Knox Liberal

But there is one Anglican Communion. And so I contend: if you leave it…

***especially*** over this…

…you are no longer Anglican.

16/16

fin

Unlike some who want to police others’ right to call themselves “Christian”, I in no way begrudge you that right. Anyone can claim that label, because there is no council or group that polices necessary features or beliefs of “true” Christianity.

15/x

And so it would be with a GAFCON (for instance- certainly not the only possibility) schism: you’re not proving adherence to tradition. You’re confirming your refusal to reason. As such, you are abdicating any claim of legitimacy under an Anglican umbrella, and should thus abandon the term.

14/x

(I’m looking specifically at you, ACNA: there’s nothing Anglican about turning your backs on the system that formed you. That’s not orthodoxy; that’s obstinance. In modern society, exclusion will only lead to extinction...)

13/x

Despite this, we ultimately allied ourselves with the Communion because of shared goals and vision. In that way, even US and Scottish clergy still identify as Anglican, and are within their right to do so.

But if you leave the Communion, you abandon claim of the name.

12/x

There are corners of the Communion that already chose to throw off the term, mainly because of its etymology; namely, the two churches who use the name Episcopal for their provinces chose to identify by the polity and not the national origin.

11/x

You’re welcome to stay and embrace the future, to join us in the way of Love. We continue to love you despite our differences. But, if you leave, understand one simple thing:

You have no inherent right to “claim leadership of,” or frankly even use the term, Anglican.

10/x

So, to the Archbishop-Designate, I say: congratulations! To the King, I say: excellent, forward-thinking choice!

And to those who have formed communions within the Communion, or communions with church structures outside the Communion, I would say:

9/x

The fact that Iron Age Mediterranean civilization was patriarchal is not a tradition that continues to dictate modern practice; rather, it is a failure of reason to acknowledge all evidence- even the Biblical evidence- to the contrary.

8/x

We know now that, and for so many reasons why, women can be just as effective in leadership as men, if not better. There’s just no rational basis for us to believe that genitalia or gender expression should have anything to do with it.

7/x

The leg of the stool that falters here is not the C of E’s scriptural knowledge, nor is it the tradition of the “continuing” apostolic church. It’s conservative clergy’s resistance to basic acceptance of rationally proven facts.

6/x

She’s allowed to disagree with me, and I with her, on every single piece of minutiae.

That, to me, is Anglicanism.

But treating patriarchy as some sort of orthodoxy? That’s not doctrinal. That’s just stubborn refusal to accept modernity.

5/x

If I say to someone that I’m a memorialist (or more correctly, in my case, a transsignificationalist), no one will report me to clergy for excommunication. When I told my mom I was a universalist last month, she informed me she didn’t agree- but we didn’t argue; she listened and accepted.

4/x

Some within the Communion practice conservative theology. Some are more liberal. One of the things that drew me (back) to Anglicanism was that we choose to coexist with our siblings in Christ without having to live by micromanaged doctrine.

3/x

The Anglican Church has, for the better part of five centuries, existed and promulgated throughout the globe as the established Church of England and its erstwhile empire. Where that empire no longer exists, its vestiges in the Anglican Communion remained, continuing to spread the Gospel.

2/x

Scripture, Tradition, & Reason

These are the legs of the stool upon which rests the Anglican Church. It’s the third that seems to be lacking in corners of the Communion that are taking seriously some sort of existential “threat” of a female Archbishop of Canterbury.

(A thread; buckle up…)

1/x

Who in the ever-loving fuck is this moron? Do we not understand that there are things that WON’T GROW IN AMERICA?!?

The fuck he did, Katie.

But maybe if you say it several more times, maybe while pretending to be on the verge of tears, someone might actually believe you.

Democrats vote exactly the way everyone expected them to as a MAJORITY REPUBLICAN SENATE CAN’T GET THEIR SHIT TOGETHER TO PASS A CONTINUING RESOLUTION THEMSELVES there fixed it

It’s like Dems have stuff they believe the American people deserve from their government or something

More people should be talking about this.

We the people must never accept government threats to our freedom of speech. Efforts by leaders to pressure artists, journalists, and companies with retaliation for their speech strike at the heart of what it means to live in a free country. Last week, Jimmy Kimmel was taken off the air after the government threatened a private company with retaliation, marking a dark moment for freedom of speech in our nation. In an attempt to silence its critics, our government has resorted to threatening the livelihoods of journalists, talk show hosts, artists, creatives, and entertainers across the board. This runs counter to the values our nation was built upon, and our Constitution guarantees. We know this moment is bigger than us and our industry. Teachers, government employees, law firms, researchers, universities, students and so many more are also facing direct attacks on their freedom of expression. Regardless of our political affiliation, or whether we engage in politics or not, we all love our country. We also share the belief that our voices should never be silenced by those in power – because if it happens to one of us, it happens to all of us. This is the moment to defend free speech across our nation. We encourage all Americans to join us, along with the ACLU, in the fight to defend and preserve our constitutionally protected rights.

A graphic listing the names of the more than 400 signers of the ACLU's letter condemning the federal government's retaliation against Jimmy Kimmel. For the full list of signatories, visit aclu.org/kimmel-letter-bk

Jimmy Kimmel was taken off the air after our government threatened a private company with retaliation, marking a dark moment for free speech in our nation.

More than 400 artists across our nation signed on to say: We refuse to be silenced by those in power.

former CDC official Dr. Houry: "I first learned that the secretary had changed our CDC covid vaccine guidance on an X social media post. CDC scientists have still not seen the scientific data or justification for this change. That is not gold standard science."

East Tennessee priest falls into lake, is rescued by bishop after ‘canoe-charist’ goes awry [Episcopal News Service] Episcopal clergy pledge at their ordinations to pattern their lives after Christ’s example, but no one expects priests to walk on water. The Rev. Kat Chappell demonstrated …

David Paulsen, Episcopal News Service senior reporter and editor, did a "deep dive" into the canoe-charist capsizing. Queue "Eternal Father, Strong to Save". All puns are committed with full intention and in the spirit of Bishop Brian Cole's dad joke humor.

episcopalnewsservice.org/2025/09/10/e...

I legitimately don't understand how you can frame what he did -- putting individuals' names and faces on an anti-free speech "watchlist," sending busloads of MAGA folks to the Capitol on 1/6, joking about bailing out Paul Pelosi's attacker, sneering at immigrants and black women -- as "civility"

It's really amazing how much of the effort to retaliate is focused on people who're like, "Here are the things he said."

As if Charlie Kirk's legacy cannot stand real scrutiny.

At least the highlight video was better for Nico:

6 complete passes, 2 would-be sacks for short yards… but then an incompletion and an interception.

Their defense looked like middle schoolers against that RB, too.

So for people that are saying things about how “civil” right wingers are:

The Fox Friends are engaging in dialogue that is not rude or insulting to each other, but BriBri tosses off a comment about MURDERING ALL HOMELESS PEOPLE.

So does this count as “civil”?

(Oh: and when does he get fired?)

Here’s the clip in question

bsky.app/profile/cait...

How about a clip?

Dragging out Leviticus 18 EVERY TIME lgbtq rights come up and NEVER clarifying that he didn’t personally believe that…

…even referring to it as God’s PERFECT sexual law…

…and you don’t think that might come across to some people as advocation?

I have a hard time calling what he did “arguing with civility”:

Sure, he didn’t necessarily scream at and denigrate directly the person in front of him, but he sure did say a lot of vile things about other races, women, lgbtq+, etc. who weren’t there to counter him in the moment.

That’s “civil”?