Introduction The world is a hateful place.   Who can deny it?   As Paul says, For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by others and hating one another (Titus 3.3, ESV). Quite possibly, this is what Paul meant in Ephesians 2.3 when he described the pre-Christian life as a time when we were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. [1] In Titus, Paul contrasts our hatred of others to the goodness and lovingkindness of God our Saviour (Titus 3.4), and in Ephesians our wrath as sons of disobedience following the prince of the power of the air contrast with God’s mercy and love (Ephesians 2.4).   To pray for our enemies is to move from malice, envy, hatred, and wrath to God’s goodness, lovingkindness, mercy, and love. A Complete Ethic Jesus prayed from the cross for His enemies: 'Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do' (Luke 23.34).  This

  The disciples were enjoying a rest along the Windrush River on their journey from Monmouth to Oxford.   In Witney, one of the disciples had picked up a newspaper and was now reading headlines to the others.   ‘Well, this is rather humourous!’ he exclaimed. ‘What is it?’ asked another disciple. ‘Well, a major focus of this last General Synod of the Church of England has been to bring about reconciliation after all the divisions the revisionists have caused in trying to change the Church of England’s views on sex and marriage.’ ‘Yes, we know that.’ ‘And...,’ said the disciple, holding up his hand, ‘And so now everyone is supposed to ignore the fundamental differences over sexuality and marriage and get on with other business.  This ignoring the great division is being called "reconciliation."’ ‘Get to the funny bit,’ shouted a disciple. ‘All right, all right.   So, at Synod, someone put forward a motion that the Synod acknowledge that there are some in the Church

Having pressed ahead with its blessings of homosexual unions, [1] the Church of England now wants to repair the disunity this has inevitably rendered in the denomination.   The words ‘love’ and ‘faith’ were used to enshroud this rejection of God’s commandments on gender, sex, and marriage.   Now the word ‘reconciliation’ has been introduced to attempt to rally unity between the orthodox and heretical groups despite fundamental disagreement.   The baker has followed a faulty recipe, the cake has flopped, and now he imagines he might repair the mess he has made with a pretty icing.   Theological terms—nice-sounding terms—like ‘love’, ‘faith’, and ‘reconciliation’ are used in feigned spirituality, devoid of their Biblical meanings, in order to drag Christians along a heretical path. [2]   The overseers of a Church that they have abused and diminished [3] cajole faithful believers not supporting their wayward ways. ‘Reconciliation’ is a term found in Paul’s writings, and if Scripture i

Romans 8.28 in the ESV translation reads, And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. After considering the translation, the question that begs for an answer is whether the common interpretation of this verse is correct.  That is, is Paul saying that God turns adversity into something good for those who love Him, or does his point lie elsewhere? First, the verse could be translated differently, as the NIV does: And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. The meaning is very close however the passage is translated.  The difference is whether ‘all things’ or ‘God’ is the subject.  Do all things work together for good, or does God work all things together for good?  The Greek grammar could go either way.  My preference in translation lies with the NIV, however, as it captures the meaning of the verse read in light of th

  Introduction: A month or so ago, crown Prince William was in the news about his relationship to the Church of England.   The story is that he is not a Christian but would nonetheless fulfill the role of being head of the Church once coroneted as king. [1]   He would, indeed, be a most suitable king for what England has become: the unbelieving king oversees a Church full of ritual without the faith it received through the centuries and that merely throws back at the culture what the culture threw to it.   Imagine instead a king, who is, after all, the head of the Church of England, standing up to a feckless Church and insisting it do what it is supposed to do—pass on the faith once for all delivered to the saints.   William’s willingness to support the Church in its rituals and institutions is an acknowledgement of its past role in forming English and is a statement that the Church is innocuous enough for the developing culture because the Church in the present is already driven by