Yesterday I explained how some deeply worrying tracts, written by Revd Tony Windross of S. Leonard’s Hythe, had fallen into my hands. I was so horrified that a priest could be writing such offensive anti-Christian drivel that I have chosen to run a mini-series exposing what Windross says and placing it alongside the teaching of the orthodox Church throughout the ages. Let the reader decide which path leads to salvation.
Yesterday Windross rubbished the Nicene Creed, suggesting it was out-dated, irrelevant and man-made writing which could, and even should, be dismissed by the present generation. I suggested it was not only a summary of the faith throughout the ages but an essential checklist for every Christian wishing to be faithful. Today we turn our attention to the subject of sin and, as ever, what you are about to read took my breath away….
Tony begins by explaining that the Atonement (the doctrine that Christ took our sins upon himself on the cross, and by offering himself for the sake of the world, gained us life eternal). For Tony, ‘it is a repulsive picture, based upon a monstrous understanding of God….the fact that considerable numbers of Christians continue to subscribe to it is very scary indeed. Not only does it reinforce the idea that Christianity is unspeakably ludicrous but it also gives too high a priority to sin…such ideas are given voice in phrases such as ‘Jesus died for my sins’ and ‘I am washed in the blood of the lamb’, language that is grotesque and disgusting to intelligent and civilised people.’
Having dismissed one of the central doctrines of faith, and rendered dormant the sacrifice of our Lord, our confused cleric then decided to vent his spleen on the doctrine of orginal sin. ‘There is something not just grotesque but deeply offensive about the idea of each new born baby already contaminated by the stain of Original Sin. Most thoughtful people would find this bizarre and horrible.’ He then returns to the subject of sin as understood in the teaching of S. Paul and S. Augustine, he writes, ‘This is such a sad, sick, stupid view of life that the sooner it disappears the better.
He concludes ‘It is high time it (sin) played a far less prominant role in Christianity…although it is customary to lament the decline of Christianity in our society, as far as Open Christians are concerned an end to the baleful dominance of the ideas about sin that stem from Paul and Augustine cannot come soon enough’. Yes, you read that correctly, Mr Windross despite being a Church of England clergyman is delighted at the decline of our faith!
Ok so what should the Church teach concerning sin? Well for a detailed examination I direct you here. But for the purpose of a quick summary, the best definition is provided by S. Augustine (whom Windross finds so detestable), ‘sin is an utterance, desire or deed contrary to the law of God.’ Sin is vitally important because, if left unchecked, it will harm and destroy us.
Poor old Tony Windross, he has it all wrong! By telling us to simply downplay sin, he leaves us no richer than before! Ignoring sin, or even learning to live with sin, does not diminish its reality or hold on us. With Windross we are saddled with all that threatens to destroy us. The best we can hope for is a life of delusionment.
Whereas proper Christian doctrine has something more wonderful and exciting to teach us. Far from having to face sin and be miserable, as Windross believes, Jesus Christ, S. Paul, S. Augstine and all the company of heaven would have us laugh in the face of sin. Good news- we can free of it, death has lost its sting!
Why? For the very reason that Christ did offer himself as an atonement for sin, thereby reconciling man to God. The glory of his rising is encountered in many ways, not least in the genuine power of forgiveness available through the sacrament of Confession. Here, the orthodox Christian need not live in the shadows but can live in light, freed from sin by the grace of God, thereby growing in faith and holiness. Perhaps Tony would like to come to formal confessional and bring his anti-Christian pamphlets with him?
Let the Christian understand then, by rubbishing the Atonement Mr Windross does not liberate us from sin- he merely deludes us that we can ignore it. But deep down we know this is not true. Whereas Christ’s passion and resurrection, taken seriously, offer us more, so much more. They claim to take away that sin that we may truly be free to become the people God calls us to be.
It is always sad when one discovers preaching like this within the Church. And whilst I take no delight in causing trouble or dismay to anyone, these pamphlets are bothering me a lot. Wrongful teaching is a dangerous cancer, it damages the faith of others. Therefore I have decided to email the Bishop who is defender of faith for S. Leonard’s Hythe, asking for an explanation as to why the Revd. Tony Windross is allowed to function as a priest in God’s church? I ask because I fear that Mr. Windross is being unfaithful to his ordination promises. Furthermore somebody must consider the fate of those who worship his church. A concerned parishioner placed these tracts in my hands and surely I have a duty not to simply brush it under the carpet? After all, bad things happen when good people do nothing! And if more people had faught off the threat of liberalism in its infancy the church would not currently find itself in the mess it is in. What does it say when faithful Anglo-Catholics must fear for their future, due to faithfulness to the faith as recieved, when people such as this are allowed to behave as they please?!
Well done on exposing this dangerous man. What he is doing is shocking, and I look forward to the Bishop’s response.
As a lay Anglo-Catholic I find no need to sit on the fence in this debate. But as a member of the Church of England I ask myself just what is heresy in our church today? It seems that the church has accommodated so much that virtually nothing is off limits.
I also hope that Rev’d Tony steps up to the plate to defend his position. The debate needs to be had.
One sad thing about Tony’s thinking is that he presents it as if it is something new that he has discovered. Anyone who has studied Theology will know that this rubbish was peddled in the early part of the 20th century and is now ‘old hat’. Perhaps someone will tell him it is time to move on.
I am not sure that anything positive or fruitful can come out of your campaign. It is one thing to debate issues, and to condemn those in power, in the Church or elsewhere. Attacking individual priests feels altogether more unpleasant.
The H word is so overloaded and archaic. Those who do not accept women priests are in opposition to the teaching of their Church (and here I mean the C of E) – a heretical position? You then call on that same Church to discipline “your” heretics. And if it were to adopt such an authoritarian approach, where would this leave Anglo-Catholic priests, with their “flexible” approach to the rules?
I am not sure whether a system of “doctrinal discipline” exists in the C of E, or whether it is desirable. Is it possible in a Church which encompasses such diverse, even contradictory, beliefs? This situation may be untidy, but it is a historical fact. Any crackdown would have to be applied across the board, not as a witchhunt against individuals. Another Inquisition, anyone?
Admittedly, Mr Windross’ position seems extreme, but it is not unique. We should remember that those who appointed him, including the bishop and the parish, would have been familiar with his views.
Rod, I have to disagree. Surely there comes a point when generosity must give way to discipline? Are we to really ‘let anything go?’ Whilst I totally am committed to a full breadth of tradition what we have here is something else entirely.
When somebody calls the atonement offensive, original sin disgusting, the creed pointless, holy communion obsolete, the word of God unreliable and prayer little more than meditation -one must SURELY ask if that person is fit to lead a parish or indeed even Christian?
Were Mr Windross merely a member of the congregation, that would be one thing, I would do encourage him merely to think again. But he is a man who promised at his ordination service the following:
Bishop: Do you accept the Holy Scriptures as revealing all things necessary for eternal salvation through faith in Jesus Christ?
Ordinands: I do so accept them.
Bishop: Will you be diligent in prayer, in reading Holy Scripture, and in all studies that will deepen your faith and fit you to bear witness to the truth of the gospel?
Ordinands: By the help of God, I will.
Bishop: Will you lead Christ’s people in proclaiming his glorious gospel, so that the good news of salvation may be heard in every place?
Ordinands: By the help of God, I will.
Bishop: Will you faithfully minister the doctrine and sacraments of Christ as the Church of England has received them, so that the people committed to your charge may be defended against error and flourish in the faith?
Ordinands: By the help of God, I will.
The tracts we are examining clearly demonstrate that these vows have been broken. That is lamentable but needs challenging surely?
As an addition I would ask what would be done with a science teacher who refused to teach science or a policeman who refused to believe in the need for law and order? what would we say to a husband or wife who broke marriage vows and lived under their own interpretation, do others think I am being unreasonable?
I did rev Windross th courtesy of letting him reply and only ask his bishop why such teaching is allowed in the diocese?
Some 30 years ago this appeared on Not the Nine O’Clock News. Of course its parody but it was also rooted in a truth about our times, the unpacking of the traditional teachings of the church. I apologise if this seems disrespectful to the Nicene Creed – which I both say and believe at mass – but I do wonder where the line between the church’s doctrine and diy spirituality is to be drawn. 30 years on the answer seems no clearer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUQcCvX2MKk
You need to be careful about insisting on promises made at ordination or institution. What about only using authorised forms of service? I don’t think the Roman Missal is authorised for use in the Church of England.
Fr Ed – I take your point about the ordination vows. Presumably AC priests at their induction services cross their fingers when promising to use only CofE services?!
I am still unconvinced that anything positive can come out of this exercise. I can understand your frustration, but this personal attack and inflammatory language is not the best approach. Sorry.
PS. Re. your earlier “follow him or follow me” challenge – I feel convinced there is a middle way…
Then maybe you would be good enough to explain this middle way? sounds pleasant and polite but what does it mean? A luke warm faith? A point where we agree to love Jesus but not take his words and claims TOO seriously?? For me he either is our GOD and all I can do is take it VERY seriously…or he was not and I would probably prefer to play golf instead.
How can there be a middle way in offering your life to God and living as a Christian? I know the C of E loves to suppose there is but I have never heard a good explanation of what this actually entails, save fussing more about fair trade and jumble sales than worrying about doctrine.
You ask what positive can come out of this? Well it would be good if people were able to discern that not all being things being taught under the roof of the C of E is actually Christian. It would be positive if people realised that the Church is in crisis and we need to rally together to sort it out.
By seeking firm action on errant teaching we might even ensure that at least a modicum of belief is required of those in holy orders. His priesthood is the real issue here for me. We might also help those attending his church to hear the Gospel. And as clever as pointing out inconsistencies with using roman canon etc…I think any reasonable person can see that such little points of law are a MILLION miles from what this throws up?
Whilst I sympathise with your kind desire to ‘live and let live’…by saying that this priest should be left alone and his tracts do not matter is to state that the faith itself does not really matter in the end. it is to say that anything may be taught in pulpits, so long as we are all friends…hmmm I think not! I mean what are we in church for? To pray as we feel comfortable or to follow Christ?
I hope you see that far from being akward and negative for the sake of it, I am trying to demonstrate that this sort of thing actually matters very much to all of us. What happens in Hythe affects me in tunbirdge Wells etc… At what point do we draw the line between strict adherence to teaching and room for innovation? That is the real question but surely all can see that this man is way, way beyond the line wherever it is to be drawn? I find his writing not just outrageous but actually very insulting and upsetting. A spit in the face of Jesus.
I bet you have no problem in defending many of the Saints who faught wrongful teaching in their day…so why is that same fight so unpalatable in this day? Have we Anglicans become so very lilly livered and spineless that we cannot deal with conflict and always seek unity over truth?
Discuss!
I find many things offensive about your intemperate and personal attacks on a fellow priest, but may I single out just one? It is never right in a serious discussion to descend to the playground level of making a joke of someone’s name, so to use ‘dross’ as an attack in the heading of the post itself quite invalidates all that follows.
I tend to agree that nothing good can come of this. The CofE has stretched itself in so many directions theologically its impossible to know what the church position on anything is. You suggest that the tracts are heresy. How am I to know? Where would I look in the Church of England to judge to find a single authoritative answer? Does one exist?
It seems to me there are two options: remain true to that “bit” of the Church where one finds oneself most at home; do not judge or attack the other bits but leave them to get on with it. In return they do the same. I had assumed this was just what Anglo-Catholics were looking for in a church which was pushing ahead with the ordination of women priests.
The alternative is to consider whether one can remain in a church that has adopted “heresy” as mainstream.
I don’t think any other option exists.
I feel confused by all this. Look on the website of the church in question and – mostly – it’s like any other church – trying to attract people in, putting the best possible face on things, stressing its Christian heritage. All good. On the other hand, the leaflets. I don’t myself accept the doctrine of original sin (it’s unhistorical) or the idea that Jesus ‘sacrificed’ himself for us. I can, however, give theological significance to the crucifixion (no need to bother here). That’s me – an individual. No sane priest anywhere is going to turf me out. But I think it’s different when one is a priest. Here I think one is duty-bound publicly at least to maintain a broad orthodoxy. One might take a different line in an academic seminar or in a scholarly book or in a sermon MODIFY the tradional doctrine, while maintaining something of its essence. I also earnestly agree with the accused (and his supporters) that contemporary Christianity is appallingly bad at arguing back and that sometimes this arguing back should adopt different language and – to some extent – different concepts. But one shouldn’t PARADE one’s heterodoxy in church. To that extent, I’m with Father Ed. I also think there are real questions about loyalty and PAY.
On the other hand, all this talk of heresy and getting him kicked out …
There’s too much anxiety about. It ratchets everything up. Finally, I’m with:
‘It seems to me there are two options: remain true to that “bit” of the Church where one finds oneself most at home; do not judge or attack the other bits but leave them to get on with it. In return they do the same. I had assumed this was just what Anglo-Catholics were looking for in a church which was pushing ahead with the ordination of women priests.’
Hey I have not asked for him ‘out’! I have invited him to give a defense on this blog which he has declined to do. I have also asked his bishop what the Diocesan line is? That is not a cry for his head or I would be making a formal complaint in the clergy disciplinary measure…Which I am not. That said I do think his views really are a little TOO much for one in holy orders to hold. If I felt as he clearly does there is no way I could even begin to preach or lead a service without feeling a COMPLETE hypocrite.
As I began yesterday stating. I DO have time for liberal Anglicanism and try and support the priest and people of Charles the Martyr in TW as much as possible, even dining with the priest on occasion. A liberal who loves God I can handle….a liberal who thinks GOd is just a human construct…I struggle.
Finally I note that by demanding answers some accuse me of being harsh. Yes it is I whose future hangs in the balance after last July’s synod claimed my views on the ordination of women et al meant I am no longer a faithful Anglican…….he on the other hand is safe for the forseeable
OK, Father Ed., if I have misrepresented you, I apologise. You must know by now that I am far from being one of your detractors. I agree with you that liberals who think God is just a human construct are outside the pale: that is, they are perfectly entitled to their views but they shouldn’t hold Christian offices and take the pay. I also happen to think that people like Don Cupitt and Robin Holloway are deeply boring and that, far from being exciting, revolutionary thinkers (which is how they seem to think of themselves), they are stuck in a very predictable groove.
Your last para. moves me. I am convinced that many FiF people alienate because they seem so keen on (I would say, so sycophantic to) Rome. You (and Fr T.E. Jones, and of course many others) are different. I probably think you are still too keen on Rome, but it’s clear you are also ‘faithful Anglicans’ – and hope to remain so. I am with you. But the quid pro quo has to be that you cut ‘liberals’ a bit of slack. Mostly, you do, and you are right that there should be public limits.
Best.
Thanks John! For the record I have NO burning desire to join Rome. I want to be Catholic Anglican. I want to remain the priest of the church I currently serve and love very dearly. And I really do try and cut slack for everyone…..but there are times when one wonders if there is ANY sanity within the C of E at all
Happy to explain my “middle way” comment. If the choice is between deconstructed Christianity or rigid conservatism then count me out.
I also agree with what Ian and John have said.
Father Ed – There comes a time when so much slack is cut, the material divides into two. It is astonishing that the CofE continues to find ways to remain as “one church”. Perhaps it does so because there is a recognition that the sum of the parts could never be as vigorous as the whole. In short sticking together is the best guarantee of long term health. So everybody’s efforts are focused on avoiding a break up and real challenge is avoided.
I would hate to see the CofE break up. And on the basis of the logic above a public challenge was “unhelpful”. I am pretty sure your challenges to Rev.Tony will not change anything one way or the other, but for what its worth, I think you were right to make them.
This makes me wince on a very personal level: I was baptised at St Leonard’s, and my Godmother still worships there, but is a bit too old to really consider changing churches now. (I have moved to the A-C end of the Anglican spectrum as an adult) To think that they now have a vicar preaching that…
Well at least it got discussion going!
Rod, I would hope you know me well enough to know that, whilst ruggedly Catholic and passionately orthodox, I am actually quite open minded and tolerant. If not doctrinally then personably. I would also shudder at having to choose between rigid conservatism and deconstructed Christianity. When I attack the former it does not automatically make me the latter
Rosemary I am very sorry for your Godmother and it is precisely for her that I am worried, and the others who worship there and are not being fed with the faith of the apostles. Certainly on this feast of S. Augustine we can ALL shudder at the comments made about him.
I also agree with Ian. Fat chance of this changing the C of E…..but it might just open some eyes and lead them to see what the choices on offer relly are. Forget Anglicanism….Jesus as reality or not!
I sympathise with your views, and indeed share them. The first thing that came to mind was the drivel the tabloids like to publish at Christmas and Easter, “X% of vicars don’t believe in the Virgin Birth”, “X% doubt the Resurrection”, and my constant sadness that heretics such as this are tolerated, whereas those who doubt the ordination of women are openly despised.
However – one motif in these articles that keeps catching my eye is “Rev Tony”, “Tony”, “Mr Windross”. How about Fr Tony, or Fr Windross? You’re either ordained priest or you’re not, there aren’t different degrees, and as he’s not a null’n'void Protestant minister (which is why this all matters), why are you using this different style? It’s the sort of thing sanctimonious Roman Catholics do on their blogs when referring to Anglicans, whether at S Barnabas or Emmanuel Praise City Church, and leaves a nasty taste…
no his orders are not made null and void, however the title ‘fr’ is not official but given to priests in affection and respect. The official title is Mr and Revd….so technically I am ok. But I take your point! I probably am being a little narky…apologies to Fr. Tony and to you Stefan.
Dear Father Ed.,
I thought of you today. I had a pint of ‘Black Dog’, midway between bitter and stout, brewed by Nick Trafford of Hambleton’s. Sensational pint in perfect condition.
I am being frivolous. But one thing I do think: there needs to be far more mutual love between and among the various shades of Anglicanism.
Bye.
agreed John and the beer sounds fab….so does that mean you think the thinking of Fr Windross reveals a shade of accepted and acceptable Anglicanism? Because the whole point is that I, and the vast majority, would not.
John: That sounds like my idea of a perfect pint. Where can I find it?
Fr Ed: One of your comments yesterday got me thinking: could you elaborate on what you mean by an over-feminised Church?
best wishes to all,
Rod
Father Ed,
I think it’s acceptable for individuals, not acceptable as a priest’s public church stance. What then? I wouldn’t personally seek to get rid of him.
Rod,
Don’t know how far south his distribution goes. He brews near Thirsk. Google him. All his beers are good, markedly better than Theakston’s (even as now again family-owned and brewing entirely in Masham) and better (I think) than Black Sheep. Whether any are quite as good as Mordue’s Workie Ticket (now that is a really complex beer) I’m not sure.
Certainly Rod,
An OVER feminised church would be one in which all masculine traits such as aggression, forthrightness, strength etc…were demonised and in which all feminine traits were idolised. The ned product would be all touchy feely and lacking drive and punch. That said we must obviously accept that both men and women tend to be possesors of both masculine and feminine traits.
Clearly a church needs a balance of both these aspects of the human psyche – I worry that, in the West, it has been distorted for a long time. This would account for the reason that men are largely missing from the Church of England as statistics confirm and that we are losing an ability to be firm in our faith. Does that help?
‘I wouldn’t personally seek to get rid of him’…..
It is a tough one. It breaks my heart to think of hurting anyone, especially someone I have never met and who has done me no personal harm. However this man, in his teaching, insults my faith, my Lord and attacks the faith that I hold dear.
Ultimately I chose to highlight his tracts because I feel duty bound to defend the faith. Seriously this troubles me more than a priest who is a rotten habitual sinner…because at least they wouldnt be preaching that sin as glory. All of us are sinners, I have many faults myself, but teaching people to doubt God whilst wearing a collar is something altogether different. It is worrying in the extreme.
Thus I point people to what is being said- that they may be aware of the fact that his preaching is not recognisably Christian. I also want his Bishop to know he is saying in public as a representative of the Church of England. After that it is none of my business.
Thanks for your response, Fr Ed. I asked the question because I think it lies at the heart of some of the things we have been discussing.
To follow your gender analogy, if aggression, forthrightness and strength are masculine qualities, then it follows that love, forgiveness and peace are feminine ones. If the central (or only) thing that matters is the “reality” of Jesus, where should the emphasis be?
I agree that a balance is necessary, but it tends to tip one way or the other and the result is the very different kinds of Christianity that cannot even begin to see eye to eye. As you have said, sometimes these have so little in common as to seem like completely different religions.
I am clear in my own mind about where the right emphasis lies.
But the point I would make Rod is that it is not feelings, masculine or feminine, that matter but doctrine. For me Christ is the perfect balance of both….what matters for his followers of any and all persuasion is an ability to say the creed and believe it.
A massive part of the problem is that truth as a finite concept is increasingly meaningless in a subjective postmodern world, meaning we are quite happy to accept pluriform truths….but that is not the message of the Gospel. It is THE truth – not my version, my take on it, mine and your truth….just THE TRUTH revealed by God in Jesus Christ, born of a Virgin and raised from the dead.
After that your preference for tradition, desire for muscular or gentle faith etc is frankly secondary. Where Windross muddies the water is by putting forth a message that is actually anti-Gospel as Gospel. It makes a mockery of truth and dilutes faith down to opinion and feeling.
You missed my point. I am suggesting that if Christ advocated love, forgiveness and peace over aggression and strength, as I think is generally accepted, then this is what we should emulate. And these qualities are, following your own argument, “feminine”. Quite the opposite of coming up with one’s own version of the truth.
What has primacy, Christ or the creed?
The creed points to Christ…it can only be both/and not either/or. Yes CHrist preached love and forgiveness but not in a way that led to permissiveness and tolerance of anything!!!
His love was tough love! He was quite firm as to the need for healthy belief and was more than happy to call people hypocrites to their faces, call clerics of his day ‘vipers’ ‘empty vessels’ etc….(arguably tougher than my words for Rev Windross) He even took a whip to people and drove them from a temple when he found them blasphemous. I wonder how you would have reacted had I gone to Hythe with my whip in hand? Perhaps not quite the all loving hippy you imagine!
I have many views on these matters, but one is: we all need to calm down. ‘All’ includes you, Father Ed. You have many blessings. You are doing a valuable job and one you love. Keep your eye on the main thing. Remember also that those dreadful ‘liberals’ include people whom you rather like and who rather like you.
End of sermon. Pax tecum.