I received this report today of a short exchange between Fr. Robert Hart and an unnamed member of the G3 Facebook discussion page:
Hart: "It was brought to my attention that I was recently slandered in the Continuing Anglican blogosphere (I hope the pseudonym “Embryo Parson” does not belong to someone in one of our jurisdictions). Anyway, I take the occasion to say, “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor” is still one of the Top Ten for a very good reason. Saint Paul was not ignorant of Satan’s devices. Neither should we be. It is ignorance we cannot afford as we go forward in unity." ("Libel", Fr., "libel". Not "slander". Get it straight.)
Respondent: "I'm not sure what was in the post he deleted, but calling a particular purely political point of view "unchristian" speaks more about him than you. I mean, he also has a series calling David Virtue an ally of a demonic plot.
He's OAC. Probably best to just ignore him."
Our respondent is of course referring to this, linked here for reference. Yes, I called out Mr. Virtue for his irrational rants on the subject of gun control and for his inability to discuss things in a reasonable Christian manner, a gift he shares with Fr. Hart, peppering said rants with references to "AHOLE America" and suchlike. But our respondent couldn't have missed the mark more spectacularly when he says that calling a particular purely political point of view "unchristian" speaks more about me than Fr. Hart. Hart didn't simply present "a particular purely political point of view". He presented it by vulgarly demonizing the targets of his ire, as the screenshots I posted from his Facebook clearly show, eg., "Trumpublican pieces of $#!+". And that's what's unchristian.
I hope our respondent, if he reads this, musters the stones to talk with me about it, whether privately or here in the comments section.
But I won't hold my breath. He'd spare himself some monumental embarrassment if he just ignored me, and therefore that's exactly what I expect him to do.