Reconciliation, Charleston warned, is not the same as resolution. The Gospel "accepts the reality of change, conflict and challenge as being ongoing in the life of any faith community," he wrote in the introduction to the workbook.

Bishop Charleston has it half right, and the half he has wrong destroys his thesis.

The gospel is not primarily about horizontal relationships one with another, it is about a vertical relationship with the living God that has as its primary base, a personal encounter or faith-based relationship with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by his death and resurrection.

Before you can have reconciliation with each other and build a community of faith one must first be reconciled to God through the cross. But Charleston does not share that view or tell us that, because his real motive is to try and reconcile impossible, contradictory positions.

Reconciliation "requires us to hold some things in tension when we'd be more comfortable not doing that," Charleston said.

Charleston argues that the Gospel's call to reconciliation is especially needed in an ever-more polarized world in which society's fractures and fissures run along religious lines. "We are divided in fear from one another," Charleston said

But that is not true, we are not divided "in fear from one another;" we are divided over doctrine and the content of the Faith, and because we are divided over truth, the orthodox have been living in fear for their spiritual lives and the demonization they are suffering because they refuse to cave into revisionist bishops who are out to get them.

Unraveling Charleston's code is important here. Charleston thinks that Episcopalians can accept contrary views on sexual behavior, and so "reconciliation", for him, means we can all just get along if we try hard enough and lift the law of non-contradiction so we don't ruffle each others feathers. That is not going to happen because it is logically impossible.

Charleston's Reconciliation perspectives, workbook calls for Anglicans to create 'fear-free zone in a broken world'. "[And] it's not just between Christian and Muslim. If we were to take Muslims out of the equation, I could still give the same talk," he said.

He spoke of the divisions within Christianity that go beyond denominational differences. He drew a contrast between at least two interpretations of the Gospel's call. On the one hand, there are people who would take the Gospel to those who have not heard it and would use the Gospel as the basis for working for social justice. These people envision the Gospel as being interpreted and live out differently in different contexts, he said. Others would use the Gospel as a litmus test of personal salvation and as the basis of creating a monolithic society in which everyone must believe the same thing in the same way.

This paragraph is a study in theobabble. To say that "personal salvation" creates a "monolithic society" is sheer nonsense. It creates a freer and open society. It frees people to be themselves and allows for better economic opportunities, stronger families and much more. Charleston should visit Southeast Asia and see what "personal salvation" as he puts it, has done and is doing. It is freeing people from animism, nothingness, emptiness, futility, despair and occasionally from the clutches of Islam.

Take a look at China. Communism tried to build a "monolithic society" and it is falling apart. Today there are one hundred million evangelical Christians verses 70 million card carrying communists in that land. Christianity is slowly, without bloodshed, destroying the "monolithic" wall of a defunct economic and sociological system.

"Christians have always argued with each, Charleston said. It began the day the disciples were arguing about who among them the greatest was. Jesus knew that we mortals would always argue with each other and struggle with his message, Charleston said. Because of these traits, Jesus gave the world two agents of reconciliation: the Holy Spirit and the Eucharist."

This is bad exegesis. The two disciples were looking for status, their hubris and pride got in the way and Jesus brought them up short. They were not arguing over the content of the faith or their encounter with Christ as Messiah and Lord. The Holy Spirit was given to them to confirm the faith they believed in and the Eucharist was to remind them of who they belonged too and too commemorate Jesus' death and resurrection.

Charleston said the Eucharist was Jesus' way of showing us how to live in community with each other.

Not true. The Eucharist is not a political tool or hatchet used to bring together opposing sides and various points of view. It is not a divine leveler. The Apostle Paul said that we should "examine ourselves" to see if we are fit each time we take the bread and wine into our bodies. In short confess sin, clean up your act before you participate in the sacramental moment.

Jesus brought together Roman centurions, Jews, Samaritans, tax collectors and women. He made them eat together. Jesus kept teaching them that "you cannot escape the circle of love...you cannot judge others out the door," he said.

This too is nonsense. The Eucharist was given to BELIEVERS to remind them of their Lord's death and resurrection and that they participate in that mystery each time they take bread and wine into their bodies.

In the Episcopal Church "baptism" and "Eucharist" are being used as political tools if not political weapons by revisionist priests and bishops to bash dissent among the orthodox. Whenever he finds himself under fire Frank Griswold always invokes "baptism" as the litmus test of orthodoxy not the gospel, his basic theory is that once baptized you can pretty well act out as you please, there are and should be no restrictions on moral (read lesbitransgay) behavior.

Charleston too, falls into the same solipsist fallacy. I and what I believe becomes the center and focus of truth and one is not permitted to challenge the individual priest or bishop because then one is shown to be intolerant. If you are a true pluriformist you will live and let live. Pluralism denies particularism hence it is a no-win situation for orthodox believers.

Jesus ate with publicans and sinners not because he wanted to unite them all around food, but rather to proclaim the Good News of the kingdom and in doing so Jews, tax collectors, centurions, would all have to change, with Jesus himself as the agent of that change. Charleston ignores the fact that many would not walk with Jesus after they had heard the message and at the end only 11 who stood with him...barely.

"The way reconciliation occurs is when we stop demonizing each other," he said. "And it's hard to demonize each other on a full stomach, especially if you are sitting next to them."

This is not about demonization - that is a buzz word that is now being used to beat orthodox folk over the head with. The arguments are about truth telling; they are about faith and doctrine and morals, and those issues are not up for grabs, and the Global South primates keep shouting that out more loudly with each passing day and people like Charleston are not listening. The 'faith once delivered to the saints' is not open to manipulate or bend at will. One submits or one denies. Bishop Charleston doesn't get it.

Charleston argues that Anglicanism's historic claim of the via media, the middle way, uniquely positions the Anglican Communion to help society move beyond religious divisions at what he called "the turning point of history for this century."

While we profess to believe in a God who acts in history, Charleston said, we tend to think all of God's actions happened in the past. He said he disagrees. The Anglican Communion was not the result of King Henry the Eighth's desires or of nation building or colonialism. God created the notion of the Anglican Communion just for this moment, he said.

"We were nurtured and shepherded to this time and this place in history for a reason," he said. Anglicanism can longer be known as simply a "polite religion with decent worship and a sense of style."

"It is time for us to take center stage because we have a message that is absolutely essential for the world," he said.

Part of the message ought to be that we are not ashamed of the struggles in the Anglican Communion and the Episcopal Church. Charleston called these struggles "our God-given right."

NONSENSE. The via media was not the difference between truth and error, but hashing out whether we believe the Eucharist is transubstantiation or mere symbol. Anglicans settled for Real Presence. Christians of good will may differ on secondary issues but they don't differ on the necessity for redemption and the literalness of the bodily resurrection of Jesus from the dead. And they don't differ on whether sodomy is good and right in the eyes of God.

Anglicans have always believed in the ambiguity of life and in our call to think creatively with God, Charleston said. "And now we are in jeopardy of throwing it all away and for what?" asks Charleston. "Many in the Communion want to impose a conformity which Charleston argues Anglicans have seen from other denominations serves only to demoralize believers. If Anglicans can reconcile over our differences and live with radical inclusiveness and diversity, we can give the world "the hope that is it possible to live in a way that is fear-free," he said.

Now the truth is, no one is imposing conformity unless it is conformity to the faith, which Charleston is not permitted to mess with. If he does he incurs the wrath of the Apostle Paul who warned in Galatians about preaching "another gospel". Conformity is a code word for fundamentalism, but Anglicans are not fundamentalists even though they believe in the fundamentals of the faith.

And who is being demoralized pray tell? In the ECUSA it is orthodox believers, priests and bishops who want only to preach the very unchanging, life changing message of Jesus that Charleston no longer believes in that are being demoralized. Why the hell do you think they are leaving? Radical inclusiveness and diversity are buzzwords for pansexual behavior which no Christian in his or her right mind can be asked to accept without jeopardizing their souls and their eternal destiny. Charleston may believe otherwise but he does so at his own peril.

The Episcopal Church is dying because it cannot offer hope in anything fixed. Like Tsunami waves, ECUSA revisionists wash over everything and ultimately destroy it. The 90 percent orthodox Anglicans in the world are growing daily by leaps and bounds because they have a radical gospel of salvation from sin and they proclaim a hope for the future. Charleston calls that narrow and uninclusive.

If we are to be "fear free" it is to be found only in the cross, not diversity and inclusivity, and the narrow way which leads to life and not the broad way that leads to destruction.

Charleston may choose the road he wants to be on, but he has no business inviting others to join him...it could be a one way non returnable journey to hell and he can go there all by himself and take Spong and his ilk with him.

Anglicans can create a "fear-free zone in a broken world" and should be proud to proclaim by word and example Jesus' promise of "Fear not, for low I am with you even to the end of the age," Charleston said.

Remember and be true to the believers and martyrs of the early church, Charleston said, recalling how those who preached the Good News despite the risks of prison and death. "And we should whine and we should be embarrassed by what is happening in the Episcopal Church and we should worry that some people are taking their checkbooks and leaving?" he asked.

BUT the believers and martyrs of the early church died for the faith once delivered, and it is not the same faith Charleston and his crew is preaching at EDS. They have 'another gospel' that one dies for at one's peril. It is not a seminary that is defending the faith; it destroys the faith of many who go there. They may go in with faith, they come out faithless. I have talked to numerous seminarians and that is what they tell me.

EDS has been described by one orthodox theologian as an "any orifice, protomarxist, feminist, post coital institution" that St. Paul would not recognize neither would Augustine or Athanasius.

Charleston does not believe that it is ultimately God's plan to have the Anglican Communion break apart, but, he said, "I frankly don't care if there's only two or three of us left" as long as we have stood up and preached reconciliation, he said.

The truth is Charleston's understanding of "reconciliation" is ultimately not reconciliation at all. It is the exact opposite; it is a gospel of estrangement and separation. He and his revisionist cronies are creating dissension and causing the breakup of the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion precisely because they cannot and will not hold onto the 'faith once delivered to the saints.'

If Bishop Charleston believes so passionately in reconciliation, perhaps he might persuade his fellow revisionist bishops to stop inhibiting and deposing godly priests in their dioceses for wanting to do nothing more than preach the gospel and defend the faith. The Episcopal Church has become the driving force in separation while people like Charleston preach reconciliation. It is the contradiction to end all contradictions.

As one commentator noted, "Before there can be at-one-ment, or unity, there must first be reconciliation. Before reconciliation, there must be repentance. And before repentance, there must be something else-belief! Our belief must be strong enough and with sufficient understanding that it does not just drive us to our knees to save our skin, but also compels us to make the sacrifices necessary to change our conduct."

Bishop Charleston needs to learn that lesson and know that it is not us who have failed the reconciliation test it is he himself.

END