The Fall of Michael Coren

Michael Coren is the first person to block me on Twitter.  I’ve been a harsh critic of his.  About four years ago, he endorsed homosexual “marriage” and started attending an Anglican Church since they take a more liberal approach to sodomy.  Of course, the Anglicans of old would consider this to be full blown apostasy but rationality seems to go out the window for enemies of Jesus Christ.

Before his defection to King Henry’s Church, he had written books about Catholicism.  In 2011, he published Why Catholics Are Right, in 2012 he published Heresy: Ten Lies They Spread About Christianity, and in 2013 he published The Future of Catholicism.  Only months after the last of these was published, did he start attending an Anglican Church.  It all started with his views on homosexuality.  Four years later, he’s become a full blown apostate and socialist.  Although he’s a Protestant, he’s a heretic by most Protestant standards.  The arguments he uses are so bad.  They can all be refuted by reading his old books.

Even after his collapse on homosexuality, he was still moderately conservative in other ways.  He remained pro-life throughout 2014 and even had Stephanie Gray come on his show to discuss life issues.  In 2015 he seemed to adopt the “safe, legal, and rare” position and it has only gotten worse since then.  He now accuses pro-life people of worshipping the “Fetus God”.

Here is what I think happened with him.  When he collapsed on homosexuality in late 2013 or early 2014 he remained strong on all other issues.  He thought that he could remain the top Christian conservative voice in the country.  He felt entitled to this position but people in that circle no longer wanted to associate with him due to his endorsement of sodomy.  He then went to the moderate Catholic and Protestant groups.  This included the moderate Catholic newspaper, The Prairie Messenger and the moderate Protestant television show, 100 Huntley Street.  By this time he had become increasingly more leftist and was let go by both of those organizations.  Around this time, it came out that he had left the Catholic Church for Anglicanism.  This only made things worse.

In November 2015, an article was published in the UC Observer talking about his conversion to Anglicanism. It can be found here:

http://www.ucobserver.org/faith/2015/11/michael_coren/

It talks about his conversion and mentions his aspirations to become an Anglican Clergyman. The article says:

The new Coren is even considering becoming an ordained Anglican priest. (He was accepted to seminary, but deferred for a year. His book Epiphany: A Christian’s Change of Heart and Mind Over Same-Sex Marriage is due to be published next spring.)

Judging by this statement, he had originally planned to attend seminary in September 2015. He most likely applied after he was “outed” a few months prior. This would mean that he had been an Anglican for less than two years when he applied for seminary and for most of that time, he was still lying to the public by masquerading as a Catholic.  In fact, in the following interview below, he was asked why he never made his conversion public.  He answered that he thought religion was a private matter.  That’s so ridiculous.  If Michael Coren made his career writing about gardening, his religion would be a private matter.  Since he talks and writes about religion all the time for his career, he has a moral duty to inform his readers of a conversion to a different faith.  Here is the interview:

In the November 2015 article that I posted it says:

Bell persisted, and Coren soon began confiding in her about his struggle, his hungering to refocus his Christianity around love.

Throughout 2016 and 2017, love is the last thing that he’s shown to the Conservative Christian world. In the last two years, he’s sunken even deeper into apostasy.  He was rejected by conservative Christians, then by moderate ones and now makes company with the enemies of the Christian faith.

Do I expect Coren to die an Anglican?  Probably not.  He was raised as a secular Jew, converted to Catholicism in the 80’s, left Catholicism for Evangelicalism in the 90’s for a few years before returning to Catholicism, then became Anglican in 2014.  He’s had quite a journey.  Certainly more of a journey than Rod Dreher.

I think now he feels it is his duty to preach against Traditional Christianity until the end of his days. I actually think that’s one of the reasons why he’s becoming a clergyman.  He wants to use his pulpit as a platform to attack the Conservative Christians who he thought betrayed him after he changed his views on homosexuality.  It’s not about “love” but about hatred and revenge.

I feel sorry for him deep down.  I can tell that he’s very confused.  He’s always welcome back in the Catholic Church if he repents of his heresies.  I don’t think it’s likely but God can do anything.

A recent Tweet from the man who wants to refocus his faith on “love”

Please note: I reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive or off-topic.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

5 thoughts on “The Fall of Michael Coren

  1. I am not all that familiar with Michael Coren, but I happened upon him on YouTube and was gladdened that a prominent media man was arguing in favour of Catholicism, but things appear to have changed since then.

    I wonder what makes Michael Coren tick. Is it a desire to be noticed? If he is inclined to keep changing his well-broadcast opinions he would be advised to shut up and lead a private life.

    It is frustrating when self-professed Christians argue for same-sex marriage. It is something particularly noticeable amongst Anglicans (though to be fair there are many of that denomination who hold traditional views.) I have never heard a satisfactory argument in favour of it, neither religious nor secular.

    I have never given a religious argument against same-sex marriage, nor do I wish to start. I would only be tempted to do so in the case of supposed, ardent Christians that think it should be allowed, but then it wouldn’t make any difference I suppose. There are perfectly sound and compelling (non-religious) reasons to assert that marriage is between a man and a woman; that should be no surprise given that this is God’s creation and the universe is ordered to His will.

    • Hi Patrick,

      You say that you’re not familiar with Coren? I’m going to assume you’re American. In Canada where I live, he’s a very big figure. Formerly on the religious right and not on the far left. He even writes for the Toronto Star now, which is probably the most leftist newspaper in the country.

      What makes him tick? I think at this point it is his desire to be noticed.

      “It is frustrating when self-professed Christians argue for same-sex marriage.”

      I have no respect for “Christians” who support homosexual “marriage”. I have more respect for a secularist who supports it since they haven’t agreed to the authority of Scripture and the Tradition of the Christian faith. However, I do agree with you that there are no good secular arguments for it either.

      “I have never heard a satisfactory argument in favour of it, neither religious nor secular.”

      Regarding religious arguments, unfortunately they’re getting more numerous. There is much revisionist material out there. I’ve read several of their works. They were in academia in the 1980’s and now they’ve trickled down to the popular level such as Michael Coren, Matthew Vines and Justin Lee. Let me say one thing: There are no good religious arguments for homosexual “marriage”. They’ve all been shredded but sadly, someone who is well read in these arguments can debate a Christian who doesn’t know this movement well and fool them.

      However, all of these people avoid the positive teaching on Marriage such as Matthew 19. They can’t get around it so they just act like it doesn’t exist.

  2. Well, brother Paul Williams kept some conservative values when he converted. Islam isn’t so bad, now, is it?

    I think I became a little more conservative after I switched my allegiance to the star and crescent. I know Surah 81:8-9 condemns infanticide in the strongest terms, especially since it is the word of Allah, SWT. However, I really don’t think it is worth my time involve myself in the culture wars. I am not that interested in opposing abortion or gay marriage marriage, but I am more interested in opposing the Israeli apartheid regime.

    I like voluntarism in metaethics more than natural law and tradition. I really do accept the Humean criticism that one cannot derive an “is from an ought” and that morality is primarily driven by sentiment. It is a duty for a Muslim to obey the commands of Allah, SWT, but such obedience is only possible if one has taqwa (fear of God). I truly admire the taqwa of some Muslims, and it evokes feelings of admiration more than dogmatic assertions of received orthodoxy and appeals to clerical authority.

    I wonder why don’t liberal Muslims attack the prohibition on alcohol and pork, but they are often indifferent to opposing gay marriage. If there something about the former that makes it easier for even liberals to adhere to?

    • Hi Latias,

      Nice to see you have a further interest in this page. I didn’t know that you were a convert to Islam. You said:

      “Well, brother Paul Williams kept some conservative values when he converted. Islam isn’t so bad, now, is it?”

      I’ll be brutally honest, I feel much closer to devout Muslims than to Western secularists. Most Muslims have a lot of good morals. Obviously we differ on some things. Also, I have more ground to discuss ethics with them since they believe in theism.

      “However, I really don’t think it is worth my time involve myself in the culture wars. I am not that interested in opposing abortion or gay marriage marriage, but I am more interested in opposing the Israeli apartheid regime.”

      Are they mutually exclusive? All three of these are from the Devil. Dr. E. Michael Jones who is the editor of Culture Wars magazine wrote an 1,100 page book which was a critique of Judaism which involves harsh criticism of Israel. There is much discussion of the injustice of the Israeli apartheid regime and condemnation of abortion and homosexual “marriage”. One can easily fight all three of these.

      “I wonder why don’t liberal Muslims attack the prohibition on alcohol and pork, but they are often indifferent to opposing gay marriage. If there something about the former that makes it easier for even liberals to adhere to?”

      Let me take a stab at this. It’s probably because they take a John Stuart Mill approach to morality and sin. In other words, it’s only a sin if it affects someone else. The liberal Muslim will eat port and drink alcohol but have the attitude that religious Muslims can adhere to those rules if they desire. As for homosexual “marriage” it might be touchy for them since they may feel they’re violating the rights of someone else.