Cancelled from Mere Anglicanism

I have been cancelled a few times now. This is the first time I have been cancelled from an event during the event. I apologise to people who were looking forward to the panel discussion and Q&A.

On Friday 19th January I gave a talk at the Mere Anglicanism conference in Charleston, South Carolina. I was given the brief of, “Critical Theories are Antithetical to the Gospel.” I wanted to address the root of the problem rather than the symptoms, which we spend too much time focussing on. It was my point that the reason Gender Theory, Queer Theory and Critical Race Theory are so prevalent in the Church today is because we have conceded too much ground to Feminism.

They are all forms of liberalism. So I wanted to address them head on.

In the first part of the essay, I discussed how the issue of liberalism in the Church is directly related to how we perceive men and women, and the connection with women’s orders.

In the latter part of the essay, I spoke of the wicked roots of Marxism. We often blame ‘Marxism’ for these Critical Theories, so I wanted to look into the origins of it, which I believe to be evil at its very core. We look at Karl Karx’s interpretation of Martin Luther in his response to Hegel. Marx saw that the Protestant Reformation was a tool he could use to further divide man from God’s order. The question is how successful he been?

Feminism is a tool of entryism for the Critical Theories. Women’s orders, in particular, confuse our understanding of men roles and women’s roles and our place in creation, and Marx’s manipulations of Luther’s work are an attack on God.

The reception to the following talk was mostly positive. I have received a lot of great feedback from people who found it helpful and truthful. I received some friendly, charitable challenge, too. As well as a couple of complaints from feminists who did not appreciate my perspective. Both complaints were hostile, emotional responses, which suggested they were not theological disagreements but of a more personal nature.

On the day of the talk, the Director of Mere Anglicanism implied he was happy with my talk. Off stage he was jovial. On stage he gave an anecdote about Luther, made a joke, and provided a caveat along the lines of “we are not forced to agree with Fr Calvin, but the importance of a conference like this is that we will hear different perspectives on the truth. Later we will hear people who disagree with these points.”*

One of the attendees later approached me in tears taking issue with the above comment, she informed me that she had found it very upsetting at a conference about speaking truth, that the Director seemed to be implying there were multiple truths, a plurality of truths. We prayed that we may all be reminded there is one Truth, and His name is Jesus Christ.

*I do not have the exact quote, but the nice lady had it written down in her notes. If she could provide it I would be most grateful.

The following day, Saturday 20th, I was called into a room with the Director and his bishop, and abruptly chastised. I made a joke in an attempt to lighten the mood, saying I felt like I was in the headmaster’s office. The Director confirmed that is exactly how I should feel. I was essentially ‘told off’ for having rocked the boat. It seems he had received negative feedback and he buckled under the pressure. He told me I was disinvited from taking part in the rest of the event, including a joint panel and Q&A session I was scheduled to be involved in. I found this disappointing because the conference supposedly had a theme of truth telling. I appreciate that some of the other participants had more liberal perspectives than me, and I was looking forward to engaging in a good faith debate on this among a number of other topics. Alas, it was not to be. A shame, because I am far from always right - none of us are - I love a genuine open debate to find out where I am wrong, and to work things through in charity with my Christian brethren. I would have loved to have heard a Biblical rebuttal to my position.

Unfortunately, as a result, the panel became an echo chamber. As an example, one of the panellists essentially said it is okay for a Christian to attend a gay marriage ceremony. When the other panelists were asked to speak up if they disagreed or had a different perspective there was silence. I suspect some of them did disagree, but there was no challenge, there were no charitable disagreements, and the dialogue was disappointingly liberal. The same for the conversation on Christian Nationalism - I was chomping at the bit to be tagged in, or for a conservative to be invited on in my place. I respect my liberal evangelical contemporaries, but I think the panel would have benefitted from some true diversity - that of thought and opinion. I had assumed that is why I had been invited.

The Director made it clear to me on the Saturday morning that he had expected me to speak explicitly on Critical Race Theory. Had that been made clear to me from the beginning I would not have agreed to attend. I am not a brown face for hire to speak about race. I tire of upper-middle-class white liberals putting me in their boxes. I am no one’s superficial diversity quota. Anyone who knows my battle with the Church of England will see the parallels.

I was informed by the Director that Anglicans must live with a “dual integrity.” Those who believe in Holy Orders and those who believe in women’s orders. I strongly disagree with the premise of dual integrities. The Oxford Dictionary defines integrity as the condition of being whole, undivided. How can that be the case if the assembly is split on a fundamental issue such as this? Dual integrity is an oxymoron. Much like the Church of England’s insistence of “walking together” down different paths in terms of same-sex blessings. It is liberal fluff used as an excuse for embracing heresy, whilst pretending to be orthodox.

If Mere Anglicanism upload the video of my talk as promised, I will upload it here. For now, the transcript is below. I look forward to your good faith comments:

Critical Theories are Antithetical to the Gospel:

The Critical Theories are infecting the Church. I suppose it was expected that I would talk about Queer Theory, Gender Theory, and Critical Race Theory and highlight how they are un-Christian ideologies designed to undermine the Christian faith. I could, and I often do, but I feel that for an audience of this calibre, that would be too obvious. I doubt I would meet anyone at this conference who did not believe that marriage was monogamous and heterosexual or that we are made in the image of God, and that he made us male and female, and the idea of being trans not only goes against the theology of Imago Dei but is, of course, ridiculous, because we cannot possibly be in the wrong body. We are, as human beings, a body and a soul. Our soul lives on when we die - God willing in heaven - and will be reunited with our resurrected bodies upon the parousia - the second coming of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. We cannot be in the wrong body any more than we can be in the wrong soul; the premise is confused.

Likewise, I doubt anyone in this conference would believe that race is anything but a social construct. As Christians, we do not see black/white/Asian; we know that there is neither Jew nor Greek in the New Covenant - that we are all brothers and sisters in Christ, or at least we are all invited to become sons and daughters of God, through repentance of sin and baptism in water and the Holy Spirit. So, we know that the idea of white people being inherently racist and/or oppressors is a nonsense, and therefore, we know that white privilege is just a modern buzzword to stoke division, and that white people do not inherit a unique generational sin of whiteness, from which there is no repentance. We know that every man and woman is equal in the eyes of God, in terms of dignity and worth, but also in our capacity to sin. Whites are no more sinners than blacks, Asians, Persians, or Orientals. So, we can shrug off these ludicrous ideas of ‘black theology’ or any other liberation theology that places a physical characteristic before theology, which is the study of God, not the study of man. Our immutable characteristics, for the most part, are unimportant and have no part to play in our mortal existence. We are all of us called to know and love God, and to love each other as ourselves.

So I want to talk about the root of these Critical Theories, the tools of entryism used to elbow them into the Church over the years. They are all, of course, one ideology, not multiple ideologies. What combines queer theory, gender theory, critical race theory? Their attempt to destroy the patriarchy and smash heteronormativity. The language of Marxism. These are not the arguments of theology, but of philosophy. They are weapons of the enemy, as instituted by the philosopher Karl Marxism.

So, I will address Marxism and why it has a hold on the Church, but to begin with, I would like us to take a look at one of the most dangerous catalysts to Marxism, which is Feminism.

Because the one immutable characteristic which does have an impact on our lives is our sex or gender, of which there are only two, male and female. To be a man - an adult human male - is a different incarnational experience to being a woman - an adult human female. And it *is* incarnational. God made man, and he made woman from man, for man. Because it is not good for man to be alone. This is the first thing God tells us is not good, in the Bible, so it must be important. Genesis 2:18, “And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.” There is significance in our complementarity.

Secular society now preaches that marriage can be anything. But before we could get to the silly position of claiming a marriage can be anything other than one man and one woman, the enemy had to destroy the concept of marriage. It used to be complementary. The woman is meant to be obedient to the man, and the man is meant to serve the woman. Instead, Feminism would teach us that men and women are the same, interchangeable even. When it became a partnership of equals rather than a complementary union of different parts, why wouldn’t it be okay for two men or two women to do the same? We are not equal in terms of we are not the same. We are equal to God, not to each other. Both sexes provide something the other needs in perfect unity.

I put it to you that Feminism - an arm of liberalism - is the gate by which all the other woke ideas gain ground. They are all part of the same ideology, but Feminism is the brute force which breaks down the wall for all the others. The Church has become effeminate and, therefore, vulnerable in a way that it needn’t be. Men, being the stronger sex of the species, offer talents different from those of women. That is not to say they are better; goodness no, women are far better than men at a great many things. Men are simple beings. But we do have a practical role to play in the Church, which can only be played by men.

Namely, the priesthood. Liberalism would dictate that men and women being the same, women can fulfil the same callings as men. Christianity, on the other hand, would say that women often have the great vocation of motherhood, whereas men are sometimes called to the vocation of the priesthood. A woman cannot be a priest any more than a man can be a mother. They are both tremendous blessings from God, both vital for advancing his kingdom, but neither interchangeable.

Why do I even want to address this issues? It is an argument that has been going on for far longer than I have been alive. Whereas race, gender, sexuality are all more relatively recent issues in the Church and secular society. For a couple of reasons. This has become the pathway that has led to the confusion on race, gender and sexuality, by divorcing what it means to be a man or a women. We have forgotten the basics of our physical, tangible bodies. These temples of God mean something, they are not just superficial shells we occupy, they are us, we are them. And to deny our sex is to deny reality. The priestess issue is directly related to the trans issue. If a man can become a woman, and a woman can become a man, why can’t a woman become a priest and a man become a mother? One is biologically impossible, the other ontologically. But that does not stop us denying it. We see medical professionals asking men - adult human males - if they are pregnant, thus denying science, reason, and reality itself. An affront to truth. Likewise, when a woman puts on a stole and presumes to offer up the sacrifice to God the Father, in the place of Christ. Fully God, yet fully man. An affront to truth.

Jesus Christ is the Truth, therefore both cases are an offence to God.

The other reason is that the Anglican Church seems to have moved on from this conversation. For the most part, it seems to have become a settled matter. And that is not okay. Women’s orders directly link to the liberalisation of the Church of England - once they adopted Feminism and started to believe that men and women are the same and interchangeable, they started looking at the Church through a liberal lens and realised they needed full equality. That meant they needed as many women priests as men priests, and so they flooded the Church of England with priestesses. There were a couple of issues with this, one being they lowered the entry criteria to make it easier - gone were the days of residential training with solid formation and training, and in were the days of a few evening classes a week in basic theology, if you’re lucky. I can tell you, it is much easier for a liberal granny with nothing to do to become a priest in the CofE than it is for a young orthodox man. So, they lowered the entry standards to the lowest common denominator, and they also attracted an entire demographic of liberals. Naturally speaking, women who are conservative or orthodox in their theology will not believe that women can become men, or that women can be priests, and therefore in general do not put themselves forward for training for Holy Orders. So, the kind of women going forward for ordination tended to be liberals by design. This meant that when the Church decided it needed a ratio of 1:1, an ‘equality’ of men and women, what actually happened was that the Church was flooded with liberals. And this has manifested itself in terrible ways.

I am generalising here because biology, or science in general, works on the rule of generalisations. There will always be exceptions that prove the rule. But generally speaking, men tend to be more theologically rigid, whereas women tend to be more theologically flexible. That is because men do not have the emotional intelligence of women. We are more black and white, meaning we tend to be logic-based when it comes to problem solving. Women tend to be more inclusive. They are more empathetic and tend to be more emotion-based when solving problems. You can see how that might be a problem when a group is claiming to be an oppressed minority, and the thing preventing them from attending Church is the cruel doctrines and the regressive scriptures we follow. Which empath wouldn’t want to compromise in order to make a so-called oppressed minority feel included?

It is easy to forget that the Church is already inclusive because so many people are claiming they are excluded. What they are really saying is they want to be affirmed in their sin, they want to come as they are and not only stay as they are, but be approved as they are. The Church teaches, however, that are all welcome, but we are expected to leave a different person. We are included in Christ’s body not to be affirmed as we are but to empty ourselves of ourselves and to be filled with God’s divine will. To follow Christ means to think less of ourselves and more of Him. The Church is inclusive in that all are welcome to be changed through an encounter with Christ. Because the Church is the gateway to heaven, and heaven is certainly not inclusive. Heaven is as exclusive as you can get. Matthew 7:14 says, “strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.”

But in order to be more inclusive, liberals, who are now in the majority in the clergy, have made compromises in order to be nice. Not good, but nice. An important distinction. One is worldly, the other heavenly.

Once you compromise on one point, it becomes incredibly easy to compromise on another and another until all you have is a compromised Church.

I worry when I see the same thing in the ACNA, which is supposed to be the orthodox answer to the TEC. If women’s ordinations are the start of the slippery slope, why would the orthodox arm of American Anglicanism embrace it? It is a Trojan horse, which leads to all the other stuff. Even if it is only particular diocese. A cancer within a body knows no boundaries. Liberalism is a cancer.

So it is a matter of liberalism - an afront to the truth - the start of the slippery slope - a denial of incarnation - but also Feminism comes right back round to Marxism, in the matter of destroying the patriarchy and smashing heteronormativity, which we alluded to earlier. Proponents of Critical Race Theory, Gender Theory and Queer Theory all affirm the doctrines of destroying patriarchy and smashing heteronormativity. Because not only did God institute the Patriarchy, with Abram, in naming him Abraham, father of nations - God himself is the archetype of the patriarch. He is the Father who sets boundaries and create the laws, provides us with enough freedom to obey or disobey his laws, and then offers us unconditional forgiveness when we inevitably break them.

As for heteronormativity. God revealed himself through the family before the nation of Israel and before grafting us gentiles into his covenant. The kingdom of God cannot, literally, physically, cannot advance without family. Christendom is dying not only due to a lack of faith but due to a lack of breeding, to put it crudely. Christians are not starting families, not having enough children, and not passing on the faith. Heteronormativity has been smashed. Disordered lifestyles have become the new normal. Sin is celebrated - encouraged even - through Feminism, liberalism, and Marxism.

The reasons women cannot become priests are Scriptural. In the Bible, women are encouraged to pray and to prophesy, but not to teach in the Christian assembly, that was a role reserved for priests. The first Epistle to the Corinthians 14:34-35 is quite clear about this, “the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.” And again in the first Epistle to Timothy, chapter 2, which I won’t read aloud for the sake of time, but again it is very explicit. Now, either we believe the Scriptures to be inherent or we do not. Are the Scriptures fully God-breathed, or are they simply a guidebook we can ignore when it suits us? And if anyone is thinking didn’t I say earlier that Paul says there is neither Jew nor Greek, male or female - well, yes, but he was talking about justification through faith, not our roles in the Church. It is an important distinction, and a good reminder than the Scriptures must be read in context.

Essentially what all this amounts to is we are undermining Christ’s decision to ordain men to this role, in what seems like a very benign decision. But liberalism always paints itself as either benign or compassionate, when in fact it spreads disorder, disunity and therefore sin.

This is how the liberal infestation of the Church began. The doors were left open for the Marxist ideologies to gain a foothold, gender theory, queer theory, critical race theory - it all began with Feminism. They are all about a false perception of equality or egalitarianism. A false premise of liberalism. Freedom to what? Freedom from what? And now we find ourselves in a right old mess.

But why? Why did Marx work so hard to publicise ideas that have eventually led to the disruption of the Church?

Let us take a look at what Marx says himself. In his Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right in 1884, Marx beings with, “For Germany, the criticism of religion has been essentially completed, and the criticism of religion is the prerequisite of all criticism.” but it is not a criticism of religion he is interested in, not really. It is a criticism of God, the God of the Bible, “Man, who has found only the reflection of himself in the fantastic reality of heaven, where he sought a superman, will no longer feel disposed to find the mere appearance of himself, the non-man [“Unmensch”], where he seeks and must seek his true reality.”

He sets out his argument. To Marx, man is not made in the image of God - he refutes Imago Dei - to him, God is made in the image of man. God is not the ubermensch, but the unmensch, the not-man. Here, Marx refute’s both Christ’s divinity, but also his humanity. He also disputes heaven. To Marx, our true reality, our eternal reality, is not in Christ, in his heavenly kingdom, or to be resurrected in true glory. Our identity is not rooted in Christ, but in ourselves. And thus, he sets out the beginnings of the identitarian movement. In that one short paragraph, he starts what will become identity politics. The drive to replace Christ with ourselves, to make idols of ourselves, to put ourselves before God, nay, to make Gods of ourselves.

Marx boots God out of heaven and puts man in his place. He destroys heaven and puts our search for our ‘true selves’ in its place.

He does all this because, “The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man.” Again, his qualms are not with religion; his qualms are with God himself.

What is interesting about this piece of work, on an issue unrelated to identity politics, is that Marx clearly saw the Reformation as a pathway to secularisation.

In his call for a revolution, Marx states, “Germany’s revolutionary past is theoretical, it is the Reformation. As the revolution then began in the brain of the monk, so now it begins in the brain of the philosopher.” putting himself forward as the leader of this revolution of secularisation. To finish the job his brethren Luther began. And he means this, he gives Luther credit where he believes it is due, “Luther, we grant, overcame bondage out of devotion by replacing it by bondage out of conviction. He shattered faith in authority because he restored the authority of faith. He turned priests into laymen because he turned laymen into priests. He freed man from outer religiosity because he made religiosity the inner man. He freed the body from chains because he enchained the heart.”

Here, we see liberalism at its peak. When Marx says Luther shattered faith in authority because he restored the authority of faith, could it be that he is saying in destroying the people’s faith in the Church, people put their faith in their own consciences. In removing the authority of the Church Universal, magisterium, papacy, et al. l, people granted themselves authority and therefore made Marx’s job of crushing Christianity all the more easier. He no longer had to battle with a universal Truth; he only had to challenge the subjective perspective of truth.

He says priests were turned into laymen and laymen into priests. This is right. Priestly authority was damaged in the Reformation. Not just the authority of the Church, collectively, but of individual theologians and persons who had dedicated their entire lives to the scriptures. Every layman became a priest, each with their own personal interpretation.

Of course, we are all priests because we all share in the royal priesthood bestowed upon us in our baptisms, but Marx, through Luther, is counting on people over-egging that priestly authority and ignoring the priestly authority of those set-aside, anointed, ordained for a distinctly priestly ministry, in favour of the mass relatively ill-informed laity of the time.

When Marx says, Luther freed man from religiosity. He is speaking of the liberal perspective of freedom. To a liberal, ultimate freedom is the ability of the individual to do as they wish. We know this to be a falsehood. As Christians, we understand this to be a mirage; it is nothing more than freedom to sin. True freedom comes in obedience to God. We find obedience to God through submitting to his will. And we submit to his will by following his divine law, as revealed to us through the scriptures and interpreted through the Church, as inspired by the Holy Spirit. But Marx is under no illusion of this false freedom, he is not a true believer in liberalism. He confirms this when he says Luther freed the body from chains because he enchained the heart. Luther liberated people from the body of Christ - His Church - and enchained our hearts by putting all the pressure upon our individual consciences, upon our subjective opinions. He made slaves of us and dressed it up as freedom. Marx recognises Luther’s promise of freedom was indeed slavery to sin.

And he used it. He built upon it intentionally. He goes on to say, “But, if Protestantism was not the true solution of the problem, it was at least the true setting of it. It was no longer a case of the layman’s struggle against the priest outside himself but of his struggle against his own priest inside himself.”

Protestantism did not solve Marx’s problem, but it provided the foundation for him to build from. The layman no longer had to struggle with the big C Church, but now his own personal piece of the Church, himself.

How does any of this relate to Marx’s revolution? Well he claims that, “if the Protestant transformation of the German layman into priests emancipated the lay popes… the privileged and philistines, the philosophical transformation of priestly Germans into men will emancipate the people.”

And there you have it. The Reformation made the individual the authority, and Marx planned to finish the job by turning those pieces of the Church into godless men. Removing the inner priest, removing the focus on one’s piece of the Church entirely, and that will emancipate the people.

Freedom from God. Slavery to sin.

He knew things would get ugly. Marx says, “Secularisation will not stop at the confiscation of church estates.”

What is his motivation for this? “The Peasant War, the most radical fact of German history, came to grief because of theology. Today, when theology itself has come to grief, the most unfree fact of German history, our status quo, will be shattered against philosophy.”

Vengeance? He blamed the faith for the Peasant War and therefore saw its destruction as not only a preventative measure but also justice. He saw philosophy as a weapon to destroy faith. He may have been right there. For decades, Christians have argued that the Enlightenment was a net positive and that liberalism could make the Church more progressive. Let this be a reminder to us all that liberalism is a sin. The individual is not at the centre, Christ is. Liberalism is in fact idolatry of man, of the individual, of ourselves, disguised as freedom.

Marx gives us an example of this, “On the eve of the Reformation, official Germany was the most unconditional slave of Rome. On the eve of its revolution, it is the unconditional slave of less than Rome, of Prussia and Austria, of country junkers and philistines.” The Reformation didn’t splinter and split the Church; it didn’t divide Christ’s bride or tear his body limb from limb; it merely freed us from Rome. And now he saw the Prussians and Austrians, the privileged and the Philistines, as the problem, and they were easier to defeat in his eyes than the Romans.

From an Anglican perspective, the Reformation was about re-forming the Church. It was about addressing error, heresy and superstition. It was about returning the Church to the teaching of the Church Fathers, about re-focusing on the authority of the Scriptures. I would say, for the most part, it failed in those matters. The Church doubled down, and in the end the Reformation resorted in division, schism, splits and further hostility. I cannot believe our Lord would see that as a good thing. We, the Church Militant, are causing him pain. If the Church is Christ’s body, we are fracturing him.

Of course, there was the issue of Roman authority, and that is one that still needs to be addressed and goes as far back as the Great Schism. But the Reformation didn’t make that matter any clearer. If anything, it made things worse. The Pope now has even more power than he had then. Sure, he doesn’t have his temporal authority with his Papal Armies and Papal States, but there was a land grab for spiritual authority. He has become an absolute monarch, and as we see the mess in Rome at the moment, this is causing our Roman Brethren great hurt. Take, for example, the issue of a wonderful bishop, Strickland, being stripped of his dioceses. Bishop Strickland, as with every other bishop, derides their authority directly from Christ Himself. The Bishop of Rome has no authority to play King and remove people he dislikes. I pray our Roman brethren remember the pontificate is the Primus Inter Pares, the first among equals. I pray they go back to the Church Fathers’ teaching on papal authority. I think the current mess might actually help them with that. We know God takes bad situations and makes good out of them. There is a bad bishop in the Seat of Peter right now, and he has been granted too much power and authority beyond his remit. I think this is probably because the Roman Catholic Church has had good popes for so long; they have been used to deferring to the Pope in matters they haven’t needed to. Well, having a bad pope might make them readdress that situation a little bit. Francis, it seems, is trying to double down on the same-sex blessings issue with Fiducia Supplicans. The reaction from the wider Church has been great to see, particularly the African bishops, in their orthodoxy refusing to submit to a ruling shrouded in heresy.

The parallels are interesting, though, when we look at what is happening in the Anglican tradition, too. Last year, many of us went to Rwanda for the GAFCON conference, where a majority of the bishops from the Anglican Communion called the Church of England to repent for its stance on same-sex blessings. It seems, once again, that the orthodoxy of the African bishops was a great help in refuting heresy.

But the point is that the Reformation didn’t spare us from this. It divorced us from Rome, but we are still making the same mistakes as each other. If anything, the Anglicans are leading the way now in every heresy, and the Romans are a few years behind.

Let us pray the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches stand firm. I believe they will because these issues are not really theological; they are cultural. Marxism has infected Western Culture. By divorcing the West from the authority of the Church and encouraging us to make authorities of ourselves, Marx planted the seeds for the mess we are facing today.

Marx says, “The only liberation of Germany which is practically possible is liberation from the point of view of that theory which declares man to be the supreme being for man. German can emancipate itself from the Middle Ages only if it emancipates itself at the same time from the partial victories over the Middle Ages.”

And there you have it: in order for Germany to be liberated, man must declare himself god. And in order to be free, the German people must finish the job started in the Reformation, which he saw as a partial victory. If you told me this was a CS Lewis quote I would have believed you, I would have assumed it came from a missing page of the Screwtape letters. Marx’s motivations were questionable, but his tactics were wicked. Between them, Luther and Marx destroyed the Christian soul of Germany, which, as we know, has gone on to become the home of heresy. Even today, German bishops in the Roman Catholic Church are cheering on the idea of same-sex blessings and pushing for women’s ordinations, which is demonstrably the start of the liberal slippery slope. The Anglican Church out there is all but dead. Lutheranism has become so liberal that it is entirely unrecognisable from the days of Martin Luther.

Marx set himself up as anti-religion. He was anti-Christian, an anti-Christ if you will.

And this is why Critical Theories, aka Marxism, is antithetical to the Gospel.