Virtue Online launches personal attack with “Talley Cross: Raving Feminist”

The ad hominem continues in the article, where Linsley dismissively calls me an “angry woman,” an anti-feminist trope “designed to de-legitimize the feminist argument before it even begins.” Linsley then misrepresents my blog post, Male Supremacy: Examining a Distortion in the Anglican Church, claiming that I “liken….[the all-male priesthood] to slavery.”Talley Cross

But I never do that. What I ask in that post is: how can Anglicans speak authoritatively on issues of gender and sexuality if we are simultaneously distorting scripture to sanctify female submission, in a similar way that scripture was distorted to sanctify slavery? This question in no way implies that an all-male priesthood is the equivalent of slavery. Rather, it highlights the similar ways that whites and advocates of gender role theology have distorted Scripture to justify authority over others based on race and sex.

After misrepresenting my argument (and not actually addressing it), Linsley then claims that my language of “male supremacy” obfuscates the ways that women have historically been honored in the church. Linsley seems to assume that simply by condemning male supremacy in the Anglican Church, I’m diminishing the many ways that women have been elevated in the church. But she’s setting up a false dichotomy fallacy.

Imagine telling a black person back in Jim Crow days: “Stop complaining that you have a ‘right’ to sit in this whites-only restaurant; by doing so, you’re obscuring the ways in which our country has honored blacks.”

Linsley then returns to the ad hominem gutter with mocking, pejorative language:

“…feminists are willfully perpetuating a lie. Or perhaps they really are that ignorant?”

“Talley trots out [my link and italics] the claim of patriarchy….”

Linsley implies (disparagingly) that I shouldn’t use the word “patriarchy” outside of its ancient Greco-Roman context to describe unequal male/female roles in the church. Does it then follow that we should not use the word “racism” – reportedly first coined by European fascists in the 1900s – to describe discrimination against blacks in America in 2023? In fact, the term “patriarchy” has long been used to describe a community in which men yield a disproportionate share of power. This proper usage is notated in Webster’s dictionary. There is more than one correct sense in which to use the term.

Separately, Linsley mischaracterizes William Witt’s Icons of Christ: A Biblical and Systematic Theology for Women’s Ordination. She says that Witt reduces priests to a ministerial role. In fact, Witt actually warns against that, describing the priest’s sacred role of representing both the Church to God and God to the Church. This stance hardly reduces the priest’s role to mere ministerial duties!

Linsley says I have not “investigated the historical and cultural realities of our received tradition of the all-male priesthood,” but Linsley herself does not reflect on the far broader historical and cultural realities of the Fall: the ways in which male supremacy, a result of sin (Gen 3:14-16), have inevitably influenced institutions (such as the all-male priesthood) throughout history.

I’m not suggesting that women weren’t ever honored in Christian/Jewish tradition; far from it. But just because a tradition has been received does not mean it shouldn’t be reformed – especially when it reflects and perpetuates fallen humanity. Moreover, Linsley’s example of how men and women shared equally dignifying roles in Jewish tradition actually undermines the very point she’s trying to make. Delivering babies, a task performed by women, is not, as she suggests, the equivalent of sacrificing rams at the alter, a role reserved for men. After all, the most likely reason for the exclusion of men/women from these respective roles is women’s ritual impurity. That’s not very dignifying, to say the least!

Linsley ends her article by describing her time as a female priest and how uncomfortable she felt in the role. I can truly believe God was calling her away from ordained ministry – but not on account of her female-ness, any more than black priests might be called away from ordained ministry on account of their black-ness. Virtue Online

Most of Linsley’s article is focused on refuting an argument I never made and premises I never implied, yet the title of her article is MY NAME and “RAVING FEMINIST.” When Linsley does attempt to address my argument (and that of fellow Anglican Dr. Witt), she misrepresents it. The article is punctuated throughout with condescension and contempt, reflecting the character of Christ’s persecutors rather than of Christ. Talley Cross

If you’re a public figure, a known personality in the church, you may – as a large target – expect to receive some vitriol for your stance on controversial issues, and you may choose to write that off accordingly. But I’m a small blogger in a sea of 600 million. And regardless of my stature, why ever use demeaning, belittling words?

When we feel passionately about an issue, it can be tempting to lash out in frustration, to ignore what the other is actually saying, but self-control is a fruit of the Holy Spirit (Gal. 5:22-23) that we must strive to cultivate, especially with our Christian brothers and sisters.

Even in my sharp rebuke of Julian Dobbs – an Anglican bishop with a Wikipedia page! – I was careful to note that I have no reason to think he is not otherwise an honorable man. I denounce him in his office for leading the church astray on gender roles, but I do not use belittling language to do so.

Sadly, some of my detractors are unable to do the same. Talley Cross

Why Virtue Online and Linsley felt the need to go ad hominem, against someone as relatively insignificant as I, while misstating and failing to address my argument, is perplexing. It raises serious questions about their self-awareness and self-discipline in respect to their conduct online.