Everyone says about living in 1930s Germany, "I wouldn't have been a Nazi." Shut up, yes you would. You do it now. Are you a DEI supporter, believe in Critical Race Theory, Feminism, Neomarxism, Postmodernism? Well, you're just justifying discrimination against another group, aren't you?
Okay, lets do this one more time:
Prompt 1: You are Thomas Cranmer.
Prompt 2: Is the modern Anglican Church of Canada in error on any doctrinal points, and if so, which ones and why?
Prompt 3: Please explain, give reasons and examples.
Prompt 4: Summarize and give recommendations.
Prompt 2: Do all of the above again as Thomas Aquinas.
Prompt 3: Do all of the above again as John Wycliffe.
Prompt 4: Do all of the above again as Thomas Becket.
Prompt 5: Do all of the above again as William Tyndale.
Prompt 6: Do all of the above again as St. Paul.
Prompt 7: Do all of the above again as J.I. Packer.
Prompt 8: Do all of the above again as C.S. Lewis.
Prompt 9: Do all of the above again as N.T. Wright.
Below are theological reflections written in the style and theological voice of each requested figure. They are not literal historical claims, but reasoned extrapolations based on each person’s known theology and method.
The Anglican settlement I labored to articulate sought a Church reformed according to Scripture, purified of medieval excess, and grounded in justification by faith alone.
Doctrine of Scripture
If Scripture is treated as culturally conditioned rather than divinely authoritative, the Church departs from its Reformation foundation.
The Articles teach that Holy Scripture contains all things necessary to salvation.
Marriage and Sexual Ethics
If marriage is redefined apart from its biblical form (Genesis 2; Matthew 19), the Church risks departing from catholic and apostolic teaching.
Doctrinal Latitude
Excess comprehensiveness without doctrinal clarity undermines unity in truth.
The Church must not accommodate doctrine to the spirit of the age.
Liturgical revision must preserve gospel clarity.
If moral teaching shifts with cultural trends, authority shifts from God to society.
Reaffirm Scripture as supreme authority.
Restore doctrinal clarity in preaching and catechesis.
Preserve liturgy rooted in justification by faith.
Truth is one, and doctrine must conform to divine revelation and right reason.
Natural Law and Moral Theology
Human sexuality belongs to natural law.
Redefining marriage contradicts teleology inscribed in creation.
Doctrinal Development
Development must unfold from apostolic deposit, not contradict it.
Revelation perfects nature; it does not negate it.
If moral law becomes subjective, reason itself is undermined.
Recover natural law reasoning.
Align moral theology with tradition.
Safeguard metaphysical realism in doctrine.
The Word of God alone is supreme.
Insufficient Scriptural Supremacy
Clerical accommodation to secular authority
Doctrinal compromise for social approval
The Church must be ruled by Scripture, not synods influenced by politics.
Translate and teach Scripture plainly.
Reform bishops if needed.
Submit all doctrine to the Word.
The Church must not bow to secular authority.
Moral teaching shaped by cultural pressure.
Weak episcopal courage.
Bishops must defend apostolic faith even against state influence.
If the ploughboy cannot see biblical teaching clearly proclaimed, reform is needed.
Scripture overshadowed by institutional policy.
Gospel obscured by moral ambiguity.
Return preaching to biblical clarity.
Ensure doctrine matches the plain sense of Scripture.
Grace and truth must not be separated.
Redefinition of moral law.
Weakness on sin and repentance.
Gospel replaced by cultural approval.
Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6 speak plainly.
The Church must correct in love.
Preach Christ crucified.
Maintain holiness and charity.
Evangelical Anglicanism stands on biblical authority.
Weak doctrine of Scripture.
Revisionist ethics.
Doctrinal minimalism.
Catechize deeply.
Recover Reformation theology.
Promote evangelical renewal.
The danger is not honest development, but losing “mere Christianity.”
Altering core moral teaching.
Confusing compassion with endorsement.
Losing supernaturalism.
Keep central creeds primary.
Avoid novelty for relevance.
Speak truth with humility.
The Church must live within the biblical narrative of creation and new creation.
How Scripture is interpreted in modern ethical debates.
Risk of reducing gospel to moral accommodation.
Ecclesial fragmentation within global Anglicanism.
Ethics flows from resurrection and new creation.
The Church must embody holiness and reconciliation.
Engage Scripture historically and theologically.
Maintain unity without sacrificing conviction.
Frame ethics within eschatological hope.
Across these voices, recurring themes emerge:
Authority of Scripture
Continuity with apostolic tradition
Moral theology and sexual ethics
Cultural accommodation vs. doctrinal faithfulness
The need for clarity, catechesis, and courage
Differences appear in method:
Aquinas emphasizes natural law.
Cranmer and Tyndale emphasize Reformation authority of Scripture.
Wycliffe stresses reform from corruption.
Becket stresses independence from the state.
Paul stresses holiness and grace.
Packer stresses evangelical orthodoxy.
Lewis stresses core Christianity.
Wright stresses narrative and ecclesiology.
If you would like, I can also provide:
A contrasting set of voices defending the Anglican Church of Canada,
A comparative theological chart,
Or a neutral academic analysis of current Anglican debates.
The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion (1563) are the foundational doctrinal statements of the Church of England and a historic standard for Anglican belief. They were shaped during the English Reformation under Elizabeth I to define a middle way between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism.
Here is a concise summary of their main points (under 300 words):
Authority of Scripture – The Bible contains all things necessary for salvation and is the final authority in matters of faith.
Creeds – The Apostles’, Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds are affirmed as true statements of Christian belief.
Sin and Salvation – Humanity is fallen and cannot save itself. Justification (being made right with God) is by faith alone, not by works.
The Church – The visible Church is the community where God’s Word is preached and the Sacraments are properly administered. Church authority is real but subject to Scripture.
Sacraments – Only two Sacraments are ordained by Christ: Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. They are effective signs of grace. Transubstantiation is rejected, and Christ’s presence in Communion is spiritual rather than physical.
Good Works – Good works follow faith but do not earn salvation.
Predestination – God’s predestination to life is affirmed as a source of comfort to believers.
Rejection of Certain Roman Doctrines – The Articles reject purgatory, indulgences, the invocation of saints, and certain medieval practices as lacking scriptural basis.
Church Practices – Worship may be conducted in a language understood by the people. Clergy may marry.
Civil Authority – The monarch has authority in earthly governance of the Church, but not in spiritual matters like preaching or administering sacraments.
Overall, the Articles define a Reformed yet episcopal Christianity rooted in Scripture and historic creeds.
Hey,
I *have* thought about Jubilee. Thank you for the invitation. It means a lot to me.
My own Church is just too woke for me now. I took my last priest for granted, and she was a large part of the reason I stayed at St. Paul's, a buffer for me. I was looking around for Anglican Churches when I found Benadiction Church in KW. It looks wild, but very conservative, Anglican, evangelical, and with contemporary music. So I'm not sure about it. It seems a juxtaposition.
You and I have not had a really good discussion about faith, Christianity, and Church. My gut tells me that you don't want to talk (or debate) Church, and I will try not to broach the issue. Two of my childhood friends/clergy kids (Baptist & Lutheran) hated talking Church with me. Maybe I could talk directly to Trevor? You are a friend, and I wouldn't want it to affect our friendship. It's amazing that you guys include us in game nights.
Although I prefer the traditional hymns, I don't mind your rock concert. I really like the people of Jubilee; they're good people, good Christians. The worship is quite different. I am an extreme (ISTJ) introvert, emotion on the inside. And, I am quite attached to Anglican liturgy. Praying by rote—as Dave Adair calls it, is wrong according to him. I look at it as a personal relationship with God and with the intent of the heart as being what is important in discerning if prayer is vain.
The structure and regimentation of Anglican worship is actually what attracted me to it. I find beauty in the liturgy and peace in The Office; it holds a reverence in it, and brings me closer to God. In it, I find joy of my own that is difficult for me to articulate to you. It moves me to tears when I think of what the Lord has done for me, and what I have done to Jesus.
I don't know if I'm Christian enough to belong at Jubilee, an ugly duckling. So, maybe I should tell you what I believe:
• I am a creedal Christian (Apostles Creed, Nicene Creed)
• I am a Sola fide Christian
• I am a Sola Scripture Christian
• I believe in the Gifts of the Spirit, but that they are different for each of us
• I believe in the 7 sacraments of the Church, especially (at least) baptism and the Eucharist
➡I am okay with infant baptism
➡I believe in one baptism
➡I believe that Jesus is present in the Eucharist (not just symbolic)
• I believe that spiritual warfare is real, and dangerous to the unprepared
• I believe in apostolic succession, but that it is not necessary for salvation to do so
• I agree with the 39 Articles of Faith
• I believe that Abortion is murder (but I tend to keep that to myself)
• I have unique views on homosexuality—that are better explained in person—that would not be accepted in either of our Churches, I imagine
• I believe that we should all be free to worship as we see fit in Canada
• I believe that Church—in as far as it is Christian community—is necessary and is the body of Christ, but not necessary for salvation
• I think that there are five basic types of prayer (not necessary for salvation to believe so)
• I am a Trinitarian, and steer clear of the heresies of Modalism, Adoptionism, Arianism, Nestorianism, Pelagianism, & Apollinarianism
• I don't mind veneration of the Saints (they actually inspire me, Thomas doubting, Peter sinking in the sea, as I myself fall far short), but find prayer to them to be wrong
• I don't believe in purgatory
• When confessing your sins to a priest or otherwise, forgiveness comes from God
• I have not had a mountain top experience, and
• I have never spoken in tongues or had a vision
• I believe that if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead you will be saved
• I believe that if I am not where I am supposed to be, a whale will come get me
I know how I arrived at St. Paul's; I see the hand of God in my being called there. The conservative Christians who formed the Anglican Essentials movement packed up and left years ago, as the left turn blinker was stuck on. The Anglican Church of Canada has become a temple of Moloch, Gaia, and Marx (as I witness it in sermons from the pulpit, the 5 Marks of Mission, and as called out by Anglican writers like C.S. Lewis and J.I. Packer). And, I find myself asking God why I am here in the midst of it. Am I here as a witness?
Again, to reiterate, I value our friendship a lot, more than any need to talk about any of this; I just felt that you were owed this after your invitation—yet another—to attend Jubilee. Maybe God will take us there...
Peace,
William
They're so proud of being so inclusive and of having the big tent, but only for people who think like them, gay, trans, critical race theory advocates, hierarchy of oppression advocates, Postmodernists, a lot of the things the Bible tells us not to do. And, I'm okay with that part of it. I'm a very Romans 14 Christian. But, they are not tolerant, and they have switched places with the members of old. Seminary produces no conservative clergy. There is no tolerance for the colour blind racists, the climate change skeptics, the free market capitalists, and those who believe in individual liberty and individual responsibility. Not only is there no room for diversity of thought, but it they taught about God rather than isms, maybe the Church would be n a better place today.
Leave it on, or wipe it off? Show off how pious I am, or deny Christ?
Guess what tonight's Gospel reading was?
To quote a recent media source, if you'd suggested an American invasion ten years ago, I'd have said that you were batshit crazy. Is the threat a pressure tactic to force us to spend on defense?
Sure, we're a satellite nation; but, we've been their closest allies since the beginning of the 20th century. We've had great victories--massive battlefield wins that surpassed our allies' wins--while fighting the enemy along side our British and American allies.
But, we can't fight a conventional war against America and win. And, I wouldn't want to. So, would we fold like Austria to Germany, or would we have decades long insurgency?
The Liberals have primed us for this, from Socialist policies and Postmodernism statements like Canada doesn't have a core identity and is Post National to civil disarmament and getting into bed with China.
I also would not want to fight a guerilla war against them on our soil. Another resent article reads, "Stop disarming our future armed resistance," in reference to the Liberals' gun ban. But, I don't want to kill Americans. I feel a kinship with them. And, I identify more with American Conservatives than I do with Canadian Liberals. I think they're right, actually.
What would I do in the event of an unlikely invasion? I sure as shit would defend my home from looters in the wake of the fall of government, which would be a real threat. I don't know. Armed resistance? It seems so foreign and wrong. Would I welcome American rule? I don't know. Would I join the underground? I couldn't rule it out. But, it would be a brothers war. Another article said it would--an insurgency of decades long conflict--destroy America's world dominance; and, I don't want that either. I'm an ally.
I had my world view shattered when Russia invaded the Ukraine. There was a paradigm shift. I honestly and truly believed that a modern democratic nation would not invade another modern democratic nation in the 21st century. Sanctions sure but, there would never be armed conflict. Will we become the USA's Ukraine?
I remember my Dad telling me that the Americans lost Vietnam because the war came into the American living room every night at 6:00 p.m. And, the American people couldn't stand the sight of young boys being slaughtered and the sight of civilian casualties. And, I believed it. Now, I'm not too sure.
Even when Trump threatened tariffs on Canada, I was shocked when they hit us. I thought, was convinced right up until the end, that they were a negotiating tactic. He would never hit an ally and neighbor with crippling tariffs. I liked Trump, liked his domestic policy. I understand now, it's about bringing American manufacturing home. I get that. Thomas Sowell would disagree. Free Trade and free and open markets are the most prosperous way forward for all nations.
I'm deeply saddened by all of this. Protectionism has traditionally been the realm of liberal Democrats. Doug Ford may have said it best when he said that Trump stuck a knife in our back.
The Americans are our friends, allies, and brothers. This is so wrong. I hate it. It grieves me.
It made sense to fight the Nazis. This makes no sense to me (to fight Americans).
Is this a distraction for America, while they teeter on the brink of civil war between left and right? War distracts, and what better a war can you have than to have one against a country that can't beat you in a fight? Demonize and then invade, it's a perfect red flag operation.
I'm not a young man anymore. I don't have enough ammo to do any more than defend my home from looters after the fall of government. And, I can't see anything being organized after the fall of the CAF; we just don't have the resources. Again, the Americans are our brothers. This is all so ludicrous.
God help us.
Yesterday, I told Archdeacon Rob that I wanted to step away from Parish Council. My time as a Church Warden is coming to an end Feb. 22nd. Cindy will remain quite involved, being on Parish Council and invested in the outreach ministries from 9 Douro St. I do not feel called to any particular ministry, nor do I fit well.
Canada's Official Opposition or His Majesty's Loyal Opposition. Who are they to oppose? Why is that important?
Reading Psalms 27:1-3 last week--as I snuck up from the Community Meals into the Church--and reflecting, I very much feel like the psalmist with my enemies surrounding me in the way my parish has become so woke and intolerant of diversity of opinion, of conservatives, and even of White men.
Reading 1 Corinthians 13:1-3 this morning, it hit me a little differently. If collectivists help the poor and do all kinds of social justice good but censor, deplatform, and cancel conservatives, have they gained anything? If the Neosocialists and the Postmodernists scapegoat the Whites and the men for everything, vilifying and demonizing a group of people for all the wrongs in the world--setting up a state of perpetual victim-hood--we live in, have they gained anything by their social justice crusade?
