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!!
Hear, hear.
I offer Tony’s initial response to my email:
Thanks for the warning.
I obviously reject any notion of heresy, and would also point out that I have never suggested (or even thought) that those of a more orthodox persuasion cannot think – our splendid archbishop seems quite good at it.
Perhaps I should elaborate. My wife and I believe in attending our parish church, but after two years of unadulterated drivel, we were driven to seek pastures new. His sermons were often along the lines of “what part of the Christian Faith can I ridicule today”. Instead of building up the congregation in their faith, he attempted to show us why we should NOT believe. Often his heresies had nothing to do with the subject of the sermon, were pathetic asides, designed to show how intellectual Tony Windross was. The sad thing is that he is quite a nice chap and I liked him as a person. As a priest he is disastrous.
Well there you have it! In some ways I lament the connection to home – as when I started writing he was simply an unknown priest whose pamphlets had fallen into my hands.
I could therefore never be accused of any personal connection or grumble. There is still no personal squabble….just the irony of the small world with paths crossed.
But let us stay generous, I am sure there are those who have valued his freindship and we must be careful to expose the folly of the teaching and not attack the man. As dad says, he is a good chap on a personable level
Unfortunately he is far from being alone in promoting his heresies. The Modern Churchpeople’s Union specialises in this, along with Inclusive Church and other “bona fide” organisations attached to the C of E. All of these support TEC of America in its apostacy. The tragedy is, of course, that people’s souls are in jeopardy as a result. The statement that our “splendid”(?!) archbishop is good at thinking must have been made with tongue in cheek since these people plainly do not agree with him. This from the MCU’s website: “Both Williams and Wright [of Durham] show themselves to be dogmatic authoritarians.” As usual, the liberals are the most illiberal people around if you don’t subscribe to their liberalism.
Have just read all those pamphlets, with I hope, an open mind.The scary bit is it all sounds so reasonable, so now!
Look forward to reading your commentary on The Holy Communion tract.
‘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.’
This is the sort of sentiment I dearly love to hear.
Ray: I think you grievously misrepresent the MCU. This statement (which I applaud) is broadly congruent with Father Ed’s.
One glance at the endorsements for his ‘book’ tells us all we need to know – John Shelby Spong; Don Cupitt. Soooo yesterday. Mr Windross’ Tracts are not for our times; they might have made a ripple or two forty years ago. But alas there is one missing from the list – and one I hope you will turn your attention to (because it is probably the most significant) – Why bother to think about Tony Windross?
Best
Fr D
I’m in two minds on this one. Certainly i don’t regard what this man preaches to be consistent with that which has been revealed in scripture and received through tradition, but i am very uncomfortable with bandying labels like heresy around. Above all, as I understand it, heresy is something which has to be declared through the consensus of the church and frankly don’t think it’s right for members of the church (and especially priests) to be throwing these terms around willy nilly. You’re right that this sort of teaching shouldn’t be tolerated in the church, but surely there’s room for grace and compassion before we stand on the hilltops shouting heresy?
(PS: Many thanks for this gift of a blog for a regular reader but first time ‘commenter’, from a current Westcott ordinand who also feels somewhat like a salmon swimming against the current!)
Wow, I thought we just had that sort of junk in the Episcopal Church, but alas I see has spread to the shores of England as well. Can’t say I’m surprised.
As to the comment above, the definition of heresy is correctly understood not just as wrong or false teaching, but teaching that is so wrong or false that it is detrimental to the faith of the Church. I don’t like accusing people of heresy either, but I think that in this instance, that is a correct assumption. Claiming that the Nicene Creed, the most basic statements of the faith, as optional and wrong is heresy of the worst kind really.
Christianity is not a religion where we get to pick and choose whatever we want to believe. The Nicene Creed, as our Orthodox brothers reminds us, is an icon, pointing us to the Good News found in Christ, his message, his death, and his resurrection. To say the creeds are in fact pointing people away from the Good News is detrimental to the Faith of new believers who might be taken in by such claims.
I’ve seen some misrepresentations in my time but Ed’s takes the biscuit. Sorry, Ed, but you really should take more time to think about what you read. I have had the privilege to be a parishioner at Sheringham St Peter while Tony Windross was in post. Tony’s sermons have been thought provoking, he’s never let the difficulties of thinking through the implications of christian theology and doctrine deter him from tackling them. And if you truly don’t think there are difficulties then you live on a different planet. Many of the congregation in Sheringham have relished the chance to study some of the great theologians when Tony has put on Study sessions. I know of no other parish where the congregation have been encouraged to tackle some of the more difficult theological texts. And I have to say, I find your ramblings incredibly arrogant and denigratory of those of us who struggle with some of the ‘orthodoxy’ you talk about. Perhaps, a closer study of the gospels (Jesus had a fair amount to say about the ‘righteous’) and the epistles (Paul had things to say about ‘humility) might temper some of your more extreme ramblings. I don’t wish to be rude but I find some of your statements to be highly offensive and unworthy of a priest in the Church of England.
I appreciate your comments and am truly sorry that you have found my post offensive. However I was clear that I was not attacking the man or his pastoral approach but his teaching. Furthermore whilst you offer evidence of a man who encourages faith I have recieved emails from other parishioners, past and present, lamenting his inability to embrace the creed and Gospels which you quote at me.
Ultimately I can only comment on Tony has put into the public sphere. And these tracts, published on his own website, do not lead anybody to study deep theology or tackle difficult texts. They merely encourage one to think that clever people do not accept miracles, do not need to Creed, do not require holy communion or a sacred priesthood, etc etc…. and it was for that reason I was offended and utterly disgusted myself. When people mock my orthodox faith I tend to tackle it. Is that so wrong? And pray how do you justify what has been written in these tracts? Or do you think they are evidence of justified Christian belief.
Thanks for introducing me to Windross. I’ve now read his book – which is excellent. Other Christian friends of mine are now also spreading the word of his book – which is correctly referred to on its back cover as an excellent tool for evangelism for 21st century people.
How small is your God at S Barnabus’ ? It/he/she seems to be as small as your appetite for personal growth, given your clear rejection from growing yourself further by reading and attempting to understand what Windross says.
Even though his book was published in 2004, it seems at this present moment to be escaping the walls of the Church and will be debated everywhere, as the good Bishop Spong says on its front cover.
Thanks once again.
I am a lifelong Methodist who has become disenchanted with the dumbed down, experimental, new expressions that is now the staple diet at our local church(es). I cannot commend it to friends outside of the church and I know that I am not alone. Tony Windross, John Spong and others are like a breath of fresh air and hold out some hope for me and others hanging on to faith by our fingernails.