After the radical leftism of the French Revolution, the "deist" label became radioactive
If you favored the old order, you faked being Christian; if you were radical, you joined the Unitarians, morphing them from non-Trinitarian biblicists into the most cursed church of all time
The only problem with this is that it incorrectly identifies Jehovah's Witnesses and Christian Scientists as being "Christian," whereas they should also be listed separately with the Mormons.
I’ve found *the* single most embarrassing patristic passage—one which everyone in the church found waaay too awkward to discuss until Bayle and Voltaire dug it up.
It’s Augustine’s defense of polyamory.
Anglican drama is either straight up about overt clerics prancing in rainbow coloured chasubles or bureaucratic minutiae about procedure and canons. (Very English!) At least when it comes to the theological substance the dangerous organisms are, literally, brightly coloured.
The ACNA should probably think more about the fact that it's incapable of producing a report of the intellectual heft that the PCA can.
And no, it's not due to size difference.
"Since the publication of my article about a month ago, a number of responses have been published here on North American Anglican and throughout the web. My hope is to respond to everything I can, succinctly and in good faith."
—Colletti @Young_Anglican
https://t.co/nHotiEWddB
I don’t mind pointing out that abortion isn’t a winning political issue. It isn’t. I don’t even mind pointing out that the pro-life movement has some ineffective advocates. They’re awful. What I do mind is questioning the sincerity of normal conservative Christians or implying the debate is in any way settled.
Also, there’s a difference between the politics, the law, and the morality. Certainly someone can advocate for a higher personal moral standard than the law without speaking of it as a political matter. People should have higher ethical standards for their behavior than merely what is or is not legal or popular.
As far as political debates go, we’d have had amnesty a long time ago if we just listened to popular opinion and conceded. Immigration restriction beyond mere border security was massively unpopular until the past 5-10 years. It is not inevitable that the current popular consensus on social issues will remain the same, especially if conservatives get more effective advocates on these topics.
Social issues are a complex topic for the right wing right now. We need more effective advocates on these topics beyond the obvious trans issue. People who aren’t either merely morally browbeating people or so rigid and weak they crack under the slightest pressure.
An independent Confederacy would have faced intense economic & diplomatic pressure, pushing it to expand its plantation system into Mesoamerica.
It would resemble Brazil: abolishing slavery late, keeping its traditional elites, producing an ethnically mixed general population.
It’s amazing to me how easy this is to draw out of advocates of women’s ordination. Aside from low IQ Pentecostals, even relatively “conservative” WO supporters will eventually argue Paul was a misogynist, basically throwing the inspiration of the Pauline Epistles out the window.
Also, I think God does this on purpose. This is the same thing that evangelicals did with “Christian worldview.”
“If we just raise them with the right worldview, our kids won’t leave the church.”
How’d that go?
Anything we put our trust in to save us, don’t be shocked when God slips out the side and you don’t find him there. He must be found in his word alone, and you must trust it and not put your trust in anything else that tempts you to put your hope in it, even very good things.
The modern UK is the culmination of centuries of constitutional drift that the great Lord Bolingbroke warned against in the 1720s:
A managerial regime, comprised of a vast network of permanent institutions which acquired tyrannical powers no one consciously intended to create.