Political quagmire

In the summer of 2017, the political situation in the UK is a disaster. The Government is led by a clique who appear talentless and self-interested. The fact that Jeremy Corbyn has done so well in the latest election demonstrates the lack of talent on both sides of the house. JC had a massive mandate from the party twice, but with the greatest respect he is a peace and civil rights activist not a natural Prime Minister.

Public opinion is easily swayed these days, no-one cares about politics and you end up disillusioned and unable to influence anything. How Government Ministers can change school history syllabuses or dictate nursing practice is beyond me. The type of people that get elected are skilled at public relations only.

I believe there is a Constitutional problem. With two hung Parliaments out of three the time for proportional representation has come. I suggest that there should be 500 constituency MP’s and the rest should be on party lists. These would be the people in Government or opposition.

I believe the time has come when these people should have a more diverse education. Speaking at the Oxford Union has always been a good path for the politician, but we need diversity in our leaders, including in experience. People who control our Armed Forces should know strategy, military capability and threats. They should know about economics and any other departments that they have control over.

There must be Constitutional limits set, no more political football with health and education. Leave the NHS alone, it is a God given right of the British people gained from defeating fascism. Free at the point of delivery, make it work in that context by having people who have a clue about health in the first place. Education is the silver bullet and allow people to think for themselves. Educate potential ministers and limit their powers constitutionally.

There needs to be a body that oversees the proper working of democracy that holds MP’s to account.

Scotland is a separate country, always has been, always will be. There will inevitably be another independence vote. Please can we sit down and prepare a package including plans for the Monarchy, NHS, funding, reparations, armed forces and the nuclear issue before we blunder into another referendum.

When there is so much doubt and little clarity, we are the mercy of the liars and manipulators. When was the last time we had a statesperson in this country. I believe there has been potential in the recent decades, but the system has mitigated against that. Can we not identify talented politicians and train them for excellence.

Westminster is supposed to be the cradle of Democracy, I shudder to think what it is now. We need leaders not bleeders. This country needs radical change and God knows the people deserve it.

Conway-Laird (2017)


Modern Family

Growing up in the 1970’s, I was exposed to Hollywood films and songs in the charts. These two art-forms would promote the idea of romantic love as the pinnacle of human existence. These dreams would have been born in 19th Century British literature I guess. It would have come from the challenge for women wanting to marry out of choice, not forced through financial or other circumstances. My dream would be to save the planet, kill the baddie and win the girl. This would lead to the belief that you would live happily ever after in some sort of married bliss. It was expected that everybody would get married and that this was the only option and the most important event in your life.

Looking back it seems so far removed from life now. There is so much cynicism about romantic love, there are so few successful relationships that I have seen in the last twenty years and there seems to be an unspoken gender war that has left sex and relationships devastated in England.

Romantic love can be wonderful, sometimes it lasts for a short time and sometimes forever. My Grandparents generation may have found it, but they may have got married young and grown together as two co-dependent people like two halves of the same being. It could be a result of a lack of independence or personal development and results in a person being fulfilled only in relationship with another. I do not wish to be cynical and denigrate others experiences, but in my mind it isn’t working in England at the moment.

Society has become much more sophisticated over the last fifty years. There are much more opportunities to experience life, especially for women who have been given the choice for their future due to the oral contraceptive. It is difficult to see how a relationship with one person can allow us to realise those opportunities. Work has also become more demanding and stressful and there is less time and more pressure put on us all.

We are also living much longer and healthier lives. The explosion of the media age has allowed ideas, education, opportunities, travel, art and images into our lives even if we don’t want them.

Childcare has become more and more problematical as balancing work and family life for two parents, has left them gasping for air. The cost of childcare can be the same as a parent’s wage. The difficulty of a parent stuck at home alone with the kids is immense, it is a lonely and painful experience which is quite frankly unhealthy.

Care for the elderly has also been forced out of the family and into isolated units for people cut off from their family and friends. Or into care-homes where the elderly are left with strangers next to them and strangers looking after them.

When I was young, people could be judged on whether they could prove themselves by getting into a relationship, any relationship. This seems ridiculous now, when those in relationships never seem happy and people never seem to socialise with anyone else. If there is a problem, then failure of the relationship ends in a catastrophic breakdown of one’s whole life. The effect on children can be devastating.

Sometimes when things in life have begun to fail, rather than try harder at the same old ways in a new style, it could be better to get back to basics and rebuild. I have mentioned before about the patriarchal society and it is worth revisiting its origins and practice. According to evolutionary psychology, our development has not got past our hunter-gatherer roots from 10,000 ago. Women were the centre of society. They would stay in a camp with the kids and forage for whatever food they could find. Men would hunt and bring back meat to the women and they would all have a party. There would be closely developed human relations and half the time people would be in gender groups and half mixed all together.

In England, hunting was based on the abundance of Red Deer in the forests. But climate change led to a reduction in game, and humans had to turn to agriculture, developed in the Fertile Crescent in Syria and Iraq. This system split the tribes into families of one man, one woman. Enclosed land for farming, was worked by the man, the woman would produce babies to grow into workers for the fields and the population would grow slowly despite the high birth rate. Life expectancy was to the mid-thirties and the men were designated leaders as the women had so much childcare responsibilities. This was a shift from the Hunter-Gatherer society where women were the centre and men would provide meat to sustain them on a periodical basis.

This system was maintained throughout the agrarian revolution, the industrial revolution and has started to breakdown with the social revolution that started in the 1960’s in the West. History may indicate that family life has been anything but blissful and the Hollywood dream many of us were sold as kids was a fantasy.

Perhaps there are lessons we can learn from the hunter-gatherers that can help us design a better system for the future. Family was designed for the purposes of agriculture, even if it started before history was recorded. Its purpose was survival of the human race and it barely worked as the population would grow slowly but could be devastated by famine and disease. Ingenious scientific and engineering solutions helped us develop and grow.

I would suggest that the main aim in life is to survive, live long and fruitful lives making the most out of our potential. Whether these goals are possible for all is questionable and connected to politics and economics, but indulge my idealism for a moment.

I would suggest that the family unit based on one couple was rarely successful. Recently there has been a trend to live like this without producing children. Perhaps a family unit with maybe four couples. Sexual partners would be governed by strict rotation over a defined period, instead of one partner there would four expanding the possibilities of your life experience. There would be eight different personalities with eight different skillsets, four times as many kids with eight parents leading to a community rather than an isolated unit of about four in the current average family.

For this system to work there would need to be better personal development to prevent jealousy and encourage communication. Partners would need to have some life experience before entering into such a group. They would have to be carefully chosen and accepted by all in an open and honest way. I believe that sex and relationships are a healthcare issue and should be treated scientifically.

A similar system would be necessary for homosexuals. There would be more career experiences on offer, more practical and social skills available and there would be more people available for childcare. In this situation there should always be two or more people covering childcare to avoid isolation. There would be greater potential to support the elderly, single people or anyone marginalised in society who could be supported by this group.

People could come and go and benefit from the family and maybe start their own. There would have to a commitment from the core members with a promise to find a replacement if a decision is made to leave. Any breakdown between two people would not become catastrophic as there are other members of the family to support them.

Children would have the benefit of more brothers and sisters and more parents. Workload would be shared, so that work, childcare, home-life and social life would become more efficient.

These ideas would require research, personal development and clearly defined rules. A system of dividing the various responsibilities would make decision making simpler. There would be different ministries such as finance, childcare, food, cleaning, sex, social life, holidays, security or whatever and one person would oversee the decision making for each. There would clearly defined rules based on equality. This approach has been tried in an informal way since the 1960’s, but I believe a serious look at such arrangements would be valuable at a time when family life in the UK appears to be slipping into decline.

A serious attempt at this sort of family could bring great benefits to relationships. People could develop and grow in all areas giving greater experience, social interaction and stability.

Rules and morals for the family would have to be defined, and organisations to promote this arrangement would have to be formed.

Life is better by design, allowing society to slide into selfish anarchy needs to be reversed. The challenge for the human race is social, this could help defeat the problems of alienation and selfish dogmatism that face us at the moment.

Conway-Laird (2017)


Northern Ireland?

The north east of Ireland was partitioned nearly 100 years ago. It has had many names. Northern Ireland, Ulster, the Six Counties, Carsonia, up country and many other euphemisms the Irish use. Perhaps it is about time that the future inhabitants of the region should pick one name they can all agree on. We could present some ideas and let six formers and young people pick a name that suits us all. I would suggest Greater Tyrone. After all it was the banishing of Hugh O’Neill, the Earl of Tyrone, by Elizabeth I that was partially responsible for British immigration.

Better still we could reinstitute the Earldom as a representative of the monarchy. People from across the social spectrum could join as a family to sit as neutrals over the province.

At the moment we have some outsider from Westminster going to Belfast to sort things out when people don’t agree at Stormont. Would it not be better to have a Royal figure who can step in and make things happen? Obviously they would be trained from birth. They would have to experience Royal life in the UK and life in various parts of the province. They would receive instruction in various forms of religion. They would not even have to be Christian, just be able to appreciate both sides of the religious divide. If they could understand the different strands of faith and politics and are schooled and trained they would be ready to step in where necessary.

I believe this is vital for lasting peace. To have Westminster taking direct control when they have a bias is unhealthy. There are bonds that need to be created across the divide. Fortunately the children of the future are being schooled together and that is brilliant. They are no different to each other. Old soldiers could sit and settle their differences over a pint and promote peace in schools. In this way they can find truth and reconciliation, between each other.

But truth is relative and can only be shared by those who have suffered the horrors of war. You cannot have a real window into these things without being there. The television coverage of the Troubles, and other wars over the last 50 years, are only an impression through a lens, not the real truth. The History needs to be written, one that we all those involved in the Troubles can agree on.

Let us learn the lessons for the future of all our children. Let us be honest with each other at least, as the real truth cannot be understood by those on the side-lines. When we have learnt those lessons, we can export the principles of co-existence to places of conflict in other places.

We worked together for peace in the 1990’s. The future must be for the rivulets of blood, which have flowed separately to come together in a single stream. Unity for the province and new relationships with the rest of these islands. Whatever happens in Europe, the UK and Ireland are bonded in blood, geography and history and must be self-supportive to survive in an ever more dangerous world.

The future is bright. The future is ours. Unity happens between people, Government happens when areas are divided up for administration. If all people groups are understood, accepted and represented under the law, then the real unity is across all of our islands.

Then the only real border is the sea.

Conway-Laird (2017)

Fascism not dead

Fascism not dead

They escaped from beaches. They were the last defence in the skies over southern England. They were bombed out of their homes. They were sunk in the freezing Atlantic. They were blown out of the German sky. They ran up beaches. They jumped out of planes. They defeated fascism against the odds and the people voted en-masse to create the National Health Service as a reward. Beveridge, Bevan and Atlee led the country to try to defeat disease in a home for heroes. The Tories always opposed it, even Winston Churchill refused to support it, but in the end they had to. Until Margaret Thatcher that is. Now there is a more subtle type of fascism using lies and manipulation, methods that are almost impossible to detect. It is emotional warfare designed to maximise power and money in the hands of a small percentage of the population at the expense of the rest.

The current Conservative Government appears to be running down the NHS. It is a long-held dream that the “socialist” system be destroyed. With the help of the right-wing press creating outrageous scare stories it could come to pass. Allegedly, a Government Minister said that Nurses cause unnecessary deaths. In my experience lack of Nurses causes unnecessary deaths. How many deaths have been caused by the Tories reorganisations, bureaucracy, interference in health matters and generally running the NHS into the ground?

The types who run the Government, are elitists who consider themselves superior because they are rich and privileged. They feel the need to destroy the NHS, as it is socialist, and as their friends cannot make money from it, until now. They don’t care that the NHS works despite their best attempts to destroy it. They don’t care that we pay half the percentage of GDP than the USA on health. They certainly don’t care that it is fair or that it works better in terms of health outcomes. But then they don’t use it. But there are many rich people who are generous. A public-school child could choose the path of maximising profit or charity or both. I am sure if a well-off person would far prefer charity than tax. They have control and can decide on the amount of giving, rather than it being taken off them by the Inland Revenue.

Some people call this neo-liberal politics, which has become less about free market economics and more about corruption, monopoly and theft. They don’t even pay tax and send their money out of the country. The lack of mixing and truth in society perpetuates the divisive nature of England.

England what have you become. Since your finest hour you slipped to a very bad place. There have always been those who have displayed rapacious self-interest in England, but it has usually been countered by defenders of the people and human rights. They were the biggest slavers, who became the biggest anti-slavers. They were the biggest empire, who sacrificed itself to beat fascism and dismantled the empire in an ordered way. More recently they were the biggest financial supporter of Apartheid, but were also its biggest opponent.

Hitler’s flaw was that he was too obvious. When it became apparent what a tyrant he was, people had to stand up to him. Churchill saw the danger early. They beat fascism in 6 punishing years. Unfortunately, it may have crept back under the cover of secrecy.

So, when they have sucked England dry and sent our money to Gibraltar and the Cayman Islands, I expect there will be nothing left of England but a dry husk. These people won’t be here as they have no loyalty or honour. England, what has become of you, is there anything left of your fighting spirit that wishes to stand up to these tyrants. Is there anything left worth fighting for? Being mesmerised by reality TV and social media does not amount to life.

There is so much more to life than money. There are spiritual and emotional values, the arts, personal achievement, love, truth and justice. England was once a powerhouse, not only industrially and militarily, but morally and in practical philosophy. Not only have the Neo-Liberals taken our money, our lives and our country, they have taken away the means to fight them.

There have always been many great Conservatives. Pitt, Pitt, Peel, Palmerstone, Disraeli and many others in more recent times where states-people were less able to flourish, there were those like Major, Heseltine and Clarke. Even Thatcher had a lot of talent and her initial ideas had a lot of validity.

“Only a miracle can save England”, was how I ended this piece originally. Well, if that does occur, then it is usually at the hands of someone committed to the country to the soles of their feet.

England, we beg you, choose your better angels. For many hundreds of years everything has started in these islands. This world is dying and you need to lead. Lead as a United Kingdom.

Conway-Laird (2017)

Homosexuality and the church

I have always enjoyed the company of homosexuals. There was a guy at school who was the most rounded, compassionate, intuitive and spiritual person there. He had attended the church but I suppose it became untenable for him. I am completely heterosexual and enjoy being with gay people who are generally more funny, entertaining and caring than most blokes. Trouble for me is that sometimes I might give the poor boys the wrong idea.

I once knew a Christian leader, who was also a doctor. He took a common-sense, compassionate view of the plight of the gay Christian. He did not demonise them because of their personal ethics as this was a matter for them to deal with. Unfortunately, there are those that feel threatened, maybe because of their own sexuality, or because the very existence of homosexuality undermines their belief structure. Once Christian groups start to get aggressive in defence of their position, instead of showing the love of Jesus as they are supposed to, then their interpretation of the bible is becoming questionable.

Evangelicalism is an interpretation and it has been successful for nearly 300 years. It does not have to be the only interpretation, and there is no reason why churches or individual cannot reinterpret the bible as conditions change in society. The Bible is set in the patriarchal society and evangelicalism was based on that. But the patriarchal society is not universal anymore and there are alternative lifestyles. The Bible did not invent marriage and the family, that was done by those who started agriculture in the Fertile Crescent in prehistory. The Bible suggested that people should follow the social norms but apply Christian principles of balance, love and truth.

There are verses in Leviticus that refer to gays, but this is when people were supposed to stay faithful in their marriages, gay or straight. If you were gay you got married and were required to produce children. This was survival not about rights or lifestyle or love. In Corinthians it refers to male prostitutes and homosexual offenders. The Greek practice at the time was to visit the temple of Artemis and use a male or female prostitute as an act of worship. Also elite men would take 12 year old boys and mentor them, including sexually, until they grew a beard. Either of these things is not acceptable today. Gay marriage would not make sense, in the patriarchal society, as you could not make babies.

Things are different today and as homosexuality was legalised in 1967 in Great Britain, there should be no general condemnation for these people, who can suffer so much abuse. There are also those that are abused, which can lead to homophobia. The Church whatever its beliefs, has no right to demonise these people, but it has the right to say the act is a sin, as this is a perfectly valid interpretation of the Bible. All of us are sinners and there should not be a focus on gays. But I am convinced that gay sex is not a sin. The way you treat people is what matters and all can potentially find forgiveness in Christ if they choose.

Still you do not see gays kissing or holding hands openly. Although the talk in the middle classes maybe of toleration, is there real acceptance? Perhaps if those macho men who “hate queers” had more sex, then they would feel more secure in their own sexuality. What if gay men could help match-make, then we win all around.

It seems that homosexuals must do a lot of soul searching to come to terms with their sexuality and become confident and assertive. This could mean that Gays could help others with their personal development.

The HIV plague was devastating to a newly liberated sub-culture. Little help was given in the 1980’s which were mostly about self-interest. Even condemnation from those who claimed it was God’s judgement. It makes me shake my head; the God I know does not act like that. He is much more patient and caring than that to a recently freed movement. That plague came from the opposite of God in my view.

None of us are perfect and we all have a separate path to tread. Some may walk with a group of fellow believers and some have to walk alone. But I believe that the Law of the land should attempt to be in place for all strands of belief. The moral questions should be for the community, the church, the family and the individual.

Some people are born gay and some are confused. If we can accept people and allow them to work out their issues within the law, with sex and sexuality as a healthcare issue, it would be better for all. An open honest discussion of these issues within a private place would be better.

There was a drama on TV, where a President of the USA was asked his opinion of abortion. His personal morality forbade it, but he said the individual should make the decision. Privately he said that he would try to dissuade the mother from the act.

There is a difference between the public and the private. An individual spirituality, political persuasion and sexuality can be narrow, but a good person could attempt to accept as many of these paths as possible, within society. These matters should be resolved by the individual through education at home, at school and maybe in church.

Evangelical doctrine cannot and should not change. But there should be a place where people can explore their spirituality, where they are accepted as they are, as Jesus accepts us all.

Conway-Laird (2016)


The Peoples Community Church of England

People strive for greater profit, stubborn in their philosophy and secure in their own little island. That is what we aspire to in England. But what of those who fail in this system? Work harder and you will succeed. Surely then we will be all working in the City of London. There are many who have become marginalised. Failing in capitalism, I say fail or just beaten by people with no scruples. Excluded due to their sexuality. Stigmatised due to disability. Discriminated for a number reasons. Have they failed or has the system failed them? Not only has the system failed them, it has replaced any lingering compassion, not with contempt, but with hatred. A desire to make the poor and disadvantaged have an even worse life. Thank you the Bullingdon Club!

Clearly I have a view from the foundation of society and have my own bias. Unfortunately, in the circles I move in, there has been resignation with no expectation of anything changing. There is a sense that no-one cares.

I would propose a community of those marginalised. I would call it a church, not to shove religion down their throat, but because hopefully we could meet in churches unused during the week. There would be support groups, especially for the unemployed. Child care for parent and child and food laid on. There would be support for the elderly and youth work.

The community would base its relationships on balance, agape and truth. There would be an encouragement for personal development. A database with people’s thoughts on personal growth would be available on line. Social events and regular club nights would enable matchmaking within a community of known people.

Most people would be expected to contribute in the running of the community. There would be twelve disciplines needed to fulfil all its functions. Training, assessment and qualifications would all be available.

These communities would be delineated by postcode, so they would be easy to change and everybody would know which group they were in. This group would be representative of the area and would attract sports teams, local history and customs.

Now, there may be some crossover with the actual church and that’s fine. But crucial to success is the need to accept different beliefs despite the lack of agreement on ethical grounds. Now I am not one to defeat evangelicalism, but I would say it is not for all. There is one group of people who always been marginalised. Generally speaking they have a higher standard of education than others and more spare cash as they don’t usually have children. I am talking about the gay community. It does not make a lot of sense for homosexuals to go to the evangelical church, but they could come to this one. Not only that, they could be encouraged to take a lead role, since the marginalisation they experience is not because of a weakness on their part. Perhaps if gays have their own church, both sides of the debate would find it easier to accept each other. Then gays could find family, purpose, meaning and spirituality not always available.

This is an ambitious plan that requires a lot of planning and work. But it’s not just up to me, organisation and commitment from all concerned can make this happen. If we do this then there would be an effective alternative to neo-liberalism. Love, people and community, inspired by the enlightenment, Jesus Christ, Karl Marx, Sun Tzu, and a pantheon of the wise and faithful.

Instead of being at the back of the line on a narrow path you don’t wish for. A choice between money and people would be available and a field of opportunities would open up.

Conway-Laird (2016)

Uniting a broad Church

Next year 2017, is the 500th year anniversary of Martin Luther nailing his 95 theses to the door of Wittenberg church. Historically this signified the start of the Protestant Reformation. His teaching was about salvation by faith, not works and looking to scripture rather than church authority and tradition. There was a great thirst for his teachings, just as there was for John Hus’s 100 years earlier in Prague. The people of northern Germany and Holland were empowered to make their own decisions. There was a Glorious Anarchy as many different strands of belief were born. Many soon died, especially under the inevitable persecution from Rome in the need to install some order.

But moderate Lutheranism remained, as did a hard-line version of Calvin’s teaching. Soon war after war ravaged much of Northern Europe. Politics intertwined with Religion and caused some horrible atrocities. The Thirty years war was possibly the worst. The war of three kingdoms in the British Isles (known as the English Civil War) was almost as divisive. Here the war was between the monarchy and many different Protestant groups, principally the Puritans. These wars divided people everywhere and led to the devastation of entire regions as war was brought to the people, rather than being confined to the battlefield. Also it led to a desolation of the soul as faith imploded. Religion preaching love, joy and peace, was then killing in the name of truth and the protection of their own belief structure. Those that fought the war had given up on those principles.

By 1715, Europe had found peace and concentrated on making money and empire building. The Enlightenment was the new philosophy putting science and reason at its core. In England in the mid-18th Century, priests like George Whitefield, John and Charles Wesley started to preach about a personal faith which echoed Luther. It was called Evangelicalism. William Wilberforce was a convert and as a leading politician, he devoted his life to ridding Britain and her colonies of the vile slave trade and slavery itself. It took 49 years of determination, oratorical skill, ceaseless campaigning and political manoeuvring to bring slavery to an end in the British Empire. By the time he finished, and he died shortly after the bill to end slavery was passed, the moral compass had changed in Britain. Evangelical reformers started to be concerned with workers, those who grafted for the wealth of the nation. Various different reforms were enacted that put the worker in more favourable, wealthier and safer place.

The doctrine of the evangelical church has not changed in 300 years and nor has the ethics. Evangelicalism is bonded to the patriarchal society, as is much in society these days. In fact there is no part of history where there was no patriarchal society. It was formed, as was the family, when people started farming instead of hunter-gathering and has remained the same ever since. In the Bible Paul’s letters codify Jesus redemptive work and try and explain the mysterious and unknowable work of the Holy Spirit. There are ethical statements also, and Evangelicals include these as absolute as well. But is it right to accept that Paul’s teaching’s, to his small missionary churches, planted in the Greco-Roman world 2000 years ago, are for all cultures for all time?

In the last 50 years in the UK things have changed. Women have been all but emancipated, certainly in the eyes of the law. Now they may have assumed control over family affairs. In the patriarchal society, the vast majority of people had the same lifestyles in regard to the country they came from. Now there are as many different lifestyles as there people in the UK. The Bible refers to marriage, but 2000 years ago in Palestine, people had arranged marriages to their first cousin or someone else from the village at eighteen years old. There was no singleness, there was no courtship, there was no power struggles, there was no splitting up, there was no divorce generally, there were no state benefits, there was no images on global media, there no was mixing of men and women in society, there was no gay partnerships or contraception and people lived, on average, to 35 years old.

Although, for those that have witnessed it, the Church can be effective spiritually, I believe there is a chasm between it and society in England. The openness of the charismatic church allows it to be effective in the spiritual realm. I hope it continues but they can be manipulated. It seems there are many who have become marginalised from the church due to their lifestyle or personality. Which is often not their fault. Even to be genuinely accepted in the church maybe too costly for some. There are those who have the ability to live as pure and holy. But many others would look for genuine acceptance rather than being judged by their peers.

Relationships of all types are contracts, either stated or unstated. Christian ethics cannot be wedded to one form of contract in a complex world, especially when the circumstances of marriage have changed beyond recognition. More and more demands and unrealistic expectations are placed on the institution. Ultimately people or couples should make their own decisions. For me looking at the Bible, the principles of balance, agape and truth are a golden chain when attempting to make a successful relationship.

Unfortunately for the Evangelical Church, no sex before heterosexual marriage is a pillar of their ethics and what happens if you remove the pillar? For a regular churchgoer it makes sense to stick with the traditional line in showing commitment to their church’s doctrine. If people truly want to seek, then the Evangelical Church is more than capable of continuing to teach basic Christianity and explain the Bible. At the same time, the Church should respect the individual’s choices, then the edifice might not come tumbling down. Also, the Liberal Church could help those schooled in basic Christianity, to think for themselves, explore other philosophies and apply what they discover in their own lives.

In this way, Liberal and Evangelical could help the people of the UK. To do this there would need to be a more flexible and understanding corporate approach to both doctrine and ethics. Surely for a broad church to exist, not only survive, there must be various defined doctrine and ethics. Then you can find unity. But don’t listen to me, listen to God. It’s his Church and he will do precisely what he wants to do with it.

To those that pray. Get on your knees!

Conway-Laird (2016)