And so, whatever Biological Anthropology is, we had expected Dr Sture to be trained in logic. However, rather than addressing the substantive points raised by Rev Murphy, Dr Sture resorts to ad hominem attacks, hasty generalizations, and emotional appeals. But worst of all, the critique was a sad demonstration of how effeminate the church has become, wherein the use of strong language to defend God's honor is considered out of bounds, and brings into question the motivation of a critique from someone so far-removed from England and the personalities involved.

The Issue of Tone and Contemporary Sensibilities

The all-too-common contemporary critique of tone in church discourse often reflects a broader trend of increasing effeminacy within the church. Many modern congregations seem to prioritize accommodating the sentiments and feelings of women over the assertiveness and strength traditionally associated with male leadership. This shift has led to an environment where softer tones and gentle language are often exalted at the expense of robust theological engagement--and to the exodus of men from the church. In doing so, we risk diluting the profound truths of Scripture, as seen in Proverbs 27:6: "Faithful are the wounds of a friend; profuse are the kisses of an enemy." Just as a friend may wound us with honesty, we must recognize that sometimes strong and direct language is essential to convey truth effectively. Rev Murphy's commitment to biblical truth, even when it may offend, aligns with the faithful witnesses who stood firm in their convictions.

A String of Fallacies

The article starts with an ad hominem attack on Rev Murphy's communication style, suggesting that he cannot speak as a priest in a "blunt Aussie discourse." This line of reasoning distracts from the core issue: the content of Rev Murphy's message. In doing so, the author fails to engage with Rev Murphy's arguments regarding important theological positions. Strong language is often a tool used in Scripture to convey the seriousness of one's beliefs, as seen in the actions of Jesus when he confronted the money changers in the temple: "And making a whip of cords, he drove them all out of the temple" (John 2:15). If Jesus, the embodiment of love, can use such forceful actions to defend God's honor, so too can believers today express their convictions passionately.

The critique also strawman's Rev Murphy's statements, portraying them as merely insulting without acknowledging the theological basis behind them. For example, the assertion that "women's ordination and feminism are inspired by a spirit of witchcraft" may be viewed as harsh, but it reflects a valid ontological viewpoint in which valid priests dispense grace from God, whereas witches dispense curses from demons; these are true spiritual realities. The Apostle Paul, addressing serious issues in the early Church, often used strong language. In Galatians 5:12, he expresses a wish that those promoting false teachings would "emasculate themselves," demonstrating that strong rhetoric has a place in defending the truth. Was St Paul indulging himself in engaging in insulting rhetoric?

The author also makes hasty generalizations about Rev Murphy's character based solely on his departure from two churches. Such hasty generalizations overlook the complexities of church dynamics and the challenges faced by clergy. The character of a minister cannot be accurately assessed from a few incidents alone--particularly when bad-faith actors like the CofE are known for manufacturing or exaggerating incidents as justifications to rid themselves of orthodox priests. Consider the example of Elijah, who felt isolated and alone after confronting the prophets of Baal, even to the point of despair (1 Kings 19:10). His strong defense of God's honor through insult and challenge was necessary, despite his personal struggles.

Dr Sture's critique goes on to present a false dilemma by asserting that Rev Murphy's bluntness and adherence to biblical principles lead to a lack of love and humility. However, it's crucial to recognize that the scriptures demonstrate a balance of truth and love. St. Paul writes in Ephesians 4:15, "Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ." Strong language can be used to express love for God's truth, as demonstrated in Jude 1:23, where believers are urged to "save others by snatching them out of the fire." This imagery highlights the necessity of urgency in defending the faith.

Finally, the critique fails to acknowledge the ample biblical precedent for defending God's honor with insults. Throughout the Old Testament, figures like Nehemiah boldly confronted sin among the Israelites, calling for repentance in harsh terms: "I confronted them and cursed them and beat some of them and pulled out their hair" (Nehemiah 13:25). This act was not merely an expression of anger but a passionate defense of God's covenant and honor. Such scriptural accounts illustrate that there is a place for strong rhetoric when it comes to upholding the truth of God's Word.

The reality of the situation is that Rev. Murphy is far from a keyboard warrior indulging in toxic rhetoric behind the safety of a screen, as Dr Sture appears to believe. He faced the real consequences of losing his parish, losing his home, and possibly uprooting his heavily pregnant wife and family. What would he have to gain from such dire consequences? Rather, we believe it is more likely that Dr Sture is the keyboard warrior--someone making unsolicited remarks in a context she knows little about--remarks which are likely to be popular and risk nothing for her. In the sardonic words of the great John MacArthur, "Go Home."

END