This is a reflection on the service of July 2nd at St Wulframs in Grantham.
First point. No Bibles were handed out. Why not? Readings consisted of one opportunistically (more on this later) clipped piece of the Gospel from Matthew. The more contentious passage from Romans, which clearly talked about turning away from sin fell victim to the tyranny of the inclusivity agenda because its contentious and it clearly leads the reader to the conclusion that to please God we must make every effort to obey His commandments. This is what our Lord Jesus Christ tells us is precisely the case:
Jesus replied, “All who love me will do what I say. My Father will love them, and we will come and make our home with each of them. Anyone who doesn’t love me will not obey me. And remember, my words are not my own. What I am telling you is from the Father who sent me.
This is therefore a direct injunction to the believer coming direct from God – that He measures our faithfulness and love for Him by our willingness to keep His commandments. I would feel this message, one that the Apostle Paul repeats in Romans, that we are to turn away from sin is fundamental to our faith but it seems perfectly acceptable to the apostates of ‘inclusivity’ to sacrifice it on the altar of ecumenical politics. The verse from Matthew was as follows:
“Anyone who welcomes you welcomes me, and anyone who welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me.
This was used to justify Jesus’s ‘inclusivity’ in the sermon. However, this is a perversion and distortion of Scripture deliberately twisted to suit the political, not Scriptural, ideology of inclusion. This is demonstrably provable if we look at the beginning of Matthew 10 which starts with the words Jesus called his twelve disciples together…In other words, Jesus is addressing the Apostles in this passage not the average sinner on the street. Indeed, in many Bibles, Matthew 10 is subheaded Jesus sends out the twelve disciples.
I attended the service determined to refuse Communion in protest at the unbiblical conduct of the leadership of the Church of England, something I did. It was a decision vindicated by the shameful disgraceful and unbibilical conduct of the service. It was a service that deliberately perverted the Holy Word of our Lord to suit its own entirely political ends and to browbeat the congregation into swallowing this agenda whole.
I could write more but I feel no need too except to ask you to heed the words of our Lord when He said:
For a good tree does not bear bad fruit nor does a bad tree bear good fruit.
What does it say about this policy that already, in the space of one service, it has reduced the Word of God to a sideshow, wheeled out to justify a bad policy decision and browbeat an obviously reluctant congregation into swallowing this agenda whole? It tells us all we need to know.