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.
Father Calvin, as an attendee of the conference, I found your message inspiring and I agreed with it in its entirety. Many, many of the attendees were enthusiastic in their agreement with your message. For such a time as this—you are His messenger, continue to speak boldly! Stand firm in the Lord!
I’m sorry they are using you as an example that, perhaps they’d hope, would strike fear in the rest of us. However, the display of their vicious depravity against the likes of you raises a holy indignation within me. I’m certain this is happening to many. It only makes us, and I pray you, as well, stronger, more resilient than ever before. To God be the glory!
I don't think you did or said anything wrong. Unfortunately America has been taken over by the woke liberals and these feminists and if you don't agree with them you are cancelled. I was surprised that they are so liberal because I thought that Anglicans were conservative in their theology. they won't win in the long run.
Being cancelled these days is a mark of honour. All who will live godly in Christ Jesus SHALL (not may) suffer persecution. The natural man hates Truth. It is antithetical to the desires of the flesh, which we are told to put to death - and crucifixion is nothing if not painful. We don’t like pain.
The fundamental thing about Karl Marx is that he was a committed believer in his teens. One of his school-leaving essays was on the nature of the union between Christ and the believer, a discussion of John 17. Within a year he had sold his soul to satan, from which there is no return according to Heb. 6:4. So it is little wonder that he had the hatred he did for all things of God.
What has happened to you is a badge of recognition in heaven. You are on the right path.
As someone who was in the room - someone who listened quietly and attentively to your whole lecture and then (at the end) booed rather than clapped - let me give people a different read on why you were disinvited. Here's the thing - you were out of your depth (speaking about things that you clearly did not understand) and discourteous/insulting/dishonest to both your hosts and your audience.
First, You were discourteous/insulting/dishonest because you didn't primarily speak on the topic you were asked to speak on. That's like being asked to preach on the lectionary reading for the week and instead speaking on different texts; or like being asked to teach a history course and instead teaching maths - it's simply not your brief. If you didn't want to speak to it, then you should have declined the invitation or asked if you could speak on another topic - then they could have made an informed decision. Instead you chose to subvert the intentions of your hosts and your audience by speaking on your true topic "things that I think you people are wrong about". That's simply not honest, no matter how much you try to present it as "speaking the truth".
Secondly, as someone who basically agrees with your opposition on women's ordination to the priesthood, I have to say that I was embarrassed by the way you made your argument. I know for a fact that the majority of the people who spoke at the conference agree that women should not be ordained to the priesthood. I would wager that a large percentage of the audience share that conviction too. But if men are charged to guard the faith, then to blame women for the liberalisation of the church makes no sense. It is male leaders who accepted, embraced and instituted the error. Therefore side-swipes at (to paraphrase) trans-priestesses, uneducated-grannies and illogically-emotional women was just immature name-calling, not argument. Paul says - "We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ." Not that we insult people we think are in error.
Thirdly, when you finally came to discuss marxism and (bizarrely luther / protestantism) it was quite clear to many of us that you did not understand either. Your critique of Marx boils down to this - "Marx was an atheist. Therefore all his ideas were evil." Or even more succinctly - "Marx bad." Now that might work as a gadfly conservative pundit, but it does not count as theological or philosophical argumentation. Of course we cannot immediately know if someone's ideas are right or wrong based on their (a)theism alone, nor can we judge based on their own motives. Pagans can have good ideas and Christians can have evil ideas - we must test them against the word of god to discover their value. You didn't do that.
Fourthly, Which brings us to Luther - and the reason why I booed you. It was obvious that you know nothing of Luther and have not seriously engaged with his thought. You uncritically accepted Marx's self-interested read of Luther (I guess that means that according to you, the atheist Marx was evil and wrong about everything he ever said.... except Luther... about whom he had striking insights?) and you attacked a straw man of the protestant understanding of authority. Luther (and the other magisterial reformers) never argued that we are our own authorities. "Just me and my bible" is not a hermeneutic approach put forward by any serious protestant theologian, clergyman or laymen. Perhaps that's what snide-comments made at St Stephen's House suggested, but it does not reflect reality.
It is laughable to call the others speakers at the conference liberals (that notorious liberal... *reads notes*... D.A. Carson...?). It was your astonishing arrogance - displayed in your rudeness to your hosts and audience and magnified by your willingness to stridently denounce ideas that you clearly do not understand - that got you disinvited. You embarrassed yourself and you have no one else to blame for that. I count you a brother in Christ, but perhaps you should consider whether those Christian bishops who have warned you or disciplined you or even blocked you from ordination in the UK and US have (whatever the logs in their own eyes) seen very real defects in you that need to be dealt with before you can be given responsibility in Christ's church.
Calvin, I was at the conference ans I found your presentation a real disappointment. I have many objections to your presentation, but the biggest is your unfounded assertion that Luther and the Reformation necessarily lead to sinful ideology of self fulfillment and Marxism. In your analysis of Luther, which is just a repetition of what Marx wrote (this is peculiar since you don't like Marx but you seem to trust his analysis Luther whole heartedly), you say that he made individual conscience the bedrock of our freedom. He didn't. He pointed to the Scripture as the sole authority. He actually wrote a small treaty called On Christian Freedom where he mainly argues that our freedom is in selfless love, being drawn out of our own self in service of God and others. Of course he discusses the role of Scripture there and elsewhere.
I am sorry but I disliked your presentation not because it was too conservative but because it was full of straw man, slippery slope, and ill-informed assertions. As a brother in Christ there is no cancellation here from me, but I hope you won't just dismiss the concerns of the good folks at MereAnglinanism by simply labeling them as 'liberal.'
As an attendee, I thought your message was the best part of the conference. The irony of ironies is that you got chastised for speaking the truth in love at a conference themed on speaking “The Truth in Love.” The ending reference to Luther was fitting; the crowd’s applause spoke for itself. That will be my last trip to Mere Anglicanism. Thank you, brother.
While I agree with nearly everything you said, and believe the conference miserably failed its attendees by striking you from the panel discussion and Q&A, I do have a quibble that I think is very important to the life of the church and that, if dealt with according to the entirety of scripture, might help resolve the question of the role of women in the church.
First, let me make clear that I am not advocating for women as priests. Aside from the lack of Biblical precedent, C.S. Lewis addressed that question long ago, definitively. However, some women are called and given spiritual gifts that equip them to do more than have babies and minister to children and other women. The basic question around women doing more than that, particularly when men are involved, is the question of authority. Women are clearly not to exercise authority over men. That is a real violation of God’s order. But when we look at what teaching meant in New Testament times, it’s pretty clear, at least judging by the epistles, that it was authoritative rather than explicative. What was written by Paul and John and Peter and James was meant to be obeyed, by the whole Church. What they wrote both developed the Church’s understanding of the Person and work of Jesus Christ and went beyond that to address questions of Christian behavior. Anyone teaching in the Early Church must have had that authoritative function under the guidance and teaching of the apostles themselves.
Today we have the benefit of 2000 years of authoritative teaching by apostles and priests and pastors--some of it biblically sound and some not. We also have study Bibles and commentaries. The job of a teacher today is to stay absolutely true to the Bible, which is our authority in matters of faith and doctrine. A woman who teaches or even preaches, when she does so rightly, is not claiming authority but acknowledging the authority of Jesus Christ and God’s Word over us all.
I am an interested party because I currently am the teaching director of a large Bible study class that meets in person with all women but has a remote online discussion group of men, led by a man. They listen to my recorded teachings, but in no way do I exercise authority over them. I have also been asked to give sermons a number of times in my church, but again, there is no authority involved. God has given me the gifts to do this, and the fact that I have these gifts is recognized by other people. It is no doing of mine, but I am very grateful that I’m being allowed to exercise these gifts. When particular women whom God has called are denied opportunities to do this--always to be done under the guidance and direction of the Holy Spirit--the loss is to the Church is very great.
I do not believe that large numbers of women are called to preach or teach in mixed groups. Some may want to perform these functions but have not been called to them. I have always waited to be asked and have never put myself forward because I believe that if the Lord wants me to do something, He will make it happen. Putting one’s self forward is likely an indication that God is not the one doing the calling! But Paul also said that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, male or female, slave nor free, but we are all one in Him. He chooses. He gives spiritual gifts. We need to be sensitive to His leading and rely on Him to guide us.
Not long ago I watched a video clip of N.T. Wright talking about how Jesus, following His resurrection, appeared to women first and told them to go and tell His disciples. They were given a message of something brand new and unheard of to convey to men. He thinks this fact indicates a larger role for women in the church than traditional thinking is inclined to give them.
So my point is that perhaps, as Biblical Christians, we should be thinking more about what women can do in the church in a place between the no go of the priesthood and the restriction of ministering mostly to children. If such a conversation is taking place, I haven’t heard it. Biblical precedent for such an avenue of ministry exists. We should explore it.
Hello Father Calvin from your admirer in Fall City, Washington state. You give me strength when I read your words of truth, especially when they come from live experiences within the battle zone of our times. I don't need to say, "Keep the faith!" because I know you will. You are a true example of a humble powerful Christian warrior fully dressed in the armor of God. We in America - and in all of Western civilization - are being assailed on all sides by the enemy. Principalities are emboldened and riled up for a full-on frontal assault. Your courage and firm stance in the word of Jesus Christ is a shield that no evil will penetrate. And when you speak truth, as you so clearly do, the wiles and lies of the enemy are exposed and lose power. That is why you give me strength. Bless you!
I was quite shocked when I heard that you (Father Calvin Robinson) had been cancelled (at the very last minute almost) from the Q & A panel of the Mere Anglicanism conference. That means they must have only wanted that conference to be an echo chamber for their own more liberal ideas - but certainly not interested in hearing more orthodox views, such as those which you clearly stated in your address to that conference - which I have only just read for the very first time - but with which I whole-heartedly agree.
However, these days, such cancellation/banning/blocking etc, is almost like a badge of honour for those who promote "the truth" rather than a case of "anything goes". I've always said that if the church simply tries to align itself with the secular world - it will eventually become totally irrelevant - because it will be exactly the same as the secular world. Instead, the church should be a leading example for the rest of the world to follow.
I've also been saying for some years now, that those who have no faith & don't believe there is a God - effectively become their own gods - with a case of "anything goes" - & making up their own rules for life as they go along, after having effectively tossed out anything & everything they may have previously believed in.
The founders of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement have readily confessed on camera to being "trained Marxists" - & this is clearly stated in the fine print on their web site. The clear aim of Marxism is to destroy society as we currently know it, & then to re-make the society in its own (Marxist) image - however that might look. But we've already witnessed the rise & fall of other Marxist regimes around the world - so we know that such regimes cannot possibly succeed in the end, & only cause harm.
If those in the West are not prepared to make a clear stand for the beliefs & values of our traditional societies & cultures - we also run the risk of being taken over & over-run by other cultures, to the point where our own beliefs, culture & traditions no longer exist - which would be a great shame indeed.
Yes - men & women are equal in the eyes of God - but that does not mean they are "the same" - as each has different strengths & talents, & is designed for a different purpose. Being equal does not mean that women are capable of doing everything a man can do - nor are men capable of doing everything that a woman can do.
Please do carry on with your very important work, Father Calvin!
Fr Robinson, I was at the event and I heard your presentation, I thought it was wonderful and really did appreciate your viewpoint and you speaking truth at a conference ostensibly about truth. I was incredibly disappointed by how corporate the event was, mandating presentation topics, pre packaged questions, not allowing feedback from the audience (who the event was for) and not allowing you to participate in the discussion was frankly disgusting.
I had assumed the mere anglicanism conference was exactly that a conference where presenters could talk about the state of the church and give their unique viewpoints for the audience, and then the audience could ask questions of those presenters.
What happened instead was a very corporate event where presenters are given mandated to present a certain viewpoint (propoganda) to impress upon the audience the corporate viewpoint at best or their flavor of heresy at worst.
I don't mean to be overly negative but I am very concerned with the direction of the anglican church and if this event is a indicator of how corporate, 2 faced and heretical the anglican church is becoming at large this is something to be negative about.
Loved your presentation, thought the leadership reaction to you speaking the truth was disgusting. It was really nice to meet you and I hope you keep speaking truth and preaching the Gospel!
I have corrected a few typos. Thank you for bearing with me, this piece was never meant for publishing.
Also, thank you for your many kind messages of support and prayer. You are wonderful people!
Father Calvin, as an attendee of the conference, I found your message inspiring and I agreed with it in its entirety. Many, many of the attendees were enthusiastic in their agreement with your message. For such a time as this—you are His messenger, continue to speak boldly! Stand firm in the Lord!
I’m sorry they are using you as an example that, perhaps they’d hope, would strike fear in the rest of us. However, the display of their vicious depravity against the likes of you raises a holy indignation within me. I’m certain this is happening to many. It only makes us, and I pray you, as well, stronger, more resilient than ever before. To God be the glory!
I don't think you did or said anything wrong. Unfortunately America has been taken over by the woke liberals and these feminists and if you don't agree with them you are cancelled. I was surprised that they are so liberal because I thought that Anglicans were conservative in their theology. they won't win in the long run.
Being cancelled these days is a mark of honour. All who will live godly in Christ Jesus SHALL (not may) suffer persecution. The natural man hates Truth. It is antithetical to the desires of the flesh, which we are told to put to death - and crucifixion is nothing if not painful. We don’t like pain.
The fundamental thing about Karl Marx is that he was a committed believer in his teens. One of his school-leaving essays was on the nature of the union between Christ and the believer, a discussion of John 17. Within a year he had sold his soul to satan, from which there is no return according to Heb. 6:4. So it is little wonder that he had the hatred he did for all things of God.
What has happened to you is a badge of recognition in heaven. You are on the right path.
As someone who was in the room - someone who listened quietly and attentively to your whole lecture and then (at the end) booed rather than clapped - let me give people a different read on why you were disinvited. Here's the thing - you were out of your depth (speaking about things that you clearly did not understand) and discourteous/insulting/dishonest to both your hosts and your audience.
First, You were discourteous/insulting/dishonest because you didn't primarily speak on the topic you were asked to speak on. That's like being asked to preach on the lectionary reading for the week and instead speaking on different texts; or like being asked to teach a history course and instead teaching maths - it's simply not your brief. If you didn't want to speak to it, then you should have declined the invitation or asked if you could speak on another topic - then they could have made an informed decision. Instead you chose to subvert the intentions of your hosts and your audience by speaking on your true topic "things that I think you people are wrong about". That's simply not honest, no matter how much you try to present it as "speaking the truth".
Secondly, as someone who basically agrees with your opposition on women's ordination to the priesthood, I have to say that I was embarrassed by the way you made your argument. I know for a fact that the majority of the people who spoke at the conference agree that women should not be ordained to the priesthood. I would wager that a large percentage of the audience share that conviction too. But if men are charged to guard the faith, then to blame women for the liberalisation of the church makes no sense. It is male leaders who accepted, embraced and instituted the error. Therefore side-swipes at (to paraphrase) trans-priestesses, uneducated-grannies and illogically-emotional women was just immature name-calling, not argument. Paul says - "We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ." Not that we insult people we think are in error.
Thirdly, when you finally came to discuss marxism and (bizarrely luther / protestantism) it was quite clear to many of us that you did not understand either. Your critique of Marx boils down to this - "Marx was an atheist. Therefore all his ideas were evil." Or even more succinctly - "Marx bad." Now that might work as a gadfly conservative pundit, but it does not count as theological or philosophical argumentation. Of course we cannot immediately know if someone's ideas are right or wrong based on their (a)theism alone, nor can we judge based on their own motives. Pagans can have good ideas and Christians can have evil ideas - we must test them against the word of god to discover their value. You didn't do that.
Fourthly, Which brings us to Luther - and the reason why I booed you. It was obvious that you know nothing of Luther and have not seriously engaged with his thought. You uncritically accepted Marx's self-interested read of Luther (I guess that means that according to you, the atheist Marx was evil and wrong about everything he ever said.... except Luther... about whom he had striking insights?) and you attacked a straw man of the protestant understanding of authority. Luther (and the other magisterial reformers) never argued that we are our own authorities. "Just me and my bible" is not a hermeneutic approach put forward by any serious protestant theologian, clergyman or laymen. Perhaps that's what snide-comments made at St Stephen's House suggested, but it does not reflect reality.
It is laughable to call the others speakers at the conference liberals (that notorious liberal... *reads notes*... D.A. Carson...?). It was your astonishing arrogance - displayed in your rudeness to your hosts and audience and magnified by your willingness to stridently denounce ideas that you clearly do not understand - that got you disinvited. You embarrassed yourself and you have no one else to blame for that. I count you a brother in Christ, but perhaps you should consider whether those Christian bishops who have warned you or disciplined you or even blocked you from ordination in the UK and US have (whatever the logs in their own eyes) seen very real defects in you that need to be dealt with before you can be given responsibility in Christ's church.
Calvin, I was at the conference ans I found your presentation a real disappointment. I have many objections to your presentation, but the biggest is your unfounded assertion that Luther and the Reformation necessarily lead to sinful ideology of self fulfillment and Marxism. In your analysis of Luther, which is just a repetition of what Marx wrote (this is peculiar since you don't like Marx but you seem to trust his analysis Luther whole heartedly), you say that he made individual conscience the bedrock of our freedom. He didn't. He pointed to the Scripture as the sole authority. He actually wrote a small treaty called On Christian Freedom where he mainly argues that our freedom is in selfless love, being drawn out of our own self in service of God and others. Of course he discusses the role of Scripture there and elsewhere.
I am sorry but I disliked your presentation not because it was too conservative but because it was full of straw man, slippery slope, and ill-informed assertions. As a brother in Christ there is no cancellation here from me, but I hope you won't just dismiss the concerns of the good folks at MereAnglinanism by simply labeling them as 'liberal.'
As an attendee, I thought your message was the best part of the conference. The irony of ironies is that you got chastised for speaking the truth in love at a conference themed on speaking “The Truth in Love.” The ending reference to Luther was fitting; the crowd’s applause spoke for itself. That will be my last trip to Mere Anglicanism. Thank you, brother.
While I agree with nearly everything you said, and believe the conference miserably failed its attendees by striking you from the panel discussion and Q&A, I do have a quibble that I think is very important to the life of the church and that, if dealt with according to the entirety of scripture, might help resolve the question of the role of women in the church.
First, let me make clear that I am not advocating for women as priests. Aside from the lack of Biblical precedent, C.S. Lewis addressed that question long ago, definitively. However, some women are called and given spiritual gifts that equip them to do more than have babies and minister to children and other women. The basic question around women doing more than that, particularly when men are involved, is the question of authority. Women are clearly not to exercise authority over men. That is a real violation of God’s order. But when we look at what teaching meant in New Testament times, it’s pretty clear, at least judging by the epistles, that it was authoritative rather than explicative. What was written by Paul and John and Peter and James was meant to be obeyed, by the whole Church. What they wrote both developed the Church’s understanding of the Person and work of Jesus Christ and went beyond that to address questions of Christian behavior. Anyone teaching in the Early Church must have had that authoritative function under the guidance and teaching of the apostles themselves.
Today we have the benefit of 2000 years of authoritative teaching by apostles and priests and pastors--some of it biblically sound and some not. We also have study Bibles and commentaries. The job of a teacher today is to stay absolutely true to the Bible, which is our authority in matters of faith and doctrine. A woman who teaches or even preaches, when she does so rightly, is not claiming authority but acknowledging the authority of Jesus Christ and God’s Word over us all.
I am an interested party because I currently am the teaching director of a large Bible study class that meets in person with all women but has a remote online discussion group of men, led by a man. They listen to my recorded teachings, but in no way do I exercise authority over them. I have also been asked to give sermons a number of times in my church, but again, there is no authority involved. God has given me the gifts to do this, and the fact that I have these gifts is recognized by other people. It is no doing of mine, but I am very grateful that I’m being allowed to exercise these gifts. When particular women whom God has called are denied opportunities to do this--always to be done under the guidance and direction of the Holy Spirit--the loss is to the Church is very great.
I do not believe that large numbers of women are called to preach or teach in mixed groups. Some may want to perform these functions but have not been called to them. I have always waited to be asked and have never put myself forward because I believe that if the Lord wants me to do something, He will make it happen. Putting one’s self forward is likely an indication that God is not the one doing the calling! But Paul also said that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, male or female, slave nor free, but we are all one in Him. He chooses. He gives spiritual gifts. We need to be sensitive to His leading and rely on Him to guide us.
Not long ago I watched a video clip of N.T. Wright talking about how Jesus, following His resurrection, appeared to women first and told them to go and tell His disciples. They were given a message of something brand new and unheard of to convey to men. He thinks this fact indicates a larger role for women in the church than traditional thinking is inclined to give them.
So my point is that perhaps, as Biblical Christians, we should be thinking more about what women can do in the church in a place between the no go of the priesthood and the restriction of ministering mostly to children. If such a conversation is taking place, I haven’t heard it. Biblical precedent for such an avenue of ministry exists. We should explore it.
Hello Father Calvin from your admirer in Fall City, Washington state. You give me strength when I read your words of truth, especially when they come from live experiences within the battle zone of our times. I don't need to say, "Keep the faith!" because I know you will. You are a true example of a humble powerful Christian warrior fully dressed in the armor of God. We in America - and in all of Western civilization - are being assailed on all sides by the enemy. Principalities are emboldened and riled up for a full-on frontal assault. Your courage and firm stance in the word of Jesus Christ is a shield that no evil will penetrate. And when you speak truth, as you so clearly do, the wiles and lies of the enemy are exposed and lose power. That is why you give me strength. Bless you!
I was quite shocked when I heard that you (Father Calvin Robinson) had been cancelled (at the very last minute almost) from the Q & A panel of the Mere Anglicanism conference. That means they must have only wanted that conference to be an echo chamber for their own more liberal ideas - but certainly not interested in hearing more orthodox views, such as those which you clearly stated in your address to that conference - which I have only just read for the very first time - but with which I whole-heartedly agree.
However, these days, such cancellation/banning/blocking etc, is almost like a badge of honour for those who promote "the truth" rather than a case of "anything goes". I've always said that if the church simply tries to align itself with the secular world - it will eventually become totally irrelevant - because it will be exactly the same as the secular world. Instead, the church should be a leading example for the rest of the world to follow.
I've also been saying for some years now, that those who have no faith & don't believe there is a God - effectively become their own gods - with a case of "anything goes" - & making up their own rules for life as they go along, after having effectively tossed out anything & everything they may have previously believed in.
The founders of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement have readily confessed on camera to being "trained Marxists" - & this is clearly stated in the fine print on their web site. The clear aim of Marxism is to destroy society as we currently know it, & then to re-make the society in its own (Marxist) image - however that might look. But we've already witnessed the rise & fall of other Marxist regimes around the world - so we know that such regimes cannot possibly succeed in the end, & only cause harm.
If those in the West are not prepared to make a clear stand for the beliefs & values of our traditional societies & cultures - we also run the risk of being taken over & over-run by other cultures, to the point where our own beliefs, culture & traditions no longer exist - which would be a great shame indeed.
Yes - men & women are equal in the eyes of God - but that does not mean they are "the same" - as each has different strengths & talents, & is designed for a different purpose. Being equal does not mean that women are capable of doing everything a man can do - nor are men capable of doing everything that a woman can do.
Please do carry on with your very important work, Father Calvin!
I am fully agreed that Marxism and Feminism are the roots of Gender Theory, Queer Theory and Critical Race Theory in the Church today.
"We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ," (II Cor. 10:5)
Edifying, as always. Stand firm in the grace of God brother, praying for you.
It's the ACNA they are simply the Episcopal Church 30 years ago.
I am thankful for you, and pray for more men like you.
Fr Robinson, I was at the event and I heard your presentation, I thought it was wonderful and really did appreciate your viewpoint and you speaking truth at a conference ostensibly about truth. I was incredibly disappointed by how corporate the event was, mandating presentation topics, pre packaged questions, not allowing feedback from the audience (who the event was for) and not allowing you to participate in the discussion was frankly disgusting.
I had assumed the mere anglicanism conference was exactly that a conference where presenters could talk about the state of the church and give their unique viewpoints for the audience, and then the audience could ask questions of those presenters.
What happened instead was a very corporate event where presenters are given mandated to present a certain viewpoint (propoganda) to impress upon the audience the corporate viewpoint at best or their flavor of heresy at worst.
I don't mean to be overly negative but I am very concerned with the direction of the anglican church and if this event is a indicator of how corporate, 2 faced and heretical the anglican church is becoming at large this is something to be negative about.
Loved your presentation, thought the leadership reaction to you speaking the truth was disgusting. It was really nice to meet you and I hope you keep speaking truth and preaching the Gospel!