On hearing the news that he had won the top spot to be the next Bishop of California, Bishop Mark Andrus cried with a loud voice: "My commitment to Jesus Christ's own mission of inclusion is resolute." He was speaking for tens of thousands of Episcopalians who have bought into this simplistic, faith undermining, notion.

The latest salvo from the PEPboys (Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh), whose dinette theology has repeatedly decried the actions of Bishop Duncan, characterized the resolutions passed by the Standing Committee of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh on June 28 and the standing committees of five other dioceses as a "divisive media event." By implication, Duncan and the rest of the Network bishops lacked inclusion.

But the question must be asked, just how inclusive are the inclusionists?

It is absolutely stoked with irony that the president and Dean of Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry, The Rev. Dr. Paul Zahl, (whose seminary happens to reside in the Diocese of Pittsburgh) repeatedly blasts so called "inclusive" bishops who won't allow his graduates to take parishes in their dioceses!

In the Diocese of Pennsylvania, Bishop Charles E. Bennison absolutely refuses to allow TESM graduates to take parishes, and in fact went one step further recently by demanding one parish search committee consider hiring an openly gay priest to replace a retiring parish priest! Inclusion clearly goes one way!

And how many hundreds of traditionalist ordinands have been denied acceptance to the priesthood because they have insisted on doing their theological training at the two remaining orthodox seminaries, TESM or Nashotah House?

And what about the innovations that so-called "progressive" bishops have forced on traditionalists like the issue of women's ordination, violating their consciences and much more.

I know of a young Evangelical priest in an Eastern seaboard "progressive" diocese that was hounded out of his parish because he was seen as too conservative. He was labeled a "fundamentalist", so the vestry cut his salary in half and because he could not support his young family was forced to leave and find another parish. Whatever happened to the fabled doctrine of inclusion for him?

Or take another Anglo-Catholic priest I know who was brought into a parish thinking it was a traditionalist parish only to learn, once he got there, that only the old folk were traditionalists, the younger people were modern and "inclusive" and wanted no part of the 1928 Prayer Book, or the gospel the priest was proclaiming. The priest has been virtually forced to resign and go off with his young family, to another country no less, to find a parish sympathetic to orthodoxy.

One could fill this article with endless stories of orthodox clergy beaten down and run out of town by so-called "inclusive" bishops. The Diocese of Long Island was filled at one point in time with dozens of Anglo-Catholic priests, who are no more, because Bishop Orris Walker hates them with a pathological hatred (that only the Last Judgment will sort out) and railroaded them out of town, but not before making their lives a living hell. A Roman Catholic priest I know in the diocese has documented Walker's hatred of Anglo-Catholics and could write a book about it.

Or take what the Bishop of Central Pennsylvania, Michael Creighton did to an Anglo-Catholic parish who simply wanted to be left alone to worship God in their traditional way and be a Forward in Faith parish. Not on your life. The bishop came to a parish meeting and made their lives so unbearable they left the parish property and The Episcopal Church. He further intimidated the parish by bringing a bus load of liberal parish priests with him. That's inclusion?

For over 40 years we have watched as traditionalists have been denied acceptance to seminaries and to holy orders because they did not toe the "progressive" line and they have been made to feel unwelcome, isolated and alienated out of their parishes by the so called "tolerance" of the "progressives".

And the liberals have used the media for their own political ends making orthodox priests look like fundamentalists and worse, when all the orthodox ever wanted to do was behave like classical Anglicans, a tradition that goes back to Thomas Cranmer.

The truth is, it is the revisionists and so-called "progressives" that have created the problem, not the orthodox, and they have repeatedly raised the bar of "inclusion" to the point that not only are the orthodox not welcome, they can go and take their bibles and '28 Prayer Books with them. They are being hounded into oblivion even as the revisionist bishops keep telling the world that all is well and please don't throw us out of the Anglican communion, even though we will do as we please.

Jesus was right: "You brood of vipers, (Pharisees) how can you, being evil, speak what is good? For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart." Mt. 12:34

The revisionist bishop of Central New York inhibits a godly priest because the priest blows the whistle on a former pedophile priest of his parish. The young priest is subject to harassment, his financial records subpoenaed, and he is removed from his parish. Now he watches as his parish withers and slowly dies as people leave, and he is powerless to stop it. No inclusion for Fr. David Bollinger. The constant pressure recently caused him to have a heart attack. He must go.

The revisionist bishop of Connecticut conducts a lightning raid on an evangelical parish on trumped up charges that the man was taking an unlawful sabbatical, grabs his personal computer, locks the doors, hires guards to watch the church, and forces a woman priest on the parish against the will of the vestry. Other orthodox parishes wait anxiously to see when the next shoe will drop. No inclusion for Fr. Mark Hansen.

And what of the oh so inclusive Bishop of Florida, John Howard. That revisionist bishop refuses to allow a group of godly priests to leave his diocese with their properties, because, for him, properties are more important than the gospel, and he believes he has the power, given him by the laying on of hands, to keep what is not his and never was his. So much for the fabled doctrine of inclusion.

The revisionist bishop of Los Angeles, J. Jon Bruno trumpets nice words of inclusion and love, but when three parishes announce they are leaving for an orthodox jurisdiction he repeatedly litigates against them for their properties even though the courts have made it abundantly clear that he has no right to them. And when the bishop believed that funds for litigating were going to dry up from the national church, he manipulated the election of Katherine Jefferts Schori to be the next PB...not Frank Griswold's first choice.

Earlier this year the Archbishop of Canterbury received a petition signed by 8,500 individuals from the new Inclusivechurch network of Anglicans demanding full inclusion of people who believe they can break the moral law with impunity. The vast majority of Inclusivechurch's signatories belonged to the Church of England but there were individual Anglicans who signed the petition, notably from places like Pittsburgh in the US.

The Archbishop of Canterbury should not be hoodwinked by this or the desperate ramblings of Guardian religion writer Stephen Bates, their pro-gay media supporter.

But now the divisions the liberals/revisionists have made have come home to haunt them; the boot is solidly and irreversibly on the other foot.

Dr. Williams said The Episcopal Church has not complied with the Windsor Report, it has made no effort to even vaguely repent of its actions for ordaining a non-celibate gay to the episcopacy and passed B033 a veneer resolution of empty rhetoric, and for their sins the TEC has been accorded second class status. So be it.

If Archbishop Akinola and the rest of the African bishops, along with the two strongest voices of Australian Anglicanism, (Archbishop Peter Jensen and Dean Phillip Jensen) have their way, The Episcopal Church will be toast and out of the Anglican Communion forever, excluded by their own unrepentant theology.

The Episcopal Church's pansexualists and revisionists can shout and scream all they want about inclusion, but they created the problems and their heterodoxy has come back to haunt them.

The "doctrine" of Inclusion is a fiction; it always has been and always will be. It suited only the revisionists, and now they are paying the ultimate price - exclusion from the worldwide Anglican Communion.

END