The Saint Barnabas’ Blog

This week I have attacked the theology of Revd. Tony Windross, priest of S. Leonard’s Hythe, pictured above. We first examined his attack on the Nicene Creed and then considered his clear hatred of Ss. Paul and Augustine alongside his fanciful notion that sin is not so important. I could have run my series for many days yet, but in fairness that would be overkill. So let me offer a final summary of Mr. Windross errant theology. Here are the worst bits of his remaining ten tracts:

Concerning the holy sacrifice of the Mass, Mr Windross writes, ‘ the very idea of (communion as) sacrifice means many people find it primitive and disgusting.’ He then pours scorn on the historical accuracy of the Last Supper. ‘eating the flesh of God sounds ludicrous and blasphemous, as well as cannibalistic…even if it is a matter of symbolism only, does saying we have symbolised cannibalism make it acceptable?’ ‘the further idea that unless ordained people preside over the service, the whole thing is inefficacious, is the final straw’

On miracles: ‘Belief in miracles is still strong, especially amongst the ignorant and superstitious’ ‘it is quite possible to try to live by Christ’s teachings, whilst having nothing to do with any miracle stories’. (eh??) On God: ‘there are all sorts of ways of ‘existing’ as ‘ground of our being’ or ‘ultimate symbol’ or through imagination, poetry music and art’ On the Church: ‘Churches need to be places where people gather, not to reinforce their certainties about a ‘being called God’ but to share in the experience of exploring ways to satisfy mutual spiritual hunger’. Finally it should come as no surprise that Mr Windross shudders at teaching that bans abortion, refuses gay marriage and challenges divorce.

So we are done with these tracts. I hope the reader might open their eyes and see how very far some people have wandered from the path that Christ opened for us. Whatever religion Mr. Windross follows it is not the one that I do. As +Michael Nazir Ali recently suggested it is maybe time for those who think this way to leave the Church and form their own religion, that we might have a more gracious and honest dialogue with them?

I want to end by explaining why I feel justified in attacking a brother priest’s theology, as I know that one or two posters are wondering how this is either helpful or polite. It should be said the majority have sent messages of support and agreement, overall readers of this blog seem outraged and offended.

If we decide unity always trumps truth then the church is in peril. To simply ‘live and let live’, allowing those like Mr. Windross to preach what they like, is to implicitly suggest that what is spoken from the pulpit does not matter. It is to say that being a priest need be no guarantee of Christian faith. How then could we trust clergy to deliver the faith of the ages? How would we know that we are following the teaching of Jesus and not some local nut? This would be the endorsement of the anarchy that has wrecked the Anglican Communion in recent time. The Church has always celebrated the lives of Saints who fought heresy in their day and were aggressive in rooting out ‘wolves in sheep’s clothing’ who damage faith and confuse the message of Christ. I wish to add my name to their fight and stand up for Jesus in my day!

The discomfort we feel when truth is spoken boldly says much about the over feminised and wet Church we have become, incapable of functioning. Alas, we have created a National Church unable to cope with conflict. In all truth there should be a mob of the faithful hammering at the door of the Bishop of Dover, demanding Mr. Windross convert or begone. I am, as stated from the outset, committed to a broad church in which traditions co-exist, but let us be clear where tradition ends and heresy begins.

Yes, heresy is a big, nasty word and should not be bandied around willy-nilly, but in this instance it is the ONLY word that will suffice. For heresy is no less than teaching which is not only wrong but actually attacks the faith of the ages. Mr Windross put his pamphlets in the public domain, he must now be man enough to stand by them. Having read them I find them utterly shameful and offensive to the Lord Jesus. That is why I make no apology for bringing them to the attention of Christians everywhere. Let those who have eyes to see, see.

Anyone who reads this blog will understand that S. Barnabas (pictured above) is an orthodox Anglo-Catholic parish rooted in scripture and the real presence of Jesus in the sacrament. But not every Anglican thinks as we do, which is not necessarily a bad thing. At S. John’s, for example, we find Evangelical friends adhering to scripture but not sharing our sacramental theology. At Charles the Martyr Christians of a more liberal understanding but who stand by the words of the creed. I welcome both as part of my Anglican family and, even though we might disagree, could commend others to worship at such churches if they seemed appropriate.

But were the Revd. Tony Windross (pictured here) a vicar in this town I would have a problem. Who is he and what has he done to upset me? Well he is currently vicar of S. Leonard’s, Hythe and he has written the most deplorable set of Church tracts, picked up by a visiting parishioner of mine. Allow me share what he preaches from his pulpit. Over the next few days I will supply direct quotes from his tracts and will then add what I would write in accordance with the clear teaching of the church throughout the ages. Today we look at the Creed:

‘Why bother to think about the creed?’ is the first tract I read. Proud of his liberal theology, Tony informs us that ‘as an introduction to Christianity, or as a help to faith, the creed is pretty useless…firstly it puts in all sorts of claims that most people couldn’t even begin to accept as true in any historical or factual sense……secondly it leaves out everything that’s really important.’ The man who should never have been ordained continues….’Creeds were invented by people, for people and can be scrapped (or ignored) by other people if they want. Their use is a matter of choice, our choice.’ ‘Any creed is as much a product of its time as a piece of old pottery and, as we say it, we don’t have to pretend we see things in the same way.’

And there is more, a lot more…‘The ideas of the creeds have done sterling work over the centuries…but they now have become prisons in which contemporary expressions of spirituality are locked away.’ (At least he realises that the creeds stop him believing whatever he wills). Finally, and leaving a lot more aside, we read ‘Anyone who demands that 21st Century Christians take literally the words of the creeds is consigning Christianity to the dustbin of history….’

Gosh! Where to begin exorcising this blasphemy masquerading as acceptable Christian thought?! Well, consigning Christianity to the dustbin of history or not (and it IS a ‘not’), I firmly teach and believe that the Nicene Creed is the most widely accepted and used statement of the Christian Faith. Inspired by the Holy Spirit, and drawn from sacred scripture, it contains everything the Christian need believe in order to gain salvation.

Being such an important statement of basic Christian belief it is said every Sunday as part of the Liturgy throughout the whole Church Universal, being used by Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, Calvinists, and many other Christian groups. Whilst many of the things spoken in the creed seem wonderfully incredible, such as the Virgin Birth, and cannot be proved according to scientific means, Christians nonetheless have faith that they are both factually or historically true. Simply put this is a statement of FAITH, in which one can say ‘this is my faith, this is the faith of the Church and we are proud to profess it in Christ Jesus Our Lord’. Yes- it is into this very set of beliefs that we are baptised.

Thus ends today’s compare and contrast. More tomorrow but let the reader note two things. Firstly, that whilst Tony and myself have both been ordained into the same church, we clearly follow a very different religion. Secondly what each of us believes is diametrically opposed. There is no logical way for both of us to be right.

So decide: follow Tony and dismiss the creed as man made stuff of little significance, or follow me and claim, with Christians accross the world and down throughout the ages, that this is a statement of basic faith which every christian must endorse. Or put simply, and following the theme of last Sundays Gospel concerning those who claimed to love Christ but couldnt endorse his faith fully- worship God or worship man?

I honestly do not believe that Tony, pleasant chap though he may be, should be allowed to minister as a priest in God’s Church. I am in a good mind to write to his Bishop and demand an explanation of why he is not being disciplined? He is clearly a heretic, one who is twisting the faith and leading people away from Jesus Christ who is the same today, yesterday and forever.

In the interests of fairness I have sent this email to Mr. Windorss that he may share in our thinking:

Dear Tony, I felt it only fair to let you know that I have attacked your theology publically on my blog today. As a conservative Anglo-Catholic I was horrified by the heretical conclusions you reach in your pamphlet series and deeply insulted by your insinuation that anyone who has a doctrinally orthodox faith has an inability to think.

P.S. – reading Tony’s website made me realise that I have come across this chap’s heresy before. He was the vicar at Sheringham when my parents first moved there and his errant teaching is what led them to move elsewhere. At least we can thank him for moving them onto a good Anglo-Catholic parish!!