Writing in the October 15 issue of The Living Church, he publicly blasts both sides of the theological aisle saying that St. Paul's description of the body of Christ is a jigsaw puzzle with each member being a piece of the puzzle.

Gieselmann mainly rips conservatives saying that they "declare in ungodly fashion the full and final capture of God in their understanding of the instrument of Scripture. Scripture has become an idol, an object to be worshiped as though mere words could possibly contain the hugeness, the magnificence, the wonder and holiness of God."

"How dare Archbishop Akinola refuse communion with Bishop Griswold. Why hasn't Archbishop Williams called Archbishop Akinola on this?"

The essayist then rips the TEC saying, "how dare Episcopalians position ourselves so readily in opposition to the rest of the Anglican Communion, as if withdrawal were as meaningless as quitting a social club?"

But a closer look at Gieselmann's essay reveals that it is little more than "listening" in a new package. It is worse than Louie Crew who at least believes in something - like anal sex. He also ignores the bias of the Via Media, who claim the 'middle way' in the Episcopal Church, but who in fact showed their colors recently by asking consenting bishops not to give consent to the new orthodox bishop of South Carolina, precisely because he is a true believer and who just wants to uphold 'the faith once delivered to the saints.'

Or what of V. Gene Robinson, the homoerotic Bishop of New Hampshire who condemns what he calls "patriarchy" and by definition orthodoxy, but when challenged says conservatives and liberals should both stay together in the church because that is the Anglican thing to do. Comprehensiveness for all, except for those who comprehend differently from him.

Gieselmann preaches sweet reasonableness while glossing over absolute truths and in doing so relativizes it. There is no "thus saith the Lord" in his article; no "it seems good to us and the Holy Spirit". No, "I am the way, the truth..."

His basic assumption is that because we are all baptized and using the '79 Prayer Book, we are all therefore working from the same script. Scripture yes, but it is open to varieties of interpretation, so don't get caught Bible bashing, verse picking or, God forbid, being too dogmatic. God is all loving, we see through a glass darkly, so cool your jets. Be tolerant.

It is compelling but dangerous argumentation and ignores 40 years of Episcopal Church history which has seen biblical reductionism, and in its place the erosion of Holy Scripture as authoritative on all matters of faith and practice; replacing it for a feel good, or feel-your-pain theology that emphasizes experience over revealed truth.

What will Gieselmann tell God "in that day" about how Episcopal Church leaders changed the revealed will of God about how human beings should behave sexually, (D039) or why Gieselmann and his ilk have failed to condemn Bishop Spong's 12 Theses that redefined or redacted the faith into unrecognizable theobabble.

What of biblical injunctions about leading people astray, redefining the Trinity, offering pluriform truths that negate the atonement, redefining even who Jesus is, stripping him of his deity and power to save. To cap it off, an impotent House of Bishops who could not stand up and affirm certain basic doctrines of the Christian faith (B001) therefore making it impossible to say with any certainty what it is The Episcopal Church stands for or what Episcopalians even believe! All of this capped by a Presiding Bishop who believes that we should all meet on a plain "beyond good and evil" with Rumi the Sufi, while his revisionist bishops hammer remnant orthodox priests into the ground in Goebbels like fashion, inhibiting and deposing in a secular manner that you don't even see among heathen (gentile) corporations!

What would Mr. Gieselmann say to charges made by the Rt. Rev. Michael Nazir-Ali (Bishop of Rochester) and probably the brainiest bishop in England next to N. T. Wright, who when he came to GC2006 later wrote, "...it became plain quite quickly that this was not a conflict merely of styles, attitudes or even opinions but of two quite different views of religion!" (New Directions, August 2006).

If that is the case, and most orthodox believe it is; how is it possible then for bishops like Duncan, Iker and Ackerman to have Eucharistic fellowship with Griswold, Bennison, Shaw, et al?

We cannot have unity at the expense of truth, opined Bishop Nazir-Ali, and Gieselmann would like us all to simply gloss over that fact so we can all pray "our Father" when in fact the understanding of who "our Father" is (to the liberals that sort of language is now patriarchal) is so radically different.

What we have is a clash of worldviews. One is optimistic, inclusive and non-judgmental, with people being accepted as they are, and therefore should be fully included in the life of the church without question or 'amendment of life', while the other group holds onto the historic, biblical and Catholic faith as it has been passed down and received through the ages and in every part of the world.

Such a view takes into account our finitude and sinfulness, not just acceptance and inclusion. It is a worldview that demands conversion and transformation not inclusion for its own sake, a worldview that precludes those who make up parts of the jigsaw precisely because they are not part of the puzzle to begin with, and the puzzle will never be complete because the parts don't and never will fit.

Therein lies the problem that Gieselmann does not grasp. This is not a case of two Christians arguing over the two natures of Christ or if the sacraments should be viewed as symbol, real presence or transubstantiation; it is about two groups of people who have diametrically opposite views about what the Christian Faith IS.

Anglicanism has been a broad Church for sure, evangelicals have stressed conversion and the New Birth, Anglo-Catholics have stressed tradition; both believe in "the faith once delivered to the saints" and not say, the bene esse of the episcopacy or women's ordination rather than the esse of the Church. Liberals, most of whom have morphed into neo-pagan revisionists have a different religion, it is not ours, and that is what "clarity" came to mean when a number of orthodox bishops sat down in New York City recently with Frank Griswold and a group of 'his' bishops. The "ah ha" light went on, there was no further doubt about what the two groups believed and endless "conversation" and "listening" would not, nor could it change a single thing.

One has only to take the issue of marriage - the life-long union of a man and a woman, versus more contemporary views of cohabitation that includes same-sex unions which The Episcopal Church endorses.

Does Mr. Gieselmann really believe that the abandoning of catholic faith and order can be done without consequences? Does he really expect orthodox Episcopalians to roll over to a bishop engaging in homogenital acts, then stand with him at an altar rail and take holy communion after saying the "our Father" because we are behaving like children?

This is not a unity that can be conjured up like a magician; this is a faux unity, a unity without the foundation of the apostles and prophets with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. (Eph. 2:20)

What Mr. Gieselmann is asking for is impossible; it defies the law of non contradiction. It is not about "hate" as he puts it of one side for the other, though I am sure there is some of that, nor is it trying to "cork truth in a bottle". It is about what we have received as truth unchangeable, and that we are not at liberty to change to suit the zeitgeist.

And it is why my rector (an Evangelical) and Fr. David Moyer (a traditionalist) can never again have Eucharistic fellowship with Pa. Bishop Charles Bennison because he has departed so far from the faith, that what the heretical bishop believes, would not be recognizable even by Unitarians, let alone Christians of ANY century.

Mr. Gieselmann must face the hard truth that "Christ is suffering" not because conservatives and liberals cannot get along, but because one group of persons have a belief system that is unbiblical, unhistorical, untheological and sexually perverse, and would not, under circumstances be recognized by any council of the church or God himself.

And that is why, at the end of the day, they are slowly dividing and leaving because the two cannot walk together, because fundamentally they do not agree.

END