"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 Catholic Liturgy and Theology

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

Gavin Ashenden

International Catholic Congress of Anglicans

Jesse Nigro's Thoughts

The Latimer Trust

Martin Thornton

Meditating on "Irvana"

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

The Southern High Churchman

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)

The Counter-Revolution

Craft Beer


Eclectic Orthodoxy

First Things

The Imaginative Conservative

Joffre the Giant: Excursions in Christian Virility


Men of the West

Mercurius Pragmaticus Redivivus

Mere Comments

Mitre and Crown

Monomakhos (Eastern Orthodox; Paleocon)

Paterfamilias Daily

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.)

Pint, Pipe and Cross Club

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

God, Gender and the Pastoral Office, S.M. Hutchens

God, Sex and Gender, Gavin Ashenden

Homo Hierarchicus and Ecclesial Order, Brian Horne

How Ordaining Women Harms Ministry to Men, C.R. Wiley

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
Recent Entries
Categories and Monthly Archives
This area does not yet contain any content.







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


Anglo-Catholic Clergy Hankering for Orthodoxy Beware: The Orthodox Western Rite Is Neither Orthodox nor Western nor English nor Permanent (Part I of a Response to Father Mark Rowe)

This from Fr. Mark Rowe, a former ACC priest who is currently Vicar General of ROCOR's Western Rite Communities, in his 2012 Journey to Orthodoxy article "So That God Would Give You To Us." 

The more I studied about Orthodoxy, the more I found myself more in line theologically with the teachings than I had ever thought. I also studied the history of the Church, and had to agree about the Great Schism, and that the four ancient patriarchates were still in communion to this day, and that they were the ancient Church- and they were Orthodox!

The more I studied the Church in England, the more I realized that they were Orthodox in the beginning. Now I was in a real predicament.

Of course, this is the proposition that lies at the heart of Orthodox apologetics in general and the argument for the creation of Western Rite vicariates in particular:  the entire Church was "Orthodox" before the West started veering off into both filioquist heresy in a chain of events that led to the Western Church's schism from the "True Church", the Orthodox Church.  The Latins ran the Western Church off the rails theologically, so the argument goes, resulting, among other things, in the Protestant Reformation that rent the Western Church and spawned even more heresies such as solafideism and Calvinism.  The English Church was caught up in all this and came to suffer the deleterious effects of both Latin and Protestant theologies.  However, the English Reformation was happily corrected by Caroline and Tractarian divinity, resulting in the phenomenon called "Anglo-Catholicism".  Alas, filioquist Anglo-Catholics have struggled to maintain their existence against the depredation of both liberalism and Protestantism in the Anglican Communion, and the filioquist Anglican Continuum is no better, really, since it currently exists as a gaggle of jurisdictions that can't seem to effectively unite.  What better way out of this difficult situation than to offer what Anglo-Catholics really want in their heart of hearts:  English Orthodoxy.  The English Orthodox Church as it was under Celtic and early Roman oversight, before the later popes and theologians got their hooks in her.  Voila!, Western Rite Orthodoxy, offering either the old Gregorian rite in English or a theologically tweaked Anglican rite, the so-called "Liturgy of St. Tikhon" to disaffected Anglo-Catholics who yearn to be members of a large and seemingly stable communion, The Orthodox Church.

There's only one problem with this pitch to Anglo-Catholics: it is disingenuous and underlying its disingenuousness is a false narrative about the Western Church in general and the English Church in particular.  The Western Church was never "Orthodox", not in the British Isles and not in the Continent.  The term "Orthodoxy" refers to a uniquely Eastern phenomenon whose theology is the result of a developmental trajectory very much different than that of the Western Church, though West and East existed as one church for over a thousand years.  The West's theological development was very much different and is the reason why Orthodoxy harbors so much hostility against it.  Western Rite Orthodoxy is a poseur, in other words.  Pure and simple.

Orthodox apologists for the Orthodox Western Rite maintain that the hegemonic patriarchy at Rome wrested the English Church from the Orthodox fold. Forget about the fact that the English church was in the Roman orbit almost from the get-go, and that it adopted the filioque quite early on, and, if you can believe it, at a time when the Archbishop of Canterbury was none other than the Eastern bishop Theodore of Tarsus himself.

What we know as "Orthodoxy" today has taken a controversial movement into its bosom, "hesychasm", which significantly transformed the Orthodox Church in a way that did not occur either in the Western Church at large or the English Church.  Consequently, Western monasticism - principally Benedictine - differed in significant ways from the monasticism of the Eastern Church. 

In a Continuing Anglican discussion page at Facebook, Fr. Will Boyd, a priest serving in China with the Holy Catholic Church – Anglican Rite shared the results of his research on Byzantine canonical interpretation and liturgy.  His conclusions are noteworthy:

The Orthodox theory of communion is truly beautiful, but as it developed within the Byzantine canonical tradition, it is also extremely self-referential and idealistic, incapable of reflecting the simple realities of its own history. While it draws meaningful analogies between Trinitarian Taxis and ecclesial hierarchy, hypostatic union and the divine-human economy of the church, celestial worship and late Byzantine Liturgy, it unfortunately fails to honestly or self-critically address the realities of historical inconsistency and political necessity; appending the Codex Justinianus to the Canons of the Council of Trullo (and thereby subjecting the Church to the laws of the State), leaving unaddressed the Moechian schism and its ultimate triumph over a non-schismatic Patriarchate, two Unia councils officially unifying with the West (only to be discarded at convenience), the common practice of Byzantine caesaropapism and Turkish simony, the Palamite usurpation of universal teaching authority through civil-war, intrigue and the persecution of theological enemies, and the contemporary issues of phyletism and jurisdictionalism, to name just a few.

St. Cyprian is the only authority that the Orthodox now, anachronistically, choose to follow. There are at least five sources of canonical definition in the Ancient church that disagree with Balsamon's interpretation of Cyprianic ecclesiology.

St. Augustine's ecclesiology completely contradicts St. Cyprian's understanding in that it asserts that schism occurs, not by the cutting off of grace, but in the denial of love. Schismatic orders and sacraments partake in the same reality of the Church, up to the point that they can be accepted in mutual love and submission, and break where love ceases.

The Apostolic Canons (the earliest canonical Tradition from the Ancient Church of Antioch) assert that every area has the right to recognize a senior bishop, a Primus, and that this is the basic unity of the local church, based on conciliatory and mutual recognition. No other "outside" recognition is necessary for the Church to exist in its Catholic, Complete and Universal, state.

The Canons of the First Ecumenical Council also assert that all local traditions hold precedence over imperial declaration, unless they contradict the doctrinal teachings of an Ecumenical Council. This was the point that Balsamon falsely represented and thus changed canonical interpretation - he states, "All things must be as in the God-loved City of Constantinople, unless dictated by an Ecumenical Council." This minor point of misrepresentation was the single most devastating thing that occurred to Orthodoxy, eliminating the Liturgy of St. James, St. Mark, of St. Thaddeus and all of the hymnological and liturgical traditions of all other areas and liturgikons in the Late Medieval Period. If the Church's theological self-understanding is found in its prayers, "Lex Orandi Lex Credendi", then Orthodoxy cut itself off at this point from a major source of doctrinal and cultural inspiration and directly contributed to the narrowing and self-appreciation of the later Orthodox tradition.

The last source of insight was the Council of Seleucia-Ctesiphon in 410, where the preface to its Canons explains that, based on the Apostolic Canons, all local churches have the authority to declare their political independence from the Roman Emperor and Imperial authority, and that the only requirement for mutual recognition between churches is reception of the Apostolic Episcopacy, the Teaching of the Gospel and the Epistles of Paul, the Doctrine of the Incarnation, the Belief in the Trinity and the Practice of the Sacraments (basically, the assertions of the Nicene Creed). This view was later ratified when the Byzantine Patriarchs, St. John of Antioch and Sergius the Great, communed with the Syriac Patriarch, Yeshuayab II, under the reign of Heraclius, while maintaining the Syriac definition of Catholicity. This early definition explains the practical and philosophical problems of the Council of Trullo, where Emperor Justinian appended the Canons with the "Codex Justinianus", the secular law of the Eastern Roman Empire, singlehandedly usurping the ecumenical authority of the Fifth and Sixth Councils, instating episcopal celibacy and arranging for the monastic take-over of the Church.

I would recommend reading Fr. Dr. Cyril Hovorun's new book, "Scaffolds of the Church", to understand the evolution of the Orthodox position over the last one thousand years from an Orthodox perspective, and then follow that with Fr. Dr. Patrick Viscuso's critical translation of Balsamon's "The Orthodox Church Under Islam". Fr. Dr. John Meyendorff's life work is also valuable, focusing on the effects of the Empire on canonical interpretation, particularly in "Imperial Unity and Christian Division" and also seen in his cooperation with Papadakis, "The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy". These are all Orthodox resources that discuss the original understanding of catholicity in contrast to what it became in the Late Byzantine Period and under the Turkish rule and Russian Imperial expansions

These and other historical realities show quite clearly that the English Catholic Church was never "Orthodox" in the modern sense of that term.  Her theological trajectory was always Latin, her patriarchate Roman until the breach that occurred at the Reformation , and her ecclesiology and soteriology largely shaped by St. Augustine, whom Orthodox apologists identify as the chief culprit.  As Fr. Stephen Trott, Rector of Pitsford with Boughton (UK), concludes from all the pertinent historical evidence:

There are no traces of Orthodoxy in England or Great Britain of this era. No bishops, churches, monasteries, liturgies - nothing. That's because the source of Christianity in this country and of the orders of the shadowy bishops of the fourth century was Rome - not one of the other great Sees, but Rome. There are of course fantasists who wish to invent an Orthodox tradition for England, rather like those who like to believe in Atlantis or the Holy Grail. . . .

There was no English "Orthodox" church any more than there was a King Arthur: early historians such as Gildas often presented myths as if they were historical facts. There was a Christian presence in the Roman province of Britannia from approximately 84AD onwards, and three bishops are known to have attended the Council of Arles in 314 AD. As this was a Roman province, here is a significant clue: the Church here was governed, albeit distantly, from Rome. Before the accession of Constantine and his conversion in 312AD, the church was an underground movement, persecuted by the authorities. It is not surprising that information about its existence in a Roman province at that time is sparse. During the fourth century the Roman empire began to break down. The legions were gradually withdrawn from Britannia to defend Rome and the empire, and by 430AD the political and military links with Rome had all but vanished. But the fact that British bishops were invited to Arles (and possibly, though not certainly) to Nicaea, indicates that they were under the authority of the Latin church. York (the home of Eborius) was the northern military headquarters of the Roman province, and it was while he was in York that Constantine became emperor of the western part of the Roman empire.

Quite aside from the fact that so-called Western Rite Orthodoxy is neither Orthodox nor Western nor English, but of utmost importance, Anglo-Catholics hankering for WRO need to understand that WRO may very well turn out to be a provisional accommodation for Roman Catholic and Anglo-Catholic converts who wish to retain their rites, until such a time as the WRO is no longer feasible and at which time the Eastern bishops will opt to move Western Riters into the Byzantine Rite.  I inquired about this with Dom Benedict Andersen, a Roman Catholic Benedictine priest-monk who was formerly known as Subdeacon Benjamin Andersen and a former spokesman for the Antiochian Western Rite Vicariate.   I asked if he thought Western Rite Orthodox had a future.  His reply:

Frankly, I don't believe that WRO has much of a future at all. There is simply no common vision. I do foresee eventual ER (Eastern Rite) assimilation, or mass defections to Rome or traditional Anglicanism (the latter, admittedly, has the advantage of a non-exceptional married clergy).

My feeling is that Orthodox ought to be Byzantine, Romans ought to be Roman, Anglicans ought to be Anglican. Uniate projects (and yes, I include here Greek Catholicism and Anglican Use Roman Catholicism) never seem to work out; they always produce a sort of bastardized "tertium quid".

Fr. John Morris is an Eastern Rite priest with the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America with whom I have had many spirited online discussions.  In one such discussion, I raised the question of the Orthodox Western Rite's permanence.  His reply was instructive:

Whether or not the Western Rite has a future within Orthodoxy is a matter of the will of God. If it is God’s will that the Western Rite of the Orthodox Church grow and prosper, it will grow and prosper. The Western Rite is an effort to restore something that was lost through the Romanization and subsequent Protestantism of the Church in England. . . .

Since the vast majority of Orthodox follow the Byzantine Rite, it is to be expected that many find the Western Rite difficult to accept. I believe that is a good thing, because it shows that Orthodox Christians take their beliefs seriously and do not want anything to compromise those beliefs. More than anything else Orthodox define and express their Faith through their worship. Even a person who has no theological education cannot accept worship that does not feel right. I consider that good because this more than anything else preserves the integrity of our Church. It is also a testimony that Orthodox believe that it is essential to reject anything that compromises our beliefs.

Underlying your argument seems to be the idea that the Byzantine Rite is too foreign for Americans. That is an idea that I must reject. The Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is universal and rises above ethnic considerations. It is a perfect expression of the Orthodox Faith. I and thousands of Americans have found a home within the Byzantine Rite. When I stand before the Holy Table and pray the prayers of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, I feel the power of the Holy Spirit. For that reason, I reject the argument that the Byzantine Rite is too foreign for Americans.

Fr. Morris went on in that discussion to say why he supports the Western Rite, something he is expected to do as a priest of the Antiochian jurisdiction, which is one Orthodox jurisdiction of two that have allowed the Western rite, but his qualifying remarks are all too clear:  1) whether or not the Western Rite survives in the Orthodox Church "is a matter of the will of God" (not to mention the will of a sea of hostile Eastern Orthodox bishops, lower clergy and laity); and 2) any convert to Orthodoxy ought to be able to accept the Byzantine Rite: "It is a perfect expression of the Orthodox Faith", unlike the Western Rite, which as Fr. John says in the discussion only " preserves the best of Anglicanism" and is merely "an effort to restore something that was lost through the Romanization and subsequent Protestantism of the Church in England."  Talk about damning with faint praise. 

So, Anglo-Catholics thinking about converting to Orthodoxy because a Western Rite exists for them ought to understand the big picture:

It ain't Orthodox, it ain't Western, it ain't English, and it ain't permanent.

For more information, See the following discussions at Fr. Anthony Chadwick’s Blog New Goliards:

Orthodox Blow-Out Department 

Western Rite Orthodoxy Archive

Part II in my series of responses to Fr. Rowe; Part III; Part IV.


The Embryo Parson. . .

is now officially an Embryo Parson.  Let the reader understand.


Advent and the Christian Church Year: How Christ Comes To Us

The second Advent meditation from Stephen Scarlett, Bishop Ordinary of the Diocese of the Holy Trinity, Anglican Catholic Church, OP.


Advent and the Christian Church Year: The Party of the World vs. The Party of the Church


A Slight Repurposing of This Blog and The Disciplined Center

Not long ago I mentioned my intent to repurpose The Old Jamestown Church.  I had only a vague idea at the time concerning where I wanted to take it, but I have a much clearer now.  While I want to devote this blog to the defense of Continuing Anglicanism generally, I will be devoting a bit more time particularly to the cause of my jurisdiction, the Orthodox Anglican Church - North America (OAC).

You will likely ask, "Why, Embryo Parson?" 

My answer is that while I believe the future of traditional Anglicanism rests with the Continuum, we in the OAC have something special to offer to the cause of trad Anglicanism that I believe the New Concordat is missing.  I will elaborate in future posts.

I need to set forth this disclaimer, however: what I will have to say about all this will be merely my own opinion, and is not necessarily reflective of the thoughts and intent of the epsicopal leadership of the OAC.  Furthermore, and in keeping with that disclaimer, I will will gladly subject everything I have to say to the rule of my Presiding Bishop Thomas E. Gordon and the governing documents of the OAC.  Whatever corrections to my musings they deem necessary, I will happily accept.

So let's start with this OAC paper entitled "The Disciplined Center".


The Priesthood is About the Blood

Why I'm not a Presbyterian with a prayer book. Kudos to Alice Linsley for this superb blog article.

If to be Anglican is to be Catholic, which is what Anglicans affirm when they recite the Creed, and what all generations of Anglican divines affirmed, including the Edwardian and early Elizabethan ones, then our priests are sacrificing priests and not just Presbyterian-style "elders."

For those of you who don't know Alice, she was formerly ordained a priest in the Episcopal Church. After returning to the Church's Great Tradition, she resigned her orders and now serves as a laywoman and academic to the Catholic Faith.

The Priesthood is About the Blood.


This, Not That

The Faith, not unbelief.


That Pesky Women's Ordination Issue

Great piece by Fr. Robert Munday.  Unfortunately, the articles makes it feel like traditional Anglicans in that province are still kicking the can down the road.


Muscular Christianity, Templar Style

The fighting monks of St. Bernard of Clairvaux. He got in Dutch with the mystic Hildegard of Bingen and other authorities bc of his support of the Templars, but I think he got it right. So did the Pope. So have all generations of Anglican warriors. You can be both a warrior and a Christian. The Christian Church is not pacifist. Ask C.S. Lewis.


Continuing Anglican Unity: What's Next?

So, now that the Joint Synods of the ACC, ACA, APA and DHC have concluded and the Concordant having been signed, what's next?  On the one hand, most of us seem very happy to see this important step toward Continuing Anglican unity, but there is a fly in the ointment:  what of those other traditional churches who "consider themselves to be Anglican" but who will never sign on to the Affirmation of St. Louis?


Full Communion Concordat Signing - And Singing, October 6, 2017

The Anglican Catholic Church, the Anglican Church in America, the Anglican Province in America and the Diocese of the Holy Cross are now in communion.  Praise be to God.

Let us now pray that other traditional Anglican jurisdictions will find their way to join what is now a big impetus for unity in the Continuum.


The Joint Synods Have Begun

Let's keep them in our prayers.  My own presiding bishop is there as an observer.

Anglican Joint Synods set to begin; delegates converging on Atlanta for historic event.

Here's Kevin Kallsen's interview with Chandler Holder Jones, Bishop Suffragan in the Anglican Province of America, on what is expected to occur at the synods and thereafter.   Kallsen is ACNA, and was in this video clearly trying to get Bishop Jones to address the charge about "angry Continuers", but Jones was able to steer the direction back towards the positive.  I suspect some in the ACNA are nervous about these synods.  There's no real reason the Orthodox Church should be in talks with the ACNA rather than us.


ACNA and Immigration, Again


New to the Blog Roll

Men of the West.  Christian.  Patriarchal.  Hard Right.


ACNA Has Finally Jumped The Shark

The bishops' statement on the un-Catholic monstrosity of women's ordination.  (Things that make you go "huh!?")

The offer to disaffected ACNA clergy and laity extended by my Presiding Bishop and Metropolitan.

Commentary by Fr. Robert Hart, ACC.

Stay tuned for further commentary.  I'm especially eager to see what Touchstone Magazine's S.M. Hutchens will have to say.

There are a number of people who are saying that this statement is proof positive that ACNA has not escaped its TEC mentality.  Meet the Latcons.

Anglo-Catholics, Old High Protestants and Anglo-Calvinists in the ACNA no longer have any excuse.  They either get out of ACNA, or they content themselves with being part of TEC's legacy.  They either perpetuate the problem of Anglican identity or they take courageous steps to resolve it.  We will still face the issue of who, Anglo-Catholics, Old High Church Protestants or Anglo-Calvinists represent the purest expression of the Catholic faith we affirm in the Creed, but at least we will have left the dross of the charismatic egalitarian feminists behind us. 

"Come out from among them."


T.S. Eliot's "Christianity and Culture"

At The Imaginative Conservative

Death to liberalism:

This is not to say that ours has become a pagan society. In saying that ours is a neutral society, Eliot also is pointing out that it remains Christian, though only in vestigial form. Liberalism, the ideology dominant in the West, has emptied out (some might say “secularized”) our society, dissolving many of its religiously grounded structures and aims. Liberalism has done much to neutralize Christianity, but claims the labels “benign” and “tolerant” because it has put nothing in Christianity’s place. As Eliot puts it,

Liberalism….tends to release energy rather than accumulate it, to relax, rather than to fortify. It is a movement not so much defined by its end, as by its starting point; away from, rather than towards, something definite. Our point of departure is more real to us than our destination; and the destination is likely to present a very different picture when arrived at, from the vaguer image formed in imagination. By destroying traditional social habits of the people, by dissolving their natural collective consciousness into individual constituents, by licensing the opinions of the most foolish, by substituting instruction for education, by encouraging cleverness rather than wisdom, the upstart rather than the qualified, by fostering a notion of getting on to which the alternative is a hopeless apathy, Liberalism can prepare the way for that which is its own negative: the artificial, mechanized or brutalised control which is a desperate remedy for its chaos.(CC, 12)

Liberalism is fundamentally negative in its teleology. Its inherent purpose is to liberate individuals from constraints of tradition, social structure, and cultural context. It can have good effects (some structures are, indeed, oppressive), but if not checked it will corrode the social framework, producing anarchy and brutal responses to that anarchy. Here, obviously, Eliot is referring to the rise of totalitarianism, perhaps most obviously in response to the anarchy of post–World War I German society. He also points to the discomfiting fact that Western democracies share significant affinities with totalitarian regimes. Totalitarian regimes simply have advanced more fully (and ironically, more efficiently) on the road to paganism, a destination toward which our society continues to move.[5]


Great Article on Richard Hooker

In summary, Hooker’s Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity is not only a refutation of bad doctrine. It presupposes a comprehensive and coherent theology–balancing Catholicism and Protestantism, tradition and spirit–that we can confidently call Anglican theology.

Read it here.


Two New Blogs on the Sidebar


Theological Foundations of Infant Baptism


Christianity's Manhood Problem

From the Art of Manliness:

Among men who are committed Christians, why do they seem to be more effeminate, on average, than the male population as a whole? As Murrow puts it, what is it about “Christianity, especially Western Christianity, that drives a wedge between the church and men who want to be masculine”?

These are fascinating questions, certainly for Christians who have noticed this phenomenon themselves and for pastors of churches who are concerned about the health of their congregations (as we’ll see, there’s a strong connection between the number of men in a church’s pews and its vitality).

But it’s also a fascinating subject for anyone interested in the influence of economics and sociology on religion, and who understand the enormous influence religion has had and continues to have on Western culture in general, and conceptions of manhood in particular.

So over the next several weeks, we’ll be offering two articles that explore possible answers to the above questions. First, we’ll outline various theories as to how, when, and why Christianity became feminized and unattractive to many men. We’ll then delve into the history of a time in which there emerged a dedicated response and effort to revive the masculinity of the faith — a movement that went by the name of “Muscular Christianity.”  (Link to "Muscular Christianity" provided by me, not in the original article at Art of Manliness)

Stay tuned.

Is Christianity an Inherently Feminine Religion?

The Feminization of Christianity