"For example, with regard to one of the most publicized and momentous resolutions, the authorization of a "provisional" rite for the blessing of same-sex couples, strong conscience-clauses were inserted to protect clergy and congregations whose convictions will not allow for such liturgies. I can tell you first-hand that some of the most vocal support for the conscience-clauses came from those who staunchly supported same-sex blessings. This, for me, is important evidence that Episcopalian inclusivity can indeed embrace both left and right.

"I supported the Convention's resolution not because of the movement of secular culture but out of personal and theological conviction. Moreover, after over 30 years of the Church's study and dialogues, I believe that it is time to be publically clear about the full acceptance of committed same-sex relationships in the life and witness of our Church. I will continue to honor the convictions of our clergy and communicants who disagree, because in my judgment we have now reached an equitable and workable settlement of this long-running debate. We can now move on to other important matters that require the Church's energetic attention."

Bishop Johnston's remarks belie the deeper reality about this convention.

1. The majority of orthodox bishops have long ago left TEC for the ACNA or other greener spiritual pastures like Orthodoxy or Rome.

2. Only two or three bishops stood up publicly to oppose resolution A049 (out of 169 present). Bishop Mark Lawrence of South Carolina stood up, spoke up; then he and his deputation walked out (they did not storm out). What about that did Johnston miss. Bishops Bill Love (Albany) and Gregory Brewer (Central Florida who made his virgin appearance) did their best to uphold orthodoxy, but it was mainly a veneer over a done deal. EVERYONE knew that rites, provisional or otherwise, would pass this convention, so much so that Texas Bishop Andrew Doyle had already conceived a plan to allow rites to be used in those parishes who wished to do so BEFORE General Convention had even convened.

3. The "conscience clause" was allowed as a token or sop to the dwindling orthodox crowd of bishops. Everyone knows that by the next convention or the one following a Barbara Harris clone will stand up and scream that rites should be made mandatory (anything less is discriminatory) as happened with women's ordination. Johnston also knows that. Who's he fooling?

4. Johnston says he fully supports TEC's position because of the church's 30-year study and dialogues, never mind what Scripture clearly says; he has rolled over to the zeitgeist and the culture.

5. He says he will "honor the convictions of our clergy and communicants who disagree, because in my judgment we have now reached an equitable and workable settlement of this long-running debate." But for how long and what will his successor do? Liberal bishops roll over like butter in a microwave when a slew of revisionist priests come knocking on their door and demand that full inclusion of a variety of pansexual behaviors necessitates that the rites be mandated in all parishes. Johnston will be the first to buckle. He is setting up his dwindling orthodox flock, the vast majority of whom have already left TEC for the ACNA in his diocese. He is throwing them a bone that will turn to dust in a very short space of time.

6. Whatever is left of his diocese will, within 20 years, be a shell; what few orthodox parishes that remain will only have liberal priests to follow. How could it be otherwise?

That resolution takes the same track we have had in the Diocese of Virginia for more than a year now. The process I have previously outlined will remain the same - clergy must still submit a fulsome application for my approval to perform such rites- but starting with the First Sunday of Advent this year (December 2, 2012) the liturgy to be used will be the one approved by the Convention (rather than a specially-composed service in each case).

VOL: Approving sexual sin or rites for same is one of the reasons John Yates and his faithful flock of 4,000 at Falls Church walked away from Johnston and his diocese because they know that sexual sin is not a second order issue and that God's moral and ontological order and nature are inextricably entwined and cannot be violated by a bishop or anyone and they can discuss it for another 30 years and nothing will change. The fact that a convention approves it is not the Holy Spirit at work but the spirit of the age.

It is doubly ironic that while loose morals are acceptable to the bishop, hands of holy rage are lifted defending the church's traditional teaching on baptism...for the moment. In almost smug self-righteous tones, Johnston added, "On baptism, however, the teaching was traditional and clear: Holy Baptism is the ancient and normative way into full, sacramental Christian life. A large majority of the House of Bishops rejected proposals that weakened the requirement of baptism prior to receiving communion, and the House of Deputies concurred. In this, I wholeheartedly agree...there are other ways to achieve hospitality and inclusion within a community of faith. Baptism is specifically a part of the Great Commission from Jesus (Matthew 28:19-20) and it remains primary in our discipleship of the risen Lord."

And Jesus wasn't clear about sex? The myth of the sexually tolerant Jesus is just that a myth. Jesus was abundantly clear. In Matt 19:4 he says "Haven't you read that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'" does Johnston think this does not exclude any other form of sexuality and should be treated as aberrational.

Johnston took a swipe at the secular media, particularly two articles, one in the Wall Street Journaland the other in the New York Times. He declared them "chock-full of factual errors and shameless personal invective, the latter based on several unexpressed and very questionable assumptions about our Church and its witness."

Not exactly true, Bishop. The Wall Street Journal article by Jay Akasie had some glaring omissions and some of his facts were skewed, but it was "not chock full of errors." Ross Douthart's article in the NY Times was totally on target. He has written extensively on the church, including a best seller, even daring to use the "h" word, "heresy", a word that has absolutely no meaning whatsoever in the context of TEC that now enshrines it.

To dumb down sexuality while upholding traditional views on baptism is to do an injustice to one and to overplay the other. It is spiritually dangerous and disingenuous.

In Acts 2, Peter pointed out something new -that, not repentance and baptism in John's baptism, but repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ are necessary for forgiveness of sins. He did not say that baptism itself washed away sins. Why? Because it is "the blood of Jesus that cleanses us from all sin." (1 John 1:7)

"General Convention 2012 showed that the Episcopal Church is indeed vibrant and Spirit-filled," said Johnston.

Nonsense. It showed that TEC took yet another step towards total apostasy. Will polyamory be next...will an "open table" be another resolution at the next GenCon. Will the evangelically-driven Global South who make up the vast majority of the Anglican Communion suddenly declare that they got it wrong about TEC and all is forgiven. Not a prayer.

Does it mean that Johnston who has had the parishioners of 20 some parishes, two bishops (John Guernsey and Julian Dobbs), and some 6,000 parishioners all leave his diocese over Gene Robinson's consecration will now have reconciliation on his radar screen? Don't count on it.

"We are strong and very much considered across the Church as a leading and faithful witness. I hope you were able to follow news and perspectives from the Convention in our unique publication, Center Aisle. That is a true gift to the Church at large, one that was appreciated by thousands over those long days."

Fiction. There is no Episcopal "center". That evaporated three decades ago. We now have the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA), a body of Anglicans Johnston hates as they are stripping his diocese of people and money. Johnston cannot lift or navigate around the Law of Non-contradiction. God cannot and will not change his mind about sexual behavior because Gene Robinson, Louie Crew, Susan Russell and Mary Glasspool say so or because some general convention passes a resolution saying so. The Lord God almighty is not subject to their sexual whims. His mercy endures forever but His judgment is equally as sure. If God has suddenly accepted pansexuality then He will need to apologize to all those faithful homosexuals and heterosexuals who because of God's clear commands are obedient to that which is given. “If God doesn’t punish America, He’ll have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah,” said Ruth Graham, wife of Billy Graham. He won't. He cannot.

Bishop Johnston is on the wrong side of history, theology and renewal. He may live to collect a fat pension, but that will be ashes in his mouth when he stands before His maker to give an account of the "hope" that lies within him. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. (Heb. 10:31)

END