The Protestant Churches owe their very existence to the fearless questioning of old habits of thought and, while it is too much to expect people to ditch doctrine overnight, they would do well to ponder whether their being hard up for money might, in some way, be associated with an inadquate grasp of what people sense to be true. There is an inarticulate decision on the part of very many people that Christianity is no answer to the challenges of life and so they simply disregard it. Sensing that Christianity offers no convincing message of hope (to most people) is one thing. Recognising why is another.

Some explicit objections to Christian doctrine may not be amiss and if the conclusion is that the natural end result of the Reformation is secular humanism - then so be it. Three features of Christianity repel me most: 1) 'sin' is not the main fact about us; the main thing about us is our worth, our capacity for constructive achievement, 2) there is therefore no need for 'salvation'; a saviour, human or divine or both, is thus redundant and, 3) it is a reversal of natural justice that anyone should offer, or be required, to suffer for the sins of others.

It seems to me that a merciful god (and for all I know, there may be one somewhere) would have no hesitation in forgiving us small-time sinners but would equally not hesitate to reject the perverse idea that a blood sacrifice was needed to make such forgiveness effective.

As an humanist, I am not much bothered by the unwholesome aspects of some Christian doctrines; if I believed in a merciful god I would be bothered indeed by the feeling that Christianity is, in some ways, a blasphemy upon Him. That is by the way; the main thing is that humankind can 'save' itself and may yet do so if our burden of contrived guilt and the supposed incompleteness of 'this' life can be flushed out of our thoughts. The Kirk will revive if it can start to sing in praise of humankind - but would it still be the Kirk if it did?