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.
Bless you, Father, as you proudly fight for the Faith as you have received it.
God forbid we actually question our faith. What if we find something we dislike? If you took the time to read Rev’d Windross’ work fully instead of merely picking a few lines completely out of context that confirm your view, you’d appreciate that his approach to Christianity is enlightened and that of a true thinker.
Many people are afraid to hear anything uncomfortable and so will instead blindly enforce their own flawed views. The worst that can come from challenging your own religion is that you learn more about it and maybe have to readjust your thinking, the best is that in challenging it and still finding it to hold true it is ten times stronger.
If people throughout time had constantly refused to open their minds to new ideas and approaches we’d have been doomed as a race, and refusing to do so in this day and age is disgraceful and I think you need to consider who the true heretic is here.