When it comes to pansexuality, the Presiding Bishop is on record saying the crisis in the Anglican Communion over homosexuality has passed. The Episcopal Church has come around to accepting the normalcy of "gay" bishops. It is no longer an issue.

That is not true. It IS the Episcopal Church's chief preoccupation these days, and clearly its most divisive issue, according to C. Kirk Hadaway, Director of Research for The Episcopal Church Center who did an analysis of some 800 churches. The ordination of gay priests or bishops was the most frequently mentioned source of conflict in The Episcopal Church, his study revealed. As a result, a new mindset is emerging among liberal and revisionist bishops.

It is fear. It is emerging in several forms. One is over property issues. Liberal bishops have successfully used the Dennis Canon to retain properties, but the fighting has been long and arduous with dissidents prepared to continue to fight right up the legal chain to the highest courts in the land. The liberals did not bank on that. They thought that they would roll over early on. That has not happened.

Secondly, as a result of that and the costs to dioceses, some dioceses like Pittsburgh, New Jersey, and now Virginia, are looking to cut deals. Why? The reality has set in that long protracted court battles are expensive and the winner might just inherit an empty building or two that are difficult to sell in this particular real estate market. The Diocese of Western Michigan was forced to sell Charles Bennison Sr's cathedral to an evangelical mega church at a financial loss, but at least it got it off the diocesan books.

The rump Diocese of Pittsburgh knows full well that if they win in the courts, they will be selling off, or trying to sell off dozens of churches that they will have to maintain in the interim, at some cost. So, Bishop Kenneth Price is now doing his best to cut deals in one of the worst real estate markets in this former rust belt. Why? He is afraid that maintaining them could force his rump diocese into bankruptcy. Furthermore, he knows that the Roman Catholic Archdiocese is rather fond of Bishop Robert Duncan and will offer him churches for his priests and people.

The Church of St. James the Less, an historic Episcopal church building in Philadelphia that was architecturally influential and designated a National Historic Landmark, was closed in 2006 after its Anglo-Catholic priest and congregation were booted from the premises by Bishop Charles Bennison. It cannot be sold as there are four bishops in its graveyard so the parish must be maintained by the diocese. They have tried unsuccessfully to reopen it with new ministries, but they have not been successful.

A second fear is that all these departing parishes are aligning themselves with overseas evangelical Anglican provinces or with the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA). Another fear is that they are growing while TEC dioceses are withering on the proverbial vine. This has prompted Bishop Price and Bishop Shannon Johnston of Virginia to demand that any deals cut eliminate affiliation with ACNA or CANA or whomever. This is driven by fear, fear that orthodox Anglicanism will gain a footprint in their dioceses and become an embarrassing presence to TEC. Furthermore, TEC parishes are dying. ACNA is growing because they have a life-changing gospel that these old liberals or the newer more pro-gay revisionist bishops do not have.

There is also fear at another level. Orthodox Episcopalians are regularly accused of being homophobes, who are unresponsive to the New Episcopal morality, as well as being oppressive, narrow-minded and fundamentalist on sexuality issues. These charges are growing thinner by the day, but they still stick. Bishop Vicky Gene Robinson ensures that as he moves around the country pressing the case for homosexual inclusion at every venue he can. What drives all this is fear.

Recently, Bishop Andrew Waldo of Upper South Carolina held what he called his dioceses' first Theological Council to air out the issue of rites for same-sex blessings and, if possible, to bring everyone to the table in order to find common ground.

When he addressed his diocese, he urged them not to exhibit fear but to use the "I" word to explain their position. But by using the word "fear", he opened the door to the possibility that those who oppose homosexuality might be exhibiting fear.

But the kicker is this. Once you use the word "fear", you impose on your hearers the subtle notion, or perhaps not so subtle notion, that those who disapprove of homosexual behavior are by definition afraid and that they are promoting fear mongering. Afraid of what exactly or who? Calling a spade a spade? Is it homophobic to pull up statistics to show how dangerous homosexual behavior can be to your health, that Scripture is 100% opposed to sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman, and the church in 2,000 years has never endorsed such behaviors.

The truth is, it is the old homophobia argument reappearing in new garb. By tossing out the "fear" word, one automatically makes orthodox believers into fear mongers and puts the onus on them to explain why they are afraid.

By using the "fear" word, Waldo was deliberately manipulating his audience and making anyone opposed to the gay agenda of the church look bad and uninclusive...and to keep silent, which they did.

We have been further inoculated by having to "listen" to the stories of gays with a view to rolling over on sound theology and biblical teaching on the subject. "Listening" in truth, has nothing to do with listening at all. It is aimed at desensitizing orthodox Anglican believers forcing them to roll over on the subject to accepting pansexuality.

It is all very well to talk about "your truth and my truth" as Waldo did, a replay of the old hackneyed slogan of Griswold. What we now have are "safe places" to run to, but this is a fiction; it is ONLY "safe" for those who express the party line. It is not a "safe place" if you disagree with Susan Russell, Vicky Gene Robinson, Mary Glasspool or any of the Integrity crowd.

If you even suggest they might be wrong, there is a universal wringing of the hands, a gnashing of teeth, and loud cries of homophobia with one's lack of civility and charity called into question.

One sees it almost daily on the unofficial HOB/D listserv. Even when it is not mentioned, it hovers on the edge of the listserv like a woman on the edge of a nervous breakdown or a leopard ready to spring into action. So long as you don't cross the queers, your ecclesiastical life is safe. The moment you do, you are labeled as someone filled with "hate" and "violence", more favored adjectives of the left about anyone who opposes them.

Look what almost happened to now Bishop Dan Martins. Bishop Jerry Lamb tried to summon the HOB in a major effort to deep-six his nomination to be the next Bishop of Springfield. It failed. A slight majority of bishops had sudden and miraculous ecclesiastical spinal surgery (praise Jesus). Lo and behold, he was elected. Perhaps THEY feared being called uninclusive and ecclesiastically myopic.

On the other side of the street, orthodox Episcopal priests are so frightened of all the name calling that they won't even preach a sermon about sexuality (I have never heard one sermon on homosexuality in 25 years), neither will they talk about the sacred bonds of marriage. Intimidation is almost complete. I once heard Bishop Bill Love, when he was rector of a parish in the Adirondacks, affirm Lambeth 1:10 in a sermon. His best friend and senior warden walked out on him and ended the relationship. Orthodox priests too, are driven by fear - fear of offending perhaps one lurking homosexual in the congregation who might take offense and walk out in a huff.

At Waldo's high sounding "theological council", the bishop took to the microphone and expressed his disappointment that one voice seemed to be missing from the session -- the conservative voice. He then proceeded to let the conservatives know that they had nothing "to fear" and that he hoped this would be a safe place for them to express themselves, according to a blogger who was present.

Silence reigned.

By using the "fear" word, he was baiting and manipulating his conservative clergy and delegates. If someone had taken to the microphone at that point to give a theological explanation of why Scripture forbids such behaviors, that science has no basis for homosexual activity, and that the Center for Disease Control (CDC) outlines 26 known transmittable diseases through anal sex, the whole convention would have gone into an uproar and the conservative cause would have been lost. Such a person would have been forever labeled homophobic. Without the support of Waldo, the crowd would have overwhelmingly approved rites for same sex blessings and more. The best thing to do was to say nothing.

Waldo also deeply influenced his hearers by beginning the sessions with his reflection on how he had arrived at his personal position on same sex relationships and blessings. He cited his reasons for supporting the full inclusion of the LGBTs and blessings for their pairings, as his personal experience, the "shellfish argument," his understanding of the scientific/genetic argument, the idea of "sexual orientation," and the "oppression" argument.

Later, after lunch, according to a blogger, Waldo said he believed that the burden of proof for going ahead with same sex blessings in the Church lays with those who favor such blessings. To top it off, he firmly stated that he has not seen any convincing theology to support same sex blessings. So he waffles, but not enough to offend the pro-gay majority, gay appartiks in his diocese or the HOB or the Empress of 815.

He offered a little wiggle room, but in fact loaded the dice against any orthodox opposition right from the get go. What orthodox priest in his right mind (unless you have the spinal column of a Nazir Ali or Nicholas Okoh) is going to stand up and say, "Bishop you and the majority of this diocese is dead wrong. You are out of sync with Global South Anglicans who number in the millions, the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church both of whom have said they are in impaired communion with us. Bishop, God has never approved of sex outside of monogamous heterosexual marriage." If you want to keep your job and have a pension, you had better shut up.

Waldo knows the conservative position on the issue of same sex blessings in the church and that the orthodox have no reason to fear because Scripture is firmly on their side. The deeper truth is that Waldo will not oppose the HOB and Jefferts Schori. He fears man (or woman) more than he fears God. Now that is a very dangerous position to put yourself in.

A woman priest, I regrettably had to listen to this past week in upstate Pennsylvania, urged her listeners to be tolerant to "gay and straight" as a part of a sermon on Palm Sunday without qualifying whether such persons were living in sexual obedience to Scripture, that is celibate before marriage, and sex within marriage between a man and a woman. As no distinction was made, the audience was led, nay manipulated, into believing and thinking that gay and straight are on the same continuum so we had just better get over it and get on with the fact that the church has them and we should be tolerant of their lifestyle.

If I had stood up and said, "Please qualify your statement" I would have been met with abject looks of horror from her and the congregation. Any opposition from me would have been met by the priest telling me that I lack tolerance and suffer from homophobia and have a secret fear of homosexuals. It's not true of course, but, that's how the game is currently being played in TEC.

However, there is a genuine fear that we all ought to have and it is found in Mt. 10:28 where Jesus speaks saying, "And do not fear those who kill the body, but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell." Now, that's something to be afraid of, especially by those who oppose the clear teaching of Scripture on human sexuality and who may cause others to stumble.

END