These recent comments have compelled me to speak. Had left-wing bloggers attributed the views expressed in those statements to the right before I saw those statements, I would have thought it impossible, mere inflammatory hyperbole. Make no mistake about it, the spirit behind those comments is in my opinion clearly demonic, a spirit of hate worthy only of the father of lies.
No context could render comments suggesting murder humorous, playful, or worthy of anyone claiming to follow Christ and to show his path to fellow wayfarers.
The author seems to presume to judge—on behalf of God?—that: the Presiding Bishop, despite her Being in the image of God, is worth less than the chunk of matter needed to assassinate her.
What a failure of moral vision, to be unable to discern that her human life has an inherent dignity and value bestowed by God—who took on such flesh as our presiding Bishop’s to dwell among us.
Joining these blasphemous statements with the many disparaging remarks about women, one has strong grounds to suspect the authors view the mere fact of being a woman to be a sign of being inferior. This smacks dangerously of the Gnostic heresy rendering one part of creation good and the other evil, and the rightly uncanonical Gospel of Thomas, which similarly implied women were inferior—in the “gospel’s” case such that women would have to be made into men in order to be saved. Thanks be to God such ignorance ran aground on the shoals of the Blessed Mother and venerable Christian devotion to her witness.
Surely any Christian claiming orthodoxy cannot share with these men the vicious insinuation that women are an inherently defective creation. Such a view both disparages God as Creator and insults the Godhead, inasmuch as God transcends male/female and yet is their source eminently including them in his nature. If being female implies a defect in nature, God in nature would be defective—absurd. One would have hoped at least that among those clinging to the notion of male/female complimentarity, an intellectual sensitivity to such blasphemy would have prevailed—or perhaps the blasphemy against God’s nature gives the lie to purported devotion to complementarity.
The feeling women are an inferior creation is indeed a sentiment worthy of docetists, who so disparaged humanity in general that they could not admit Jesus Christ was fully human—and was really born of anything like a woman’s body. One wonders if the authors share the sentiment that being carried in a woman’s body brings some taint.
In their call for a return to a church where “men could be men” one hears echoes of the Gnostics, the Gospel of Thomas, and the docetists all wrapped in one, a vision where Christ never bore truly human flesh or was born of a defective vessel, where power in the form of a bullet silences all who resist the flexing of male power, and heaven will be populated by men alone. And we will know that they are real Christian men by their hate.