"Continuing Anglican" Churches - Arguably the most consistently traditional or "classical" Anglican churches.

Continuing Anglican Miscellany

"Anglican Realignment" Churches (ACNA, AMiA, and others) - Conservative but markedly less traditional.

Reformed Episcopal Church - Currently part of the Anglican Realignment but these days much more like the traditional Continuing Anglican bodies.


1662 Book of Common Prayer Online

1928 Book of Common Prayer Online

A Living Text

Alastair's Adversaria

Akenside Press

American Anglican Council

American Anglican Council Videos on the 39 Articles


Anglican Audio

Anglican Bible and Book Society

An Anglican Bookshelf (List of recommended Anglican books)

Anglican Catholic Church

Anglican Church in North America

Anglican Church Planting

Anglican Eucharistic Theology

Anglican Expositor

Anglican Mainstream

Anglican Mission in the Americas

Anglican Mom

An Anglican Priest

Anglican Radio

Anglican Rose

Anglicanly Speaking

The Anglophilic Anglican

A BCP Anglican

The Book of Common Prayer (Blog of Photos)

The Book of Common Prayer (Online Texts)

The Cathedral Close

The Catholic Anglican

The Church Calendar

Church Society

Classical Anglicanism:  Essays by Fr. Robert Hart

Cogito, Credo, Petam

Colorado Anglican Society

(The Old) Continuing Anglican Churchman

(The New) Continuing Anglican Churchman

The Continuum

The Curate's Corner

The Cure of Souls

Drew's Views

The Evangelical Ascetic

Fellowship of Concerned Churchmen

Forward in Christ Magazine

Forward in Faith North America

Francis J. Hall's Theological Outlines

Free Range Anglican

The Hackney Hub

International Catholic Congress of Anglicans

Jesse Nigro's Thoughts

The Latimer Trust

Martin Thornton

New Goliards

New Scriptorium (Anglican Articles and Books Online)

The North American Anglican

O cuniculi! Ubi lexicon Latinum posui?

The Ohio Anglican Blog

The Old High Churchman


Prayer Book Anglican

The Prayer Book Society, USA

Project Canterbury

Pusey House


Reformed Catholicism

Reformed Episcopal Church

The Ridley Institute

River Thames Beach Party

The Secker Society

Society of Archbishops Cranmer and Laud

Stand Firm


The Theologian

The World's Ruined


To All The World

Trinity House Blog

United Episcopal Church of North America

Virtue Online

We See Through A Mirror Darkly



The Babylon Bee

Bad Vestments

The Low Churchman's Guide to the Solemn High Mass

Lutheran Satire


Ponder Anew: Discussions about Worship for Thinking People


Black-Robed Regiment

Cardinal Charles Chaput Reviews "For Greater Glory" (Cristero War)

Cristero War

Benedict Option

Jim Kalb: How Bad Will Things Get?



Christians in the Roman Army: Countering the Pacifist Narrative

Bernard of Clairvaux and the Knights Templar

Gates of Nineveh

Gates of Vienna

Islamophobes (We're in good company)

Jihad Watch

Nineveh Plains Protection Units

Restore Nineveh Now - Nineveh Plains Protection Units

Sons of Liberty International (SOLI)

The Muslim Issue



Abbeville Institute Blog

Art of the Rifle

The Art of Manliness

Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture

Church For Men

The Church Impotent: The Feminization of Christianity, (Leon Podles' online book)

Craft Beer


Eclectic Orthodoxy

First Things

The Imaginative Conservative

Joffre the Giant: Excursions in Christian Virility


Mercurius Pragmaticus Redivivus

Mere Comments

Mitre and Crown

Monomakhos (Eastern Orthodox; Paleocon)

Tales of Chivalry

The Midland Agrarian

Those Catholic Men

Tim Holcombe: Anti-State; Pro-Kingdom

Midwest Conservative Journal

Numavox Records (Music of Kerry Livgen & Co.)

The Pipe Smoker

Red River Orthodox

The Salisbury Review

Throne, Altar, Liberty

Project Appleseed (Basic Rifle Marksmanship)


What's Wrong With The World: Dispatches From The 10th Crusade



A Defense of the Doctrine of the Eternal Subordination of the Son  (Yes, this is about women's ordination.)

An (Extended) Short History of the Diaconate

Essays on the Ordination of Women to the Priesthood from the Episcopal Diocese of Ft. Worth

Father is Head at the Table: Male Eucharistic Headship and Primary Spiritual Leadership, Ray Sutton

Homo Hierarchicus and Ecclesial Order, Brian Horne

Let's Stop Making Women Presbyters, J.I. Packer

Liturgy and Interchangeable Sexes, Peter J. Leithart

Ordaining Women as Deacons: A Reappraisal of the Anglican Mission in America's Policy

Priestesses in Plano, Robert Hart

Priestesses in the Church?, C.S. Lewis

Reasons for Questioning Women’s Ordination in the Light of Scripture, Rodney Whitacre

Streams of the River: Articles Outlining the Arguments Against the Ordination of Women to the Priesthood

Traditional Anglican Resources

William Witt's Articles on Women's Ordination (Old Jamestown Church archive)

Women Priests?, Eric Mascall

Women and the Priesthood, Catholic Answers

Women Priests: History & Theology, Patrick Reardon

Powered by Squarespace
Categories and Monthly Archives
This area does not yet contain any content.






                                                      Photo courtesy of Smash the Iron Cage

                 Theme Music:  Healey Willan - Missa brevis No. 2 in F Minor


How to Think About Vladimir Putin

Keep in mind that this article comes from an organ of the neocon-leaning Hillsdale College, penned by an editor of the über-neocon rag THE WEEKLY STANDARD.  Just ponder that for a moment.  Hell has just frozen over.

Russia is not our enemy.  An enemy of the American Deep State, neoconservatism and liberal-leftism, yes.  But not our enemy.


Our Enemy, The Russians


Meme of the Day


The Civil War Is Here


How John Calvin Made Me a Catholic

Augustine, not Calvin. 

Anglicans can agree.  Calvinism almost destroyed Anglicanism.  Almost.

No room here for "Reformation Anglicanism."  The Catholic Faith will do.


To Become a "Continuing" Anglican. . . Or Not

By Bishop Robert Todd Giffin, Ordinary of the Diocese of Mid-America, Anglican Province of America:

After fifteen years in the continuing Anglican Church, five of those as a bishop in the Anglican Province of America (APA), and 32 prior years as a cradle Canterbury Anglican, I’ve seen a lot of friends and acquaintances come home to our little corner of Christ's Church.

And yet, not all of these journeys have worked out. I love the Anglican Church, and so I find it difficult to understand how a person could not see the beauty in our faith, leaving it all behind. However, I do think that there are certain factors that influence and even cause these abandonments. I left a couple of times myself along my journey. Yet, in the end, the continuing Anglican Church is my home.

Many times, inquirers, particularly current and former Episcopalians, approach the continuing Anglican Church as a safe haven from controversy and scandal. If anyone knows our history, however, this is truly a mistaken viewpoint!

This perspective presupposes a defective Christology—one that fails to account for the anthropos of the theanthropic (Divine-human) Church. As the Body of Christ, the Church is a Divine-human organism, just as with the Person of Jesus Christ, the God-Man. While the Church is certainly Divine in one respect, She is also comprised of human beings—human beings that can, and do, err. Failing to remember (or be taught) this, we are scandalized and even lose our faith in the Church, not distinguishing between the divine and human natures, or confusing them.

Another issue is becoming a continuing Anglican because one thinks the Anglican Church ‘owes them’ for their time spent in the Episcopal Church (or C of E, Anglican Church of Canada, Australia, etc.), rewarding them with ordination, titles, and possibly a purple shirt or other trappings.

Those who were laity in the Episcopal Church or other denominations have no guarantees they will become clergy in the continuing Anglican Church, at least in my Diocese! It doesn’t matter how long they have served, or how extensive their education. Holy Orders are a mystery (sacrament) of the Church, and the Spirit blows where it will. Becoming a traditional Anglican Christian means being willing to submit to the Church and Her bishops, who might not be interested in ordaining you. If anyone is unwilling or not ready to submit to the Church in all areas of life, they should stay away—until or unless they are ready to do so.

On the other hand, there are cases where a person rejects the continuing Anglican Church for what I would consider to be erroneous reasons.

For example, I know someone that spent over a year studying almost every aspect of traditional Anglicanism, including many fathers of the Church and practically every nuance of both doctrine and history. However, they rarely spent any time in traditional Anglican worship services or their local parish, developed no relationship with a priest, and did not engage their spouse or family in their studies and interest in the Anglican Church.

If someone is approaching the continuing Anglican Church from a purely rationalistic standpoint, they will almost surely find it wanting. The continuing Anglican Church does not fit into the paradigms of modernity; it is not a wholly rational faith. This doesn’t mean we shun catechesis, but just that it’s not always done in the same way everywhere—and where it exists, it’s likely different from what a catechumen might expect or even hope. We must be willing to embrace mystery, to submit to other authorities, and to ultimately submit to the Church Herself. Those who approach continuing Anglicanism looking for all their questions to be answered in a neat-and-tidy manner will be deeply disappointed, left rejecting a branch of Christ's Church to which they’ve only been shortly exposed.

So why should someone desire to join the continuing Anglican Church?

For me, the one and only valid, core reason is because a person truly desires to be part of the Body of Christ. Because we, as traditional Anglicans, confess and believe in the “one holy, catholic and apostolic Church,” this means we are not looking for a Church that fits our own preferences and ideals, even though we are English by tradition, but rather one that teaches us what our preferences should be. We are not seeking to reform or to teach the Church how it should do things, but are rather seeking to be formed by the Church and to learn how we should be doing things as faithful Christians.

Now, I don’t share all of this in order to dissuade anyone from becoming a traditional Anglican, but rather to encourage those who are on such a journey—or who have strayed away from one that began on the wrong foot.

Becoming a continuing Anglican is not easy, nor does it promise great happiness or success in this life. In fact, it promises a Cross and joining with Christ in both suffering and humiliation. We have many small missions and parishes with few if any monetary resources, and relatively few stipendiary posts for our clergy.

But if you are still intrigued and drawn to the continuing Anglican Church, considering all of these disclaimers, then do so with faith, reverence, and a healthy fear of God. Pray for the Lord’s mercy, and you can find the strength to endure to the end. Believe in the continuing Anglican Church as a fully revealed member of the Body of Christ, and the continuing Anglican Church—flawed people and all—will help lead you down the right path.

But don’t do it for all the wrong reasons.


What Is Anglicanism?

Anglicanism refers to an Apostolic and Catholic church founded in the British Isles by Celtic and Roman missionaries, which entered fully into the the theological and mystical mindset of the Latin church, which had both a Reformation AND a Counter-Reformation, followed by an infestation of Enlightenment liberalism, and 100 years later an infestation of Pentecostalism, the result being that Reformation Anglicanism, Counter-Reformation Anglicanism, modern liberal-leftism and Pentecostalism pull it in four directions. Thus the vexing issue of Anglican identity.

That vexing problem will only be solved when all conservative Anglicans decide to take seriously the claim of historic Anglican divinity that Anglicanism is merely the faith of the Apostles and Fathers. If and when they do, they will throw off BOTH Calvinist and Enlightenment radicalism, which are arguably cousins, if not brothers, and they will forsake the mysticism of Pentecostalism for the Catholic spirituality of Augustine, the Cappadocians, medieval English mystics such as Julian of Norwich and Richard Rolle, the Caroline Divines and the Tractarians.

Forget about the liberals, who represent another religion entirely. They will eventually just waste away.


Quote of the Day

"Evangelicalism intentionally severs itself from the constraints of tradition and authority in favor of whatever produces authentic encounter, every generation must reinvent faith on its own terms. The objective content of 'genuine' and 'spontaneous' religious expression varies from generation to generation. If 'going through the motions' falls short of faith, then 'the way things were always done' will not do. Old norms must be questioned, inherited habits must be reexamined, and dead dogmas must be overturned. But every generation has its vices. The unmasked dogmatism and bigotry of a mature crop are simply replaced by those of the seedlings, temporarily disguised by intellectual fashion and political power. Religion blows about with the prevailing winds of politics and culture. Reformations multiply." - Conner Grubaugh

J.R.R. Tolkien’s Vision of Just War

From The Imaginative Conservative.

Too many pundits, politicians, and priests nowadays treat war as a relic of a barbaric past. President Obama speaks for many when he denounces ISIS and other terrorist groups by invoking the date on the calendar. Nevertheless, he has found himself re-entering a war in the Middle East that he first opposed and then claimed to have won, appearing more interested in the short-term need to be seen “doing something” than in pursuing and articulating a coherent strategy for victory.

Such ambivalence about war is very much the spirit of the age in the industrialized West. But militants such as ISIS care not a wit what year it is. Now as much as ever we need clear thinking on the nature and proper conduct of war, ideally in an accessible form.

Happily, J.R.R. Tolkien offers a rich and extended meditation on the Just War tradition in his novels The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, an exploration the Peter Jackson movie adaptations hint at but hardly exhaust.

The Just War tradition has its roots in the great minds of Christendom, from Augustine to Aquinas. Given Tolkien’s background, we should not be surprised to find him in sympathy with it. He was a world-renowned Oxford scholar of medieval languages and literature, an orthodox Catholic, a combat veteran of World War I and a thorough conservative. The Just War tradition was very much his tradition.


Sweet Mystical Chant


I've Been Busy, and Other Matters

With family, with business, with church

And with Lent, trying to keep my bloody mouth shut.

Hope you are all doing the same thing.  The affairs of life, and especially the affairs of Christ, are infinitely more important than this dullard's blog. 

Keep your priorities straight, and in that connection, these three books are now available for purchase.  A $50 investment.  I bid you, buy them.

May you all have a blessed and profitable Lent, as we all prepare for the Feast of Feasts.




Smoking Spiritualized

by Ralph Erskine


This Indian weed now wither'd quite, ...
'Tho' green at noon, cut down at night,
Shows thy decay;
All flesh is hay.
Thus think, and smoke tobacco.

The pipe so lily-like and weak,
Does thus thy mortal state bespeak.
Thou art ev'n such,
Gone with a touch.
Thus think, and smoke tobacco.

And when the smoke ascends on high,
Then thou behold'st the vanity
Of worldly stuff,
Gone with a puff.
Thus think, and smoke tobacco.

And when the pipe grows foul within,
Think on thy soul defil'd with sin;
For then the fire,
It does require.
Thus think, and smoke tobacco.

And seest the ashes cast away;
Then to thyself thou mayest say
That to the dust
Return thou must.
Thus think, and smoke tobacco.

Was this small plant for thee cut down?
So was the plant of great renown;
Which mercy sends
For nobler ends.
Thus think, and smoke tobacco.

Doth juice medicinal proceed
From such a naughty foreign weed?
Then what's the pow'r
Of Jesse's flow'r?
Thus think, and smoke tobacco.

The promise, like the pipe, inlays,
And by the mouth of faith conveys
What virtue flows
From Sharon's rose.
Thus think, and smoke tobacco.

In vain th' unlighted pipe you blow;
Your pains in inward means are so,
'Till heav'nly fire
Thy heart inspire.
Thus think, and smoke tobacco.

The smoke, like burning incense tow'rs
So should a praying heart of yours,
With ardent cries,
Surmount the skies.
Thus think, and smoke tobacco.


Lift High the Cross


From Father Robert Hart on Women's Ordination

"The problem of Women's Ordination isn't part of my world anymore, inasmuch as the ACC just doesn't do it, and never will. But I see that my friends in the ACNA still have a need to win the argument. Perhaps these links to the work done mostly by Fr. John A. Hollister in 2009, will be of service. Frankly, there are no new arguments being made, just the same old worn out silly arguments that are forever irrelevant to actual theology. I'm sure that, no matter what they come up with, it was covered in these."

Briefcase: Priestesses in Plano.


Quote of the Day II

"A Catholic group has formally asked the Trump administration to investigate the activities of the last administration as it concerns applying pressure to promote a leftist agenda withinthe RC church.

Could this kind of thing explain the presence of progressive elements in TEC and ACNA?" - Brian Barber


Quote of the Day

"Could it be even much simpler, that Trump is merely enforcing the law as it is written as his predecessor didn't? Gadzooks, that would be a novel idea. I'd bet not one, NOT ONE, rioter, commenter, snowflake (christian or not), has actually read the law on the matter and yet they're protesting, commenting, and/or opining as if they know the actual legalities on immigration. We're living in a "facts be damned" culture and unfortunately, I see a whole bunch of my fellow Christians succumbing to the spirit of the paid rioters and liberal media. There is no immigration debate folks, there are laws that guide immigration. Some Presidents follow them, and others don't. Simple as that. . . .

My contention is, read the actual law...and the executive order...its much more concise and clear. Helps to avoid all of the speculations put forth by folks who are too focused on the emotions and motives right now instead of the actual laws on the books. As Nash used to say, 'Feelings, wo-wo-wo feelings....'". - William Gunter




An Episcopal Priest Says. . .

"This is a Gospel issue", with respect to the meme below:

My response, No, that is not a Gospel issue.  It's an old lefty "social Gospel" issue.  Whether or not to build a wall has nothing, nothing whatsoever, to do with the real Gospel.  Rome has it wrong.  Again.


ACNA Clergy Losing Their Minds Over Trump's Executive Order

In keeping with his campaign promise, President Donald Trump has signed an executive order that temporarily bans some Muslims entering the country until they can be vetted more thoroughly than they currently are.  The order, according to the New York Times, “suspended entry of all refugees to the United States for 120 days, barred Syrian refugees indefinitely, and blocked entry into the United States for 90 days for citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.”  We will see what the courts do with this, but Trump executive order is being hailed by millions both here in the States and in Europe.

Predictably, Christianity Today, at one time a periodical that was solidly Evangelical and conservative but has followed Neo-Evangelicalism’s drift toward the left, published an article  reporting that certain “Evangelical experts” have condemned the executive order.  To its credit, the author of the article posted comments from Evangelicals who agree with the executive order, such as Franklin Graham, but the thrust of the article was decidedly against Trump’s action. 

The argument of the pro-immigration folks cited in the article was wrong on so many levels that it’s hard to know where to begin:

“'Our concern is that this action really does further traumatize a group of people that have already borne so much tragedy,' said Scott Arbeiter, president of World Relief, one of nine agencies that partner with the federal government to resettle refugees. 'The human toll is really crushing.'”

Yes, well, not on Mr. Arbeiter’s radar screen, apparently, is how the Ummah’s appearance in the West has led to nothing but trauma to Westerners.  Acts of Islamic terror are so numerous now, with no prospect whatsoever that they will let up, that many Westerners are simply inured to it all, thinking that it is simply part of the “new normal.”  Back in 2006 columnist Diana West penned in an article entitled Connecting the Dots on Islam what have become some of the most powerful, succinct and haunting thoughts on the matter: “Whether most Muslims wouldn't hurt a fly is an increasingly irrelevant footnote to the hostile aggression of other Muslims who, in a very short time, have actually transformed civilization as we used to know it.”  She concludes,

If the will to resist allows us to manage the threat of violence, the will to connect the dots would compel us to eliminate it. How? By carefully examining and, I would hope, reconsidering and reversing, through foreign, domestic and immigration initiatives, what should now be seen, gimlet-eyed, as the Islamization of the non-Islamic world. Such an assessment, however, is all too vulnerable to catcall-attacks of "bigotry," even "Nazism" -- a deceptively inverted assault given the doctrinal bigotry and similarities to Nazism historically promulgated by the Islamic creed.

And that, of course, “Nazism” is the tag that the Left hopes to pin on all of us who agree with West.  Her retort, however, does an absolute demolition on that bit of idiocy:  if any religion is Nazi-like, it is the imperialistic and totalitarian religion of the false prophet from Mecca.  Look at its books; look at its history.

Here’s another plank of the pro-immigration argument cited in the CT article:

Tim Breene, CEO of World Relief, acknowledges the security risks, but believes the administration’s action goes overboard.

"We live in a dangerous world and it is right that we take security seriously. The American people are rightly asking for transparency on the measures taken to safeguard our homeland,” Breene said. “However, World Relief does not believe compassion and security have to be mutually exclusive. While it is wise to always work to increase effectiveness, a lengthy and complete ban is not necessary to meet our commitment to security, transparency and compassion."

Which is of course shameless question begging.  It is quite clear that the Western nations accepting Muslim refugees have heretofore not been able to adequately screen terrorists out, not to mention the niggling issue of those who become radicalized after they gain entry to our countries.  Mr. Breene needs a little lesson on the petitio principii fallacy

Here’s another gem from the article, this one from National Association of Evangelicals president Leith Anderson:

“Would we be willing to accept giving up a 1 in 3 billion chance of our safety in order to make room for them?” he continued. “Or would we say, ‘I am not willing to give up even the smallest fraction of my safety to welcome people who have been vetted very carefully, who have been proven as a remarkable population of people. Will I not make room for them?’”

Not only does Anderson beg the question regarding the quality of vetting in the same way Tim Breene does, but he cites some questionable statistic put forth by the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank which in keeping with its libertarianism supports open borders.  However, let’s assume the statistic is accurate for the sake of argument.  There are two responses as I see it.  The first one is that just because the odds of some terror event is one in three billion, it doesn’t follow that the state has no obligation to be as thorough as it possibly can in screening out potential terrorists.  The chances of dying in an airliner crash is 1 in 11 million.  Nevertheless, the airlines are subjected to strenuous safety regulations to ensure that everything that can be done to guarantee a safe flight will be done.  This is just what the public expects, however irrational it might seem from the perspective of statistics.

My second response, and the weightier one as I see it, is empirically based, to wit, an argument from demographics.  We in the West are now seeing, up close and personal, just what an existential threat the existence of the Ummah in its midst poses to the West.  It is likely that many if not most of the Muslim refugees that have come to the West will not be repatriated.   And that, ladies and gentlemen, is a ticking time bomb, ultimately even more  destructive to Western, Christian civilization than the aggregate of the individual terrorists shooting and blowing up this and that.  Mr. Anderson and his friends are simply not looking at the long-term ramifications of their position.

Lastly, the article quotes Matthew Soerens, World Relief’s church training specialist.

“We have never had an opportunity like we have right now to reach people who are coming to our shores, in many cases from places we have no access to,” said Arbeiter. “The risk that we have right now is that we are closing the doors to the very people that we say we want to share the gospel with.”

I always marvel at the shoddy theology displayed by Evangelicals who think that the success of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is contingent upon our plans and schemes, and not ultimately upon the sovereignty of God.  The Gospel is, in fact, making its way into the Muslim world, oftentimes miraculously.  God is not hampered, ultimately, by the laws of the Dar al Islam, and it is not necessary for the West to allow the Trojan Horse of Islam into its midst in order to evangelize Muslim people.

Anyway, so much for CT’s report about the anxieties of Neo-Evangelicals.  I mentioned Anglicans.

Over at the ACNA’s unofficial discussion page today, a priestess named Heather Jean Bakker Ghormley, who occasionally takes up center-left causes at that page in the attempt to baptize them, posted the Christianity Today article referenced above and commented as follows: "Many wonderful Anglican saints serve the refugees of our world. Please keep them and those they serve in your prayers during this time of hardened hearts."

Well, at least those of us who support Trump’s executive order aren’t Nazis according to Mrs. Ghormley.  We simply have “hardened hearts”, doncha know, which is Christian code for lovelessness, something that ranks way up at the top of the things Christians consider sin.

In response to her post, I provided a link to a blog article entitled "Trouble" that I published last year, which takes to task the Neo-Anglican ministries to immigrants with which Ghormley and others in the ACNA are involved.  I would encourage you all to read that article before reading further in this one.  I also posted a comment to the effect of what I said above about the CT article being riddled with weak arguments.  Both posts were summarily deleted by a moderator, and when I asked publicly why the posts were deleted, I received this private message from Mrs. Ghormley:  “I think one (of the moderators) thought is that you are no longer a member of the ACNA and that your views are attacking our actual ministries and thus causing a hindrance to the Gospel and creating dissension from the outside, but I'm not really sure.”  The moderator who actually deleted my comments has thus far had nothing to say to me, however, publicly or privately.

So, in addition to being “hard hearted”, I am hindering the Gospel.  Strike two.  One more strike and you’re out, headed to hell, Embryo Parson.

Chatter on certain ACNA clergy pages since the executive order was also predictable, as it contained the same question-begging, virtue-signaling, breast-beating sanctimony, effectively consigning those of us who agree with Trump’s executive order to the nethermost regions of lovelessness.  That, and they trotted out those old, carelessly-exegeted texts about the “foreigner” and the words of Our Lord in Matt. 25:35 ff., a text that has **nothing whatsoever to do**, actually, with the issue at hand. 

So here’s my question:  is it too much to ask that our Anglican clergy: 1) know how to exegete Scripture responsibly; 2) know how to avoid common logical fallacies; 3) reckon responsibly with the news stories pouring out of Europe with respect to how well the European elite’s “compassionate” policies are working there; and 4) not be so quick to judge those of us who take a contrary position?  More importantly, are these clergy willing to own their error if it turns out that the policy of allowing the Ummah into the West will eventually plunge it into chaos, civil war, and desolation?  Because I’m telling you now, and you heard it here first, that’s exactly what’s going to happen if we do not adopt, and yesterday, the policy Diana West recommends of “reversing, through foreign, domestic and immigration initiatives, what should now be seen, gimlet-eyed, as the Islamization of the non-Islamic world.”

As one of the best political commentators around puts it, himself a traditional Anglican, "We won't save refugees by destroying our own country."