You said he was an Anglican priest.
When it was pointed out that was untrue, you changed it to a "theologian".
When it was pointed out that they are quite different things you now say it is splitting hairs and he was "qualified".
Not sure you have have any idea what you're talking about.
That's what counts.
BTW a poster @RM has pointed out not only was he not an Anglican priest but an occultist.
What do you think of that ?
.
