The following Letter was written in early 2016 shortly before Great Britain's National Referendum concerning its future in the European Union. The outcome of that Referendum which concerns the future of these Isles is now well known and goes under the title of Brexit.

The main body of that Letter contained an earlier Letter which was written in 2014 setting out briefly the historical formation of these Britannic Isles, together with what we were `hearing' through the comments of many prominent people who were active in the media or political and religious life - all of whom were deeply concerned at the rapid change in the social and political life of the people of these Isles that was rapidly leading towards the destruction of its culture which had taken centuries to form, based on individual rights with individual responsibilities and supporting and upholding those called to govern the people. As we wrote in that earlier Letter, the Parliamentary cry was `The King is above the people but under the Law'.

However these two Letters were never sent out as the contents - apart from the historical and cultural comments - seemed to be beyond the possibilities of this Age. And so here we would move into what was written just a few years earlier, for the `impossible' appears to be not only `possible' but is already outworking itself in this Age!

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


'To everything there is a season
and a time to every purpose under the sun '
Our title comes from the Book of Ecclesiastes, where we find that the Koheleth has called his intimate group of councillors together to ponder the changes that `the Spirit of God' had revealed to him - the devastating changes that would come to his kingdom upon his death which would rend his kingdom in two. But the Koheleth trusted the Word of the LORD that a King from his line would sit upon `the Throne of David' and rule a unified nation. Great changes were coming for Solomon's kingdom - just as great changes lie ahead for the kingdom of these Britannic Isles - yet, as the Koheleth said, `there is a season and a time to every purpose . . .'. Now, as in Solomon's time, we have the sure words of Scripture that a King of David's Line will sit upon His Throne in Jerusalem and rule over a unified Kingdom of Israel and the kingdoms of the world. There is a time to every purpose under the heavens, and that eternal purpose is in God's hands!

Every student of anthropology will confirm that all settled communities from time immemorial have been governed in some form of other by two dominant strands of rule, that is, the state, in whatever form it takes, and an accepted form of `higher religion'. State rule, whether through a king, a president or a tyrant, will be ever looking for support from the second estate, religion, in whatever form it is accepted by the community, and apart from anthropology history reveals this understanding. From Abram's meeting with Melchizedek, king of Salem . . . to Moses' battles with the Pharoah of Egypt . . . to the mighty kings of Assyria and Babylon . . . to the high cultures of Greece and Rome, those two estates of ruler and religion undergirded the continuance of the government of settled communities, often with the estate of kings reluctantly acknowledging the spiritual estate of religion. This is seen in stark detail in chapter 13 of the Book of Revelation with `the beast coming out of the sea' (the antichrist) and `another beast coming out out of the earth' (the false prophet).

However, in this Letter we are concerned with two present-day systems of government in the West. One, that of a constitutionally-based Federal Republicanism, where the powers of central government are restricted to the degree that States within the Republic retain a measure of self-government, yet with ultimate sovereign power residing in a central government headed by a President elected by democratic vote. The other system of government is that which is seen in the United Kingdom, that of a hereditary Monarch whose sovereignity is constitutionally given over to a democractically elected Parliament - yet retaining a nominal `voice' through the second chamber of Parliament, the House of Lords, where limited authority is continually being reduced through Parliamentary awards of Life Peers! The nation's Monarch is crowned in the nation's centre of religious authority, with the attendance of the two Houses of Parliament, the House of Commons (where absolute sovereignty is vested) and the House of Lords (which has limited authority). The service is attended by the Archbishop of the Church of England, a Church established by law as the national Church of England. The Coronation of the Monarch is completed with the reading of the Coronation Oath by the Archbishop and the Monarch's acceptance of it in the presence of all the estates of the realm and is sworn to God and the people. This system of governance goes back to the early days of the governance of these Brittanic Isles, the earliest record being the crowning of Eggrith by his father King Offa in 787 AD, both being kings of Mercia simultaneously for a short period of time. In this we see the battle between State and religion for King Offa wanted Eggrith to be his successor, to the chagrin of others, and so to ensure acceptance of Eggrith King Offa appointed his own Archbishop, overriding Canterbury. In 973 AD Edgar was crowned King of England, and towards the end of his reign Emperor of Britain, in Bath Abbey. The Coronation ceremony was devised by Dunstan Archbishop of Canterbury, and apart from various minor amendments it has remained in that form to this day. Following Edgar's Coronation as King and Emperor, the six Kings of England - including the King of Scots and King of Strathclyde - paid homage and swore allegiance to him. Edgar died two years later and is buried in Glastonbury Abbey, the throne seat of the Wessex dynasty. Later a 12th century historian, Henry of Huntington, described these kingdoms as a `heptarchy', that is seven kingdoms (from the Latin word `hept' meaning `seven' and `archy' meaning `rule'). The four dominant kingdoms of Northumbria, Mercia, East Anglia and Wessex were joined to the three lesser kingdoms of Essex, Kent and Sussex, forming the whole of English monarchical rule, the impact of which can be seen in today's counties.

By the time of Edgar the dominant kingdom of Mercia had been given to Wessex, which culminated in the crowning of Harold King of Wessex. Shortly afterwards came the crowning of William the Conquerer in 1066 AD in Westminster Abbey, which ever since has been the centre of national unity. All the Monarchs have been crowned there and it contains the ultimate unifying national symbol, the Tomb of the Unknown Warrior (the unidentified remains of a British soldier buried amongst the British greatest), the only tomb in the nation's religious buildings where it is forbidden by law to walk upon. Although this may seem to be an interesting digression it is of importance to this Letter to `bring in' Westminster Abbey. Its full name is `the Collegiate Church of St Peter at Westminster' and is a Church of England `Royal Peculiar' - which means it is no longer an Abbey or Cathedral but a Church directly responsible to the Sovereign.

Edward the Confessor began to rebuild St Peter's Abbey to provide a Royal Burial Church, and it was officially consecrated in 1065 just one week before Edward's death on 5th January 1066. Since then it has been the religious centre of Britain with all Monarchs being crowned there, and most of them buried there also. Thus in British custom and law both State and Religion are fused into one power centered in Westminster in London, the heart of the British Isles. However as we have seen, this fusion of State and Religion began much earlier than 1066 for these Isles were thoroughly `Christianised' by the 7th century. A unified nation emerged under the dominance of the King of Wessex with the crowning of Edgar at Bath Abbey by the Archbishop of Canterbury - all of which survived the Norman Conquest in the 11 century and was known as `Englishry' while under Norman rule. Today several Christian ministries look to the Monarchs' Coronation Oath at their crowning to be the ultimate source of authority in the governance of these British Isles. However a reading of that Oath reveals it to be a very ambiguous document, making it impossible for the Monarch to uphold for all authority in a Constitutional Monarchy has been vested in Parliament, the House of Commons, whose laws, once passed, must be upheld by the Monarch.

The Coronation Oath is sworn by Monarchs at their Coronations and, therefore, by Queen Elizabeth 2nd in 1952. In the presence of both Houses of Parliament they sign a Declaration prescribed by an Act of Parliament, the Archbishop of Canterbury standing before them: " To govern according to their respective laws and customs to the utmost of your power (our emphasis). To maintain the Laws of God and to a true profession of the Gospel . . . To maintain and preserve inviolably the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law. To maintain and preserve the settlement (establishment) of the Church of England and the doctrines, worship, discipline and government thereof, by law established in England. "

This makes the King or Queen an `inert voice' of Parliament with no independence of action as a Constitutional Monarch. The wording of the Oath is contradictory: `Your power' (Parliament's power) . . . to maintain the Laws of God . . . A true profession of the Gospel . . . the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law (changed as required by Parliament). Surely no rational sane person could sign such an oath for its content can be changed by Parliament at any time during the Monarch's rule.

Within the Coronation Oath lies the promise to `maintain and preserve inviolably the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law' . . . `to maintain and preserve the settlement (establishment) of the Church of England and the doctrines, worship, discipline and government thereof, by law established in England'. Today the Church of England is now but one of the many Churches which derive their identity from acceptance of the liturgical traditions and doctrines developed by the Church of England - collectively known as Anglicans, members of the Anglican Communion. (The term `Anglican' originated in the medieval Latin `Ekklesia Anglicana', which simply means `the English Church'). In modern times Anglicanism is mainly the religious residue of the old British Empire, of which the Church of England is but one Church, albeit the senior by age, all of whom accept (at this time) the authority of the See of Canterbury to convene in Assemblies or Synods. Continuing to use the title `Anglicanism' is therefore essentially an English way of seeking a middle ground between Roman Catholicism and other more extreme Protestant Churches, such as the Lutherans. But while the Church of England and Anglicans cling to the doctrine of `Apostolic Succession' from Rome Anglicanism has within it a mild form of Roman Catholicism - as seen particularly in the work of ARCIC, the Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission. This was established in 1967 to bring about restoration to Rome `who accepts only a Universal, Catholic Church under the authority of the Bishop of Rome'. But as we are concerned in this Letter with the Church in the British Isles we must return to the smaller `canvas'.

In simple terms British Monarchs cannot keep their Coronation Oath for they are bound continually to Parliament. The Church of England cannot uphold `the Laws of God' for it is bound by `Establishment', by law established in England. The Church of England derives its identity from Parliamentary legislation and Ecclesiastical tradition, therefore a crisis of identity will result whenever religious loyalty to Scripture clashes with Parliament. This has been clearly seen to happen in the Church of England's General Synods (which are as fierce in debate as any of those first four Ecumenical Councils of the 3rd and 4th centuries) to establish the doctrines of the Church which the Church of England adheres to. As these modern Synods seek `the English middle way' (to `disagree well' is but one such expression coined) the Church of England is facing its own `Brexit', for the moment the Church tries to `form the world' the world will `form the Church'! History is littered with the evidence of this. As popular secular culture established by law increasingly and stealthily leaches into the Church, it resembles a form of osmosis. That is, as the secular world passes through time into the spiritual world both find the same level as the lower (earthly) enters the higher (spiritual) and finally equal levels of accepted life results - a Christianised country and a secularised Church. We see it as the laws of this nation, entering into and accepted by the Church, become the moral-social life of the nation, thereby raising the nation to a level it could not attain by its own efforts, whilst the Church reduces to a level it should not have sought. The outcome of this is seen in recent debates in the Synods of the Church of England, and it is causing a crisis of identity which will lead to dramatic changes. As the title of our Letter shows we are looking at the changes in State and Church that are occurring, and although a long time coming they are now being unlocked through `Brexit'. With an understanding of Scriptural principles we spoke in 2013 of a change coming in the country during 2014, and in early 2014 we wrote a Northern Style `Thought for the Day' which briefly set out what those changes meant. Below we repeat some of that `Thought for the Day':

" In this year of 2014 not only the political but the religious traditions of these Britannic Isles have been in the thoughts and words of the media in all its different forms. It could be that this merely co-incided with the season of Easter, and some of `the Great and the Good' in the country felt that this was the time to let the public know their opinions. Although the matter of the country's `Christian/Judaic Heritage' has long been the subject of several Christian Ministries, this time the matter came from those in High Office and Academia. It started with an Open Letter published in a national daily broadsheet informing the public that in their opinion the country was no longer a Christian country. The qualified response to this Open Letter from the Archbishop of Canbterbury was that, if by counting the number of `pew fillers' in the Church on a Sunday they came to this conclusion then the writers of the Open Letter were correct - that we do live in a post-Christian country. But if this country's laws and culture were taken into account then the country is still considered to be a Christian country as it is outworking its national life on Christian principles.

" Hot on the heels of these comments came the remarks in a television programme hosted by a senior Cabinet Minister of the country's Government calling for the dis-Establishment of the Church of England. This was quickly rejected by the Prime Minister, who stated that such a matter would never happen whilst he was the head of the Government and that `it was not this Government's policy'. Not to be left out, a former Archbishop of Canterbury joined the fray with a remark that the country was indeed in a post-Christian era. Next came a small article in a weekend tabloid stating that the two Sees of Canterbury and York could be the next to enter the waters of contention, quoting the remarks of `York' concerning a recent same-sex `Marriage Blessing' conducted by a priest of the Church of England and warning of a separation of the two Sees if the matter was not dealt with. All this in just one short week over the 2014 Easter period! This is to say nothing of various Christian Ministries concerned with `the state of the nation', linking the moral state of this country with God's Judgement upon a country which had rejected its Christian/Judaic Inheritance and calling for a return of the status quo ante - however, what `ante' it is meant to return to has never been made quite clear! So we turned to ask the Lord what these articles and reports of changes-to-come mean within the understanding of the Kingdom of God and His purposes for His people, but first we need a short history lesson.

" Many people believe that these Isles above all other in the European area have their own unique position in God's purposes. And so with that in mind we take our `Thoughts' away from the world-wide canvas, and even away from the smaller picture of Western Europe, and onto `this Sceptred Isle . . this England' for indeed it is unique in its geographical formation and evolution. Most countries evolved from a Patrimonial system of government, wherein the great Offices of State were kept within the dominant tribe which was sub-divided into family clans. This family loyalty, with its implied hope of advancement, clearly kept all contenders to the Seat of Power as outsiders and as such stopped the emergence of a national ethos, therefore restricting its world view and subsequent political development. Even in the advanced Western countries the great Offices of State were often purchased with the promise of no taxation on the money earned from those Offices of State. Such a system also curtailed the emergence of a commercial middle class, the Bourgeoisie, who could challenge the system. Little wonder that the 18th century French Revolution happened, for such a system as then existed there could not be reformed. It could only be torn down with all it's tragic consequences. One French King was known to ask of his Finance Minister: `How can you continue to find so many State Offices to sell?', only to hear the response: `For as long as God continues to send us fools'. Such a system had but one end - and it came!

" These Brittanic Isles are in that sense unique in that this Patrimonial system did not take hold in its development of State Government, for early in its geopolitical development the State Offices centered on individualism rather than kin-based communities. It can be said that the early communities of these Isles were of a political-social formation rather than a tribal-social one, and all who from time to time lived in those independent communities were classed as being truly part of the community, free to come and go from one to the other - they left one identity and joined another identity, assimilated into it and were accepted by it, and social cohesion was just `being there'. Moving from one community did not entail building the old into the new, and therefore a Patrimonial system was not built. Prior to the Norman invasion in the early 11th century `England' was already organised into groups of communities under the familiar name to us of `the Shires of England'. No doubt that earlier on these communities may well have been petty kingdoms but by the 11th century they had amalgamated into Shire communities presided over by a Ealdorman - the now more familiar name of Alderman of the local town Councils of our earlier years. As these independent Shires grew in size the overall kingly power was exercised by a Shire Reeve (our well-known Sheriff) who was appointed by the king. The Shire Reeves had Royal authority and were responsible for calling together the Shire Moots, or Councils, to which all Freemen and Property Owners had to attend bi-annually to discuss and to rule on the Shire affairs. The Norman Conquest did not abolish this system of local Shire government but merely adopted the system and overlayered it with a Norman-based centralised authority centered on the capital city, London, the Seat of Royal power.

" Such a geopolitical system eventually allowed for a strong independent Parliament of Commons and Lords to emerge, which curtailed the King's power. But even before the Norman Conquest there was an earlier historical movement in the power structure of these Isles when the monk Augustine arrived with the Christian Gospel, as decreed by the Bishop of Rome. He demanded full acceptance of Papal authority over all the religious Orders in the country - which eventually was to sound the death knell to any form of tribal communities continuing with their own independent religious leaders. Those who resisted this Papal incursion into the tribal communities were pushed to the extremities of the country, seen today as the Welsh, the Cornish and the Scottish people. From these political developments came the English Common Law, which curtailed the power of the King and protected the rights of the powerful Barons, thereby introducing Property Laws through which came the more individualist development of the English culture. Such Laws enforced by Parliament gave freedom to buy and sell and therefore led to what we call today `social mobility'.

" What has evolved over a long period of time has formed the uniqueness of the people of these Isles, formed by choice into political, social communities with freedom of movement. Layered over this was a centralised form of Government, accepted by but foreign to the culture of an individualistic people, and central to this was the role of the Church, originally in the form of Papal Catholicism claiming universal and spiritual authority and latterly in the form of the Established Church of England. However this established Church of England, by its insistence on Apostolic Succession with the right to appoint its own Bishops and rejecting Papal authority over its affairs, never cut its `umbilical cord' with Rome. It should therefore more rightly be called `Reformed Catholicism' for it has never formally declared itself Protestant in doctrine or establishment! This reformed and established Church together with Parliament kept the `layered on' kingly power in check, and this became the bedrock of governance in these Isles. Following a decisive battle between King and Parliament the cry came that, `the King is over the people but under the Law' - as formed and upheld by Parliament and watched over by the Established Church of England with its right for some Bishops to sit in the Second Chamber of Parliament, the House of Lords. Christian zealots who denigrate the Established Church of England should give continual thanks for its existence, for to this day it continues, albeit in a weakened form, to uphold the rights of all religious beliefs in these Isles (of which Christinaity is but one) and it still curtails the power of the king, now devolved to Parliament in the form of a Constitutional Monarchy.

" Rather than add to the cries for a return to the status quo ante we sought to understand what the Lord may be saying in `the clamour of many voices' of Christian Ministries speaking against those who continually attempt to change the culture of these Isles - if indeed they are calling for a change rather than a return to what has been lost and needs to be restored in order to be a `vessel' for the purpose of God in these Last Days. If the reports mentioned in our opening words are correct, then surely we are seeing the beginning of the break-up of the authority of Parliament through corruption and culturally corrosive Laws. We are also seeing the beginning of the break-up of the Established Church of England through the corruption of God's Word entrusted to them. Added to this we are seeing the beginning of the break-up of the Unity of the Kingdoms in these Isles through devolvement of power to the clans in the outposts of the Kingdom of Scotland and to the Principality of Wales - no doubt soon Cornwall will be opening up the way for all the `Shires' (now called counties) to re-emerge as they too seek some form of devolved power. The uniqueness of the political power of these Isles is not in a United Kingdom under the dominance of a `layered on Norman elite' which control the wealth, and therefore the authority of the Shires. Its uniqueness, now arising, is in fully autonomous, authoritative Shires under the authority of their elected representatives who are free from party political allegiance but called to Parliament to make and uphold Laws and are also ready to respond to a `call to arms' should these Isles be threatened.

" The Established Church of England is ruled by its own form of `overlayered imperial power', a Spiritual shadow emanating from an earlier Papal authority which rules over what should be individual and autonomous `Shire' churches, yet ready to defend the whole Church in England should it be threatened by apostacy or doctrinal error. This was the understanding of the early Church, which in those days was centered in the East wherein local Bishops were called to the Great Councils to define and defend the doctrine of the whole Church under the protection of the Byzantine Emperors. Those early Great Councils soon became merged with State power, which caused their ultimate demise and the rise to dominance of the Bishopric of Rome claiming sole representation of Christendom. This is the paradox of these changing times: The `Norman Imperial' State power belongs in Europe where its roots lay, and the spiritual powers behind those `roots' continually draw the State towards those roots, whereas the `Shires' the State rules over belong to the formed culture of these Isles. Likewise the Established Church of England is ruled over by its own form of Imperial power, the Spiritual shadow of Rome, which still attempts to regain what it lost - ruling over what should be fully autonomous Churches of the Shires and proclaiming the Gospel of the Kingdom of God to the people of the Shires. These are the changes that are appearing in these Isles which one way or another will have to be resolved in order to understand the response that we, as disciples of the Lord Jesus, will need to make for we too need to ask the question, `when will these things be?'. If our understanding of the times is correct it is not a return to the status quo ante, for if there is a resistance to these changing times there will also be a resistance to what the Holy Spirit is asking of us. Clinging to Institutions and traditions long after the conditions which formed them have changed will leave the social/political religious life irrelevant, and even dysfunctional.

" Two Institutions are at the centre of these changes: First there is what we have called the layered-on State system of Norman imperialism which seeks to draw these Isles into Europe. To break this spiritual power behind the State would entail leaving - a separation, a cutting off by the authoratitve power of these Isles, that is, Parliament - Europe through an acknowledgement of the voice of the people which it represents. This must lead to a reformed Parliament, to be represented not by elected party members but by the various `Shire Reeves' following a true devolution of power to the Shires. Secondly, we come to the Church of England, which will have to acknowledge the spiritual power behind `Apostolic Succession' in its attempt to bring it back under Papal authority and, as with Parliament, there will be a leaving - a separation, a cutting off of unscriptural traditions which have stopped it being the Church in England. (The early Church in the East had understood its position in which ever country it found itself, but as with all things it quickly became corrupted as it sought protection from the Emperors rather than from the Lord of the Church.) This dis-established reformed Church, with its `Shire' Bishops representing all the Christian Assemblies in its Dioceses, could be called to the Great Councils of the Church to define and defend its Scriptural doctrine - and only the Church of England can perform this work with its network of Dioceses over all these Isles. Much reforming work needs to be undertaken before it can fulfil this role, but when done together with a reformed Parliament they could present a unified country ready to withstand the coming conflict of the Ages - at last ` fit for purpose' in God's will!

" Our understanding of the times must surely turn our thoughts to the question asked of the Lord Jesus, `when shall these things be'?. The answer to that question must be found in Scripture, and for that we turn to `the Seal of the Prophets', the Book of Malachi, where in chapter 3 it says: `See, I will send My messenger who will prepare the way before Me. Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to His Temple'. The words Malachi spoke did indeed seal up the Prophets, and we know that 400 years later the Great Probation of Israel ended with the Lord suddenly coming to His Temple . . His First Coming. We also know that prophecy is ongoing and unfolding and His Second Coming was spoken of in the words of the Lord Jesus Himself, which then prompted that question from His disciples, `when will these things be?'.

" The changes taking place need to be considered from God's perspective and not from our prejudices and our seeking to return to the status quo ante. Our understanding of Scripture will determine our actions in these remaining years before His Second Coming. Our interpretation of Scripture will leave us either preparing in self-centered concern for The Dreadful Day of the Lord, or proclaiming the Good News of the Coming King. Only a few years of Grace remain as we wait for the Outpouring of the Holy Spirit to enable the Church to fulfill its purpose in this world before it is caught away to be with the Lord. "

This ends the quotation from our earlier `Thought for the Day'

Since that `Thought for the Day' was written much has indeed changed, and that change will now intensify following `Brexit'. As we saw earlier, all settled communities in the form of Nation States exist on the two pillars of secular State power undergirded by religious Church power, and both these two `pillars' will undergo change. The first to consider is State power - and within these Britannic Isles that means the Monarch who is constitutionally restrained by the premier House in Parliament, the House of Commons. Within the existing system the central problem of the United Kingdom is not the Kingdom of Scotland with its independent Parliament seeking even more independence. The real problem is the English Kingdom which has no independent Parliament and caught, as it is, within the United Kingdom's Parliament. The Principality of Wales has its own Parliament, and even Northern Ireland (which surely must one day be re-united with Eire) has its own Assembly.

Within the Politico/State system this would require a radical change of thought, leading to a full reformation of the United Kingdom with fully developed Kingdoms of England and Scotland together with Wales and Northern Ireland, each with their own elected Parliaments but acknowledging the primacy of a Parliament of the United Kingdom. This would be for Defence and Fiscal matters only, headed by a reformed constitutional Monarchy and devoid of partisan politics. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland each have their own State Assemblies in prominent centres of their political power, therefore such a political centre for England could point to York. As for the religious `state system' which undergirds the political system, surely the same change of thought is required. Scotland has its Church of Scotland. Wales has its own Church of Wales. Even divided Ireland has its Church of Ireland, although when Ireland was partitioned in 1920 the Church of Ireland did not divide and is still governed on an `all Ireland' basis, while England has the Church of England, all of which could be under the authority of York for matters of doctrine.

All of these four national Churches which are needed to undergird civic authority are all within the Anglican Communion and could therefore acknowledge the primacy of the Archbishop of `the Church of the United Kingdom' based in Canterbury. We suggest, therefore, the Church of England is not in danger of breaking up but it is in the process of reforming itself and fracturing into Regional Churches in line with the political regions. However if radical reform is not undertaken then the United Kingdom could break up, with dire consequences. Could such a radical reformation happen? It is already happening in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and within England the Government is offering large financial and political incentives for County Councils to merge into larger regions which would necessitate more powerful political development. A discussion on the political life of the United Kingdom on BBC Radio 4 in 2016 brought forth the question, `Are we heading towards a federal form of government?'. It would seem that the United Kingdom is indeed heading that way!

We now leave the United Kingdom of these Isles and turn to the United Kingdom of the Lord and the people who inherit that Kingdom, born not by natural birth but by a spiritual birth into the life of Jesus. To that end we turn to the Gospel of John and to the words of Jesus spoken to His Father on the eve of His Redeeming work on the cross, commonly called `the High Priestly prayer of Jesus':

" These words He spoke and lifted up His eyes to Heaven and said: `Father,
the hour has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify You'. "

As His prayer continued Jesus said:

" That all of them may be one, Father, just as You are in

This prayer is often used to plead for unity in the Body of Believers, His Church. In view of the two thousand-year journey of the Church with its often violent separations, this is right and proper for it is a prayer for His disciples - and even more so as the `time approaches'! The Kingdom of God was put in abeyance until a later time, as recorded in Matthew 28. Jesus was speaking to His disciples just before going back to Heaven:

" Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the Name
of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit . . . . And lo, I am
with you always even unto the end of the world. "


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


And so in June 2017 we come to Great Britain's General Election! Regional political leaders, therefore sensing national stirrings not only in Great Britain but throughout Eurorpe - to say nothing of the turmoil in the greater world beyond the small peninsular of Western Europe - will increasingly `seize the moment' for independence as these Isles become vulnerable as we enter the Brexit negotiations. In an earlier Letter we mentioned that we need to look beyond `Brexit' as the fracturing and re-structuring of the European Union begins and we see the great fracturing which is happening in the `Global Union', which will bring even greater insecurity, This global insecurity will resonate throughout the world and will embroil these Britannic Isles in the turmoil which is building up and soon to spill over into every area of these Isles, political, social and religious. Could it be that this will thrust vulnerable Britain into a `reformation' of both political and religious life? As we wrote in that earlier Letter, time will tell!

And so to conclude this Letter we turn to the closing comments of the 2016 Letter:

" And so we bring to a conclusion the `two Kingdoms' gathered in these Isles. The first, a secular political union of two Kingdoms, a Principality and a Province, which collectively for the purpose of this `Church Letter' we shall call `four Kingdoms', set free from Europe through `Brexit' yet still under the domination of the larger `Kingdom of England'. Within this sense of a coming national freedom there are strident voices calling for total independence, and yet paradoxically looking for the protection of that which Brexit won for them. `Devolution' is the new war cry in these Isles - truly a massive change is taking place - but how this to be achieved without total civil unrest not seen since the 17th century is what occupies those in the corridors of power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom! The second `Kingdom' is not of this world, the Kingdom of God whose subjects are those given by God the Father to His Son, the Eternal King of kings and Lord of lords. Since the great Move of God in 1967 freedom from the old form of religion has brought a vibrant new life to the disciples of His Kingdom, yet again paradoxically many seek the `protection' of newly-formed hierarchical Church groups. " End of quotation

Towards the end of the 2016 Letter we wrote of `four national Churches which are needed to undergird the civic culture) and authority'. We have also written above in this Postscript that `yet again paradoxically many (disciples) seek the protection of newly-formed hierarchical Church groups' as the fragmentation of both State and religion spills over into the social life of the nation. The two will increasingly merge with a hardening towards any perceived dissident groups who stand for the truth of Scripture. We recall the words of a 17th century theologian, a Puritan who in breaking from Presbyterianism to embrace a congregational form of Church govenment said: `There is little to chose between new Presbyter and old Priest'. We intend no critique on John Owen's work but only use his words as one who longed for truth at any cost, for Owen also lived at a time of great unrest during the 17th century's Civil War and knew the cost of not `seeking the protection' of newly-formed hierarchical Church groups. The subjects of the political United Kingdom have their `Brexit' from the European Union and will have to find their way for the uniqueness of these `four Kingdoms' to find their expression. So too will the subjects of the Spiritual Church of the Lord Jesus living within these Isles have to experience their own `Brexit' that they may also express their uniqueness within the United Body they have been born into, `that they may be one' in truth and purpose.

In conclusion Brexit is not about leaving anything in order to re-establish the national identity of `the four Kingdoms of these Isles'. It is not even about being a trigger for the breaking-up of Europe or, on a wider scale, the trigger for the global break-up of capitalism or free trade globalisation. It is about restoring all things through judgement and deliverance the establishment of the Kingdom of God under the Kingship of the Lord Jesus in Jerusalem in the Land of Israel! If after the `sifting' these Britannic Isles play a part in the events leading up to the climax of the ages that will be entirely through the Providence of God and by His Grace alone. `Even so, come Lord Jesus'.

Selah

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~



You may E-mail us at: derek@northernstyletrust.com or Telephone (01493) 444494 (UK)
Our Web Address: www.northernstyletrust.com