Email    

 

A challenge to Christian faith and a challenge to the new Bishop of Durham

 

Please see also, below, A challenge to John Perumbalath, Bishop of Liverpool, concerning Redemption.  Redemption, a central doctrine of Christianity, is a 'concerning' issue, worrying, troubling - to say the least. It should concern all Christians, not only the Bishop of Liverpool and the new Bishop of Durham, whoever that may be.

 

My page Church Donations  gives detailed reasons for not surporting the churches financially, or in other ways. One striking difficulty for faith which is discussed is this. The material here comes from the page 'Church Donations,' together with other challenges. I intend to put the issue to the newly appointed Bishop of Durham. Whether or not he or she or they chooses to comment is a matter for the newly appointed Bishop, but I intend to publicize the issue.

 

The extract:

 

The belief that non-believers go to Hell (or are separated from God for eternity) is common knowledge. Vast numbers of Christians, at vast numbers of churches, have this belief, and not just  Conservative Evangelicals.   Not nearly so common now: the belief, held by 'St' Augustine (of Hippo)  that deceased babies who never receive baptism go to hell, that baptism is essential for salvation.

 

Not discussed anywhere in the Bible, the fate of non-believing children - and babies. No age limit for redemption is mentioned in the Bible. Can very young children and even babies share the fate of adult non-believers?

 

So far as I know, I'm the first person to draw attention to this massive, shocking problem for orthodox believers.  This is a problem for 'liberal' Christians and 'progressive' Christians as well. They have some explaining to do.

 

Enlightened systems:

Children in general lack experience of life, lack the intellectual and other capacities to be found in adults (but not always found in adults.) It would be grossly unfair to treat young children as adults, to expose them to criminal punishment. Below the age of criminal responsibility, children can't be arrested or charged with a crime.

 

The churches (many churches):

Children who fail to accept Jesus as Saviour spend eternity in separation from God. The 'teaching' of Jesus and 'St' Paul never mentions an age of 'redemption responsibility.' Ten year olds or five year olds or even one year olds can presumably be 'judged' as adults.

 

'Environmentally conscious' Christians, Christians with an interest in 'LGBQT issues,' Christians with strong political views, also have Christian beliefs on a range of other issues, such as ones to do with redemption and 'sin.'  If they don't, can they call themselves Christians at all? As I see it, Christian doctrine is in a confused, contradictory - hideous - state and always has been. I provide the evidence for my view. Christians tend to have a fondness for fine phrases (or inflated claims) whilst neglecting specifics.

 

I was speaking to a Christian at a South Yorkshire Evangelical Church, one which teaches the doctrine of 'Hellfire for All' (except for the small minority of believing Christians) and I asked him some questions, but not using these exact words: Is there an age limit which applies to redemption? An age below which a person can't be sent to Hell - for eternity? I can't find any mention of an age limit in the Bible. The Bible doesn't state that a ten year old can never be sent to Hell, or a five year old. Is it possible, in your view, for children to be sent to Hell - or a baby to be sent to Hell? He said, quietly, that he knew of no such restriction. I was stunned by his answer, but knew that this hideous admission represented orthodox Christian doctrines, or a massive gap in orthodox Christian doctrines.

 

Again and again, I find evidence that the 'teaching' of Jesus was defective in its 'guidance,'  leaving so much scope for later Christian 'teachers' to do their worst. 'St' Augustine (the so-called 'Augustine of Hippo,' not the 'Augustine of Canterbury')  taught that deceased unbaptized babies go to Hell 'where God subjects them to eternal fire.'

 

Of course, expecting a fifteen year old  to realize that acts which are serious crimes shouldn't be committed is one thing. Expecting a fifteen year old to have examined the evidence and to have come to the conclusion that Christ is 'the answer' is very different. A fifteen year old can't possibly be expected to have come to that conclusion. There are many, many things that could deter a possible convert - that should deter a possible convert. Is the record of the churches a record to inspire  automatic respect? The record of abuse within the churches alone will be enough to deter people from putting their trust in the churches. My view of the world is a secular one: these issues belong to the hideous world of Christian theology.

 

A challenge to John Perumbalath, Bishop of Liverpool, concerning Redemption

 

 

Below, after the main material of the section, there are brief comments on the images of the page and other pages: why I view the availability of images of members of the Church of England as potentially unfair.

 

A section will need to be added to this page on the beliefs of the new Bishop of Durham, whoever that may be. Will the Vacancy in See Committee see fit to recommend a Conservative Evangelical, a believer in Hellfire (or some form of eternal separation from God) for everyone, except for that small minority of people who have accepted Jesus as Saviour? Or perhaps an Anglo-Catholic, with a confused mixture of beliefs, justification by works and justification by faith - an Anglo-Catholic won't believe that belief in Jesus and complete lack of belief in Jesus are just the same. Complete lack of belief in Jesus as redeemer won't be a barrier to redemption. Or perhaps a liberal or even a progressive - whose views may well intersect with the views of unreconstructed orthodox believers.

 

Whoever is chosen, this is an issue which calls for thorough treatment. The material in this section doesn't give thorough coverage of the views of John Perumbalath but it does show some of the massive difficulties facing any account of redemption. This is an age which tolerates the antics of the Church of England too readily in many cases - the ludicrous dressing up, the ludicrous stress upon titles and academic distinctions (which amount in many cases to shallow, conformist treatments of Biblical or ecclesiastical topics too obscure to be worth bothering about). But the age has much healthier attitudes. What worked, what terrified, what had such deadly effect in the middle ages, in the Christian centuries befor the middle ages and the Christian centuries after, won't work any longer. The Church of England doesn't realize that automatic deference to its archaic beliefs, archaic rituals and archaic practices has ended.

 

 The pretence hasn't ended - the Vacancy in See Committee will go about its work as if modern scepticism can be disrerarded completely - but 'The End is Nigh.' The days of the Church of England, and the other churches, are surely numbered. The attempts to conceal the harsh realities are many and various - they include planting wildflower seeds in churchyards to give the impression that the Church of England is making a massive contribution to combatting climate change, the expansion in the subject matter of prayer, such as praying for peace in Ukraine and the Middle East, while doing absolutely nothing which would help to bring about those (impossible or for the time being impossible) objectives, prayer as token gestures, empty gestures, meaningless gestures. Attempts to update Christian theology to reflect a modern (secular) view of human sexuality which replace ridiculous orthodox views with ridiculous unorthodox views, such as automatic deference to trans people, treating trans people as having superior status and superior rights to non-trans people, a view as narrow in its way as the stifling and narrow views of orthodoxy.  

 

So, after this digession, I offer a few comments on John Perumbalath's

 

Salvation Today; Some Reflections on the Christian Doctrine of Salvation

 

which can be found on the page

 

https://biblicalstudies.gospelstudies.org.uk/pdf/
ijt/37-1_082.pdf

 

His  article is superficial, misleading, 'standard stuff.' The standard is far higher than the meretricious trash which passes for 'teaching' or 'analysis' in conservative evangelical circles, and circles well beyond. In fact, the circles intersect. There are many 'liberal' and 'progressive' accounts of redemption which have not left behind the conservative evangelical accounts. John Perumbalath's account is in the same category.

 

I've given some crucial reasons why Christian doctrines of redemption can't be taken seriously, why they are deeply disturbing - or shallowly disturbing. For this reason, I don't give specific criticism of John Perumbalath's confused account of redemption. I focus attention on one aspect only, and that is his mention, amounting to not much more than a mere mention, of some of the views of Rudolf Bultmann. Here, his distortion by omission reaches ridiculous levels.

 

The  brief extracts from one of Rudolf Bultmann's works below are sufficient to show that Bultmann's approach is a radical one, far more radical than the the superficial approach of most liberal and progressive Church of England writers, or ones known to me. The extracts are in the original German, followed by a translation.

 

These extracts are from Rudolf Bultmann's 'Neues Testament und Mythologie,' 1941. The date is very significant, of course. This was probably the year that the Nazi regime took the decision to kill all the Jews in the vast area of Europe which they had under their control. Rudolf Bultmann lived in Germany throughout the Nazi era. His record was much better than the average - the record of most German Church members was much worse - but it was inadequate. The heroic resisters of the regime very often didn't survive. They were guillotined or hanged. 

 

A. Das Problem

1. Das mythische Weltbild und das mythische Heils-
geschehen im Neuen Testament

Das Weltbild des Neuen Testaments ist ein mythisches. Die Welt gilt als in drei Stockwerke gegliedert. In der Mitte befindet sich die Erde, über ihr der Himmel, unter ihr die Unterwelt. Der Himmel ist die Wohnung Gottes und der himmlischen Gestalten, der Engel; die Unterwelt ist die Hölle, der Ort der Qual. Aber auch die Erde ist nicht nur die Stätte des natürlich-alltäg­lichen Geschehens, der Vorsorge und Arbeit, die mit Ordnung und Regel rechnet; sondern sie ist auch der Schauplatz des Wirkens übernatürlicher Mächte, Gottes und seiner Engel, des Satans und seiner Dämonen. In das natürliche Geschehen und in das Denken, Wollen und Handeln des Menschen greifen die übernatürlichen Mächte ein; Wunder sind nichts Seltenes. Der Mensch ist seiner selbst nicht mächtig; Dämonen können ihn besitzen; der Satan kann ihm böse Gedanken eingeben; aber auch Gott kann sein Denken und Wollen lenken, kann ihn himmlische Gesichte schauen lassen, ihn sein befehlendes oder tröstendes Wort hören lassen, kann ihm die übernatürliche Kraft seines Geistes schenken. Die Geschichte läuft nicht ihren stetigen, gesetzmäßigen Gang, sondern erhält ihre Bewegung und Richtung durch die übernatürlichen Mächte. Dieser Äon steht unter der Macht des Satans, der Sünde und des Todes (die eben als „Mächte“ gelten); er eilt seinem Ende zu, und zwar seinem baldigen Ende, das sich in einer kosmischen Katastrophe vollziehen wird; es stehen nahe bevor die „Wehen“ der Endzeit, das Kommen des himmlischen Richters, die Auferstehung der Toten, das Gericht zum Heil oder zum Verderben.

A. The problem

1. The mythical worldview and the mythical salvation
event in the New Testament

The world view of the New Testament is a mythical one. The world is divided into three levels. In the middle is the earth, above it is heaven, below it is the underworld. Heaven is the dwelling place of God and the heavenly figures, the angels; the underworld is hell, the place of torment. But the earth is not only the place of natural, everyday events, of provision and work that is subject to order and rule; it is also the scene of the work of supernatural powers, God and his angels, Satan and his demons. Supernatural powers intervene in natural events and in the thoughts, desires and actions of man; miracles are not uncommon. Man is not in control of himself; demons can possess him; Satan can put evil thoughts into his head; but God can also control his thoughts and desires, can let him see heavenly visions, let him hear his commanding or comforting word, can give him the supernatural power of his spirit. History does not follow its steady, lawful course, but is given its movement and direction by supernatural powers. This aeon is under the power of Satan, sin and death (which are considered "powers"); it is hastening towards its end, and indeed its imminent end, which will take place in a cosmic catastrophe; the "birth pangs" of the end times, the coming of the heavenly judge, the resurrection of the dead, the judgment for salvation or destruction are imminent.

2. Die Unmöglichkeit der Repristinierung
des mythischen Weltbildes

Das alles ist mythologische Rede, und die einzelnen Motive lassen sich leicht auf die zeitgeschichtliche Mythologie der jüdischen Apokalyptik und des gnostischen Erlösungsmythos zurückführen. Sofern es nun mythologische Rede ist, ist es für den Menschen von heute unglaubhaft, weil für ihn das mythische Weltbild vergangen ist. Die heutige christliche Verkündigung steht also vor der Frage, ob sie, wenn sie vom Menschen Glauben fordert, ihm zumutet, das vergangene mythische Weltbild anzuerkennen. Wenn das unmöglich ist, so entsteht für sie die Frage, ob die Verkündigung des Neuen Testaments eine Wahrheit hat, die vom mythischen Weltbild unabhängig ist; und es wäre dann die Aufgabe der Theologie, die christliche Verkündigung zu entmythologisieren.

Kann die christliche Verkündigung dem Menschen heute zumuten, das mythische Weltbild als wahr anzuerkennen? Das ist sinnlos und unmöglich. Sinnlos; denn das mythische Weltbild ist als solches gar nichts spezifisch Christliches, sondern es ist einfach das Weltbild einer vergangenen Zeit, das noch nicht durch wissenschaftliches Denken geformt ist. Unmöglich; denn ein Weltbild kann man sich nicht durch einen [17] Entschluß aneignen, sondern es ist dem Menschen mit seiner geschichtlichen Situation je schon gegeben. Natürlich ist es nicht unveränderlich, und auch der Einzelne kann an seiner Umgestaltung arbeiten. Aber er kann es doch nur so, daß er auf Grund irgend welcher Tatsachen, die sich ihm als wirklich aufdrängen, der Unmöglichkeit des hergebrachten Weltbildes inne wird und auf Grund jener Tatsachen das Weltbild modifiziert oder ein neues entwirft. So kann sich das Weltbild ändern etwa infolge der kopernikanischen Entdeckung oder infolge der Atomtheorie; oder auch indem die Romantik entdeckt, daß das menschliche Subjekt komplizierter und reicher ist, als daß es durch die Weltanschauung der Aufklärung und des Idealismus verstanden werden könnte; oder dadurch, daß die Bedeutung von Geschichte und Volkstum neu zum Bewußtsein kommt.

2. The Impossibility of Reproducing
the Mythical Worldview

All of this is mythological talk , and the individual motifs can easily be traced back to the contemporary mythology of Jewish apocalypticism and the Gnostic redemption myth. Insofar as it is mythological talk, it is unbelievable for people today because for them the mythical world view is past. Today's Christian preaching is therefore faced with the question of whether, when it demands faith from people, it expects them to recognize the past mythical world view. If that is impossible, then the question arises whether the preaching of the New Testament has a truth that is independent of the mythical world view; and it would then be the task of theology to demythologize the Christian preaching.

Can the Christian message expect people today to accept the mythical world view as true ? That is senseless and impossible. Senseless , because the mythical world view is not specifically Christian as such, but is simply the world view of a past time that has not yet been formed by scientific thinking. Impossible , because a world view cannot be acquired through a [17] decision, but is always given to people in their historical situation. Of course it is not unchangeable, and the individual can also work on transforming it. But he can only do this by becoming aware of the impossibility of the traditional world view on the basis of some facts that force themselves upon him as real, and by modifying the world view or designing a new one on the basis of those facts. The world view can change, for example, as a result of the Copernican discovery or as a result of the atomic theory; or because Romanticism discovered that the human subject was more complex and richer than could be understood by the worldview of the Enlightenment and idealism; or because the importance of history and nationality came to new awareness.

Krankheiten und ihre Heilungen haben ihre natürlichen Ursachen und beruhen nicht auf dem Wirken von Dämonen bzw. auf deren Bannung[15]. Die Wunder des Neuen Testaments sind damit als Wunder erledigt, und wer ihre Historizität durch Rekurs auf Nervenstörungen, auf hypnotische Einflüsse, auf Suggestion und dergl. retten will, der bestätigt das nur. Und sofern wir im körperlichen und seelischen Geschehen mit rätselhaften, uns noch unbekannten Kräften rechnen, bemühen wir uns, sie wissenschaftlich greifbar zu machen. Auch der Okkultismus gibt sich als Wissenschaft.

Man kann nicht elektrisches Licht und Radioapparat benutzen, in Krankheitsfällen moderne medizinische und klinische Mittel in Anspruch nehmen und gleichzeitig an die Geister- und Wunderwelt des Neuen Testaments glauben[16]. Und wer meint, es für seine Person tun zu können, muß sich klar machen, daß er, wenn er das für die Haltung christlichen Glaubens erklärt, damit die christliche Verkündigung in der Gegenwart unverständlich und unmöglich macht.

Illnesses and their healings have their natural causes and are not based on the work of demons or their banishment [15] . The miracles of the New Testament are thus put to rest as miracles, and anyone who wants to save their historicity by recourse to nervous disorders, hypnotic influences, suggestion and the like only confirms this. And insofar as we reckon with mysterious, still unknown forces in physical and mental events, we endeavour to make them scientifically tangible. Occultism also presents itself as a science.

One cannot use electric light and radio, and make use of modern medical and clinical means in cases of illness, and at the same time believe in the spiritual and miraculous world of the New Testament . [16] And anyone who thinks he can do this for himself must realize that if he declares this to be the attitude of the Christian faith, he thereby makes the Christian proclamation incomprehensible and impossible in the present day.

... kann er auch die Lehre von der stellvertretenden Genugtuung durch den Tod Christi nicht verstehen. Wie kann meine Schuld durch den Tod eines Schuldlosen (wenn man von einem solchen überhaupt reden darf) gesühnt werden? Welche primitiven Begriffe von Schuld und Gerechtigkeit liegen solcher Vorstellung zugrunde? Welch primitiver Gottesbegriff? Soll die Anschauung vom sündentilgenden Tode Christi aus der Opfervorstellung verstanden werden: welch primitive Mythologie, daß ein Mensch geworden es Gotteswesen durch sein Blut die Sünden der Menschen sühnt! Oder aus der Rechtsanschauung, so daß also in dem Rechtshandel zwischen Gott und Mensch durch den Tod Christi den Forderungen Gottes Genugtuung geleistet wäre: dann könnte die Sünde ja nur juristisch als äußerliche Gebotsübertretung verstanden sein, und die ethischen Maßstäbe wären ausgeschaltet! Und zudem: war Christus, der den Tod litt, Gottes Sohn, das präexistente Gottwesen, was bedeutet dann für ihn die Übernahme des Sterbens? Wer weiß, daß er nach drei Tagen auferstehen wird, für den will offenbar das Sterben nicht viel besagen!

...  he cannot understand the doctrine of vicarious satisfaction through the death of Christ . How can my guilt be atoned for by the death of an innocent person (if one can even speak of such a person)? What primitive concepts of guilt and justice underlie such an idea? What primitive concept of God? Should the view of the sin-removing death of Christ be understood from the concept of sacrifice: what primitive mythology, that a divine being who became human atones for the sins of mankind through his blood! Or from the legal view, so that in the legal transaction between God and man, God's demands are satisfied through Christ's death: then sin could only be understood legally as an external transgression of the commandments, and ethical standards would be eliminated! And furthermore: if Christ, who suffered death, was the Son of God, the pre-existent divine being, what does the acceptance of death mean for him? Anyone who knows that he will rise again after three days obviously does not find death to mean much to him!

John Macquarrie is the author of 'An Existentialist Theology: A Comparison of Heidegger and Bultmann. He's one of the translators into English of the German of Heidegger's 'Sein und Zeit,' 'Being and Time.' I think anyone committed to a very thorough study of 'Sein und Zeit,' (which I think wouldn't be a very worthwhile objective) ought first to learn enough German to read the book in German - 'enough German' here amounts to a very thorough knowledge of German.

 

The English translation claims that 'A knowledge of Heidegger's Sein und Zeit is essential for anyone who wishes to understand a great deal of recent continental work in theology as well as philosophy.

My view is that a thorough knowledge of recent (now not at all recent) Continental theology and philosophy wouldn't be worthwhile.

 

Matters are very different in the case of Bultmann. This is someone who deserves to be far better known, far more widely studied. John Robinson, the Bishop of Woolwich, discussed Bultmann's contributions in his 'Honest to God.' His book deserves to be more widely known too. It's not very probing or very profound and doesn't lend itself to anything as thorough as study.

 

This is from the preliminary remarks at the beginning of 'Sein und Zeit.'

 

... δῆλον γὰρ ὡς ὑμεῖς μὲν ταῦτα (τί ποτε βούλεσθε σημαίνειν ὁπόταν ὂν φθέγγησθε) πάλαι γιγνώσκετε, ἡμεῖς δὲ πρὸ τοῦ μὲν ᾠόμεθα, νῦν δ᾽ ἠπορήκαμεν...

 

»Denn offenbar seid ihr doch schon lange mit dem vertraut, was ihr eigentlich meint, wenn ihr den Ausdruck seiend gebraucht, wir jedoch glaubten es einst zwar zu verstehen, jetzt aber sind wir in Verlegenheit gekommen«1.

 

Haben wir heute eine Antwort auf die Frage nach dem, was wir mit dem Wort »seiend« eigentlich meinen? Keineswegs. Und so gilt es denn, die Frage nach dem Sinn von Sein erneut zu stellen. Sind wir denn heute auch nur in der Verlegenheit, den Ausdruck »Sein« nicht zu verstehen? Keineswegs. Und so gilt es denn vordem, allererst wieder ein Verständnis für den Sinn dieser Frage zu wecken. Die konkrete Ausarbeitung der Frage nach dem Sinn von »Sein« ist die Absicht der folgenden Abhandlung. Die Interpretation der Zeit als des möglichen Horizontes eines jeden Seinsverständnisses überhaupt ist ihr vorläufiges Ziel.

 

Das Absehen auf ein solches Ziel, die in solchem Vorhaben beschlossenen und von ihm geforderten Untersuchungen und der Weg zu diesem Ziel bedürfen einer einleitenden Erläuterung.

 

'For manifestly you have long been aware of what you mean when you use the expression "being". We, however, who used to think we understood it, have now become perplexed.

 

Do we in our time have an answer to the question of what we really mean by the word 'being'? Not at all. So it is fitting that we should raise anew the question of the meaning of Being. But are we nowadays even perplexed by our inability to understand the expression 'Being'? Not at all. So first of all we must reawaken our understanding for the meaning of this question. Our aim in the following treatise is to work out the question of the meaning of Being and to do so concretely. Our provisional aim is the Interpretation of time as the possible horizon for any understanding whatsoever of Being..

 

But the reason for making this our aim, the investigations which such a purpose requires, and the path to its achievement, call for some introductory remarks.

 

Here, the quotation in Greek is from Plato, Sophist, 244a

At the beginning of this section, there's an image of the Bishop of Liverpool. An image can increase the impact of a piece. It's generally preferable to have an image of a person praised or criticized but the availability of images is subject to restriction. As I see it, this can be unfair. I have an image of the Bishop of Liverpool which I can use without infringing copyright but no image of Dr Beth Keith, the newly appointed Vicar of St Mark's Church, Sheffield, a church which has much more material on this site than the Diocese of Liverpool.

I've stated my intention to supplement the available images in the public domain with photographs I've taken myself. Obtaining a photograph of Beth Keith and others in the Sheffield Diocese would be practicable.

I see the need to disregard, to a large extent, the distinction between clergy, senior clergy and junior clergy, and ordinary Christian believers in ordinary Christian congregations. Very strong claims are made for these ordinary believers. They are people who have been lifted up, with a destiny completely different, supposedly, from the destinies of people who are unredeemed. Why should images of these 'redeemed' people not be shown?

Despite my lack of interest in photography I intend to go out and take pictures and include the pictures in pages of this site, whilst giving full opportunity for people who think they should not be included to make a case for removal of the images which include them.

It may well be a shock to the system when the Christian faithful find themselves on a page of the site, including the Home Page of the site.

If I'm informed that a person isn't a Christian believer any longer, I'll remove an image which shows him or her or them, obviously. I'd expect any Christian who remains convinced that he, she or they has attained salvation through the blood of Jesus Christ to treat the publication of an image as a minor annoyance, or not even that.

'

  

'

 

 

 

Booklet: 24 hours of prayer for the appointment of a new Bishop

'Booklet: 24 hours of prayer for the appointment of a new Bishop, Tuesday 26 November 2024— Wednesday 27 November 2024.' Extracts (in larger print size.)

https://cdn.durhamcathedral.co.uk/uploads/files/24-Hours-of-Prayer-for-New-Bishop-26-11-24-Prayer-Resources.pdf?v=1732552357

The Booklet stresses prayer, spiritual certainties, orderly progression - and  gives a picture of the Church of England as a stagnant, evasive, unpleasant, disastrously misguided bureaucracy, very fond of fine-sounding phrases and very fond of token gestures.

Some examples of fine-sounding phrases from the booklet:

'On Tuesday 26 November, the Crown Nominations Commission will interview candidates for the office of Bishop of Durham and will discern God’s call to one of those candidates to be the new Bishop.

Eternal God, you call bishops to proclaim your glory in a life of prayer and pastoral zeal.

Heavenly Father, in every age you raise up pastors and leaders for your Church to reflect the light of Christ and to lead us in the way of holiness. We thank you for those who have been shepherds of your flock.

And according to this theory, Justin Welby, all those lacklustre, idle, indifferent Bishops, including Bishops who did nothing to help victims of abuse in the Church of England, showed 'pastoral zeal.' Did the barbaric Bishops, the persecutors of Jews and persecutors of heretics show 'pastoral zeal?' All of them led a life of prayer to a greater or lesser extent - but did nothing to proclaim 'the glory of God.'

'Jesus is the Good Shepherd: in every generation he raises up overseers, to shepherd the Church of God that he obtained with his own blood. cf Acts 20.28 We are sinners: let us call to mind the times when we have failed to hear his voice and not followed where he has led.

'Lord Jesus, you are the door of the sheepfold; those who enter by you will be saved. 

The Collect of St Cuthbert

 ... We rejoice with all our hearts in Cuthbert, glory of our sanctuary ... '

The Collect of St Hild

Eternal God, who made the abbess Hilda to shine like a jewel in our land.

I'm happy to acknowledge that this is a church which is an immense improvement upon previous versions of the church in this country, such as the church in the seventh century. The seventh century saints St Cuthbert and St Hild, who play a prominent part in the Booklet, were silent about the buying and selling in the slave markets of men, women and children - including children sent to market after being separated from their parents. Their minds were on higher things, such as silent prayer.

The contemporary Church of England is an immense improvement upon the seventeenth century version, when the Bishop of Lichfield, in league with King James, the King James of the King James translation of the Bible, had Edward Wightman burned alive for daring to doubt the doctrine of the Trinity, and other heresies and 'abominations.'

Again and again, the Booklet seems to show certainty, with no room for doubt. There's no room for doubt that the person appointed to the post of Bishop of Durham will be appointed with God's blessing, and the approval of God's agents, the members of the Vacancy in See Committee and the members of the Crown Nominations Commission. There's no room for doubt about a very different matter: that some are saved and others are not saved.

The Church of England likes to present itself as an 'inclusive' church, so happy to accommodate, amongst others,  people of colour and 'LGBTQIA+ people. (The acronym stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, and asexual), overlooking, of course, the many, many members of the Church of England who regard homosexuals (with full Biblical 'proofs,') as sinners, detested by God.

Does the Church of England believe that all people are saved, that none are damned, or destined for condemnation by a different name, such as eternal separation? A minority of members will believe that, most of them not at all. It would detract from the feeling of exclusivity. 'I may be an ordinary Church of England functionary or bureaucrat or I may be an ordinary, completely uninteresting member of a Church of England congregation, but I have an overwhelming advantage over everyone else, no matter what they've achieved, no matter what their personal qualities - if they haven't been redeemed by the blood of Christ, they are damned whilst I am saved. They are destined to be eternally separated from God, whilst I am destined to be united with God (in the company of other Church of England bureacrats or members of some dwindling, declining, humdrum Church of England congregation somewhere or other.'

The others - the vast majority of humanity - will be damned, then. Being a loving mother or father isn't enough! That's the ridiculous, deeply disturbing claim. Winning the Nobel Prize isn't enough! Growing the food that feeds the Christians and everybody else, manufacturing the goods needed by the Christians and everybody else isn't enough!

To join the company of the blessed, you must accept that you have been redeemed by the blood of Jesus. John Smyth did just that - he also did many other things, of course.

Was John Smyth saved? According to this doctrine, he was. Are people of the Durham Diocese saved? They only qualify for redemption by the blood of Christ if they have accepted Christ as Saviour. War heroes, miners, NHS workers, parents - and their children - everybody without the compulsory faith in Christ damned or to be damned.

Slavery is not recognized as sinful in the Bible. For centuries - millennia, almost - Christian slave owners have been saved, according to this hideous account, but slaves not redeemed 'by the blood of Christ' have been damned.

On the other hand, the functionaries of the Crown Nominations Commission and the candidates they interview are saved.

This is a clear-cut example of Deranged Doctrine, surely.

I think that giving money to the Durham Diocese, to any churches in the Durham Diocese, to any churches whatsoever would be a bad mistake. See also my page Church Donations.

What does the next Bishop of Durham have to say about these issues? In the column to the left, there's 'A challenge to John Perumbalath, Bishop of Liverpool, concerning Redemption.' Can the new Bishop of Durham give an explanation, or defend the view of  salvation in this booklet?  Can he offer a defence against many other criticisms?

I see the need for recording, for documentation - recording, documenting, specific questions addressed to the new Bishop of Durham, recording, documenting the answers - and if there are no answers, recording, documenting that fact. I see the need to do the same in the case of many other Bishops, senior clerics, junior clerics, not excluding ordinary members of congregations. Since ordinary members of congregations are supposedly 'New Creations,' people given a new status by the redeeming power of Jesus (allegedly) then I can't see any possible objection to publicizing these people and including images of these people on the site. For this, see my page Clergy and congregations: photographing and filming.

The Church of England is parochial. I'm not referring to the Parish organization but to its attitudes, which again and again ignore wider considerations which are essential for an understanding of the issues.

A brief reminder of the fate of Edward Wightman, burned alive at Lichfield for doubting the doctrine of the Trinity and other doctrines:



A brief reminder of some international issues: