Cole Simmon's Rejoinder to Will Witt

The North American Anglican (TNAA) has published Cole Simmon's rejoinder to Will Witt's reply to Cole's article published July 12, 2024.

JD Vance, Religious Populist

Matthew Schmitz, writing at First Things:

He believes that America remains more religious than people acknowledge—it’s the elites who have changed. “If you look at one measure of religious participation, just church membership in 1980 versus 2023 versus 1840, the country is not substantially less religious today . . . than it was 150 years ago.” Yet there is a profound obstacle facing anyone who aspires to be unapologetically both Christian and American. It is the conviction, shared by many of our elites and increasingly endorsed by the government, that anyone who dissents from progressive ideas on gender and sexuality is an enemy not only of progress but of the United States. Underlying this belief is an identification of America with the ideals represented by the Progress Pride flag.

Vance’s religious populism stands in opposition to a simply creedal conception of the United States. “We have to recognize that America is not just a principle. It is a group of people. It’s a history. It’s a culture. And yeah, part of that story is that people can come and assimilate,” Vance says. “But if your attitude is that . . . the only thing you need to become an American is to believe that with a little bit of hormonal therapy a man can become a woman, then you’re making it so that massive numbers of your own country either need to be re-educated, or need to be cast out of the political community.”

Vance says that the identification of the American project with progressive ideals is “a recipe for colonizing your own people.” When American leaders justify foreign conflicts in the name of LGBTQ rights (as has happened with the war in Ukraine), they are articulating a casus belli against much of their own population. The result is “militaristic adventurism overseas, war with your own people at home.”

Religious populism was not magically conjured by Trump. It has come to the fore because religious believers are increasingly excluded from important institutions. It is a response to social and legal developments championed by progressives and endorsed by America’s leading institutions. Justice Samuel Alito acknowledged these forces in February when he observed that a decision to exclude potential jurors who objected to same-sex marriage from a court case involving a lesbian woman “exemplifies the danger that I anticipated in Obergefell v. Hodges, . . . namely, that Americans who do not hide their adherence to traditional religious beliefs about homosexual conduct will be ‘labeled as bigots and treated as such’ by the government.”

So long as religious believers are disfavored for their beliefs by important American institutions, they will skew anti-institutional and populist. They will seek to challenge the elite and its orthodoxies. Of course, certain religious groups in America—notably Catholics and Jews—have a long history of exclusion. But now a similar situation is faced by traditional believers of all kinds, including Protestants. If they want to exercise the duties of citizenship rather than withdrawing from politics altogether, they will need to look to leaders like JD Vance.

A must read, however, is Vance's account of his conversion to Roman Catholicism, "How I Joined the Resistance."  If you want to see the depth of thought exemplied in a man who may be the next Vice-President of the United States, and possibly President of the United States in 2029, you need to read this.  It's a long read, but worth it.

The Left's "Bad Faith" Documentary on Christian Nationalism

Just watched "Bad Faith" yesterday, the laughable spawn of some outfit called Heretical Reason Productions, whose web site speaks volumes.  I urge my readers to have a look at both.  As to the documentary,  they will discover that it is a tissue of half-truths, glaring omissions of pertinent facts, ridiculous juxtapositions, straw man fallacies, biblical and theological misinterpretation, innuendo, hysteria, political grievances and self-congratulatory posturing. The footage featuring the preposterous religious lefty William Barber II, a political activist posing as a Christian pastor, was particularly hilarious.  A left-wing hit piece, in other words. Like this article, which mentions the documentary and whose unhinged author sounds very much like a certain Continuing Anglican priest we all know.  But I digress.

While ostensibly a commentary on the rise of Christian Nationalism, the film targets the American right generally.  To the leftist, there is really no difference between political conservatism and fascism.  Remember that they called Ronald Reagan a fascist.  And realize that the question of who the real "fascists" are, and consequently where the true threat to liberty is found, is a live one.

As recently outlined here and elsewhere on this blog, the left was birthed in political violence and has a demonstrable historical record of it.  Rightist political violence, historically, is largely a reaction to it and to its depradations of Western culture.   We are still awaiting for confirmation of initial reports that arson is the cause of the First Baptist Dallas fire, where Robert Jeffress, who is one of the Christian Nationalist demons named in "Bad Faith", serves as senior pastor.  If it is arson, we know who the culprits will likely be, just as we know who the culprits likely are in the attempted assassination of Donald Trump.   Even if it isn't, the potential for the kind of left-wing violence we observed a few years ago is increasing in spades, and films like "Bad Faith" won't help to stem this rising tide of political violence in the United States.

On the Left and the Attempted Assassination of Donald J. Trump, etc.

"As the Secret Service covered him with their bodies, even putting their hands protectively over his head, as they helped him to the car, the crowd could be seen turning to the media in the back and giving them the finger. They knew. They knew who did this. The left did this. The Democrats did this. The gutter press did this. The #NeverTrumpers did this.

What did they think would happen after months and even years yelling at the top of their lungs that Trump is Hitler, that Trump will be a dictator, that Trump is an “existential threat to our democracy?” Violence was inevitable.

Just a week ago, Biden said Trump needed to be put in the “bullseye.” In 2022, he said Trump and MAGA Republicans are a threat to the “soul of our country.”

Last November, The Washington Post ran a column that said “every conceivable measure” must be taken to stop the “end of our democracy.” It said, “When a marauder is crashing through your house, you throw everything at him—pots, pans, candlesticks …” It said the next Trump administration will be filled “with Hitler’s gauleiters.” What did they think would happen?

Go to the NeverTrump Bulwark website founded by Bill Kristol and see they are nearly constant in their shrill cries that Trump and not just Trump but you and me are out to end “Our Democracy™.” What did they think would happen?

All of this has been nonstop for years. What did these people think would happen?

Tonight, a dumb reporter asked Joe Biden if this was an “assassination attempt.” What a stupid question. What did the reporter think this was? And then poor mush-brained Biden said he did not have enough information to answer. Could Biden and his men not hear the gun shots? Could they not see the blood coursing down President Trump’s face?

What we know is that someone tried to assassinate former President Donald J. Trump. Reports are that the shooter was using a long gun from a nearby rooftop. How did the Secret Service allow that to happen? He killed at least one person, and grievously injured two others. Some nutters on the left are saying it was a hoax. It is reported that a crowd at Grauman’s Chinese Theater in Hollywood erupted in cheers when it was announced Trump had been shot. And now Democrats are saying there is no place for political violence in this country. But they did this.

We know political violence in this country comes almost exclusively from the left. Americans may have had a bad day on January 6th. A protest took place that turned into a riot. But it was a leftist who gunned down conservative lawmakers on that softball field. It was the left that burned several of our major cities. It was the left that laid siege to the White House and injured more than 100 cops. It was the left that tried to burn down a federal courthouse in Portland. It was the left that burned down a police station in Minnesota. It has been the left assaulting Jews on American streets and on college campuses. The left has promised violence and they have abundantly delivered. And they delivered today."

Chronicles Magazine, Donald Trump is a Legend

In related news, here's Fr. Robert Hart's take on the assassination attempt.  Hart is a priest canonically resident in the Anglican Catholic Church, Original Province (ACC).  As his Facebook news feed shows, his case of Trump Derangement Syndrome is off the charts.  Even his brother Addison Hodges Hart takes him to task for his latest.

The left was born in political violence.  The history of rightist violence is largely a story of resistance ("reaction") to that political violence from the left.   I wonder why Hart doesn't seem to know this, or if he does, why he doesn't seem to care. 

Oh, and regarding Hart's assertion that "actually, he was bleeding because of glass shards":

Snopes: False.

Confronting William G. Witt's "Icons of Christ"

New and philosophically interesting critique from Cole Simmons writing at The North American Anglican (TNAA) of Witt's Icons of Christ: A Biblical and Systematic Theology for Women’s Ordination. The Rev'd Matt Colvin penned a 4-part review of Witt's book at TNAA shortly after its publication in 2020: Part 1; Part 2; Part 3; Part 4.  It is far more comprehensive than Cole's and is more of a point-by-point refutation.  

These articles in TNAA are mainly reflective of the ongoing battle between pro-WO and anti-WO factions in the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA), and as such they represent a struggle between Anglo-Protestants. Witt is Professor of Systematic Theology and Ethics at Trinity School for Ministry, an ACNA theological seminary.  Witt refers to himself and his pro-WO faction as "Reformation Christians", and Rev'd Colvin is a consummate Anglo-Protestant priest (er, "presbyter") and biblical scholar in the Reformed Episcopal Church, which is a founding member of and ecclesiastical partner with the ACNA. 

While these refutations of Witt's apologia are incisive and encouraging, they naturally presuppose, as I've intimated, a Protestant theological methodology and not a Catholic one.  For that I recommend the Rev'd Dr. Manfred Hauke's Women in the Priesthood?: A Systematic Analysis in the Light of the Order of Creation and Redemption. Hauke is a Catholic priest and has taught at the Universities of Augsburg and Lugano.  This book is, hands down, the best and most comprehensive treatment of the issue in print IMHO.  From the description at Amazon:

This book should become the standard reference in the debate about women's ordination. The author cites copiously from American as well as European sources and presents the feminist position in the words and categories of the leading feminist authors. But, for the first time, the whole question is placed in the comprehensive context of anthropology, biology, psychology, philosophy, and theology. You will find a balanced presentation of the profound consistency of the Catholic Church's teaching and the practice concerning the role of women in the Church and in society. Written in a scholarly, yet very readable manner.

And from Catholic theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar, an assessment with which I totally agree: "Undoubtedly the definitive work available on this important topic."

There is no Anglo-Catholic treatise that I know of that matches the breadth and precision of Hauke's work, so I would refer any Anglo-Catholic to it, as not all Catholic roads lead to Rome.  However, the scholarly responses to the un-Catholic monstrosity of womens' ordination from Anglo-Protestants at TNAA and elsewhere are welcome complementary sources.

The English Reformation: Stick a Fork In It, It's Done

Just finished reading this book.

When N.T. Wright calls Thomas' work "theologically explosive", that is an understatement. If, as I believe, the New Perspective guys are right, and if it's the case that these earliest of Christian sources reveal a view of the "works of the Law" that is consistent with the NP, then stick a fork in the Protestant Reformation, English and Continental, it's done.  That means, inter alia, that the Articles and Homilies are indeed nothing more than "historical documents" that should not enjoy confessional status, and are therefore not binding on Anglicans, as the Protestant soteriology reflected there, in the final analysis, finds neither apostolic nor patristic warrant.

Note especially the highlighted comment from the conclusions section:

Anglicans and Christian Nationalism

“If you don’t want Christian nationalism, what kind of nationalism do you want? And if it’s not the Christianity that’s the problem, is it the nationalism? … if we don’t want nationalism, do we want globalism?”

These questions from Voddie Baucham demand answers from all of us Christians, including those who have expressed serious concern about if not outright contempt for the idea of Christian Nationalism.

The political Anabaptists among us, including some neo-Anglicans who seem to be wallowing in their ahistorical and theologically lacking approach to the issue, have delivered a resounding "no" to the argument for Christian Nationalism. But what is their alternative? Again, Baucham forces them to speak plainly on the matter and answer the questions.

I am one among many who have hoped, clearly now in vain, for a libertarian solution. Everyone just leave everyone else alone and leave the State, if it is to exist at all, to provide minimal services while "every man does what is right in his own eyes." I am still sympathetic to certain libertarian principles, but I see now that libertarianism has failed abysmally to deal with the reality of the organic nature of human society and culture. What's more, it is abundantly clear that we can't "just all get along" in that framework. There is no libertarian utopia, real or imagined. It really is all about tribes; about communal organisms. Burke was right. And the non-Christian tribe here in these States, the LGBT movement seemingly leading the charge, is intent on forcing its will upon us.

So. . .

Since this is the case, Christians should start thinking seriously about abandoning Lockean individualism. Whatever Locke meant, I do not believe that he would put his stamp of approval on today's state of affairs in America. It's clear that secularist government has failed. It's not in any sense "neutral" at the end of the day, but godless and intensely anti-Christian.

We Christians in the West (it applies to Europe too) are sick of it. We're done. If we are true Christians, we should have long ago resolved that we will not be ruled by these people. I have so resolved. Have you? Assuming you're not a political Anabaptist?

Though nations and states are admittedly distinguishable conceptually, we often talk in terms of "nation-states."  The Jews have an official nation-state. The Muslims have official nation-states. Western secularists have official nation-states. Why can't Christians have an official nation-state or states? Because the New Testament commits us to political Anabaptism? Rubbish, I say.

A certain brand of Protestantism argues that the Constantinian Settlement represented the Church going off the rails. But what if these Protestants are wrong? What if, instead, the Settlement was part of the Father's plan to advance his kingdom as referenced in the Lord's Prayer? Or the national conversions to Christianity such as that of Armenia, the first nation to convert in the early 4th century? What if "Christendom" was actually his will, and not, as these Protestants claim, a woeful, pagan aberration from the Faith?

“If you don’t want Christian nationalism, what kind of nationalism do you want? And if it’s not the Christianity that’s the problem, is it the nationalism? … if we don’t want nationalism, do we want globalism?”

Or Western secular government? Why would we want Western secular government when it's now clear that it planted the seeds of its own destruction?

You who denigrate the idea of Christian Nationalism, answer these questions. You Anglicans among them, answer them along with question of why it is you do so when Anglicanism, including the prayer book you use, was the product of English Christian Nationalism. And while you're at it, tell us why the famous Anglican literary figure and social critic T.S. Eliot was wrong when he penned these words:

“The World is trying the experiment of attempting to form a civilized but non-Christian mentality. The experiment will fail; but we must be very patient in awaiting its collapse; meanwhile redeeming the time: so that the Faith may be preserved alive through the dark ages before us; to renew and rebuild civilization, and save the World from suicide."

Tell us as well what we mean when we pray in the Prayers of the People at every Mass:

"We beseech thee also, so to direct and dispose the hearts of all Christian Rulers, that they may truly and impartially administer justice, to the punishment of wickedness and vice, and to the maintenance of thy true religion, and virtue."

Bishop Todd Hunter on a Christian America

Part 1

Part 2

Meh.

Christians aren't political Anabaptists.  That's the first thing.  The second thing is this:

"If you don’t want Christian nationalism, what kind of nationalism do you want? And if it’s not the Christianity that’s the problem, is it the nationalism? … if we don’t want nationalism, do we want globalism?” - Voddy Baucum

Those are the choices before us, My Lord Bishop, and Anglicans, following Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, have historically understood the necessity of the symphonia between the Christian Church and the Christian State.  Now, I do believe that American republicanism arguably addresses some of the abuses of European Christan nations, but republics are fragile things, as Benjamin Franklin noted, echoing the concerns of other Founding Fathers. However, for someone to suggest that Christians should abandon the public square, and even to suggest that the secularist status quo is acceptable, is to embrace the worst form of political folly.  It is not only wholly ahistorical, but dangerous.

No, we must embrace the reality that what remains of Christendom is the yeast of a restored Christian culture, and all that entails politically.  In the words of T.S. Eliot:

“The World is trying the experiment of attempting to form a civilized but non-Christian mentality. The experiment will fail; but we must be very patient in awaiting its collapse; meanwhile redeeming the time: so that the Faith may be preserved alive through the dark ages before us; to renew and rebuild civilization, and save the World from suicide.”

Profound

Deep Thoughts by Todd Hunter

Move over, Kamala.

C4SO

Pieter Valk on Christians and Gay Pride

Pieter Valk is a homosexual man who professes orthodox Anglican faith and who has commited to a celibate life.  He is a member of the Anglican Church of North America's (ACNA) controversial Diocese of Churches for the Sake of Others (C4SO), and the founder of the Nashville Family of Brothers, which bills itself as a "convent and monastery".  There Valk lives in community with several other "brothers".  (I'm not sure if there are actually any sisters there.)  In any event, late last year Valk reaffirmed his "lifetime commitments" in a ceremony at "Luminous Church" officiated by C4SO "Diocesan" Bishop Todd Hunter, Bishop Steven Tighe, Fr. Andrew Defusco, JP Conway, and Nathan Hale. 

Valk is the author of the "Dear Gay Anglican" letter addressed to members of the ACNA, which was so controversial that his bishop asked him to take the letter down from his page, a request with which he complied.  I posted briefly on this back in 2021.  Note the articles by Rod Dreher and Hans Boersma linked there.

Recently, Valk posted this on his Facebook page:

The deflection in this post is just astounding. Valk proudly waves the LGBT rainbow symbol, and instead of acknowleding the utter perversion that happens - in public, with kids watching - at Gay Pride events (see my post about this and "Luminous Church" here), he turns his sights on the historic "sins" of the Church with respect to how it has treated gays.  And then there's this: "Gay Pride is a celebration, reminding gay people that they're valued and accepted. It's also intentionally showy (or even aggressive) to reassure gay people that they'll defend and protect each other."  "Showy?; even aggressive"?  How about reprobate?

Valk is a fellow who has both supporters and detractors in the ACNA.  His supporters sing his praise because of his professed commitment to celibacy and his seeming desire to reach gays for Christ.  His detractors, on the other hand, see him as something of a self-promoter who tries to push the envelope for reasons they suspect aren't wholly pure.  The "Dear Gay Anglican" letter and this Facebook post would seem to substantiate their suspicions, as they tend to substantiate mine.  And if there is any "diocese" in ACNA that pushes the envelope, it is C4SO.

Is the Nashville Family of Brothers truly a "convent and monastery"?  Or is it rather more of a self-styled, thematic religious order of dubious foundation?  It seems to me that any homosexual Christian who seeks to be saved in Christ and commit to a life of celibacy should do so in an actual convent or monastery, and not one run by liberal-left monastics, which are unfortunately legion.  (Modern Benedictines seem to be notorious in this regard.)   I think especially of the late Fr. Seraphim Rose, who confessed his homosexuality but who instead of creating a cottage industry around himself went to a ROCOR monastery and REALLY, SILENTLY REPENTED, to the end of his days.  That should be the model, and Valk simply does not pass the smell test in this regard.  At least not to me and some others in the ACNA.

The Anglican Church in North America: Some Good News

As the ACNA gears up to select it's new Archbishop, a group of Anglican clergy are making themselves clear to the PTB that women's ordination is a primary issue, not a secondary issue as the defenders of the practice maintain. They have been joined by ACNA's Diocese of Fort Worth.  Unfortunately, ACNA cannot change its oxymoronic "dual integrities" policy without a change to its constitution, and from what I understand that's a non-starter.  However, the more noise the orthodox make the more ACNA's leadership has to worry about a potential split.  I for one think that's the only way this elephant in the room will be addressed.

Nearly 300 ACNA clergy and a Texas diocese call for male-only priesthood

Just When You Thought Things in the ACNA Couldn't Get More Surreal

This is Dan Haseltine, an ACNA priest serving at something called "Luminous Anglican Parish", a parish of C4SO, Todd Hunter, "Diocesan" Bishop. 

Draw your own conclusions.

Here is the maudlin "Unity Prayer" at "Luminous Anglican's" web site:

Unity Prayer

All are welcome at the table of God
Every human is God’s child
For Christ brings peace to all
Tearing down every hostile wall
So that the many become one

One heart
One family
One new humanity

For God who is Love
And Christ who is all and in all
Show no partiality and make no distinction
So neither race nor class
Gender nor sexuality
Politics nor religion
Personality nor nationality

Count for us or against us
The light of Christ enlightens all
Christ the prisoner and the naked
Christ the hungry and the sick
Christ the thirsty and the stranger
Christ the Other

May God’s Spirit hover over our chaos
Our hatred and indifference
Descend in our hearts with love and pleasure
Blow us out into the world to listen and serve
And set us ablaze to forgive and reconcile

For all are welcome at the table of God
Every human is God’s child.

This is a representative photo of a "pride" parade:


The following photo appears to have been taken a "pride" celebration.  Is this Desmond Is Amazing or some other poor, perverted kid? One Alec Atit calls me a "dumbass" and says it isn't, says it doesn't look anything like him, but you look at the pic I linked and decide. Regardless, Desmond has been documented dancing in front of gay men. The pic, which I downloaded from the internet several years ago, seems to have been scrubbed however. 

Megan Basham: How the Left Stole Evangelicalism

Including much of Anglican Evangelicalism.  For starters, I give you the Anglican Church in North America's Diocese of Churches for the Sake of Others.

Meanwhile, at the United Methodist Church General Conference

Liberal Protestantism is a veritable clown show.  (A sanitized version of another kind of show.)

That will be the look on her face, by the way, when she sees the Son of Man coming with the clouds of heaven.

And then there's the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.

Is Fr. Patrick J. Schlabs Taking a Shot at Fr. Calvin Robinson?

I was ordained a deacon with Fr. Schlabs back in 2014 when we were both in AMiA.  He would go on to ACNA and become the "Canon for Cultural Engagement" in  the ACNA's Diocese of South Carolina, and I would go on to serve as a healthcare chaplain and a priest in the Anglican Continuum.

I don't know quite what to make of Canon Schlabs' comment here, but on the face of it, it does appear that he's taking a shot at Fr. Calvin Robinson, who is a priest canonically resident in the Nordic Catholic Church, but whose DNA is Anglican of the Catholic variety.  And it must be noted that it was principals in the Anglican Diocese of South Carlolina, where Schlabs is canonically resident, who "cancelled" Fr. Robinson at the Mere Anglican Conference in 2024.  Those folks recieved a lot of deserved flak for their behavior towards Fr. Robinson, and that gives me reason to think that Fr. Schlabs is exhibiting some bad blood here.

But I could be wrong.  Maybe he'll chime in and explain.  If he does, I will delete this post.

More likely he won't, however.  And if he doesn't, well, all I can say is that his behavior is petty.

A fellow Continuing priest put it this way in response to this screen capture:  "Imagine being a canon for cultural engagement and managing to insult that many cultures in one post".

S.M. Hutchens on Calvin Robinson and the 2024 Mere Anglicanism Conference

"Mere Anglicanism, according to the group’s website, is 'an organization of Anglican Christians seeking to engage the culture with the Gospel of Jesus Christ by discipling, training, and educating lay and clergy leaders for the renewal of biblical and orthodox Anglicanism.' Thus, this group would be supposed to stand against progressivist corruptions of present-day Anglicanism, including those involving the sexual confusions in which it is entangled. At the group’s recent gathering in Charleston, South Carolina, one of the invited speakers was Fr. Calvin Robinson, who, after giving his paper, was barred from further participation in the conference. He writes:

On Friday 19th January [2024] I gave a talk at the Mere Anglicanism conference in Charleston, South Carolina. I was given the brief of, “Critical Theories are Antithetical to the Gospel.” I wanted to address the root of the problem rather than the symptoms, which we spend too much time focusing on. It was my point that the reason Gender Theory, Queer Theory and Critical Race Theory are so prevalent in the Church today is because we have conceded too much ground to Feminism.

Fr. Robinson asserted that women priests were a direct product of feminist influence and concluded that:

Feminism—an arm of liberalism—is the gate by which all the other woke ideas gain ground. They are all part of the same ideology, but Feminism is the brute force which breaks down the wall for all the others. . . . What combines queer theory, gender theory, [and] critical race theory? Their attempt to destroy the patriarchy and smash heteronormativity. [This is] the language of Marxism. These are not the arguments of theology, but of philosophy. They are weapons of the enemy, as instituted by the philosopher Karl Marx.

Some members of the audience were offended by Fr. Robinson’s direct association of women’s ordination and feminism with Critical Theory and Marxism. As a result of the offense, he was called before a bishop, who strongly reprimanded him, and barred from further participation in conference activities by its organizers. There were, it appears, certain conclusions he was not permitted to draw about the roots of Critical Theory, his assigned topic, and the conference did not wish to hear about a certain application of its energies in particular.

It is a continuing source of wonderment to this writer that so many organizations claiming to admire C. S. Lewis hold events celebrating his life and writing and trade upon his thinking (by, for example, giving themselves names like 'Mere Anglicanism') while ignoring his well-known opinion, echoed by Fr. Robinson, that women’s ordination, while bearing its own form of secular rationality, isn’t Christian at all. Rather, by setting at naught the symbolic weight of maleness in Christian presbyters, it results in something 'not near so much like a Church' (as Lewis takes it from Jane Austen’s Bingley). For agreement with this opinion, Fr. Robinson, who dared to identify some of the deformations encouraged by this un-Christian neoplasm, has been banished by people who put themselves forward as 'biblical and orthodox Anglicans' in the style of C. S. Lewis.

If Lewis was right, it calls into question the 'sustainability'—not of some form of feminized religion—but of Christianity itself in sects that profess to be orthodox but persist in ordaining women."

(S.M. Hutchens is Senior Editor of Touchstone Magazine.  Subscribe to here if you're not already a subscriber.  This is a magazine that every tradtional Christian needs to be reading.)

Mere Priestesses

"Controversy surrounds the disinvitation of Fr. Calvin Robinson from the closing panel of the Mere Anglicanism conference held in Charleston, South Carolina, in January. Asked to lecture on the topic “Critical Theories Are Antithetical to the Gospel,” Robinson argued during the main session that the spread of critical theory in the church was inevitable given the church’s acceptance of feminism, with women’s ordination being a decisive concession: Confuse men’s and women’s roles, and it’s hard to resist liberalism tout court. The sponsoring bishop and conference organizers found Robinson’s presentation “inexcusably provocative, and completely lacking in charity,” especially toward the female clergy in attendance, and so barred him from the closing panel discussion.

The conference’s title, a nod to C. S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity, implies that participants hold in common the essentials of Anglican belief. The conference is advertised as a venue in which difficult topics facing the Church can be thoughtfully engaged. Accordingly, Robinson was candid: “The priestess issue is directly related to the trans issue. If a man can become a woman, and a woman can become a man, why can’t a woman become a priest and a man become a mother?” Though this question may strike supporters of women’s ordination as unnecessarily provocative, the same type of argument was made by the conference’s patron saint more than seventy-five years ago. Robinson and Lewis both articulate the position of mere Christianity against the fashionable theologies of their times. They state what was the consensus position of the Great Tradition, East and West, before critical theory infected Protestantism.

Read the rest here.

"Everyone I Don't Like. . . ."

Joe Mahler (pictured immediately below), Donald Philip Veitch picture at bottom) and crew.  If you're investigating Anglicanism, please accept both my theological and pastoral advice, and stay far away from these people.  And please don't become an Anglican if you're really nothing more than a Presbyterian who happens to like our prayer book.

 

The DNA Doesn't Lie

In the days ahead I will be having a lot more to say about the question of the trad Anglican response to this particular form of lunacy and to the culture war lunacy of the Left generally.

"(I do) not give a rat’s hindquarters what liberals. . . think or say or do about anything. At this point in the dialectic, no dialogue is possible with them. They live in their own universe of lies and depravity." - Shrewsbury

"The woke mind virus is either defeated or nothing else matters." - Elon Musk

"The dividing line in America is no longer between right or left. The choice, is between normal, or crazy." - Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders

"Leftists aren't just bad people. They are the retrovirus of the electorate and should be eradicated." - Some random guy

"The madness of tomorrow is not in Moscow, but much more in Manhattan." - G. K. Chesterton

"The Democrats are self-immolating on the altar of their own tenuous relationship with common decency." — Tom Luongo