Arthur Roderick, Christian Education Europe, ACE and Teach caught up in a web of ecumenical deceit. (2014)

Exposing the Dangers of Ecumenical Deceit in Christian Education: A Warning to Home-Educated Parents and Bible Students

In 2011, I became deeply concerned when I observed the direction in which TEACH (The Christian Education Association for Home Educators) was heading. The issue that prompted me to write this article was their partnership with a Roman Catholic-led, ecumenical, pro-life group, SPUC (Society for the Protection of Unborn Children). This alliance raised serious concerns, as it exemplified a dangerous compromise that undermines the scriptural integrity TEACH claims to uphold. I immediately raised this concern with TEACH, but my alarm grew as I realised that the organisation was increasingly stepping into a web of ecumenical deceit, diluting the biblical foundation it purported to promote.

As Bible-believing parents, it is crucial that we approach organisations like TEACH with caution. I would strongly advise against subscribing to TEACH, as their partnership with groups like SPUC is leading many well-meaning Christian families directly into the hands of the Imperialistic Roman Church. This partnership may appear harmless, even noble, due to the shared pro-life stance, but it is a veneer for deeper theological compromises that should alarm any student of the Word of God.

The dangers of such ecumenical ties cannot be overstated. SPUC, under its Catholic leadership, works with Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, and non-Christians, forming a coalition that obscures the purity of the Gospel message. While their pro-life stance may seem like a positive cause, it is ultimately a façade for promoting a broader, more dangerous ecumenism. In the words of John Smeaton, the head of SPUC: “The hope, I think, is that by linking with those of like minds, we may yet be able to do something about the paradigm of the society in which the gospel cannot be heard by those whom we would reach.”

However, this hope is clouded by the fact that TEACH, in its efforts to broaden support and gain funding, has chosen to compromise doctrinal purity for the sake of gaining political or social traction. I cannot emphasise enough how vital it is for Christian parents and Bible students to be vigilant about such alliances, as they can lead believers away from the exclusive authority of Scripture and towards the dangers of syncretism. Many churches in the UK have already fallen prey to postmodernism, emergent church philosophy, and other unbiblical teachings, which often have ties to ecumenical efforts that promote a watered-down gospel.

Arthur Roderick, a prominent figure in Christian education, made an ambiguous statement regarding the purpose of these broad alliances. His words seemed to suggest that by joining forces with like-minded individuals, the goal was to influence society. However, I found his stance problematic. TEACH, as a business masquerading as a Christian organisation, was not only promoting a product but also creating opportunities to align itself with groups that undermine the very foundations of the Christian faith.

As believers, we must be careful to separate ourselves from organisations and movements that compromise on doctrine. Biblical separation is not merely a suggestion, but a command from Scripture. As 1 Timothy 4:16 warns, “Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.” The doctrine of Scripture must be our foundation, not the whims of social or political pressure.

The influence of ecumenism within TEACH is not just a theoretical issue—it is a practical danger that leads many astray. TEACH has been treading a dangerous path toward apostasy, and those who follow it blindly risk falling into the same theological traps. Their current partnerships, especially with organisations that do not hold to biblical orthodoxy, create an environment ripe for deception.

Furthermore, the failure of TEACH to fully disclose the true nature of these alliances is deeply troubling. Initial event posters promoting these partnerships failed to mention that the events were composed of a mixture of Roman Catholics, New Age Christians, liberal Christians, and ecumenists. This kind of deceptive marketing leaves unsuspecting Christian families unaware of the spiritual dangers they are exposed to.

In conclusion, it is essential that Christian home-educating parents and Bible students remain vigilant in their choices regarding educational platforms. We must not allow ourselves or our children to be swayed by organisations that undermine the integrity of the Gospel. Biblical separation is not optional, but a matter of safeguarding the faith and protecting the spiritual well-being of those we are entrusted to educate. I implore you to evaluate organisations like TEACH critically, as their ecumenical entanglements are not only spiritually dangerous, but they also betray a commitment to a compromised, unbiblical version of Christianity.

he Dangers of Co-Belligerency and Omission of Scripture in the Fight Against Abortion: A Call for Biblical Integrity in Christian Education

A critical and often overlooked danger in the fight against abortion, especially in ecumenical partnerships, is the omission of Scripture from the conversation. While it is undeniable that standing against abortion is a moral and social imperative for every believer, it is essential that we do so with the centrality of Christ and the authority of Scripture at the heart of our stance. To stand against abortion without the explicit foundation of biblical truth is to engage in a hollow fight—one that, despite its good intentions, fails to address the root of the issue: sin and the need for redemption through Jesus Christ.

It is crucial to understand that the pro-life position is not merely a political or social issue—it is fundamentally a biblical issue. The sanctity of life is rooted in the truth of Scripture, specifically in the creation narrative where God declares that human life is sacred, made in His image (Genesis 1:26-27). To omit Scripture from the conversation about abortion is to ignore the deeper theological implications of why life is valuable and why abortion is wrong. Without the lens of Scripture, the fight against abortion risks becoming a mere moral crusade, detached from the saving Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The absence of Scripture in this conversation also means that the opportunity to proclaim the Gospel is lost. As believers, we are called to engage the culture with the message of the Gospel—this includes our stance on abortion. Abortion is not just an issue of life and death; it is also a matter of sin and salvation. When we omit the biblical truth of humanity’s fallen state, the need for repentance, and the redemptive work of Christ, we miss the opportunity to point people to the only true solution: the Gospel.

In Matthew 5:13-16, Jesus calls His followers the “salt of the earth” and the “light of the world.” Salt preserves and flavours, and light dispels darkness. Our stand against abortion should not merely be a protest against a societal wrong, but a reflection of the light of the Gospel. Without Scripture, our stand against abortion becomes merely a social justice issue, lacking the power of transformation that only the Gospel can bring. Christ must be at the centre of our actions, as He is the only one who offers true hope and healing to those affected by the tragedy of abortion.

Furthermore, removing Scripture from the abortion debate also opens the door to compromise. In ecumenical partnerships where Scripture is omitted or sidelined, the fight against abortion can quickly become a platform for false teachings or misleading ideologies. Groups like SPUC, while sharing a common goal in protecting unborn life, do not hold to biblical principles and may promote a message that is at odds with the Gospel. Without Scripture to ground our arguments, we risk losing our distinct Christian voice in the fight, and instead, align ourselves with secular or unbiblical perspectives that are incompatible with the truth of God’s Word.

As Bible-believing Christians, we must never engage in any cause—no matter how noble—without ensuring that Christ remains at the centre. This is not merely about taking a stand for life; it is about proclaiming the truth of God’s Word in all things, including in our efforts to protect the unborn. Without Scripture, our actions are hollow and our message incomplete.

In the case of TEACH and other organisations partnering with ecumenical groups, the failure to highlight the biblical foundation of the pro-life position is especially dangerous. By omitting Scripture and relying on shared moral or political values, we risk leaving Christ out of the conversation altogether. This compromises the integrity of our witness and undermines the purpose of our fight. The Gospel must always be the foundation of everything we do, as it is the only true hope for a lost and dying world.

In conclusion, the omission of Scripture in the fight against abortion is not only theologically wrong, it is spiritually dangerous. The fight for life is ultimately a fight for the sanctity of God’s creation, and this must be grounded in the truth of Scripture. By failing to place Christ at the centre of our stance on abortion, we risk reducing it to a mere moral issue, divorced from the Gospel message. As Christian home educators, Bible students, and parents, we must stand firm in our commitment to biblical truth, ensuring that Christ remains at the heart of everything we do—especially in our efforts to protect the unborn. The Gospel must always be at the centre of the pro-life message, and we must never compromise this foundational truth, no matter how noble the cause may appear.

 

The Dangers of Uninformed Partnerships and the Omission of Crucial Information: A Closer Look at TEACH’s Involvement with CRE North 2014

On July 25th, 2014, I received a promotional poster from TEACH, inviting me to attend the Christian Resources Exhibition (CRE) North 2014, which was to be held in Manchester on the 8th and 9th of October. The poster read as follows:

TEACH at CRE North 2014

TEACH will be at Christian Resources Exhibition North 2014 (in Manchester) on the 8th and 9th of October. We are pleased to invite you and your friends as our guests, saving you up to £6.00 per ticket. To find out more or to claim your ticket, please email:

teach@christian-education.org.

About Christian Resources Exhibition:

So much to see and do
• Over 100 stands with everything needed to equip and empower your church or ministry
• Around 30 inspiring seminars
• A full Arts Theatre programme
• Interviews and music from the Spotlight Stage
• Special sessions on how best to handle music and AV in your church

Get informed
Choose from inspiring seminars and workshops aimed at meeting the needs of the church today and tomorrow.

All seminars are led by gifted communicators who are experts in their field.

Be enriched and entertained
Make the most of your time at CRE by soaking up music, theatre, and entertainment in the Arts Theatre – or browse and choose from hundreds of books, CDs, DVDs, and gift ideas.

Or just relax and meet with friends for coffee in the Spotlight Cafe.

To find out more, visit: http://www.creonline.co.uk/

---

At first glance, this may appear to be a simple promotional invitation for a Christian event, with TEACH offering a discount to its supporters. The tone of the message suggests that this is an exciting and uplifting event aimed at empowering and equipping churches and ministries. However, a deeper examination of the event and the organisations involved reveals significant concerns that TEACH fails to disclose—concerns that every Christian home-educating parent, Bible student, and believer should be aware of. It is essential that we do not naively accept invitations or promotions without carefully scrutinising the organisations and individuals we choose to partner with or support, particularly when it involves our families and the instruction of our children.

What TEACH Is Not Telling You

While the CRE North exhibition is presented as a general Christian event, it is crucial to note that many of the organisations and individuals associated with the event are far from being biblically sound. One of the most disturbing omissions in TEACH’s promotional material is the failure to inform attendees about the controversial background of some of the key participants in the event. These omissions are particularly troubling for those who might attend, assuming that the event is biblically grounded and aligned with Scripture.

A particularly concerning connection is the involvement of the Roman Catholic Bishop of Salford, who has been heavily implicated in a scandal related to the sexual molestation of 50 children at St. Bede’s in Manchester. This grave issue casts a dark shadow over the event, especially given the prominent role of the Catholic Church in the exhibition. Why is TEACH not informing parents about this association? The failure to disclose such information is deeply troubling, as it could lead parents and educators into supporting a platform that is entangled in serious moral and ethical controversy.

Furthermore, this scandal is not an isolated issue but part of a broader pattern of sexual abuse within the Roman Catholic Church. This case exemplifies a deeper issue within the Catholic hierarchy, where cases of abuse have often been covered up, leading to widespread corruption within the institution. Why would a Christian educational organisation like TEACH, which claims to uphold biblical values, promote an event with such a problematic association?

The Influence of Churches Together (CTE)

Another key issue with TEACH’s promotion of CRE North 2014 is its association with Churches Together (CTE), a group that plays a prominent role in the exhibition. CTE is an ecumenical organisation that brings together various Christian denominations, but it has been criticised for compromising biblical doctrine in order to achieve unity at any cost. Many of the organisations within CTE have adopted theological positions that stray far from orthodox Christianity. Some of these organisations embrace modernist views that water down the Gospel message, while others have even aligned themselves with non-Christian or heretical movements.

The ecumenical nature of CTE blurs the line between true Christianity and other belief systems, fostering alliances with groups that hold to non-biblical doctrines. This can lead to doctrinal confusion and compromise, as it encourages a kind of unity that disregards important theological distinctions. This is especially problematic when we consider the biblical call for separation from false teachings, as outlined in 2 Corinthians 6:14, which says, “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers.” When TEACH partners with CTE and other ecumenical organisations, it risks undermining this biblical principle of separation.

The issue is not simply about differing opinions but about ensuring that the truth of Scripture is preserved. Ecumenism can lead to a minimisation of essential doctrines, which ultimately weakens the foundation of the Christian faith. This kind of compromise can be dangerous, as it diminishes the distinctiveness of the Gospel and its transformative power. By partnering with organisations that hold to unbiblical beliefs, TEACH is risking its ability to promote the pure Gospel message, which must be our ultimate priority.

The Dangers of Co-Belligerency and Ecumenism

It is easy to understand the appeal of ecumenical partnerships when it comes to fighting moral issues like abortion, where groups from different backgrounds might agree on a common cause. However, it is essential to recognise the inherent dangers in co-belligerency—joining forces with others in the fight against abortion or other social issues without holding to the same biblical truth. While the cause may seem just, when Christian organisations enter into alliances with groups that hold to unbiblical beliefs, they risk compromising their testimony and confusing their mission.

The Bible makes it clear that Christians are to stand firm in the truth and avoid alliances that blur doctrinal lines. When we join forces with groups that do not hold to the full truth of Scripture, we are tacitly endorsing their beliefs and potentially leading others into error. This is particularly dangerous for those who are new to the faith or who are still learning to discern biblical truth. We must be vigilant in protecting the purity of the Gospel, as Paul exhorts in Galatians 1:8-9, “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.”

The Omission of Scripture in the Pro-Life Movement

One of the most troubling aspects of TEACH’s promotion of the CRE event is the failure to clearly emphasise the biblical foundation for standing against abortion. The pro-life cause is one that Christians should passionately support, but we must be careful to ensure that our stance is rooted in Scripture. The sanctity of life is not simply a moral issue; it is a deeply theological one, grounded in the biblical truth that all human life is created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27).

When we remove Scripture from the conversation about abortion, we risk turning a theological issue into a purely moral or political one. The Gospel must always be at the heart of the pro-life movement, as it is the Gospel that offers the ultimate solution to the brokenness of the world, including the tragedy of abortion. Without the redemptive power of the Gospel, our efforts are in vain. This is why TEACH’s promotion of the event, without emphasising the biblical foundation for the pro-life cause, is so concerning.

Why This Matters: Guarding Against Spiritual Compromise

The failure to fully disclose the problematic associations at CRE North 2014 is not a minor oversight—it is a significant spiritual concern. By endorsing an event with such questionable associations, TEACH risks leading unsuspecting Christians into partnerships that could undermine their faith and compromise their ability to stand firm in the truth of God’s Word. The Bible is clear that we must guard against false unity and remain vigilant in protecting the purity of our doctrine.

For Christian home educators, parents, and Bible students, it is crucial to examine the organisations and events we support. We must ask ourselves: Is this event or partnership aligned with biblical truth? Does it honour Christ? Is it rooted in Scripture? We cannot afford to be naive or complacent when it comes to such important issues, as the spiritual health of our families and the integrity of the Gospel are at stake.

Standing Firm in Biblical Truth

The promotion of CRE North 2014 by TEACH raises significant concerns about their commitment to biblical integrity and doctrinal purity. By endorsing an event that is tied to questionable alliances and compromising beliefs, TEACH risks leading Christian families down a path of spiritual confusion and compromise. We must be vigilant in safeguarding the truth of the Gospel, ensuring that every organisation we partner with upholds the full counsel of Scripture. The Gospel is our highest priority, and we must ensure that all of our actions, including those in the public sphere, reflect the unchanging truth of God’s Word.

Christian home-educating parents and Bible students must carefully consider the organisations and events they support, weighing them against the authority of Scripture. Only by standing firm in biblical truth can we protect our families from deception and ensure that our witness remains pure and faithful to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Let us not be swayed by popular movements or ecumenical alliances that threaten the integrity of our faith, but instead, let us remain steadfast in our commitment to the truth.

we must not allow the spirit of ecumenism to weaken our resolve to stand firm on the truth of Scripture. The unity that God calls us to is not one that compromises the truth, but one that is rooted in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Let us stand firm in that truth, for the sake of our families, our churches, and the body of Christ as a whole.

 

TEACH did respond to this e-mail:

From: teach@christian-education.org ; To: miguel_hayworth Subject: RE: FAO: Colin A. Slater and Arthur Rodrick. Sent: Mon, Jul 28, 2014 11:26:40 AM

Dear Miguel,

I share all your concerns regarding ecumenism and false fellowship. I regard the opportunity to promote Christ and Godly education at CRE as similar to placing an advert in a newspaper. I have no restriction on speaking the truth as God would have me, and signed nothing to that effect. Most certainly there will be much that I will object to, but do not deem myself as having fellowship with them by using their services. With regard to the TV debate I recently had on Revelation TV the same applies, by the Grace of God I was able to present the gospel with no hindrance to the viewers. I signed nothing and only presented the Bible to whoever was listening. It was a home-schooler who kindly paid for and booked the stand for us at CRE and made this suggestion.

With regard to you severing contact with us, I sincerely hope that for the children’s sake you would not deprive them of a non-compromising curriculum that makes much of the Lord Jesus Christ.

For your prayer we are as you know dealing with much opposition from unbelievers in the press and social media. That’s because we support Biblical creation, and marriage is for one man and woman together with an acceptance that the Bible is the Word of God.

Kind Regards,

Arthur Roderick

My response to this and I have had no replay

Monday, 28 July 2014, 13:28

Subject: Further Concerns Regarding TEACH’s Involvement with the Christian Resources Exhibition (CRE)

Dear Arthur Roderick,

Thank you for your response to my previous email, which I appreciate. However, I must express that your reply has raised further concerns, and I feel that these need to be addressed with greater clarity and conviction. While I recognise your desire to promote Christ and Godly education at the CRE, I remain deeply troubled by the nature of your involvement in an event that I believe to be ecumenically compromised.

You state that your participation in the CRE is “similar to placing an advert in a newspaper,” and you express no restriction on speaking the truth as God leads you. However, this analogy is deeply problematic. When we place an advert, we are not expected to actively participate in an environment where false teachings and unbiblical practices are promoted. In the same way, promoting Christian education at an event that is ecumenical in nature, with clear ties to the Roman Catholic Church and other groups that compromise on fundamental doctrinal truths, is not a neutral stance. By promoting your presence there, you are sending a message that could mislead others about the nature of the event and its implications for the Christian faith.

The Issue of Ecumenism and False Fellowship

You rightly acknowledge my concerns regarding ecumenism and false fellowship, yet I fear that your response downplays the seriousness of this issue. The Scriptures warn against such partnerships. Amos 3:3 says, “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” This is a question that cannot be ignored. It is not simply a matter of presenting the Gospel in a neutral environment—it is about discerning the spiritual environment we are entering and ensuring that we are not in fellowship with darkness.

Your assertion that you have no restrictions on speaking the truth is not the issue here. It’s not about the ability to speak the truth; it’s about the message you are endorsing by your participation. The ecumenical nature of CRE, with its clear alliances to Roman Catholicism, liberal Christian groups, and those who promote unbiblical practices, presents a situation where the waters are indeed being muddied. It is difficult for anyone, especially new or immature Christians, to distinguish between the truth and error in such an environment. Your participation in this event risks diluting the purity of the Gospel message by associating with false teachers and compromising groups.

Furthermore, your claim that your participation is merely a platform to present the Gospel—without any acknowledgment of the broader implications of supporting such an event—seems to ignore the seriousness of the situation. The truth of God’s Word must never be presented in environments that support or enable error. When we participate in such events, we risk inadvertently endorsing the very errors we seek to expose. We must have a high regard for doctrinal purity and separate ourselves from those who do not uphold the truth of Scripture.

The Dangerous Implications of Promoting CRE

You did not address the fact that the CRE event, as an ecumenical gathering, has a clear focus on promoting unity between Evangelicals and Roman Catholics. While you may not have signed any formal agreement to embrace ecumenism, your participation is effectively endorsing the very practices that Scripture warns us against. CRE has openly expressed its desire to increase Catholic participation, as highlighted in their marketing materials. The event organisers have stated, “The Christian Resources Exhibition is looking into how it can attract more Catholic visitors throughout 2008,” and have worked actively to develop the event as an ecumenical platform. As the Bible warns in 2 Corinthians 6:14, “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness?” The biblical mandate is clear—believers should not yoke themselves with those who do not hold to the Gospel truth.

In your response, you implied that my concerns about ecumenical unity were overstated, suggesting that TEACH’s participation in CRE is merely about sharing biblical truth in a neutral space. However, this is a dangerous misconception. By attending CRE, you are not just attending a neutral event—you are actively participating in a platform that promotes and encourages false doctrines, particularly through its ecumenical nature and its endorsement of Roman Catholic practices.

Unaddressed Concerns Regarding the Promotion of False Teachings

You also did not address the fact that many individuals and organisations associated with CRE are openly promoting false teachings. For example, Tony Campolo, a well-known supporter of CRE, has publicly endorsed pro-homosexual and liberal Christian views that are in direct contradiction to biblical teaching. By aligning with an event that includes such figures, you risk creating confusion for believers who may not be able to discern the falsehoods being propagated.

Moreover, CRE’s focus on ecumenical unity is not limited to promoting Roman Catholicism but extends to a broader agenda that includes liberal and emergent church ideologies, spiritual formation practices, and New Age spiritualities. These movements, which seek to integrate unbiblical spiritual practices into the Church, are a direct threat to the integrity of the Gospel.

Your comment about attending the event because “a home-schooler kindly paid for and booked the stand for us” only deepens my concerns. While I have no objection to a home-schooler supporting your ministry, the fact that this individual is involved in a platform that supports ecumenical and liberal theology should have raised red flags. It is not enough to simply accept an offer because it benefits your ministry—particularly when it compromises biblical principles. You had the opportunity to graciously decline this offer and maintain your integrity, but instead, you chose to participate in a forum that undermines the very foundation of the faith you profess to uphold.

A Final Plea for Biblical Separation

In closing, I urge you to reconsider your position and the message you are sending by participating in CRE. The Scriptures are clear about the dangers of false fellowship and the need for biblical separation from those who promote doctrines that are not in line with God’s Word. I strongly encourage you to publicly distance yourself from events like CRE that promote ecumenical unity with the Roman Catholic Church and other groups that reject the truth of Scripture.

As I mentioned in my previous email, I have no choice but to sever my connection with TEACH unless there is clear evidence of repentance and a return to biblical fidelity. This is not a personal attack, but a sincere plea for you to recognise the spiritual dangers of your current course of action. I pray that you will take this matter seriously and make a stand for the truth of God’s Word, even if it means distancing yourself from popular and influential events like CRE.

In Christ,

Miguel Hayworth

 

 

 

The Growing Influence of Roman Catholicism within Evangelical Circles: A Critical Examination of the Bible Society’s Involvement with CRE

The relationship between evangelical movements and the Roman Catholic Church has long been a contentious subject within Protestant theology. In recent years, however, this relationship has become increasingly concerning, particularly as certain evangelical organisations have begun to engage in ecumenical ventures that appear to undermine the core tenets of Protestantism. A particularly alarming development is the involvement of the Bible Society with three Roman Catholic trustees, an arrangement that raises serious questions about the organisation’s theological direction and its commitment to the principles of the Reformation. This paper aims to critically analyse the implications of such collaborations, particularly in the context of the role of the Christian Resources Exhibition (CRE) and its stated ecumenical stance.

Ecumenicalism and its Theological Risks

The Bible Society, an organisation traditionally regarded as a beacon of Protestant evangelicalism, is now participating in a network that includes individuals with clear ties to the Roman Catholic Church. The presence of three Roman Catholic trustees within such an influential evangelical organisation is a clear signal of the growing influence of Catholicism within otherwise Protestant spaces. This shift must not be regarded as a mere incidental development, but as part of a broader and increasingly pervasive trend within evangelicalism towards ecumenism. Ecumenical movements, which advocate for unity between different Christian denominations, have, over time, strayed from their original intention of promoting fellowship towards a more dangerous pursuit: the erasure of doctrinal distinctions. In the case of the Bible Society, this trend is exacerbated by the fact that it is operating in partnership with an organisation that openly promotes a pro-Roman Catholic agenda.

The Christian Resources Exhibition (CRE) is often described by its organisers as operating in an ecumenical manner, seeking to foster cooperation between different Christian traditions. While such claims are presented with the best of intentions, the reality is far more concerning. The core issue is not the promotion of genuine Christian unity but the subtle, insidious movement towards Roman Catholicism. The agenda of CRE, though cloaked in ecumenical language, clearly serves the purpose of encouraging Protestants to accept and embrace Roman Catholic teachings. This is not a speculative concern but a tangible, observable trend. The CRE, despite its assertions of neutrality, acts as a gateway for evangelicals to engage with Roman Catholic practices and teachings, often without critical reflection or resistance.

The Problematic Nature of Ecumenical Engagement

My concern, and that of many others within the evangelical community, is not limited to theoretical objections but is rooted in real, personal experiences. When Protestant organisations, such as the Bible Society, enter into partnerships with those who advocate for Roman Catholic doctrines, they implicitly endorse a system that contradicts the core teachings of the Reformation. This movement is not merely an issue of theological differences; it represents a dangerous theological regression. The acceptance of Roman Catholicism as a legitimate expression of Christianity undermines key Protestant doctrines such as salvation by faith alone, the authority of Scripture, and the priesthood of all believers. By participating in ecumenical ventures such as the CRE, the Bible Society is, whether consciously or not, participating in this theological dilution.

This critique is not abstract. The implications of such involvement are real and manifest in the spiritual lives of individual believers. The move towards Roman Catholicism within evangelical circles is not confined to organisational decisions but has a direct impact on the beliefs and practices of individual Christians. One need look no further than the stories of personal conversion to the Catholic faith that have emerged in recent years. A former Palestinian evangelical friend of mine, once an active member of the Pentecostal Church, made the devastating decision to convert to Roman Catholicism. This is not an isolated case but part of a broader pattern of evangelicals moving towards the Roman Catholic Church, a pattern that is inextricably linked to the rise of ecumenical movements and organisations like CRE.

In Stratford, London, during the 2012 Olympics, I personally witnessed evangelical Christians from Protestant churches participating in the Catholic Mass. These were not fringe individuals but respected members of the evangelical community. Their actions speak volumes about the power of ecumenical initiatives in eroding theological convictions. Similarly, I have observed evangelical congregants worshipping in the Salford Catholic Cathedral, a practice that runs contrary to the historic Protestant position on the role of the Catholic Church. These are not isolated incidents, but part of a growing tide that is slowly but surely pulling evangelicals away from their Protestant heritage and into the arms of the Roman Catholic Church.

The Lack of Institutional Response

Despite the clear and alarming nature of these developments, there has been a noticeable lack of institutional response within evangelical circles. I have never seen any official publication or documentation from organisations such as the Bible Society or the CRE warning parents and congregations about the rise of Protestants converting to Roman Catholicism. This is particularly concerning given the personal testimonies and public observations I have cited. It is essential that evangelical institutions take responsibility for protecting their members from the subtle yet powerful allure of Roman Catholicism.

This responsibility is not just one of protecting doctrine but of safeguarding the spiritual health of individuals. By failing to act, evangelical organisations such as the Bible Society are complicit in allowing members to drift into dangerous theological waters. These organisations have a duty to warn believers about the dangers of ecumenical movements that, under the guise of unity, seek to undermine the distinctive teachings of Protestantism. The lack of response to the growing trend of evangelical conversion to Roman Catholicism reflects a larger issue within evangelicalism: a reluctance to take firm, doctrinal stands in the face of cultural pressures.

Personal Encounters with Catholic Influence

One of the most telling experiences I have had in relation to this issue was my interview with a Catholic missionary nun, ‘Sister Ruth’. This encounter revealed the strategic efforts within the Roman Catholic Church to evangelise Protestants, particularly through the use of ecumenical language and partnerships. ‘Sister Ruth’ explained how the Catholic Church is actively pursuing Protestants, particularly those from evangelical backgrounds, in an effort to bring them under the authority of the Pope. This is a direct challenge to the Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura and the belief that salvation is found in Christ alone.

The strategy employed by Catholic missionaries is subtle yet effective. It involves engaging in dialogue with evangelical groups, offering shared activities, and emphasising common ground. While these efforts may appear innocent at first glance, they are rooted in a desire to draw Protestants away from their doctrinal convictions and towards the Catholic faith. This is the reality of the ecumenical movement, and it is something that cannot be ignored.

Conclusion: A Call to Action

The involvement of the Bible Society with Roman Catholic trustees and the participation of evangelical organisations in ecumenical movements such as the CRE represent a serious threat to the integrity of Protestantism. These efforts, whether intentionally or unintentionally, are leading many evangelicals away from the distinct and essential doctrines of the Reformation. The rise of Roman Catholicism within evangelical circles is not just a theoretical issue but a real and present danger to the spiritual health of individual believers. It is imperative that evangelical organisations take a firm stand against such movements and begin to warn their members about the theological risks involved in ecumenical partnerships. Failure to do so will result in the further erosion of Protestant convictions and the eventual subjugation of evangelical Christians to the authority of the Pope. We must be vigilant and resolute in defending the truth of the Gospel, no matter the cultural pressures or the seeming benefits of unity. Only by standing firm in our convictions can we safeguard the future of evangelicalism and the purity of the faith we hold dear.

 

 

A Call for Doctrinal Purity: Reconsidering Ecumenical Engagement and the Influence of Roman Catholicism within Evangelicalism

It is with a deep sense of urgency and spiritual responsibility that I address a growing concern within the evangelical community—particularly regarding the involvement of evangelical organisations with individuals and groups that have clear and identifiable ties to the Roman Catholic Church. A case in point is the leadership of David Willson, a known Jesuit, who serves as the CEO of More Than Gold UK and has been associated with the Mount Street Jesuit Centre in London. Such connections raise serious theological and ecclesiastical concerns, as they suggest a broader trend of Roman Catholic influence penetrating the evangelical sphere. This infiltration is not only ongoing but appears to be accelerating, and it is my firm belief that it presents a threat to the doctrinal integrity of evangelicalism.

The influence of Roman Catholic operatives within evangelical spaces cannot be understated. Through organisations like More Than Gold UK and others, the Catholic Church is subtly but effectively drawing evangelicals into its orbit, often under the guise of ecumenical cooperation. This is not merely an abstract concern but a real and pressing issue that demands immediate attention. It is my duty to warn against what I perceive as a creeping spiritual compromise that threatens to undermine the evangelical church’s commitment to the Reformation’s theological principles.

In the past 25 hours, I have raised this issue across several platforms, including Hope Together, Hope 2014, The Message Trust, and Rapture Ready Radio, all of which provide a broad, global Christian audience. I have shared my concerns publicly and will continue to do so until these issues are addressed. I am giving you ample time to reconsider your involvement with TEACH and the Christian Resources Exhibition (CRE), but I must emphasise that this matter cannot be postponed until after the event in October. The urgency of this issue demands that it be confronted now. Failure to act in a timely manner will leave me no choice but to continue reporting on these developments, as I cannot ignore the implications for the wider evangelical community.

I fully appreciate that you may face opposition from unbelievers, particularly through the press and social media. Nevertheless, the pressure to conform or to downplay these concerns does not alter the fact that the Lord has clearly impressed upon me the need to speak out. The decision to issue this warning is not one I take lightly, but I cannot ignore the call on my life to act in accordance with my conscience. In doing so, I recognise that I am showing grace, as I am offering you the opportunity to reconsider your position before it is too late. As Scripture teaches us, those who move in righteousness will face persecution from the world, especially in these end times. However, it is essential to remember that we are not called to avoid persecution, but to remain steadfast in our commitment to truth, no matter the cost.

The Apostle Paul, in Ephesians 5, makes it clear that we have a responsibility to expose and avoid unfruitful works of darkness. It is in this spirit that I call on you to reconsider your current position. While it may seem easier to tolerate certain compromises in the name of unity, the consequences of such tolerance are far-reaching. As we are reminded in 2 Corinthians 6:17, “Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.” This exhortation speaks to the need for a clear and unwavering separation from systems that are doctrinally unsound and spiritually corrupt. In Revelation 18:4, a similar call is issued: “Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.” It is my firm conviction that Rome, in its current form, represents spiritual Babylon—a harlot that lures the faithful away from the truth of the Gospel. By aligning with such systems, we risk participating in the sins of that system and, ultimately, the judgment it will face.

As long as you remain faithful to righteousness, the Lord will protect you. We are currently living in the Laodicean age, an era characterised by spiritual lukewarmness, and I recognise that you have taken a public stand against issues such as same-sex marriage, as I have. Nevertheless, it is essential to acknowledge that ecumenism and the uncritical embrace of Catholicism within evangelical spaces constitutes a slippery slope toward spiritual compromise. While we may share some common ground on certain social issues, we cannot afford to compromise on doctrinal integrity, particularly on matters as central to the Gospel as salvation by faith alone, the authority of Scripture, and the role of the Church.

I recall a time when we made it explicitly clear that we would not associate with ecumenicals or Catholics, not because we sought to foster division, but because we were resolute in our commitment to doctrinal purity. At that time, we recognised the importance of maintaining clear theological boundaries to avoid sending mixed messages. Regrettably, it seems that the current trend is moving in the opposite direction, towards greater tolerance and acceptance of theological views that stand in direct opposition to the teachings of Scripture. While this may not seem problematic in the short term, it presents a significant risk for the future. What is tolerated now will undoubtedly be carried forward into the next generation, and the long-term consequences of such compromise will be felt by future believers.

This issue is not limited to your organisation but is part of a wider trend affecting evangelical churches across London, Oxford, Greater Manchester, and beyond. I have been in communication with many churches that share similar concerns about the growing influence of Roman Catholicism and ecumenical movements within the evangelical community. This is not a threat, but a genuine call for reflection. My desire is that TEACH might be able to stand as an example of doctrinal purity and separation from false teachings. However, I cannot make this claim unless there is a reconsideration of your involvement with CRE and any other group that seeks to blur the lines between Protestant and Roman Catholic doctrine.

I urge you to approach this matter with the seriousness and urgency it requires. As the Bereans were commended for their diligence in examining the Scriptures, so too should we carefully assess our actions and decisions in light of biblical truth. I respectfully ask that you reconsider your position, not out of personal animosity, but out of a shared desire to uphold the integrity of the Gospel and the purity of the Church.

In conclusion, this letter is not an attack but a heartfelt appeal for you to take a stand for the truth of Scripture and the principles that have defined evangelicalism since the Reformation. I pray that you will heed the warnings of Scripture and the promptings of the Holy Spirit in these matters.

With sincere respect and love in Christ,

Miguel Hayworth

TEACH’s Involvement in the Christian Resources Exhibition (CRE): A Critical Examination of Ecumenical Compromise and Doctrinal Integrity

Despite repeated attempts to engage with Arthur Rodrick and TEACH regarding their participation in the Christian Resources Exhibition (CRE) and the theological implications of this involvement, I have yet to receive a response. This silence is particularly troubling, as it leaves unanswered questions about the nature of TEACH’s engagement with such an event. What exactly is TEACH promoting through their advertisements for CRE? What message is TEACH sending by associating itself with CRE, given its known associations and its ecumenical posture? These are the questions I will address in this piece, drawing attention to the potential dangers of TEACH’s involvement and the broader implications for the evangelical community.

A Closer Look at the TEACH Advertisement for CRE

On July 25, 2014, I received promotional material advertising TEACH at CRE North 2014, which took place in Manchester on October 8-9 of the same year. The event was framed as an opportunity for evangelical leaders and laypeople to attend and explore the resources offered at CRE. The promotional material was explicit in its invitation, offering discounted tickets for TEACH supporters and listing the various features of the exhibition, such as “over 100 stands with everything needed to equip and empower your church or ministry,” as well as “around 30 inspiring seminars,” a “full Arts Theatre programme,” and “special sessions on how best to handle music and AV in your church.”

While the event certainly offered a range of activities and resources, the promotional material failed to provide any discernment or qualification regarding the theological and doctrinal implications of attending such an event. Most concerning is the omission of any warning or disclaimer about the wider theological context within which CRE operates. While TEACH’s advertisement positions itself as an advocate for equipping churches, it does not adequately address the fact that CRE is actively promoting and supporting ecumenical organisations such as Churches Together in England (CTE), an entity that has repeatedly sought to bridge the gap between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism.

Ecumenical Compromise and Roman Catholic Involvement

The issue of ecumenism is not a new one, but the recent moves by evangelical organisations, such as TEACH, to engage in ecumenical events and collaborations with Catholic bodies are deeply troubling. The promotion of CRE is particularly problematic given its close ties to groups like Churches Together in England (CTE), an ecumenical organisation which has fostered cooperation between Protestant and Catholic groups. One of the central issues at stake here is the fundamental incompatibility between Roman Catholic doctrine and biblical Christianity, particularly when it comes to matters of salvation, the authority of Scripture, and the role of the Church.

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that salvation is not by faith alone but is a process that involves both faith and works. This teaching stands in stark contrast to the core biblical doctrine of justification by faith alone, as articulated in passages such as Romans 5:1, which states, “Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” (NIV). Furthermore, Roman Catholicism’s view of the authority of the Church—including the papacy and traditions of the Church—stands in opposition to the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura, which asserts that Scripture alone is the ultimate authority for the Christian faith (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

When TEACH chooses to align itself with an event that explicitly supports the agenda of CTE, it is effectively endorsing a theological compromise that undermines the very foundations of the Protestant Reformation. By participating in CRE, which celebrates the very ecumenism that seeks to blur these critical doctrinal distinctions, TEACH is in danger of aligning itself with a movement that risks erasing the theological clarity that has defined evangelicalism for centuries.

Moreover, TEACH’s failure to address or inform its supporters of these theological risks raises further concerns. It is not merely an oversight or a failure to communicate; rather, it can be seen as a tacit endorsement of these ecumenical practices. As noted by theologian John MacArthur, “When the Church becomes indistinguishable from the world or compromises the Gospel for the sake of unity, it abandons the biblical mandate to contend for the faith” (The Truth War, 2007, p. 32). TEACH’s participation in such an event and its failure to address the theological concerns surrounding it thus represent a departure from the biblical mandate to maintain doctrinal purity and a faithful witness to the Gospel.

The Scandal of Silence: Failure to Address the Roman Catholic Church’s Controversies

Another critical issue that TEACH has failed to address is the scandal surrounding the Roman Catholic Church’s handling of sexual abuse allegations, particularly the well-documented cover-ups of sexual abuse by Catholic clergy. For instance, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Salford has been implicated in covering up the sexual molestation of 50 children at St. Bede’s School in Manchester, a matter which has yet to be adequately addressed by the Church. The failure of TEACH to warn its supporters about the ongoing scandals within the Roman Catholic Church and its decision to promote an event that includes such controversial figures is, quite frankly, irresponsible.

As Christians, we have a moral responsibility to protect the most vulnerable among us, particularly children, and to stand against any form of abuse or exploitation. By continuing to associate with events that allow figures implicated in such scandals to have a platform, TEACH is failing to protect its own constituency and, in doing so, is complicit in perpetuating a system that has been found wanting in its duty to protect and care for those under its influence. The Bible speaks clearly about the importance of safeguarding children, and Jesus himself condemns those who cause harm to little ones (Matthew 18:6). TEACH’s silence in the face of such scandals is not just an oversight but an active failure to live up to the biblical standard of righteousness and justice.

Theological and Practical Implications of Ecumenical Engagement

The broader implications of TEACH’s involvement in CRE go beyond mere theological disagreements. The participation of TEACH in such an event sends a message to its followers that ecumenism—particularly with the Roman Catholic Church—is acceptable, despite the serious theological and ethical concerns that surround such partnerships. As we have seen in other instances of evangelical compromise, this type of engagement with Roman Catholicism can ultimately lead to a loss of doctrinal clarity, which in turn undermines the integrity of the Gospel message.

The call for separation from doctrinal error is not a new or radical one. In fact, it is rooted in Scripture, where believers are exhorted to “come out from among them, and be ye separate” (2 Corinthians 6:17). The early church did not hesitate to distinguish itself from heretical groups, and neither should the church today. By participating in events like CRE and aligning itself with ecumenical groups that blur the lines between true Christian faith and error, TEACH is failing to heed this scriptural command.

A Call for Reformation and Doctrinal Purity

TEACH’s involvement in CRE, coupled with their failure to address the deep theological and ethical concerns raised by their participation, represents a significant compromise that cannot be ignored. TEACH must reconsider its stance on ecumenism and its engagement with organisations that promote unity with the Roman Catholic Church. If TEACH is to remain faithful to the Gospel, it must uphold doctrinal purity and ensure that its actions reflect a commitment to biblical truth.

As the Apostle Paul warns in Galatians 1:8-9, “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” It is incumbent upon all who claim to follow Christ to remain steadfast in the truth of the Gospel and to reject any attempts to dilute or compromise that message, especially when it comes to the fundamental doctrines of salvation and the authority of Scripture. TEACH has a responsibility to its supporters, its community, and the wider body of Christ to stand firm in the faith and to separate itself from any partnership that undermines the integrity of the Gospel.

Until these issues are addressed, TEACH’s continued involvement in events like CRE must be viewed with deep concern, and I urge them to reconsider their position before it is too late. The stakes are far too high for silence or compromise.

The Fallacy of Moral Compromise: Why Two Wrongs Do Not Make a Right

One of the most pervasive but dangerous fallacies in both moral reasoning and theological reflection is the idea that “two wrongs make a right.” This argument often arises when individuals or organisations, in an attempt to justify questionable decisions or actions, point to another equally wrong situation or behaviour, suggesting that by association or compromise, the wrongs somehow cancel each other out. However, this line of reasoning is fundamentally flawed and spiritually perilous, particularly when it comes to matters of doctrine, morality, and the witness of the Church.

When individuals or organisations choose to participate in or support an activity or event that contradicts foundational biblical principles, the mere existence of another wrongdoing or error does not justify such compromise. This is not only a logical misstep but also a deeply problematic theological stance. In this expanded exploration, we will consider why two wrongs do not make a right, particularly in the context of ecclesiastical compromise, moral decisions, and the integrity of the Gospel.

Theological and Biblical Foundations: The Call for Purity and Holiness

The Bible is clear on the importance of maintaining purity, both doctrinally and morally. In the Old Testament, God calls His people to be holy as He is holy (Leviticus 11:44-45), a command that extends beyond mere ritual purity to encompass a life lived in obedience to God’s revealed will. The New Testament echoes this call for holiness, particularly in the teachings of the Apostle Paul, who exhorts Christians to “come out from among them, and be ye separate” (2 Corinthians 6:17). This command to separate from error and falsehood is not conditional upon the existence of other wrongs but is an unequivocal directive to uphold the truth of God’s Word in every aspect of life.

The idea that “two wrongs make a right” is not compatible with the Bible’s call for holiness and purity. The Church is not to be conformed to the patterns of this world (Romans 12:2), nor is it to justify compromise or participation in false teachings or practices simply because they exist in another context. The presence of error does not legitimise further error, and the call to be faithful to God’s truth remains irrespective of surrounding compromise. If anything, Christians are called to stand firm against the encroachment of falsehood, not to dilute or justify it for the sake of expedience or unity.

Moral Implications: The Dangers of Rationalising Compromise

In the realm of moral reasoning, the belief that two wrongs can make a right can often lead to a justification of behaviours and actions that would otherwise be considered unethical or immoral. This is particularly prevalent when an individual or group tries to justify their participation in a morally dubious activity by pointing to another similar situation. For instance, one might justify partnering with an organisation or individual known for corruption or wrongdoing simply because another party is doing the same, or because the wrongs involved are perceived as equally egregious.

However, such moral compromise is dangerous for several reasons:

1. Moral relativism: By justifying wrongdoing based on the existence of another wrong, the moral standard becomes subjective and fluid. There is no longer an objective basis for determining right from wrong, which leads to moral relativism—the idea that moral truths are not absolute but can be adjusted according to the situation. This undermines any firm foundation for ethical behaviour, particularly within a Christian context, where God’s commands are seen as absolute and non-negotiable.

2. Perpetuation of harm: The idea that two wrongs make a right often overlooks the fact that one wrong does not cancel out the harm caused by another wrong. In the case of ecclesiastical compromise, for example, the willingness to tolerate or promote false doctrine or immoral practices does not neutralise the danger they present to the spiritual well-being of individuals or the integrity of the Church. Instead, it compounds the harm, as it encourages others to adopt a lax attitude toward doctrinal purity and moral righteousness.

3. Undermining of personal and collective integrity: At the individual level, compromising with evil or error weakens personal integrity and spiritual conviction. When an individual justifies compromise by appealing to the wrongs of others, they erode their own sense of moral responsibility and accountability. At the collective level, organisations that adopt this mindset will lose their ability to stand firm in the face of opposition, as their moral and doctrinal convictions become increasingly diluted.

4. Distorting the witness of the Church: The Church’s role is to be a beacon of truth and light in a dark world (Matthew 5:14-16). When the Church embraces compromise, it distorts its witness and loses its ability to serve as a moral compass. The world observes the Church’s actions, and when it sees the Church engaging in the same compromises and wrongdoings that it condemns in others, it undermines the credibility of the Christian message. This is a serious issue for the Church’s mission to proclaim the Gospel and lead people to Christ.

The Fallacy of Ecumenical Compromise: A Case in Point

One of the most frequent arenas where the idea of “two wrongs making a right” manifests itself is in the context of ecumenism, particularly in relation to the Roman Catholic Church. Over recent decades, many evangelical organisations and leaders have sought to build bridges with Roman Catholicism, often by downplaying significant theological differences or by justifying such alliances in the name of unity. The premise behind these compromises is often that while Roman Catholicism may have doctrinal issues, the “wrong” of Catholicism can somehow be neutralised by the “right” of evangelicalism’s pursuit of unity and cooperation.

This is, of course, a dangerous path. Theologically, Roman Catholicism holds to doctrines that are at odds with key biblical teachings, particularly on the matters of salvation, the authority of Scripture, and the role of the Church. The doctrine of justification by faith alone, central to the Protestant Reformation, is explicitly denied by the Roman Catholic Church, which teaches that salvation is a process that involves both faith and works. Further, the Catholic Church’s emphasis on the authority of tradition and the papacy undermines the sufficiency of Scripture alone. The notion that these profound differences can be “bridged” by ecumenical compromise does not solve the theological issues; rather, it obscures them and leads to further confusion and division within the Church.

In this case, the idea that “two wrongs make a right” is often used to justify compromising on biblical truth for the sake of unity. Yet, this only serves to perpetuate error, leading people further from the true Gospel. The apostle Paul warned against this in Galatians 1:8-9, declaring, “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” The Gospel is non-negotiable, and any compromise on its central tenets—no matter how well-intentioned—only leads to spiritual harm.

The Dangers of Ignoring Doctrinal Purity

In the context of ecclesiastical and moral decisions, the failure to uphold doctrinal purity and moral righteousness has wide-ranging consequences. It is easy to fall into the trap of thinking that compromise is a necessary evil in a world of pluralism and diverse opinions. However, Scripture consistently calls for believers to separate from false teachings and to uphold the truth of the Gospel, regardless of external pressure or the apparent benefits of compromise.

Ephesians 5:11-12 warns, “Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. It is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret.” The call here is not to engage in or justify evil, but to expose it and stand against it. Similarly, 2 Corinthians 6:17 exhorts Christians to “come out from among them, and be ye separate,” underscoring the need for clear boundaries between the truth and error.

By rationalising compromise or overlooking the implications of associating with error, Christians risk not only their own spiritual health but also the integrity of the Church. The truth of the Gospel demands uncompromising fidelity, and the Christian must resist the temptation to justify wrongdoing by pointing to another wrong.

Standing Firm in the Truth

The idea that “two wrongs make a right” is not only illogical but also spiritually dangerous. Whether in moral decisions, doctrinal choices, or ecclesiastical compromise, the truth of Scripture calls for believers to stand firm and separate from error. The presence of wrong does not justify further wrong; rather, Christians are called to expose error, uphold the truth, and remain faithful to the calling of holiness and righteousness. When we allow compromise or rationalise participation in wrongdoing, we risk undermining the very foundation of our faith and the witness of the Church. Thus, it is essential to reject the fallacy of two wrongs making a right and to hold fast to the purity of the Gospel, no matter the external pressure or the temptations to compromise.

 

Arthur Rodrick and Teach is simply allowing people to come a listen to the following “gifted people”.

 

Bishop Terence Brain – 4 Unanswered Letters 1 Oct 2008 to 15 Jan 2009 18 Dean Head, Littleborough OL15 9LZ

1 October 2008

Open Letter to the Right Reverend Terence Brain, Bishop of Salford

Dear Bishop Brain,

Subject: Laicisation of Salford Diocesan Priests Convicted of Criminal Offences Against Children

I hope this letter finds you well. I write to express my ongoing concern regarding the handling of priests in the Diocese of Salford who have been convicted of criminal offences, specifically in cases involving child sexual abuse. It is my understanding that as Bishop of Salford, you bear responsibility for the spiritual and pastoral care of the clergy in your diocese, including ensuring that justice and accountability are pursued when one of your priests has been found guilty of such heinous crimes.

As a parishioner and a concerned parent, I find it necessary to publicly address these matters. Since my first communication with you in 2007, I have written several letters regarding these issues, all of which have, unfortunately, gone unanswered. Given the gravity of the subject at hand, I feel compelled to make this letter available for public consideration, as I believe it is essential that others who share these concerns are made aware of the questions I raise.

Laicisation of Father William Green

One case that has been particularly distressing is that of Father William Green. As you know, Father Green was convicted in 2008 for committing numerous offences of indecent assault and indecency with children between 1968 and 1987. These crimes were carried out while he was employed at St. Bede’s College in Manchester, prior to his ordination as a priest in 1973, and continued for many years thereafter. The details of these abuses are well-documented, and the courage of the victims in coming forward is to be commended. However, I am left to question why, despite the gravity of these crimes, the necessary steps for laicisation have not been initiated, as required by the Lord Nolan Report on child protection.

The Lord Nolan Report, as you are aware, was a landmark review into the Catholic Church’s child protection policies, and one of its key recommendations was the process of laicisation for priests convicted of sexual offences involving children. Recommendation 78 of the report explicitly states that if a priest is convicted and sentenced to a prison term of 12 months or more, it is expected that laicisation proceedings will be initiated. The failure to do so should be justified, as it reflects the Church’s commitment to safeguarding and ensuring that such individuals are removed from positions of influence and responsibility.

Given that Father Green was sentenced to six years in prison for his offences, I am left wondering why the process of laicisation has not yet been pursued in his case. This failure to act is not only inconsistent with the guidelines set forth in the Nolan Report but also appears to undermine the Church’s supposed commitment to child protection and justice. I would appreciate your clarification on whether or not you have initiated laicisation proceedings for Father Green, as it is essential that the faithful are assured that the Church is upholding its duty of care to protect vulnerable individuals from further harm.

Laicisation of Father Thomas Doherty

Additionally, I must inquire about the case of Father Thomas Doherty, who was convicted in 1998 for the sexual abuse of a young boy under the age of 16. Father Doherty was sentenced to six years in prison for these offences, yet, to my knowledge, there has been no public statement regarding his canonical status or whether he has been laicised. I have written previously seeking clarification on this matter, yet I have received no response. As such, I must once again ask:

• Has Father Doherty been laicised?
• If not, what is his current canonical status within the Church?

The lack of transparency regarding Father Doherty’s status is deeply concerning, especially considering the seriousness of his offences. The Church’s failure to communicate clearly on this matter raises questions about the consistency and sincerity with which it applies its own policies for dealing with clerical abuse.

The Church’s Responsibility and the Impact on the Faithful

The question of laicisation is not a trivial matter; it is central to the Church’s credibility and moral authority. The faithful, particularly those who have been directly impacted by these crimes, deserve to know that the Church is fully committed to safeguarding and ensuring that abusers are held accountable. The failure to act decisively in cases such as those of Father Green and Father Doherty risks undermining public trust in the Church and calls into question the sincerity of its commitment to child protection.

Furthermore, as a parent and a member of the Diocese of Salford, I am deeply troubled by the lack of transparency in how these cases have been handled. The absence of a public statement or clear action regarding the laicisation of these priests suggests a pattern of negligence that cannot be ignored. The Church must take decisive action to demonstrate that it is serious about protecting children and vulnerable adults within its care. Anything less is an abdication of its moral and pastoral responsibilities.

The Call for Justice

I urge you, Bishop Brain, to address these matters with the seriousness and urgency they deserve. The people of the Diocese of Salford deserve to know whether or not Father Green and Father Doherty have been laicised, and if not, why such action has not been taken. Additionally, it is imperative that the Church reassures the faithful that it will not tolerate abuse or cover-ups of any kind and that it is committed to upholding the principles of justice and accountability, as outlined in the Nolan Report and endorsed by Pope Benedict XVI.

I look forward to your response and hope that you will provide the clarity and transparency that so many of us seek. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.

Yours sincerely,

Philip Gilligan
18 Dean Head
Littleborough
OL15 9LZ

Letter 1:

1 January 2009

Dear Bishop Brain,

Subject: Follow-up on Inquiries Regarding Safeguarding and Laicisation of Priests

I refer to my letter of 1 October 2008 (copy attached), and note with regret that after three months, you have again failed to respond to my inquiries in any way. As a parishioner in the Diocese of Salford who makes financial contributions to the Diocese as a registered charity, I would have expected a response by now. I find it troubling that despite the severity of the issues I have raised, there has been no correspondence from your office.

Given the seriousness of the matters at hand, I would be grateful for answers to the following questions:

1. Safeguarding Policies and Implementation: Can you confirm whether and how the policies regarding the protection and safeguarding of children and vulnerable adults, which you have publicly announced, have been and are being followed in the Diocese of Salford?

2. Commitment to Implement Nolan Report Recommendations: In November 2001, you publicly committed to fully implementing the recommendations made in Lord Nolan’s 2001 report, A Programme for Action: Final Report of the Independent Review on Child Protection in the Catholic Church in England and Wales. Can you provide evidence that these recommendations have been fully enacted?

3. Action on Laicisation of Father Thomas Doherty and Father William Green: Have you taken or will you take action in accordance with Recommendation 78 of A Programme for Action regarding Father Thomas Doherty and Father William Green?

4. Financial Contributions to the Diocese: As a parishioner, I need to know whether any of the financial contributions I have made to the Diocese of Salford have been or are being used directly or indirectly to support Father Thomas Doherty.

I look forward to receiving your reply, and I trust you will give these serious concerns the attention they deserve.

Yours sincerely,
Philip Gilligan
18 Dean Head
Littleborough
OL15 9LZ

Copy to:
Paul Fry, Caseworker, Charity Commission, Harmsworth House
13-15 Bouverie Street,
London, EC4Y 8D

---

Letter 2:

8 January 2009

Dear Bishop Brain,

Subject: Further Inquiry Regarding Laicisation and Financial Concerns

Further to my unanswered letters of 1 October 2008 and 1 January 2009 (see copies below), I was informed by Isabel de Bertodano, Home News Editor of The Tablet, that she spoke with Father O’Sullivan about these matters on 6 January 2009. According to her report, Father O’Sullivan stated:

• Father Thomas Doherty has effectively been laicised, with restrictions on his ministry and use of clerical dress. He is renting a house from the Diocese, but is apparently using his pension and sick benefits (due to cancer) to cover the costs, rather than receiving diocesan funds.
• Father William Green has been asked by the vicar general to apply for laicisation, and has agreed to do so.

I am grateful for this information but remain concerned about several issues that still require clarification:

1. Green’s Victims and Parishioners: While I welcome the news that Father Green has agreed to apply for laicisation, it is remarkable that as a parishioner, I have learned of this only through the intervention of a journalist. Have you shared this important information with Father Green’s victims and former parishioners, who also deserve to be informed?

2. Doherty’s Canonical Status: It is concerning to note that Father Doherty has not been laicised and retains his canonical status as a priest. Have his former parishioners been made aware of this? Furthermore, has the vicar general or anyone else ever asked Father Doherty to apply for laicisation since his conviction in 1998?

3. Failure to Follow Nolan Report Recommendations: In the case of Father Doherty, it appears that the Diocese has not followed Recommendation 78 of A Programme for Action. This is deeply troubling, especially considering the public commitment made in 2001 to implement these recommendations. Can you explain why the Diocese has failed to act in accordance with these guidelines?

4. Financial Support for Father Doherty: Father O’Sullivan reports that Father Doherty is renting a house from the Diocese. As a parishioner who makes financial contributions to the Diocese, I must ask whether Father Doherty is paying a market rent for this property, or if the rent is nominal, effectively subsidising his housing costs at the expense of parishioners like myself. This is a matter of significant concern, and I would appreciate full transparency on how diocesan funds are being allocated in this case.

5. Charity Commission Investigation: On 7 January 2009, I was advised by Iain Hewitt, Head of Special Investigations at the Charity Commission, that he would endeavour to provide me with a response regarding the matters I have raised with them. This suggests that the Charity Commission’s investigation into these issues is ongoing. I look forward to their findings, and trust that they will be made available to the public in due course.

I trust you will give these matters the urgency and attention they deserve. The faithful of the Diocese, myself included, deserve to know that the Diocese is upholding its commitments to child protection, justice, and transparency.

Yours sincerely,
Philip Gilligan
18 Dean Head
Littleborough
OL15 9LZ

Dear Bishop Brain,

I write to you regarding the ongoing and deeply troubling issue of sexual abuse allegations against priests within the Diocese of Salford, particularly focusing on the cases of Father Thomas Doherty and Father William Green. The lack of response to my previous correspondence is disheartening and raises serious concerns about the Diocese’s commitment to transparency, accountability, and the welfare of its parishioners.

Despite my repeated attempts to engage with you, I have yet to receive a response to the questions I raised in my letters of 1 October 2008, 1 January 2009, and 8 January 2009. These inquiries, particularly regarding the laicisation and canonical status of Father Doherty and Father Green, remain unanswered. As a parishioner and financial supporter of the Diocese of Salford, I believe it is only right to expect clear and timely communication on such important matters.

In particular, I must express my deep concern over the continued ambiguity surrounding Father Doherty’s status. While reports suggest that he has been “effectively laicised,” I now understand from Fr. Paul Hayward, Editor of Canon Law Abstracts, that there is no such canonical term as “laicisation.” Instead, a priest can be dismissed from the clerical state, losing the rights and obligations associated with priesthood, but continuing to be bound by celibacy. Therefore, the use of the term “effectively laicised” by Fr. Barry O’Sullivan is misleading and adds to the confusion surrounding Father Doherty’s situation.

The Diocese’s handling of these cases appears to contradict its publicly stated commitment to implement the recommendations of Lord Nolan’s 2001 report, A Programme for Action. Specifically, Recommendation 78 calls for the initiation of the laicisation process for priests convicted of child sexual abuse and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more. Given Father Doherty’s 1998 conviction and Father Green’s 2008 conviction, it is disturbing that these procedures have not been fully followed. If Father Doherty has not been dismissed from the clerical state, as required, it raises serious questions about the Diocese’s commitment to safeguarding children and upholding the integrity of its leadership.

Moreover, it has come to my attention that Father Doherty is reportedly renting a house from the Diocese. This raises a further set of questions: Is Father Doherty paying full market rent, or is the Diocese subsidising his housing? Given that parishioners like myself contribute financially to the Diocese, we are entitled to transparency about how our funds are being used, particularly when it comes to supporting individuals who have been convicted of criminal offences.

The failure of the Diocese to address these issues in a timely, transparent manner is deeply troubling. The victims of Father Doherty, Father Green, and others deserve not only justice but also the clarity that comes with open communication. It is imperative that the Diocese acknowledges these matters publicly and takes concrete steps to demonstrate its commitment to safeguarding and accountability.

I urge you, Bishop Brain, to provide clear and detailed responses to the questions I have raised. The continued silence from the Diocese only serves to undermine trust and perpetuate the harm caused to victims and their families. The Church must be held to the same high standards of accountability that it expects from others.

Finally, I would like to draw attention to the contradictory nature of the Church’s approach to education, as seen in statements about seminars being led by “gifted communicators” and experts in their fields. While the Church advocates for high standards in its teaching, it must also demonstrate those same standards in the protection of vulnerable individuals. Allowing the continued presence of individuals with such grave allegations against them, without proper accountability, speaks volumes about the institution’s priorities. The Church cannot afford to ignore the implications of these actions.

I look forward to your response, and I hope that, on this occasion, you will act in the spirit of transparency and responsibility that the victims, parishioners, and wider community so desperately need.

Yours sincerely,
Philip Gilligan
18 Dean Head,
Littleborough
OL15 9LZ

The Ongoing Struggles with Sexual Abuse Allegations in the Catholic Church: A Case Study of Bishop Terence Brain and St Bede’s College

The issue of sexual abuse by Catholic priests has haunted the Church for decades, and it remains an unresolved and deeply troubling matter. Despite numerous reports, investigations, and calls for accountability, the responses from the Vatican and various bishops have been staggeringly slow and often ineffective. The case of Bishop Terence Brain and the allegations surrounding St Bede’s College is one such example of the Church’s repeated failure to address the abuse scandal and to protect the innocent.

A Historical Context of Abuse in the Catholic Church

The Catholic Church has been plagued by accusations of sexual abuse for over a century. From the revelations of abuse in Ireland, the United States, and beyond, it is clear that this is not a new issue. The depth of the problem has been exacerbated by the consistent cover-ups carried out by Church officials, including bishops and cardinals, who have failed to remove abusive priests from positions of authority and have sometimes even transferred them to different parishes to avoid scandal.

The scandals have not only caused immense harm to victims, but they have also led to widespread disillusionment with the Church. The betrayal of trust in the clergy has undermined the faith of many, both within and outside the Catholic community.

Despite the many reports of abuse, the Church’s response has often been inadequate. Rather than embracing transparency and accountability, bishops and other high-ranking officials have, in some cases, gone to great lengths to shield their colleagues from justice, leading to a sense of betrayal among victims and survivors.

Bishop Terence Brain and the St Bede’s College Allegations

One of the most troubling cases involves Bishop Terence Brain, who has been linked to a series of abuse claims related to St Bede’s College in Manchester. Allegations of sexual abuse by priests at the school first surfaced in the 1990s, but it was not until years later that these claims came to public attention. The survivors, many of whom were former students, reported that they were abused by Catholic priests who were trusted members of the educational staff.

Despite the severity of the allegations, there has been little action taken by the Church. In fact, as of today, there have still been no meaningful responses to the ongoing case, and the allegations remain unresolved. One key event in this ongoing saga was Bishop Brain’s statement in response to the complaints from former pupils of St Bede’s College. According to reports, the Bishop expressed his shock and sadness, but many have questioned the sincerity of his response. It seemed, at the time, as though the revelations about the abuse came as a complete surprise to him.

However, given the previous instances of abuse within the Church, and the reports that had surfaced in the years prior, it is difficult to believe that this was truly the case. Was it possible that the Bishop was unaware of the abuse, or was he simply feigning ignorance in order to avoid taking responsibility for the Church’s failures?

The resignation of the college’s governors, as reported in Sceptical Thoughts, was a significant event, but it only highlighted the fact that the Church’s institutional response to these allegations was still inadequate. The resignation was seen as a necessary step, but it also underscored the broader problem: The Church’s failure to act decisively and transparently in addressing allegations of sexual abuse.

A Pattern of Silence and Inaction

The silence of Bishop Brain and other Church officials regarding the St Bede’s case is not an isolated incident. The Catholic Church has long been criticised for its failure to take strong action against abusive priests, and its institutional culture of silence has allowed the problem to persist. When abuse allegations are made, Church leaders often appear more concerned with preserving the reputation of the Church than with addressing the suffering of the victims.

For instance, after the two-year period of silence following the initial complaints, the Church issued an apology. However, the apology seemed to come too late and without any real commitment to transparency or accountability. As Manchester Evening News reported, the Church issued a public apology over the St Bede’s case, but it was difficult for many to accept it as genuine given the history of inaction and cover-ups within the institution.

The Church’s continued failure to protect vulnerable individuals and respond appropriately to allegations has left many wondering whether any real change is possible. How can the Church continue to call for trust and respect when it has repeatedly failed those who were supposed to be under its care?

A Contradiction of Faith and Practice

What makes the situation even more troubling is the inconsistency between the Church’s actions and its stated values. In its official statements, the Catholic Church has frequently emphasised the importance of moral integrity, transparency, and safeguarding the faithful. Yet, time and again, it has failed to live up to these ideals.

This contradiction was highlighted in the response to the St Bede’s case. Bishop Brain’s statement that he was “shocked and saddened” seemed hollow to many, especially in light of the Church’s history of inaction. If the Church truly values its moral teachings, why does it continue to fail so spectacularly when it comes to matters of abuse and safeguarding?

Further compounding the problem is the rhetoric surrounding teachings in Catholic educational institutions, such as those in seminaries. The claim that “All seminars are led by gifted communicators who are experts in their field” comes across as somewhat disconnected from the real issues at hand. If the Church cannot ensure the safety of its most vulnerable members, how can it possibly claim to be an authority on faith and morality? Encouraging members to “simply explore” in this context seems at odds with the Church’s failure to protect its own flock from harm.

The contradiction between the Church’s public image as a moral authority and its repeated failures in matters of abuse only deepens the sense of disillusionment. The Church cannot continue to offer teachings that contradict its own actions. In many ways, the ongoing abuse scandals show the Church to be struggling with a crisis of credibility and integrity.

The Need for Transparency and Accountability

The lack of transparency and accountability in handling sexual abuse cases has been a persistent problem for the Catholic Church. From the case of Bishop Terence Brain to the countless other allegations that have come to light over the years, it is clear that the Church’s culture of secrecy and protectionism has allowed the abuse to continue unchecked.

The survivors of these horrific acts of abuse deserve justice. They deserve to have their voices heard and their suffering acknowledged. Most importantly, they deserve to know that those responsible for the crimes will be held accountable, and that future generations will be protected from the same fate.

The Church must confront the reality of its past failures. A genuine commitment to safeguarding and transparency is long overdue. Until the Church takes meaningful action to address these systemic issues, its calls for moral authority and spiritual guidance will continue to ring hollow.

Conclusion

The case of Bishop Terence Brain and the ongoing sexual abuse allegations at St Bede’s College highlight the continued struggle of the Catholic Church to reckon with its past failures. The lack of response, the silence from Church officials, and the repeated cover-ups demonstrate that the institution has not learned the necessary lessons from its past. Until the Church fully confronts the abuse crisis with transparency, accountability, and a genuine commitment to safeguarding, it will remain trapped in a cycle of scandal, distrust, and moral contradiction. The faithful deserve better, and the survivors of abuse deserve justice. It is time for the Church to take meaningful steps toward healing and reform.

 

“

The Dangers of Compromised Christian Education: A Call for Discernment and Integrity

In the words of the great Reformer Martin Luther, “I am much afraid that the schools will prove the very gates of hell unless they diligently labour in explaining the Holy Scriptures. I advise no one to place his child where the Scriptures do not reign paramount.” These words, spoken centuries ago, continue to ring true today. As Christian parents and educators, we are entrusted with the responsibility of shaping the next generation in accordance with biblical truths. But in a world where secularism and false teachings increasingly infiltrate our institutions, the question arises: Can we trust Christian education organisations that compromise on these truths?

This concern is particularly evident in the context of the Christian Education Event (CRE), which, despite its mission to promote Christian principles, has recently been associated with groups that endorse teachings contrary to biblical doctrine. Among them, the Roman Catholic Church, with its apostate doctrines and practices, is one of the most prominent. This article aims to explore the dangers of compromising Christian education, using the principles laid out in Matthew 7:16 — “By their fruits you will recognise them” — to assess whether events like CRE align with biblical truth or are, instead, pushing attendees toward a more insidious spiritual error.

The Fruits of Compromised Christian Education

Matthew 7:16 offers a profound warning: “By their fruits, you will recognise them.” If we are to truly discern the character of an event or organisation, we must examine the fruit it bears — the outcome of its teaching, its affiliations, and its ultimate direction. When we look at events like CRE, which has recently hosted representatives from the Roman Catholic Church and other questionable organisations, the fruit is undeniably concerning.

The issue at hand is not merely about differing denominations or theological disagreements; it is about the very heart of the gospel. The Roman Catholic Church, despite its claims to be Christian, holds to doctrines that undermine the sufficiency of Scripture, the doctrine of salvation by faith alone, and the priestly mediatorship of Christ. These foundational differences mean that, while Catholics may profess Christ, their teachings lead them away from the true gospel.

For those who wish to hold fast to the Scriptures, placing their children in an environment that tolerates or even endorses such teachings is anathema to biblical discipleship. It is no surprise, then, that Luther warned against placing children in schools where Scripture does not “reign paramount.” The principles and practices of Christian education must be rooted in the authority of God’s Word, not in the compromise of truth for the sake of unity or convenience.

The Corruption of Roots: How Compromised Education Can Lead to Apostasy

The real danger of events like CRE lies not only in the affiliations they allow but in the subtle shift in doctrine they promote. When Christian educators and event organisers invite groups like the Roman Catholic Church to participate, they implicitly endorse those teachings. This is not a neutral action; it is a subtle, dangerous form of compromise that can lead attendees — particularly impressionable children and young people — down a path that ultimately ends in spiritual deception.

By tolerating, even promoting, Roman Catholicism at Christian events, we risk blurring the lines between truth and error. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that salvation is not by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. It is a system of works-based righteousness, where the authority of Scripture is supplanted by the traditions of the Church. This contradiction to the clear teaching of Scripture cannot be ignored. When Christian leaders make alliances with such organisations, they are, in essence, endorsing a false gospel — one that has no power to save.

Therefore, the roots of such compromised Christian education are, by definition, corrupted. How can we expect to bear good fruit if we are sowing seeds of error and mixing truth with lies? The Scripture calls us to be discerning and to reject false teachings, not to tolerate them in the name of unity or social transformation.

The Dangers of Social Transformation and the Push Toward Roman Catholicism

One of the most disturbing aspects of events like CRE is their underlying agenda for social transformation. While it is not inherently wrong to seek positive change in society, we must be wary of the ultimate goals that many of these events are pushing. There is a growing trend within Christian circles to align with the Roman Catholic Church in the name of social justice, unity, or political power. This alignment, however, comes with serious theological consequences.

By participating in events that include Catholic groups, Christian leaders risk sending a message that Roman Catholicism is just another Christian denomination, rather than a false religion with a corrupted gospel. The social transformations promoted at these events are often more about political correctness and unity with the broader religious world than about standing firm in the truth of God’s Word. This creates a dangerous atmosphere where truth is compromised in favour of a false, ecumenical unity.

The organisers of CRE, by hosting groups that ultimately push many towards full membership in the Roman Catholic Church, are contributing to this spiritual erosion. When Christian families are invited to such events, including their children, they are being encouraged to embrace teachings that contradict the very essence of the gospel. This is not a godly thing to do, no matter how much the event may be packaged as a family-friendly, Christian gathering.

The Principle of Truth Over Pleasing Men

As Christians, we are called to uphold the truth of God’s Word above all else, even when it is unpopular. The principle of truth must always take precedence over pleasing men, especially when those men are propagating false teachings that lead people away from Christ. It is better to offend men with the truth than to risk leading people astray by compromising on doctrine.

The Bible warns us that there will be many false teachers in the last days, and that we must be vigilant in guarding our faith. As it says in 2 Corinthians 6:14, “Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers.” This principle applies not only to personal relationships but also to the organisations and events we support. If we are knowingly endorsing organisations that lead people into spiritual error, we are complicit in their deception.

Thus, for Christian education organisations like Christian Education Events (CEE) to retain their statement “I advise no one to place his child where the Scriptures do not reign paramount” while at the same time welcoming groups like the Roman Catholic Church is an inherent contradiction. If the Scriptures are truly paramount, then no organisation that distorts or disregards them should be welcomed with open arms.

A Call for Discernment and Faithfulness

The stakes are high when it comes to Christian education, particularly in the context of events like CRE. We must not allow ourselves to be seduced by the false promises of unity or social transformation at the expense of biblical truth. As parents, educators, and leaders, we have a sacred responsibility to ensure that the teachings our children receive are rooted firmly in the Scriptures and that we do not lead them down the path of spiritual compromise.

If we are to honour the words of Martin Luther and avoid the gates of hell in our educational institutions, we must make a stand for truth. The root of Christian education must remain pure, grounded in the authority of Scripture, and uncompromising in the face of false teachings. Only then can we expect to bear good fruit, both for our children and for the glory of God.

Andy Hawthorne: Ecumenical or Faithful to the Gospel?

Andy Hawthorne, founder of The Message Trust, has become a prominent figure within the Neo-Evangelical movement, with a reputation for innovative youth outreach and community transformation. His ministry focuses on social justice, practical evangelism, and reaching the marginalised, particularly in Greater Manchester. However, his involvement in various ecumenical and interfaith initiatives has raised significant theological concerns. His approach to evangelism, which emphasises unity over doctrinal purity, challenges the biblical principles that underpin evangelical Christianity. This article examines Hawthorne’s ecumenical affiliations, his involvement in initiatives such as Hope 08 and The Eden Project, and evaluates whether his theology aligns with biblical orthodoxy.

The Neo-Evangelical Landscape: A Shift Towards Ecumenism

Neo-Evangelicalism, as a movement, is characterised by a desire to engage with contemporary culture and embrace a broader, more inclusive approach to faith. Neo-Evangelicals often maintain a more relaxed view of Scripture, favouring a broad interpretation of the Bible while adopting a more conciliatory attitude toward liberal theology. In particular, the movement seeks unity within the wider Christian community and, at times, extends this unity to non-Christian faiths, creating an inclusive framework for religious cooperation.

Hawthorne’s work exemplifies the neo-evangelical tendency to blur doctrinal boundaries in the pursuit of unity and social change. His partnerships with non-evangelical groups, particularly his engagement with the ecumenical movement, place him squarely within this landscape. In doing so, he raises significant questions about the theological implications of his approach and the potential for doctrinal compromise within his ministry.

Hope 08: An Ecumenical Initiative with Theological Consequences

A major initiative with which Hawthorne has been involved is Hope 08, a nationwide project that sought to unite Christians across denominational lines to engage in social outreach. The project promoted collaboration between Protestant, Catholic, and even non-Christian groups for community development and social transformation. While the stated goals of Hope 08—such as alleviating poverty and addressing social injustices—were commendable, the theological underpinnings of the project have been contentious.

The official materials from Hope 08 made clear that the initiative did not encourage religious conversions that might “put people in conflict with their family” (Hope 08 Official Site). This inclusivist approach, which downplays the necessity of exclusive faith in Christ for salvation, contradicts key biblical teachings. For example, Jesus explicitly taught that following Him would often result in division, even within families, as stated in Matthew 10:34-36: “For I have come to turn ‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother…’” This passage underlines the truth that the gospel, far from promoting religious pluralism, creates division when it calls individuals to reject false gods and follow Christ alone.

The invitation to religious and non-religious groups to unite for social action, without a clear proclamation of the exclusivity of Christ as the only way to salvation, raises concerns about the theological integrity of the project. Hawthorne’s involvement in Hope 08, therefore, can be seen as problematic, as it suggests a tacit approval of religious pluralism and a diminished commitment to the biblical truth that salvation is found only through faith in Jesus Christ (John 14:6).

The Eden Project: Ecumenism with The Salvation Army

Another example of Hawthorne’s ecumenical approach is his leadership in The Eden Project, a community transformation initiative designed to serve deprived areas in the UK. The Eden Project’s partnerships include cooperation with The Salvation Army, an organisation known for its social action but whose theological positions on salvation and Christ’s atoning work differ significantly from those of orthodox evangelicalism. The Salvation Army, although Christian in name, holds to a “works-based” understanding of salvation that undermines the biblical doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone (Ephesians 2:8-9).

The partnership between The Eden Project and The Salvation Army exemplifies a troubling trend within contemporary evangelicalism: a willingness to collaborate with organisations that hold divergent views on key doctrines. By aligning with The Salvation Army, which blurs the lines between works and grace, Hawthorne’s ministry may unintentionally promote a distorted understanding of salvation. This partnership illustrates the broader ecumenical shift within Hawthorne’s approach, which seems to prioritise social action and unity over doctrinal fidelity to the gospel.

The Inclusivist Gospel: A Denial of Christ’s Exclusivity

Hawthorne’s participation in ecumenical initiatives such as Hope 08 and The Eden Project points to a larger theological issue: his tendency to embrace an inclusivist understanding of the gospel. Inclusivism, in the context of theology, is the belief that people of other faiths can be saved through Christ, even if they do not explicitly confess faith in Him. This view, while appealing in its desire for religious harmony, fundamentally undermines the biblical doctrine of salvation.

In John 14:6, Jesus clearly states, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” This passage, alongside other scriptures like Acts 4:12, underscores the exclusive nature of salvation in Christ. The apostle Peter affirms, “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). To suggest that salvation is available through means other than faith in Christ, as Hawthorne’s ecumenical approach implies, is a denial of the gospel’s central truth.

Inclusivism promotes a “soft” view of salvation that allows for the possibility of non-Christians being saved without explicitly following Christ. This is a position that contradicts the New Testament’s emphasis on the necessity of personal faith in Jesus for salvation (Ephesians 2:8-9). By promoting unity with non-Christian faiths and downplaying the gospel’s exclusivity, Hawthorne’s theology undermines the foundation of evangelical belief.

Theological Compromise: A Rejection of Biblical Division

Central to the critique of Hawthorne’s ecumenism is the apparent rejection of the biblical concept of division that comes with the gospel. Jesus Himself acknowledged that His message would cause division, even within families, as seen in Matthew 10:34-36. This division is not to be understood as a call to conflict for its own sake, but rather as a necessary outcome of faithfulness to Christ and His truth. The Christian gospel demands that individuals reject false gods and ideologies in favour of following Christ, even when such decisions create tension and division in personal relationships.

In contrast, Hawthorne’s approach, which seeks to avoid confrontation over theological differences, promotes a false peace that undermines the gospel’s transformative power. By prioritising social unity and cooperation over doctrinal purity, he compromises the call of Christ to follow Him above all else, even at the cost of familial or social harmony.

Conclusion: An Ecumenical Agenda or a Faithful Gospel?

Andy Hawthorne’s involvement in ecumenical initiatives such as Hope 08 and The Eden Project raises serious questions about his theological stance. While his ministry’s social action is commendable, his willingness to engage with organisations that hold to divergent and, at times, unbiblical views on salvation challenges the integrity of his gospel message. By promoting inclusivity over exclusivity, Hawthorne aligns himself with a broader movement that seeks to reconcile Christianity with other religious traditions, thereby compromising the biblical truth that salvation is found only in Christ.

Evangelicals must be cautious in their endorsement of ministries that engage in ecumenism without maintaining clear doctrinal boundaries. As the apostle Paul warns in Galatians 1:8-9, any gospel that deviates from the gospel of grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone is not the true gospel. Hawthorne’s willingness to dilute the gospel in the name of unity is a dangerous compromise that has serious implications for both the integrity of evangelicalism and the spiritual well-being of those who hear his message.

---

References:

1. Hope 08: Hope 08 Official Site
2. John 14:6: Bible Gateway
3. Acts 4:12: Bible Gateway
4. Matthew 10:34-36: Bible Gateway
5. Ephesians 2:8-9: Bible Gateway
6. Galatians 1:8-9: Bible Gateway

 

Anyone who stands outside of Christ is in direct conflict with God. According to Scripture, those who reject God’s wisdom are considered foolish. Proverbs 1:7 makes it clear that “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction.” The Bible contrasts the wisdom of the world with the wisdom of God, reminding us that “the world through its wisdom did not know him” (1 Corinthians 1:21). The concept of being a “fool” is not just about intellectual inability but about a rejection of the truth that God has revealed through Scripture. When we, as believers, choose to follow Christ and adhere to His Word, it inevitably places us in direct opposition to the world’s values, beliefs, and standards. The world operates on a man-centred worldview, one that seeks self-empowerment and humanism, whereas Christianity demands a Christ-centred worldview, rooted in submission to God’s authority and the truth of His Word. This fundamental difference creates a constant tension between Christians and the surrounding world.

As Christians, we are commanded to proclaim and live by a gospel that does not conform to the world’s standards but instead calls people to radical transformation through Christ alone. Romans 12:2 commands us: “Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.” A Christ-centred worldview is countercultural, and this very fact leads to hostility. The values of the world are diametrically opposed to the values of the Kingdom of God, and thus, obedience to Christ places us at odds with those who live according to secular, humanistic philosophies.

This tension is made even clearer when we look at organisations like The Message Trust. On the surface, The Message Trust promotes a message that sounds appealing to many: hope, faith, love, compassion, encouragement, creativity, and opportunity. These are all desirable qualities, especially in a world that desperately needs to see love and unity. However, the issue arises when the values espoused by such organisations are placed under scrutiny. The Message Trust offers the world a dangerous blend of sugar-coated poison. While their outward efforts seem charitable and well-intentioned, they promote an agenda that subtly aligns with a broader, ecumenical movement that seeks unity at any cost, even at the expense of biblical truth. This agenda dilutes the gospel of Jesus Christ, mixing it with humanistic ideals and a tolerance that overlooks doctrinal clarity in favour of social action and cross-cultural engagement.

The Bible, however, is very clear about the dangers of misleading or false representations of Christianity. Matthew 7:21-23 offers a stern warning: “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’” Jesus warns that outward religious activity is not enough to guarantee salvation. It is the doing of the Father’s will, not mere profession, that marks one as a true disciple. In the context of The Message Trust and similar ministries, this passage begs the question: Are they truly doing the will of God, or are they merely engaging in religious activity that lacks the substance of true biblical faith?

To better understand the theological and ideological leanings of Andy Hawthorne, the founder of The Message Trust, we turn to his own words in his autobiography Diary of a Dangerous Vision. In this work, Hawthorne credits individuals such as Zarc Porter and Mark Pennells for their involvement in introducing “contemporary Christian bands” with worldly styles into the public domain. While this may seem innocuous at first glance, it raises serious concerns. By aligning Christian music with secular music styles, these individuals blurred the line between sacred and secular, thereby influencing how the gospel is presented to the public. The question must be asked: when the gospel is packaged in worldly styles, does it retain its distinctiveness, or is it diluted to become more palatable to secular audiences? This fusion of the sacred with the secular ultimately leads to the distortion of the message of the gospel.

Moreover, Hawthorne’s connections with prominent figures in the evangelical world, including Mike Pilavachi, further illustrate the troubling trajectory of his ministry. Pilavachi, who is closely associated with the Soul Survivor movement, has been involved in a number of ecumenical ventures, most notably Hope 08, a campaign that aimed to unite Christians from different denominations for social action. While the initiative’s goals of helping communities and serving others may sound good, it comes with a significant theological compromise. Hope 08 made clear that it would not encourage people from other faiths to make decisions that would create conflict with their families. While this sentiment may seem considerate, it reflects a disregard for the radical nature of the gospel. Jesus Himself said that following Him would often lead to conflict with family members (Matthew 10:34-36). In promoting a gospel that avoids division at all costs, Hope 08 risks presenting a watered-down, inclusive version of Christianity that seeks unity at the expense of truth.

Hawthorne’s participation in Hope 08 and similar initiatives further highlights his ecumenical tendencies. The project sought to unite Christians across denominational lines, but it also embraced unity with groups whose beliefs are vastly different from orthodox Christian teachings. One of the central tenets of the Christian faith is salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. The ecumenical movement, however, seeks to downplay doctrinal differences in the name of unity. By participating in initiatives like Hope 08, Hawthorne and others like him blur the lines between truth and error, creating a false sense of unity while compromising on the essential doctrines of the Christian faith.

In addition to the concerns surrounding his associations, the role of Andy Hawthorne in the broader ecumenical movement is further evidenced by the involvement of figures like Roman Catholic Bishop Terence Brain in initiatives related to The Message Trust. Bishop Brain, a high-ranking figure within the Roman Catholic Church, has long been involved in promoting social action through organisations like Caritas Social Action Network (CSAN). While his work is undoubtedly focused on social justice, it cannot mask the theological differences between Roman Catholicism and biblical Christianity. The Catholic Church, while affirming belief in Jesus Christ, teaches that salvation is attained through faith in Christ and works-based righteousness, including the sacraments and adherence to the authority of the Church. This directly contradicts the biblical doctrine of salvation by grace alone through faith alone.

The ecumenical ties between The Message Trust and figures like Bishop Brain are troubling because they represent an ever-growing movement within the evangelical world to partner with groups that hold to unbiblical doctrines. The idea of embracing unity at the expense of truth leads to a compromised gospel, one that is no longer faithful to the clear teachings of Scripture.

The participation of such figures in events like CRE North only underscores this growing trend. At CRE North, an event where Bishop Brain was a keynote speaker, various religious figures gathered under the banner of “unity” while overlooking critical doctrinal differences. This kind of compromise is evidenced further through the presence of artwork such as Rob Floyd’s Stations of the Cross, which draws heavily on Catholic tradition. The inclusion of such works at a Christian event demonstrates the increasing willingness to blur the lines between orthodox Christianity and practices that are rooted in Catholicism, further raising questions about the theological integrity of organisations like The Message Trust.

In conclusion, the increasing influence of figures like Andy Hawthorne, alongside organisations such as The Message Trust, reveals a dangerous trend within contemporary evangelicalism: the willingness to compromise doctrinal purity in the name of social unity and action. While the values of hope, faith, love, and compassion are undeniably important, they must never come at the expense of the truth of the gospel. The gospel calls for radical transformation through Christ alone, and that message cannot be compromised. As Christians, we must reject any form of ecumenism that seeks to unite believers with those who do not hold to the biblical gospel, and we must remain steadfast in proclaiming the full counsel of God’s Word, even when it brings division.

The call to follow Christ is not a call to peace with the world, but to a cross-bearing, sacrificial life that often stands in opposition to the values of society. We must be vigilant in protecting the integrity of the gospel, ensuring that we do not dilute it to appease the world. The message of salvation is too important to be compromised, and we must resist the temptation to participate in movements that obscure or deny its truths.

 

The Dangers of Ecumenism and Compromise in the Church: A Case Study on GOD TV and The Teach In Movement

In the modern era, the blending of differing theological perspectives often leads to confusion and a distortion of the gospel. The Church, while tasked with upholding the pure message of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ, faces growing pressures to compromise in the name of unity and relevance. The media, particularly Christian media outlets like GOD TV, has been a significant vehicle for this compromise. As seen with figures like Wendy Alec and the promotion of ecumenism, this partnership between the Church and Christian media threatens the integrity of the faith and the clarity of its message.

The Issue of Ecumenism in Christian Media

The ecumenical movement, which seeks to unify various Christian denominations and even extends to interfaith dialogue, often blurs the lines between truth and error. One such example can be found in GOD TV’s promotion of a ‘unified’ approach to faith. According to Jonathan Hulton of GOD TV, the network emphasizes partnerships that enable churches to access resources for evangelism and discipleship in this digital age. This initiative aims to create a broad platform where churches can come together under the banner of shared Christian values, such as hope, faith, and compassion. However, these values, though seemingly innocent, have been used to mask a deeper agenda of compromise and the watering down of the gospel message.

It is crucial to acknowledge that while these values are important, they can easily become a smokescreen for undermining the core truths of the Christian faith. By promoting unity at the expense of doctrinal purity, media outlets like GOD TV risk leading millions of believers astray. For example, GOD TV’s promotion of figures such as Wendy Alec—who claims to receive direct prophetic words from the Lord—demonstrates a shift away from biblical discernment and truth. Alec, co-founder of GOD TV, has been the subject of controversy due to her claims of prophetic visions, including the assertion that Jesus would physically appear at the Lakeland revival in 2008.

As highlighted by Bud Press, Director of Christian Research Service, this prophetic word was not fulfilled. Alec’s prophecy about the physical return of Jesus was a false claim, casting doubt on her credibility as a prophet. In the face of such errors, the absence of any substantial correction or retraction from GOD TV raises concerns about the network’s commitment to biblical accuracy.

The Teach In Movement: A Gateway to Compromise

The Teach In movement, which promotes the idea of “partnering” with media outlets like GOD TV, encourages churches to get involved in initiatives that are at best superficial and at worst spiritually dangerous. The danger lies in the subtle shift that occurs when churches and leaders begin to compromise on key doctrinal issues in the name of unity and outreach. This trend is not limited to GOD TV but can be seen across many platforms that prioritize growth, relevance, and popularity over biblical fidelity.

By aligning with organizations and individuals who promote a compromised gospel, churches risk losing their distinctiveness in the faith. The blending of evangelical beliefs with charismatic movements and unbiblical prophetic claims can dilute the gospel message. This compromise, which is often presented as a path to greater unity and outreach, can ultimately lead to spiritual confusion and apostasy.

The principle of biblical discernment is clear in Scripture: we are called to test all things by the Word of God (1 Thessalonians 5:21). As believers, we must scrutinize the teachings and practices of those we choose to partner with, whether in media, ministry, or any other sphere. The promotion of false prophets like Wendy Alec and her involvement in ecumenical initiatives such as the Lakeland revival serves as a warning.

As Scripture tells us in Matthew 7:15-16, “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits.” These words are especially relevant in the context of Christian media, where the lines between true and false doctrine can be easily blurred. The compromise seen in movements like Teach In can lead many believers astray, subtly drawing them away from the truth of the gospel and into a realm of confusion and error.

The Call to Faithfulness

For churches and individuals navigating the complexities of the digital age, the call is clear: we must remain faithful to the gospel, even when it means standing in opposition to the world and compromising movements within the Church. In a world where social pressures to conform are high, and the allure of partnerships with popular media outlets like GOD TV is strong, the temptation to compromise is ever-present. However, Jesus calls His followers to a higher standard. As Matthew 10:34-36 reminds us, “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword… For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother…”

In conclusion, the rise of ecumenism and the compromise seen in the Teach In movement and through platforms like GOD TV present a serious challenge to the Church. The blending of faiths and the promotion of unbiblical teachings must be met with clear discernment and a steadfast commitment to biblical truth. Let us be vigilant, testing all things by the Word of God, and refusing to partner with those who seek to undermine the gospel for the sake of worldly unity or influence.

The False Claim of a Personal Visitation: A Deeper Look into Wendy Alec’s Prophetic Word and the Implications for the Church

In recent years, claims of divine visitation and prophetic words have become increasingly prevalent within the Charismatic and Pentecostal circles. One such example is Wendy Alec, co-founder of GOD TV, who has openly presented herself and been recognised by her peers as a prophet of God. Like many within the movement, Alec claims to have experienced multiple visitations from Jesus Christ. These claims, while captivating to many, warrant scrutiny in light of biblical teaching about prophecy, Christ’s return, and the reliability of God’s Word.

Wendy Alec’s Prophetic Word: A Closer Look

Wendy Alec’s prophetic word, which was publicly read by Todd Bentley, founder of Fresh Fire Ministries, is particularly troubling due to the specific nature of its content. In her prophecy, Alec declares that Jesus Christ would visit the Lakeland Revival in person. She asserts that Jesus would physically “set His foot upon the stage in divine, personal, one-to-one visitation,” repeating twice the assertion that Christ would visit “in person.” This is a bold and specific claim that invites careful biblical analysis.

The gravity of Alec’s statement cannot be overstated. By prophesying that Jesus Christ would make a personal, physical visitation, Alec makes a clear declaration about the nature of Christ’s return—a topic that the Bible addresses with great precision. Such a claim raises significant concerns, particularly in light of the clear teachings in Scripture regarding the timing and nature of Christ’s second coming.

Todd Bentley’s Protective Disclaimer

After Alec’s prophecy was read, Todd Bentley immediately offered a disclaimer, attempting to mitigate the implications of the prophecy. Bentley stated that he was not suggesting that Jesus would physically appear on the stage in the flesh, but rather that the visitation would be in the form of an “atmosphere” or “spiritual experience.” This backpedalling raises further questions about the credibility of the prophetic word itself. Bentley’s sudden shift in explanation underscores the potential danger of speaking on behalf of God without proper discernment and caution.

The discrepancy between Alec’s unequivocal statement that Jesus would appear “in person” and Bentley’s attempt to walk back the claim illustrates the inherent problem with many prophetic utterances in contemporary Christian media. When prophetic words contradict established biblical teaching or fail to come to pass, they must be subjected to scrutiny. The fact that Bentley felt the need to offer a disclaimer highlights the uncertainty surrounding such claims, which can lead believers into confusion and potentially undermine their trust in God’s revealed Word.

Biblical Warnings Against False Prophets and the Return of Christ

It is crucial for Christians to remain grounded in the clear teaching of Scripture when evaluating claims of prophetic utterances. The Bible explicitly warns against false prophets who make grandiose claims about the return of Christ. Jesus Himself, in Matthew 24, provides clear instructions about how believers should respond to claims of His return:

• Matthew 24:23-24: “Then if anyone says to you, ‘Behold, here is the Christ,’ or ‘There He is,’ do not believe him. For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect.”
• Matthew 24:26: “So if they say to you, ‘Behold, He is in the wilderness,’ do not go out, or, ‘Behold, He is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe them.”
• Matthew 24:36: “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.”
• Matthew 24:42: “Therefore be on the alert, for you do not know which day your Lord is coming.”
• Matthew 24:44: “For this reason you also must be ready; for the Son of Man is coming at an hour when you do not think He will.”

These passages make it abundantly clear that the return of Jesus Christ is not something that can be predicted or orchestrated by human beings. Jesus Himself said that no one knows the exact time of His return—not even the angels, nor the Son, but only the Father. Any prophecy or claim suggesting a specific visitation or physical return of Christ outside the timing outlined in Scripture must be treated with suspicion.

The Bible also teaches that when Christ returns, it will be unmistakable and visible to all. Revelation 1:7 affirms this: “Behold, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. So it is to be. Amen.” This passage underscores the public and undeniable nature of Christ’s second coming, which will be witnessed by all, not an intimate, personal visitation in a revival meeting.

The Implications of False Prophecies

The implications of Wendy Alec’s false prophecy are far-reaching. When a prominent figure in the Christian media proclaims a personal visitation from Jesus, it can easily lead believers astray. The Bible warns that false prophets will arise and lead people into deception, even showing great signs and wonders (Matthew 24:24). This is why it is imperative for Christians to test all prophetic utterances against the standard of God’s Word, as commanded in 1 Thessalonians 5:21: “But test everything; hold fast what is good.”

The danger of accepting such prophecies without scrutiny is that it opens the door to further error. By aligning themselves with figures who make bold and unfounded claims about God’s will, Christians risk being led away from the gospel’s foundational truths. The temptation to embrace sensational experiences or prophetic words that seem to promise extraordinary revelations from God must be resisted, for it often leads to spiritual confusion and disillusionment when the prophecy does not come to pass.

Conclusion: Trusting in God’s Word Over Human Prophecies

Wendy Alec’s claim of a personal visitation from Jesus Christ stands in direct contradiction to the clear teachings of Scripture regarding Christ’s return. The Bible explicitly states that no one can predict or orchestrate His second coming, and that when He does return, it will be a visible, undeniable event witnessed by all. Any prophecy that deviates from this biblical reality is to be viewed with great caution and tested rigorously.

For Christians, the call is clear: trust in God’s Word, which is unchanging and infallible, rather than in the fleeting words of individuals who claim to speak for God. As Deuteronomy 18:22 reminds us, “When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken.” If Wendy Alec’s prophetic word does not come to pass, as it did not in the case of the Lakeland revival, then it must be rejected as a false prophecy. The words of Jesus Christ are non-negotiable, and it is only through faithfulness to Scripture that believers can remain grounded in the truth and avoid being misled by false teachings.

Mytic and Liberal New Evangelical, ecumenist, Rt Rev David Walker, Bishop, birds and blessing. St Francis of Assisi is properly regarded as the founding father of Christian respect for the whole created order – yet he did much more than preach sermons to birds. So says Rt Rev David Walker, Bishop of Manchester, who will talk about the relevance to present-day

 

The Incongruence of Franciscan Spirituality with Biblical Truth: A Critical Analysis

Bishop David, a Franciscan tertiary since 1989 and the lead Anglican bishop for religious communities, is deeply committed to the mission and personal devotion exemplified by St. Francis of Assisi. In his reflections, Bishop David praises Francis for his profound impact on Christian spirituality, specifically highlighting St. Francis’s transformative understanding of Christ’s humanity, his radical acceptance of poverty, and his efforts towards reconciliation across religious and cultural divides. However, the core question remains: Did Francis truly follow the Jesus of the Bible, and did he represent the biblical gospel?

The Misquoted “Preach the Gospel at All Times” – A False Claim

One of the most frequently quoted phrases attributed to St. Francis is, “Preach the gospel at all times. Use words if necessary.” This statement, however, cannot be verified and is, in fact, a misrepresentation of what Francis of Assisi actually taught. It is crucial to note that Francis never uttered this famous line. While it has become a popular aphorism, it misrepresents the heart of Franciscan spirituality and is entirely unbiblical.

The truth is that Francis of Assisi was highly specific about the method and content of preaching. According to the Rule of 1221, Chapter XII, Francis directed that “No brother should preach contrary to the form and regulations of the holy Church, nor unless he has been permitted by his minister.” Francis made it clear that all preaching had to be in line with the doctrines and authority of the Roman Catholic Church. He emphasized that “All the Friars… should preach by their deeds”—a stark contrast to the biblical command to proclaim the gospel through words.

While Francis may have taught that one’s life should align with their words, he did not advocate for the idea that the gospel could be preached without words. The Bible is unequivocal in its assertion that the gospel must be proclaimed audibly. As Paul writes in Romans 10:14, “How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?” The biblical precedent is clear: the gospel requires verbal proclamation, not just actions.

The Authority of Scripture and the Roman Catholic Church

Francis’s approach to preaching also sheds light on his stance regarding the authority of Scripture. Francis did not believe in the sola scriptura doctrine held by Protestant reformers, which asserts that the Bible alone is the final authority in all matters of faith and practice. In fact, like most Roman Catholics, Francis did not regard the Bible as the inspired Word of God in the way that evangelicals do.

Instead, for Francis and the Roman Catholic tradition, the Bible is seen as “holy scripture,” not because it is directly inspired by God, but because it serves to represent divine truths. The primary authority in Catholicism lies not in the Scriptures but in the traditions of the Church and its doctrines, codified in the traditions of the Magisterium (the Church’s teaching authority). This is demonstrated in the Rule of 1221, where Francis asserts that preaching must align with the “form and regulations of the holy Church”—in other words, the Catholic Church and its interpretations, not the individual interpretation of Scripture.

The implications of this are profound. For Francis to declare, “No brother should preach contrary to the form and regulations of the holy Church” means that any attempt to reject the official teachings of the Church—whether concerning doctrine, dogma, sacraments, or canon law—was not permissible. If any follower of Francis deviated from the Roman Catholic tradition, they would be regarded as deviating from the true path of salvation. Thus, Francis’s theological framework directly contradicted the Bible’s teaching that salvation comes through faith in Christ alone, not adherence to Church dogma or the authority of a human institution.

The Roman Catholic Understanding of the Eucharist: A False Christ

A core belief of Roman Catholicism is the doctrine of transubstantiation, the idea that the bread and wine of the Eucharist are miraculously transformed into the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ during the Mass. This doctrine stands in stark contrast to the biblical teaching about the Lord’s Supper.

The Catholic Catechism affirms that “The mode of Christ’s presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend.” The Eucharist, according to Catholic teaching, is not a mere symbol but the literal body and blood of Christ. Catholics are called to worship the Eucharist as Christ Himself—an act that stands in direct opposition to the biblical understanding of communion.

The Bible, in contrast, teaches that the Lord’s Supper is a memorial, a symbolic act pointing back to Christ’s sacrificial death on the cross. Jesus said, “Do this in remembrance of Me” (Luke 22:19). The practice of bowing and genuflecting before the Eucharist, a form of worship, cannot be supported by Scripture, which prohibits any form of worship that is not directed towards God alone. This is idolatry, as it elevates a physical object to the level of divine worship, an act that is directly condemned in both the Old and New Testaments (Exodus 20:4-5, Revelation 19:10).

The Roman Catholic Church: The Only Way to Salvation?

Pope Boniface VIII’s assertion in Unam Sanctam (1302) that “outside the Church, there is no salvation” reflects a foundational belief of the Roman Catholic Church that diverges significantly from the gospel of grace. According to Catholic teaching, the Pope holds the power of salvation, and all who do not submit to his authority or the authority of the Catholic Church are in grave danger of eternal damnation.

In his declaration, Pope Boniface wrote: “We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins.” This is a gross misrepresentation of the biblical gospel, which teaches that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone (Ephesians 2:8-9). The Catholic Church’s claim that submission to papal authority is required for salvation places an unnecessary and unbiblical burden on believers.

The Catholic Catechism further exacerbates this teaching by stating that anyone who resists the papacy “resists the ordinance of God” (Rom 13:2), thus making dissent against the Pope a sin against God. This teaching is a direct contradiction to the apostolic teachings found in Scripture, which point to Jesus Christ as the sole mediator between God and humanity (1 Timothy 2:5). It is not the pope’s authority but Christ’s that believers must submit to.

Conclusion: Francis and the Roman Catholic Church: A Distorted Gospel

It is clear that St. Francis of Assisi, despite his dedication to humility and poverty, did not follow the biblical gospel as outlined in Scripture. His teachings on preaching, his rejection of the authority of Scripture, and his adherence to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church place him in stark contrast to the apostles’ doctrine, which prioritised the gospel of grace and the authority of God’s Word.

Francis’s obedience to the Church’s doctrines, his belief in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and his insistence on submission to papal authority all demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding or rejection of the biblical gospel. The Roman Catholic Jesus is not the Jesus of the Bible. The biblical Jesus does not need to be re-presented in the Eucharist, nor does He require human institutions to mediate His salvation. Salvation is found in Christ alone, through faith in Him alone.

In light of this, it is vital for Christians to recognise that the Franciscan model, while admirable in certain aspects, does not align with the true gospel. For those who seek the biblical Christ, it is essential to reject any teaching that detracts from the sufficiency and finality of Christ’s work on the cross.

St. Francis of Assisi: A False Teacher Leading Many Astray

While St. Francis of Assisi is venerated as a saint within the Roman Catholic Church and widely admired for his humility, poverty, and devotion to Christ, it is crucial to examine his teachings and actions through the lens of Scripture. Francis of Assisi’s teachings, practices, and alignment with the Roman Catholic Church often led many astray, as they deviated from the pure, unadulterated gospel of Jesus Christ as revealed in the Bible.

1. Francis’ Submission to Roman Catholic Tradition and Authority

One of the key ways that Francis led people astray was through his absolute submission to the authority of the Roman Catholic Church. In his Rule of 1221, Francis made it clear that no brother could preach contrary to the “form and regulations of the holy Church” and must always submit to the Church’s authority. This subjugation to Roman Catholic tradition, especially the Papacy, is problematic for several reasons.

The Bible teaches that Christ is the head of the Church, not the Pope (Ephesians 1:22-23, Colossians 1:18), and that all Christians should be subject to the Word of God, not to man-made traditions or doctrines (Matthew 15:9). By promoting obedience to the Roman Catholic Church over Scripture, Francis undermined the authority of God’s Word and led people to put their trust in fallible, man-made institutions rather than in the sufficiency of Scripture alone (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

2. The Misrepresentation of the Eucharist: The Doctrine of Transubstantiation

Francis’s teachings on the Eucharist align with the false Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, which claims that the bread and wine used in the Mass are transformed into the literal body and blood of Jesus Christ. This doctrine is a direct distortion of biblical truth. The Bible teaches that the Lord’s Supper is a symbolic memorial of Christ’s sacrifice, not a literal re-sacrifice or a magical transformation.

In 1 Corinthians 11:23-26, the apostle Paul makes it clear that the bread and wine are symbols of Christ’s body and blood. Jesus Himself instituted the Lord’s Supper as an act of remembrance (Luke 22:19). To teach that the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Christ leads people into idolatry, as it elevates the Eucharist to a level of worship that Scripture does not endorse. This erroneous teaching can lead many away from the true gospel, which emphasises faith in Christ’s atoning death and resurrection, rather than in a sacrament or ritual.

3. The Denial of Sola Scriptura: The Bible as Incomplete

Francis of Assisi did not adhere to the principle of sola scriptura, which teaches that the Bible alone is the authoritative source of doctrine for Christians. Instead, like the Roman Catholic Church, Francis placed equal authority on Church tradition and teachings. The Roman Catholic Church claims that its teachings, along with Scripture, make up the full revelation of God. Francis’s teachings reflect this belief, as he insisted on the importance of conforming to the Church’s interpretation of Scripture and doctrine.

This is a serious error because the Bible itself teaches that Scripture alone is sufficient for all matters of faith and practice (2 Timothy 3:16-17). By encouraging adherence to tradition and elevating it alongside or above the Word of God, Francis led people astray from the sufficiency of Scripture, which is central to the Christian faith.

4. Salvation Through Church Doctrine and Works, Not Faith Alone

Francis’s belief in salvation was tied not solely to faith in Christ but also to adherence to the Roman Catholic Church’s teachings, sacraments, and works. This was evidenced in his submission to papal authority and the importance he placed on the Church’s doctrines and sacraments for salvation. According to Catholic teaching, salvation is not by grace alone but requires participation in the sacraments and submission to the authority of the Church.

The Bible, however, makes it clear that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone (Ephesians 2:8-9, Acts 4:12). Francis’s teachings detract from the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, and by promoting salvation through the Church and its sacraments, he led many away from the true gospel of salvation by grace through faith. His teachings were not in line with the clear biblical doctrine of salvation, which excludes human works or Church rituals as contributing factors to salvation (Titus 3:5, Romans 3:28).

5. A Distorted View of Christ’s Sacrifice

Francis’s reverence for the suffering Christ led him to emphasize the emotional aspects of Christ’s sacrifice, such as His poverty and suffering. While it is important to recognise the suffering of Christ, Francis often overemphasized the human aspect of Christ, neglecting the full biblical understanding of Christ as both fully God and fully man. Francis’s focus on Christ’s humanity can lead to a distorted understanding of His divinity and the significance of His atoning sacrifice. The Bible teaches that Jesus’s death on the cross was not merely a noble act of self-sacrifice but the perfect and sufficient atonement for sin (Hebrews 10:10-14). Any teaching that leads people to focus on Christ’s human suffering apart from His divine purpose as the sinless Lamb of God is a misrepresentation of the gospel.

6. Encouraging Idol Worship and Excessive Veneration of Saints

Another major issue with Francis’s teachings is his promotion of the veneration of saints, which is an essential practice within the Roman Catholic Church. Francis is credited with popularising the idea of saint worship, particularly through his love for the Virgin Mary and other saints. This practice, however, is a form of idolatry and is explicitly condemned in the Bible (Exodus 20:4-5, Matthew 4:10). The veneration of saints takes the focus off of Christ and leads people to worship created beings rather than the Creator (Romans 1:25).

Furthermore, the Bible teaches that believers should have a direct relationship with Christ without intermediary saints. The idea of invoking saints for intercession is unbiblical, as Scripture teaches that Christ alone is the mediator between God and man (1 Timothy 2:5).

Francis as a False Teacher

Francis of Assisi, despite his devout appearance and outward humility, taught doctrines that were inconsistent with the biblical gospel and led many astray. From his rejection of sola scriptura, his promotion of salvation through works and sacraments, to his involvement in idol worship and the veneration of saints, Francis’s teachings diverge sharply from the truth of Scripture.

The true gospel, as outlined in the Bible, calls people to repentance and faith in Christ alone for salvation, without reliance on human institutions, rituals, or saints. Francis’s teachings, by elevating the authority of the Church, advocating for a distorted view of Christ, and emphasising works over faith, mislead people into trusting in a false gospel—one that cannot save.

It is vital for Christians to recognise these errors and to hold fast to the unchanging truth of God’s Word as the only standard for faith and practice. Francis may have had a heart for God, but his teachings were not aligned with the Bible, and thus, he led many astray.

 

Romans 10:9 If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

The Catholic Church claims that God continues to give new Scripture, in the form of Catholic pronouncements.

The New Testament is the final revelation of God regarding things man needs to know to be saved:

Jude 3 Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.

The Anglican Bishop of Manchester would have us believe that “‘St Francis’ deep awareness of the humanity of Christ transformed Christian understanding and depiction of the incarnation and crucifixion,'”

But what the bishop does not state in this tranformed Christian understanding of the incarnation and crucifixion is the hypo-static Union in the Eucharist Francis of Assisi states: ““Let the entire man be seized with fear; let the whole world tremble; let heaven exult when Christ, the Son of the Living God, is on the altar in the hands of the priest. O admirable height and stupendous condescension! O humble sublimity! O sublime humility! that the Lord of the universe, God and the Son of God, so humbles Himself that for our salvation He hides Himself under a morsel of bread.””

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/wosf/wosf13.htm

The Hypo-static Union, this is the teaching that Christs presence in the host (Wafer) is not only his body but his Devine attibutes contained in the Species of bread after the prist calls Jesus down from heaven and enters into the bread, the bread is transformed through the monstrance into the body of our lord and then it contains Christs devine nauture.

This teaching is not found anywhere in the Bible, other then it is based on the popes teaching and his sole authority.

This is simply against the teachings of scripture the Bible does not teach that Christ hides himself under a morsel of bread rather he reminds us of his sacrifice of what he offered to us through his death and not hidden in the species of bread itself, this is simply leading many away from the message of the death, blood and resurrection that was demonstrated by his offering up him self but in memorial only.

The Message of CRE simply promoted by Churches Together is Ecumenism and Teach inviting people to come to the CRE event would only serve to further there agenda to bring us all back to Rome.

This says: Is formal ecumenism still the effective road to unity for churches in England or have other ‘informal’ church groups taken over? That will be the question posed by Archbishop Doyé Agama, chair of the trustees of Greater Manchester Churches Together, a trustee of Churches Together in England and Moderator of the 2015 CTE Forum.

 

Why Ecumenism Is Dangerous: A Closer Look at Churches Together and the False Unity It Promotes

The idea of ecumenism—bringing together various Christian denominations under the banner of unity—sounds appealing to many, but it is fraught with dangers. In the UK, groups such as Churches Together in Britain and Ireland (CTBI) and others associated with the World Council of Churches (WCC) push for an ecumenical movement that claims to be working towards unity, but in reality, it leads many away from the true gospel of Jesus Christ. This unity is false, and the alliances it fosters are deeply problematic.

1. Unity at the Expense of Truth

The core issue with formal ecumenism is that it sacrifices doctrinal truth for the sake of unity. The Bible clearly warns against this kind of false unity. Jesus Christ Himself taught that true unity can only exist in Him and His Word (John 17:17-21). Unity that compromises the truth of the gospel, as found in Scripture, is not of God.

The churches involved in formal ecumenism often embrace differing and contradictory doctrines, such as differing views on salvation, the nature of Christ, and the authority of Scripture. The unbiblical nature of this approach is seen in the wide theological range of groups participating in ecumenical partnerships, from Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox to liberal and charismatic denominations, as well as groups that promote doctrines inconsistent with the gospel, such as New Age teachings and Gnosticism.

2. The Dangers of Doctrinal Compromise

Among the groups mentioned are denominations that do not hold to the biblical gospel. The Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Churches promote salvation through works, sacraments, and Church authority, not faith in Christ alone. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that salvation requires adherence to Church doctrines, including the authority of the Pope and the veneration of saints—doctrines that directly contradict Scripture (Ephesians 2:8-9, Acts 4:12).

Furthermore, the Seventh-day Adventist Church, though often considered Christian by many, holds to teachings like soul sleep and Saturday Sabbath observance, which divert from the gospel and the authority of the New Testament.

The Church of England and the Methodist Church in Britain, both of which have strong ties to the ecumenical movement, have been infiltrated by liberal theology and have strayed from the biblical gospel. The Anglican Communion, in particular, has adopted positions on issues such as same-sex marriage, which undermine biblical principles on morality and the sanctity of marriage.

In addition to these, groups like the New Apostolic Reformation, emergent churches, and neo-evangelicals have embraced mysticism, contemplative prayer, and even Gnostic ideas, which are rooted in occultic practices and philosophies. These ideologies twist Scripture and lead people away from the gospel of Christ, often presenting a distorted, human-centred gospel.

3. The Occultic Influence and New Age Philosophy

Some of the groups within these ecumenical movements, such as those promoting mysticism or New Age spirituality, pose particular risks. The contemplative prayer movement, which has gained traction within some Catholic and Protestant circles, encourages practices that align with Eastern meditation and New Age ideas, leading believers into spiritual deception. Such practices compromise the biblical truth that believers should worship God in spirit and truth (John 4:24).

Furthermore, occult practices, such as those that elevate human experience above Scripture or that seek spiritual experiences outside of God’s Word, can easily creep into ecumenical settings. The focus on experience rather than the authority of Scripture can lead believers into spiritual error and false teachings, leading them further from the gospel and into the hands of deceptive spirits (1 Timothy 4:1).

4. The Unbiblical Nature of Ecumenical Alliances

Many of the groups that form part of these ecumenical alliances, such as the Cherubim and Seraphim Council of Churches, the Coptic Orthodox Church, and others, have teachings that do not align with the gospel as outlined in the New Testament. The problem is that these groups have been accepted into mainstream ecumenical dialogue without a serious reckoning of their doctrinal differences. The Catholic Church, for instance, teaches that salvation is through the Church and its sacraments, while the Bible teaches that salvation is a gift of God, received by grace alone, through faith alone (Romans 3:28).

These alliances are a breeding ground for apostasy, because they blur the lines between truth and error, creating a false sense of unity that leads people to believe that all religious roads lead to God. This is exactly what the Bible warns against: false teachers who will deceive many (Matthew 7:15-23, 2 Peter 2:1).

5. The Pushing of Apostasy through Compromised Theology

In embracing this false unity, Churches Together and other ecumenical bodies often push apostasy by promoting doctrines that contradict Scripture, such as the authority of the Church over the Bible, salvation through works, and the elevation of tradition above the Word of God. Many of the groups involved in these alliances do not teach the true gospel and instead offer a watered-down version of Christianity that is unable to save. In fact, many of these groups have openly rejected the essential teachings of the Christian faith, such as the inerrancy of Scripture, the substitutionary atonement of Christ, and the bodily resurrection of Christ.

For example, the Methodist Church in Britain has increasingly embraced a liberal theology that undermines biblical authority. The Church of Scotland, too, has been compromised by liberal views, and the Anglican Church has faced criticism for embracing progressive stances on issues like same-sex marriage, which are incompatible with the clear teachings of the Bible.

This alliance of false teachers and compromised churches forms part of a larger movement that is leading many Christians into apostasy, away from the gospel of salvation through Jesus Christ. Instead of standing firm in the truth of God’s Word, these churches are bowing to the pressures of culture and the desire for unity at any cost, even at the expense of biblical truth.

Conclusion: The Dangers of Ecumenism

While the idea of unity sounds appealing, true unity in Christ can only come through adherence to the Word of God. The ecumenical movement, particularly the alliances promoted by Churches Together and its associated bodies, is leading many astray by embracing false teachings that distort the gospel and elevate human traditions over the authority of Scripture. The Bible calls believers to guard against false teachers, and to test every spirit (1 John 4:1). This false unity, which compromises biblical truth, is dangerous and leads people away from the true gospel of salvation through Christ alone. It is a road to apostasy, and those involved in it risk being led astray by deceptive philosophies and false gospels.

 

 

 

Why the Promotion of the Catholic Rosary at CRE North is Dangerous for the Church

At CRE North, a wide range of exhibitors come together, showcasing everything from books, banks, and printers to pews, stained glass, and sound systems. The event is presented as a one-stop shop to equip, inspire, and empower the church in various practical ways. However, a more alarming trend within the event is the promotion of unbiblical practices, including the Catholic Rosary and its presence among other groups. This is a serious cause for concern for Christians who are committed to the true gospel as revealed in the Bible.

1. The Catholic Rosary and its Unbiblical Roots

The Catholic Rosary is a prayer tradition deeply rooted in the Roman Catholic Church, involving the repetition of specific prayers and the use of beads to count prayers to Mary and the saints. While this might appear as just another tradition within the church, it is unbiblical in several key ways:

• Praying to Mary and the Saints: The Rosary involves praying to Mary, the mother of Jesus, as well as to various saints. The Bible teaches that we should pray directly to God, through Jesus Christ, and not through intermediaries (1 Timothy 2:5). Praying to anyone other than God Himself, especially in the form of intercession, contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture.

• Repetition of Prayers: The Rosary includes repetitive prayers, such as the “Hail Mary,” which are often recited without true understanding or reflection. Jesus specifically warned against vain repetitions in prayer (Matthew 6:7), emphasising that prayer is a personal and intimate communication with God, not a ritualistic task.

• Theology of Salvation: The Catholic Church’s view on salvation, which the Rosary reflects, often presents salvation as a process achieved through works, sacraments, and the intercession of Mary and the saints. This directly contradicts the biblical teaching of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone (Ephesians 2:8-9).

2. Ecumenical Influence and False Unity

By promoting the Catholic Rosary at an event like CRE North, the organisers are not only endorsing a practice that does not align with biblical teaching, but also contributing to the broader issue of ecumenism. This kind of ecumenical embrace of various religious practices—especially from a church that teaches doctrines that are in direct opposition to the Bible—poses a serious spiritual danger.

Ecumenism that promotes unity at the expense of truth is a betrayal of the gospel. The Catholic Church, which is heavily represented in these ecumenical movements, teaches that the Pope is the ultimate authority in matters of faith, and salvation comes through the Church and its sacraments, not through faith in Christ alone. By endorsing practices like the Rosary, CRE North risks promoting an ecumenical spirit that undermines the gospel of Jesus Christ.

3. Promoting a False Gospel

The inclusion of the Catholic Rosary is just one example of how events like CRE North can inadvertently promote a false gospel. The Roman Catholic Church does not teach that salvation is through faith alone but insists on the necessity of works, the sacraments, and adherence to church traditions for salvation. This teaching directly opposes the biblical gospel, which teaches that salvation is only through faith in Jesus Christ (Romans 10:9-10).

By giving a platform to such unbiblical practices and groups, CRE North not only misleads its attendees but potentially spreads doctrinal error within the church. These false teachings, if left unchecked, can lead believers away from the truth of Scripture and the real gospel.

4. The Need for Discernment in Church Equipments and Resources

Church leaders and attendees at events like CRE North should exercise great discernment when choosing resources for their churches. The promotion of practices like the Catholic Rosary is a reminder that not all church resources are created equal. Just because something is presented as a Christian tool does not mean it aligns with biblical doctrine. It is vital that churches prioritise biblical faithfulness over trends or external influences that may deviate from the core teachings of Scripture.

5. The Call for Scriptural Integrity

In the face of ecumenism and the promotion of non-biblical practices such as the Catholic Rosary, it is crucial that churches stand firm in the truth of God’s Word. The Bible warns against false teachers and deceptive practices that can lead believers astray (Galatians 1:6-9). This is why events like CRE North must be scrutinised carefully—especially when they offer resources that may lead churches into spiritual error. Churches should be wary of anything that dilutes or distorts the gospel of Jesus Christ and should focus on equipping believers with biblically sound resources that encourage a deeper understanding of the true gospel.

The Dangers of Unbiblical Practices at CRE North

The promotion of the Catholic Rosary and similar unbiblical practices at events like CRE North is not just an innocent tradition—it is a spiritual danger that can lead believers astray. By embracing practices that are contrary to the gospel, the event risks promoting a false unity that distorts the truth of Scripture. As Christians, we must remain vigilant in protecting the purity of the gospel and ensure that everything we do, including the resources we bring into the church, aligns with biblical truth and the authority of God’s Word. Anything less is not only misleading, but it can also have eternal consequences for those who fall under its influence.

 

Salvation Army, The

Other Ecumenical groups include:

Adventist Discovery Center
Christian Friends of Israel
Church of England
College of St Barnabas
Compassion UK
Covenant Players
GOD TV
Greater Manchester Churches Together
Lara Martin – Abundant Life Church
Lee Abbey is a nationwide ecumenical Christian organisation (with a Church of England foundation)
Message Trust, The
Methodist Insurance
Moorlands College
Natural Church Development
Noel Robinson CRE, one of the most significant ecumenical events
Pais Project, The
RBC Ministries
RCC International
Release International   
Scargill Movement
SPCK
Wigwam Acoustics Ltd
ETC

TEACH is amongst that list

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The following Scripture is presented for Author Rodrick, in light of his rejection of my warning, based on the principles found in Ezekiel 33:9.

Titus 1:15-16
“Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled. They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.”

— Miguel Hayworth Updated 2025

This passage serves as a reminder of the danger of professing knowledge of God without reflecting that knowledge in one’s actions, and the consequences of defiling both mind and conscience through unbelief and disobedience.