art, especially music & Early Renaissance painting.
      Judeo Christianity, for all its faults, is a defining characteristic of Western culture,
      & I cannot help but notice that those who go to Church today, especially those
      of recent immigrant stock, are highly unlikely to be involved in anti social or
      criminal behaviour.
      Those “Christians” who accommodate islam are quite simply traitors to their Church
      & to Western civilisation.

  3. The problem is that I feel that the Church of England, has in many aspects, gone the same way as our politicians. Whilst our local clergy are in the main doing a good job, I have little faith in the bishops and archbishops. The Church has become politically correct and seems often to be more interested in politics than religion. The Archbishop of Canterbury and Cameron could have swapped jobs and no-one would have noticed the difference!
    Where are the disciples and missionaries trying to preach Christianity to the masses, trying to convert the masses (including Muslims) to Christianity? What is the Church doing to persuade the younger generations to follow their parents and attend church? All the Church seems to be doing is to try to manage a steady decline.
    I would estimate that more than three quarters of the congregation at my local parish church are over sixty, what happens when they are gone? The local bell ringers are down to ten of which only two are not retired. We just managed to raise eight to ring the bells on Christmas Day but for the first time since the war, we will not have enough ringers to “Ring in the New Year”, a centuries old tradition.

    • “The Church has become politically correct and seems often to be more interested in politics than religion.”

      With the greatest of respect to you, it seems to me that it has always been the case that the bishops and archbishops of the Church of England are political animals.

      Regardless, would we have a problem with that if the bishops and archbishops were not politically correct and left-leaning? Would we rejoice if they were speaking out against the mohammedans, the cultural marxism, the loony identity politics of the left? Giving people a moral compass against all of that?

      I certainly would!

      • Certainly they should be speaking out against Mohammedans, they should be trying to convert heathens to Christianity. Isn’t that ‘spreading the gospel’ as the disciples did in the past?

        • Of course, but speaking out against mohammedans and spreading the gospel are not the same thing.

          Speaking out against mohammedans would mean condemning their behaviour regarding segregation, ghettoisation, radicalism, gang rape, halal meat, etc. etc.; thus providing a counter to them that the media would find difficult to suppress.

          Spreading the gospel to mohammedans wouldn’t have the same effect and would be laughed at by them.

  4. The way of salvation is unique; however the way of wisdom in politics appears, to be sure, a rarely received grace of revelation, but not unique to Israel, as perhaps Proverbs testifies. For a fallible book of wisdom, the following is pretty jolly good (as I believe CS Lewis agreed).

    From The Way (Tao) by Lao-Tze, 5th c. BCE

    7.1 Heaven is long-enduring and earth continues long. The reason why heaven and earth are able to endure and continue thus long is because they do not live of, or for, themselves. This is how they are able to continue and endure. 2. Therefore the sage puts his own person last, and yet it is found in the foremost place; he treats his person as if it were foreign to him, and yet that person is preserved. Is it not because he has no personal and private ends, that therefore such ends are realised?

    13.3 Therefore he who would administer the kingdom, honouring it as he honours his own person, may be employed to govern it, and he who would administer it with the love which he bears to his own person may be entrusted with it.

    49.1 The sage has no invariable mind of his own; he makes the mind of the people his mind. 2. To those who are good (to me), I am good; and to those who are not good (to me), I am also good;—and thus (all) get to be good. To those who are sincere (with me), I am sincere; and to those who are not sincere (with me), I am also sincere;—and thus (all) get to be sincere. 3. The sage has in the world an appearance of indecision, and keeps his mind in a state of indifference to all. The people all keep their eyes and ears directed to him, and he deals with them all as his children.

    66.1 That whereby the rivers and seas are able to receive the homage and tribute of all the valley streams, is their skill in being lower than they;—it is thus that they are the kings of them all. So it is that the sage (ruler), wishing to be above men, puts himself by his words below them, and, wishing to be before them, places his person behind them. 2. In this way though he has his place above them, men do not feel his weight, nor though he has his place before them, do they feel it an injury to them. 3. Therefore all in the world delight to exalt him and do not weary of him. Because he does not strive, no one finds it possible to strive with him.

    81.2 The sage does not accumulate (for himself). The more that he expends for others, the more does he possess of his own; the more that he gives to others, the more does he have himself.

  5. How does the reverend define a Christian? I attended the Alpha Course and was told it was someone who accepted Jesus as their saviour, and that anyone who didn’t would suffer an eternity of torment in Hell. A pretty bleak message of perpetual persecution and moreover grossly insulting to God. So sorry if I don’t buy your argument that ‘a Christian revival would restore trust in politicians’.

    • Either choose God or hell. Either way it is your choice.

      Secularism cannot and does not imbue virtue as it is a world view of selfishness

      • No it isn’t.
        However it appears that in your case, religion has imbued arrogance and self-important big-headed “know-it-all” egotism

          • So : which of these statements is your personal set of moral guidelines based on

            a. I believe in my heart and my mind it is the right and proper thing to do towards my fellow man, I didn’t need to be told this, I worked out for myself what was decent and right.

            b. A book says I will go to hell if I do this and don’t do that.

      • Virtue is the use of a mans mind to choose to reason and not to choose irrational mysticism. Imposed or proscribed morality is no morality at all.

          • If this life is all there is then rational man will arrange his life for his benefit and his alone.

            Where do you think our ideas of morality come from?

            Reason? Don’t make me laugh

          • 1. Wrong

            2. Good people find morality in their hearts and heads. Others need to get told it from a book or someone in a pulpit

            3. Phil R not a hate-filled individual hiding behind religion to make himself appear virtuous? Actually, that did make me laugh

          • Maybe religion is needed, either by people who just need structure in their lives, and find comfort in history, those struggling with whatever life has chucked at them, or those who were born without the genetic ability to empathise (those that haven’t seem attracted to roles with power and control?).

          • I agree that religion has a place in some people’s lives. It gives them a framework of sorts to cling to. It also gives them comfort. Those of a stronger disposition do not need that crutch. Some insist that in order to live moral lives we must be pious and obedient to a mythical deity in all things.

            No. We don’t.

          • https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Polkinghorne

            I like John Polkinghornes approach..”.because scientific experiments try to eliminate extraneous influences, he believes they are atypical of what goes on in nature. He suggests that the mechanistic explanations of the world that have continued from Laplace to Richard Dawkins should be replaced by an understanding that most of nature is cloud-like rather than clock-like……
            He addresses the questions of “Does the concept of God make sense? If so, do we have reason for believing in such a thing?” He is “cautious about our powers to assess coherence,” pointing out that in 1900 a “competent … undergraduate could have demonstrated the ‘incoherence'” of quantum ideas. He suggests that “the nearest analogy in the physical world [to God] would be … the Quantum Vacuum.”

          • There is nothing nebulous about how a particular atom vibrates. While there is much left in nature we don’t yet understand I have yet to see proof that the hand of paranormal entity is at work. That doesn’t negate that such a thing is possible because there are a lot of strange things in this universe we will never understand. Like the way Nature is doing her very best to stymie the Greenies at every turn. :0)

    • ” I attended the Alpha Course and was told …”
      Oh, dear. You are supposed yourself to ‘seek, and ye shall find …”

  6. Is there any reason to believe that “a grass-roots Christian revival” is likely in this country? It’s possible, of course, but highly improbable in my view.

    • Even if there were a grass roots revival among the general population, I fail to see how that would in any way restore trust in politicians.

      • Because ‘Trust’ arrives on foot but leaves by rocket. And it has left. Even binoculars can no longer glimpse it.

        Speaking specifically of the UK, revival of trust in the political class would indeed require a Christian input – in the sense of a Christ-like resurrection from the dead.

        • I hope you are not seriously implying that the reason we have a self-serving corrupt political class is because us, the plebians need more honesty and integrity?

      • In my view, if a Christian revival ever materialises, it will be led by the educated classes. In other words, the reverse process of a grass-roots phenomenon. What Eliot, in his book “The Idea of a Christian Society”, described as a “Christian community” of intellectuals would do the spadework.

          • No the pain will come from the atheist inability to create a society that limits sexual behaviour, creates stable structure for children or perhaps the most important, can be bothered to reproduce.

          • I live in a safe, secular society full of families with stable structures where children are fetched up properly. Strangely only a handful are church goers. Care to explain?

          • You society is the product of a christian heritage.

            Secularism does not know how to build virtue. It only spends it down

          • If you want proof. Look around a city centre in a labour controlled area.

            Look at the USSR revolutionary France and every other country that has adopted athiesm.

          • Spanish inquisition. Wrong BTW and accepted by Christians

            Death toll what 3000?

            Atheist “democracies” death toll 250 million

            What Muslims do us irrelevant to the discussion

          • I’m not disputing the numbers. I’m pointing out that deeply religious communities of whatever stripe can be fascistic.

          • Of course.

            Religion leads defined viewpoints.

            Secularism responds by increasing state control and indoctrination. This makes religion stronger not weaker as secularists expect.

          • Not necessarily true. I am a secularist who is also a minarchist. I don’t believe in big government nor the excuses it seizes to expand its tentacles ever deeper into our lives.

          • The experience of atheist governments have been that they are totalitarian in nature.

            We even see it in the UK. A lack of virtue leads to big government which in turn leads to a further loss of control of their lives and less need for virtue. Government steps in again and the cycle continues.

          • Yes pain is coming, coming from the sheer dysfunctional nature of a society led by a secularist global view. Everywhere atheism has been enforced much pain has occurred.

        • I agree with what you are saying and can’t see it happening ..
          – The church is looking on those interpreting the Bible literally as a yardstick and support for continuation on their current path.
          – A literal interpretation of the Bible is full of inconsistencies as well as contradictions which the majority outside the church would never be able to support, expecting the educated classes to take all that on board is a huge stretch.
          – A lot of these contradictions have been introduced as Church ‘doctrine ‘ with (in my opinion) the intention centuries ago, of controlling the uneducated general population, rather than just a focus on the content of the original New Testament scriptures. (The Bible was created under Charlemagne, during a period of warring European factions, with Christmas etc taking over previous pagan religious days. The scripts were selected from others by the Vatican).
          The Church could it it chose to, roll back the tide of thousands of years of what has actually separated us, and develop a faith concentrated on individual freedom, (i.e democracy), with a basic set of values (which don’t involve self sacrifice, but are based on mutual and personal respect and mutual support in adversity).

          • The foundation and maintenance of a Christian society, in pre-scientific times, was accomplished by the widespread acceptance of a set of religious beliefs by educated people. Where the aristocracy of the mind led, the rest followed. These beliefs have been under “rational” attack at least since the Age of Enlightenment. “Enlightened opinion” has now become institutionalised and, more or less, effected the de-Christianisation of many Western societies.

            To revive Christianity now, would require an influential “clerisy” becoming convinced of the reasonableness of Christianity, and acquiring the power to restore a Christian outlook in the social order it aspired to lead.

            I don’t think this will happen – even in my oversimplified version of events. Individuals will continue to be converted by private study or by charismatic preachers; but the conversion of the masses would require leadership from the top.

  7. Another short, punchy excellent article from the Reverend Julian Mann, and thank you for it Julian.
    As a nation we must turn again to Christ or face a terrible price.
    With truth telling, gifted writers of this calibre it is inevitable that Conservative Woman will go from strength to strength in 2017 and the years to come.

  8. No.

    Honest politicians who didn’t fiddle the system, get caught with rent boys, and instead stood by their constituents and their principles would restore trust in politicians.

    Nothing to do with a Christian revival at all.

          • So if the bigotry of Christianity is called into question it’s a straw man. Yes, I see where you are coming from now. The planet Zog.

          • You said “atheism is selfishness…” I don’t see a straw man. I see a rather silly pretentious one called Phil, however.

          • Have you noticed how BB has a penchant for calling people who don’t agree with him “thick”? Rather insulting, don’t you think? However, as we are on a website whose motivation is to promote faith (something he apparently was nt aware of) I suppose we should turn the other cheek.

          • Jesus only recommended cheek turning in tribal & domestic squabbles.
            I suppose this debate falls between two stools.

          • I’m not an atheist. I am an agnostic areligionist.

            And while there are people like you attached to the Christianity I will continue to be an areligionist.

          • If you are not an advert then what are you? Because the product you seem to be peddling is so screwed up it is impossible to identify it with the Church I grew up with.

          • You are quite right. We do not choose God. I certainly don’t choose God. And I don’t choose any church you, with your narrow vision of what you think makes a Christian a Christian, represent. I wouldn’t be able to get through the door because inside the walls are stuffed to the bricks with a brand of insufferable, intolerant hubris that serves only to turn people away.

            Before you start preaching to us I suggest you go away and learn a little humility to temper your pride in your own conviction. Then maybe you won’t get such a rough ride from people you seem to delight in rubbing up the wrong way.

            Morality didn’t begin with Jesus. It didn’t die with him either. Get over it.

          • If Phil R had any Christian humility (and common sense) he would do himself a favour and reflect on particularly your middle paragraph. Your diagnosis is spot on.

            I doubt if he will of course.

          • No, because like any lefty you could name, it is impossible for him to be wrong even when it is apparent that he is.

          • It is of course impossible to be a Conservative without having some belief.

            The decline of morality, income and true conservative values runs in parallel with atheism becoming more mainstream.

          • I’m neither. It has been known for over a century that atheism and communism go hand in hand so you are somewhat late to that party.

          • But we do chose god. The Jews and Muslims chose YHWH/Allah, who is a classic tribal god: vengeful, jealous and randomly cruel.
            Christians chose the transcendent god of whom Jesus spoke,

            The two are not the same entity!

          • No I am not. We cannot save ourselves and we cannot know who is saved.

            Selling a product implies that you have to do something to own it.

            Salvation does not work that way.

          • Well, listening to you would certainly dissuade me from joining any church in which I had to sit in the same room as you at any church function.
            Seriously, Phil, do you have lots of friends? Were you picked on quite a bit at school? Did your fellow work colleagues enjoy your company?

          • Rebecca. We are not Christians because we like each other. It is not a social club. We are not of like minds we call ourselves brothers and sisters because that is the closest analogy.

            We fight sometimes, but we are family.

          • It seems Rebecca has made a very welcome and insightful analysis. Phil R has the need to use religion as a crutch in the desperate hope of bringing meaning to his life. Without it, he would be a bitter, lonely, boring nobody.

          • Hardly. If he is a representation of the modern Christian then I opt to choose the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I bet they are more fun to be around.

          • Atheism is pure rationalism & atheists can be very virtuous without
            expecting reward from a sky father in an afterlife.
            The most selfish celebrity of recent years was surely Mother Theresa.
            CAFOD, the respected Catholic aid agency, refused to fund her
            organisation because it gave poor, even no, treatment to the
            suffering & was run as a cult worshipping the old crone.

          • “Atheism is pure rationalism”


            You cannot prove there is no God.

            Also Heaven is not a reward for good works or a righteous lifestyle.

            So Mother T was human.

            What a surprise. …

  9. Rev Mann, for many, if not most, Christianity and in my case the CoE, was as much about tradition and continuity as about the message. I still go to church at Christmas because I love the season, the music, the architecture of my local church, the mystery represented by the candlelight, the link with our shared history and the fact our vicar is obviously not stupid enough to spout his specific and targeted socialist guff attacking the majority of his congregation at this time of year when the pews are occupied. I fear it is you who needs to think hard about next year, you are part of an organisation that is wilfully committing suicide. It has totally lost touch with its own traditions and responsibilities in being tied to its nation state and concerning itself with all of its congregations spiritual well being by guiding and advising all to a path as close to good as can be. It has totally forgotten the virtues of constancy, honour, restraint, duty, family and patriotism and sacrificed all of these on the narrow emotions of compassion, globalism, feminism and anti-racism. Not all of those are emotions are bad, but without the former virtues they are as devoid of meaning and likely success as socialism which it seems to imitate. The truth is the people haven’t left the Church as much as the Church has left the people. The word of Christ is, I am afraid, pretty meaningless without the framework and discipline of a belief system that can encapsulate the aforementioned virtues that give people something tangible to hang onto or relate to. Wringing your hands is no substitute for measured action for the greater good. You need to take the fight to your own institution, who knows at this pivotal moment in our history you may find a following.

  10. The hierarchy of the C of E, like the political and cultural hierarchy, has lost faith in its own culture’s beliefs, especially Biblically based faith. They have attended universities that have encouraged them to question and doubt a belief in a western Judaeo-Christian based culture, central to which is the Bible.
    But amongst the people there are still many who want to defend all the good things that our country has had. This is why, with a gulf between the grass roots, the governed and the governing, the green shoots of renewal are coming up from below. Politically Brexit was a green shoot.
    But what is really needed to turn us back to more wholesome paths is a widespread, root and branch Christian revival. For that we look to the leadership of the Holy Spirit. Pray God that this happens.

  11. Clear equivocation of the word ‘leadership’. The Church and the State have sought to mechanism to rule the population throughout history. Leaders are those who lead others, the lead is a leash, a collar, a coercive method of control.

    Freedom and leadership are incompatible no matter how well meaning the intent. The only purpose of Government is to prevent infringements on personal freedom including property ownership.

    I would no more trust a Christian politician than an atheist, Jewish, Hindu or Muslim. I trust no one but myself to decide what is right for me and my family.

    • Why the Church and the state in the UK have been split, and why importing Moslems with a creed which combines both could turn into a major problem. The issue being Sharia law, people are just people reacting to circumstances

    • “I trust no one but myself to decide what is right for me and my family” – in my view, a very wise course of action.

    • “No man is an island unto himself”
      Except Nockian – the always wise ?
      Good luck with writing from scratch a complete philosophy and ethical code just for yourself.

      • Why did you put your first sentence in quotes, given that Nockian didn’t actually say it?

        Good luck with writing words into other people’s mouths from scratch, a complete re-writing of what people said just for yourself.

      • Thats just an example of cliche thinking and not fact.
        I am not ‘always wise’ but I try to encourage myself and others to be so.
        I don’t need to write the philosophy, happily as someone wiser than I has already done so. The ethical code is a natural corrolary of the requirement to maintain my own life through reason, to be productive and to be happy. It’s really just common sense.

    • But sadly we are sheep, who are stupid and need to be driven.
      I would prefer to be a goat. Goats are intelligent and need to be led.

  12. As soon as a politician starts talking about their religious beliefs, I stop listening to the politician and certainly don’t vote for them. How can you trust someone who believes in mythical creatures?

    • Yes what a good idea.

      Let’s only have one set of ideas.

      Let’s only have one policy one party one worldview.

      Not as if it has not been tried before. ….

      • “Let’s only have one set of ideas” – isn’t that what you want the Church of England to have ?

        Let’s only have one C of E one worldview.

        Not as if it has not been tried before. ….

        • We already have a set of doctrines that everyone in authority has made a vow to uphold.

          If they do not feel they can do so then the logical option is to resign. That is rarely contemplated by politicians or clergy

          • Keith Vaz, he of the Hinduja passports, fiddled expenses, drugs and rent boys is still not only an MP but has been appointed to the Justice Select Committee by other MPs.

            A Christian revival among the general population is not number one on my priority list to sort out trust in politicians.

            Seeing other politicians kick Keith Vaz out on his backside would be a better way to start.

          • Seeing other politicians kick Keith Vaz out on his backside would be a better way to start.

            Agreed. But they have not done it. 100 years ago he would have been gone, disgraced and not welcome in 99% of social gatherings. His professional and private career would be over.

            Things have changed but not always for the better.

            Why? And if we rule out Christian morality, how can we get some semblance of virtue back in public life?

          • Basing everyday morality on ‘natural law’ would be a large step in the right direction. Vaz’s nasty little habits cannot be considerable acceptable under either the morality of Christianity or that of natural law.

    • As soon as atheists start pontificating on religious sites I start wondering why do they bother as they think it’s all make believe, unless …

      • It’s a conservative site, not a religious site.

        As soon as thick people start making basic mistakes on conservative sites, I start wondering why do they bother as they can’t even get the basics right, unless …

        • In case you had n’t noticed, it’s an article entitled ‘A Christian revival would restore trust in politicians’ written by an Anglican vicar. Hence, my original point stands i.e. why do atheists even bother to comment on something that BaronHardup thinks is so beneath him?

          • In case you had n’t noticed, it’s a conservative site which your muddled brain said was a religious site. Hence my original point stands i.e. why do thick people even bother to comment on something they don’t understand the basics of?

          • Mission statement for conservative woman cites “the restoration of socially conservative values – those of faith, family and flag”. Sounds quite religious to me. Care to comment?

          • Out of three things, two thirds of them are nothing to do with religion. Not dominantly religious then to me or anyone else than can do basic maths.

            As soon as thick people start looking through a list of things and then focus narrowly on the one thing their mind is obsessed with, I start wondering why do they bother unless …

          • So you do admit that it has a religious motivation, at least in part. The clue was in the ‘mission statement’ bit. Thank you. Rather ‘thick’ of you not to notice, don’t you think??
            PS family has nothing to do with religion?

          • In part, does not imply all. You have a narrow one track thought process that looks through a list and focusses on one item.
            Rather ‘thick’ of you to do that, don’t you think?
            PS no. Secular families can be happy, successful and moral. I know that will come as a shock to you, but take your medication and lie down and let it sink in.

          • Thanks for your reply. Of course, you were the one who originally focused rather narrowly on the conservative nature of the website and neglected its obvious religious character. However, lets not quibble and thank you for your admission. Merry Christmas!

          • And a Merry Christmas to you, Chris. And I mean Christmas, not winterfest. I’m not against all of what Christianity stands for, far from it.

    • Don’t be so definite about it , you don’t know “they” are mythical creatures any more than I know that they’re not . You believe or you do not believe . Six of one , half a dozen of the other .
      ( except of course , I’m right ! )

  13. The Rev Mann makes a good point . It has always been the case that a substantial number of people in a supposedly Christian country have in fact held no genuine religious beliefs . They have however, accepted the moral code which the Christian religion carries . They obviously did not follow it faithfully at all times , but neither did they institute many laws which were a direct contravention of the said code . Today many of our laws deliberately ignore codes of practice and conventions which have governed many societies for centuries , sometimes well , sometimes badly . If all customs and norms are got rid of , what then happens ? I’ll tell you what happens , look around and see the slow disintegration of our society and it’s replacement by one alien creed or another which we really will have cause to dislike . Better the God you know……………..

  14. My local vicar recently stated in his sermon that the vote in favour of Brexit and the election of Donald Trump was due solely to the lies made by both camps during their respective campaigns. When I challenged him after the service, all he was prepared to say that he had expressed himself “rather clumsily!!” Is it any wonder that the Church of England is in terminal decline, partly on account of the fact that half the hierarchy no longer seriously believe in God and prefer, instead, to use the pulpit as a means of expressing their political view of the world. If Jesus came back to this Earth today, I feel that he would treat many of the clergy in the same way that he took towards the money changers in the Temple. When I look at the local congregation in my church, the majority are over 60 and I suspect that in twenty years time the church will be closed. Many of today’s clergy no longer undertake the role of the good shepherd, which means that they have little contact with the outside world. Becoming ordained is now simply a job with a free house rather than a vocation. Recently, a fellow member of my congregation, who had been a churchwarden for many years, had a fairly serious fall, which meant that she was unable to leave her house. During the time of her confinement, not one member of our local team of clergy bothered to visit her at her home. Until the clergy are prepared to once again undertake the role of the good shepherd, then the public will increasingly become alienated from the church, thereby leading to a possible marginalisation of Christianity in our public life.

    • Did this vicar you mention have anything to say about Trump as a role model for Christian voters in his 325,000,000 strong constituency? I only ask because a great number of approving comments about Groper since the general election seem to have been composed by people who are unaware that the next Potus is a much-divorced philanderer, sex bully and importuner of women who appears, exactly like the Satan-worshipping secularist liberals such people imagine are going to burn in Hades, either never to have sat through a single sermon in his entire life or never to have understood a single word any such sermon contained.

      • I’m guessing they voted for the bloke who looked like he would get the job done. Let’s not forget that groping and phillandering in the Whitehouse coughClinton-cough isn’t a new thing.

      • When. The other choice was a woman who backed abortion up to the point of birth (ie infanticide) and stated that the most important issue for the White House was LGBT rights around the globe, Trump would have had my vote if I was an American.

      • Dr. Heath, what about the antics of Bill Clinton and his wife’s refusal to condone such activities? In fact Hilary Clinton has gone out of her way to attack those women who dared to question Bill’s improprieties. Would the prospect of ensuring that women get the respect they deserve have improved under Hilary? I think not?

  15. The only true man of God, in the whole of the CoE is John Sentamu, until men like these are raised up to lead the hierarchy of the Anglican clergy and faith, the Church will remain what it is, a walking zombie and politically correct joke.

    • He has recently gone down in my estimation. The draping of the rainbow flag over the Minster steps and the blessing of Gay Pride – his silence condemns him! And backing the dreadful Dean over the bell ringing episode – she should be sacked – no bells for the first time in 600 years!

        • Tolerance is not the issue. Intolerance is the coercion of the majority by the minority as we are now finding out. The only sexual act which can be blessed is between a husband and wife.

          • Exactly! To counter the rise of Islam, the Christian church needs to out-Islam Islam!

            Same with women vicars. In the Christian church, women should be even more second class citizens with less opportunity than they are in Islam. That will guarantee the crowds flocking to the church.

          • We don’t need to out-Islam – we need to be authentically Christian.
            The Christian church from the very beginning was known as a church for women and slaves – the powerful shunned it. Women have always had status in the Christian church. The only role they could not undertake was the priestly role as this represents Christ. I was in favour of a change as women’s role in society had changed, but I now consider this has not been good for the Church , especially as many of these women are feminists first and foremost.

          • You don’t need to be able to bless people to tolerate them though do you..a sin is something everyone is guilty of, yet sinners are still blessed at the alter.

    • Sentamu made a ridiculous defence of Remain during the EU referendum. Complete gibberish. Also, he was part of the Macpherson crowd in the 1990s that came up with “institutional racism”.

  16. The best Archbishop of Canterbury (that we didn’t get) is undoubtedly Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali. His faith is utterly orthodox, conservative and consistent with the Thirty Nine Articles. As a Pakistani he understands both Islam and Christianity and exhibits a deep understanding of many cultures. What a wonderful leader of the global Anglican Communion he would have made. Unfortunately the establishment would never accept anyone as true and devoted to Christ as he is, as he never makes any concessions to the cultural vanities of this corrupt and godless age.

  17. To begin a Christian revival you first need to drain the C of E swamp, start by removing Welby and his “fill the country with Moslems” leanings

    • If successive heads of the C of E so hate Christianity that they wish
      to flood the West with Christianity’s Oldest Enemy, why be an Anglican ?
      I think the AB of Cs love the cushy life in the Lords & the mansions
      & servants.
      They live the life of unelected dictators without having any serious responsiblities.
      When their great grand children are forced to live an islamic life, they will not be
      fondly remembered.

      • Flood the west with Orthodox Jews? Romans? Visi-Goths? These were all older enemies.

        I think the greatest enemy is the enemy within. People turn away from Christianity because of mis-guided prats like you.

        • Ever thought that people turn away from Christianity (or any other religion) because mankind no longer needs to believe in fairy stories?

        • Our Oldest Enemy is a constant, unyielding, unreformed, enemy.
          An enemy who has not changed since its inception in the Dark Ages.
          Not sure that Orthodox Jews were ever a threat, but the Romans
          & the Visigoths haven’t caused much loss of sleep for centuries.
          Gladstone, as well as Churchill, identified islam as the greatest threat facing civilisation.
          Nazism lasted a couple of decades, Communism is all but dead – save
          within Corbyn’s Labour Party.
          France is 10% mohammedan, the UK has even had a hirsute, Blairite, Archbishop of Canterbury who wanted sharia law incorporated within UK law.

  18. The issue is that the Church has surrendered its moral authority on many issues and a church that surrenders on this issue destroys its ability to ever again make an authoritative moral statement. Why? Because our authoritative statements are based upon an answer to the question “Where stands it written?” But the Cof E and others have been saying “The Scripture doesn’t really mean what it says.” And the next time we confront the culture based upon Scripture we will hear “Yes, but that’s what you said about e.g. homosexuality.” It amounts to a tacit denial of Scripture in order to empower men to write their own rules.

    If the church knows nothing with authority, then it has no reason to exist.
    Why ponder questions that have no answers?

    • Then how come you are fighting so hard on the behalf of a religious authority that has put aside its moral compass, completely sold out and lost the plot?

      Why do you think that so many people have turned away from the Church?

          • I don’t put much faith in the Bible. I don’t consider it to be a particularly good lifestyle guide. While some it is provabley historical much of it is apochryphal and I don’t mean in a world ending way.

          • Have you read all of the Bible?

            Having said that God found me one day in my late teens. I did not believe and then and instant later I knew God was real. Nobody persuaded me and I had never read any of the Bible.

            30 years on. I don’t regard myself as a good person and I still don’t understand why he chose me.

            People often tell me that I am not a good Christian.

            I know I am not. But without God I would have had no conscience and no morals and would not have considered it a handicap

          • Most of us do, and the argument is always well that came from God, whereas in reality it came from mum and dad, and it generally works because it makes sense. Generally speaking the difficulty is that there are sociopaths who can’t empathise with other people and so could be lacking the `moral compass` which allows us to question our own motives be cause we can imagine ourselves in the position of a victim. A strict moral code creates a behavioural structure for those people. Unfortunately it’s all passed off under the general umbrella of `faith` which can’t be questioned, which secular society rightly considers to be oppressive, mind control.

          • “secular society rightly considers to be oppressive, mind control”

            Come on.. Who has tried the hardest to make “1984” a reality in the UK. Christians or secularists?

          • We’re talking in circles. Let’s agree to disagree. I’m not going back to the church and nothing you say will convince me to return. In my direct experience the church is more problem than it is the solution. While I am willing to admit that some individuals within the church lead good lives and are charitable the hierarchy is so out of touch with the real world it might as well move its HQ to Pluto.

          • Yes I agree. But a Christian is not about being good and charitable or even nice.

            You should see some improvements but saints we are definitely not.

            There are no good or bad Christians from God’s perspective.

          • I have no insight into what any god, should one or more exist, thinks of us. I try and lead a good life but I don’t need religion in order to do that.

          • “But a Christian is not about being good and charitable or even nice” clearly, but quite a lot of the population support those virtues without even being Christian, or expecting to be eventually `judged` on it.

    • Please explain exactly `when` the Cof E previously `surrendered` its moral authority and how.

      The church is where it’s at because of the requirements of people still in and running it, who (apart from supporting leftard politics) choose to justify a particular point of view. The only real pressure from secularisation is that of the vacuum, and it any going to alter because of fear of another religion offering a worse and even more extreme set of standards.
      Fear and racism are both used in politics, relying on either is a symptom of where you are, and where you are choosing to go. The marketing plan is (or non existence of one, is achieving what it set out to).

      • The OT cannot be separated from the NT. Together
        they constitute one revelation of One God. The Book of Genesis is just as much Scripture as the Book of Matthew. The words of Jesus in the Book of Matthew
        have neither more nor less authority than the words of Moses in the Pentateuch. In fact the division between Old and New is largely functional. It does not indicate some ontological difference between the two.

        Yes, Protestants divide the law into ceremonial law and moral law. The Lord Jesus perfectly fulfilled the ceremonial Law for us, and that has been set aside. The moral law is still the moral law. We are not free to sin that grace may abound. What has changed is our relationship to God. We have become adopted sons and daughters. This means we are no longer held to account for eternal punishment because of the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. The Law holds no sting because the law can no longer condemn us before God. Our indictment has been nailed to the Cross.

        Instead we have entered into a relationship whereby God works to conform us to the image of His Son. In other words, He treats us as legitimate children. We are free to approach the Throne of God and say “Abba, Father.” Sin no longer leads to eternal death. It leads to discipline. Possibly harsh discipline. Exceedingly harsh discipline. But that discipline is the very evidence that God loves His children and has not abandoned them. God is not interested in making us happy. He is interested in making us Holy. God does not overlook sin. He acts as Father to correct it.

        You can’t play games with God. He doesn’t overlook and He doesn’t forget. The Cof E has decided that “God is love” but without the dicipline. It have decided to play games with scripture and redefine scripture to conform to the secular religion of self. The Cof E does not see God as a father who loves us and because he does he will correct us.

  19. When the Anglican church dumps it’s wimmin, it’s gay and paedophile priests, it’s support of every kind of anti British minority and takes up preaching against greed and sin, then they will start to become relevent to the Christians who have suffered from religious discrimination under their watch. They should also bring back the King James bible and dump the touchy feely paperback they currently use. As a Christian I am waiting along with a few million others,but I think I will still be waiting in 10 years time with this lot in charge.

    • I have considerable sympathy with your viewpoint. I much prefer the traditional service with the King James Bible. I believe people want a stable point of reference in a confused and ever changing world but unfortunately the CofE seems to be changing and just as confused as everything else. We all yearn for stability and regretfully the Church no longer seems to offer it.
      I’ve no problem with women, provided that they are genuinely selected on merit, but I do with gay clergy. A nearby parish church which appointed a gay curate found that more than half the children in the Sunday school has been withdrawn by parents within a few months. Being gay and being a paedophile may not be the same thing but clearly parents were not prepared to take the risk.

    • I understand what you are saying and appreciate your viewpoint. I know that it is a ridiculous rule, and spelling conventions are irritating, but the possessive is always just “its” with “it’s” reserved as a contraction for “it is”. My spelling is terrible, so this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black, but your point will have even more punch without the slip.

    • You are quite right. That’s why my husband and I have swum the Tiber. Of course the RC church is not perfect, but at least it’s coherent in what it believes and doesn’t give way to fashion in times of desperation. The trouble with the CofE is that it has no coherent idea what it believes and therefore falls for anything and as for Justin Welby well what can you say? An Establishment stooge for an Establishment church sadly.

  20. Plan ‘A’ : get shot of the appalling, virtue signalling, fool that currently resides in Lambeth Palace and give the job to someone who has the strength to tell the trendy left to do one.
    There is no Plan ‘B’.

  21. Curiously, Theresa May, Tim Farron and Jeremy Corbyn all project the Jesus-inspired “servant” leadership model this article seems to favour – even if the underlying reality (and competence) may be different. Admittedly, Theresa May is at the bossy end of the spectrum, though I don’t recall Jesus doing much delegating either.

      • Good points. I’m a bit doubtful about Matthew 28 (perhaps an echo of Luke 9?) but Luke 9 and 10 nail it. There are hints of Jesus’s sardonic sense of humour in the NT so I think he would have approved of May’s appointment of Priti Patel as Secretary of State for International Development and Boris Johnson as our chief diplomat.

  22. No trust in politicians who violate intellectual property. Interesting times continue for politicians who are unfit for any employment.

  23. I have recently realised that religion and politics are very similar. Both want to control you and tell you what to think, feel and speak. I used to accept without question the teaching of the church and for that matter government. Now I am wholly sceptical of both.

  24. I think that many commenting here, display signs of what I perceive as the short sight we have all tended to develop over the last five or more decades: an unconscious egotism. ‘Don’t tell me what is right and what is wrong! I know all about that, without needing any guide.’ Yet, both the word ‘moral’ and the word ‘ethos’ seem to me to derive from when communities actually were cetain about those things. ‘Mores’ being just ‘customs’, the ‘moral’, being ‘that which is customary, the ‘immoral’, that which is not customary; similarly, ‘ethos’ means ‘character’. However, ‘progressives’ have persuaded us not to do exactly that which earlier communities all did: accept the customs, beliefs, and practices, of our elders: we must ‘think for ourselves’, not ‘slavishly follow tradition’…
    But, in ‘following the progressives’, we will merely have deserted one tradition, in order to follow a different one. Like the good salesmen they are, they convince the prospect (us!) that our old model is obsolete, worn out, out-moded, fit for the scrap-heap… and should be replaced by their new, shiny (so shiny!), more efficient one.
    Some moralists, see an inherent dualism within any system of Ethics: there is the ‘casuistic’ side (based on the tradition of previous examples – ‘I did that once, and it brought me out in a rash’ or even, ‘In R v. Brown and others, it was decided that…’); also, there is the Apodeictic/Apodictic side – that which is self-evident. But, what might have been ‘self-evident’ among Aristotle’s fellows, would not necessarily be so among us, who have been taught to accept nothing and question everything; as for cases…!
    Hence, the vituperation, on either side, after two or three exchanges, the history of Irrestible Forces and Immovable Objects being so unhappy. So, like the Devils in Milton, we find ‘no end, in wandering mazes lost’ (P.L. II l. 561).

    • Send your mealy mouthed, meandering diatribe to the thousends of children abused by churches and other “guardians of morals”.

  25. Trust arises from belief in proberty, not the actual thing. I suspect today’s politicians are better behaved than at any time in the past because they have a greater fear of exposure. We trust them less because we now all know perhaps 30% of their dodgy behavior rather than the 1% known of 75 years ago.

    The solution to real problems cannot be fantasy. God doesn’t exist and pretending he does – or even worse, having politicians pretending they do – really isn’t the answer.

  26. To begin a Christian revival people, including the senior leadership of the CofE, need to stop indulging in the moral relativism of saying ‘religion’ when they mean a particular religion.

  27. But I don’t want to believe seven improbable things before breakfast with an invisible long bearded guy in the sky watching my every move.

Comments are closed.