Bruce Charlton's Notions

I notice that it is now more than four years since Justin Welby was enthroned as Archbishop of Canterbury and 'leader' of the Anglican communion - which is the third biggest denomination of the largest religion in the world.

Throughout this time I have often commented on the chap - the collection of posts can be viewed via this link - and I thought, in particular, it was interesting to re-post one of my earliest evaluations - from 22 March 2013 - to see how well I was able to predict what was to come...

Much is made, by the media, of the supposed fact that Justin Welby - the Archbishop of Canterbury who was enthroned yesterday - is an 'evangelical'.

But, what does this really mean?

For example, what does it mean in contrast with his predecessor, Rowan Williams?

Well, both are Leftist bureaucrats first and foremost - but Williams was like a university administrator while Welby is more of a health service manager.

Furthermore, Williams was so hostile to Christianity that he would avoid talking about it altogether, if possible.

But Welby, being an 'evangelical' is quite happy to mention Christian themes from time to time - woven into his socialist propaganda.

So that is the definition of an evangelical - as applied to Church of England Bishops and Priests: an 'evangelical' is a Leftist bureaucrat who is not actively hostile to Christianity; while the others are Leftist bureaucrats, pure and simple - and mention Christianity only to discredit or invert it.

From Justin Welby's inaugural sermon:

http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/articles.php/5038/out-of-our-own-traditions-and-into-the-waves-the-archbishop-of-canterburys-inaugural-sermon 

For more than a thousand years this country has to one degree or another sought to recognise that Jesus is the Son of God; by the ordering of its society, by its laws, by its sense of community. Sometimes we have done better, sometimes worse. When we do better we make space for our own courage to be liberated, for God to act among us and for human beings to flourish. Slaves were freed, Factory Acts passed, and the NHS and social care established through Christ-liberated courage. The present challenges of environment and economy, of human development and global poverty, can only be faced with extraordinary courage.

You see? The primary achievements of Christianity in 2000 years have been Abolition, Health and Safety, the health service bureaucracy and dole for most of the population.

The future of Christianity is fighting Global Warming, Fair Trade and making-Africans-smile.

What extraordinary 'courage' and liberation it takes for JW to articulate such counter-cultural sentiments!... Not.     

Yet at the same time the church transforms society when it takes the risks of renewal in prayer, of reconciliation and of confident declaration of the good news of Jesus Christ. In England alone the churches together run innumerable food banks, shelter the homeless, educate a million children, offer debt counselling, comfort the bereaved, and far, far more. All this comes from heeding the call of Jesus Christ. Internationally, churches run refugee camps, mediate civil wars, organise elections, set up hospitals. All of it happens because of heeding the call to go to Jesus through the storms and across the waves.

What is Welby's Church of England, anyway?

Well, apparently it is a really important part of the welfare state. It provides food banks (but I thought the poor were dying of obesity?); shelters the 'homeless' (to be 'homeless' is an official category which does not preclude someone having a 'shelter' such as a house or caravan - indeed being one of the thousands of 'homeless' selling the The Big Issue magazine is such an attractive job that it is hotly competed-for and has attracted Roma from a thousand miles distant to become 'homeless' in Britain); it educates millions - just like local governments; it provides financial advice (!).. and so on and drearily-on.

What is good about the C of E, apparently, is that it is almost as useful as the municipal council.

So at the end of this litany of socialist triumphs, we perceive that the C of E is 'transforming' society in exactly the same direction and by exactly the same means as Leftists everywhere - it is part of the precisely same project as the United Nations, Western governments, the civil service, the NGOs...

But all of these are aggressively atheist - so how come Welby is arguing that All of it happens because of heeding the call to go to Jesus? 

And why does Welby suppose it requires the CoE to go through storms and across waves to do this kind of stuff, when all he is asking the church to do is to float along with the mainstream current of secular Leftism?

The theme of the sermon is 'courage' and 'be not afraid'; but none of this stuff requires courage - rather, it is precisely what The Politically-Correct Establishment propagandizes, rewards, enforces.

What really would take courage, but what Welby of course never mentions, is to use his enthronement speech to make a clear Christian statement of opposition to the sexual revolution.

It is the opponents of bureaucratic Leftism and the sexual revolution who need to be told: be not afraid; because they are the ones who are afraid (and with good reason).   

There is every possible reason for optimism about the future of Christian faith in our world and in this country. Optimism does not come from us, but because to us and to all people Jesus comes and says “Take heart, it is I, do not be afraid”. We are called to step out of the comfort of our own traditions and places, and go into the waves, reaching for the hand of Christ. Let us provoke each other to heed the call of Christ, to be clear in our declaration of Christ, committed in prayer to Christ, and we will see a world transformed.

(He means, of course, a world 'transformed' into a socialist utopia.)

But does this man know anything about the state of Christianity in 'this country', this England? If so how could he be optimistic?

Does this man understand words? Does he know the meaning of 'optimism'? Or does he think optimism means the same as 'hope'?

If he does not understand the word he is an ignorant fool, and if he does understand it but misuses it then he is a liar - or perhaps insane.

Happy Easter! (22 March 2013)
 

Evaluation (12 October 2017): I wuz right! Welby combines dishonest mendacity, servility, and managerial incompetence in exactly the manner expected from an over-promoted Leftist ideologue. Thus, he fits seamlessly into the modern British Establishment.

It is usual among Christians to regard the mass majority of Leftists in modern societies as well-meaning but misguided persons - that is, basically good and decent people who want the best; but who have erred in their belief systems.

I regard this a 180 degree wrong - and that the stark reality is that the mass majority of Western people who support an ideology that is nihilistic, despair inducing, totalitarian, anti-Christian (and, of course, fundamentally anti-Good) are like that because their motivations are wrong and not because their belief-systems are wrong.

Why? Simply because the way that we infer evil motivation is by errors being in one direction only over a repeated series of decisions. And this is what we find.

*

Take as an example the current Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby; the assumption is typically that he is a well-meaning individual, a real Christian; but a weak and ineffectual man who is a long way out-of-his-depth in the job. In Christian terms, he supposedly want the right things, but lacks the character to stand-up for them in a hostile world.

This benign diagnosis is usually underpinned by the idea that Christians (for some, not Christian, reason) ought to give people 'the benefit of the doubt' - in assuming they are well motivated. This is nonsense! - we ought to discover and believe the truth of the situation, as best we can know it.  

Justin Welby's most obvious sin is that he is dishonest. When he is not actively lying, he is deceptively misleading. But Justin Welby only ever lies in one direction - which is either his own personal expediency or for the promotion of the (anti-Christian, anti-Good) agenda of the Global Leftist Establishment.

(Needless to say, Welby does not repent his wrong doing - but only apologises for what he regards as the evils of other people and past generations.)

In sum Welby - and in this Welby is absolutely typical and representative of almost the entirety of the modern Western leadership class, i.e. those in position-of authority in all the major social institutions) - is evil in his fundamental motivations. His specific (supposed) beliefs are irrelevant; not least because they change as is expedient.

*

People who are well motivated are not a real problem. Everybody makes mistakes in this world; and the distinction is between those who acknowledge, repent and learn-from their mistakes; and those who double-down on them - and adjust their belief systems to accommodate their sins, so that their sins now become regarded as virtues.

This is seen most clearly in relation to the sexual revolution; where a whole range of sexual sins are now idealised, rewarded, actively-promoted and increasingly enforced; and the inversion of morality is so extreme that genuine sexual virtue is routinely mocked, despised, driven underground, and increasingly persecuted.

So, lets have an end to this nonsense about everybody being well motivated but misguided - if that was the case we would have nothing to worry about!

It is precisely because most people (and almost everybody in power) in the West is indeed wickedly motivated; that we are so deep in spiritual trouble: that we are, in plain fact, The Most Evil society in the known history of the world.

Aside from the fact that he is not a Christian (but merely a Christianized socialist) any doubts that any Christians may have had that Justin Welby is the most cognitively-mediocre man ever to head the Anglican communion (still the third largest Christian denomination in the world) have been dispelled by his latest musings communicated to the BBC (aka the UK Antichrist).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34893039


Quotes from the Daily Telegraph:

The fun thing about living in the End Times is the way that evil is so obvious that it's ridiculous. Who could be so mean-spirited as not to enjoy the above photo?

Archbishop Justin Welby is as ridiculous-looking a man as any in public life. His weak, spiteful, dopey face is simply a product of his inner nature; but he must take be allowed to get personal credit for the choice of vestments with their many horrible features.

Most obviously the colours... what could be more approriate than those yellows? And the red cuffs and maroon collar are master strokes of visual incompetence!

Especially fitting are the subtle references to flames rising from hell to engulf him... but - in line with the true man - even these are feeble, blueish, calor gas type flamelets.

Taken in toto this is a perfect get-up for a person of Welby's type - not one of Satan's savage predators; but a runtish puppy; pathetically eager to serve his demonic masters; hoping and expecting to be petted and pampered for loyal service to the anti-Christian mission; but in practice merely pricked, kicked and mocked for his bumbling ineptitude.  


This post is an homage to Bad Vestments, a website that provoked many a 'supertruth laugh' until it became inactive some six years ago - well worth a browse...

*

Naturally, I am keeping an eye on the incoming Archbishop of Canterbury; firstly to see if he might be a Christian.

So far, things do not look promising.

On his Christmas day sermon at Durham Cathedral, Justin Welby gave an extended metaphorical treatment of God's love that is either anti-Christian, or simply crazed:

**

Bishop of Durham - Christmas Sermon - Durham Cathedral 2012


"The Triumph of Love" Bold emphasis added by me, my comments in [italics in square brackets].

http://www.durham.anglican.org/news-and-events/the-bishop-of-durham.aspx

*

This is the triumph of love that challenges all our triumphs of votes and politics, of energy and manoeuvring, of Commissions and conferences. This is the triumph of God’s wisdom in the face of our despondent hopelessness or cheap victories. This is the true triumph, of utter vulnerability that in weakness overthrows every apparent strength.

And those truths make this such good news for a church struggling, amidst a world in need of a church triumphant. The work of God is not done through strength and efficiency, but through those who having seen the baby, leak out the love that they receive.

It is very easy to be despondent about the church [it is dishonest not to be despondent, unless 'the church' is seen as purely a bureaucracy.]

Some speak of division and even of betrayal [They do indeed, because there is division, and there has been betrayal - of conservatives.]

The processes we go through are agonisingly wounding for many. [By 'agonisingly wounding', he refers to the fact that priestesses are upset about hearing challenges to their unscriptural and anti-traditional ministerial and priestly status, and - especially - about damage to their career prospects; since their access to Bishop's jobs has been delayed.]

*

There are profound differences of opinion about the nature of Christian truth and its place in society, about the right of an ancient tradition to dictate or even to advocate ethical values around the end of life, around marriage, around the nature of human relationships, inequality [!], our duty to each other...

[No need to read further, since this usage of 'around' is is sufficient evidence of secular Leftist lying.]

*

[Inserted poem by radical Leftist Bishop.]

*

The shepherds leaked the love of God into the world through their obedience to the command to worship the baby, to recognise who He was...

Glorifying God, leaking into the world the love that he leaks into us through the wounds and breaches and gaps of our own lives, is a severely practical and down to earth activity.

*

Christians reach to the jagged edges of our society, and of the world in general [!]. Food distribution, places for rough sleepers, debt counselling, credit unions, community mediation, support for ex-offenders, support for victims of crime, care for the dying, valuing those who have no economic contribution to make, or are too weak to argue for their own value. All this is the daily work of the church , which goes on every day and everywhere.

[In other words, according to its leader, the 'daily work of the church' of England and Anglicans is to function as a sub-branch of the Leftist state bureaucracy.]

*

We leak out into the world the love that God leaks into us. 

[Repeated for emphasis; just in case we missed the heresy first-time-round.]

God comes to us through the breaches and wounds of our lives because He comes in utter vulnerability. We are to be those who allow Him to make us vulnerable, welcome the weakness we have, and who will then be astonished by the strength with which God changes the world around us.

[If this means anything at all, which is somewhat doubtful, it is that we should personally be weak and submit to the State, observing with grateful astonishment the inexorable strength of historical inevitability in the triumph of secular Leftism as it changes the world around us. Which I further reduce to a covert statement by the Archbishop elect that Satan is winning and our duty is to celebrate the fact. Maybe I go too far in this?; maybe not.]

**

Here we have a novel theology of Christian love - a love of leaks.

The general tenor of this sermon of love coming through leaks is to fill the hearer with passive, weak, submissive hopelessness; the only apparently-genuine passion is that rhapsodic list of Leftist causes which is described as the daily work of the church which goes on every day and everywhere.

*

So, is Justin Welby a Christian?

I'd say not, in fact I'm pretty sure not; either he profoundly misunderstands Christianity - hence all the nonsense about God's love leaking here and there; or else he understands what is Christianity, but chooses to lie-about and subvert it. 

Most likely, a mixture of both.

In which case, the Anglican communion is in the hands of a weak, submissive but passively aggressive and spiteful anti-Christian... 

Happy New Year!

*

Justin Welby -  Archbishop of Canterbury

Walter the Softy from the Beano

*

It seems that a chap called Justin Welby is going to become the leader of the third largest Christian denomination in the world (my denomination...) - a man who makes-up in inexperience what he lacks in distinction; and who - if he fails to display any visible sign of exceptional holiness - is an accomplished bureaucrat.

It is hard to imagine a less inspiring or hopeful choice for the job.

The appointment is an absolutely typical outcome of committee voting, since I doubt if there was any single individual on the panel (or indeed in the whole Anglican Communion) who would have had Welby as their first choice; so we have a person who has the position purely because anybody better met-up-with intransigent opposition.

On thing seems for certain: the Holy Ghost had nothing to do with it.

*

*

The Global Anglican Futures Conference (GAFCON - http://gafcon.org ) is currently happening in Kenya; and I find myself waiting with a mixture of hope and trepidation; because I suspect that these few days will determine whether anything of significant value can be salvaged from that wreck of corruption which is the Church of England.

Most of what is both good and hopeful (with possibilities of growth) in the Anglican communion is focused in GAFCON, as epitomized by its chairman (and the president of the current conference) the Archbishop of Kenya, Eliud Wabukala.

If you read some of the speeches, you will see that most are excellent; but be sure to leave-out the usual wicked-weaselling boiler-plate-bureaucratic speech by Archbishop Justin Welby; who was not actually at the conference but did his best to steal the wind and cast a dense pall of political correctness over the proceedings.

The fascinating political implication of GAFCON is that the only realistic hope of salvaging a Christian remnant from the Church of England is the swift development of a new Episcopal structure to sustain those few solidly-Christian churches that remain in the Church of England; a structure that would be administered from the 'Global South'; that is from the third world rather than Canterbury, York and London.

There is a sense of irony about the prospect - or rather just a hope - of England being evangelized by missionary activity and Episcopal oversight from the countries where a century ago we were sending missionaries; but there is no real debate about where the spiritual authority - the truest and most devout Christianity - lies in the Anglican communion; and there may still be a slender thread of hope for a part of the C of E, if administrative authority can be taken-away from the apostates, and restored to real Christian Bishops.

*

*

Excerpts from his first statement:

http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/articles.php/2692/#Audio

*

I want to say at once that one of the biggest challenges is to follow a man who I believe will be recognised as one of the greatest Archbishops of Canterbury, Rowan Williams. He is some one with a deep love for Jesus Christ, an infectious spirituality, extraordinary integrity and holiness, immense personal moral and physical courage, and of course one of the world's principal theologians and philosophers...

Comment: "one of the greatest Archbishops of Canterbury" - This ludicrous remark is a combination of dishonesty, incompetence and ignorance.

*

The work of the Church of England is not done primarily on television or at Lambeth, but in over 16,000 churches, where hundreds of thousands of people get on with the job they have always done of loving neighbour, loving each other and giving more than 22 million hours of voluntary service outside the church a month.

Comment - It is significant that he does not mention among these secular activities anything Christian that churches should do; such as worship, Biblical teaching or evangelism.

*

We have seen the wonderful hospitality and genius of the people in this country inside and outside the church during this marvellous year of Jubilee and Olympics.

Comment: What in Heavens name has the Olympics to do with the Church of England?

*

Because of that vast company of serving Anglicans, together those in other churches, I am utterly optimistic about the future of the church.

 Comment: any serious reader will switch off at this point. Optimism is believing that things will turn-out well, and has nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity (which is about hope) - but anyone who sees any grounds for optimism in the catastrophic state of the C of E is either psychotic, demented, or calculatedly dishonest: in other words anti-Christian. Only an anti-Christian could be optimistic about the future of the Church of England - which teeters on the verge of irrevocable corruption - and it is absolutely vital that its leader recognize this, and operate on this basis. 


*

...The House of Bishops is very wise. 

Comment: no comment. 


*

The Anglican communion, for all its difficulties, is also a source of remarkable blessing to the world. In so many countries it is one of the main sharers of reconciliation and hope in Jesus Christ. Anglicans today stand firm in faith alongside other Christians under pressure in many places, especially in northern Nigeria, a country close to my heart. 

Comment: To say that Christians are 'under pressure' in northern Nigeria is a disgusting euphemism, literally disgusting.


*

...This is a time for optimism and faith in the church. 

Comment: What? The opposite is true - it is the time for Christian renewal of a horribly corrupt, wordly, expedience-driven institution which formally resembles the official 'Sergian' Russian Orthodox church under Stalin (de facto a branch of the government). 

*

I know we are facing very hard issues. In 10 days or so the General Synod will vote on the ordination of women as Bishops. I will be voting in favour, and join my voice to many others in urging the Synod to go forward with this change...

Comment: This is why he got the job.


*

We also face deep differences over the issue of sexuality. It is absolutely right for the state to define the rights and status of people co-habiting in different forms of relationships, including civil partnerships.  We must have no truck with any form of homophobia, in any part of the church. 

Comment: Anyone above the age of consent who uses the word 'homophobia' except in order to highlight its revolting abuse as a totalitarian weapon of nihilistic oppression is on the side of evil. But here is the most 'passionate' part of the speech - the statement of 'principle' - and a focus on a vile, commissar's weasel-word providing unambiguous evidence of his intention to persecute real Christians.


*

The Church of England is part of the worldwide church, with all the responsibilities that come from those links. What the church does here deeply affects the already greatly suffering churches in places like northern Nigeria, which I know well. 

Comment: 'greatly suffering' is better than 'under pressure' - but he doesn't mention who is applying the pressure, causing the suffering...

*

I support the House of Bishop's statement in the summer in answer to the government's consultation on same sex marriage. I know I need to listen very attentively to the LGBT communities, and examine my own thinking prayerfully and carefully. I am always averse to the  language of exclusion, when what we are called to is to love in the same way as Jesus Christ loves us. Above all in the church we need to create safe spaces for these issues to be discussed honestly and in love.

Comment: The bile rises. " I am always averse to the  language of exclusion' - apparently except when the exclusion is being applied to Christians. Then he is very keen on the language of exclusion - having just said "no truck with any form of homophobia, in any part of the church".

And focus on another vile, abusive, commissar's weasel word with 'LGBT': a very obviously disparate constituency, currently-united only in political demands for institutional preferences and unrelenting opposition to marriage and the family (hence real Christianity).

But when Welby says "Above all in the church we need to create safe spaces for these issues to be discussed honestly and in love." this is where he hits rock-bottom; since he is using rhetorical tricks to put his opponents beyond the pale, as if there were any real Christians who would oppose such a notion; and yet at the same time he conflates proper Christian behaviour with 'safe spaces' - accepting without argument that most of Christianity is 'unsafe' for people of non-normal sexuality; and accepting that the solution to this 'hostile' environment is an essentially bureaucratic process of allocating specific times and places and persons (as if in a school timetable) for 'these issues' - implicitly set apart from Christianity - to be 'discussed honestly' - implying that at present these issues are dishonestly discussed specifically among Christians - and 'in love' again defining the Christian problem as being lack of love. Pah!

*

The first speech of the head of the third largest Christian denomination in the world is dishonest from top to bottom, inside and out.

This is utterly inexcusable from a Christian leader, and is indeed so extreme as to reveal Justin Welby as an anti-Christian; one whose energies and efforts will be devoted to subversion and elimination of the real Christian elements within the Anglican communion.

This is, in short, the last nail in the coffin of the Church of England, and the point where break-up of the denomination becomes not just a regrettable probability but a Christian necessity - the only hope for survival of Christianity within Anglicanism. 

*

Well at least we know where we are, and what needs to be done.

We have gone from Archbishop Rowan, who was muddled, ineffective, pompous and mostly bored-by and indifferent-to Christianity; to Justin - who is the first systematically anti-Christian Archbishop of Canterbury.



*

Discernment of evil can be difficult - but nowadays, for Christians, it just gets easier all the time!

Pick your favourite evil liar - the person (or institution) that you know from repeated experience is always dishonest and always misleads to the limit of deniability...

Maybe it is George Soros, Klaus Schwab, Boris Johnson, Tony Blair, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Justin Trudeau, Pope Francis, Archbishop Welby... 

But it doesn't matter who you choose, when they All Of Them, without exceptions, say exactly the same thing. 

What does it mean when They all say the same thing? 

It means that thing, whatever it is, is Not True.

(See what I mean about how discernment of evil is So easy nowadays?)

You and I may never know exactly why they want us to believe this particular lie; but we know that it Cannot Be True - because none of these people want the best for us. 

They've proved it over and over.  

Christian - do not, for God's sake, be Stupid-Stupid-STUPID and and give Them the benefit of the doubt - Yet Again!  

As Vox Day often says - we will probably never know the truth about most things; but we do know, with 100% certainty, that The Official Story - whether that be yesterday, today or tomorrow's Official Story - is A Lie.

A Lie that is intended to manipulate Us for Their benefit. 

And you know (or ought to know, by now) What They think of Us, and intend for Us...

(Mass corruption, fear, misery and despair of our Minds - starvation, disease, injury and death of our Bodies; is only the start of their plans...a merely preliminary objective. The worst of it, and Their ultimate motivation, is what happens to our Souls after we die.) 

The wonderfully articulate and interesting Roman Catholic, and Thomistic philosopher, Ed Feser has written a very valuable blog post about the psychological mechanisms by which sexual revolution has broadly corrupting effects- drawing substantially on the insights of Aquinas.

Many of these observations ring true, and indeed I have often witnessed the way in which unrepented sexual sin has a very generally destructive effect on morality. It is, indeed, so common as to be normal in recent decades.

This helps us to understand the synergy between the sexual revolution and Leftism: since the middle 1960s, Leftism has promoted the sexual revolution as perhaps its primary weapon, and those who have most avidly embraced the sexual revolution in their own lives, tend to become the craziest (most irrational and aggressive) Leftists.

Read the whole thing - but here is a sample:

Aquinas notes that “lust…is about the greatest of pleasures; and these absorb the mind more than any others.” Sexual pleasure is like the pleasure of alcohol use in being perfectly innocent in itself, but also very easy to abuse.

Hence, even in someone with otherwise normal sexual desires, a preoccupation with matters of sex has a tendency to cause him to act foolishly in various ways – to exaggerate the importance of sex, to pursue it in ways that are detrimental to his own well-being and that of people who depend on him, to construct rationalizations for such foolish pursuit, and so forth.

In someone with abnormal sexual desires, the effect is even worse. For what determines the good use of a human faculty is the end or purpose toward which it is directed by nature. Hence a healthy moral psychology requires a firm intuitive grasp of what is natural and what is contrary to nature’s purposes.

Repeatedly taking sexual pleasure in activity that is directly contrary to nature’s ends dulls the intellect’s perception of nature, to the point that the very idea that some things are contrary to the natural order loses its hold upon the mind. The intellect thereby loses its grip on moral reality.

Note: This links in my mind with the way that systematic perverse sexual initiation practices have, apparently, been used to create and sustain a politically leftist, upper class, secret combination within the evangelical wing of the Church of England; which - by its control of appointments and promotions; by blackmail and bribes -  has engineered the corruption of Anglicanism from the top. If you wondered why such an incompetent, lying mediocrity as Justin Welby effortlessly became the Archbishop of Canterbury, you need wonder no more...

As of 2021; anyone who is in the mainstream is not on the side of God, the Good and divine creation - and is almost certainly overall and in-effect against these - regardless of whether that person (or institution) self-identifies as Christian or affects to be against the Left. 

The question is whether people such as myself (or Vox Day) should expend time, effort and zeal in identifying and criticizing mainstream fakes?  

One main viewpoint is that criticism should be focused upon the worst examples of Anti-Christian activity - the explicit and extreme Left; rather than on the less extreme, or mixed, commentators; or 'liberal Christians', or cowardly and compromised, incoherent Christians (who are, after all, a minority). 

And therefore that it is wrong when Christians are ruthless (even aggressive!) in pointing out the flaws and fraudulence of mainstream supposed Christians or anti-leftists. 

This viewpoint argues that such people do some good, overall - or especially when read selectively; and that 'moderate' mainstream pundits may form a bridge (or 'entry drug') to The Truth (i.e. to better, realer, persons and institutions). 

There is also a would-be Christian argument of the mote/ beam in eye kind; whereby it is suggested that nobody should criticize anybody on moral grounds, unless or until they are themselves free from sin... 

But I regard these arguments as mistaken (when they are not merely deceptive and tendentious - i.e. when people are covertly trying to excuse themselves from courage and clarity, under guise of 'tolerance' for others). 

My position is that it is necessary, but not sufficient, to criticize mainstream fake Christians/ anti-leftists; precisely because they are much more likely to influence people; and because their misrepresentation of Christianity tends to block conversion to the real thing (in multiple ways). 

If these people (or institutions) are allowed to stand without their fraudulence being clearly stated, they will do the maximum of harm, and any good they do will tend to be swamped. 

(Which is, after all, why such people are tolerated in the mainstream - why they are even subsidized and encouraged by the forces of evil.)

The fact that primarily-bad people may do some good is irrelevant; because the same applies to out-and-out evil people; who, by taking their bad ideas to extremes, may reach a reductio ad absurdum, waken up their audience, and provoke self-disgust leading to conversion.

...Much as the utter degradation of extreme alcoholism may lead to its own cure, in the Alcoholics Anonymous model - while socially-acceptable, keeping-up-a-facade alcoholics, may be able to deny their situation indefinitely.

An out and out, aggressive, public atheist - like the philosophers Freddie (A.J.) Ayer or Anthony Flew - is probably more likely to reach the end of the road, and convert to (real) Christianity; than is a liberal (fake) Christian of the Jorge Mario Bergoglio or Justin Welby kind, that dominates and leads the mainstream denominations.   

It is also worth bearing in mind that the idea of the Antichrist is one who is 'mostly' (i.e. superficially) Christian - and self-identifies as Christian, while essentially (and by motivation) working-against Christ. 

This is precisely what mainstream 'Christians' are and do; especially obviously so, if you agree with the validity of my 2020 Litmus Tests. 

As for the mote/ beam in the eye argument; it results from a mistaken understanding of the nature of evil - which has become much clearer over the past year. The good are those on the side of God and divine creation; the evil are those who take the side of the devil in opposition to God/ Good and Creation. 

Thus, good and evil are distinguished by allegiance, not by personal qualities. A nasty and badly behaved person can, with absolute legitimacy (so long as he recognizes and repents his sins), call-out a kind, compassionate and altruistic individual who serves Satan. 

Not only can, but should. 

However, although necessary; negative critique of fake mainstream Christians is not sufficient; and should be part of a way of life that includes positive examples of exemplary persons (and, if any can be found, institutions) - who are on the side of God. 

Yet there may not be many such. Indeed, as of 2021; I suspect there are very few individuals who are widely enough known (i.e. sufficiently 'mainstream') to be discussed as exemplars of those who take the side of God - although there were plenty in the past.  

In the meantime, it is inevitable that among the Rich, Famous, Influential and Powerful - there are going to be nearly-all fake-Good people; no matter how much we would hope it to be otherwise...

And that yearning we all share to find someone - anyone! - among the mainstream RFIP, who is 'on our side', is exactly why the fakes need to be exposed. 

*

After the anti-Christian, lying drivel spouted by Rowan Williams and Justin Welby over the Christmas season; how refreshing and enthusing it is to read the New Year message from the Anglican Archbishop Wabukala of Kenya - which I reproduce in full below.

Western Anglican Bishops need to learn how Archbishop Wabukala discusses both Christianity and Politics: subordinating the Politics to Christianity!

The following comments are striking, and contain a seed of hope:

In our modern context we need now to be thinking of mission beyond our borders.

In the past we have been the recipients of missionary endeavour and we thank God for those who brought the gospel to this land, but now the sending nations of the West are in deep spiritual and moral crisis and it is time for us to take a lead in global mission.

The majority of Anglicans are now in the Global South and that means we need to take greater responsibility in global leadership.

We cannot simply stand by as we see many of the Anglican Churches in the West, including the Church of England itself, being severely compromised by the deepening spiritual and moral darkness of the societies in which they are set.

To which I say to the Archbishop: Thank you and Amen.


**

Arise, shine, for your light has come.’ Isaiah 60:1

My friends, as we stand at the beginning of a New Year with our hopes and our fears I want to encourage you to have a strong and confident hope in Christ. It is time for us to hear again the words of Isaiah ‘Arise, shine for your light has come’ (Isaiah 60:1). In Jesus Christ, the light has come and this great truth gives substance to the hopes we hold as we stand at the threshold of a New Year. We have hopes for our children, our relationships, study and work and as we enter the 50th year since full independence, we also have hopes for our nation, especially that the General Election under a new constitution will mark a clean break with the troubled politics that have blighted the life of our nation and lead us forward to peace and prosperity.

As we read the newspapers we find some commentators are optimistic and some are pessimistic. Both views can find evidence to support their position, but I want today to say that we Christians should be neither optimists nor pessimists, but people with a strong hope in the promises of Scripture and the power of prayer. When the Bible speaks of hope, it is not just a wish, like saying ‘I hope there will be good crops this year’, but it is something definite and certain that will happen.

Optimists hope for the best, pessimists expect the worst, but we trust in the God who is able to strengthen us to do the best things even in the worst times. We are always hopeful because we know that there is a God in heaven who is working out his purposes in history despite, and even through, human sin and failure.

*

Our reading from Isaiah 60:1-7 is one of those great prophetic passages which foreshadow the climax of the bible story in the closing chapters of the book of Revelation. In wonderful poetic language we glimpse what it will be like when the victory of God over sin and evil, achieved in principle upon the cross of Christ, is fully revealed at the end of human history. Isaiah sees the people of God radiant with the glory of the Lord, thrilled and exultant as they are gathered to the restored Jerusalem from all the nations of the earth.

Some of you will be thinking that this is all very well, but it seems remote and doesn’t have much connection with the reality of our lives here and now. How do I make sense of Isaiah’s call to ‘Arise, shine, for your light has come’? The answer is that our future hope is already being realised. We will not see this glory and this light in its full splendour until Christ returns, but the light has already begun to shine out, just as we know that the first shafts of sunlight at dawn will lead to the full strength of the noon day sun.

The reality is that in Christ the light is already shining and the darkness, however thick, cannot ultimately resist it. This hope is a great strength to us now and can transform the way we think and live. So how can we live as people of hope and as agents of transformation in the year ahead?

*

Firstly, we are called to ‘Arise’. What does it mean to ‘Arise’? It means to be fully awake, shaking off drowsiness and the false world of dreams. As the Apostle Paul quotes to the Ephesians ‘Awake, O sleeper and arise from the dead and Christ will shine on you’ (5:14). We who are children of the East African Revival movement are familiar with the phrase ‘Walking in the light’. It means having personal and spiritual integrity by being transparent to God and to one another because we know that the blood of Christ cleanses us from our sins.

Walking is a lifestyle, not just an experience, in which we commit ourselves to seeking the reality of God’s presence and love day by day. We do not conceal or pretend and we do not lead double lives. Imagine what a difference there would be in the life our nation if everyone who calls themselves a Christian lived in this way! In fact Isaiah does not simply say that we are in the light. He says that because we are in the light, we ourselves become light. We ourselves are to ‘Arise and shine’ and reflect the glory of the Lord by a lifestyle and behaviour that is true to our new identity as those who have been born again to a new and living hope in Christ.

*

Secondly, we cannot be people of light without coming into conflict with darkness. Isaiah speaks of the earth and its people as covered by a ‘thick darkness’ (v2). Light cannot compromise with darkness because light by its nature is the opposite of darkness. Where darkness would mask and conceal that which is evil, the light exposes, reveals and rebukes. This spiritual darkness is the natural state in which we live without the light of Christ and we should not be surprised that many people seem confused, indifferent or even hostile to the gospel and follow false religions. We need to be much more sensitized to this spiritual reality and our response must be to let the light of Christ shine brightly through both faithful preaching of the gospel and consistent Christian living in everyday life.

To take a practical example, in the 2012 Corruption Perceptions Index compiled by Transparency International, Kenya is ranked 139 out of 176 and the same organisation has evidence which shows that the annual cost of what we call ‘petty’ bribery in Kenya is running at 33.6 million Ksh. We cannot expect our politics to be healthy if we as Christians are willing to tolerate a culture of petty corruption in everyday life which corrodes trust in those who are entrusted with authority. What a great step forward it would be if we could mark 2013, our fiftieth anniversary of full independence, but a significant step up the Transparency Index!

As we look forward to the General Elections on 4th March 2013, let us rise to the occasion by conducting our campaigning period with dignity and concerning ourselves with issues rather than the sentiments that inflame tribal clashes. These elections should be marked by respect for one another and a willingness to take responsibility for the outcome, with those who loose accepting defeat for the sake of the common good.

*

Thirdly, we need to remember that light not only exposes, but also reaches out. Twice in these verses Isaiah speaks of the ‘glory of the Lord’. In verse 1 he says ‘the glory of the Lord has risen upon you’ and in verse 2 ‘his glory will seen upon you’. Glory is attractive, it is magnetic, and the result is seen in verse 3 ‘And nations shall come to your light’. The glory of God will not be fully revealed until Christ returns, but it should be our hearts' desire that here and now we have a foretaste of that glory in the power of the Holy Spirit through transformed lives and heartfelt worship. The East African Revival added greatly to the churches’ numbers because people saw and experienced the glory of God as a personal and life transforming reality. Walking in the light is not to be confused with simply maintaining an inward piety, morality or traditional values.

*

It is dynamic Spirit filled faithfulness to Christ and his Word to which unbelievers are irresistibly drawn. In our modern context we need now to be thinking of mission beyond our borders. In the past we have been the recipients of missionary endeavour and we thank God for those who brought the gospel to this land, but now the sending nations of the West are in deep spiritual and moral crisis and it is time for us to take a lead in global mission.

The majority of Anglicans are now in the Global South and that means we need to take greater responsibility in global leadership. We cannot simply stand by as we see many of the Anglican Churches in the West, including the Church of England itself, being severely compromised by the deepening spiritual and moral darkness of the societies in which they are set.

*

The GAFCON movement is one way in which global Anglicans are responding to this need and I am very happy that in October this year, we are expecting the second Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON 2) to be held here in Nairobi and we look forward to welcoming Anglican leaders from around the globe. I believe this will be a strategic moment in the reshaping of the Anglican Communion to fulfil our vision for global mission and a time when we will experience a foretaste of that glorious gathering of the people of God which Isaiah prophesied.

*

So as a new year begins, I hope we are beginning to see more of what it means to align our lives with Isaiah’s great vision of the people of God as a global community, radiant with his glory. In recent decades we have rightly emphasised what we call the ‘holistic gospel’, aware that the good news must be expressed in deed as well as word, but we must never lose sight of the fact that to be truly holistic, there needs to be a seeking after the presence of the God who has revealed himself in the Scriptures at the heart and centre of our life as a church.

God is light and we can only arise and shine if he is present with us. Moses understood this truth when he pleaded with the Lord, despite Israel’s sinfulness ‘If your presence will not go with me, do not bring us up from here’(Exodus 33:15) As we prepare to move forward into a New Year, let that cry for God’s presence echo in our hearts too.


The Most Rev’d Dr Eliud Wabukala, Archbishop of Kenya and Bishop, All Saints Cathedral Diocese, Nairobi.

**

*
For those interested in the future of the third-largest Christian denomination, here is a report on the Gafcon II (Global Anglican Future II conference two); this is an informed and authoritative account of the proceedings.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dp5qgGc68E#t=1660

The first half is of most interest - up to 27 minutes - indeed the second half is so out-of-synch that it becomes hard to follow...

*

The most interesting and significant theme is the spiritual warfare that Kevin and George perceived was going-on at the conference.

This is often - it seems - a sign of significant moments in church history (since it is usually expedient for the powers and principalities to do their work unnoticed) - this emphasizes the great potential importance of the Gafcon movement, and also the hazards.

As Galadriel says: The Quest stands upon the edge of a knife. Stray but a little, and it will fail, to the ruin of all. Yet hope remains while the Company is true. 

Perhaps paradoxically, I find this evidence of spiritual warfare to be encouraging; since if all was lost for sure, then it would not be happening. 

There must, it seems, be reason for hope. 

*

[On a lighter note: avid Welby-watchers such as myself will be delighted by the account of the Archbishop of Canterbury's interactions with the conference. Fascinating to see what happens when the epitome of over-promoted smug mediocrity is confronted by conflicting but un-ignorable reality...]

*

An interview with a delegate Gavin Ashenden (an Anglo Catholic) gives a brief and lucid picture of the dire Christian situation in England, and the looming probability of 'bloodshed':

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJrubVvkK3o

*

The decisive problem of actually-existing political Nationalism - even in an ideal form - as a philosophy-of-life is that it entails a morality based upon a de facto assertion of the superiority-to-alternatives of a way-of-life; including that the likes of Theresa May as Prime Minister, Justin Welby as Archbishop of Canterbury, the UK military in the Middle East and Afghanistan, and major social institutions such as the BBC, the NHS and the legal system... need to be endorsed as being representative major facets of the current nation. 

This means that even when (as is the case) materialist Nationalism is a lesser evil than the EU/ Globalism, and when it is the best-available-alternative - it is Not Good Enough. This, simply because it is a type of the modern pathology of spiritual and Christian-denying materialism/ positivism/ reductionism.

(Materialist Nationalism is, in fact, merely a slightly moderated version of the exact anti-Christian, spirit-denying agenda of the evil of demonic Globalism.)

Christian Nationism (i.e.Nation-ism) could be a name for something altogether superior and Good.

Let's say that Christian Nationism expresses the reality of a mystical England of which each Englishman is mystically a member.

This means that the materialist manifestations of nation (such as Theresa May, the BBC and the NHS) can be recognised for what they are - anti-nationists, strategically opposed to and destructive of the spirit of Christian Nationism.

I would add that ultimately the Christian aspect of Christian Nationism needs to be a Romantic Christianity. Why? Because the materialist, institutional aspects of Christianity are very-fully corrupted and anti-national.

Therefore the Christianity of Nationism must be Romantic - that is to say based in, derived from, a personal, spiritual, intuitive knowledge of the reality and Christian destiny of the nation of England; this is something that each must feel and know for himself, not least because there is no solid, clear, unambiguous, external source from-which such values can be derived.

*
The fact that many self-identified Christians, especially in the largest denominations, are extremely Leftist/ Liberal/ Politically Correct is very obvious - the current and previous Archbishops of Canterbury being prime examples.

Such 'Christian'-Leftists seem to be as convinced of the Leftism as anybody; they talk of it all the time, indeed compulsively - and their Christianity (however overt) is continually being adjusted and re-adjusted to fit around the changing needs of their primary political beliefs.

*

What puzzled me, until yesterday, is why such people bother to remain 'Christian' - even if it is little more than a matter of self-naming? In a world where when the mainstream of public discourse is secular Leftism - why do they insist on regarding themselves as Christian, advertising themselves as Christian; thereby alienating a sizeable chunk of the mass of Leftists?

Until yesterday my only explanation was a combination of careerism and fifth column subversion. For example, a middle managerial mediocrity like Justin Welby could never in a thousand years aspire to a position of such high status, privilege, fame and administrative authority as Archbishop of Canterbury - except in the corrupt and cowardly world of the Church of England bureaucracy. So as a career move, the Church makes sense for some people.

Once in position, many senior clergy devote their best energies into subverting real Christianity from the inside; leading their flocks, by incremental degrees, into the apostasy of evaluating Christianity by what they regard as the primary realities of secular public discourse (most notably in the realm of conforming 'Christianity' to whatever happen to be the currently fashionable imperatives of the sexual revolution).

*

But while both careerism and insider subversion are realities, they did not seem to explain the presence of so many low-level and passive ultra-Leftist individuals among the clergy and laity of Liberal churches.

The most likely reason dawned on me yesterday - when I found myself listening to a few excerpts from some conversations on the subject of spirituality and religion (including Christianity) between Rupert Sheldrake and a journalist called Mark Vernon.

(I would not recommend listening to these conversations, by the way.)

By his account, it seems Dr Vernon was ordained a Church of England priest - then left the CoE because it was Insufficiently Left Wing (especially concerning the agenda of the sexual revolution) - spent some time as an atheist - then re-identified himself as Liberal Christian (i.e an 'agnostic') who regularly - he said twice a week - attends services in what are (obviously) Liberal 'Christian' churches (plus, apparently, some kind of Buddhist practice as well).

*

So why did Dr Vernon stop being an atheist? The answer is that he discovered by experience that atheists are Insufficiently Left Wing - in other words atheists are 'intolerant'.

The situation is that MV ceased to regard himself as a Christian because it wasn't Left Wing enough, and subsequently came to regard himself as again a Christian for the same reason!

*

And so here we have the psychological mechanism which makes Liberal Christianity the ideology of choice for some of those who are most deeply, most viscerally Left Wing.

A Liberal Christian denomination like the CoE, Methodism, Church of Scotland or Wales, or The Episcopal Church in the USA is the best haven for those who most deeply value the 'softer' more 'feminine' Leftist values of tolerance, diversity, equality, human rights and the Undeveloped World (Fair Trade, Aid and all that).

For such people mainstream secular Leftism is too Right Wing in style; too dominated by rather alarmingly loud, brutal, tough and masculine values - as typified by such tub-thumping fundamentalist ultra-skeptics as Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchins.

Liberal Christianity is thus an asylum for nice women and epicene men of ultra-Leftist persuasion who want a safe refuge from nasty atheist macho men.

*

(This also explains succinctly why there are zero conservative evangelic Bishops in the CoE; despite that this is the only successful, thriving, growing, money-making branch of the church.)

*

*
Leadership is a rare trait - but it can confidently be identified; not least because we are 'programmed' to recognise and respond to leadership.

But, most appointed modern leaders are not leaders; indeed very few indeed are leaders - most are mediocre middle managers over-promoted by committees comprising the same type - and most of the rest are hysterics or psychopaths.

*

The 'safe choice' nowadays - in a bureaucracy-dominated world - is for mediocre middle managers in committees to over-promote a mediocre middle manager into a leadership position.

This accounts for the majority of the national leaders in the West, including leaders of most major religious denominations, and social systems such as law, education, the police.

These are people who cannot be strategic (but adopt their strategies from others - even paying to have a strategy artificially manufactured by the phony posturings of management consultants, if no other source suggests itself); who cannot decide without a procedure to follow; who cannot take responsibility on themselves.

These are fake leaders who fundamentally can only be led; and who therefore engineer their jobs on the principle of 'teams' and 'teamwork', and 'team-building'; so that they are always following advice and seeking endorsement.

*

We now live in a  world of mutually-interacting middle managers; of followers leading followers, the directionless leading the directionless; of arbitrary meta-procedures generating arbitrary micro-procedures validated by arbitrary committees of arbitrary 'experts'.

It is a world of management-speak, slogans, mission statements, targets, audits - all of which fail to disguise a total lack of leadership based upon an unchangeable psychological inadequacy.

Because, if you are not a leader, then you cannot lead.

For instance, nothing can be done to make the current Prime Minister or the Archbishop of Canterbury into real leaders - they are not leaders but middle managers; they never can be leaders and never will be leaders. Hype and spin do not affect the facts.

*

We can see this in sport - including my favourite sport of cricket - because sport is one of the few areas of modern life where real leadership still exists; and where real leaders sometimes get appointed to leadership positions.

England have had two real leaders as national cricket coach recently: Duncan Fletcher and Andy Flower (both from Rhodesia, interestingly). In between they had Peter Moores who was an over-promoted middle manager, who was sacked after about a year. Then Moores was re-appointed after Flowers, and Moores has just been sacked after a year, on the excuse of poor results.

In reality, Moores was sacked for the second time because the incoming Andrew Strauss was a successful test cricket captain, and a real leader; and Strauss knows for certain and from personal experience (being 'led' by him) that Moores is just an over-promoted middle manager and cannot ever lead.

Since nothing can be done about what Moores is, he must be got-rid-of regardless of short-term results or insufficient time in the job; simply because he should never have been appointed in the first, or second, place.

*

Moores cannot help not being a leader, and I always felt sorry for him as someone so obviously out of his depth. Nonetheless Moores was wrong to take-on the job, and double-plus-alpha wrong to do it a second time, when he knew for sure that he as incapable of doing leading.

The sin of the over-promoted middle manager is not in failing to be a leader - that cannot be helped; but in failing to be honest about the fact that his is not a leader, and seeking and accepting a leadership position nonetheless.

It is for this, and for the consequent damage they inevitably do to their organisations, that I blame the current crop of mediocre middle management non-leaders such as Archbishop Justin Welby or his predecessor Rowan Williams; David Cameron or his predecessor Gordon Brown.

*

But not all modern leaders are middle managers.

When the leaders are 'diversity hires' they are often hysterics (female or male) of the 'it's all about me' variety. For hysterics the job, any job, becomes a schoolgirl psychodrama, a popularity contest about how the leader thinks other people are treating the leader: are they respecting, are they being mean?

This is sometimes called narcissism but that is the wrong name - it is a form of hysteria or histrionics. As the name implies; the leader is an actor, and he perceives the organisation as a performance in which he plays the leading role.

The hysterical leader is not in the job for money, or power, or perks - but for the status. He wants to be admired, loved, he wants adulation - therefore the hysteric tends to surround himself with mediocrities. The hysteric may therefore be loyal to subordinates. So long as they flatter and worship him uncritically; then he will be happy with their performance.

Of course, hysterics inflict terrible damage when made leaders, because they do not care anything about the organisation they lead - the organisation is merely a means to the end of their own glorification.

*

And some modern leaders are psychopaths - these are the leaders who exploit the organisation for personal gain: for money, power, sexual favours, for the pleasure of tormenting others, to settle old scores... for whatever they most want. Many gang leaders are psychopaths; and psychopaths quite often get into leadership positions in modern society because mediocre middle managers are often impressed by the psychopath's total self-belief and 'dynamism'.

Once in a leadership position, psychopaths engage in fraud and corruption, terrorism and blackmail, flattery and bribery, rule-breaking and making, jury-rigging and gerrymandering... they will do pretty-,much anything which seems expedient in achieving short term goals, and if they believe they can get away with it.

Anger is seldom far from the surface. The psychopath wants to be surrounded by strong allies, not mediocrities - but he will always turn against them (sooner or later). The psychopath is always 'paranoid' and believes he is being persecuted, plotted- and schemed-against (because nothing is ever his fault, and conspiracies explain his failures).

A psychopath may be gifted at telling people what they want to hear - but the psychopath is ruthless, heartless, impulsive, aggressive - his morality is merely a convenient (and therefore labile) rationalisation for his own gratification.

A psychopath in a leadership position is probably even more destructive than an hysteric; because the psychopath will deliberately destroy the organisation he leads, partially or completely, if or when he beliefs this will benefit him in some way that he values.

*

Therefore, when choosing leaders for an organisation or institution or nation which actually requires leadership; it is important to choose a leader.

A leader might in practise do a good or bad job of leading, but a non-leader will always do a bad job because he can only do a bad job.
*

Back in 2010-11 especially, I was reading Father Seraphim Rose a lot - especially in relation to the End Times: that era of the world in which events move towards the end of this reality and the second coming of Christ.

The data of this is unknown and indeed unknowable - but the fact of us living in the End Times has been apparent for about 200 years, in a broad consensus across thinking Christians whom I respect.

One aspect is the corruption of human institutions, including the church; and the 'antichrist' phenomenon by which evil masquerades as Good: in other words persons and organisations that have evil motivations and intentions, deliberately and explicitly adopt and emphasise some good attributes in order to deceive Christians, and enlist their cooperation.

This is now very familiar from global political groupings, charities, NGOs and the like; but perhaps especially in the mainstream Christian churches - the current Archbishop of Canterbury (Justin Welby) is an exceptionally clear example.

But the meaning of the End Times for Christians is worth pondering - because the message is that there is no safe way to be a Christian.   

Actually, this has always been the case - because Christianity cannot go to any extreme. But the fact that the churches are corrupted, and mostly from the top down, means that they will be organised such as to do net evil. A Christian who joins a church and then does what it says will - probably - be led away from Christianity and into de facto apostasy.

Yet of course, all the old strictures against Christians going-it-alone still apply! Several major churches assert (without much conviction, sometimes) that there is no salvation to be had outside of their membership and ministrations.Yet, all honest churchmen will freely admit than being inside, in and of itself does no good either - and there have always been acknowledged exceptions when the church was not vital.

What is vital to keep in mind is that God is the creator and our loving Father - hence it is inconceivable he would leave any one of his children without the means of salvation and the ability to discern it - IF our motivations are genuine.

Motivations are (almost) everything!

That seems to be the lesson of the End Times. Surface appearances, and indeed actions - mean very little by comparison. Bad motivations will contaminate any organisation and anybody; good motivation will win salvation and theosis in the end.

But of course the problem is in discerning motivations! Especially in these latter days; the surface of things is deceptive; there is more dishonesty than honesty - and what is most deceptive is that truth is cunningly mixed with lies to be maximally misleading.

There is no escape from the absolute requirement for individual judgement as the basis for life: this seems to be the great lesson of the End Times. 

Nonetheless, if we work on the genuineness of our motivations; trying, failing and self-correcting; ensuring we learn from experience; then we have been given everything we need to navigate to where we want-and-need to be.