His article begins by saying that both men seem to have accepted the fact that the Anglican Communion is going to split and that there isn't a whole lot either of them can do about it.

But then he goes on to say that "the problem we Anglicans are facing is being caused by the bishops - our own as well as those elsewhere."

On that point it is hard to argue with Fr. Jones. But lest one blame the bishops entirely for the problem, it should be noted that they did take vows to uphold the doctrine and discipline of the church and so the onus for the church's direction and theological stability rests on them. It was, after all, a layman in the person of Dr. Louie Crew who got the ball rolling on legitimizing sodomy more than 30 years ago, and the end result, after a brilliant tactical career in maneuvering his behavior out of the sewer and into the pulpit and seminaries, has been to see his homoerotic dreams come true in the elevation of Robinson to the episcopacy. It is virtually impossible for a bishop to discipline a layman, they have very little leverage. So don't blame the bishops entirely for the mess we are in.

Dr. Crew had been pushing his agenda to change the church's teaching on sexuality long before Bishop Duncan picked up a purple shirt.

Jones continues: "I am also aware that the House of Bishops seems paralyzed and dysfunctional and unwilling to ask for the help it seems to need".

Of this statement there is absolutely no doubt, but it begs the question as to whom one should ask for help. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Robin Eames, Peter Akinola - an Affirming Catholic, a Liberal, an Evangelical? Clearly the Pluriform One - Frank Griswold has failed miserably in holding the HOB together, he has betrayed his hand, and the mythical "diverse center" only exists because they either don't want to know what is going on, or prefer to stick their heads in the sand and wish the church would just get along without all the fuss. That wish is dying fast as orthodox churches continue to break away from revisionist bishops and the ECUSA and the Internet exposes their venality.

Jones then says that while the orthodox bishops feel marginalized they violate their ordination vows by boycotting HOB meetings, but then he scores Robinson and his agenda which, he says, "is all about gay and lesbian issues....and not much else."

The New Hampshire rector either misses the point or doesn't get it. The HOB has two sets of bishops who have very different understandings of the 'faith once delivered to the saints'. One group actually believes that the church is about the faith, sound doctrine, biblical teaching on sexual morality while the other group believes in diversity, inclusivity, pluriformity, multiple understandings of human sexual behavior, and no longer has confidence in Holy Scripture as God's Word written and is true on all matters of faith and practice.

So the orthodox believe that it is the other group who have violated their ordination vows and therefore having Eucharistic fellowship with such apostate bishops might indeed be blasphemous, perhaps even impair their souls, a possibility that has apparently not occurred to Mr. Jones.

Jones then writes, "both of these bishops love Jesus, both believe the creeds, both have experienced the transformational power of the Holy Spirit in their lives, both owe everything they have to God."

Really. Now Jesus made it clear that to love Him meant keeping his commandments, so one is hard pressed to know how a man who was married to a woman with whom he had two children, then divorces her after announcing he was really a homosexual, then takes up with a man and lives with him in sexual sin is "loving Jesus." Where is the "transformational power of the Holy Spirit" in the life of Bishop Robinson with that historical scenario?

Fornicating teenagers have a better shot at entering the Kingdom through repentance and amendment of life than Robinson who DEMANDS that his lifestyle be accepted when Holy Scripture and 2,000 years of church teaching say the exact opposite.

Jones argues, with some persuasiveness, "Is it not time some leaders put a stop to the venerable but suicidal tradition of Mother Church to condone split after split after split, whenever we disagree about things, and to pretend that slicing up the body of Christ doesn't really matter?" He has a point, the splits among Anglo Catholics in the US now number about 40, but most of these have less to do with doctrine than with personalities and the fever by certain men craving purple power.

Jones then calls up as an example President Jimmy Carter, an orthodox Christian who said that within the body of Christ "no differences are important enough to prevent reconciliation." One should remind Jones that President Carter left the Southern Baptist Convention and went over to the liberal Baptist Cooperative Fellowship after falling out over the SBC's rejection of women's ordination and other matters. Carter might not be the best example under the circumstances to support his argument.

Jones then calls on the Apostle Paul to strengthen his case that the two men's differences are not worthy of the salvation he proclaims, but then blames both Robinson and Duncan for "damming up or fragmenting the great stream of evangelism for Jesus Christ."

That's nonsense. It is Robinson who has dammed up evangelism by invoking the new fangled Episcopal doctrine of inclusion, it is Duncan who has repeatedly called for transformation and renewal as the way forward, based, as he says on repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. As far as the apostle Paul and the House of Bishops is concerned, Frank Griswold's ears would tingle and his body shake, along with 80 percent of his fellow bishops at the wrath the Great Apostle would pour out on this apostate and heretical body. It would be a reporter's heaven.

Jones then offers his solution to both men: Reconciliation. He writes: "Both of them should spend the rest of their episcopates primarily to the ministry of reconciliation no matter what the cost." Jones says that for both men to say that their positions are irreconcilable is "rank heresy" and say their failure to do so makes us the "laughingstock in most places."

Jones' failure to understand the depth of differences between the two men is theologically appalling. Apart from Robinson's public utterances that includes such morsels as the church will split, it's inevitable, that "Pope Ratzinger is the best thing to happen to the Episcopal Church", and that sooner or later, if not in his life time, lesbitransgays will be fully absorbed, lifestyle and all, into the bosom of The Episcopal Church, flies in the face of the very "reconciliation" he calls for.

Jones would like the two men to find a "safe place" where they can meet face to face and talk and pray together.

That is not going to happen. The pathology of homosexual behavior demands acceptance, it will brook no other conclusion. Duncan would have to conclude that he was wrong, that biblical teaching is flawed, that Jesus' affirmation of heterosexual marriage and the Torah are wrong about sexual behavior outside of marriage, and every evangelist from St. Paul to Billy Graham had no business condemning fornication, adultery and homosexuality would need themselves to repent of their preachments. That too, is not going to happen.

The law of non-contradiction means that one or the other bishops would have to concede they were wrong and that is NOT going to happen. Never in a thousand years or 2,000 years is that going to change.

Jones' second proposal is that they should issue a joint proposal calling on all faithful Anglican/Episcopal Christians to commit themselves to find a "better and more radical way...to bear witness to the reconciling and disciplined calling of Christian discipleship."

Fine words, but pure fantasy. How can one possibly find a "radical way" if the two men can never agree on what is appropriate sexual behavior? Can you imagine Duncan saying to Robinson, "I agree with you Gene, when the Apostle Paul said that 'neither fornicators, adulterers or homosexuals will enter the kingdom' (I Cor. 6) he could never have envisaged a more enlightened 21st Century approach to homosexual commitment. That is not going to happen.

Or take Robinson's latest blast out of Stockholm where he ripped the Vatican document barring practicing gay men from becoming Roman Catholic priests. He said it showed a profound misunderstanding of homosexuality and said the Vatican, or whoever wrote this statement, should spend a little more time listening to its gay and lesbian members rather than putting out statements. "This strikes me as language from people who profoundly do not understand gay and lesbian people ... who know next to nothing about being gay or lesbian," said Robinson.

The truth is The Episcopal Church has been listening to the whine of gays and lesbians for nearly 40 years; it has been the lifetime preoccupation of Dr. Louie Crew. Robinson is the fruit of Crew's labors.

Finally Jones says the two men should travel around dioceses listening (there's that word again) and heal the wounds of "marginalization, exclusion and judgment". This begs the question as to who has been doing all the marginalizing. It has been the juggernaut of revisionist hegemony that at one General Convention after another gay and pro gay activists have pushed unbiblical resolutions that have swiftly moved from something done illegally, to becoming permissive, but at the end, mandatory. It is the orthodox Forward in Faith folk and later Evangelicals, who have been driven to the margins and who, if Via Media get their way, will blow them right out of the church.

One of the worst examples that this reporter personally witnessed, occurred in the Diocese of Central Pennsylvania when Bishop Michael Creighton blasted an Anglo-Catholic parish for wanting to affiliate with the traditionalist organization, Forward in Faith and then refused them that right. His actions forced them all out the Episcopal Church!

Jones says the Church needs Robinson and Duncan "to lead us together," and concludes by saying he has no intention of choosing between them.

He may not, but hundreds of parishes around the country are doing precisely that, and almost every day more than 100 people leave, because they believe in moral absolutes and they fear their children's behavior and moral character would be twisted and violated by the acceptance of Robinson's worldview.

No, Duncan and Robinson's views of truth are irreconcilable; they can never be harmonized based on vague, undefined notions of reconciliation. Robinson has made it abundantly clear that the homosexual train is unstoppable, and Duncan has made it equally clear that he will not compromise or forsake biblical truth.

A church divided itself will fall.

END