Once Christian Marriage Means Nothing 2

April 3, 2025

Once Christian Marriage Means Nothing Part 2 of 2 

In some cases one would be hardly surprised at marital infidelity in the church. That King James Only fanatic Peter Ruckman is on his third marriage is no surprise and when it was revealed that former Elim president Ian Bilby was having affairs in Elim all the while he was cheer leading The Laughing Revival as a move of God , no one should have been surprised.

Although he could make no attempt to justify it, neither was I surprised when in a letter to a Pentecostal leader in The USA we have a copy of, Elim's Wynn Lewis attempted to mitigate the seriousness of an Elim minister having been imprisoned for having sex in the church nursery with a minor because the girl was 15 years of age. Indeed, I would be rather be surprised if such open filth did not take place in a backslidden cult like Elim. Above all, the multiple divorces and remarriages of money preacher Robert Tildton should be expected as should divorce and remarriage by men like Richard Roberts, Peter Horrobin, or Ray Bevin. But when Arthur Blessit abandoned his wife and took off with a woman from London's Westminister Chapel, or when my dear friend Dr. Walter Riggins went into an adulterous relationship, or when Hal Lindsey divorces and remarries yet again, people like myself are left feeling shocked, hurt, and confused. As much as I once respected these men, we cannot 'Blink The Eye". 

Thomas Moore is not the best example of someone who refused to compromise over illicit divorce in order to please man and paid with his life, because Moore's real problem was not the divorce of Henry VIII, but merely that for political considerations the Pope would not give Henry a papal dispensation to do it. Moore was as much the victim of his own misplaced loyalties as he was of the axe of King Henry. Yet the divorce and remarriage were improper, Thomas Moore did oppose it, and he was consequently decapitated at The Tower of London.

A better example would be John The Baptist who would not approve the improper remarriage of a woman to Herod and was likewise beheaded. These men refused to 'Wink The Eye' and lost their heads. Men like Derek Prince, Eliahu Ben Hayim, Johannas Facius, and Lance Lambert, in a manner of speaking, appear to have lost their heads and then Winked The Eye. The thought that others faced the chopping block rather than compromise with what Lance Lambert and Derek Prince have no trouble casually aligning themselves with is a sad indictment of the current state of the church and those who pose as its leaders. When those led astray by the wrong example and flawed leadership of such Eye Winkers participate, financially or otherwise, in something with which Mr. Horrobin is involved, on the basis of 2 John; 9-11, they too partake in the sin. But why should an adulterous church be expected to care about adultery?

We have often noted that wrong doctrine invariably begets wrong conduct. As we note on our 'Sons of Zadok' tape and video, the Hebrew term for being right and for being righteous is identical (Tsodek), and one scripturally in God's sight cannot be a righteous person (tsadek) if what they believe is not correct (tsodek). The idiotic notion that one can be in serious doctrinal error and still be regarded as 'a good brother' is simply a nonsensical and contra biblical invention of carnal Christianity. Being right in one's doctrine may not always guarantee that one is righteous, but being wrong in one's doctrine certainly guarantees that one is not.

This is why the New Testament contains twice as much exhortation to right doctrine as it does right conduct; without right doctrine, we cannot know what true right conduct is. This is also why in Paul's listing of the armour in Ephesians 6, he places Truth before the Breast Plate of righteousness in the chronological order of how the armour was to be put on. A legionnaire could not put on his breastplate without first girding his loins. So too, we cannot spiritually put on the righteousness of Jesus without first having right essential doctrine.

I recently had an encounter with what I can only describe as a pseudo spiritual woman involved with Ebenezer Trust in London. Her comment was 'Let God Judge', but she concretely refused to deal with the doctrinal or moral issues involved. Her words were the foolish babbling of an eye winker who is party to wickedness. God already has judged in His Word. He has directly told us what to do when there is unrepentant sin, and He has already given us His judgment about divorce and remarriage, and He commands us to act upon His judgment. She is in rebellion against The Lord and has rejected His Word. Her only saving grace may be that she does so under the influence of the example of Derek Prince and Lance Lambert; after all she reckons 'if such deeply spiritual men ignore the Word of God, it must be all right, with no reference in her thinking to what the Word of God says, nor with any regard for the victim - the abandoned wife.

As Isaiah said, Mr. Facius, Mr. Lambert, and Mr. Prince may have their festival while accommodating what God calls open sin, and such leaders may ignore God's standards found in the bible and persuade naive and undiscerning Christians to believe it is all right. But, as Isaiah also blasted, God hates the festivals, (Isaiah 1:14-15) and such leaders, misguiding people and failing to uphold God's standards, are in The Lord's eyes but rebels (Isaiah 1:23). Giving platform and position to a man who gets rid of his wife and marries one younger may have a lot to do with Ebenezer Fund, but it has nothing to do with the actual purposes of God for his people Israel, and nothing to do with God's plan for His church.

Biblically, wrong doctrine inevitably brings wrong practice. Examining the wrong doctrines of those associated with Ebenezer Fund demonstrates the inevitable slide from wrong doctrine into wrong practice. Once the doctrinal standards go, the moral standards follow.

The Ebenezer Fund rejected warnings of scripture that God would require the blood of eternally lost Jewish not warned to repent and accept the gospel (Acts 20:26-27, also Ezekiel 3: 20). Biblically, a love for the Jews (or for anyone else) that intentionally withholds the gospel of Jesus and allows them to continue on their way into eternal hell without their Messiah Jesus, cannot be the love of Jesus.

Yet Ebenezer actually signed an agreement with the Jewish authorities not to present Jesus to the Jews they repatriate to Israel. Some other organizations bringing Jews to Israel do give them the gospel, but unlike Ebenezer, they are low key and do not try to make a 'look at us' big fuss of it, they just get on with it without the fanfare and do not seek the cooperation of the Jewish Agency at the expense of the gospel. As David Brickner, International Director of Jews For Jesus wrote: "Genuine Christian Zionists are unrepentant evangelists to the Jews, these others are frauds and phonies".

There are doctrinal errors underlying Ebenezer, including that made by the late Gustav Schiller in a letter we have from him, where he denied the bible's teaching about The Great Tribulation and The Time of Jacob's Trouble. For a Judeo Christian perspective of this Moriel recommends the work of Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum. Also the UK Autumn Moriel Conference will be examining this subject at Swanwick in November. The bible teaches that in this End Times calamity coming upon Israel, in an eschatological recapitulation of the horrific events of 70 AD predicted by Daniel and Jesus (and recorded by Josephus and Eusebius) that Jesus will return after 2/3 of them are wiped out (Zechariah 12-13, Luke 21:23-31), Jews are not being re-gathered for a Blessing, but for The Great Tribulation. The Blessing depends on coming to their rejected Messiah who has never rejected them (Matthew 23:39).

Ebenezer appears to have been less than forthright about its having signed this anti Jewish Evangelism agreement in its fund raising. Indeed, in the promotional literature for the July conference Mr. Facius says the purpose will be to fulfill Romans Chapters 9-11 and The Great Commission.

Romans 9 - 11 itself however states that Paul's desire is that the Jews will be saved (Romans 10:1), but with no preacher, how shall they hear the gospel (Romans 10:14)? As Israeli Evangelist Yacov Damkani points out on his tape, (just as the late Dr. Martin Lloyd Jones pointed out on his Romans 9-11 tape series), the theme and focus of these entire three chapters regarding Israel's prophetic destiny relative to the church, read in context, is Israel being evangelized and the future of the Church being prophetically bound up with and eschatologically dependent upon it.

Among other examples, Old Testament predictions of Gentiles bringing Jews back to Israel were fulfilled by the UN re-establishment of Israel, the philo-Semitic benevolence of certain Turkish Pashas during the First Aliyeh, and Operation Moses funded by The US Government - all with no help from Ebenezer. The Jewish Agency today will return any Jew to Israel (unless of course they believe Yeshua is The Messiah) without help from Christians. At the same time as Ebenezer Trust tries to bring Russian Jews to Israel without giving them the gospel, Natoly Sharansky is trying to push a law through the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, to have Jewish believers in Jesus in Israel deported back to Russia! In this light, the entire scenario surrounding Ebenezer Trust is not only unbiblical, but ridiculous. Biblical prophecy is a sign to be recognized when it happens, biblical command is a directive to be implemented by the church. Prediction is prediction and command is command.

We are not even commanded in The Old Testament to repatriate The Jews at the cost of not preaching the gospel. On the contrary, in the literary prologue of the poetic exhortation of the Servant Songs of Isaiah commencing in chapter 40 to 'Comfort Ye My People', the text plainly says we are to comfort them with the gospel (Hebrew term besor - Isaiah 40:9 & 52:7). Neither are we ever commanded in The New Testament to fulfill these prophecies, but rather to give the Jews the gospel. Some organizations (with whom we have no quarrel) do both. The ludicrous notion that some are called to a social Zionist agenda void of the gospel while others to the gospel is stupid nonsense without any biblical exegetical foundation. So too is the abject claim that some witness by their words while others with their deeds. This is not biblical. We are not all evangelists, but we are all witnesses called to verbally bear witness one on one. This is the meaning of both the Greek term martyrios and Hebrew term L ha Ade. Biblically, we witness with our words and our deeds.

The very passage Mr. Facius sites in his promotional literature states directly that 'Faith Cometh by Hearing The Word of Christ', but without a preacher how shall they (in the context, Israel) hear it'? (Romans 10:14 7 17). His own literature indicts him and condemns his actions.

It was Christian anti Semites who twisted the bible this way substituting prediction for command. They read the predictions of Jews being slaughtered by gentiles in Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28 and made it their business to go out and be sure the prophecy was fulfilled! Ebenezer has the same distorted hermeneutic approach to the bible. Anti Semites murder Jews. By sending them to hell without the gospel, Ebenezer murders them spiritually. But in both cases, unless there is a genuine repentance, God will surely require their blood!

Thus Romans 9-11, the supposed purpose of the conference, is about the absolute opposite of what the conference was about, namely evangelizing Jews, not refusing to.

The 'Great Commission' also mentioned in the advert by Mr. Facius as the focus of the conference moreover, is precisely to preach the gospel. How can Mr. Facius and Ebenezer hold a conference with Derek Prince, Peter Horrobin, Eliahu Ben Hayim, and Lance Lambert and raise funds to fulfill the Great Commission and Romans 9 - 11 after signing an agreement promising not to do so? To say this in unethical is an understatement. If a secular charity was perceived to be raising funds under false pretenses for something they will not do The Serious Fraud Office and Charities Commission would investigate and the Trustees would face the definite possibility of a successful prosecution. As with Islam and Cults not ordaining homosexuals, once more the world seems to have higher ethical and moral standards than the church! With this kind of misleading fundraising going on, what is a little marital infidelity to such men?

Mr. Facius is not the only participant whose wrong doctrine has now led him into moral compromise however. Mr. Lambert joined forces with Mahesh Chavada who proclaims Christians not following the laughing and being drunk experience are 'Wicked Witches'. Ironically, this group included many of Mr. Lambert's own followers, most of whom were non Toronto Charismatic moderates, now branded witches by his colleague. Is it therefore in any sense astounding that he has no reservations about teaming up with a preacher who dumps his Christian wife and marries another woman? Once a man like Mr. Lambert betrays his own followers, teaming up with someone who denounces them as 'witches' for not buying into a demonically inspired counterfeit revival, who can be perplexed that he betrays upholding the sanctity of Christian marriage by teaming up with a man like Peter Horrobin? Once the bible goes, morals go.

Mr. Lambert's joint venture with Mahesh Chavada represented a shift in his ministry and marked something of a departure from a strong biblical stance by 'Prayer For Israel', Mr. Lambert's sponsor who supported him in it, and is now influenced by the unbiblical beliefs of The Barnabas Movement. However sad, it is no coincidence that Chrissy Rogers and other bible based Christian Zionists are now leaving 'Prayer For Israel' (PFI) on something less than amicable terms.

The pattern with Derek Prince is unfortunately similar. Among a host of other issues, Derek Prince publicly endorsed the Pensacola Deception (the American version of The Toronto Experience). The financial scandals, corrupted doctrines, open lying about the vibrating girl, and perverse antics on the Pensacola videos are perhaps best described as 'Sick'. But as the Heavy Shepherding Movement once did, Pensacola enjoyed the explicit sanction of Derek Prince. His doctrine is being compromised on a host of issues.

Because there has already been a departure from sound doctrine (1 Timothy 4:6 & 13-16), the departure from moral integrity on the divorce and remarriage issue is to be anticipated. All bad practice comes from abandoning good doctrine (1 Timothy 1:10). When doctrinal integrity goes, moral integrity cannot but also go. To those writing us who are distraught about this conference and confused by the involvement of Lance Lambert and Derek Prince with this 'preacher' who left a believing wife and remarried, we are saying that while we share their disappointment at the actions of these men, in light of what the bible says about those compromising doctrine, we are frankly not at all surprised.

If Mr. Prince, Mr. Lambert, or Mr. Facius wish to confront me in the presence of an open Christian meeting and in front of a video camera and debate these doctrinal and moral issues, I would earnestly welcome the challenge. How can Western Post Christian, Neo Pagan Society not morally collapse when its Church compromises the moral standards of God on something as fundamental as Holy Wedlock? But can what is supposed to be the Church of Jesus Christ not compromise when it is its own leaders, who are called to be examples to others, are the very ones doing the divorcing and remarrying?

Once Christian Marriages are sacrificed on the altar of self will or just plain lust, with an abrogation of vows made to God, Christianity sacrifices itself to the world from whom it is no longer visibly any different, and in some cases worse. Once leaders are the high priests carrying out the sacrifice however, while other leaders by their actions and silence condone it, we have another kind of marriage. This is the unholy wedlock of Doctrinal Death to Moral Death with backsliding preachers performing the ceremony. When the church has leaders who will sign agreements not to proclaim Christ and wink the eye at a sin God hates, it has no real leaders, only theocratic politicians standing in pulpits masquerading as leaders. Are Lance Lambert, or Johannas Facius leaders by any biblical definition? Their declared actions publicly and categorically prove that they most certainly are not. Once again: God Hates Divorce.

Can anyone imagine a Paul or a Peter signing an agreement to withhold the gospel from Jewish souls, or going along with divorce and remarriage in the church? If such Ebenezer Trust people really loved The Church, The Jews, and The Lord as Peter and Paul did. They would follow the commandments of the Lord (giving no place to marital sin in the church) as Peter and Paul did, and proclaim the gospel to Israel. But they will not, therefore they really do not love. Jesus said: "If You Love Me Keep My Commandments".

When the Church of Jesus Christ under the leadership of such figures accommodates Divorce and Remarriage, it is no longer upholding the true teachings of Jesus, therefore biblically they cannot be upholding the true Jesus (John 14:15). Thus, it is no wonder that the same organization refuses to preach Him to His own people who are headed for an eternal hell without Him.

Ebenezer literally means 'Rock of Help'. Whatever rock their help may be, the rock certainly isn't the rock whom they signed an agreement not to preach - It can't possibly be 'Christ the Rock'. HE HATES DIVORCE!



By David Passmore April 14, 2026
A critical juncture in NATO'S future Rubin Rothler LLB, LLM NATO was originally established in 1949 to keep the Russian hordes at bay from toppling those European countries not forked over to the Soviet sphere of influence at the Potsdam conference. Europe lay in ruins. Britain had passed on the torch of global hegemony to the U.S. by tacitly acquiescing to the decolonization of its Empire when Churchill and Roosevelt agreed terms of the Atlantic Charter for the post-war new world order in 1941. So from its start NATO was very much an American driven endeavor. American money with the Marshall plan was propping up western European economies and its military might was forming the bulk of their defensive capabilities. The lopsided nature of this dynamic has informed how tensions have persisted and recently erupted in the Alliance. During the Cold War the U.S. felt obligated to shoulder the costs of underwriting Europe's security in light of the broader interests to keep the Soviet's in check. Following the fall of the Iron Curtain European complacency became a sticking point with the 'peace dividend' further exploiting American largesse. European NATO allies spent ever smaller percentages of their GDP on defense expenditure at U.S. expense. Now in a multi-polar world U.S. and European perceived threats are less aligned. This was first tested in the aftermath of September 11th when for the first time NATO elected to trigger its article 5 collective defense protocol. And since then the U.S. has sought to continue to expand the traditional theatre of operations beyond Europe's borders. No longer is Russia perceived by America as being a proximate existential threat to its interests, but rather containing Chinese expansion in the Pacific arena. Parallel to NATO a discrete 'five eyes' intelligence sharing alliance comprising the Anglo-sphere (the U.S., U.K., Canada and New Zealand) emerged. This stands at the center of the U.S. – U.K. 'special relationship'. A relevant question would be can this signals intelligence (NSA-GCHQ) partnership persist should the U.S. withdraw from NATO? Conventional thinking would have led one to believe that with Brexit the U.K. would naturally pivot towards closer U.S. relations but under Starmer the U.K. is distancing itself. European powers misrepresent the present conflict as an aggressive, rather than defensive U.S. adventure while they themselves are more likely to be at risk. In this the Starmer government resembles the Labor party led committee for nuclear disarmament in the 1980's. It opposed the Thatcher supported deployment of U.S. cruise missiles in response to the Soviet SS20's pointed at Britain's cities. The British left branded their response to Soviet strategic escalation to U.S. aggression. This time however there is for the moment no Thatcher to bring common sense into an equation dominated by emotionally driven ideologies in the face of an aggressor with definite aims. In terms of the Russian-Ukraine conflict we are reverting to the old question dating back to the Napoleonic war era: to what extent is London happy with the European nations fighting it out alone for dominance of the continent. Britain was never willing to accept a single power in control. Many variables will dictate what kind of world emerges from the current conflicts in Ukraine and Iran. How will power be extracted from potential gains? What will be the strategic impact of this? What is sure, in the age of Trump this pattern of reliance on U.S. muscle is becoming quickly exhausted. Dating back to the Roman Empire, a factor in the decline of major powers has always been astronomical military spending, a budgetary demand that the U.S. under Trump is no longer willing to shoulder alone. (Author is an Israeli American lawyer academically qualified in British and in U.S.A. law, and a graduate of the School of Oriental & African Studies, London. He is a Jewish believer in Jesus and is currently based in Israel).
By David Passmore April 9, 2026
Please keep brother Malcolm Betts from the New Life Pentecostal Church, Winsford in prayer. He is suffering from heart failure, valve problems and spinal stenosis. Your prayers for healing and intervention are coveted. Also, Malcom’s daughter Laura-Louisa is having complications with her pregnancy. Her baby boy is due on the 22nd of April and was in a breach position, however he is now moved to an oblique position which carries serious risk and possible surgical intervention. Laura is also at risk of postpartum haemorrhage. Please pray for the midwives and obstetricians skill and wisdom. Please also pray for Malcolm’s sister Susan who has sepsis in her leg. And please pray also for Sheila Carlisle. She is undergoing knee replacement surgery.
By David Passmore April 8, 2026
Greetings Dear Brethren in Yeshua our Lord & God Hope your all well Further developments: The NHS and oncologist from day one got my Markers wrong which in result denied me access to the latest treatments such as immunotherapy and targeted treatment. After getting a second opinion from Royal Marsden they discovered my Markers were not zero but 13-14 and that I was also Claudine 18.2 which confirmed I was allowed to all the latest treatments such as targeted treatment. My local MP and Health secretary are now involved and have written to both the treatment companies and NHS trust. I have also spoken to doctors in the states. Dear brethren my family & I have been through so much in the past and the valley is truly a battle. I truly thank The Lord Yeshua for Him humbling us all, correcting us in His parental love (1 Cor 4-6 & 2 Cor 2). It’s been very hard but also a blessings to truly draw closer The Lord- cast of works of darkness/old garments and be washed in His Blood daily. Your prayers are vital and above all The Glory Of The Lord to be magnified. Please remember us in your love & prayers as we walk through this battle in The Lord. Praying for you all and much love in Yeshua. Your brother - Teerth & Family
By David Passmore March 26, 2026
Contrary to the near unanimous chorus of media coverage concerning the current impasse in the straits of Hormuz it isn't obvious that this is an American problem. The chief consumers of oil passing through this critical juncture are China, India, South Korea, Japan and the European markets. The U.S. has alternative reserves due to domestic crude from Alaska, the Permian Basin, the Gulf of America and domestic fracking. This is further augmented by Venezuelan heavy crude now refined in the U.S. and possible further supplementation with Canadian sand shale from Alberta. Based on those determinations if European powers won't contribute to efforts to keep the straits open, Trump can simply leave them to their own repercussions that will further drive up the price of Brent crude oil. The question may then become whether the U.S. can redefine the global oil market by legislatively mandating the West Texas Intermediate. Can America divorce the WTI from the Brent prices and from the Rotterdam spot market prices by maintaining a domestic market legislatively controlled? In so doing, keeping all oil being drilled from federal lands subject to a semi-interventionist price control system that in theory could average domestic gasoline prices at $2/gallon varied only by state taxes. Such a fundamental restructuring of oil markets will allow the U.S. to operate independent of global bench marks. This might be opposed by petroleum industry interests who would benefit from higher international prices, but would likely have public support. Such price regulation would not be government mandated price controls in the ordinary sense, but could be legally enforced as terms of condition in federal licensing policies for drilling on federal lands. Approximately 25% of oil pumped in the U.S. is drilled on federal land where contractual conditions can be easily implemented. These strategies would have a short to medium term impact on global markets and on domestic prices. Medium to longer term strategies however would require a national network construction of safer pebble cooled nuclear reactors, generating a viable source of electricity for electric vehicles. Additionally, similar to the energy company SASOL, the U.S. should begin domestic production of a coal conversion variant of gasoline, jet fuels and certain petrol chemicals. The Fischer-Tropsch process technology allowing for the production of cleaner synthetic fuels has existed since the 1930's and enhanced upgrades of this method are in active production use in South Africa. This would avoid the failed folly of moving towards 100% renewables that have crippled the German economy and driven energy costs punitively higher in order to placate Green Party-political interests. The Trump administration must lower domestic gasoline prices in an election year in the short term. However, in the medium to longer term the current conflict with Iran affords an opportunity to restructure the international oil market in such a manner that it will immunize the U.S. from surging oil prices. In theory such a fundamental revamping of oil markets could keep domestically produced oil under $50/barrel. Events are marching forward at pace. At time of writing some European nations have indicated a willingness to perhaps contribute towards a naval response. Trump himself has said that Iran is negotiating an end to the blockade. Irrespective of this, the situation has elucidated the vulnerability of European and Asian gas and oil supply and the opportunity for the U.S. to advance its energy independence in such a way that will directly translate into savings for domestic consumers. (Author is an Israeli American lawyer academically qualified in British and in U.S.A. law, and a graduate of the School of Oriental & African Studies, London. He is a Jewish believer in Jesus and is currently based in Israel).
By David Passmore March 23, 2026
An ex-catholic and bible scholar responds to the eucharist
By David Passmore March 11, 2026
THE CONFGLAGRATION OF HOSTILITIES IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND CURRENT RISING GLOBAL ENERGY PRICES. WHAT IS REALLY HAPPENING? Rubin Rothler LLB, LLM The markets historically have responded with grave alarm at the prospect of disruptions in the major sea lanes for transporting fuel. So far, Iran has exercised a degree of reluctance to fully close this critical channel due to Chinese pressure for their major source to remain. The Chinese economy could be savaged should Iran fully attempt to shut down all shipping in its entirety. As the war continues, Iranian capability to realize these ends becomes less likely due to the severe damage inflicted upon maritime forces. The U.S. has strategically positioned their Armada in place so that they are effectively choking the deployment of the Iranian Navy at sea in all theatres. From the coast of Sri Lanka in the mid Indian Ocean to the outer reaches of the Persian Gulf, the Iranian Navy is simply out gunned and woefully inadequate technologically to pose any meaningful opposition. However, they may decide to go all in and actively concentrate directed attacks by their small boats at all incoming oil tankers in the Straights. If this scenario unfolds, we may see an impasse in the conflict. Fear in the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia has already greatly increased. These regimes continue to be actively targeted by Iran to cause maximum economic impact. They may lean on the U.S. to seek a negotiated settlement. Europe with the exception of Spain has so far largely fallen into line with the Washington consensus. But if prices rapidly increase policy may shift (as it has been with now over $100 per barrel of oil). The combination of Arab consternation, Chinese pressure and European pliability together with a collapse in global energy supplies could cause the U.S. to reconsider its objectives in terms of what can be realistically realized. Trump prepared for these repercussions and mitigated the damage by posturing accordingly. The City of London's traditional monopoly on ensuring the maritime industry is being effectively displaced by U.S. surety for transit in the Straights. Further, the operation to remove Maduro in Venezuela with the consequent assumption of their oil reserves lent handsomely to the aim of forging an alternate fuel supply to the global markets. Albeit there remain questions concerning the ability to refine thick Venezuelan crude oil as its refining is more costly and arduous than Saudi and Gulf oil. Trump gained an extension of time for getting these operations underway by drawing out the prior negotiations with Iran. Here we can see that contrary to popular comment Trump's actions are strategically calculated. Complicating matters, after the oil and natural gas embargo was imposed on Russia, Europe became increasingly reliant on Middle Eastern supplies. Qatar is the prime source of natural gas and its depots are being choked by Iranian strikes. If this persists Europe will find it extremely difficult to secure its energy needs. Similarly, India has been acutely impacted to such an extent that Trump was moved to allow Delhi to lift sanctions on Russian energy. It must also be noted however that at present there exists no shortage of ready refined petroleum supplies, not even including the embargoed Russian oil (much of it unrefined) stored in tanker ships due to Ukraine War sanctions. Trump Administration plans using US naval and allied naval assets to escort tankers through the Straights f Hormuz would easily allow Lloyds of London to provide usual insurance once those vessels clear the Persian Gulf. Hence, the upward trajectory of crude prices is in part being manipulated by certain City of London and Wall Street interests that are in some measure politically motivated to favour the American Democrat Party in upcoming mid-term congressional elections. In terms of supply actualities, crude increases should be no higher than 25% in terms of Brent and 20% in terms of West Texas Intermediary. Predictably the legacy media is misrepresenting the price surge as purely market driven, when it is to some degree being engineered. Certain questions can be raised regarding how current events will unfold. A catastrophic situation could plausibly embroil dragging in additional actors to the conflict. Serious commentators have actually cautioned that we are heading towards World War Three. Short of this, Qatar is warning of global economic disaster. At the very least we will continue to see instability in global energy markets that will increasingly hit everyday consumers at the gasoline pump.
By David Passmore March 9, 2026
There appears to be a number of good pastors in very serious health struggles at the moment in England. These include Pastor Tony Pearce (London), Pastor John Anglisse (reading area), and Moriel Pastor Teerth Sonde (Wolverhampton). To these we have just learned that another Moriel Pastor in Winsford, Pastor Malcom Betts has suffered a serious coronary and is likewise in deep need of prayer. This may or may not be a general demonic attack on pastors in the area of health, however Our God Is Indeed Able to undettake for all of them and each of them.
By David Passmore March 7, 2026
URGENT PRAYER REQUEST Moriel has learned that Pastor John Anglisse of Ark Christian Fellowship in England, a long standing friend of Moriel, has been medically diagnosed as being pre terminal in his on going health battles. Moriel and Jacob Prasch earnestly request prayer for The Lord's intervention and prolonging of John's temporal life for the sake of his wife Mary and for his congregation and ministry. While "to Live is Christ and to die is gain" for John, his homecoming would be quite a loss for those of us who remain, and we ask The Lord for healing. We also thank our subscribers for their prayers for our friend & brother Pastor Tony Pearce in London. Tony is scheduled for two surgery procedures this week for skin cancer, one of which involves potential risks for his eye. Continued prayer is much appreciated.
By David Passmore February 19, 2026
Prayer request for Sue
By David Passmore February 17, 2026
Prayer request for Joan Philips