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

Among the many challenges that grab our attention in an age of anxiety is that of a widespread and persistent declining birthrate in so many countries—including all the ‘Western’ countries of the world.   This essay highlights some of the basic information—easily accessible online in our day—about population statistics, trends, and birthrates.   The question is raised whether Christian faith fosters a different worldview that leads to our valuing marriage, family, and childbirths. The World Bank says that a population will be sustainable if the total fertility rate (how many births a woman has over her lifetime) is 2.3. [1]   According to the statistics provided by Database.earth, the global fertility rate peaked in 1963 at 5.0142 children per woman from 1950 to the present.   In 1950, the rate was 4.8596.   Since 1963, the rate has steadily declined.   The rate in 2023 was 2.3118. [2] The following United Nations chart (World Factbook also posts data) lists fertility rates for a s