Visions of Hell

Visions of Hell

JV [A.A. Milne’s father] believed in a God of love. At one of the schools where he taught early on in his career, the headmaster one Sunday preached a fire-and-brimstone sermon to the boys, warning them that they were destined for an eternity in Hell unless they pulled up their socks and concentrated in class. JV was given permission to preach to the boys the following Sunday and told them there was no such place as Hell and no such thing as Everlasting Fire, but encouraged them to work all the same because work was worthwhile and working hard now meant you wouldn’t have to work so hard later. After delivering his sermon, he offered the headmaster his resignation, but the headmaster wouldn’t have it. JV was too good a teacher to lose. (Giles Brandeth)

“What I am going to say is not a dogma of faith but my own personal view: I like to think of hell as empty; I hope it is,” Pope Francis

It is interesting to survey different approaches to the theology of hell.

 

The older hell fire and brimstone is still around, but more muted and nuances. Back in the 1960s (as a friend told me from experience), some Roman Catholic schools used to terrify young pupils with visions of hell if they were caught in wrongdoing. 

So here is a map of different theologians views on visions of hell.

I would comment that I think the Western view is totally wrong! And yet it is so influential in  paintings, in Dante's Inferno, and in the "Hell Fire" preaching which even permeates some strands of Protestantism. 

Traditional Western View: Eternal Conscious Torment

Whenever I was being raised, Hell was often taught. Hellfire and Brimstone sermons, they used to call them. I used to get scared out of my.......sin.....because I didn’t want to go to hell! I have told you before that I used to pray that we could be in a car crash on the way home after a really good altar call so I could be sure I would get to Heaven. (Robert Cox)

Historically dominant in Western Christianity, this view holds that Hell is a place of eternal, conscious punishment for the unredeemed. Rooted in texts like Matthew 25:46 (“eternal punishment”) and Revelation 14:11 (“the smoke of their torment goes up forever”), it emphasizes divine justice and retribution. 

Augustine and Aquinas shaped this doctrine, stressing the irrevocability of judgment and the moral seriousness of sin. This view is largely absent in Eastern Orthodoxy, which leans toward therapeutic and mystical interpretations of postmortem judgment.

The classic Western tradition-shaped by Augustine, Aquinas, and later Protestant scholastics-takes the “fiery” texts at near‑face value. Passages like Revelation 20:14–15 (“lake of fire”), Matthew 25:41 (“eternal fire prepared for the devil”), and Matthew 8:12 (“outer darkness… wailing and gnashing of teeth”) are read as descriptions of objective, external, divinely imposed punishment. 

Fire is not merely metaphorical but signifies real torment; “cast out” indicates irreversible exclusion; “gnashing of teeth” expresses conscious anguish. This view fits squarely within the Western legal‑forensic imagination: Hell is the just penalty for sin, enacted by God in response to moral rebellion.

The classic Western doctrine-Augustine, Aquinas, the Reformers-stands alone as the full penal model. Here, Hell is God’s active punishment of sin. The fiery imagery (Revelation 20, Matthew 25, Mark 9) is taken as describing a divinely imposed penalty proportionate to moral rebellion. “Wailing and gnashing of teeth” is the anguish of receiving just retribution; “cast out” is God’s judicial exclusion; the “lake of fire” is the arena of divine wrath. 

This is the only view in your set that treats Hell as a sentence rather than a state, and the only one that sees the fire as God’s direct act of justice rather than the soul’s experience of God or the consequences of its own choices.

Glen Scrivener: Christocentric Reframing

Scrivener, an evangelist and Anglican minister, reframes Hell through a relational and Christ-centered lens. He emphasizes that Hell is not merely a place but a trajectory-“the outer darkness” of rejecting God’s love. Drawing on Romans 1 and John 3:19–20, Scrivener sees Hell as the culmination of human autonomy, where people “choose” separation from God. He resists speculative geography and instead focuses on the relational rupture. His approach resonates with Eastern emphases on freedom and love, though his evangelical roots keep him tethered to Western soteriology.

Scrivener affirms the biblical imagery but reframes it relationally. He takes seriously texts like Romans 1 (God “giving them over”), John 3:19–20 (people “loving darkness”), and Jesus’ warnings about “outer darkness” and “wailing and gnashing of teeth.” For him, these images describe the end‑point of a chosen trajectory: fire is the consuming consequence of rejecting divine love; “cast out” is the natural result of refusing communion; “gnashing of teeth” is the bitterness of entrenched self‑will. He does not deny divine judgment, but he interprets the fiery imagery through the lens of human autonomy and Christ’s relational invitation. This places him between traditions: Western in seriousness about judgment, Eastern in seeing Hell as the soul’s posture toward God.

Scrivener takes the warnings seriously and retains the gravity of divine judgement, but he reframes the mechanism. He does not present Hell as God inflicting pain; instead, he emphasises God “giving people over” (Romans 1). The fiery imagery is real, but it describes the relational consequences of rejecting Christ. Scrivener is still more Western than Eastern in tone-he keeps the seriousness of judgement and the finality of exclusion-but he avoids the idea of God actively tormenting. He is the closest of the modern thinkers to the penal model, but still significantly softened.

Tom Wright (N.T. Wright): Eschatological Renewal

“Just as many who were brought up to think of God as a bearded old gentleman sitting on a cloud decided that when they stopped believing in such a being they had therefore stopped believing in God, so many who were taught to think of hell as a literal underground location full of worms and fire…decided that when they stopped believing in that, so they stopped believing in hell. The first group decided that because they couldn’t believe in childish images of God, they must be atheists. The second decided that because they couldn’t believe in childish images of hell, they must be universalists.” (N.T. Wright)

Wright critiques the caricature of Hell as a cosmic torture chamber. He emphasizes the biblical narrative of new creation, arguing that Hell represents exclusion from God’s renewed world. Drawing on passages like Revelation 21–22 and Romans 8, Wright sees judgment as restorative and covenantal. He rejects universalism but also resists eternal torment, suggesting that those who persistently reject God may “cease to exist” (annihilationism). His view blends Western biblical scholarship with Eastern themes of cosmic renewal and divine mercy

Wright reads the fiery texts within the biblical story of new creation. Revelation’s “lake of fire” becomes the symbolic end of all anti‑creation forces; “wailing and gnashing of teeth” marks the tragic collapse of human identity when it refuses God’s kingdom. He draws on passages like Matthew 10:28 (“destroy both soul and body in Gehenna”) and Romans 8 (creation’s renewal) to argue that Hell is the destiny of those who persistently refuse the life of the age to come. Fire is not torture but un‑making. Wright comes closest to annihilationism: the imagery of burning signifies the final dissolution of what refuses God. This aligns partly with Eastern cosmic themes but remains Western in its historical‑critical method.

Wright rejects the penal model outright. For him, Hell is what happens when a human being becomes less and less truly human. The fiery imagery is symbolic of un‑making-the dissolution of identity when it refuses God’s new creation. Matthew 10:28 (“destroy both soul and body in Gehenna”) is central: destruction, not torture. Wright’s God does not punish; God renews creation, and those who refuse that renewal simply cannot participate. This is not penal but ontological. Fire is the collapse of what cannot survive the age to come.

C.S. Lewis: Psychological and Volitional Hell

“There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done." All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. Those who knock it is opened.”  C.S. Lewis, The Great Divorce

Lewis, especially in The Great Divorce and The Problem of Pain, portrays Hell as self-imposed exile. He argues from texts like Luke 16 (the rich man and Lazarus) and Romans 1 that Hell is the natural outcome of a soul turned inward. “The doors of Hell are locked from the inside,” he famously wrote. 

Lewis’s Hell is less about divine punishment and more about the soul’s refusal to be healed. This aligns with Eastern Orthodox views of Hell as a state of being rather than a place, though Lewis remains within Western metaphysical frameworks.

Lewis treats the fiery imagery as profoundly true but not literal. In The Great Divorce and The Problem of Pain, he interprets “fire” as the burning exposure of reality; “outer darkness” as the shrinking of the soul; “gnashing of teeth” as the self‑torment of pride. He draws on Luke 16 (the rich man’s torment), Romans 1, and Jesus’ parables to argue that Hell is the soul’s refusal to be healed. 

Fire is the pain of resisting joy; being “cast out” is self‑exile; “gnashing of teeth” is the clenched jaw of refusal. Lewis is Western in imagination but deeply Eastern in seeing Hell as the soul’s experience of God’s love when it rejects transformation.

John V. Taylor: Missional and Relational Judgment

Taylor, in The Go-Between God and other writings, rarely systematizes Hell but critiques Western dualisms. He emphasizes the Spirit’s presence in all human experience and sees judgment as the unveiling of truth. 

Taylor rarely systematizes Hell, but when he touches on judgment, he reads the fiery texts through the lens of the Spirit’s work of unveiling. Drawing on John 16:8–11 (the Spirit “convicts the world”) and 2 Corinthians 3–5 (the unveiling of truth), he sees fire as the purifying, exposing presence of God. “Cast out” becomes the experience of resisting communion; “wailing and gnashing of teeth” the agony of truth resisted. 

Taylor’s approach is the least punitive: fire is illumination, not retribution. This aligns strongly with Eastern patristic thought-especially St. Isaac the Syrian-where divine fire is the same love experienced differently by the receptive and the resistant.

Taylor is the least penal of all. For him, judgement is the Spirit’s unveiling of truth. Fire is illumination; “cast out” is the experience of resisting communion; “gnashing of teeth” is the agony of truth confronted. There is no sense of God inflicting pain. Taylor’s view is deeply Eastern: Hell is the soul’s experience of divine love when it refuses transformation.

Eastern Orthodox View: Hell as Divine Encounter

St. Isaac the Syrian: “I say that those who are tormented in hell are tormented by the scourge of love. ... It is utterly senseless to believe that the tormentors in hell are greater than the love of Christ” (Ascetical Homilies).

Love will enrobe everything with its sacred Fire which will flow like a river from the throne of God and will irrigate paradise. But this same river of Love — for those who have hate in their hearts — will suffocate and burn. (Alexandre Kalomiros )

In Eastern Orthodoxy, Hell is not primarily a place of external punishment but a state of being in relation to God’s unmediated presence. Drawing from passages like 1 Corinthians 3:13–15 and Hebrews 12:29 (“our God is a consuming fire”), Eastern theologians argue that the same divine light that brings joy to the righteous causes torment to those who reject love. 

Hell is thus the experience of God’s love by those who refuse it-a painful exposure rather than imposed suffering. This view is deeply rooted in patristic sources like St. Isaac the Syrian and St. Gregory of Nyssa, who emphasize healing, purification, and the mystery of divine mercy.

The Eastern tradition rejects the penal model entirely. The Eastern tradition reads the fiery texts through the lens of divine presence rather than divine punishment. Passages like Hebrews 12:29 (“our God is a consuming fire”) and 1 Corinthians 3:13–15 (works tested by fire) are central. 

Fire is God’s unmediated love; the righteous experience it as warmth and light, the resistant as burning. “Cast out” refers to the soul’s inability to bear the divine presence; “gnashing of teeth” is the pain of unhealed passions exposed by truth. Revelation’s “lake of fire” is the final unveiling of God’s glory, not a torture chamber. This view is mystical, therapeutic, and relational-far from the Western penal model.

A Short Story: The Cornerstone

Adapted from my poem based on Deut 4:1

The Cornerstone

The fog that morning was so thick it seemed to press its face against the windows of the Old Bailey, peering in like a curious but unwelcome guest. Inside, the corridors bustled with clerks, barristers, and the faint scent of damp wool. Court No. 7, a chamber of dark wood and darker expectations, was preparing to hear the case of Mr. Bartholomew Cratch, a labourer accused of striking his overseer.

Mr. Cratch sat hunched at the defence table, his cap twisting between his hands. He was a man worn down by life’s long winter, thin, pale, and carrying the look of someone who had never once been given the benefit of the doubt.

His advocate, Miss Eleanor Wick, stood beside him. Though young, she possessed a seriousness that made even seasoned barristers pause. She had been raised in the poorer quarters of London, where she had learned early in an old poem that “justice and mercy form the cornerstone” of any society that hoped to call itself civilised. And she had learned, too, that “a faith in which we may not be alone” was often the only thing that kept the vulnerable from being swallowed by the city’s indifference.

The judge entered, robes sweeping like a shadow across the room. Proceedings began.

The prosecution painted Mr. Cratch as a brute, a man of violent temper. Their witness, a foreman with a polished waistcoat and a polished story, claimed Cratch had struck him in a fit of rage. The gallery murmured. The evidence, though thin, was presented with the confidence of a man accustomed to being believed.

Miss Wick watched carefully. Something in the foreman’s account rang false. His description of the alley, the timing, the lantern light, all felt rehearsed, as though he had practised it before a mirror.

When her turn came, she rose. Her voice was calm, but carried the quiet authority of someone who had seen too much suffering to be easily intimidated.

“My Lord,” she began, “the law is not merely a mechanism for punishment. It is a guide to how we ought to live. And if we are to live rightly, ‘we must be our brother’s keeper.’ We must look after the weak, the downtrodden, and those who have no voice but ours.”

A ripple passed through the courtroom.

She produced a small notebook - her own. Inside were sketches of the alley where the incident had occurred. She had visited it at dawn, when the city was still half‑asleep and honest shadows still fell where they ought.

“The foreman claims he was struck beneath the lamplight,” she said, “yet the lamp nearest the scene has been broken for weeks. The cobbles slope sharply, and the ground was slick with frost. My Lord, the foreman slipped. And Mr. Cratch, far from striking him, attempted to catch him.”

The judge leaned forward. The prosecution faltered. The gallery shifted uneasily.

After a long deliberation, the judge dismissed the charge.

Mr. Cratch let out a breath that sounded like the first warm wind of spring. Tears gathered in his eyes.

“Miss Wick,” he whispered, “I thought no one would believe me.”

She placed a gentle hand on his arm.

“You are not alone,” she said. “Not while the law still remembers its purpose.”

Outside, the fog had begun to lift. The bells of St. Paul’s tolled the hour, and London, grimy, sprawling, and full of contradictions, seemed for a moment to breathe a little easier.

Miss Wick stepped into the street, her gown brushing the cobblestones, and felt the quiet satisfaction that comes when mercy has been allowed to stand beside justice, as it always should.

The Sunday Archive: The Pilot, July 1997 - Part 1

The Sunday Archive: The Pilot, July 1997 - Part 1
(Note the above photo and text has been taken from a photocopy, not the original which is still in the Library!)

Island Notes
By Barry Giles

We are looking forward to the Reverend John Seaford, and his wife, Helen, coming among us, and we shall all bear them in our constant and continuing prayers.

We are a "Peculiar" in the ecclesiastical sense of that title, but we are also peculiar in the sense that our customs and traditions are often unique; in church and state within the Bailiwick and within the Deanery. It is good for us that a new Dean brings a wider vision and experience of the Church to the Church in Jersey. 

One could use such metaphors as "a new broom," though these have their limitations. However, it is true that we all build upon the work of those who go before us. No two priests take the same service in the same way, no successive rectors or vicars operate in the same way; each Dean brings to his office and ministry the gifts which he has. 

Canon Seaford, you will know, has been a parish priest throughout his ministry. Those gifts and insights into the work of the people and family of God will be required as we move forward in our Deanery to an era of rethinking the way in which all our parishes and districts are to be served and manned, as our pastoral reorganisation plans materialise over the coming years. 

But, no Dean works alone. As we support him, now by prayer, so, I trust, we shall work together resolutely for the right disposition of the Church of Jersey within the mission of the Church of God in this place. The psalmist, like much of the prophecy in the Old Testament, was looking for answers to come "from the north." One lesson we must learn is that answers come when we work together, and that the best of God's answers come when we work together with Him.

This month we have an opportunity to do something together. That is, to make pilgrimage. It was Dean Falle who began this annual act of active worship as an Anglican initiative; quite properly it is now an ecumenical one. But this year, perhaps Anglicans in Jersey could make an extra effort to come together to honour and remember St Helier, who brought the Christian Faith to Jersey, and acknowledge our debt to him, but also to deepen our faith and commitment to that same faith and practice in 1993 and to the future. 

No pilgrimage should be easy: it was not for Jesus; it should not be for us. So, make an effort — come, be a pilgrim on 11th July, either from the Town Church at 3.15 pm or at the least, from West Park Slipway half an hour later. My hope is that all our parishes and districts will be well represented as an indication of our determination to be a pilgrim people of God.

Yours in Christ BARRY GILES

John Seaford writes...

BY WAY of introduction, I first want to say how much Helen and I are looking forward to coming to Jersey when I take up this senior appointment in September.

Until invited over just after Easter, I had only been to Jersey once for a holiday. My parents and I stayed at the Hotel L'Horizon and, while there, we celebrated my tenth birthday — so that was a long time ago, but I have the photograph of the contestants in the Fancy Dress Parade to prove it! However, when we came over in April we were struck by the warmth of the welcome and generosity of the hospitality for which Jersey is renowned.

Immediately we felt we could make our home here although it means a separation from our families on the mainland.

Since being ordained, I came to Winchester Diocese 22 years ago, starting off as a Curate in one of the residential parishes on the outskirts of Winchester itself. All our moves have been in an almost straight line in a south¬westerly direction which, by coincidence, if extended points almost directly at the Channel Islands. While at Stanmore and Oliver's Battery I became involved in prison life, acting as a relief chaplain.

My first parish as Vicar was North Baddesley, between Southampton and Romsey. This was a development area with lots of young families in new housing, but based on a tiny mediaeval church. We also had a modern daughter church which we needed to enlarge. At this time the liturgical movement was introducing great changes in worship, and we discovered the advantages offered by the freedom of the new services. Also while there, pastoral reorganisation caused the parish to be united with Chilworth, where the people enjoyed traditional worship. 

In 1978 we moved to Highcliffe, which is well known to the Vicar of St Luke's as he used to live here prior to his ordination. This is a popular retirement area, but also a residential base for many people working on the south coast, and a home base for many who worked on the seas or overseas: Highcliffe (population approx. 12,000) is united with the hamlet of Hinton Admiral, an agricultural parish. Again there are two churches; and again it became necessary to enlarge and enhance one of them to accommodate the increasing congregation and to enable a wider range of activities to take place. This was a major undertaking which the parishioners did to celebrate the 150th anniversary of the building of a church when the Victorians were discovering the pleasures of the south coast.

Thirteen years ago I became closely involved in the Diocesan Advisory Committee for the Care of Churches, acting as its secretary for a number of years. This committee is involved when any of the mainland churches wants to carry out repairs, or make alterations, or provide any permanent fixtures. I have also served as one of the Bishop's Examining Chaplains who interview potential ordinands. So I have been very concerned for Church growth, both where the church is the congregation and where the church is the building, and also in that limited area where it is the ordained ministry, as when someone says "I am going into the church."

More recently I was appointed Rural Dean of Christchurch and finally an Honorary Canon of Winchester Cathedral. But most of all I am a parish priest who enjoys pastoral work, caring for my parishioners, whether or not they are part of the congregation. In this I enjoy the wholehearted support and help of Helen who works hard, but as someone wrote in a letter only today, "so quietly and unostentatiously" at knowing and loving the people. I have also enjoyed working with colleagues, both with Curates in our own church and also with ecumenical brethren in the wider community.

I am really looking forward to taking up this appointment in the Diocese for, although it is a very different form of ministry with a lot of responsibility, it is grounded in the ordinary pastoral and liturgical duties that every priest enjoys. It will be good to be Rector of St Helier and have a church and congregation to care for and worship with. It will also be good to be so closely involved with the whole community, both in the Parish and in the Island. It will be a privilege to attend the States and to have the opportunity to speak.

Of course, after nearly fifteen years, Helen and I will be sad to leave Highcliffe and Hinton Admiral, and the Rural Deanery of Christchurch, where we have made many friends; but we are thrilled at the thought of going to such an exciting and exacting post in a very pleasant place.

John Seaford

Nellie the Elephant Takes a Break

The elephant slide from St Brelade's Elephant Park is off for refurbishment, as captured in this photo from Facebook. Here's a poem about it, with allusions to other elephant related material! I like to write lighter poems sometimes!

Nellie the Elephant Takes a Break

Nellie the Elephant packed her trunk,
And said goodbye to the Elephant park;
Off she went with a trumpety trump,
Leaving the children down in the dump;
Where their pink elephant once sat,
Was just an empty wooden slat;
The children cry, where is she? they say:
Meanwhile along the Weighbridge way,
Drinkers saw a large Pink Elephant whizzing by;
Did I drink too much? Can an Elephant fly?
Nellie was on a trailer, off to a nice spa,
To be spruced up, she had to travel far;
But she didn’t trundle off to the jungle,
Unless her lorry driver made a bungle,
And if so, what a Dumbo he would be,
He’d say, “oh dear, oh dear oh me”;
But she’ll be back, and before September:
That, like the elephant, you can remember;
And the Technicolor Pachyderm once again
Will grace the play park, and there reign;
Just the thing for children come to play:
On such a nice warm sunny Summer’s day;
Children slide down, you sip your lemonade:
As you see the Pink Elephant on Parade!

1986 - 40 years ago - March - Part 2

1986 - 40 years ago - March - Part 2

March 17-23

DISCLOSURES about profits made by local oil companies lead the president of the Jersey Farmers Union to ask Agriculture and Fisheries president Senator Pierre Horsfall to take the matter up in the States and head an inquiry into the issue.

A 19-year-old unemployed Jerseyman, Steve Shane Mesney, pleads guilty in the Police Court to grave and criminal assault. The Court hears that 27-year-old Alan McCormick required 50 stitches after being found lying bleeding in Chapel Lane after an attack by Mesney.

Jersey historian Mrs Joan Stevens dies aged 75.

The States pass the controversial Queen's Valley Reservoir Law after thrashing out the amendments but opponents of the flooding plans say that they have not given up the fig ht.

Mrs Helen Baker, a founder of the Save Our Valleys group, says that the anti-flooders may petition the Queen.

Automaten Gaudin, the Five Oaks catering and refrigeration equipment company, closes with the loss of 11 jobs and is declared en desastre in the Royal Court.

The former offices of the Jersey New Waterworks Company in Mulcaster Street are bought by the Banco de Bilbao for £1 million.

The Police Court hears that doctors have no legal right to special parking places when a practitioner, Dr James Hugh, appears to answer more than 30 parking charges.

The 100-year-old iron railings at the central Market are to be surveyed by a specialist structural engineer after it is discovered they are rusting badly.

March 24-30

THE Island celebrates the 100th anniversary of the birth of its greatest artist of modern times, Edmund Blampied. Tributes are paid to the way in which he so faithfully recorded the essential nature of Jersey and its inhabitants.

The arrest of a further 13 people on suspicion of drunken driving brings the total of arrests for the offence to 104 for the first three months of 1986.

Figures published by the Social Security Committee show that the 'flu epidemic of February and March broke all records. Between 17 February and 14 March, 5,896 medical certificates were issued.

Mr Robin Seymour, chairman of the Island's largest hotel group, warns that Jersey stands to lose its tourism market if hotels up-grade and increase their prices too rapidly.

Finance and economics Committee president Senator Reg Jeune says he is horrified by a suggestion from the Civil Aviation Authority that Jersey could lose its Heathrow connection.

The Jersey Gas Company's annual report for 1985 is published and reveals that there are plans for a move from the existing Bath Street building to Tunnel Street. The report also reveals a profit after tax in 1985 of over £172 million.

Speaking at an Institute of Bankers dinner, the principal of Highlands College, Mr Wally Clarke, attacks the poor training record of the local finance industry.

 

Elizabeth Castle opens its gates to the public for the first time since a £120,000 facelift designed to make the fortification more easily understood by visitors.

ITV reporting on the Trans Debate in Jersey Schools

The recent report by ITV was (I thought) very biased. Teachers are prohibited from (a) telling parents and (b) using biological gender pronouns in cases of children declaring themselves as "Trans". But what if other children tell their parents and it gets back to the child's parents? The concept of secrecy is "porous" at best, and presumably at parent / teacher review meetings the teachers then revert to using biological gender pronouns for the child, which must make the risk of slip-ups considerable. They must also take care in school end of term reports.

Emotional Framing and Operational Contradictions

I think this presented the issue in a way that downplayed the practical and safeguarding tensions within the current Trans Inclusion Schools Guidance. This is because the report focused on emotional framing rather than the operational contradictions teachers face.

The guidance requires teachers not to inform parents if a child declares a different gender identity at school unless the child explicitly consents. At the same time, teachers must use the child’s chosen name and pronouns in school settings, even though biological sex remains relevant for safeguarding, sports, facilities, and internal data systems!

"Staff should not disclose information concerning a child’s trans* status to others, including parents, carers and other members of the school community unless legally required to do so or because the child has asked the school to do so. A child’s trans* status must not be discussed by staff outside of school with friends etc and the confidentiality of the child should be foremost in their minds." 
https://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Education/Transgender%20Guidance%20for%20Jersey%20Schools.pdf

This creates a dual‑track system: one linguistic and administrative reality for safeguarding, and another for social interaction. Teachers must constantly switch between these two registers depending on who they are speaking to, which is inherently error‑prone.

The idea that this can be kept confidential is “porous.” Schools are socially transparent environments. Children talk to each other, and they talk to their parents. Parents talk to other parents. Information flows sideways through the community in ways no policy can control.

Even if teachers follow the guidance perfectly, other children may mention the situation at home, and the information may reach the child’s parents indirectly. This means the policy’s assumption of controlled secrecy is unrealistic in practice.

Parent–teacher meetings introduce another layer of risk. Teachers are expected to revert to biological pronouns when speaking to parents who are not aware of the child’s school identity. Switching pronoun sets depending on the audience is cognitively demanding, especially in a busy meeting where teachers are discussing multiple pupils.

End‑of‑term reports create similar problems. Reports for parents must use the child’s real name and biological pronouns for the child, but internally teachers must refer to the child in their chosen name and  sex. Teachers must therefore maintain two parallel linguistic systems in writing as well as speech, increasing the likelihood of accidental disclosure.

Safeguarding law adds further tension. Biological sex remains the legally relevant category for risk assessment, supervision, and certain activities. Teachers must therefore treat the child as one sex for safeguarding purposes while treating them as another for social purposes. This contradiction is extremely difficult to manage consistently.

School Trips

The ITV report highlighted a complaint from a trans‑identified child who felt distressed at being required to share accommodation with their biological sex on school trips. That emotional experience is real for the child, but ITV presented it as though the only relevant factor was the child’s discomfort, without acknowledging the wider safeguarding framework that schools must operate within.

"Staff should plan how best to meet the needs of trans* children on a residential trip. A trans* child should be able to sleep in a room appropriate to their gender identity. If a trans* child is uncomfortable with this, alternative arrangements must be provided." 

https://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Education/Transgender%20Guidance%20for%20Jersey%20Schools.pdf

Safeguarding, however, applies to all children on the trip, not just the one who is unhappy with the arrangement. Schools have legal duties around privacy, dignity, supervision, and risk management that cannot be suspended for a single case. These duties are based on biological sex because safeguarding is built around physical risk categories, not identity categories.

If a child is biologically male, then regardless of their gender identity, they have the anatomy, physical development, and strength profile of a male. This matters for safeguarding because it shapes the risk environment for other children, particularly in intimate settings like shared bedrooms, bathrooms, and changing areas.

Moving a biologically male child into girls’ accommodation introduces safeguarding risks for the girls. These risks do not depend on the child’s intentions or personality. They arise from the structural reality that girls cannot consent to sharing private overnight spaces with a male peer, and their parents would not expect it.

Even if the child is entirely harmless, safeguarding is not about judging individual character. It is about preventing situations that could lead to discomfort, allegations, breaches of privacy, or harm. Schools must therefore consider the rights and safety of every child, not only the one who identifies differently.

ITV’s framing presented the school’s decision as discriminatory or insensitive, but it omitted the legal and safeguarding logic behind sex‑based accommodation. It also did not acknowledge that many jurisdictions require overnight arrangements to be based on biological sex precisely because identity cannot override safeguarding obligations.

This omission makes the issue appear simpler than it is. Overnight trips expose the fundamental contradiction in the current guidance: schools are told to treat the child socially as their chosen gender, but they must apply safeguarding rules based on biological sex. In day‑to‑day classroom life, this tension can be masked. On residential trips, it becomes unavoidable.

A policy built on secrecy and identity‑based categories cannot function in settings where biological sex is operationally relevant. Accommodation, supervision, and parental expectations all depend on sex, not pronouns. ITV’s report did not explore this, which is why the coverage felt incomplete.

Conclusions

ITV’s coverage did not foreground these structural contradictions or the scale of public concern. It also did not reflect the growing political pressure to revise or replace the guidance, including petitions, propositions in the States, and concerns raised by safeguarding groups.

The deeper issue is that the policy is built on incompatible assumptions: that secrecy can be maintained in a school environment, that teachers can flawlessly code‑switch between pronoun systems, and that safeguarding can be separated from parental knowledge. These assumptions simply do not hold in real life.

Reviewing Claus Westermann's Creation

Claus Westermann “Creation”

This had a profound effect on my thinking when I read it in the 1980s.

A bit of background story.   Claus Westermann (7 October 1909 – 11 June 2000) was a German Protestant Old Testament scholar. He taught at the University of Heidelberg from 1958 to 1978. Westermann is considered one of the premier Old Testament scholars of the twentieth century. 

Westermann’s observation that God never interrogates the serpent is one of the most important, and easily overlooked, features of Genesis 3. It shapes his entire understanding of how the text treats evil, responsibility, and the limits of human knowledge:

The serpent’s silence before God

In Genesis 3, God questions:
Adam: “Where are you?”
Eve: “What is this you have done?”

But God never asks the serpent anything. There is no “Why did you do this?” or “What is your purpose?” The serpent receives only a sentence, not a dialogue. 

For Westermann, this is not an accident. It is a literary and theological signal: the serpent’s origin, motive, and inner nature are deliberately withheld. Evil as a mystery, not an explained mechanism.

Westermann argues that Genesis 3 refuses to give an origin story for evil. The serpent simply appears - a creature within creation, cunning, speaking, but unexplained. This is consistent with the Hebrew Bible’s general approach:

· Evil is real.
· Evil is not metaphysically grounded.
· Evil’s origin is not revealed.

This is why Westermann insists that Genesis 3 is not a myth of cosmic rebellion or a metaphysical Fall. It is a story of human disobedience within a world where the possibility of temptation already exists, but whose deeper source remains beyond human grasp.

Westermann stresses that the serpent is introduced as:

“one of the animals the LORD God had made”

So cunning, but still a creature, neither divine nor demonic in the later Christian sense. By refusing to question the serpent, the text avoids turning it into a cosmic antagonist. It remains a creature, not a metaphysical enemy. This keeps Genesis 3 firmly within the worldview of the Hebrew Bible, not later dualistic or mythic systems.

The move to read the devil back into the serpent is a later development in Jewish and Christian interpretation, not something present in Genesis itself. The ancient text gives no hint that the serpent is anything other than a creature “that the LORD God had made.”. I have always thought that narrative re-interpretation comes dangerously close to a dualistic outlook.

Westermann famously argues that "the narrative of Genesis 2–3 does not speak of a fall" in the traditional dogmatic sense. Instead, he views it as a "primeval event" that describes the ongoing reality of being human.

He asserts that the word "fall" is inaccurate and deceptive because the text does not describe a move from a "perfect" state to a "ruined" one, but rather the introduction of disobedience and limits.
Alienation, Not Separation: He interprets the expulsion from Eden as alienation from God, not a definitive separation. He emphasizes that God continues to care for and give meaning to human life outside the garden.

(a) Agreement with Jewish Thought

Westermann’s work often mirrors the Jewish perspective that humans were created with two inclinations: the Yetzer HaTov (good) and Yetzer HaRa (evil/selfish). Like Jewish scholars, Westermann argues that humans remain God’s creatures after the garden. There is no "stain" passed down; instead, there is an ongoing choice between obedience and rebellion.

He agrees with the Rabbinic view that Genesis 3 explains why life is difficult (toil, pain, mortality) rather than why humans are inherently "evil."

Focus on the Narrative: Both prioritize the literal text over later systematic dogmas like the "Fall of Man."

(b) Agreement with Eastern Orthodoxy

Westermann’s "primeval history" approach resonates with the Orthodox concept of Ancestral Sin (as opposed to Original Sin) and Mortality vs. Guilt: Eastern Orthodoxy teaches that we inherit Adam’s mortality, not his guilt. Westermann similarly focuses on the "limits" placed on humanity (death and toil) as the primary consequence of the garden narrative.

The Goal is Still Union: Westermann’s idea that God remains "at work" in the world after the garden mirrors the Orthodox view that the Imago Dei (Image of God) was darkened but not destroyed.
Process over Event: He views the "fall" as a description of human frailty, which aligns with the Orthodox view of humanity as being created in an "infant" or "developing" state rather than a state of static perfection.

Last Orders! The Reform of the Licencing Law and why it may cost the consumer more

Reforming the Jersey alcohol licensing law has taken over 16 years of active discussion and multiple failed attempts. While the previous legislation (Licensing (Jersey) Law 1974) remained largely unchanged for over 50 years, the specific effort to modernize the system and dismantle the Licensing Assembly began in earnest around 2009. It has only just been approved now!

Bailiwick Express reports that

"Jersey’s long-standing licensing assembly will be dismantled, with powers over alcohol licensing handed over to government regulators in one of the most significant upheavals of the island’s licensing system in decades."

"The package of reforms, brought forward by Economic Development Minister Kirsten Morel, aimed at “reducing complexities” and speeding up the process for businesses seeking licences."

"Under the new law, the Licensing Assembly will be abolished, with oversight passing to the government’s Regulation Directorate."

Good news? Perhaps not for the consumer. The words "government’s Regulation Directorate" suggest bureaucracy and extra costs, despite it being an existing body (albeit unknown to most of the population). And the suggestion would not be wholly wrong!

While the reform aims to be cost-neutral for the taxpayer, it will lead to significant changes in fee structures.

The new regulatory system is intended to be funded by the hospitality and retail industry through licence fees rather than general taxation. In simple terms, while the hospitality industry has always paid for licences, the old system was essentially a subsidised service, whereas the new one is a commercial-style regulatory model. 

For decades, the Licensing Assembly (made up of Jurats and the Bailiff) operated through the Royal Court. Because the Jurats are volunteers and the court's administrative costs are bundled into the general judicial budget, the "true" cost of running the licensing system was unquantified and largely covered by the taxpayer.

Under the new system this will be moved to the "Regulation Directorate". This is a government department with paid staff, digital infrastructure, and operational overheads. To avoid using general tax money, the new law sets fees at a "cost recovery" level. Essentially, the industry is now paying for the full salary and desk of the person processing their application.

Expect an expansion of civil servants within the directorate, unless I am being unduly cynical. Official Ministerial Decisions signed in early 2026 explicitly state there are no financial or staffing implications resulting from the transfer of licensing duties. I'll believe that if it is true in 2027. 

For instance, handling the "centuries-old" volume of applications previously managed by the court system may require additional administrative and technical staff. The Directorate must now publish all applications online and provide formal explanations to Parish Constables if their decisions differ from local Parish Assembly views, adding a new layer of mandatory administrative work.

Within the existing system, fees have been largely "static" since 2006. A large supermarket pays the same flat fee as a small corner shop for an off-licence, which doesn't reflect the regulatory effort or their market share. 

The government is shifting the burden toward off-licences (supermarkets and liquor stores), which now account for roughly two-thirds of the alcohol market. This allows them to keep fees for struggling hospitality venues (pubs and restaurants) more stable while still funding the new Directorate's workload.

While the Regulation Directorate’s goal is to be "cost-neutral" for the government, the retailer's costs are going up, and those are usually passed straight to you. So expect to pay more at the supermarket - although this may reduce binge drinking, so is not entirely bad news for health.

As of early 2026, existing licence fees generate approximately £260,000 annually for the department; the Directorate expects to handle an additional 30–40 new applications per year under the expanded regime. Fees have not seen a standard inflationary increase since 2007. The Regulation Directorate will set fees to achieve "full cost recovery," meaning the industry must pay for the Directorate's staff, digital systems, and enforcement.

But on the positive side, many businesses currently pay multiple fees for different categories (e.g., a "Taverner's" licence plus an "Entertainment" licence). The new system collapses these into just three categories (On-licence, Off-licence, and Events), which may reduce total individual payments for some venues even if per-licence rates rise.