Tish Harrison Warren Wants You to Be Quiet About CRT in the Church

In tweeting favorably about the Anglican Compass article by Esau McCaulley on the Critical Race Theory (CRT) controversy in the church, particularly in the Anglican Church in North America, ACNA’s Tish Harrison Warren writes (And to be fair and clear, I do not know if Dr. McCaulley would go quite as far as Warren does.):

Until the ACNA is actually meaningfully racially and ethnically diverse. Until our *leadership* reflects this diversity, bringing up CRT is a distraction and a tactic.  It is a way to reject any talk of systemic white supremacy b/c Marx. It is bad thinking. Falling into genetic fallacy. But it is useful as a way to avoid realities that are difficult or call us to hard things and vulnerability and repentance and a cross.

Leaving aside the issue of whether race or ethnicity should be much of a factor in choosing church leadership, it is a strange argument that if we are not properly “diverse”, then bringing up CRT is just “a distraction and a tactic.”  A tactic to distract from what?  We want open eyes about the direction church leaders are taking us.  Should we shut up until we are “diverse”?  Does “diversity” exclude those concerned about CRT?  It seems she is using “diversity” as a distraction and a tactic to put down and push aside valid concerns about CRT.

Her next put down of concern about CRT is downright comical. “It is a way to reject any talk of systemic white supremacy b/c Marx.”  She uses a term beloved of CRT types, “systemic white supremacy,” while saying we shouldn’t bring up CRT.  So she uses a CRT concept and practically in the same breath says we shouldn’t bring up CRT.  It’s like some guy saying you shouldn’t bring up racism when he uses the n-word all over the place.

But why are we really bringing up our concerns about CRT influence? “To avoid realities that are difficult.”  Oh really? So childish weakness motivates our concerns.  Got it.  

Instead, perhaps we are the ones not avoiding realities that are difficult.  Life would certainly be easier if we were not examining and warning about the influence of CRT in the church.  Personally, this is not what I signed up for when I joined ACNA with joy.  I thought I had let the usual LibChurch social justicisms far behind.  Apparently not.  But now that I’m in ACNA I will not “avoid realities that are difficult” by closing my eyes to CRT influence and other social justicisms in ACNA.

If I do eventually avoid that, it will be by leaving, which would have its own difficulties.

In the meantime, will I among others avoid “bringing up CRT” when we see its toxic influence in our church?  No.

Sorry, Tish Harrison Warren.

Silent Screams. Silent Responses.

With the end of the week upon us, I think it time to look at three responses – or lack thereof –  to the U. S. Senate failing to pass the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act thanks to all but two Democrats opposing it.  Remember that PCUCPA would have outlawed most abortions after 20 weeks.  And you have to be grossly ignorant or devoid of ethics to be okay with elective abortion after 20 weeks of gestation.   I choose the three responders, or non-responders, because they are of particular interest to ACNA Anglicans, as you shall see, and because these three claim to be for “social justice” and also pro-life.

The first is Tish Harrison Warren.  Her twitter response to President Trump speaking to the March for Life was that it was negative for the pro-life cause.  And she used the occasion to point people to Liberal/Left “pro-life” groups, including the AND Campaign.

The second is the AND Campaign.  As we have exposed, it is likely more a Democrat front group than it is pro-life.  The failure of PCUCPA gave it an opportunity to prove me somewhat wrong.  Did it?

The third is Archbishop Foley Beach’s Canon to the Ordinary in the ACNA Diocese of the South, Greg Goebel.  His twitter response to Trump’s appearance at the March for Life was . . . well, judge for yourself.

So how did these respond to the failure of PCUCPA on twitter?

Tish Warren should be cut some slack because she does not tweet frequently.  But she did tweet about the Democrat debate this week. Yet she has not mentioned the failure of PCUCPA.  So, to her, Trump speaking to the March for Life is a “set-back” worth noting, but Democrats defeating the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act apparently is not.

The oh-so “pro-life” AND Campaign?  Crickets.  

Greg Goebel? He is a very frequent tweeter.  And surely after using Trump’s appearance at the March for Life as an occasion to bash him, he would be even harder on those Democrat Senators who defeated protecting late term unborn children, so late they even experience pain.

And, let’s see, this week he tweeted about clergy self-care and losing weight, about Lent quite a lot – good, about making too much vegetable soup.  He tweeted a photo of pancakes and much, much more.  So surely he also tweeted his disgust with Democrats defeating a bill protecting the unborn after 20 weeks.

But no.  As of this writing, there is nothing this week on the failure of the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act on Goebel’s twitter feed.  Trump is the first President of the United States to personally appear at a March for Life, and Goebel’s response is ORANGE MAN BAD.  Democrats kill protections for late stage unborn, and . . . crickets.

I am no mind reader. Readers may draw their own conclusions about the priorities of these three.  But sometimes silence is louder than words.