Is Britain no longer a ‘Christian’ country?


There were a lot of headlines this week in response to the latest ONS census of Religion in England and Wales, a voluntary survey conducted every ten years. The major two findings were:

For the first time in a census of England and Wales, less than half of the population (46.2%, 27.5 million people) described themselves as “Christian”, a 13.1 percentage point decrease from 59.3% (33.3 million) in 2011; despite this decrease, “Christian” remained the most common response to the religion question.

“No religion” was the second most common response, increasing by 12.0 percentage points to 37.2% (22.2 million) from 25.2% (14.1 million) in 2011.

This was interpreted as meaning that the Christian faith was now a minority position in England and Wales, and passing this milestone was felt by some to trigger major questions, including why the Church of England should remain established.

Before digging into what is going on, it is worth noting what is driving this change. In a population where the average life expectancy is around 80, and where there is no significant infant mortality, in 10 years the population will have changed by around 12%, that is, 12% will have died, and another 12% will have entered adulthood and so be part of the census for the first time. Given the drop in identification as ‘Christian’ was 13% and the growth in ‘no religion’ was 12%, this suggests that the vast majority of the change was generational; rather than individuals changing their view, what we are seeing is a shift in attitudes from one generation to the next. I will return to the significance of this at the end of this piece.


The census was of ‘religious attitudes‘, and not religious practice, so there was no question here about any kind of attendance. This leads to some key observations.

First, there is a large disparity between those identifying as ‘Christian’ and actual regular attendance at churches, on Sundays or midweek. C of E regular attendance is around 850,000, and (according to the work of Peter Brierley) this represents around a quarter of all attendance, which would then be 3.4 million, or just under 6% or the population. That attendance figure is a small part of the 27.5 million identifying as ‘Christian’.

(An interesting comparison is football viewing and attendance. In 2020/21, a record breaking 26.8m people or 40% of the population watched a live Premier League match at some point during the year. During football season match days, total attendance at matches of the first four divisions is 720,000—so the Christian faith is still far more popular, in terms of commitment and affiliation, than football!)

So the question is, what did people mean by saying they identified as Christian? For some, they will be aware of the heritage of Christian values which has shaped our culture—but I suspect for most, particularly those who are older, the term is effectively equivalent to ‘decent’, ‘moral’, ‘respectable’, or even ‘traditional British’.

This is very different from any reasonable working definition of ‘Christian’. In the gospels, it is clear that the core of Jesus’ message is ‘The time has come, and the kingdom of God is at hand—repent and believe the good news!’ (Mark 1.15). We might express this in contemporary terms: ‘the kingly, ruling presence of God is on its way; change the direction of your life, and trust your life to me.’ St Paul sums up Christian commitment as confessing that ‘Jesus is Lord’ (Rom 10.9, 1 Cor 12.3), that is to say, it is to Jesus we owe the faithful allegiance of our lives as we receive the forgiveness, hope and confidence that he offers through his life, death and resurrection. As an ordained Christian minister, I confess I am much more concerned with how many people are Christian in this sense, than how many tick a box on a census form!

Secondly, Danny Webster, of Evangelical Alliance, has done a similar calculation:

First of all, these findings are not a surprise; it has been widely predicted that this would be the result, and our own research through Talking Jesus found that 48% of the UK population described themselves as Christian. Second, it is vital to understand what the census measures and what it doesn’t. The decline in this figure is primarily representative of fewer people holding to the cultural label of Christian. The same Talking Jesus research found that between 2015 and 2021 the number of practicing Christians had remained fairly stable at 6% – this takes a composite measure of people who attend church at least monthly, read the Bible weekly and pray weekly. Other surveys have consistently found that around 10% attend church at least once a month.

(Mark Woods, of Bible Society, notes similar findings from other surveys.)

In other words, this change is primarily a decline in nominal religious affiliation, whilst active attendance has actually remained steady. That is highly significant, given the age demographic in many churches: despite many church attenders being ‘promoted to glory’, especially in Anglican and rural contexts, active Christian commitment has remained steady, which suggests that young people are coming to faith, though in different places and within different denominations. (In my city, Nottingham, there are a good number of large and growing churches which are attracting young people—but most of them are not Anglican, and none of them are theologically liberal.)

This loss of nominal affiliation is a reflection of changes in our culture; all formal associations have experienced fairly catastrophic decline in recent years, as we have become a society which is much less concerned with structured commitment to organisations. Actual church attendance has been affected by this too; where committed Christians might have attended church twice a Sunday on most Sundays in a month in the past, now even committed church members will not be there four times in a month.


Two of the main findings of census are surely related to migration:

There were increases in the number of people who described themselves as “Muslim” (3.9 million, 6.5% in 2021, up from 2.7 million, 4.9% in 2011) and “Hindu” (1.0 million, 1.7% in 2021, up from 818,000, 1.5% in 2011).

London remains the most religiously diverse region of England in 2021, with over a quarter (25.3%) of all usual residents reporting a religion other than “Christian”; the North East and South West are the least religiously diverse regions, with 4.2% and 3.2%, respectively, selecting a religion other than “Christian”.

Migration has resulted in 1 in 6 of the population of England and Wales being born in another country, and a good proportion of those will have come from countries where Islam and Hinduism are the major religions, especially since Brexit. In addition, birth rates amongst these minority groups are generally much higher than amongst the indigenous white UK population.

But the net result is that, whilst affiliation to the Christian faith has declined, and those stating ‘no religion’ has dramatically increased, it is still the case that, in total, 56.4% of respondents declared a religious affiliation and outlook, compared with 37.2% without. We are still a pretty religious country, even though that is changing.


Given all these qualifications, let’s now return to the causes and consequences of these changes.

One correspondent to the Daily Telegraph is very clear on the reasons for decline in affiliation:

SIR – I fear that the decline in the number of people in England and Wales espousing Christian belief, now less than 50 per cent (report, November 30), is largely self-inflicted.

Decades of “modernising” church services to the point of ineffable blandness haven’t helped, while clergy numbers have fallen to a level where retired clergy are working hard to cover the gaps in stipendiary ministry. On top of that, the Church of England has gone down the road of micromanagement, so that the real reason for its existence has been lost in a sea of secular directives.

The situation can be salvaged but, as with the NHS, a radical change of direction is required. The closure of churches during the first lockdown was a major error – a missed opportunity to help people in real distress . Now, amid a cost-of-living crisis, there is a similar opportunity.

However, although the faith is strong, the organisation to proclaim it isn’t. We need vigorous leadership, with better resources for parishes. If more parish churches had a regular priest providing inspiring worship, with a real feeling for the community, the tide could turn.

Rev Simon Douglas Lane
Hampton, Middlesex

Although the writer completely misses the question of nominal affiliation versus actual attendance, there are some important points here. Church leaders, particularly in the C of E, are widely perceived as being more interested in commenting on social issues than making challenging claims about the gospel. And it is certainly the case that diocesan strategies which cut the number of stipendiary clergy posts will inevitably lead to further decline.

Alongside this, there are some very strange claims about the problems with the church. Michael Coren both laments that this decline is happening, lays the blame on the church, notes that it is only ‘conservatives’ churches and religions that are growing, but claims that the ‘progressive’ gospel is the real deal, all at the same time!

Christians can’t blame anyone else for the decline in belief—a vocal, intolerant minority has defined us for too long…

A factor that should give pause to progressives, whatever their religious beliefs, is that Christian growth in Britain is often within conservative elements, whether they be Catholic, evangelical or inside the Church of England. No surprise really, in that certainty sells in times of transition and instability, especially when it’s glued to religious culture.

And here’s where it all becomes so frustrating. Mainstream churches – based on authentic Gospel principles of love, justice, forgiveness, acceptance, progress and peace – simply aren’t doing a very good job of selling the brand. It’s almost as though we’re more concerned with apologies than apologetics.

It doesn’t appear to occur to him that it is precisely this ‘progressive gospel’ which is actually the problem! When the church simply repeats the values of the changing culture and its progressive values, it is not really surprising that people wonder why they need to bother going to church at all.


This leads us to consider the consequences of this change. David Aaronovitch (who agrees with me that this is a generational change) is worried about the decline in religious belief, despite himself being an atheist:

I was struck by something the Archbishop of York said in response to the census findings. The church had existed for two millennia in order to “share the good news of Jesus Christ, serve our neighbour and bring hope to a troubled world”. And the need for all that, he added, had not gone away.

Fewer people might believe in that kind of good news, but the serving our neighbour bit is a different matter and it’s why, despite being an atheist, I meet this latest news with mixed feelings. If I look out of my house I see an Anglican church and beyond it a Quaker meeting hall. Just below, out of sight, is a small synagogue. At various times people congregate in these buildings. They greet each other, chant, sing, collect for good causes. I simply don’t believe life around here would be better if they stopped. In fact, I believe the opposite.

It may be coincidental but the census showed that the South Wales valleys, the old mining towns and villages that were once all union and chapel, were among the least religious parts of Britain. They are also some of the most depressed, with high rates of addiction and suicide. Is there a possible correlation here? Should we be thinking harder about what we do to replace the communal function of declining religion? To mitigate the loss from this change?

I was invited to discuss the census results on LBC with Ben Kentish earlier this week, and you can listen back here. Ben was positive about the decline, since he believed that religion was responsible for a whole host of negative things that we have (thankfully) moved beyond. But he then sounded a fascinating note of concern:

If modern, open, tolerant values are triumphing over outdated and even repressive religious ones, I think that is a good thing. But if religion is on the way out, and it seems that it is certainly in decline, I do worry about what is replacing it. Because, yes, the decline in our religious beliefs has had good consequences, but I think it has had bad ones too. I say that because I think all religions promote similar values: doing good; looking after other people; treating others as you would want to be treated yourself; the idea that there is something bigger than each of us. Now those things are not reliant on religious values—of course they are not—and if people’s religious values are being replaced by secular values of looking out for each other, being part of a community, caring for each other, then I would say ‘great’.  Good religious values without the actual religion—that, to me, is not a big problem.

But I am not sure that is what is happening. My worry is that, as religion is replaced, it is replaced by a country that is increasingly fragmented, increasingly just a collection of individuals who don’t feel they have as much of a duty or an obligation to each other, that the idea of every man and woman for themselves, the opposite of what I think religion teaches us, is become ever more common, and we have a culture in which money and material possession, and power and status, are more and more seen as more important than the things that I think religion tells us are important. Things like responsibility to each other, like duty, sacrifice, those sorts of values, and that does go hand in hand with the fall in people who say they have a religion, and I don’t think it is a stretch at all to say those two things are linked.

Ben is of course mistaken here in saying that all religions teach the same thing. He is right, though, to be worried about what is replacing religion. He would love to have religious values, but without religion—yet this is simply not possible. Caring for your neighbour, protecting the vulnerable, making space for the views of others, are all costly, and you need both a transcendent motivation and the resources of faith to enact these things.

Tom Holland has repeatedly pointed out that these Western liberal values are far from universal, as is often thought, but derive specifically from Christian faith.

There is no single text, perhaps, that is more consistently the object of humanist contempt than the book of Genesis… Yet humanists, no less than Jews or Christians, are indelibly stamped by it. In fact, if there is a single wellspring for the reverence they display towards their own species, it is the opening chapter of the Bible.

Gods in antiquity were not in the habit of endowing humanity with an inherent dignity. Quite the opposite. “I will make man, who shall inhabit the world, that the service of the gods may be established, and their shrines built.” So spoke Marduk, who according to the Babylonians created humanity out of a sticky compound of dust and blood to be the slaves of deities. Here was an understanding of man’s purpose, bleak and despairing, that it would have been very easy for the exiles brought to the banks of the Euphrates from sacked Jerusalem to accept: for it would certainly have corresponded to a sense of their puniness before the immensity of Babylon the Great.

But the exiles from Judah did not accept it. They clung instead to the conviction that it was their own god who had brought humanity into being, per Genesis. Man and woman, in the various stories told by the exiles, were endowed with a uniquely privileged status. They alone had been shaped in God’s image; they alone had been granted mastery over every living creature; they alone, after five days of divine labour, had been created on the sixth day.

But Holland is also clear that you cannot hold onto these values forever whilst abandoning faith:

It is hardly surprising, of course, in a society that has increasingly abandoned the institutional practice of Christianity, yet still clings to its assumptions, its values, its myths, that we should shrink from staring the implications of our current predicament fully in the face. “When one gives up the Christian faith, one pulls the right to Christian morality out from under one’s feet.” (Friedrich Nietzsche)

This new generation has spurned the source of all those values which we treasure, and are growing up in a more fragmented, less caring, more competitive culture than we have previously known. It has never been more important for the churches in this land to proclaim with confidence the good news of Jesus, and invite this generation to discover the gracious and costly gift of new life in him.

DON'T MISS OUT!
Signup to get email updates of new posts
We promise not to spam you. Unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address

If you enjoyed this, do share it on social media (Facebook or Twitter) using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Like my page on Facebook.


Much of my work is done on a freelance basis. If you have valued this post, you can make a single or repeat donation through PayPal:

For other ways to support this ministry, visit my Support page.


Comments policy: Do engage with the subject. Please don't turn this into a private discussion board. Do challenge others in the debate; please don't attack them personally. I no longer allow anonymous comments; if there are very good reasons, you may publish under a pseudonym; otherwise please include your full name, both first and surnames.

331 thoughts on “Is Britain no longer a ‘Christian’ country?”

  1. Of course, the 800 pound gorilla in the living room barely gets a mention: the rapid growth of Islam in certain cities, while institutional Christianity disappears.
    English cities are becoming strange, un-English places, principally as a result of inmigration fervently encouraged by global capitalism, and it is going to have a destabilising impact on British society.
    I cannot help wondering if this is really the unspoken thought and fear in the mind of the atheist Jew David Aaronovitch.
    And the Church of England? Nothing to say? I have oftrn noticed how Nick Baines, sometime Bishop of the former diocese of Bradford, dad much to say about Brexit and Boris Johnson but nothing about the disappearance of Christianity from Bradford.

    Reply
    • The census tells us Christianity has declined in Bradford and about 33% of the population there are Christian. However it is worth noting that that is still the biggest single religion (or lack of religion) in the city (Islam 30% No religion 28%). Whereas by contrast in a great many rural very “English” areas Christianity has fallen a signifianct margin behind non religion. Perhaps we ought to pay a bit more attention to the dwindling enthusiasm for Christianity among the white English and worry a bit less about the relative vibrancy of other faiths among ethnic minorities?

      Reply
      • “Vibrancy”! Great word – what does it really mean in this context? The alienation of England from itself. Do you “worry” about Bradford, Birmingham and Leicester becoming effectively non-English cities? Would you want to send your children to state schools there? Or would you have reservations? I would genuinely like to know your answer because you may be ignoring a growing social problem in English cities.

        Reply
        • I think my children as Christians would be better off in an area where religion is taken seriously and respected than in the growing number of overwhelmingly white areas where there is no religion to speak of and where religion is either ignored or despised. Of the many reasons to send or not send a child to a school in any area the question of whether there are more brown people than James on the internet finds comfortable wouldn’t figure at all.

          Reply
          • I didn’t say anything about “brown people”, I referred to Islam, which is a religion and culture, not a skin colour. If you would be happy to send Christian children into aschool which is majority Muslim, well, good luck to you – but I think you would find your generic “religion” non-existent. Maybe you should find out how Christians, including Anglican vicars, have been reated in majority Muslim areas in Birmingham. Or what happens to Muslims who become Christians there (hint: they have to flee and the police don’t help them). I’m guessing you don’t actually live in one of these places.

      • Not really true, it is in rural areas like the Cotswolds or Richmondshire or Brentwood and Ongar that the biggest majority ie well over 55% say they are still Christian. Merseyside with its Roman Catholic heritage also has a high percentage of Christians.

        No religion however is now strongest and ahead of Christianity in university towns and cities with lots of students like Brighton, York and Cambridge and Bristol and Sheffield and in depressed ex industrial areas like South Wales.

        Bradford and indeed parts of London have fewer non religions but only because of above average numbers of Muslims and Hindus

        https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/11/29/uk-census-christians-now-minority-england-wales-first-time/

        Reply
      • Do not Islam’s sacred texts command takeover by force wherever its message is not accepted freely and there are enough committed Muslims?

        Please define Islamophobia.

        Reply
        • Islamophobia is ‘a simplistic catch-all word, intended to shut down discussion (which has not yet begun) composed of two elements of which even the least intelligent are aware, one of which, ‘phobia’, does not mean what it means in normal English (probably because the users of the word either think hatred = fear = opposition, or more likely because they know no Greek for either ‘hatred’ or (more pertinently) ‘opposition’. It treats in an identical fashion (believe it or not) the aspects of Islam which have attracted no criticism and those which have. Without differentiation.’

          Reply
          • Christopher- I refuse to use phobia-words generally – and disallow people applying thrm to me or others – because they are mischief words that confuse clinical descriptors of irrational fewrs like thd fewd of spiders with attitudes of dislike or opposition and then falsely import the notion that such dislike or opposition is irrational. My dislike and rejection of Islam and Islamism in particular is perfectly – rational – and I would be surprised if Penny didn’t have a similar attitude. But I am open to being surprised on this because liberal “progressives ” often seem inconsistent to me,
            I also remind myself that it is possible to progress downhill (or cliffward) as well as uphill, and I have a good idea of the actually trajectory of self-described “progressives”.
            As for Islam, I think its impact on Britain has been largely negative.

          • Yes, phobia means fear. Posters here are obviously frightened of Islam and its influence on ‘English culture’.

          • Penelope

            I have no fear of Islam, since I am willing to be persecuted for my faith. So forget phobia. But my attitude to Islam is not a positive one, and I am willing to argue that it is rational in view of what Islam’s sacred writings say.

            Is it possible that you are concatenating attitudes toward Muslims and toward Islam? Muslims are OK by me. Everybody is OK by me, except people who claim to be Christians and refuse the bits of the Bible they dislike. Also, when you take a positive view of Islam, are you comparing it against secularism, or against politicised Christianity? Please do not confuse either with gospel Christianity. I’ve argued against the authenticity of politicised Christianity in a longer post elsewhere on this thread.

          • Penelope

            How can anyone be sure you can distinguish between rational opposition and emotional fear?

            They are not particularly similar, but some seem intent on downgrading everything to emotion. Is that a comment on themselves, their milieu, what?

          • James

            Well, prepared to be surprised. I hate bigotry and extremism – Christian, Islamic, Jewish, Hindu, atheist.
            I can think of many societies where the imposition of Christianity has been very negative and ones where the imposition of Islam has been largely positive.
            But you probably don’t have the advantage of having Muslim family. And you certainly haven’t met my daughter in law!

        • No. I am not at all concerned about the growth of Islam in our cities.
          And women fare very well in many Islamic societies.
          Women don’t fare very well in theocratic cultures, whether those are Muslim, Jewish or Christian.
          Forced underage marriage happens in many US states too. Logs and beams.

          Reply
          • Islam is a false religion and its impact on the Christian world, let alone the suffering peoples of Afghanistan and Iran, has been disastrous. I’m surprised that you as a liberal feminist don’t appear to grasp this point.
            Or maybe you just like trying to wind up Christians.
            If you wish to live in a caliphate, that is your choice; but I will resist it wholly.

          • Islam is a false religion

            I’d be interested in whether Penelope Cowell Doe thinks that the concept of ‘true’ and ‘false’ apply to religions, or whether she is one of these tedious post-modern ‘religions aren’t making truth-claims about the way the world is, they’re all about providing grand narratives through which we’re interpret our lives, and asking whether these narratives are “true” or “false” is a category mistake that misses the point’ people.

          • James

            If you read my comment above you would see tat I don’t want to live in any kind of theocracy. I want to live in a liberal democracy with all its faults because I believe it the best form of government.
            Yes, Afghanistan and Iran are cruel regimes and many Muslims would agree with us on that. Christianity, Hinduism (to name but two), and atheism have also been (and are still are in some contexts) cruel and despotic.
            I may believe that Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life, but we won’t really know until the eschaton whether I, or my Muslim siblings, are right. I trust, wholly, that I am right, but I don’t ‘know’. And, if I am right, I expect that my Muslim siblings will also be saved by Christ’s faithfulness. Until then, I think we are bound to look for what we share in our faiths, not for what drievs a wedge between us.

          • And, if I am right, I expect that my Muslim siblings will also be saved by Christ’s faithfulness

            You might be wrong about that though, mightn’t you?

          • The divinity of Christ divides Christians and Muslims. Genuine members of each religion might get on well as people but neither can compromise about that.

          • The divinity of Christ divides Christians and Muslims. Genuine members of each religion might get on well as people but neither can compromise about that.

            And I’m no expert in Islam, but as I understand it the one absolutely unpardonable sin is to say that there are beings equal to Allah; and Penelope Cowell Doe has committed that sin already on this page by affirming the divinity of Jesus.

            So if Penelope Cowell Doe’s Muslim friends are right, then Penelope Cowell Doe is going to Hell; perhaps we will meet there.

          • Women do not fare well in Islamic societies. In those societies, women are treated no better than a camel or mule. Also, it is not true that in many US states there are forced underage marriages. Please do not bring that stuff to the U.S., definitely not female genital mutilation, no sharia law. We do not want that here. We have a constitution that we live by and a bible to guide us.

          • Penelope

            Come on. You surely don’t mean that. You’re letting your liberal principles blind you. Start at the beginning and remember the two different leaders. Christianity’s leader is Christ who never came close to murder and in fact surrendered to murder. Mohammed murdered many people. Christianity taught turning the other cheek while Islam teaches enforced submission. Wherever, Christians have acted brutally it is a contradiction of their faith while brutality in Islam is an expression of their faith,

            Try giving your generous review of Islam to women in Afghanistan or those that have been protesting (only to be suppressed) in other Islamic countries.

            How many tolerant Islamic countries do you know? I can tell you many are even today persecuting Christians for their faith. In Islam to be non-Islamic makes you a second-class citizen with few rights. My wife was involved in helping asylum seekers a good few years ago. The church supplied lots of blankets etc. One Pakistani lady told my wife not to give blankets etc to them; the state supplied all they needed. Send them, she said to Christians in Pakistan who have no life and are in great need.

            Think of Christians hacked to death in Nigeria and women raped. I get quite angry when you seem to see Christianity and Islam as a level playing field.

            No-one is saying all Muslims are bad or that Muslims are all bad. We are talking about a faith which is theocratic. Christianity is not theocratic and efforts to make it so end in disgrace for the gospel. But as a member of the C of E you believe in a theocracy – or is it simply that the church must submit to its secular head?

            If forced underage marriages take place in the States it is not because that is the law of the country. It is not because Christianity requires it. Mohammed himself had an underage marriage (girl 10????). You are simply not comparing like with like.

            Of course, the new religion of wokery is theocratic. It does not want Christianity (or any other religion) on the public square but seems to think it owns it. Any who apostsise from its dogmas are banished never to have a place for repentance. It is absolute in its beliefs. Science, is wrong where it contradicts these beliefs – and Christianity is pilloried for its exclusivity and its conflicts with science. And that is to say nothing of its swivel-eyed beliefs which are ruining many lives.

            What do you think will happen if wokeism or Islam gets real power?

        • Anton

          Sharing meals and prayers and charitable works isn’t denying the divinity of Christ. I would do the same with Jews, and with Hindus and Sikhs.

          Reply
          • Sharing meals and prayers and charitable works isn’t denying the divinity of Christ. I would do the same with Jews, and with Hindus and Sikhs.

            But the point is that your world-view, and the world-view of your Muslim friends (and indeed of your atheist friends if you have any) is totally incompatible.

            You can share meals and charitable works, sure, but I don’t see how you can share prayers when what you are praying to and what they are praying to are completely different, and you can’t get past the fact that you think that are totally mistaken about the most basic facts about the world, and they think the same about you.

          • Charitable works and sharing meals certainly isn’t denying the divinity of Christ, Penelope. May all Christians do that. But sharing prayer?

      • Sad that English people care less about their culture than the immigrants who care deeply about theirs and will take over. Sad that they care more about seeming virtuous whilst abandoning their pride and culture to be erased after all of the fighting their ancestors did to preserve it and pass it on to their great-grandchildren. Europeans have a sickness that will cause them to be wiped out hopefully they will wake from it and realize they have just as much of a right to preserve their culture and be proud of it as much as any group has. Their people have created invented and built societies other cultures fight to become part of for good reason but if this continues even the immigrants will have created the hell they escaped from in the place they immigrated to so Karma I feel will give them what the governments who did this deserve.

        Reply
        • I agree also I think Islam and death are correlated as they always kill to become so called Martyrs
          If you look at the globe and see all the Muslim countries go.and take a closer look and see how their is always a way of some sort going on, plus they even kill themselves, for example India and Pakistan over Kashmir,The Muslims and Hindus in India, Then you have the Palestinians and Hamas trying to send rockets into Israel,
          The Sudan,Indonesia the list goes on,Muslims have been killing and torturing Christians for 1000s of years historically,
          The British don’t have the balls.to speak their minds and the British government is totally at fault for letting in so much of the crap from the east
          Their is a saying and if you take to much of the third world then you become the third world that’s exactly whats happened to England.

          Reply
    • All of you, why do you fear? Trust God. This is an opportunity for the Gospel.

      If Muslims stay in their native countries, the likelihood is that they will never hear the Gospel. If they come here, it’s our job to make sure they do. Instead of worrying, pray for a revival among muslims, befriend them, and, when the right opportunity arises, dare to share your faith.

      Reply
  2. Certainty does “sell”. The problem then becomes that churches which sell themselves on certainty can very easily become locked into beliefs and practices that grow gradually harder to defend. For example, the idea of women in leadership in many of the new churches.

    What could have been dealt with by a questioning attitude and continuous change is more like a rock splitting on a fault line. The end result is usually messy and destructive.

    Reply
    • “The end result is usually messy and destructive.” I take it Mark that by including ‘usually’ one could argue that you are not ‘absolutely’ certain ; or possibly ‘almost’ certain? Absolute certainty is, of course, a tautology. Any form of ‘partial certainty’ is inherently contradictory.
      I am not aware of churches which “sell themselves ” on certainty. Rather they proclaim their message as the truth. Conversely I have found that all too often churches which despise certainty are among those who declaim their beliefs with an assurance which is virtually absolute – with certainty?
      The issue is not about the “end result”. It is about a present reality which already is “messy and destructive” ; manufactured by those for whom “a questioning attitude” is all too often founded upon dogmatic presuppositions. A rose by any other name? I believe the term is *certainty*.

      Reply
    • I think it depends what you mean by ‘certainty’. I am not sure why you think this excludes critical reflection.

      Jesus appear to be pretty certain of a lot of things; is that not good enough for us?

      I would certainly want to encourage a critically responsible but confident faith; trusting in God and asking questions are not mutually exclusive.

      Reply
      • My contribution is not an attempt to define issues by use of the term ‘certainty’. It is a response to Mark Berthelemy and his directly attributing this particular term to those who “sell themselves on certainty” while seemingly making the assumption that those individuals/ congregations who raise questions, who exercise critical thought, are somehow immune to the possibility of absolutising their positions ( in his terminology, making ‘certain’). I personally uphold the importance of critical discernment. And in case any one is in doubt, you will notice in the post above, that the term in question in the final sentence is asterisked. It is a term I rarely if ever use!
        I think that James (2-54pm) has grasped the drift of my objective here.

        Reply
      • “I would certainly want to encourage a critically responsible but confident faith; trusting in God and asking questions are not mutually exclusive.”

        Agree totally.

        However, many of the new churches, where I have spent the past 25 years or so, don’t quite see it that way. There isn’t as much critical thinking and asking questions as one might like. The same is true of my limited experience of the older, but highly conservative independent churches. You’re expected to follow the “party line” and not ask questions.

        Reply
        • A lot of churches, but far from all, are small worlds where the local expert in X is treated as the world expert in X, and a lot of what is going on is about affirmation. ‘Ethos’ and ‘what we teach here’ (both of which, of course, are totally circular) can triumph over a concern for truth – which of course is dishonest.

          Reply
          • Truth is what evidence reveals. Evidence consists in things like
            developed scientific systems;
            replicated large-scale statistical findings.

          • To be more accurate, truth is a property of (some) propositions. What we are talking of above, therefore, is truth-to-reality or accuracy-to-reality.

          • I would wish to approach ‘truth’ from a theological perspective. Christ is the truth. Truth reveals things as they really are. He reveals God as he really is. He reveals the heart of man as it really is. He reveals God’s salvation plan as it really is etc.

            How do we know the truth? Yes there is an intellectual or cognitive component but this will not by itself reveal the truth to us. Truth is spiritual and spiritually discerned. Only the person who has come in a ‘whole-souled’ way (believing in a cognitive, affective and volitional way) has access to the truth. To know the truth in the real sense is to know Christ. To repeat the truth is morally and spiritually discerned. It is why one may be 100% right in one’s theology and not know the truth relationally or as life. While one may not know a great deal about the truth yet know the truth. John’s writings help us here.

            I would say, if we are proud of our intellect, or proud of our orthodoxy, or proud of our morality, in fact if we are proud in spirit we do not really know the truth.

          • That’s not at all the case, since the word you mean in John is aletheia.
            And that means reality, not truth.
            John is spot on.
            As for Jesus he is not so much the truth (truth being a property of some propositions) as the Real Thing, the living reality.

    • There’s no such thing as ‘certainty’, only ‘certainty about A’, ‘certainty about B’.
      There are millions of things that one might or might not be certain about. To lump all of these in the same category is an example of the same undifferentiated dogmatism questioned by those who criticise certainty.

      As there are millions of things one might or might not be certain about, it is a priori likely (and also found to be true in experience) that these range all the way along the spectrum from things we can be certain about to things we cannot be at all certain about.

      Reply
      • Christopher- quite so. Condemnation of “certainty” is usually code for an attack on biblical and traditional Christianity.
        The liberal and the agnostic have their own certainties as well – things which “must” or “must not be true”, which turn out to be ideological convictions that have no basis in empirical observation, e.g. that all people are “equal”, that rights exist etc. Like the goldfish in the proverbial fishbowl, they never notice tbe water they are swimming in or thd glass they are looking through.

        Reply
    • Mark

      Its true ‘certainty’ in some cases may be misplaced bluster. It’s also true that some doctrines, like patriarchy, are have a bad press. In the latter case it’s because what people think about when they think of patriarchy is post fall patriarchy rather than pre fall biblical patriarchy modelled by the Lord and his church. I find it strange that believers cannot see pre-fall patriarchy.

      It’s interesting to see how Jordan Petersen is attempting to re-habituate patriarchy. He sees young men as having lost their identity and purpose. This seems true to me.

      But patriarchy is just an example. How many biblical truths must bow to the altar of the new orthodoxies. Our society is building new values opposed to Christianity. Meekness is weakness; it is weak to forgive; truth is relative; biblical sexuality is repressive; hate is a virtue etc. Christianity has virtually nothing the modern world admires.

      Only the gospel driven home by the Spirit of God can effect change.

      Reply
        • In the pre-fall bible story. Actually it is Paul who helps us to see it should we miss it. He argues woman was made from the man and for the man (his helper).
          Even in Ch 1 the order is ‘male and female. The generic title for the race is ‘man’.
          In Ch 2, It is to mam before Eve was formed the command was given with a sanction.
          God knew man was alone before Adam knew it. All the animals brought to Adam to name was to impress upon him his loneliness – hence ‘flesh of my flesh’. Adam names his wife ‘woman’. Naming is a feature of leadership.

          Actually I suspect most of the above has a long pedigree. I think it reads the narrative accurately.

          In fact the fall was a reversal of God given roles. The woman instigated the rebellion and Adam abdicated responsibility. The judgement of the fall was futility and frustration in each sphere of responsibility; Eve’s sphere of responsibility was her husband and home – there she would be frustrated as she encounter distorted authority. Adam’s role was to work the land – there he would encounter the futility and frustration of thorns and weeds.

          By the way it is probably a mistake to take ‘her desire is to her husband’ as Eve’s attempt to dominate Adam. I doubt if the war of the sexes was an issue in Genesis. But more importantly for Eve to be acting wrongly doesn’t fit with the structure of the judgements. In every case a judgement is pronounced and in no case does the judgement ordain sinful patterns in the one judged.

          Patriarchy was not just the milieu of the Bible it was the model of marriage in the Bible. I wonder if egalitarian marriage will be a success.

          Reply
          • Gosh John, that is not a good reading of Gen 2!

            God is ‘helper’ of Israel. So is God subordinate to Israel?

            Humanity is made last in Gen 1—so by your ordering logic is inferior to the rest of creation.

            There is no ‘naming formula’ in the man’s cry of recognition; the grammar here is completely different from the naming of the animals.

            Paul himself says it was Adam who sinned, not the woman who instigated it.

            The first time the man ‘rules’ over the woman is the result of sin.

            Do please read my Grove booklet on this: https://grovebooks.co.uk/products/b-59-women-and-authority-the-key-biblical-texts

            Or if you have more time read the excellent book by Andrew Bartlett: https://smile.amazon.co.uk/Men-Women-Christ-Fresh-Biblical/dp/1783599170/

          • John is right and you are wrong Ian.
            You have yet to reply to our former debate on the ball is in your court!

            Phil Almond

          • Ian

            I know disagree. Though I’ve yet to hear you tell me how Paul’s comment about made from and for is to be understood. Certainly he used it to justify patriarchy.

            My impression is that my view has the history of the church on its side. Since the church everywhere has been traditionally patriarchal I seem to have history on my side…. And of course many modern writers.

            God as ‘helper’ is a bit of a red herring. There are all kinds of helpers. The point is Eve was made as a helper to Adam not vice versa.

            The argument about humanity being made last is often raised. Again, the point is to read the narrative according to its flow and according to NT guidance. In Genesis 1 creation is.heading to a climax in the creation of man. That man is created last is a statement of his worth and dignity. The narrative runs along different lines in Ch 2. Again, I point out that Paul interprets from/for as indicative of patriarchal intentions.

            She shall be called ‘woman’ is naming.

            I did not deny Adam sinned. Indeed God holds Adam responsible – another indication of his leadership responsibility. I said there was a reversal of God given roles from which the chaos of sin ensued.

            I explained Adam’s rule was a corruption of his patriarchal leadership modelled ultimately in Christ’s sacrificial leadership of his church (and her submission to him).

            I’ve often pointed out that Peter in giving advice to the wives to obey and respect their husband. He goes on to say that Sarah called Abraham Lord. This seems to me glaring patriarchy. I’m not sure how you interpret this.

            When Bartlett was writing comments I found him very pleasant but unconvincing. I think I have probably read all the egalitarian arguments. I know you don’t like being labeled egalitarian but in terms of distinguishing between patriarchy and your position egalitarianism is the most meaningful word. Complementarian is not helpful since we are both complementarian.. In a sense we are both egalitarian since I believe male and female are equal in value and dignity.

            Ian. Your grove booklet costs money or I may read it even if it did raise my blood pressure,

          • John, I don’t see the point in replying when you repeat errors of fact (‘Adam did name Eve’; no he didn’t) and won’t read what I have written elsewhere. Almost all the booklet is available in free articles here on the blog. I answer all your questions.

            If you are not willing to engage, I am not sure it is worth my repeating myself.

            Paul certainly does not support patriarchy. Have you read 1 Cor 7.4?

          • The Spirit is a helper to us, and is superior not inferior to us.

            The striking choice to use ‘parakletos’ for the Spirit, which has such a specific meaning ‘one called alongside to help’, reminds us that boethos of Eve in LXX Genesis 2.18 has an extremely similar distinctive etymology, meaning originally ‘one responding to a call for help’.

          • Ian, no doubt I exacerbate you in these issues as you do me. I feel I have left you with important questions to answer that you never seem to do.

            I have certainly the wight of history behind me while you have about 50 years and even then only until recently the support of a small minority.
            I have in the past read a number of your posts and I think probably commented.

            Let me reiterate my main concerns

            The narrative of Gen 2 has Eve created from the man and for the man (companion and helper). Paul, twice in the NT uses this pre-fall narratival realities. In 1 Cor 11 we read,

            For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.

            In 1 Tim 2 we read

            Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

            In both texts the issue is the relationship between males and females. In both cases the apparent meaning is that prefall (and post fall) realities have ongoing implications. These prefall realities for Paul are patriarchal patterns being part of the genetic code of creation. My view, as I say, is no new view, but has been widespread for hundreds of years affecting leadership in the church and the wording of a marriage service.

            However, there are other clear signals of patriarchy. Marriage is intended to reflect the relationship between Christ and the church which is why in Eph 5 we read that wives are to be subject/in submission to their husbands as the church is to Christ. They are to respect/reverence their husband. Christ’s leadership of the church is self-giving but it is nevertheless leadership shaping her by love into something of moral beauty.

            It is a rather weak red herring to say that there is to be mutual submission out of love for Christ (v21). Although there is a sense in which this is clearly true I’m not sure how much that sense is intended in Ch 5. Certainly he goes on to mention three relationship pairings where a non-reciprocal submission is enjoined: wives to husbands; children to parents; and slaves to masters. In each case the one in the pairing called to submit comes first. It would be bizarre to instruct a master to submit to his slave or a parent to submit to his child. If that were to happen it would be the exception rather than the rule.

            It is, in my view impossible to miss a hierarchical structure to each of these three relationships.

            Is all this emphasis on hierarchical household codes simply the opinions of Paul? If it were then that would be sufficient but is not. Peter speaks very pointedly on this topic.

            1 Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, 2 when they see your respectful and pure conduct. 3 Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear— 4 but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious. 5 For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, 6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening.

            Notice the hierarchical language be subject… respectful… gentle quiet spirit… submitting to their own husbands…Sarah obeyed abraham… calling him lord’

            If language has any meaning I don’t see how patriarchy can be avoided here. After all, we refer to Abraham as a patriarch, as does Scripture (Hebs 7:4).

            I am not arguing that the form of patriarchy may change over the centuries. I’m sure it does. I do however feel the loss of male leadership in the church and home has ben detrimental. I find that even today most women want a man who will lead her in love and most men want a wife who will accept his leadership. I would interested to know how far the Eph 5 model for marriage is yours Ian.

            Ian, you write,

            John, I don’t see the point in replying when you repeat errors of fact (‘Adam did name Eve’; no he didn’t)

            I’m not sure what you are saying here. If you mean I said Adam named his wife “Eve’ then I don’t think he did. He named her generically ‘woman’ just as he did the animals.

            1 Cor 7:4. It is an altogether wooden and mistaken view of patriarchy if you think it does not include mutuality. That is fallen patriarchy. Indeed a wise ‘patriarchal’ husband will recognise his wife’s many talents and encourage them. he may recognise her superior wisdom and be guided by it. This is not an abdication of leadership/patriarchy but an application of it.

            If you could comment on where my reasoning above misaligns with Scripture I’d appreciate it.

          • John ‘I feel I have left you with important questions to answer that you never seem to do.’

            I have written about them at great length…but you say you’re not prepared to read what I have written. Why should I write it all out again here?

            If I list all the posts where I have answered these questions, will you read them?

          • Groan… I reread my post AFTER posting and noticed mistakes and clumsy expressions. I really should learn to reread before I post.

          • Ian

            I will endeavour to read them again. I believe I have already read them. I don’t recall them addressing the issues I have raised in a satisfactory way. However, I will give one final read.

            I’d appreciate a shorthand response to the matters I’ve raised.

          • I decided to do you the courtesy of buying the grove booklet. However, I discovered it required card details – no PayPal or Apple Pay. At the moment at least card details are too much bother.

        • Hi Ian
          I have always said that we all ought to be ready to confront ourselves with the strongest attempts to refute our views on what the Bible means. So I have to do this.
          On a brief look at reviews of the Bartlett book you mentioned it would appear that it is a strong attempt to refute my views on the Ordination of Women.
          Unfortunately for a mixture of health and family reasons I have not time to read and analyse his arguments.
          I wonder therefore if you could indulge me as follows. Are you willing to respond if I make a series of posts which will ask a series of questions and make a series of comments.
          I will ask the first question which is: (Nestle/Marshall)
          1: Ephesians 5:23 reads “because a man is kephale (head) of the woman….”. 1 Corinthians 11: reads “…and [the] kephale (head) of the woman the man….”
          Do you agree or do you disagree that these two statements have the same meaning?
          If you don’t want to take part in this dialogue I would be grateful if you would just post to say so or send me an email.
          If you answer this question I will continue the exchange.
          Many thanks.
          Phil Almond

          Reply
          • Phil, one problem with your question to Ian about the ‘meaning’ of those two ‘statements’ is buried away in James Barr’s Semantics of Biblical Language (234): ‘it is in sentences that the real theological thinking is done’. And that was even before Paul Grice!

          • Bruce
            Thanks for you post. If Ian wants to reply he could give his view on what the two phrases mean in the sentences where they occur.

            Phil Almond

          • Hi Phil

            Sorry, this is my first read of this thread for a while. I am happy to take part but don’t think Ian will be happy. He has already objected to discussions he thinks are off piste. I guess you wish the discussion to be public and not by email.

            I can say regarding Kephale I am quite clear the use in the verses cited have the same meaning. I am clear that the word normally carries the idea of leader.

            The word is used numerous times in the LXX with the meaning of leader. Generally in Judges where it refers to a tribal head. In the NT there are contextual pointers to the idea of leader/authority. For example head and body are used as metaphors for the marriage relationship of Christ and church/husband and wife. Now while head could mean source for both Christ and Man are the source of the ‘wife’ the context is one of submission/subjection. Three nonreciprocal relationships are outlined where authority/submission are required. Husbands, as with parents and masters have a leadership function. The dynamics of this leadership will alter according to the nature of the relationship but this does not negate the basic headship.

            In 1 Cor 11 the issue is not that male and female complement each other; the issue is patriarchy. Jesus points out hierarchy is part of redemptive reality in the present. Christians uphold God’s norms in creation. The woman was made from and for the man. The man is the image and glory of God while the woman is the glory of the man. This is clearly hierarchical language. Paul then mentions the reason why a head covering is required – the woman is required to have (the symbol) of authority on her head. For the purpose of this discussion it’s not important whether the head covering confers authority or recognises authority. The point is ‘authority’ is explicitly central to the discussion. ‘Head’ has every reason to mean ‘leader’ in 1 Cor 11.

            Elsewhere head and body used of Christ and his church implying his lordship. Head and body means he directs and controls the body.

            And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.

            Note, the issue is not primogenocy but preeminence; he rules.

            Head as leader/ruler is even more explicit in Ephesians

            1:21-23
            far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come. And He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.

            Head over all things is not a statement that he is the source of all things (however true that may be) but that he rules all things and does so for the sake of the church (all things work together for good…)

            Of course what ‘head’ means in practice will differ according to different situations. The head of the home will be different from the head of a business or a school. However, the fundamental meaning is the same; a head is a leader, the one in whom ultimate authority lies. The Christian husband will use his authority to aid and care.

            I find it remarkable that those who read the Bible cannot see this.

          • John, you find it remarkable because you ignore the facts.

            ‘ I am clear that the word normally carries the idea of leader.’ It doesn’t. In the MT (Hebrew) the term rosh meaning head *is* a metaphor for leader. In the Greek LXX this is almost always *not* translated by kephale but by archon meaning leader, precisely because kephale is not a metaphor for leader.

            The information is all here: https://www.psephizo.com/biblical-studies/head-does-not-mean-leader-in-1-cor-11-3/

          • In this post I will try to make in several posts the points I was planning to make in a dialogue with Ian. I am quoting from Nestle-Marshall Interlinear.
            “…being subject to one another in [the] fear of Christ. The wives to the(ir) own husbands as to the Lord, because a man is kephale(head) of the woman as also – Christ [is] kephale(head) of the church, [him]self Saviour of the body. But as the church is subject – to Christ, so also the wives to the(ir) husbands in everything.” (Ephesians 5:21-24)

            My view is:
            1 In 5:22 (subject) to the(ir) own husbands… is implied from 5:21
            2 The reason ‘wives should be (subject) to the(ir) own husbands as to the Lord’ is because ‘a man is kephale(head) of the woman…’
            3 The reason ‘the church is subject to Christ’ is because ‘Christ [is] kephale(head) of the church…..’
            4 There is an analogy: the church is subject to Christ because Christ is kephale(head) of the church: so also wives should be subject to their own husbands because a man is kephale(head) of the woman

            I invite you all, including Ian, which of these, if any, you agree with.
            Phil Almond

          • Ian

            I don’t think I do ignore facts. There we must disagree.

            1. The one to be followed etc has been the understanding of the church for about 2000 years. It was the view of the early Greek speaking Christians who were nearer to NT Greek than we are. There may have been exceptions, I don’t know, but I do know what view prevailed in the church in both the east and the west.

            I read with care Grudem’s study of the word kephale. He showed to my mind conclusively its use as ‘leader’. He showed too its use in the LXX for leader in 8 or more occasions. He showed its use in C1 also includes the idea of leader. Fitzmyer, a scholar of some integrity, points to examples of ‘ros’ which is translated ‘kephale’.

            Some examples of Kephalē in the Old Testament

            By looking at these seven passages, Fitzmyer strengthens the evidence that kephalē can be understood to mean “leader” or have “authority over” as in 1 Corinthians 11:3.

            Deuteronomy 28:13

            13 And the Lord will make you the head and not the tail, and you shall only go up and not down, if you obey the commandments of the Lord your God, which I command you today, being careful to do them,

            Deuteronomy 28:44

            He shall lend to you, and you shall not lend to him. He shall be the head, and you shall be the tail.

            2 Samuel 22:44

            “You delivered me from strife with my people; you kept me as the head of the nations; people whom I had not known served me.

            1 Kings 21:12

            they proclaimed a fast and set Naboth at the head of the people.

            Isaiah 7:8–9

            For the head of Syria is Damascus,
            and the head of Damascus is Rezin.
            And within sixty-five years
            Ephraim will be shattered from being a people.

            And the head of Ephraim is Samaria,
            and the head of Samaria is the son of Remaliah.
            If you are not firm in faith,
            you will not be firm at all.’ ”

            Isaiah 9:13–14

            The people did not turn to him who struck them,
            nor inquire of the Lord of hosts.

            So the Lord cut off from Israel head and tail,
            palm branch and reed in one day—

            Jeremiah 31:7

            7 For thus says the Lord:

            “Sing aloud with gladness for Jacob,
            and raise shouts for the chief of the nations;
            proclaim, give praise, and say,
            ‘O Lord, save your people,
            the remnant of Israel.’

            There are around 16 uses of kephale for leader.

            The fact that there is a more common word for leader does not undermine or render objectionable the use of a less common word for leader by NT writers. Why kephale and not archon? I don’t know? Does the usual word ‘archon’ carry negative connotations they may wish to avoid? The question however is a red herring. The point is that there is good evidence for kephale’s usage to mean leader. And I may add there is no evidence in the OT for kephale meaning source. In fact I believe there is no unambiguous instance in C1 literature of kephale meaning source. I stand to be corrected on this. In Gen 2:10 where ‘head’ of rivers in view as ‘source’ it is the Greek word ‘arche’ is used. How many LXX OT uses of a word must be documented before accepting a NT link. Normally, far less than 8-16

            Strongs word studies also suggests ‘leader’ as a meaning. It seems that most lexicons accept ‘authority over’ as a normal meaning for kephale,

            But for me the convincing argument is Scripture. The great advantage we have as Christians is that we have the Bible as a primary authority. And so, I go to the Bible and read it and find that ‘head’ understood in its context in the NT means ‘leader’. I’ve developed why above.

            Ian, it is a mystery to me how you cannot see this.

            But as an aside I mistakenly thought Philip was addressing me when he was addressing you. Delusions of grandeur. 🙂

            I would hope that if we met and talked away from some of these contentious (though significant) issues we may find our common faith had much to unite us and hopefully I would seem less ogre like.

          • PS

            When I say kephale normally means ‘leader’ I am talking about its use in the contentious passages. By itself the word normally simply means a physical head (the kind with hair and eyes and ears etc). It can also mean ‘top’ as in the top of a mountain suggesting preeminence. It means leader. By all accounts it never means source, certainly not when talking about a person.

            The Liddell Scott lexicon seems to be the only one to suggest kephale means source. Grudem wrote to the editor??? Who agreed that this was a mistake that he hoped in the future to correct.

          • Ian
            I see that I will have to make time to read and study Andrew Bartlett’s book and post my views, so I have ordered it.

            Phil Almond

    • No, I don’t think that is happening at all. As I point out at the beginning, this is not people changing their minds; it is the people who are changing by generational succession.

      Reply
      • Ian – interesting observation on demography and death statistics. All thr stats show that Generation Z or whatever it’s called thinks of itself as non-religious, a phenomenon qcross the western world, and illustrative of what has gone to shape their mental worlds – secular education, a cultural obsession with sex-based hedonism, Netflix, internet etc.
        I attended a session for Y13 girls in a state high school recently on internet pornography and abuse, and it was telling that the speakers simply assumed the girls would be sexually active. The words “marriage” and “family” were never mentioned as ideals for living, let alone purity. I saw a few girls in hijabs there and wondered what they were thinking.
        Which brings up the question whether British Muslims (whether observant or not) are succeeding more in passing on a Muslim identity to their children more than Christians are. The numbers point to growth (though some will be from immigration). If so, what is their secret in this anti-religious culture?

        Reply
        • You should hold the school to account – this is abuse towards modest and well brought up girls and also towards those precious girls who never had the chance to be well brought up. I.e., towards all the girls.

          Reply
          • Christopher – to be fair, the invited speakers in the school were trying to tell the girls about the kind of internet porn boys are watching today and how it is encouraging some of them to ask their “girlfriends” to participate in threesomes and other ideas they got from the net, to tell them, “you can say no if you feel uncomfortable.” This is how low things have got in British schools. I am not surprised so many children have poor mental health.

          • As for the mental health – spot on.

            I have seen truly horrendous increase-statistics of late pertaining to the years around the socalled age of consent.

  3. There’s a lot of food for thought here; thank you, Ian. I’m wondering if anyone can give me an example of a C of E church in Nottingham that would describe itself as “progressive”? I’d be interested to know what one was like, and what this meant. Also, I’m not convinced from the Bible that we can expect the church to continually grow. It would be nice if it did; but a decline in church attendance may not be the church’s fault. (Unfortunately I accept that this may lead to a deadly complacency.)

    Reply
    • St John’s Beeston has a vicar who is liberal on the issue of sexuality. But I think it is quite traditional in its liturgy.

      I don’t know what is happening there in terms of attendance.

      St Mary’s in Nottingham has been liberal at times in the past.

      Reply
      • Thank you, Ian. Do “liberal” and “progressive” here mean the same thing? And I was wondering about other issues than sexuality, the kind of thing produced by Roger Wolsey and Peter Enns or even Rob Bell in America – any of that in Nottingham? But you’re a busy man; don’t feel you have to answer!

        Reply
    • If a church consciously adopted a ‘progressive’ label I would want to steer clear. Here this means post-evangelical of the McLaren/Bell/Enns ilk. It’s rally just old fashioned liberalism of the Brueggemann , Newbigin, Balthasar ilk. Truth lies anywhere but conservative evangelicalism.

      I’d be looking for a thriving Bible based church. It may buck your expectations.

      Reply
  4. Putting morality to one side, a good professional salesman has the technique to sell a product in which he or she has little confidence. Christian faith is different. Bishops, clergy and lay people cannot easily conceal their own lack of conviction about the faith to which they are supposed to be bearing witness. I honestly think it is lack of belief which lies at the core of the Church of England’s present failure to convince people in England about the claims which are the very reason for the church’s existence. I’m not calling for a witch hunt: we all have to look to ourselves rather than put our energy into sniping at others. It would be far better to help restart or gear up the failing faith of our fellow Christians rather than pick on them for what must be a pretty demoralising current situation; another day it will be we who need that kind of help.

    People may say we live in uniquely difficult times for missional activity for all sorts of social and even technological reasons. Perhaps we do, but I suspect that people could suggest all sorts of reason for experiencing an uphill struggle at any time in history. The thing is, we’re always called to be faithful in our witness and (unlike that salesman) never required to achieve a particular level of success. The good fortune of those who are lucky enough to live in times of revival should not be a cause of self flagellation for those of us who are not so fortunate. The timing and manner of God’s purposes and plans are hidden from us; I think that’s much to our benefit. It’s faithfulness in all circumstances to which we are called; we should focus on that.

    Wherever God has placed us, and whatever particular gifts he has given us, I think there is no shortage of opportunities for witnessing to the transforming power of Jesus – something which is available to everyone who is willing to receive him. We need always to remember that, however large or small the audience, the message we give needs to be directed to the few people in whose hearts the Holy Spirit is speaking at that moment. Hence we cannot afford to be embarrassed by saying what will sound foolish to most people. Here’s a cheering example of someone who shows how it can be done in her own characteristic way:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xrp5epWd2xg&t=229s

    Reply
  5. The decline of Christianity in the country not so much in its broader form but in its more authentic manifestation is depressing. The rise of forces hostile to Christianity and opposed to its life enhancing values deepens the pit. Or both would do so if I did not remind myself Jesus is risen and gone in clouds into the presence of the Ancient of Days where he has received a kingdom that will soon be set up on earth when he returns to the Mt of Olives on the same clouds he left. In the meantime all authority in heaven and earth is his and he through the gospel is conquering strongholds. He will reign till all his enemies are the footstool of his feet.

    Reply
  6. The question is: Is Britain no longer a Christian country, given that less than half of people now identify as Christian?

    This raises further questions: what is meant by a Christian country, and is ‘a Christian’ defined by self-identification?

    In answer to the second of these questions, the true definition of a Christian is someone who would end up in the New Jerusalem rather than the lake of fire if he or she perished of a stroke at this instant. Only God can answer who those people are with certainty, but the New Testament states many characteristics of them, which can be looked for. Saying you are a Christian is part of it but not the whole of it; I can say that I am a member of the House of Lords, but that does not make me one (I am not) – it is up to the authorities. I tremble for the majority of people who say they are Christian in this country. (Where the church is persecuted things are different, and this might be why God is letting persecution of the church approach in this country.) The New Testament warns that only a minority of people are Christians, and I believe that this applies equally in countries and continents that have historically called themselves Christian. One may think of the Waldenses and the Lollards in mediaeval Europe and England, for instance. Or many of the small groupings persecuted by Catholicism before the Reformation and persecuted by the Magisterial Reformers after it, people whose tale is told in Leonard Verduin’s excellent book “The Reformers and their Stepchildren”.

    The next question is: What makes a Christian country? I suggest that there is no such thing, because the New Covenant is with the individual believer, not with any nation (no matter what pieties are contained in the Coronation Oath). The church is the collective of people called out from their nations, called to be different while living in their communities. And the church will be persecuted by ‘the world’, meaning the prevailing culture – just as the Lollards and the Waldenses were by the prevailing mainstream church culture of their time. No, there will not be a Christian country until Jesus Christ returns to this earth in glory. What we have had in Europe is a Trinitarian form of Judaism, of Christianity by law rather than by grace. Its best feature was its moral code. This is the religion that is dying today and leaving a vacuum. People find meaning by giving themselves over to something greater than themselves; some say there is no meaning, some fall for nationalism, some for internationalism. But Augustine was correct that our hearts are restless until they find rest in Christ.

    Reply
      • I noticed a book review by Kevin De Young of an American book called Christian Nationalism by Stephen Wolfe. It is a book of around a 1000 pages I think. Anyway it is by all accounts a scary book advocating enforcing Christian values on society. It seemed to be advocating behaviour not too different from Nazi Germany. Christian Nationalism seems to be growing in the world.

        Review found on gospel Coalition website.

        Reply
      • A long history, Ian, but not in my view a distinguished one. Within one lifetime the church moved from persecuted to persecutors in the fourth century, and religious dissent *from* Christianity began to be viewed as treason.

        The New Testament is totally silent on how to run a country according to Christian principles, because Christianity is about being transformed by God in a way that one cannot do for oneself. That process is enacted by grace and cannot be enacted by law, which in contrast is what running a country is about.

        Reply
      • Yes, the one on retalk set up by TwoFeetOnShore is failing in the face of Happy Jack’s effort at

        dodothedude.blogspot.com

        Quite a few regulars are there. If you there, do wish all well from me, but I’m not joining the party.

        Reply
  7. An ex-director of BBC radio was interviewed on Radio 4 recently. He was asked why bringing down the listeners of R1 from 22m to 11m was a success. He explained that the listeners and their DJs were getting old together. He wanted to keep R1 for the young, move the older listeners to R2 etc. He did not want to create a new radio station. He was successful.
    In the Bible God whittled down Gideon’s army. Similar principle. Perhaps God is doing the same for GB. So, how to make Evangelical ‘vibrant’ and R1ish? How to make R2 CofE comfortable? How to keep the Orthodox happy?
    Stop complaining about your church demographic. Encourage migration to other churches.
    I for one was told after I had been encouraged to accept Jesus as my personal saviour to ‘ believe in my heart and to confess with my lips’, to tell the first person I met when I got home (I was 14) what I had just done. It was my father I told. He went ballistic! I was shocked but ever since I have understood the difference between warfare and the parade ground. Amongst all the varieties of belief expressed on this blog I think I know who I would pick as a buddy in the trench but one never knows until one is in a scrape.
    Are the bishops working to the same game plan?

    Reply
  8. One wonders if the biggest threat now is that the church in England (as opposed to the Church of England) will continue to address the problem from within it’s own denominational castles rather than attempt to unify in response. We had a decade of evangelism, how about a decade of confession and penitence?

    Already the discussion about responses seems to be sectarian. Denominations in serious decline (e.g the Methodists and URC) are already being written off as beyond recovery in some quarters, and not without reason, and everyone talks about the problem from the perspective of their tradition and how well/badly they’re doing in relation to their brother and sister churches. It seems to me that before anything else Christians in this country would be well-served by a reality check.

    There is only one church.

    Reply
    • Yes, I would agree. I want to challenge people in C of E to learn from those denominations which are growing, to ask why, and to follow their example. In many places this is in fact happening.

      Reply
      • Ian : I don’t think the Bishop of Oxford would be interested in that proposal. He wants to follow the failing branches of Anglicanism, like TEC, the Welsh Anglicans and the Scots, all on the path to oblivion.
        Anglicans who care are just going to have choose new bishops for themselves as the current cookie cutouts have no idea.

        Reply
          • Ian
            Why not? Who is afraid? Afraid of what?

            I realise it’s easy for me to challenge you. I am not dependent on the CofE for my livelihood. But Paul did challenge Peter – didn’t he?

            Philip Almond

          • But it is a bit awkward to point to the realities.

            So this is like when people say, ‘you can’t say that’ and what they really mean is, ‘you can say that but everyone will pretend they didn’t hear you.’

          • Ian
            I am glad to hear that. See below for my suggestion of an open letter. Surely the situation is desperate

            Philip Almond

          • What is needed is an open letter to all the Bishops and the Archbishops challenging them on their failure to believe the doctrine of Original Sin and their failure to believe, teach and preach the terrible warnings as well as the wonderful promises and invitations, signed by any who believe these things, clergy, bishops, laypeople.

            But, Ian, I don’t you could sign, could you, given your rejection of Original Sin?

            Phil Almond

        • The bishop of Oxford knows full well how to grow a thriving, all ages CofE Church out of nothing; one which can provide a large chunk of ordinands for a diocese that are able to serve in all of the styles of the CofE… his son, Andy, is a vicar in one (Soul Survivor Watford).

          The inconvienance is SSW’s lead rector is thoroughly conservative on issues of sexuality and other issues. I assume Andy Croft is too, although I could be mistaken.

          Reply
      • With perhaps a few exceptions don’t you think the flourishing churches are likely to be a little to your right. I wonder how comfortable you would feel in them. I speak from a Scottish context. England may be different. In Scotland they are likely to be charismatic or conservative evangelical.

        Reply
    • There is only ‘one church’ but in this days it has many diverse leaders and the CofE seems to have the little effective leadership. For every Nicky Gumbell there are a dozen, in higher positions, working to push people away.
      The CofE is no longer representative of Christians in the UK, in my opinion.

      Reply
    • “We had a decade of evangelism, how about a decade of confession and penitence?”

      Interestingly Matt Leslie Francis undertook some academic study of whether the Decade of Evangelism was successful or whether much depended upon the Church tradition. The summary of his study says this:

      ‘The data demonstrated that the majority of dioceses were performing less effectively at the end of the decade than at the beginning in terms of a range of membership statistics, and that the rate of decline varied considerably from one diocese to another. The only exception to the trend was provided by the diocese of London which experienced some growth. The data also demonstrated that little depended on the churchmanship of the diocesan bishop in shaping diocesan outcomes ‘

      Was your experience of the decade better?

      Reply
      • You’re right, I was being unfair. But I was also generalising for effect.

        The Decade of Evangelism (in the CofE) wouldn’t have had the same pithy quality, but the implicit and unspoken parenthesis are precisely the problem. The CofE has the resources and influence to really ‘host’ ecumenical partnership well, and broaden the reach of it’s pioneering and mission work. For our part (as the free churches/dissenting tradition) we should be less cynical and skeptical about the institutional church and recognise that we can actually reinforce each other. Our need is great. The criticism I was making was not aimed at only one party.

        “Was your experience of the decade better?”

        Given that I was born in ’88, my experience of the decade was almost guaranteed to be radically different. 😉

        Reply
      • That sounds likely. I’m not particularly impressed by top down evangelism.

        My many years of being involved with church evangelism leads me to the following observations. I saw little fruit from organised evangelistic endeavour. In early years the churches i belonged to held special outreach services sometimes for five weeks at a time. These were fairly strict churches. I would say the gospel preached was good but it was wrapped in language and a presentation style that hindered communication. Despite heavy tracting, an imported evangelist and much agonising in prayer very few (not none) were converted. One of the difficulties for new converts was they were required to take on a culture when converted that was very alien to their own. Many things required were not biblical requirements.

        My late twenties to my 50’s were spent in a Brethren/independent Evangelical church in Glasgow, This was then and is now to my mind a very good example of how church should function. We had a pastor but preaching was also done by those considered gifted. Preaching was of a good standard. There were many activities run by the church. Alpha type courses were profitably run.

        Some people were converted and became part of the church from demographically different backgrounds. CAP was particularly successful at bringing folks within the orbit of the church and seeing them converted. This was a church where people did not feel they were entering an alien world when they came in the door. The distinction between cultural and biblical was largely understood.

        Yet, despite an enormous amount of energy, friendship meals, men’s nights and other well organised events for energy expended few were saved. Outsiders came to events but did not get converted. One criticism, i feel was a loss in gospel content when preaching, particularly the hard edges. In that area I think Billy Graham had it about right. We could learn a lot from him.

        What works. It seems to me friendship evangelism is more effective than anything else. Which is why I’m not in favour of top-down evangelism. It is too much about those at the top telling those at the bottom what to do having only ever read about it in a book. A huge amount of energy is expended and not always effectively.

        But what works, what really really works is the Spirit of God pouring out upon a nation a sense of sin and a need to get right with God. Then people come to find the church.

        Reply
        • John,
          Abraham was called Lord by Sarah.

          After he almost sacrificed Isaac the narrative seems to draw a veil over his relationship with Sarah. She moved to Hebron, he stayed in Beersheba. It seems the only time he saw her after his demonstration of leadership was when he went to bury her and weep. What did he weep over? Perhaps he wept because he should have consulted her first, not only over sacrificing Isaac but everything, even moving out of Ur. She ended up in a city, away from Her Lord. Patriarchy is not it seems a proper blueprint for church dynamics.
          I really enjoyed reading your stuff this evening but when you get going on patriarchy…
          To me patriarchy is just the natural animal dynamic of our species. As plain as a baboons bum. Men are bigger than women. Societies have always naturally moved along like a troop of monkeys.

          Reply
          • Steve

            Ag Steve! If we accept the biblical narrative it was God who told Abraham to move from pagan Babylon to live as a pilgrim and stranger. It was God who told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. He was teaching Abraham and us the gospel beforehand and showing Abraham the pain of a Father’s heart who must sacrifice his son – it was the ultimate test of Abraham’s obedience as the father of faith. You’re right though in both cases Abraham takes the initiative; he acts like a patriarch.

            I see these issues as a matter of faith. What the Bible teaches is best. Not quite sure how I got on to patriarchy. I think I was counter the view that beliefs in more conservative churches were a kind of unthinking certainty.

            I actually think it is some of the more progressive views that are unable to withstand scrutiny, denying biblical patriarchy being one. I have no doubt that the flow of the tide at the moment is on the egalitarian side. It is the nature of the beast to push leftward and its not always a push to truth.

            Maybe we can learn God’s design from the animal creation.

        • Yes l know that Abraham is the perfect model of faith but it looks as if the price he paid broke his marriage. I feel sorry for Sarah, bounced along from her comfortable life in Ur to live in tents. Her story has the feel of someone who was compliant and faithful within a strongly patriarchal society but her personal faith in God was not as lively as Her husband’s.

          And then, in the NT, Christian women are exhorted to emulate her faith!
          Is this how saving faith works “in households” ? Does one person in a household ‘sanctify’ and ‘leaven’ the whole?
          I don’t know. I hope so. But it cuts across the evangelical concept of personal, individual faith. Could Patriarchy be extended to mean , at its best , one who is the driving force in faith in a ‘family’? So a woman can be considered a ‘patriarch’ because she is the one trying to sanctify an unbelieving husband.
          I’m putting forward a new redeemed meaning for patriarchy — the one who hears God and leads by example within his/her family.

          Reply
          • No. Because Peter covers this. The unbelieving husband is won by the submissive demeanour of his wife.

            I’m not so sure Sarah is so reluctant a follower of her wife. Hebrews commends her for he faith. The passage says of all the patriarchal families that they were looking for a heavenly homeland.

            Got to go.

          • The trick is to ask:
            1. If passage a or b (e.g. Abraham as ‘Lord’, gentle and quiet spirit) were in Scripture, but you were unaware of that particular scripture though generally well versed in scripture, would you affirm it or deny it?

            2. Is it something that is acknowledged but does not seem to conform with the big picture presented, and is never emphasised, explicitly cited, or particularly affirmed even?

            3. Is there any overlap with the pattern of which passages are least acceptable in our own very contingent culture?

          • These are good questions Chris, There are instructions in Scripture that are very alien to us – we strain to accept them. There are also passaged where the instructions given appear to be at odds with examples given. Paul says to answer our opponents with gentleness yet neither he nor other NT writers stick to this injunction – to say nothing of Elijah at caramel.

            Head covering and long hair seem strange and isolated.

            The way Peter words Sarah calling Abraham lord suggests he does not expect the wives to whom he writes to call their husbands ‘lord’.

            However, we are likely to legitimize behaviour on personality grounds. ‘A gentle and quiet spirit’ seems to be the product of grace rather than nature,

        • I wonder how far internet communication and an avalanche of books both ebooks and physical books has served to divide evangelicals. When I was young there were differences but a general cohesion and solidarity. I doubt if it would have been possible then to find a group of evangelicals as diverse as those of us who comment here. We have all been exposed to different streams (some polluted) that have made us disparate.

          This is not a good thing. We have not a united gospel to proclaim. The trumpet gives an uncertain sound. There is too much ‘ever learning and never coming to a knowledge of the truth’. There is an uncertainty that reflects deep immaturity.

          Reply
    • Chris – Giles Fraser is certainly a mass of contradictions who spent a good part of his earlier career attacking evangelicalism. Owning up to one’s own part in decline is too big a pill for most of us.

      Reply
    • Writers who belong exclusively to a particular school may not be as able to think independently or outside the box, or be less able to think, period.

      The fact that Giles Fraser so often comes up with surprise positions may of course be a sign of a maverick tendency, a desire to attract attention; but unless he is being dishonest about his positions, it is more likely that he has just done further thinking. Which after all ought to be what we are all doing. We have 60 years to think after we are 20.

      And given that these days so many are just playing catchup with the Christian position which has so much more predictive power, he may be an example of that.

      Reply
      • Before I finally finished with my lifelong attachment to Radio 4, I have to say that Giles Fraser was about the only contributor who would regularly cause me to prick up my ears during the TFTD slot. (Radio 4 still puts out some good content but it sits within a swamp of mind-numbing cultural Marxist propaganda, with an obsession on homosexuality that takes the word ‘unhealthy’ to the ultimate extreme.)

        Reply
  9. I don’t really think the answers lie at a cultural level. Good leaders and gifted evangelists are obviously a good thing but what is needed is two things a) Christians prepared to gossip the gospel b) people open to conversations. The latter is a work of God preparing hearts. Perhaps we need to pray for this.

    Reply
  10. Globally of course there are more Christians than ever before, over 2 billion. Plus it is often immigrants to the UK, whether evangelicals from Africa or Roman Catholics from Poland who are the most Christian of today’s communities in the UK

    Reply
  11. There are two possible responses:

    1. Churches become more cultic – which is great if you like the brand of cultural insularity on offer.

    2. Stick with Christian orthodoxy and become more accepting of unimportant social differences – so that the unchurched, those that no longer have any sentimental attachment to church life, don’t have to make a choice between religion ideas and a sense of belonging.

    Reply
    • I would hope that sticking with Christian Orthodoxy would mean sticking with a Gospel which is a stumbling block and seems foolish. That the proclamation of the need for repentance would not be lost. That the call for Christians to live with clean hands and a pure heart would be emphasised. The problem with this is that it can be offensive to some. Not all social differences which are regarded as unimportant by the World are unimportant when illuminated by the Light who has come into the world. Men prefer darkness.

      Reply
    • don’t have to make a choice between religion ideas and a sense of belonging.

      The Church exists to proclaim the truth; it most emphatically does not exist to give people a ‘sense of belonging’.

      If people want a ‘sense of belonging’ they should join a knitting group.

      Reply
      • Christians belong to the Kingdom of God. Which should be clearly evident in how we act as Christians, as we are told to throughout the bible. Acts 2 42:47 for starters.

        Reply
      • The established Church, the Church of England, does have an obligation to provide belonging for most of the English population actually. It is still open to all in its parishes for marriages, funerals, Remembrance services, community events etc and runs the most Church schools.

        If others want a more rigid opposition to LGBT, even if priests want to allow homosexual marriage and even when Christ never mentioned it then they can join a
        more hardline or rigid evangelical Church outside the established church like a Baptist or Pentecostal church. Just as some Anglicans who could not accept women priests went over to Rome and the Roman Catholic Church

        Reply
        • The established Church, the Church of England, does have an obligation to provide belonging for most of the English population actually.

          If that’s what you think the Church of England is for — to provide a bit of ceremony to brighten up life events and national moments — then you don’t want a Christian denomination doing the job, you want to establish the British Humanist Association.

          Because a Christian denomination most certainly does not have any obligation to provide belonging for the English population. A Christian denomination has one obligation, and it’s to God, to proclaim the truth about Him to the country.

          Reply
          • Wrong. The Church of England has always been the representation of the Christian Church and message for the majority of people in England.

            If you want a hardline message against allowing any homosexual marriages of committed homosexual couples even with priests willing to do so etc then find a more hardline evangelical Church or join the Roman Catholic Church because that is not the Church of England’s role. Its role has always primarily been to provide a place of belonging or welcome to the majority of its Parishioners who can get married, baptised or buried there whether they attend the Church often or not, part of the English community whether village or market town Parish Church or City Cathedral not excluding the community

          • Its role has always primarily been to provide a place of belonging or welcome to the majority of its Parishioners who can get married, baptised or buried there whether they attend the Church often or not, part of the English community whether village or market town Parish Church or City Cathedral not excluding the community

            Wrong. That is not the job of a Christian church. If you want something to do that job, you should disestablish the Church of England and replace it with a non-Christian body like the British Humanist Association.

            The job of a Christian church is to proclaim the Christian truth. It is not to be a social work organisation or provide a pretty building to get married in or to do counselling or to do ceremonies to mark births or deaths.

          • Nope that is the role of the Church of England despite efforts of hardliners like you to turn it into a cult it remains the established church with an obligation to be open to all its parishioners, including those who are in committed homosexual relationships as most of British society now does, Jesus himself never said anything against it. Of course secular humanists pushing disestablishment are as bad as you are in trying to remove the Church of England from its historic role as the established church well tough. The Church of England will remain the main Church on England open to all the community regardless of age, gender, race or sexuality and will welcome them all not just at services but village fetes, art shows, marriages, funerals, Remembrance Sunday and national royal events etc

          • Nope that is the role of the Church of England

            It’s really not. The clue is in the first word there, ‘Church’. What makes something a church is that it is exists to serve God, not to provide pretty ceremonies for the public.

            If you want something to do that job you should get rid of the Church of England and put something in its place that actually has as its purpose the job you want it to do.

          • Then you could just hire people who are willing to say the pretty words, as that’s all you want, and not bother you by caring about whether what they are saying is actually true or not.

          • It is a church with communion, bible readings, hymns etc. Just one open and loving to all, rather like Christ in fact. If you want to exclude and condemn half the population, including homosexuals in lifelong unions, there are plenty of non Church of England evangelical churches you can attend

          • It is a church with communion, bible readings, hymns etc.

            None of which is relevant to what you seem to think the Church of England’s job is, ie, to provide life-event ceremonies and a bit of gravitas at national events, and all of which comes with the grave danger of people actually thinking that maybe the stuff in the bible readings and hymns is actually true and that it matters, which then causes this whole problem.

            So if what you want is a National Ceremony Service then you would be far better off leaving the Bible out of it, wouldn’t you?

          • No, bible reading is still a part of it, in fact it is your desire to split off the established Church from key moments of our national life which will disconnect Christianity in this country even further from most of the people who live in it

          • No, bible reading is still a part of it

            Why? If all you care about is providing ceremonies to the public, what does reading from the Bible add? Surely you could find readings just as pretty from other sources, if you don’t think whether what’s in them is true or not.

          • Yes that is part of the Church of England’s role to play a part in local community and national life. Its role is not to promote homophobia and attack gay marriage which is now the law of the land. Tough. If you want an anti gay marriage agenda there are plenty of non C of E hardline evangelical churches to do that. Jesus of course never said anything in the Bible against homosexual marriage

          • No, I’m right. The Church of England is a Protestant Church, when Beckett was around it was still Roman Catholic. It is not the Roman Catholic church even if still in the Catholic tradition (though some of the evangelicals in the Church of England have effectively disowned that Catholic tradition in their services anyway and those are the ones that tend to be most anti the Church of England allowing its priests to conduct homosexual blessings and marriages, even if they won’t be forced to if they don’t want to).

            The ones who were most Anglo Catholic and effectively Roman Catholic in all but name generally went over to Rome after women priests and women bishops were allowed in the Church of England. The Archbishop will anoint the King next year as he heads the English national church not the Pope, though representatives of all faiths, including non Christian, will be there and Charles will pledge to defend faith, not just Christian faith, recognising that over 10% of his subjects are now Muslim, Jewish or Hindu. The Church of England’s role is still to preserve its historic buildings for worshop and marriage etc, after all it has owned them since the Reformation

          • No, I’m right. The Church of England is a Protestant Church, when Beckett was around it was still Roman Catholic.

            You’re actually completely wrong. Protestant or Roman has nothing to do with it; the relevance is that Beckett was killed for strong up for the truth that the church is not an arm of the state, and is not under the authority of the King. All the Protestant reformers would have agreed with him (and disagreed with you).

            The Archbishop will anoint the King next year as he heads the English national church not the Pope,

            Um, you seem to have totally missed the point of the anointing, which is that the one doing the anointing is superior in rank to the one being anointed. So the anointing is the King submitting to God’s authority (the Archbishop acting here as God’s representative).

            The Church of England’s role is still to preserve its historic buildings for worshop and marriage etc, after all it has owned them since the Reformation

            It has opened them in order to use them in its mission to proclaim God’s truth to the nation; it has absolutely not maintained them in order to give couples somewhere petty to get married in. That is no part of the Church of England’s job. As above, if you want that, then you should disestablish the Church of England and create a National Ministry of Wedding Photo Backgrounds to do the job.

            I have no doubt that if you did that the Church of England would be supremely grateful for having the immense financial burden of maintaining those buildings lifted from its shoulders.

          • No I am absolutely right. Beckett was a Roman Catholic when the head of the Church on earth was the Pope, its head in England is now the English King and has been since the English Reformation, tough. The views of Protestant reformers not within the Church of England is irrelevant to the Church of England’s role as the established state church in England.

            No the Church’s role is to provide somewhere for couples within the Parish to get married in, Parishioners to get baptised or buried in etc. That is half the role of Church of England vicars, they are not there to spend their time going down the street evangelising, it is not a primarily evangelical church. If Parishioners want to come to services and hear the Bible and sing hymns up to them, whether they do or not they can still get married in the Parish church. Preserving its Parish buildings as part of the established church is one of its core roles and it has billions in assets to do so

          • No I am absolutely right. Beckett was a Roman Catholic when the head of the Church on earth was the Pope, its head in England is now the English King and has been since the English Reformation, tough.

            I’m afraid you are absolutely wrong. The King is most definitely not the head of the Church of England. The Church has one head, in England and everywhere else, and that is Jesus. the King is the supreme governor of the Church of England, a post he holds with the responsibility to — as the coronation oath puts it — ‘to the utmost of [his] power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel’.

            Not, note, ‘to the utmost of his power ensure that the people of England have plenty of pretty old buildings to get married in’.

            The views of Protestant reformers not within the Church of England is irrelevant to the Church of England’s role as the established state church in England.

            You have a very odd view of Protestantism if you think the views of Luther, Calvin, etc, are ‘irrelevant’. In fact you are wrong to claim that the nature of the Church of England vis-a-vis the state changed when it became a Protestant denomination.

            No the Church’s role is to provide somewhere for couples within the Parish to get married in, Parishioners to get baptised or buried in etc.

            It most definitely is not.

            That is half the role of Church of England vicars, they are not there to spend their time going down the street evangelising, it is not a primarily evangelical church.

            A Church of England vicar’s first duty is the ‘cure of souls’. This means they are to care for the souls of their parish. the first and most important way that they can care for the souls of their parish is to endeavour to save them from eternal death in sin and instead lead them to eternal life in Christ, isn’t it? After all it wouldn’t be very caring to let them be damned for all eternity. Note therefore that this first duty of vicars — to save the souls of their flock — is simply doing in miniature what the Church of England’s job is at large, that is, to proclaim the truth of God to the nation.

          • No. You are completely and absolutely wrong. The King is Supreme Governor of the Church to prevent the Pope being head of our national church, yes he promises to protect God’s laws etc here but it is still the King who heads the Church on earth in England.

            No the Church of England does not just ‘proclaim God’s message’ and save souls, otherwise vicars would spend all their time on the highstreet preaching and trying to convert. No, the Church of England is not a primarily evangelical church, if you want that go to a Pentecostal church for instance where you can go and preach and try and convert all day long and meet in the back of a restaurant or local hall if you wish. The Church of England is our national church, who provides marriage, baptism and funeral services for local Parishioners and which has the responsibility to maintain its ancient buildings. It has a different role beyond just preaching the Gospel.

            The views of Calvin and Luther are completely irrelevant to the Church of England as they were founders of Calvinist and Lutheran not Anglican churches.

          • You are completely and absolutely wrong. The King is Supreme Governor of the Church to prevent the Pope being head of our national church,

            Wait what? You think that if the Church of England were disestablished the Pope would become head of our national church? What century are you living in?

            No the Church of England does not just ‘proclaim God’s message’ and save souls, otherwise vicars would spend all their time on the highstreet preaching and trying to convert.

            The fact that they are not doing their job doesn’t change the fact that that is their job.

            The Church of England is our national church, who provides marriage, baptism and funeral services for local Parishioners and which has the responsibility to maintain its ancient buildings.

            That’s not a Christian denomination you’re describing there, it’s a cross between the National Trust and the Co-op. As I keep saying, if that’s what you think the job of the Church of England is, and you get annoyed with these people who think that maybe they should actually, you know, believe in the truth of the words they are saying, then what you should do is disestablish the Church of England and set up some National Ceremonies And Pretty Buildings Service. Given that’s what you really want.

            Because if you don’t do that then you’re going to have to put up with people who, rather inconveniently for those of you who just want the ceremonies and the pageantry and the architecture without any of the bother about following God, think that if they’re going to be part of something that calls itself a ‘church’ and that bills itself as a Christian denomination then they should actually maybe put God first and actually preach the teachings of the Bible, including in areas where it’s culturally inconvenient, like sexual ethics.

        • The core message of the Bible is true, however Christianity is also based on the word of Christ and nowhere in the Bible did Jesus say a single word against lifelong homosexual unions, so no contradiction in the Church of England recognising them!

          Reply
          • The core message of the Bible is true

            So what? You seem to think that the job of the Church of England is to provide ceremonies for the public and to add a sense of gravitas to national occasions. If that’s what you think the Church of England is for, and not, you know, to proclaim the truth about God to the nation, then what does it matter whether the words it uses are true or not?

          • Part of the Church of England’s role is to play a key role in local and national ceremonies and the community. Its role is not to promote homophobia or attack homosexual marriage which is now the law of the land in England. There are plenty of hardline non C of E churches that pursue an anti gay marriage agenda.

            Jesus of course said nothing against gay marriage anywhere in the Bible

          • Part of the Church of England’s role is to play a key role in local and national ceremonies and the community

            It can do that, yes, but that’s not its purpose. The sole purpose of the Church of England is to proclaim the truth about God to the nation. All its participation in local and National ceremonies and the community is for that end.

            It is absolutely not there to be a no- commitment ‘ceremony provider’ for people (and increasingly of course people are realising that — these days hardly any babies are baptised).

          • Wrong, the sole purpose of the Church of England is not merely to preach the Gospel, that is only part of its role. Its role since the English Reformation has also been to keep the Monarch as Supreme Governor and head of the National Church not the Pope. Plus to maintain a presence in every town and village and city for marriages, baptisms, funerals and local and national events.

            Plenty still get married in Church of England churches, especially the most historic and beautiful ones even if they don’t go to Church every Sunday. That is still part of the Church’s role as Parish based ministry.

          • Wrong, the sole purpose of the Church of England is not merely to preach the Gospel, that is only part of its role.

            No, you’re wrong there. Before it is anything else, the Church of England is a denomination of the one holy, catholic and apostolic Church. As such its first loyalty and duties are to God, not to the state (as you would think a denomination with a connection to Thomas Beckett would realise!), and its established position is meant to be used in the furtherance of those duties to God.

            For example, the reason the Archbishop of Canterbury will anoint and crown the King next year is to remind His Majesty, and all his subjects, that he reigns only by the grace and will of God, and that ultimately he will answer to God for his good governance of the temporary authority granted him.

            Plenty still get married in Church of England churches, especially the most historic and beautiful ones even if they don’t go to Church every Sunday. That is still part of the Church’s role as Parish based ministry.

            The Church of England’s role is most certainly not to maintain pretty old buildings for people to get married in. If you think the state should be doing that, then you should disestablish the Church of England and instead set up a National Pretty Old Buildings Service.

          • HYuFd

            I’m curious to know what your acronym stands for.

            ‘ nowhere in the Bible did Jesus say a single word against lifelong homosexual unions’

            This is a disingenuous statement. Firstly it pits Jesus’ words against the rest of the Bible. In fact, ALL of the Bible is the word of Jesus. You refer to ‘life long homosexual unions’ implying they have a legitimacy because of longevity. However, the Bible condemns homosexual practice in both the OT and NT and does not imply homosexual fidelity over life is an exemption. Moreover, the historical Jesus does condemn homosexual relationships just as he condemns most if not all divorce. He sees so by pointing to the creational norm for marriage which he affirms as the defining basis of marriage, His view is strict and he recognises only his genuine followers will commit to it, It is a view that means some will have to be celibate in life to meet kingdom requirements.

          • No all the Bible is not the word of Jesus, the Old Testament certainly isn’t, in fact it is a mainly Jewish bible. Even the word of Paul is not strictly that of Jesus. Christ nowhere opposed homosexual marriage, nor did he say it was solely for creation, otherwise that would exclude heterosexual couples who could not have children. Plus homosexual couples can adopt now or have children via IVF

          • No all the Bible is not the word of Jesus, the Old Testament certainly isn’t

            Wow, way to say the quiet bit out loud. If you’re a Christian then that’s Marcionism, which is a heresy and as such is most definitely not the doctrine of the Church of England.

          • HYUFGD

            The OT is the word of Christ in the sense that the OT is the Word of God and Jesus is the Word. Moreover Jesus treats the OT as absolutely authoritative.

            Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. (Matthew 5:17 RSV)

            Jesus answered him, “What is written in Moses’ Teachings? What do you read there?” He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind.’ And ‘Love your neighbor as you love yourself.’” Jesus told him, “You’re right! Do this, and life will be yours.” (Luke 10:26-28 God’s Word)

            You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me. (John 5:39 NASB)

            Equally the authority of the NT writers is that they speak on behalf of Christ,

            John 16:13-16
            Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come…

            For who has known the Lord’s mind, that he may instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ. 1 Cor 2:16

            For this reason I am writing these things while absent, so that when present I need not use severity, in accordance with the authority which the Lord gave me for building up and not for tearing down.

            If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord. 38 If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized. 1 Cor 14:7

            Jesus are just a sample of texts that demonstrate all of Scripture is authoritative and carries Christs authority; they carry it because the words of Moses and Paul etc were ultimately the word of God who is Christ.

          • If that was literally true then Muslims and Jews would be Christians as they also worship the God of Abraham, only belief in Christ as Messiah and his word alone matters most to Christians

          • For some time this conversation has been off topic, has been futile (since you are not really engaging with one another) and going nowhere. It is therefore clearly in breach of my comment guidelines.

            Could you please all take it off line now?

      • There are plenty of knitting groups in churches. And all sorts of other groups and activities where the unchurched feel out of place (or bored). There’s also a difference between the Christian message and Christianese. The unchurched reject the latter.

        If you grew up in the culture, you just won’t notice any of this.

        Reply
        • There is also a difference between the Church of England and evangelical Pentecostal and Baptist churches, in both doctrine, theology and practice. You are clearly trying to make the former into the latter

          Reply
          • I hope so. as I intend to give a baptist church a try. I’ll be wary though as I am now aware of how many completely fake Christians there are in ‘evangelical’ CoE churches. As the congregation numbers continue to dwindle the remaining assets of the CoE (property etc) are easy pickings for those who are willing bluff and bluster their through a bit of Jesus talk.

          • You can find greater purity in other denominations than the Church of England. Purer evangelism in Baptist and Pentecostal churches than evangelicals in the Church of England, purer Catholicism in the Roman Catholic Church than Anglo Catholics in the Church of England. It is being a broad Church and the established English Church that unites the C of E, from Anglo Catholics, to liberals to more conservative evangelicals

      • Yes almost certainly the Roman Catholic Church would become the largest Christian Church again and the Pope effectively head of our national Church again if the Church of England was disestablished. In virtually every western Christian heritage nation the Roman Catholic Church is the largest Christian denomination now, even in more Protestant the United States and Germany and the Netherlands and in Wales and Northern Ireland now too. England is a rare exception in having a Protestant denomination, the Church of England, as its largest Christian denomination. As is Denmark where the established Church of Denmark is also the largest Christian Church.

        Even in the 1950s or even 1850s or 1750s Church of England most rectors and vicars spent more time conducting marriages and funerals and baptisms than evangelising on the street. It has never been a mainly evangelical Church.

        It is also quite correct that in the next year or two the Church of England will follow the law of the land now as the established church and allow its Vicars to conduct homosexual weddings and blessings if they wish. If evangelicals like you don’t want that them Conservative Parishes and Priests can still opt out as with women priests, a fair compromise. If you will not even accept that then become Baptist or Pentecostal as it clearly suits you more than the Church of England does

        Reply
        • Canon Law *is* law of the land; you are drawing a false dichotomy in contrasting the two.

          The question is nothing to do with ‘if evangelicals don’t like that’. The question is about the doctrine of the C of E, and whether we continue to be part of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church, for which this has been a consensus doctrine.

          Reply
          • You clearly have no interest in being a liberal Catholic church which is what most Anglicans in England now are. Instead you want to turn the Church of England into an evangelical Baptist church in all but name and opposition to gay marriage as a driving force, despite it being the law of the land and something many and probably now most C of E priests now want to be able to do

          • HYUFD what a strange comment.

            ‘liberal Catholic Church’. The C of E is not liberal catholic in its doctrine, which is very clear when you note that ‘catholics’ can only do what they want by borrowing liturgy from other churches, against their ordination vows.

            ‘What most Anglicans now are’…which is entirely untrue. Just come and visit the churches in my city.

            ‘gay marriage is the law of the land’ No it is only one part of the law of the land. The other part is Canon Law which states (B30) that ‘marriage is between one man and one woman.’ This too is law of the land.

            ‘most C of E priests want it’ No, Campaign for Equal Marriage boasted 1,000 licensed clergy wanted to…out of 20,000 licensed clergy.

            So none of the facts you assume in this comment are actually true.

          • Yes it is, it is a Catholic and apostolic church in the Protestant tradition.

            Yet it is also a liberal Church too, given more than half of Anglicans in England now back gay marriage

            https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2022/4-march/news/uk/yougov-poll-more-than-half-of-anglicans-believe-same-sex-marriage-to-be-right

            Canon law will follow UK law within a year or two given the above and in respect of the Church of England’s position as the established church. If priests wish to conduct homosexual marriages for committed couples they will be entitled to do so, though not forced to do so if they don’t want to. The rest who refuse to accept even that compromise will have to leave and become Baptist or Pentecostal which they will feel more at home with anyway

          • Yes it is, it is a Catholic and apostolic church in the Protestant tradition.

            Oh dear oh dear. You can’t have ‘a Catholic […] church’. Do you not know what the word ‘catholic’ means? It means ‘universal’. You can’t have ‘a Catholic church’ any more than you can have something that’s ‘quite unique’. There can be only one universal Church, the one that all the denominations, Church of England, Roman, Baptist, Presbyterian, all, are part of.

        • Yes almost certainly the Roman Catholic Church would become the largest Christian Church again

          Quite possibly; it depends on how the Church of England spits in that circumstance, which I don’t think anyone can predict.

          But so what? What does it matter if the Romans are the largest denomination? It’s not a competition, is it?

          and the Pope effectively head of our national Church again if the Church of England was disestablished.

          No, that’s rubbish. We wouldn’t have a national church if the Church of England was disestablished, so how could the Pope be head of something that wouldn’t exist?

          Of course someone like you would prefer it if something was established to replace the Church of England, but that certainly wouldn’t be Romanism, it would be some form of vague humanist deism.

          Have you ever read the ‘Thursday Next’ books by Jasper Fforde? They start off quite funny, but tail off a bit. Anyway, there’s a running gag where Thursday’s brother is setting up a new religion called the ‘Church of the Global Standard Deity’, which is basically a religion which describes God in such vague terms that they could apply to any existing religion, and that explicitly makes absolutely no demands on its followers.

          It’s obviously a piss-take of the kind of Anglican who thinks that the important thing is that the Church of England be there to do baptisms and weddings and village fêtes and funerals, and what is actually believed is unimportant. I understand in the later books even atheists start joining because the doctrine are vague enough that they encompass thinking the whole ‘God’ thing is just a metaphor and the important thing is to be nice and live a good life.

          Sounds like you would quite like to join the Church of the Global Standard Deity yourself.

          Reply
          • It matters as it reverses the English Reformation, which is built on the Monarch heading the largest Church in England. The largest church in England is by definition the national church.

            The Church of England has certainly been closer to what Fforde suggests than your hardline evangelism and as that closer to what the people of England want in a Church and their Parish and one rooted in their community with the weddings and fetes and funerals and remembrance day and royal jubilees and weddings and coronations and funerals etc. The C of E does the hymns and bible readings too but its role is primarily to be the Parish church in villages and towns across the land and our great City Cathedrals

          • It matters as it reverses the English Reformation, which is built on the Monarch heading the largest Church in England.

            So what? What does that matter in the twenty-first century? It may have mattered in the sixteenth, when there was the danger of England being overruled by Spain, but now, who cares?

            The largest church in England is by definition the national church.

            No, it isn’t. On current trends it won’t be very many years until the Roman denomination is larger than the Church of England even if the Church of England isn’t disestablished; but that doesn’t mean the Romans will become the national church, if the Church of England is still established. The national church is the denomination established by law, regardless of whether it is the biggest or the smallest or anywhere in between.

            The Church of England has certainly been closer to what Fforde suggests than your hardline evangelism and as that closer to what the people of England want in a Church and their Parish and one rooted in their community with the weddings and fetes and funerals and remembrance day and royal jubilees and weddings and coronations and funerals etc.

            So what you’re saying is that you don’t want the national church to be a Christian denomination. Which is fine, but in that case you should disestablish the Church of England, to allow it to actually be a Christian denomination as it is supposed to be, and replace it with the national religion you actually want, the Church of the Global Standard Deity.

            I don’t really understand why you keep insisting you want to keep the Church of England when you clearly hate the very idea of Christianity and want it replaced by Global Standard Deism + the National Trust. Just accept that you hate Christianity, the Church of England is a Christian denomination, therefore the logical thing for you to do is get rid of the Church of England and replace it with the king of national religion that you won’t hate.

          • It still matters very much as we have a national Church protected by our Monarch not by edict of the Vatican and the Pope.

            Yes the national church is the largest church if the national church is disestablished and indeed membership of the Church of England is still significantly larger than Roman Catholic membership, even if the weekly church attendance gap is smaller. Being the established church is key to that. England is thus one of few Christian plurality nations where the Roman Catholic church is not the largest Christian denomination.

            The Church of England is still the same Christian denomination it has always been, just not the Pentecostal or Baptist church you want to turn it into. If you want that become a Pentecostal or Baptist. You clearly hate the Church of England anyway and most of what it stands for. It does the Christianity, the hymns and the Bible readings too but alongside the Parish work and marriages and funerals and preservation of ancient buildings it has always done. You clearly have no interest in that, therefore you have no interest in the Church of England’s real role and unique nature as our national Church

          • It still matters very much as we have a national Church protected by our Monarch not by edict of the Vatican and the Pope.

            Does it? Why? It might have mattered when the Vatican had real political power but that hasn’t been the case for centuries so who cares?

            Plus, if the Church of England were to be disestablished and replaced as established church by the kind of Global Standard Deism that you actually want, the Pope still wouldn’t be in charge of it, so this whole bizarre point about the Pope is irrelevant on two grounds.

            Yes the national church is the largest church

            No, by definition the national church is the church by law established. If the Church of England were to be disestablished by Act of Parliament and some other religion established by Act, then that religion would be the national church even if it had fewer members than the now-no-longer-the-national-church Church of England.

            England is still significantly larger than Roman Catholic membership,

            But heading downwards fast while the Romans membership stays steady, so that won’t be the case for long.

            England is thus one of few Christian plurality nations where the Roman Catholic church is not the largest Christian denomination.

            Um England is no longer a Christian plurality nation (and if your view of the Church of England is widespread, it’s doubtful that it ever was).

            The Church of England is still the same Christian denomination it has always been,

            Which is why you should support it being disestablished, as you clearly don’t want the national church to be a Christian denomination, and would prefer it to be a Global Standard Deist organisation or a National Ceremonial Service.

            You clearly hate the Church of England anyway and most of what it stands for.

            I’d say I’m disappointed in it rather than hate it.

            It does the Christianity, the hymns and the Bible readings too but alongside the Parish work and marriages and funerals and preservation of ancient buildings it has always done.

            But you like it when it does the marriages and funerals and you hate it when it does the Christianity (and ‘hymns and Bible readings’ isn’t Christianity) so that is why you should support getting rid of it and replacing it with something that doesn’t have the baggage of Christianity that you clearly regard as getting in the way of its true mission of providing a pretty backdrop to wedding photographs.

          • The Vatican has over 1 billion Catholics under it, the monarchy however is by definition the head of the English national church to stop the Pope being so. In large part it is its position as the established church that ensures we are one of the few Christian plurality nations on earth without the Catholic church as our largest denomination.

            If the Church of England was disestablished then no other church would take its place as the legal national church but the Roman Catholic church would effectively become our national church and largest church again as it was before the Reformation and is in most Christian plurality nations.

            Christianity is still the plurality 46% to 37% non religious in England and Wales.

            No it is you hate the Church of England and what it stands for. You have an ideological agenda to replace it with a Baptist or Pentecostal church with no interest in the wider Parish community and the marriages and baptisms and funerals etc which have been performed for them for centuries. I have no problem with the hymns and bible readings too, after all I attend my C of E church every Sunday and am a Christian. I just am opposed to and will fight your ideological agenda to turn the C of E into something it is not.

          • If the Church of England was disestablished then no other church would take its place as the legal national church but the Roman Catholic church would effectively become our national church and largest church again as it was before the Reformation and is in most Christian plurality nations.

            And again I ask: so what? You clearly think that would be bad but I am at an utter loss as to why. Yes, it might well have undermined the security of the nation for that to be the case in the ways when the Holy See was a real player in international diplomacy, but those days are long past, so even if the Roman denomination were to become the largest in the UK, so what?

            No it is you hate the Church of England and what it stands for.

            As I wrote above, I don’t hate the Church of England but I am disappointed in it and I hope it remembers what it is supposed to stand for.

            I have no problem with the hymns and bible readings too, after all I attend my C of E church every Sunday and am a Christian.

            Liking hymns and Bible readings doesn’t make someone a Christian. Richard Dawkins likes hymns and Bible readings.

            I just am opposed to and will fight your ideological agenda to turn the C of E into something it is not.

            You will foght tooth and nail to stop the Church of England from being Christian, and you may succeed, but as it was founded as a Christian denomination that seems quite a lot of effort; would it not be far easier to just get rid of it and replace it with something not Christian, and Global Standard Deity-ish instead, as that is what you really want anyway?

          • Then the Vatican and its edicts would become the dominant force in Christianity in England rather than the Church of England with the Monarch at its head.

            Richard Dawkins is also an avowed atheist and he certainly has little time for the Bible, even if he is more concerned about Islam and evangelical Christianity than the Church of England.

            On your definition the US Episcopal church, most of the Lutheran Churches, the Methodist Church in Britain and Church of Scotland and Scottish Episcopal Church and Church in Wales and most Lutheran Churches, including the established Church of Denmark, are not Christian as they allow their priests to conduct homosexual weddings and blessings if they wish. Despite the fact Christ said nothing against loving homosexual unions

          • Then the Vatican and its edicts would become the dominant force in Christianity in England rather than the Church of England with the Monarch at its head.

            So what? Who cares? You clearly think that would be bad but why? Once upon a time, it’s true, the Vatican, in concert with the continental powers that cleaved to the Roman denomination, was a threat to our national security; but that hasn’t been the case for centuries. So why not let the Roman denomination be the largest in the country? What on Earth are you scared of? An Inquisition? That they’ll start burning people in Oxford again? I really hardly think that’s likely.

            Richard Dawkins is also an avowed atheist and he certainly has little time for the Bible

            On this, as on everything else, you are totally wrong. Professor Dawkins has called the Bible ‘a great work of literature’ and has said that any native speaker who hasn’t read the King James Version is ‘a barbarian’. He does think the Bible shouldn’t be used as a guide to morality, but then you agree with him on that.

            even if he is more concerned about Islam and evangelical Christianity than the Church of England.

            Well yes — because he fits right in with your vision of the Church of England, doesn’t he? Like you, he loves the hymns and the Bible and the ceremonies and the social work and the pageantry, and, like you, he would like to have all that and get rid of the Christian content.

            You and he are natural allies. I hardly think, if you got together, that you would find a single thing you disagreed on.

          • As the Church of England is more in tune with the views of most English people on issues like homosexuality for example and complete opposition to abortion and women priests than the Vatican is for starters.

            Richard Dawkins on the Old Testament “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
            https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/23651-the-god-of-the-old-testament-is-arguably-the-most

            The Church of England however still preaches and reads the Old Testament as well as the New even if it gives primacy to the teachings of Christ, as well as the Parish and community work and ceremonies and ancient buildings Dawkins like me likes

          • As the Church of England is more in tune with the views of most English people on issues like homosexuality for example and complete opposition to abortion and women priests than the Vatican is for starters.

            So what? Even if you’re right and the disestablishment of the Church of England did lead to the Roman denomination being the largest denomination in the country, it wouldn’t be because more people had crossed the Tiber, it would be because those who were formerly members of the Church of England had splintered, leaving no individual remnant bigger than the Romans.

            No one who didn’t want to go to a church with the Romans’ views on any of those matters would have to.

            So again I have to ask: so what? Why would it bother you if the Roman denomination were to become, due to the splintering of a disestablished Church of England, the biggest Christian denomination in the United Kingdom? Why would it matter? What would be the problem with that?

            I’m not a Roman — I think their theology is hilariously wrong on a whole host of matters — but it wouldn’t bother me if they were to become, by default, the largest denomination in the UK in terms of membership. Why on Earth would it bother you? Why do you have this massive, bizarre Papal bee in your bonnet?

            Richard Dawkins on the Old Testament “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
            https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/23651-the-god-of-the-old-testament-is-arguably-the-most

            As I wrote above, he doesn’t think that the Bible is a good guide to morality. But then you agree with him on that, don’t you? You think the Old Testament is homophobic.

            But he has also, as I wrote above, called it a great work of literature and said that any native speaker who hasn’t read it is a barbarian. He regards it as an indispensable, invaluable part of our national heritage. Remind me — wasn’t that exactly what you said you think should be the primary point of the Church of England?

            The Church of England however still preaches and reads the Old Testament as well as the New

            You’d rather it didn’t, though, wouldn’t you? If it gets in the way of welcoming everyone to the village fêtes and all that malarkey.

          • It would bother me as the national Church in England if Roman Catholic would be far less in tune with the views of the average resident of England than the Church of England is, weakening views of Christianity in England further. The role of the Church of England in the broader Parish and link to it would also be lost.

            Christianity is of course based on the New Testament and specifically the preaching of Christ as the Christian Messiah, not the Old Testament. Indeed if you only follow the Old Testament you are Jewish not Christian. Even the Koran of course shares the Prophet Abraham with the Old Testament

          • It would bother me as the national Church in England if Roman Catholic would be far less in tune with the views of the average resident of England than the Church of England is, weakening views of Christianity in England further.

            Wait what? You claim to be a Christian but your worry is about the views of non-Christians?

            Have you even read John 15:18?

            The role of the Church of England in the broader Parish and link to it would also be lost.

            So let me get this straight. Your problem with the Roman denomination becoming the largest denomination in the country (not the ‘national church’ but whatever)
            is that you are ashamed of anything that might make Christianity distinct from the views of the general population of the country, so you think that rather than trying to proclaim the truth about God the Church of England should adapt its beliefs and base them on whatever the surrounding culture thinks in order, basically, to save you the embarrassment of being associated with a religion that is out-of-step with the current fads and mores of the times?

            Seriously. Stop contouring yourself in knots to say that you want the Church of England to stay Christian but only if it ditches anything that would actually make it distinctively Christian as opposed to just something that fits in with the mood of the country. Just get on with disestablishing it already and replacing it with the pliant, subservient, secular National Ceremonial Service that is what you clearly really wish we had as a national church instead of a Christian denomination.

            Indeed if you only follow the Old Testament you are Jewish not Christian.

            And if you say the Old Testament wasn’t written by God just as much as the New then you aren’t a Christian. I don’t know what you are. Unitarian Universalist maybe?

          • Many who classify themselves as Church of England on the census for example have a cultural affinity with it even if they rarely attend services. Having a national Christian church most English people can identify with culturally is also better for national cohesion.

            If you want a more hardline church divorced from most of English society there are plenty of other churches to choose from, including the Roman Catholic, Pentecostal and Baptist churches. The Church of England is however supposed to be the established English church connected with and rooted in local English communities.

            Even if the Old Testament is solely the word of God that does not make it the basis of the Christian bible, only the Jewish bible. Christians worship Christ as their Messiah not the God of the Old Testament unlike Jews

          • Many who classify themselves as Church of England on the census for example have a cultural affinity with it even if they rarely attend services.

            That may have been true in the past but is no longer, and a good thing too.

            Having a national Christian church most English people can identify with culturally is also better for national cohesion.

            That ship has sailed! It’s been a long long time since ‘most English people’ identified with the Church of England.

            If you want a more hardline church divorced from most of English society there are plenty of other churches to choose from, including the Roman Catholic, Pentecostal and Baptist churches.

            All I want is that a Christian denomination acts like a Christian denomination, not like a department of the state.

            <i€The Church of England is however supposed to be the established English church connected with and rooted in local English communities.

            Yes absolutely. It is supposed to be connected with and rooted in local communities, in order to proclaim to them God’s truth.

            It is not absolutelynot supposed to be connected with and rooted in local communities in order to provide them with pretty buildings and life ceremonies and someone to present prizes at the village fête.

            Christians worship Christ as their Messiah not the God of the Old Testament unlike Jews

            Um, Jesus is the God of the Old Testament. That’s kind of like the most basic, most fundamental point of Christianity. If people in the Church of England don’t understand that then, well, it definitely isn’t a Christian denomination.

          • It is you trying to change the Church of England’s role as the established church in line with the views of most in England and rooted in the Parish to an evangelical Pentecostal or Baptist church.

            It will still be a Christian Church, just one open to all regardless of sexuality in committed relationships once the Synod approves Church of England priests blessing homosexual unions and weddings as it inevitably will within a few years

          • It is you trying to change the Church of England’s role as the established church in line with the views of most in England and rooted in the Parish to an evangelical Pentecostal or Baptist church.

            Well, no, it’s me trying to say the Church of England should get back to its role as being the national church and you saying that it should instead change its role to being that of a maintainer of buildings and a provider of ceremonies.

            Maintaining buildings and providing ceremonies is not the job of a church. Back in the day the Church didn’t even have buildings; Christians met in each others houses, or in catacombs. Maintaining buildings is not the job of a church. A church may own and maintain buildings in order to use them in its job of proclaiming the truth about God; but the buildings are not an end in themselves, they are tools to be used for the real job. Sometimes useful tools, but not necessary ones; the Church of England could do its job perfectly well if it had no buildings at all (and indeed even these days lots of churches of all denominations don’t have their own buildings and rent spaces for their services).

            It will still be a Christian Church

            Not if it abandons its core job of proclaiming the truth about God and instead makes its primary aim preserving buildings and providing ceremonies, it won’t. Preserving buildings is the job of the National Trust and providing services the job of the British Humanist Association, so if the Church of England decides that those are it’s jobs too, in what ways would it be different to them? In what way would it be a church?

        • No it still is, there are still significantly more who define themselves as Church of England than attend weekly Church of England services.

          The Church of England IS supposed to be involved in the village fete, IS supposed to provide marriages and funerals to every parishioner who wants one, not just proclaim the word of God. Otherwise it would NOT be the Church of England. It would be a Pentecostal evangelical or Baptist church as you clearly want it to be.

          The word of Jesus Christ as Messiah is what Christians believe, that moved on from the Old Testament apart from a few things like the 10 commandments. If as you do you clearly prioritise the Old Testament then you are not Christian anyway, you are Jewish

          Reply
          • No it still is, there are still significantly more who define themselves as Church of England than attend weekly Church of England services.

            Talk is cheap. ‘Defining yourself’ is cheaper still. If you can’t even do something so minimal-effort as turn up once a week then you’re not in the Church of England. That’s just utterly unreasonable, selfish behaviour, expecting something for nothing.

            But even on your own terms of ‘defining’, did you read the article above? The whole bays of which is that the number of people who ‘define’ themselves as Christian (including all denominations, not just the Church of England) has gone under 50%. So it can hardly be true that a majority of people define themselves as belonging to the Church of England if only a minority of people define themselves as any type of Christian, can it?

            The Church of England IS supposed to be involved in the village fete, IS supposed to provide marriages and funerals to every parishioner who wants one, not just proclaim the word of God.
            Otherwise it would NOT be the Church of England.

            It can do those things, but if its primary purpose isn’t to proclaim the truth about God then it certainly would NOT be the Church of England, because it wouldn’t be any kind of church at all, because the primary purpose of the Church is to proclaim God’s truth.

            So you don’t want the Church of England to be a church. You are fixated on the ‘of England’ bit and have forgotten that the important bit is ‘Church’.

            That’s why, given you object to the Church of England in direct proportion to the amount it behaves as an actual church rather than as a charity or arm of the state, you should support disestablishing it and replacing it with something which could do all the stuff you like (pretty buildings, ceremonies, fêtes) and not the stuff you don’t (anything to do with God, basically).

            The word of Jesus Christ as Messiah is what Christians believe, that moved on from the Old Testament apart from a few things like the 10 commandments.

            Do you not believe that Jesus is God, then? Sounds a lot like you don’t. In which case in what sense can you possibly be a Christian?

          • No it isn’t, you can still be culturally C of E even without attending every week. It is certainly true that more define themselves as C of E than the 850,000 odd who attend C of E services each week.

            It is quite possible to preach the word of Christ AND do the C of E’s traditional services and work in the Parish. If it didn’t do the latter it would be a Pentecostal or Baptist Church not the Church of England.

            Jesus Christ is God’s creation of a new Christian message different from that in the Old Testament, otherwise there would be no Christianity, only Judaism

          • No it isn’t, you can still be culturally C of E even without attending every week. It is certainly true that more define themselves as C of E than the 850,000 odd who attend C of E services each week.

            If you’re ‘culturally C of E’ then you’re not actually a Christian, are you? So you’re not actually a member of the Church of England, are you?

            It is quite possible to preach the word of Christ AND do the C of E’s traditional services and work in the Parish.

            Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn’t. It’s possible for the Church to co-exist with the secular state right up until the point where it isn’t; Thomas Beckett learnt that lesson. And when the two collide — where it’s impossible to both bend to the will of the ‘general population’ and be faithful to God’s truth — then the Church of England has to preach the truth about God’s and be ready to take whatever unpopularity that causes among the general population. Because if it didn’t do that, then it certainly wouldn’t be the Church of England, because it wouldn’t be any kind of church at all.

            Jesus Christ is God’s creation of a new Christian message different from that in the Old Testament, otherwise there would be no Christianity, only Judaism

            So you’re saying you don’t think that Jesus is actually God, the same God who spoke to Abraham and Moses and King David? You think Jesus is not God but instead is ‘God’s creation’? You’re an Arian, in other words? Is that what you’re saying? You’re an Arian? It looks a lot like you’re saying you’re an Arian, so, well, are you? An Arian?

          • Yes you are and it is attitudes like yours which drive people in England away from the even C of E wing of Christianity into the agnostic or even atheist box. If the Church of England ceased to be the established Church it would effectively cease to be the Church of England, as from its foundation it has been the state church with the Monarch as its Supreme Governor.

            Even Jews and Muslims believe God is the God of Abraham, it is belief in Christ alone as Messiah that makes us unique as Christians

          • Yes you are and it is attitudes like yours which drive people in England away from the even C of E wing of Christianity into the agnostic or even atheist box.

            Would you not agree that if someone is an agnostic or an atheist they ought to be driven away from the Church of England? I’m not sure what kind of Christian church you think that the Church of England can be if it includes atheists and agnostics as members.

            Even Jews and Muslims believe God is the God of Abraham, it is belief in Christ alone as Messiah that makes us unique as Christians

            It is belief that Jesus is the God of Abraham (and not, say, a ‘creation’ of the God of Abraham) which distinguishes Christians. Which means that to be a Christian you can’t believe that the New Testament replaces or contradicts the Old; to do that would be to think that God has changed His mind.

            So, to summarise this thread:

            1. You are terrified that the Church of England, if disestablished, might split such that the Roman denomination would be the largest Christian denomination in the UK (never mind that this is already in the process of happening and the crossover point will surely be in not very many years).

            2. The reason this scares you is that the Roman denomination is less accommodating to modern fads than the Church of England, and you fear that if it was the latest denomination then the general population’s view of Christianity would be shaped by the Roman denomination, and you would find it embarrassing to be associated with something so out-of-step with modern ideas.

            In which case, I have good news for you! The solution is clear. Based on what you have written here, you are not actually a Christian. You are either a Marcionite or an Arian, or both. So, you don’t need to be embarrassed about being associated with what those awkward Christians believe, as you are not one of them!

            What you need to do, is campaign for the disestablishment of the Church of England and its replacement by a new Global Standard Deist religion which matches what you actually believe. Then you can leave the Church of England and join the new religion, and make sure that everyone knows you are not associated with those awful Christians with their horrible unfashionable ideas.

            At a stroke everything is solved. You no longer have to worry about being embarrassed by association with people who are more concerned with truth than being acceptable to modern fads. And the Church of England is free to be an actual church.

            Everyone wins!

          • Hello HYUFD,
            Could it be suggested you look at the creeds, that are not unique to the CoE, in particular the Trinity. Jesus is God, who pre-existed creation in eternity; he’s not created. If you think Jesus was created, you are outside mainstream Christianity, and the 39 Arts.,1 and 2, even if you are part of the CoE. (Again, numbers 1 and 2 are not beliefs unique to the CoE, and are but mainstream Christianity).

          • Except they aren’t atheists or agnostics but cultural Christians, cultural Anglicans who can be drawn to Christ if you don’t push them away by creating a hardline cult into agnosticism.

            It is belief in Jesus as Messiah alone that distinguishes Christians full stop, the God of Abraham is shared by all Abrahamic religions. In fact your emphasis on the Old Testament over that makes you less Christian than me.

            England is one of the few Christian heritage nations in the world where Catholics are not already the largest denomination, thanks mainly to it being the established church. I will fight until my death day for the Church of England to remain the established Church for all Parishioners in England. You of course are the one who wants the Church of England to cease to exist by turning it into a Baptist or Pentecostal church, if you want that join such a Church not the C of E

          • Jesus is the son of God and the Messiah, if you don’t believe that and that his message alone matters you are not Christian, you are Jewish and only interested in the Old Testament God. True Christians believe God renewed his message in the New Testament with his son

          • Except they aren’t atheists or agnostics but cultural Christians,

            Richard Dawkins is a cultural Christian.

            cultural Anglicans who can be drawn to Christ if you don’t push them away by creating a hardline cult into agnosticism.

            They’re not going to be ‘drawn to Christ’ by the Church of England if it abandons its job of providing the truth about God in favour of acting as a National Ceremonial Service, are they? For one thing, how will they hear the truth if the Church of England doesn’t tell them? For another, why buy the cow if you can get the milk for free? Why commit your life to Jesus if the Church of England will be there to service your every ceremonial need regardless of whether you ever see the inside of a church from one wedding or funeral to the next?

            It is belief in Jesus as Messiah alone that distinguishes Christians full stop,

            No, it is belief in Jesus as God that distinguishes Christians.

            England is one of the few Christian heritage nations in the world where Catholics are not already the largest denomination, thanks mainly to it being the established church.

            So what? Apart from embarrassing you in front of your secular friends with their unfashionable commitment to the truth, what would be the problem with the Romans being the largest denomination (as they will be in a few years)?

            <i€I will fight until my death day for the Church of England to remain the established Church for all Parishioners in England.

            Despite the fact that you hate everything about it that makes it a church. If you’re only in it for the ceremonies and the social work, and you hate the God’s truth bits, why don’t you want to replace it with something that does all the things you like but without there stuff you hate?

            You of course are the one who wants the Church of England to cease to exist

            Well no, I’d quite like it to continue to exist and be a church, which I think puts me in direct opposition to you who wants a National Ceremonial Service but freaks out at the idea that it might remember it’s supposed to be a church.

            (Futile this may be, but it is very definitely on the topic of whether Britain has ceased to be a Christian country, not least because if this person is in any way representative, turn it never was).

          • HYUFD – I kind of get the picture of the sort of Anglican church you want from the `Dear Bill’ letters (by Richard Ingrams and John Wells)

            `Incidentally, Bill, between ourselves, did you know that one of M’s jobs was appointing the Archbishop of Canterbury? I took the liberty of putting forward old Archie Wellbeloved now that he’s retired. I know he often gives the impression he’s not all there, but he’s pretty good through the green and preaches a very nice little sermon, as you and I discovered at the Wilkinson funeral: all in the Saloon bar by twelve on the dot as I recall.’

          • Jesus is the son of God and the Messiah, if you don’t believe that and that his message alone matters you are not Christian, you are Jewish and only interested in the Old Testament God.

            Jesus is God. The Trinity, right? Father, Son and Spirit are distinct persons but one God.

            Jesus’s message is the same as the message of the Old Testament, because Jesus is the same God who spoke to the prophets in the Old Testament and who speaks through the Old Testament to us today.

            True Christians believe God renewed his message in the New Testament with his son

            No, they don’t. True Christians don’t draw a distinction between the Old Testament and the New, because both are equal parts of the Word of the same God.

          • HYUFED, There is something out if kilter in your comments on the thread.
            1 A no True Scotsman fallacy which is based on false premises regarding what Christianity is and isn’t and foundational beliefs particularly regarding the Trinity.
            2 The view of scripture which you put forward seems to espouse the doctrine of Marion. ( I recall reading Angelical Old Testament scholar, Alec Mother writing the the only uninspired page in the Holy Bible, is the blank page between the end of the OT books and the start of the New .
            S, sketches some pointers of continuity.

          • Richard Dawkins is an atheist not even agnostic, it is those in the middle extremists like you drive away. It is belief in Jesus as Messiah that distinguishes Christians, there is also the logical fallacy that Jesus is the son of God which means that he is not strictly the God of the Old Testament even on the Trinity.

            As England is a Protestant heritage nation not a Roman Catholic one since the Reformation.

            No it is you who hate everything about the Church of England and wish to remove it from its Parish base to make it a purely evangelical Church not caring about its ancient buildings or connection to the nation and I will fight you and your ilk every day for the rest of my life to preserve the Church of England as it is and should be.

            On your definition of Christian only homophobic evangelicals count, tough we who disagree will fight you all the way. Christianity is a far broader Church than that

          • Richard Dawkins is an atheist not even agnostic,

            And yet he is still a cultural Christian.

            it is those in the middle extremists like you drive away.

            I’m not an extremist. I’m pretty middle-of-the-road. On almost all questions of theology you can find people with views farther to either side than mine. Obviously there are some non-negotiables: that the Bible is the Word of God, for example. But nothing that hasn’t been pretty universally held by all Christians since there have been Christians.

            But I definitely do think the Churhc of England is meant to be a church, not a branch of the state or a National Ceremonial Service. but I don’t think that can be an ‘extremist’ position: it’s right there in the name! Church of England.

            It is belief in Jesus as Messiah that distinguishes Christians, there is also the logical fallacy that Jesus is the son of God which means that he is not strictly the God of the Old Testament even on the Trinity.

            I’m sorry, I can’t even make sense of the grammar of that. I think your spell-checker or text-predictor must have changed some of the words for others; that often happens to my comments, but in this case I can’t work out what the original might have been. Could you re-type it?

            No it is you who hate everything about the Church of England

            I keep pointing out that I don’t hate the Church of England; I’m just disappointed in it.

            and wish to remove it from its Parish base to make it a purely evangelical Church not caring about its ancient buildings or connection to the nation and I will fight you and your ilk every day for the rest of my life to preserve the Church of England as it is and should be.

            I don’t wish to remove it form its parish base at all. I wish for it to do its job and use its parish base to proclaim the truth about God to the nation.

            But your view of the Chruch of England ‘as it should be’ seems to have no room for it being, well, a church. Indeed your view of what an established religion is for is fairly incompatible with that established religion being a Christian denomination.

            Which is why you should support disestablishing it and replacing it with something that can fit your vision of what a national religion can be. Because the Church of England can never fit your view while it remains part of the one holy, catholic and apostolic Christian Church.

            On your definition of Christian only homophobic evangelicals count, tough we who disagree will fight you all the way. Christianity is a far broader Church than that

            On any definition of Christianity, Arians and Marcionites don’t count. That’s not just me, that’s been the settled view of the entire Christian Church for the last sixteen centuries.

          • The Church’s title is the Church of England it is specifically supposed to be the national church for England alone. Even most of Church of England Anglicans now back allowing C of E priests to conduct homosexual marriages and blessings if you wish, so you are on the extreme end of the C of E on that. Bishops like the Bishop of Oxford are already coming round to it too so that is inevitable. If Evangelical parishes and priests within the C of E don’t want to conduct homosexual weddings they won’t be forced to either as Anglo Catholics who opposed women priests weren’t forced to have them either. All we want is the choice https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/01/anglicans-believe-gay-couples-have-right-marry-yougov-poll-suggests/

          • The Church’s title is the Church of England it is specifically supposed to be the national church for England alone.

            That’s exactly my point. It’s supposed to be the national church for England. And the primary job of a church is to proclaim the truth about God; so the national church’s primary job is to proclaim the truth about God to the nation.

            That’s what makes it a national church rather than a national petty buildings maintenance service or a national ceremonial service. If this things are what you want, then you shouldn’t ask a church to do them, because they’re not a church’s main job. And if you do ask a church to do them, you shouldn’t complain when the church uses them to do what is a church’s job.

            Even most of Church of England Anglicans now back allowing C of E priests to conduct homosexual marriages and blessings if you wish, so you are on the extreme end of the C of E on that.

            I think you need to look up the meaning of the word ‘extreme’! It certainly doesn’t just mean ‘disagrees with the majority’. Would you say that everyone who voted for the UK to remain in the EU was an ‘extremist’ just because it turned out the majority disagreed with them?

            All we want is the choice

            The issue though is that to give people ‘the choice’ means the Church of England would have to change its doctrine of marriage and, as its doctrine of marriage is based on the Bible, it would have to change its doctrine of what the Bible is.

            Surely you can see that — changing its view of the Bible — is rather a big deal for a Christian church?

            You know what it wouldn’t be a big deal for? A National Ceremonial Service. If we had one of those instead of a national church, then changing the ceremonies and who would be eligible for them would be a simple administrative exercise.

            That’s why you should be campaigning for the Church of England to be disestablished, because you clearly don’t like it, and to be replaced by a National Ceremonial Service which could act as you would like the Church of England to, but the Church of England can’t because, despite everything, it’s still supposed to be a church.

          • The majority of Church of England members and congregation support allowing priests to marry gay couples, Bishops like the Bishop of Oxford back it increasingly too. Within a year most likely, definitley within 5 years Synod will have agreed the Church of England will allow its priests to conduct gay marriages and blessings, tough.

            It won’t be a National Ceremonial Service because by then we reformers will have taken control of most of the Church of England and along with Lutheran churches, the US Episcopal Church, the Methodists and the Church in Wales and Church of Scotland there will be homosexual marriages conducted in Church of England churches. Those of you like you who disagree despite Christ never having said anything against gay marriage will either have to leave the Church of England for a Baptist or Pentecostal evangelical church or accept that your evangelical church can still not perform gay weddings but it cannot force the majority of C of E churches from conducting them

          • HYUFD what remarkable tosh!

            ‘The majority of Church of England members and congregation support allowing priests to marry gay couples’

            No they don’t. There is simply no evidence for this.

            ‘Bishops like the Bishop of Oxford back it increasingly too.’

            …by making bizarre and implausible claims that sexuality is genetic, and whatever we experience as innate cannot be immoral. It has made many see how implausible such arguments are. And other liberal bishops like Southwark disagree with Croft.

            ‘It won’t be a National Ceremonial Service because by then we reformers will have taken control of most of the Church of England’

            You are kidding right? Which churches are drawing young people? Which ones are planting new congregations, and grafting into others?

            ‘and along with Lutheran churches, the US Episcopal Church, the Methodists and the Church in Wales and Church of Scotland there will be homosexual marriages…’

            None of these will exist in 10 or perhaps 20 years’ time.

            ‘Christ never having said anything against gay marriage’

            He said explicitly that marriage is between one man and one woman, and Paul took that consensus Jewish view as gospel into the Gentile world.

            I am really not sure which planet you are living on, but it isn’t this one!

          • The majority of Church of England members and congregation support allowing priests to marry gay couples, Bishops like the Bishop of Oxford back it increasingly too. Within a year most likely, definitley within 5 years Synod will have agreed the Church of England will allow its priests to conduct gay marriages and blessings, tough.

            Maybe, maybe not. The future is a notoriously difficult thing to predict. Nobody thought Donald Trump could ever be President of the USA, or that Britain would leave the European Union. I certainly wouldn’t be confident I could predict the result of a vote in Synod (indeed I remember a few years ago there was quite the upset about a vote that everyone confidently thought would go one way, and then it actually went the other, wasn’t there?)

            It won’t be a National Ceremonial Service because by then we reformers will have taken control of most of the Church of England

            I don’t think you can call yourself a ‘reformer’ if your aim is to totally change an institution. the point of the Reformation’ was that it was a re-formation, ie, a going-back to the original form of the Church that (they thought) the church of their time had drifted away from.

            If you just want to change everything, not change it back, but change it to something entirely different from what it ever was before, then the word for that isn’t ‘reformers’, I think it’s ‘vandals’.

            But it sounds in fact like if you get your way it will be a National Ceremonial Service. It will still be called the Church of England, but it won’t actually be a church, it will be a public service arm of the state providing weddings, funerals, and all that guff. I guess that’s your desired aim though?

            I still think you’d have an easier time of it, and it would be more honest, if rather than trying to turn the Church of England into a National Ceremonial Service and get rid of all the Christianity but still call it the Church of England despite it not being a church any more,
            you admitted that you don’t want a national church and just did the honest thing and disestablished the Church of England and set up the National Ceremonial Service which is what you really want.

            Those of you like you who disagree despite Christ never having said anything against gay marriage will either have to leave the Church of England for a Baptist or Pentecostal evangelical church or accept that your evangelical church can still not perform gay weddings but it cannot force the majority of C of E churches from conducting them

            You seem to be obsessed with gay weddings. I’ve been trying not to talk about gay weddings this whole discussion, and instead talk about the purpose and nature of the Church of England, but I guess you have no answer to those points so all you want to talk about now is gay weddings? Well, I have no interest in discussing gay weddings, and also gay weddings have nothign to do with the topic of the article, whereas the purpose and nature of the Church of England does, so unless you want to go back to the purpose and nature of the Church of England and leave all the gay wedding stuff to one side, then I guess this discussion has reached its natural end.

          • Oh yes there is, 48% of Church of England Anglicans now believe gay marriage is right (and a big majority of Anglicans under 50), only 34% think it is wrong. Homosexual marriage will be allowed by Synod in Church of England Parishes within a few years at most.
            https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/01/anglicans-believe-gay-couples-have-right-marry-yougov-poll-suggests/

            Church planting is not a proper Church of England activity as such, it is what evangelical churches from Pentecostals to Baptists do. The Church of England should be focused on preserving its historic Churches and Cathedrals it already has, something I agree with Save the Parish on.

            The Church of England, the SEP, the Lutheran churches, the US Episcopal Church will still exist as tolerant churches, open to all in loving, committed unions regardless of sexuality. You hardline evangelicals may well have left the Church of England by then if you refuse to allow Anglican priests to conduct homosexual weddings even if they are not imposed on you but that is your choice. The Church of England will by then have fallen in line with UK law and allowed homosexual marriages and blessings within its churches as it should do as the established church (as I said Jesus never once opposed it)

          • HYUFD you continue to inhabit your own unique universe.

            The survey was mostly of people who never attend church, which was a basic flaw in its method…because those who sponsored it wanted to score a propaganda point. Support for SSM declines with attendance.

            Church planting is a major plank of the current C of E vision. Are you not aware of that?

            No, SEC, TEC, and CiW will be extinct in a decade or two. Have you not looked at attendance figures?

            Canon law *is* UK law, as I have pointed out before.

            You do appear to be taking a holiday from reality…

          • Oh yes there is, 48% of Church of England Anglicans now believe gay marriage is right (and a big majority of Anglicans under 50), only 34% think it is wrong. Homosexual marriage will be allowed by Synod in Church of England Parishes within a few years at most.

            Opinion polls? You’re going off opinion polls? The opinion polls said the UK would stay in the EU and Donald Trump would never be President. Put not your faith in opinion polls.

            The Church of England should be focused on preserving its historic Churches and Cathedrals it already has, something I agree with Save the Parish on.

            The Church of England should be focused on proclaiming the truth about God to that nation; that’s what a national church is for.

            The Church of England, the SEP, the Lutheran churches, the US Episcopal Church will still exist as tolerant churches, open to all in loving, committed unions regardless of sexuality.

            Not if they carry on shrinking at their current rates, they won’t, so presumably this means you think something dramatic is going to happen very soon that will reverse the decline. Care to share what you think that might be? Because I’m afraid I can’t imagine anything that could have that effect. You clearly can, so what is it?

          • Ian Paul no it was a poll of members of the Church of England including regular Churchgoers, you have to to realise your hardline Evangelical anti gay marriage churches are a minority even of regular churchgoers let alone the Church of England as a whole.

            Church planting is the policy of the evangelical minority in the C of E who don’t care less about the ancient historic churches and cathedrals the Church maintains. Well after Welby, an evangelical, the next Archbishop as per the usual cycle will be in the Liberal Catholic tradition and move away from church planting back towards Parish ministry. We will also finally get authorisation for homosexual blessings and marriages within the Church of England. Just be clear we are not going to stop until we get that authorisation.

            You can remain as a minority evangelical group within the Church doing your own thing as Anglo Catholics have on women priests or leave for Pentecostal or Baptist churches as some of them left for Rome. However be clear, the majority of Anglicans within the Church of England will get homosexual marriage enabled and will not stop until it is as it should be for the established church

          • ‘no it was a poll of members of the Church of England including regular Churchgoers’

            it is pointless having further discussion if you are just going to ignore facts! These people were not ‘members’. There was not even a question about baptism.

            I am not a ‘minority’; I believe in the current and historic teaching of the C of E, which is the consensus doctrine of the Church catholic all through history. That is not a minority!

            The exchange needs to stop here, rather than endlessly repeated unsupported assertions.

          • They are members.

            We also know that Synod is now pretty evenly divided between liberals and evangelicals with just a small number of Anglo Catholics now. As soon as the Liberals get over 50%, homosexual marriage in the Church of England is inevitable

      • I asked an AI image generator to create a photo of an evangelical bible study. The results were astonishingly close to the ‘type’ you would expect to find in any bible study group (I wish I could post the pic here). Even a machine knows what a typical evangelical looks like.

        Reply
        • If that’s an answer to my question I have no idea how you think it fits…

          You said “and become more accepting of unimportant social differences”. It wasn’t a question about “evangelical” Bible studies (and the odd assumption that there’s a “type”.

          You were talking about “social differences”. I wondered what you had in mind. Perhaps you didn’t have anything in mind but seem to have changed the subject.

          Reply
  12. This country is Christian in infrastructure.

    Being Christian in infrastructure, then it is Christian in where it has directed its investment. It has built an entire huge network of churches and cathedrals and offshoot ministries (educational and health and social) over hundreds of years, invariably in much less prosperous times than these.

    Reply
  13. Ian posted
    “It has never been more important for the churches in this land to proclaim with confidence the good news of Jesus, and invite this generation to discover the gracious and costly gift of new life in him.”
    I emphatically agree.
    But I also emphatically assert that if we are being faithful to the message of the Jesus of the Bible and his apostles, we must also proclaim with tears the terrible warnings they proclaimed and invite (indeed implore) this generation to flee from the wrath to come by submitting to that Jesus in his atoning death and life-giving resurrection and to live a life in obedience to them.

    Reply
    • Phi[ip

      Yes i think Penal substitution and eternal conscious torment are part of the gospel. Eternal judgement is not a lack of being; it is a lack of well being. Both have been mainstream evangelical belief and more importantly both are biblical.

      It poses the question what of the gospel can be jettisoned before it is another gospel. I find Ian and others who share these sub-evangelical and unbiblical views a conundrum. I know they are the product of St John’s college and places like Fuller. It is an evangelicalism left of centre. I genuinely find I don’t quite know how I’d react to being in a church where these views were championed.

      Reply
      • John, if my views are ‘sub-evangelical’ and ‘unbiblical’, why do you spend so much time here? Why not go elsewhere?

        I am not sure I welcome comments which just resort to crude insults, actually.

        Reply
        • Hi ian

          As I wrote it I suspected you may be less than pleased. But surely by any objective standard these views on penal substitution, eternal punishment and even patriarchy are historically sub evangelical. Presumably you consider my views on penal substitution and eternal torment unbiblical even repugnant. You certainly are not slow to criticize my views on patriarchy and declare them not what the Bible teaches. And that is right if you believe them wrong.

          I certainly wasn’t intending to insult. I hoped to be robust. Bracing. How are we to shape each other if we do not call each other out on matters we think important. Notice i called the views sub-evangelical not you.

          I spend time here because i generally enjoy your articles. I enjoy the stimulus and having my views such as they are challenged by others, iron sharpens iron.

          Reply
          • John, I thought that you were being two harsh in classing Ian’s view as sub-evangelical or unbiblical. You implied earlier that your theological formation was largely shaped by your experience in the Brethren movement and by implication, its strong associations with Calvinism. Am I correct?

            So to your mind, is that your baseline for deciding whether Ian’s views are ‘sub-evangelical ‘ or ‘left of centre’ ?

            I am not sure how you ascribe political terms like ‘left of centre ‘ in a theological context. Do you think that Ian is some kind of theological leftie?

            I think you may certainly consider Ian’s views as sub-Brethren or sub-Calvinist and contrary to what you have been taught or understood, but to my mind, they are views that are perfectly defensible within the historical framework of evangelicalism even if you may not agree with them.

          • Hi Chris

            I would say my adult views were largely formed by conservative evangelicalism and those just a little outside this camp. In earlier years Packer, M L-Jones, Piper, Carson, FF Bruce, L Morris, M Boice, A Motyer, D McLeod, s Ferguson, w Grudem etc were influential. Stott was very influential despite his late defence of annihilationism. I would say my Brethren background did not really shape my mature theology though no doubt are part of a foundation. It is true that the most influential writers were from a reformed perspective.

            I read however outside these circles. S Travis, M Green, T Smail, A Thistleton, John Goldingay, N T Wright C Wright, S McKnight, M Bird, E Mouw, D Hagner; R T France, R Lovelace and many others were/are part of my reading range,

            I evaluate from within what I would define as a broad conservative evangelicalism. Within this and historical confessional Protestant faith structures o would have thought a denial of penal substitution and eternal conscious punishment sub evangelical and sub confessional. Mainstream evangelicalism has always subscribed to both. Ian’s views on these questions have been an uneasily tolerated minority position.

            I think the difference is I come from within independent evangelicalism rather than Anglican evangelicalism which apart from a few examples (Oak Hill, Moore, Cornhill) is largely of a different ilk.

          • I do however value Ian’s endevours to push back against those who are pushing LGBT agendas. This is very demanding, i”m sure.

          • John – is penal substitution the doctrine whereby God the Father put Jesus on the naughty seat and gave him a jolly good spanking?

          • penal substitution the doctrine whereby God the Father put Jesus on the naughty seat and gave him a jolly good spanking?

            I think I would put it, what’s the significant difference between ‘penal substitution’ and the other substitutionary theories of atonement?

          • S – well, you have the advantage over me (I haven’t really grasped what ‘penal substitution’ is supposed to mean – and I’m probably ignorant of the other theories).

            What is clear (from Scripture) is the fundamental problem of radical evil within each one of us, which has to be dealt with. This radical evil has something to do with the fact that creation was external to God (with all the moral implications of external to God – darkness over the face of the deep, etc ….) . Jesus reaches right into the ontological depths of our being (God made man) and in so doing, connects us with God, at the same time (through His Crucifixion – in ways that we do not understand) he deals with our radical evil, sin and death head on and (through His Resurrection – in ways that we do not understand) conquered it on our behalf – so that we are `more than conquerors’ in Him; our communion with God is established.

            I don’t really see this as God punishing Jesus in some way – I don’t understand it as Jesus taking on a punishment decreed by God and being punished on our behalf – one would have to have the mentality of a school teacher who enjoyed using the tawse and had sufficient mental problems to imagine that it actually did some good to see it that way.

          • you have the advantage over me (I haven’t really grasped what ‘penal substitution’ is supposed to mean – and I’m probably ignorant of the other theories).

            So as a general rule it’s the responsibility of the person who introduces a technical term into the conversation to clarify what they mean by it. Especially when it’s a specific, qualified term.

            I don’t really see this as God punishing Jesus in some way – I don’t understand it as Jesus taking on a punishment decreed by God and being punished on our behalf

            It’s indisputable that Jesus in some sense acts as a substitute for us, and takes on our behalf some kind of consequence that would otherwise happen to us, so that we don’t have to go through it. So the atonement is definitely in some sense substitutionary.

            But as for the rest, I’d like to see what the person who introduced the term ‘penal substitution’ means and how it would differ from other, non-penal forms of substitution, such that that person thinks that those other forms of substitutionary atonement theory are obviously incorrect.

          • S – agreed. John (I think) introduced the term of penal substitution – it’s something that he considers to be fundamental and he thinks that Ian Paul’s view on P.S. is somewhat dubious (I don’t know I.P’s views on this, but I did read everything he wrote on Luke during the last year – and I didn’t see it mentioned – which indicates something).

            Yes – in some sense he acts as a substitute – but I do think that seeing it in this way puts the wrong emphasis. Creation is in some sense external to God (Moltmann seemed to think that the first creative act was creating the God-forsaken space – external to God – where he could put the creation. This begins to look like ’empty philosophies of men’, but I did find it helpful – provided one doesn’t go too far down that road). We are all in some sense slaves to some radical evil which separates us from God – and the ‘substitute’ idea is simply that Christ deals with this for us, doing something that we are utterly incapable of doing for ourselves. Christ died for us – and this is where the ‘substitute’ idea comes in, but in dying for us, taking on the crucifixion that, by rights belonged to each one of us, he was able to meet sin and death head on, conquer it on our behalf, as we see in the resurrection.

            A key point here: the `so much more’s of Romans 5 indicate that the whole business not only restores creation to some sort of pre-fall state, but the result is something immeasurably greater.

          • The Doctrines of Eternal Retribution on the unsaved and Penal Substitution go together. If the former is true than to save us sinners from what in God’s justice we deserve, then the latter must be true to save us. Sometimes it is objected that Christ did not suffer punishment for ever, so there is no equivalent punishment. My answer to that is that the Eternal God, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity died on the cross, but he died in His human nature which he assumed at the Incarnation. No doubt a mystery.

            Phil Almond

          • We are all in some sense slaves to some radical evil which separates us from God – and the ‘substitute’ idea is simply that Christ deals with this for us, doing something that we are utterly incapable of doing for ourselves. Christ died for us – and this is where the ‘substitute’ idea comes in, but in dying for us, taking on the crucifixion that, by rights belonged to each one of us, he was able to meet sin and death head on, conquer it on our behalf, as we see in the resurrection

            See, I think you’ve contradicted yourself there, but I can’t be trying to deal with two opposite threads of thought at the same time, so come back to that after that is meant by ‘penal substitution’ has been clarified.

          • S – I may well have contradicted myself – I get the impression that coming up with a coherent resolution is well above my pay grade – like you, I’m waiting to see what ‘penal substitution’ actually means, but I suspect that I probably won’t like it.

          • ‘Penal’, ‘substitution’ and ‘penal substitution’ are major, central and crystal clear elements of the Servant’s office in Isa 53. The Servant is the major OT prototype behind Jesus and his last days. Effectively all 12 verses of the chapter are seen as relevant to the NT writers (not that the 12 verses are separate from each other, for the piecemeal approach would be counterintuitive and questioning of scripture – scripture had said that there would be one person to whom ALL these things applied, nor is there the slightest positive evidence in the NT to doubt that this uncontroversial point was agreed on). But that is another discussion.

          • Christopher – I don’t think it is a separate discussion. The thread is about the decline in the church – whether the UK is still a Christian country. I’d say that how the atonement is presented may actually be a crucial point for the general health of the church (of course, a healthy church isn’t necessarily a large church).

          • ‘Penal’, ‘substitution’ and ‘penal substitution’ are major, central and crystal clear elements of the Servant’s office in Isa 53.

            Okay so if they’re ‘crystal clear’ could you please answer my question as to what it is distinguishes ‘penal’ substitution from other types of substitution thank you.

          • I agree with you that penal substitution is the only kind when that which you are being substituted for is a rightful victim.

            And that there is an amount of confused thinking about this which is both large and unnecessary.

          • However, what Jock is writing is certainly confused.

            He is of the school ‘Everyone agrees that there is an atonement, but it is a matter of opinion which sort.’. This is a very large school, and utterly misled. Both parts of the assertion (that the atonement is surer than its specifics and that there are mutually exclusive alternatives) are just wrong, and that is not all that is wrong. If you have different images, then they bring out different dimensions (quite different from being mutually exclusive), but that does not mean that certain models or theories may not be more comprehensive than others in a Venn diagram way.

            Jock’s orientation on this is wrong in multiple ways. The only reason we think that there is an atonement is on the basis of the scriptural record, so that record in its very specific nature is *more* basic and fundamental (not less) than the doctrine of the atonement, which is merely the distillation of it. The doctrine of the atonement is absolutely nothing if you take away the scriptures on which it is based.

            And the presupposition that all there is is theories (and indeed, it is very fruitful to try and tease out mechanisms) ignores that the reality looms far larger than the theory.

          • I agree with you that penal substitution is the only kind when that which you are being substituted for is a rightful victim.

            Okay, so what distinguishes that from other kinds of substitution? Perhaps you could give some examples of non-penal substitutions and show how they fail to meet the criteria, just to clarify exactly what you mean.

          • Jock

            Sorry, I cringe at language like ‘put Jesus on the naughty seat and gave him a jolly good spanking’. It treats flippantly the holy of holies in our Christian faith. Jesus, the divine Son of God, was bearing your sin in his own body on the cross’ Jock. This calls for awe and wonder, not flippancy. Sorry.

          • Substitution in a football match is one of the many kinds of non penal substitution. For penal substitution, the context always has to be a penal context.

          • For penal substitution, the context always has to be a penal context.

            Obviously, but it’s not a clarification if you just repeat the same word, is it? What are the defining criteria of a penal, as opposed to a non-penal, context?

          • That the particular role one plays as substitute is substitute penalty bearer, not substitute cook, substitute mayor etc..

          • That the particular role one plays as substitute is substitute penalty bearer, not substitute cook, substitute mayor etc..

            Can you define ‘penalty bearer’?

            I do have somewhere I’m going with this, I promise.

          • One who suffers a due punishment,

            Good, I thought it would be something like that.

            Now: what is a ‘due punishment’? What makes something a punishment and by what criteria is one ‘due’?

          • A punishment is something negative or unpleasant suffered because of someone’s bad deeds, with a view to retribution and/or reformation and/or reflection.
            By definition, no-one can possibly do the Mikado’s precise tailoring of punishment to crime (though this is the idea behind ‘an eye for an eye’) so the precise nature of different legal punishments evolves and is at any one time conventional rather than absolutely scientifically calculated.

        • ‘Evangelical’ is just a label. The real debate/disagreement is about which doctrines are true and which are not. I believe the doctrines of original sin, penal substitution, the propitiation of God’s wrath by the death of Christ and Eternal Retribution of the unsaved are true. Ian doesn’t agree with any of these because (in his view) they cannot be proved by the sure warrant of Scripture. Both Ian and I believe that same-sex marriage and practice are ruled out by the Bible. I believe that the Bible rules out the Ordination of Women. Ian does not agree. Some Reformed Evangelicals believe that the doctrine of the Double Decree is true. With Martyn Lloyd-Jones I believe that the Doctrine of Predestination to Life is true but we both disagree with the Double Decree.

          And so on…………….

          Phil Almond

          Reply
  14. On the subject of Muslims and the debacle between Penelope and James, I’m reminded of Stanley Baxter’s comments on multiculturalism in Glasgow and the cries of `Allah!’ that could be heard around the city, as in `Allahwafurapint’.

    Reply
    • Ironically a certain Scottish actor has very recently commented on how racist Glasgow still seems to be, given the treatment of some of his fellow actors in the city.

      Reply
      • PC1 – a long time since I was in Glasgow (early 90’s), but what I remember of it – Glasgow had two religions – these were Rangers and Celtic. I’d be surprised if attitudes have changed much.

        Reply
  15. A Cross-less Christianity,
    Hello John (and Jock) and …?

    “Pierced for Our Transgressions,”

    1 Last month I attended a lecture by Andrew Sach, one of the authors of a book of the same title, a book I bought and read when it was first published.

    2 At the outset he took issue with the very idea of “models of atonement” or theories. Rather, they were to be regarded as “facets of the Cross”. E.g., facets of a diamond as disclosed in scripture. From scripture – the cross incorporates:
    – penal substitution
    -participation
    – Christus Victor

    3 The Problem we can’t fix (contra Pelagius)

    3.1 We are guilty (Romans 3:10-12)
    3.2 Because of God’s justice, he can’t overlook it (Romans 2:5-11)
    (cf. Proverbs 17:15; Exodus 23:7; Deuteronomy 25:1;p 1 Kings 8: 31-32; Psalm 15:5, Isaiah5:22-23
    3.3 God can’t overlook it because of his truthfulness (Genesis 2:17)
    It would be unthinkable that God should go back on his word and that man, having transgressed, should not die. (Athanasius, On the Incarnation, Sections 6-7)

    4 The Solution – Christ our penal substitute.

    4.1 The Passover (Exodus 12) see John 19: 31-36
    4.2 The Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16)
    4.3 Isaiah 53: 4-6, 10-12 (emphasizes substitute – bearing, carrying away. “Pierced” for our transgressions, “crushed” for our iniquities, “chastisement” was upon him that brought us peace, healed by his wounds.
    Will of the LORD to crush him, put to grief; an offering for guilt, bear iniquities, bore sins… to make many to be accounted righteous…
    – see 1 Peter 2:24. 3:18
    – Mark 14: 33-37, cf. Psalm 75:8. Isaiah 51:17. Jeremiah 25:15-16, Ezekiel23:32-34; Habakkuk 2:16

    It is “of first importance”, 1 Corinthians 15:3

    5 Did God die on the cross? (an exercise in Christology)

    5.1 If he did…then who kept the universe existing over the first Easter. And did Paul make a mistake when he wrote 1 Timothy 1:17?
    5.2 Divine nature – Jesus is eternally God (Matthew 21: 15-16 quoting Psalm 8; John 20:28 cf. Acts 14:11-25
    5.3 Human nature. At a point he became fully man (John1:14) so mortal (Hebrews 2:14)

    ” The Word perceived that corruption could not be got rid of otherwise than through death, yet He Himself, as the Word, being immortal and the Father’s Son, was such as could not die. For this reason, therefore, He assumed a body capable of death, in order that it, through belonging to the Word Who is above all, might become in dying a sufficient exchange for all.” (Athanasius, On the Incarnation, Section 9)

    5.4 Two natures combined in one person, Jesus (Chalcedon)

    6 Is the cross Child abuse? as per Chalke, ( a bit of Trinitarian Theology)
    6.1 Chalke- ” In The Lost Message of Jesus, I claim that penal substitution amounts to “child abuse – a vengeful Father punishing his Son for an offence he has not even committed”. Steve Chalke. Redeeming thr Cross.
    6.2 The Father “gave” his Son (John 3:16)
    6.3 The Son lays down his life on his own authority (John 10: 17-18)
    (6.4 Why= it was for the joy set before Him, Jesus).
    6.5 “As the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are inseparable, so do they work inseparably.” (Augustine, De Triniatate)

    7 Bringing the Facets together

    7.1 Penal Substitution and Participation
    7.1.1 Romans 5-substitution (he died instead)
    7.1.2 Romans 6 -participation (we died too)
    7.1.3 Union with Christ – God was not punishing a “third party” e.g. 2 Corinthians 5:21
    (In union with Christ believers have died and been raise. Christ live the life we could not live and died the death we should die. A divine exchange the sinless died and and the sinful counted righteous, in union with Christ.)

    7.2 Penal Substitution and Christus Victor

    7.2.1 “Now is the judgement of this world; now is the ruler of this world be cast out.” (John12:31)
    7.2.2 The devil uses second-hand weapons. but they are *legitimate* weapons’
    – guilt – Zechariah 3
    – death- Hebrews 2:14-15

    7.2.3 God can only *justly* break satan’s tyranny if he deals with guilt and death –penal substitution again
    Zechariah 3:4, Hebrews 2:14-15, Colossians 2:13-15, Revelation 12:10-11

    7.2.4 Penal Substitution and Example
    – 1 Peter 3:17-18 For, Christ also suffered for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God
    – Mark 10:43-45, ransom – giving life of Son of Man, to serve
    – I John 4:10-11,first love of God- Son to be propitiation for our sins
    – Romans 12:18-19 enables non violence

    Taken from lecture hand-outs by Andrew Sach, November 2022

    Reply
    • Again I would ask: what makes this penal substitution? What other sorts of substitutionary atonement are there or could there be that means the qualifying adjective is needed, and how do they or would they differ?

      Because everyone agrees that atonement involves Jesus substituting Himself for us. But some people seem to be very het up that it must be penal substitution and others that it mustn’t be that so I would really like to know exactly what it is people are disagreeing about.

      Reply
      • S – yep – I’m waiting too – because `penal’ does have the connotations of Eton’s child molesting headmaster of the 1960’s about it.

        Reply
        • because `penal’ does have the connotations of Eton’s child molesting headmaster of the 1960’s about it.

          No it doesn’t. Not spelt that way.

          Reply
      • Death is what? A sentence? A mere pronouncement of consequences?? Hell is what? Justice is what? Who is its source? And the Fall? And the times of Noah, described by some as a judgement of de-creation?
        I’m far from certain that everyone agrees that Jesus is our, humanity’s, necessary substitute.

        Reply
        • Geoff – well, let us start with the purpose of creation, which is to create a heavenly community. This is a community of souls who do not sin – not because they fear any sort of punishment for sinning, but because they do not want to sin – they delight in God’s work.

          Death is eternal separation from God – and it is what happens to a soul, an `innermost being’ to use the terminology of Romans 7:14-25 that does not delight in God’s way, the heavenly way.

          There is a passage in Ezekiel (can’t remember the exact reference right now) where it more-or-less states explicitly that if a soul truly repents, turns from sin and sins no more, then that soul is saved (without any need of a redeemer).

          So – answers to questions – death is what happens to a soul that doesn’t have whole-hearted enthusiasm for the heavenly kingdom. It can (of course) be seen as a sentence, it can be seen as a punishment for enmity towards God, His Kingdom, His Righteousness, all this is true – but ultimately, it is all about ensuring that the heavenly kingdom truly is a congenial place for souls, in communion with God, who do not sin and who delight in doing God’s work.

          Reply
          • There is a passage in Ezekiel (can’t remember the exact reference right now) where it more-or-less states explicitly that if a soul truly repents, turns from sin and sins no more, then that soul is saved (without any need of a redeemer).

            Pretty sure that’s heresy.

          • S – it’s counterfactual – because it isn’t possible to repent without a redeemer – that’s what the redeemer is for. When the gospel starts breaking in on our lives, we reach the stage where we want to repent – but realise that we cannot repent – and that is where Christ comes into our lives – repentance is in and through Him and what He did at Calvary.

          • it’s counterfactual

            Still pretty sure it’s heretical though. Pretty sure that orthodoxy is that a redeemer is required for a human soul to be saved, even if that soul were to repent and sin no more. Because sin isn’t just a matter of ‘doing bad things’, remember, it’s a corruption of every part of one’s nature.

          • S – that’s the whole point – sin is corruption of every part of our being. That is why it is simply not possible to repent, turn from sin, and sin no more without a redeemer.

            The atonement – crucifixion and resurrection – is all about ripping out the sinful nature and destroying it so that we are fit for the kingdom of heaven (i.e. souls that do not sin and delight in God’s work).

            In Scripture, I see God’s wrath as something directed towards those who have rejected God (who either don’t want a heavenly life, or whose only motive is to flee from the wrath to come) and I see God’s punishment as something He directs towards those who have rejected Him and His righteousness.

            This is not the way He treats believers – the sufferings of Job are a better model for that – at the beginning of the book God states that Job is a righteous man. The function of his trials and tribulations is so that this is demonstrated clearly and his faith is strengthened as a result.

        • I’m far from certain that everyone agrees that Jesus is our, humanity’s, necessary substitute.

          Nevertheless could you answer my question please? What is it that distinguishes ‘penal’ substitution from other types of substitution such that people are very clear that theories of those other types are incorrect and ‘unbiblical’?

          Reply
          • First to go back, I not accept them as theories
            They are all whole Bible scriptural aspects of the cross. and your question has been answered, as a continuity of the OT testament sacrificial system. It is also part of the continuity and discontinuity of the covenants and the curse and blessings.
            Not only that it is part of God *cutting* a covenant with Abraham. Death was a penalty therein for breach. Death,
            a Penalty, paid by Christ’s substitutional atonement
            Christ, by his wounds *cut* a new covenant on the cross.
            It is all of a whole Bible piece.

      • S

        Some see atoning sacrifice… as simply a moral example of devotion to God and us (moral influence theory of atonement). Some see atoning sacrifice as dealing with sins pollution; sin is cleansed through sacrifice . Some see the atoning sacrifice as a ransom paid to Satan. I don’t think this is so popular now (the ransom theory). Some see the atonement as a means of satisfying God’s justice. Others may add satisfying his honour or glory (the satisfaction theory). Some see the atonement as satisfying divine wrath. Sin is not just a debt, a stain, a pollution, or a shortcoming – it is rebellion against God, an affront to his holiness incurring his wrath. Wrath is a function of holiness flouted. It’s not hard to see this at work repeatedly in the OT where God’s wrath is provoked by the sinfulness of nations, particularly the sins of his people (we should take note. In my view what most incenses God is not the sin of the nation but the sin of the church.)… (the penal substitution theory).

        A slightly different ‘theory’ is the Christ as victor theory. The cross as a place where the divine warrior triumphs over the forces of evil.

        Apart from the ransom to Satan view all the others have a biblical foundation; they are more than theories, they are truths. Penal substitution somehow sticks in more delicate craws. To my mind it is impossible to avoid a judicial element in the death of Christ. Judicial where God the judge is concerned is always an emotional response. God is not a disinterested judge; he is a passionate judge who loves righteousness and hates lawlessness who will not let the guilty go unpunished. The day of the Lord is the day of ultimate punishment but the cross was a mini day of the Lord. It was for Christ a ravaging. An act of savagery and exile, a desolation comparable to the desolation of Jerusalem. Christ bore punishment and experienced wrath; this is penal substitution.

        Reply
        • Yes yes I know all that, but none of it answers my question, does it?

          Could you answer the question? It’s quite a simple question but if you’d like to ask for clarification I am happy to give it, provided you then answer the question, and don’t again do the politician’s thing of providing a big set-piece explanation that avoids answering the actual question asked.

          Reply
          • Other types of substitution do not see Christ’s death as punishment (judicial) or wrath bearing. Penal substitution sees it as both.

            It is hard to understand in what sense Jesus can be a substitute that is not judicial. Some argue OT sacrifices dearly with pollution and provided cleansing. Christ’s death cleanses but I’m not sure how substitution fits in here.

            Anyway if you claim you dn’e understand this then it appears to me you’re playing the daft laddie.

          • Other types of substitution do not see Christ’s death as punishment (judicial) or wrath bearing. Penal substitution sees it as both.

            Ah. Right. See, that wasn’t so hard, was it? That’s exactly the kind of thing I was after.

            So a penal substitution has to do with bearing judicial punishment, or wrath.

            Let’s explore that then by analogy. Presumably if, say, you commit a crime and are fined, and I pay your fine, that would be penal substitution? I have substituted myself (my money) for you as regards a judicial punishment. So this you would see as, at least in this sense, a valid analogy for the atonement?

            Whereas if, say, I were walking down the street and saw you about to be hit by a bus, and ran over and knocked you onto the pavement so the bus hit and killed me instead, that would be, in your view, a non-penal substitution? I have substituted my life for yours, but because it wasn’t substituted for the result of a judicial punishment, it wasn’t penal substitution and so would be an invalid analogy for the atonement?

            Can I just check I’ve got that right before we go farther?

  16. Geoff – well, none of the bible references you gave really contradict the view that I take on this – which excludes the idea of God putting Jesus on the naughty seat and giving him a jolly good spanking on our behalf (an idea which doesn’t really work, since punishment is actually unjust if it isn’t applied to the person who did something naughty, but is applied to someone else instead).

    Yes – if we hadn’t been sinners, there would have been no need for God to become man, live among us and be crucified under Pontius Pilate; it was for our transgressions that he was pierced and crushed. If we had been able to repent of our sins, turn from them and live henceforth without sinning, there would have been no need for the incarnation and crucifixion. There isn’t anything in the texts you’ve listed that would contradict my own view on this.

    Whatever `penal substitution’ technically means, I think the phrase is unfortunate to say the least.

    Reply
    • Jock It means that we all deserve eternal retribution for our sins but God in his mercy and grace endured that retribution himself in the human nature assumed by the second person of the Trinity, that he might be just and the justifier of those who repent and believe in Jesus.

      Phil Almond

      Reply
    • Jock

      The soul that sins dies. Death is the wages of sin. It is sin’s entail or punishment or retribution. Jesus died. Whose punishment was the reason for his death?

      Or read it another way – Israel sins and divine wrath falls upon the nation. This wrath involved immolation and exile. Jesus recapitulates Israel’s experience on the cross – deep sacrificial suffering and exile followed by death. It was vicarious wrath bearing.

      Or as Isa 53 says, the punishment that brought us peace was laid upon him. It was God’s will to crush him.

      This is penal substitution: Jesus takes our punishment upon himself. I suspect you know that.

      Were you listening in those meetings with James Philip?

      Reply
      • This is penal substitution: Jesus takes our punishment upon himself.

        Okay, so what would be non-penal substitution then? If you’re so fired up that atoning substitution must be penal, that means you must have an idea of what non-penal substitution would be, right? So you know what’s wrong with them. Yes?

        So can you explain that please and thank you?

        Reply
          • See my post above about retribution. Non-penal views don’t satisfy God’s justice.

            Okay so that’s why you think non-penal views are wrong, good, that’s progress.

            But can you specify please what criteria does a view need to meet to be ‘penal’? What are the significant differences between ‘penal’ and ‘non-penal’ views?

            Could you perhaps as an example describe a ‘non-penal’ view and show how it differs from a ‘penal’ view?

          • Non-penal views don’t satisfy God’s justice. The detail of any non-penal view is irrelevant.

            Phil Almond

          • Non-penal views don’t satisfy God’s justice. The detail of any non-penal view is irrelevant.

            But say I have a view in mind. How can I determine whether it’s a penal view, and therefore satisfies God’s justice, or a non-penal view, and doesn’t? What criteria can I use to check whether I’m on the right track, and make sure I’m not in danger of falling into error?

        • Please read again the notes from Andrew Sach, or better still read the book and perhaps, Christ Crucified by Donald MaCleod.
          What was once mainstream Protestantism, appears to have been undermined at large in the church. Could it be suggested that this renunciation is a watershed in the dilution of any and all sin to inconsequential proportions. And further along the lines to universalisms and pluralism or at the opposite pole Islam.
          S,
          I have answered, your questions but not in the way you you accept. And yet you offer no response to penalty of death.
          Maybe you could tell us what you are getting het+up about and let us know what you mean by none penal substitution.

          Reply
          • I have answered, your questions

            You haven’t though. You very specifically have not defined what you mean by ‘penal substitution’ and how it would differ from other forms of substitution. You seem to think it’s very important that substitution be penal, but you won’t say what that means. This makes it impossible to discuss with you because if you won’t define your terms then discussing with you would be like trying to nail smoke to the wall.

            Maybe you could tell us what you are getting het+up about and let us know what you mean by none penal substitution.

            It’s the responsibility of the person who introduces a term to the discussion to define how they are using it, and I didn’t introduce the term ‘penal substitution’ so I don’t have to define it or how it is distinguished from other kinds of substitution; the people who introduced it have to do that.

          • S,
            I have answered though, though not fully, with whole, scripture biblical theology, which you don’t accept, (nor have countered) or don’t see or understand, so bye-bye. Read the books if you already haven’t, if you are really interested, it is suggested.
            It sure seems that there is a cross-less Christianity abroad in the country and swathes of the gathered congregations. Cheerio.

          • I have answered

            Not the actual question I asked, you haven’t. But fortunately others are not so stubborn and have actually answered.

          • Thought S was short for Stu. bborn.
            If you have been answered, if as you claim not by me, perhaps you could now answer what none penal substitution is?
            A negation of Isaiah 53?.
            Of the sacrificial system, scapegote, of Day of tonement, of God cutting a convenant with Abraham ?An oxymoron as John puts it?

          • If you have been answered, if as you claim not by me, perhaps you could now answer what none penal substitution is?

            I don’t use the term ‘penal substitution’. The whole point of asking was to find out what you meant by it.

        • As far as I can see non-penal substitution is an oxymoron. Other views of the atonement see Jesus as a representative but not a substitute. He acts on behalf of others but not in thee place of others. The difference may be slight but is real.

          Reply
          • Hello John,
            The words of Isaiah 53 do not admit of Christ being a mere representative!
            Don’t need to be a scholar to see that.

      • John – the reason for His death was His mission to rip the ‘old man’ the ‘sinful nature’ right out of us so that we would be fit for the heavenly kingdom. This is what he achieved through his crucifixion and resurrection.

        ‘Punishment’ (in the way you used the word) is the wrong way of looking at it – and makes God look like some insane headmaster who enjoys using the tawse.

        Reply
        • ‘Punishment’ (in the way you used the word) is the wrong way of looking at it – and makes God look like some insane headmaster who enjoys using the tawse.

          Where on Earth do you get ‘enjoys’ from? There’s no suggestion anywhere by anyone that God ‘enjoys’ punishment, any more than a judge would ‘enjoy’ sentencing a murderer to hang. They very likely would not enjoy handing down such a sentence at all; it might make them feel sick to their stomach; they might wish with all their heart that they didn’t have to; but nevertheless they would do it, if that was what the law required.

          So I don’t understand where you’ve got this concept of ‘enjoys’ from, could you explain it to me where you are getting it from?

          Reply
          • S – yes – perhaps I am reading too much into things.

            As I pointed out, I don’t see it so much as a `substitute’; more of Christ doing something for us which we could never do for ourselves – namely meeting sin and death (our sin and death) confronting it head on, conquering it, basically ripping the sinful nature right out of us (we don’t see the fulfillment of this in this life) so that we are fit for the kingdom of God (namely, when we get there, we do not sin, because we do not want to sin, because we delight in God’s law and doing the work of God).

            I can understand God’s anger at the unrepentant who constantly defy Him, persecute His people – and I can understand `punishment’ in that context.

            I can’t really understand ‘punishment’ when it comes to the children of God, namely those who are within the number of the Saviour’s family, those who are being prepared for sinless perfection in the next life. We can see it in family life – those who think that penalistic methods for bringing up their children are a good idea are invariably warped individuals.

            Perhaps ‘enjoy’ is the wrong word; there does seem something very wrong, though, in the picture of God presented here.

          • I can’t really understand ‘punishment’ when it comes to the children of God, […] We can see it in family life – those who think that penalistic methods for bringing up their children are a good idea are invariably warped individuals.

            Say a judge has a son. The son commits murder and the case ends up in the judge’s court (the justice system is overloaded so the judge cannot recuse himself). The car plays out; the son is convicted; the law requires a mandatory life sentence.

            Can you ‘understand’ the judge passing the legality-required sentence of punishment on his son?

          • S – which I don’t think has anything to do with the case – since Jesus didn’t commit murder.

            It’s pretty much established that if a person gets banged up in chokey then chokey is going to turn them into an even more hardened criminal than they were before. I heard that the tawse is no longer used in schools. When it was used, it was never used to bring children to any deep love of the paths of righteousness; it was completely clear that the tawse never brought anyone to a state where they were convicted of their sins and developed any deep desire of the paths of righteousness. Instead, it was intended as a deterrent for the ‘hard cases’ – to stop them from engaging in the nefarious activities that they enjoyed to the extent that they wanted; hopefully they feared the `wrath to come’ from the headmaster (who had to have a pretty strong right arm for the tawse to be effective).

            If we’re thinking of the mechanism by which the `innermost being’ that delights in God and in the paths of righteousness is released from the down-drag of the flesh, the bondage of sin and slavery, the `old man’ which has to be crucified, then ‘punishment’ and putting the person on the naughty seat (or putting Jesus on the naughty seat instead as a substitution) doesn’t make an awful lot of sense to me.

            I’d imagine that the judge, in the situation you mentioned would repent of having brought a feral murderer onto the face of the earth and would be the first person to want to see the murderer banged up for a very long time.

          • If we’re thinking of the mechanism by which the `innermost being’ that delights in God and in the paths of righteousness is released from the down-drag of the flesh, the bondage of sin and slavery, the `old man’ which has to be crucified, then ‘punishment’ and putting the person on the naughty seat (or putting Jesus on the naughty seat instead as a substitution) doesn’t make an awful lot of sense to me.

            But we’re not thinking of that. We’re thinking of the Just punishment for sin.

            You seem to have got stuck on a purely functional view of punishment as being only about trying to modify the offender’s future behaviour. You seem to have forgotten that punishment is also about justice: if someone does something wrong then they deserve punishment, irrespective of whether that punishment is likely to change their behaviour in future.

            And it’s that justice that requires the judge to sentence his guilty son, and which requires God to punish His children for their sins. If He were to simply not punish us for our sins then God would no longer be just — would no longer be God.

          • S – well, I don’t see how punishing His son for somebody else’s sin is remotely just. If someone else had volunteered to go to jail in place of Ghislane Maxwell, it isn’t clear to me that the judge would have been very impressed and I’m pretty sure that the victims would not have considered this justice.

            If you were to commit a murder and then say to the judge ‘oh, but you can’t bang me up in jail, because Jesus has already served the sentence on my behalf’ then the judge wouldn’t be awfully impressed.

          • Again, the comments have lapsed into a personal discussion about a subject unrelated to the post. Could you please take this discussion somewhere else?

            thanks

          • If you were to commit a murder and then say to the judge ‘oh, but you can’t bang me up in jail, because Jesus has already served the sentence on my behalf’ then the judge wouldn’t be awfully impressed.

            And yet that is exactly what I will be saying on the Day of Judgement.

            Done.

        • si non potes cur docere
          I think it was St. Custards school motto

          I always imagine The Father in Christ suffering with the Spirit together on the cross. The Father was certainly not aloof , even if Jesus looked up to utter his last words. To me the bit in Revelation about he bowls of wrath is the inside perspective on the Passion. The GreatCity (the trinity) was split in three. Jesus gave up his Spirit. The Spirit parted company with Jesus after being with Him during all his ministry since His baptism. At that moment His fellowship with the Father fell apart too.

          Reply
          • I always imagine The Father in Christ suffering with the Spirit together on the cross.

            Beep beep beep!

            Heresy detected: Modalism, subtype: Patripassianism

        • Jock

          In a sense you are right. My self in Adam is a sinner and deserves punishment and rtrtnal death. It is unrighteous. How can I become a new self that leaves the old behind?

          In the Bible that last question is framed within courtroom categories. In Romans the fundamental divine dilemma id that we are unrighteous and must die. His solution is that we die in and with Jesus on the cross. He becomes our representative and substitute. He tales our death. He dies the righteous for the unrighteous. He becomes sin. In his death my sins are judged. Indeed in his death I, the I in Adam, am judged and die. From God’s perspective as the righteous judge I am no longer alive. The ‘I’ in Adam has died and the ‘I ‘ mow alive is the ‘I’ in Christ. The ‘old man’ is crucified with Christ. My new life that I live is not me but Christ living in me. That is, the Christ, that God (as the righteous judge) raised from the dead for truly such a man cannot be allowed to die.

          And so you see, punishment is exactly the right way to look at the cross and it is the explanation for our freedom from punishment and death into a new life. Roms 5-8

          Reply
  17. Hi John,
    You mentioned Hebrews. Re Sarah, a woman of faith.
    Jephthah was also a man of faith. What these people were like in every day life – if you met them – would be of no interest to this blog’s readership. They would seem far too low IQ. Simplistic . Dull.
    On Penal Substitution. An aside. God lambasted the Babylonians cruelty after they sacked Jerusalem. Could God have intended for Jesus to die in the same way as a lamb? Or as Abraham’s Ram? Ie cleanly and quickly with a swift cut to the jugular? Was the utter depravity of the cross unnecessary?

    Reply
    • Hi Steve

      Good question and the answer is obviously not. Was the holocaust of the Babylonian conquest necessary? God judged the Babylonians for excess but we are not told there was excess at the cross. The cross reveals what God feels about sin. It is a foretaste of hell. It is an undiluted cup of wrath. He was wounded… bruised… punished… and lashed that we may be healed. The cup was necessary else God is a sadist.

      We should remember too God works with a strict ‘eye for an eye’ justice. What a man reaps he sows. Only his mercy can prevent this and his mercy cannot act independent of his justice. If we don’t reap what we sow someone must.. and that someone is our redeemer.

      Reply
  18. Far from it Jock. You need to go again and read the many Scriptures that describe Christ as a sin substitute starting with Isaiah 53.

    In fact, start with the garden. If Christ died he died because of someone’s sin – whose?

    In Gen 9 the reason God decides not to flood the earth again (an act of judgement) was because of the sacrifices Noah made – their sweet smell appeased God (for they pointed forward to the true burnt offering who would be obedient unto death on our behalf).

    Lev 16. The day of atonement had two goats that cleansed and removed guilt and prevented God coming down on judgement on Israel. One died as a holocaust engulfed by the fire of judgement. The other had the sins of the nation confessed over it and hands laid on it implying the imputing of the nations guilt to the goat. The goat was then sent out into the death of exile. The blood was sprinkled on the people, priests and even the tabernacle because all were unclean.

    Isaiah 53 where what it means for Christ to be a guilt offering is spelled out. In terms of penal substitution as Geoff shows,

    The parallel between Christ and his people. All will face the day of the Lord. It will be a day of darkness and crushing wrath that will result in the final death of the wicked in eternal exile and wrath-bearing. Israel experienced a mini such day; the Babylonian invasion was a day of deep suffering and destruction. It resulted in exile which by God’s grace was not for ever. This model of judicial wrath-bearing in suffering and exile was the experience of Christ on thee cross. It was vicarious so that the day of the lord may be for those who believe a day of salvation.

    I do not agree with your caricature of my description of penal substitution. You are projecting images that neither Geoff nor I did. However, be assured God gets very angry at human sin. Hence the flood; the deaths of Nadab and Abihu; the plague of snakes; the pogrom of the Canaanites; the Assyrian decimation of Israel (Ephriam); the Babylonian exile; the exile of AD 70 a time of horrendous suffering; the future day of the Lord and its worldwide destruction. God is not to be messed with. He is not to be treated lightly. I;d go as far as to say there are scriptures that show God rejoices in the overthrow of the wicked.

    That when the wicked sprouted up like grass
    And all who did iniquity flourished,
    It was only that they might be destroyed forevermore Ps 97

    The Lord is a jealous and avenging God; the Lord is avenging and wrathful; the Lord takes vengeance on his adversaries and keeps wrath for his enemies. (Nahum 1:2) From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. (Revelation 19:15)

    Reply
  19. Sorry… something happened and I couldn’t finish typing. There are any number of verses that express God’s aroused anger – always righteously aroused in the face of provocation and on the back of extreme patience.

    Reply
  20. Why is Britain abandoning Christianity? Answer: More and more educated people in the West are abandoning belief in the supernatural. Why? Because the evidence is so poor.

    Christians claim that a man who lived 2000 years ago is the creator of the universe, ruler of the cosmos, and that after his public execution, he rose from the dead and appeared to over 500 people. Yet they don’t have the dates of his birth, his death, his supernatural resurrection, or any of the post-death appearances to crowds of dozens and even hundreds of eyewitnesses. Not one single date.

    And we aren’t talking about the Stone Age. People kept records in the first century of the Roman Empire. They weren’t cavemen. They weren’t idiots.

    Why don’t Christians know the date of birth of the “King of Kings”???

    Reply
    • Gary’s question contains a sleight of hand. Of course if Jesus had lived in a records-rich area and been of high birth then we would know his birthday.

      One can generalise about ‘the Roman Empire’ as though it was uniform. The larger it is, the less uniform.

      We have 4 records of (exclusively*) his life within 62 years of his death, which ranks him very high indeed in the first century – absurdly high for a non Roman or a poor person. But Gary does not mention that.

      More pertinently, let us take a person of the highest fame who was a precise contemporary of Jesus and also unlike Jesus a Roman citizen: General Corbulo. His birthday is listed as no better than cAD 7.

      Reply
      • The Bible is full of numbers, I’m quite sure that every one has some extra meaning . I was intrigued by the recent post about the destruction of the temple in AD70 . As 70 represents the span of years allotted to a persons life it made me wonder about Jesus actual age. Roughly, Jesus was cut off half way through a lifetime, I.e. he was 35. The Temple’s destruction marks the end of his allotted span. Otherwise it can’t be said of Him that he was cut short. If We knew precisely his birth date the symbolic ballpark figures would lack meaning for me.
        Question: Is the destruction of the Temple precisely determined? If so, Jesus birth can be determined as 70 years before.

        Reply
    • The evidence is poor?

      The whole of existence cries out there is a Creator. The strange voice of conscience and accountability cries Creator. The uniqueness of Christ points to someone from another realm. He was not someone that could be invented.

      There is more evidence for the existence for the existence of Christ than there is for many characters in history that we do not question. Alexander the Great’s existence is based on documents 300 years after his death. Jesus is found in many documents within less than a generation after his death. Evidence of Christ’s existence is not in any serious doubt.

      You need to give Christians some credibility. It s unlikely that the vast number of people who have trusted in Christ, many from enquiring backgrounds, would all be gullible enough to believe without reasonable evidence.

      Reply
    • “They weren’t idiots.”

      That’s absolutely true and applies to the Gospel writers also. But, because they dated in a different way, you assume that they are idiots. On the other hand dates are rather secondary to events and witness evidence.

      Perhaps they forgot to buy a calendar with all the distraction of the December rush to the shops. But what tear numbering g system do you suggest it had. Surely not AD…

      Reply
      • Thanks Ian, for the smile. Using AD we surely have his date of birth.
        Even if his birth hadn’t been registered at the court of King Herod.

        Reply
        • And even if adult Jesus were to state his date of birth, it would be heresay according to evidential rules today in England and Wales, unless there were some document of public record IE a birth certificate.
          Gary’s question assumes chronological fallacies. A quick search will give a thumbnail history of registration of births in Europe and England and even a present day worldwide view of the registration of births and deaths.
          Absence of evidence of date of birth is not absence of evidence of birth and a life lived and died from recorded accounts of eyewitnesses.

          Reply
          • And even if adult Jesus were to state his date of birth, it would be heresay according to evidential rules today in England and Wales, unless there were some document of public record IE a birth certificate.

            Though of course if his mother were to state the same it would not be hearsay but direct evidence, her having been present at the time. And there was plenty of time for his mother to speak to her son’s biographers.

  21. Penal Substitutionary atonement,

    We start from the premise that death is a penalty for sin. To disobey God in the garden was to incur death. The soul that sins dies. Adam and Eve were punished and expelled from the garden.

    It seems that from the beginning sacrifice was understood as part of a relationship with God. From the beginning blood sacrifice was what was acceptable to God. Abel’s offering was a blood sacrifice. Blood sacrifice was pervasive in the OC. Leading the writer of the Hebrews to say that in the OC almost al things were. Purified by blood and ‘without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins’. Notice blood sacrifices both purified and removed guilt. Blood sacrifices transferred the human impurity and guilt to the animal. The animal died in the place of the guilty human, Death implied the presence of sin. Violent brutal death conveyed death’s ugliness and God’s displeasure at sin… I think.

    God began ro explain the complex nature of sacrifice in the OC ceremonies involving sacrifice. These were all showing dimensions of the sacrifice accomplished by Christ for it was impossible for the blood of powerless animals to male the offerer perfect. A volitional sacrifice was necessary – a human sacrifice.

    Isaiah first announces this human sacrifice and does so very much in the language of penal substitution. The NT continues with the language of sacrifice. Christ is the lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world. He is our passover, He dies the just for the unjust, He is made sin that he might bring us to God. He bore the sin of many. He bore our sin on his own body on the tree, He became a curse for us. He purchased us by his blood. He is a propitiation for our sins. The language of atonement contains substitutionary elements and penal elements. Ine particularly clear example of the penal element is found in Roms 8

    3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

    Roms 8v1 says ‘there is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus. Condemnation is a judicial verdict. Remember, God, in the Bible, is not an emotionless judge, detached and unengaged in the verdicts be pronounces in his court. Rather the opposite is the case. A guilty verdict is accompanied by anger and wrath because righteousness has been flouted. The eschatological day of his wrath and the eternal torment of hell are both expressions of his hatred of all that is sinful and his holy determination to judge it,

    At any rate, why is there no condemnation? Because sin has already been condemned in the flesh of Jesus. God’s verdict of guilty and the sentence that entailed was carried out in the flesh of Jesus,

    Reply

Leave a Reply to John Thomson Cancel reply