A simple Internet search of the book title plus the author's name basically takes you to one of three places: 1) the publisher's website; 2) "Gay Book Blog" (the article from the Daily Mail is re-printed here); and 3) Queer Link (good taste and a sensitivity to our readers' need to avoid upchucking on their keyboards preclude us from linking directly to #3 from this site).

Obviously, Bresnahan has reached his intended audience and they ain't folks that are primarily searching for moral direction and models for a pure and holy life based on traditional Judeo-Christian teachings. Certainly, there were no links to anything like "Christianbooks.com," "vaticanbookrecommendations.org" or "BillyGraham'sfavorites.net." We do expect that ECUSA's on-line bookstore will be linked sooner rather than later though. Bresnahan's sex guide should fit in nicely next to all those books about Sophia, the Goddess of Wisdom. Keep checking.

But, according to the author himself, reaching a different audience is precisely the point. Xlibris, the vanity press company that publishes the book has posted the author's own synopsis of the book as its primary marketing vehicle. Here is a sample:

I believe that the Title (of the book) itself will make the book a commercial success particularly among the unchurched. To my amazement church people seem to like it as well, at least in my congregations. . . . Even more gratifying, I have found the book to be of interest to the LGBT crowd in several colleges . . . (Emphasis added)

CHEAP GRACE While we commend Bresnahan (and, probably most revisionists in this case) for clearly having a passion to reach the unchurched, we are concerned that his teaching presents an incomplete Gospel. Teaching God's unconditional love while ignoring the conditions God places on salvation just loves people into death and hell rather than into life and heaven. Teaching that one can accept God's grace without the sacrifice of repentance is to cheapen the greatest gift in history.

According to the synopsis, the book is apparently at least somewhat autobiographical, and is about how Bresnahan came to peace with himself. In the chapter, "All I Want to Do is Get my Family to Heaven," Bresnahan presents some of his childhood and growing-up experiences with less-than-saintly family members and asks, "how in the world do we get a crowd like that into heaven?" According to his book, the answer to this question lies in 2 Corinthians 1:18.

Well, where to begin? There is so much wrong with this theology, it is almost impossible to start. But, we shall try.

First of all, Chrisitanity is not about "making peace with oneself." What a selfish concept! Christianity is about making peace with one's Creator. We call it reconciling with God. And, this can only be done by accepting God's gift of Grace by accepting the sacrifice made by His Son on the Cross. Anything less than this will keep a person from having peace of any kind.

Secondly, anyone who is solely worried about "getting my family into heaven" has completely missed the point of the Gospel. It isn't primarily about getting into heaven, or even avoiding hell. It is about being reconciled to God through Jesus Christ. Reconciliation requires repentance, which requires acknowledging sin. We cannot do anything to get ourselves, much less anyone else into heaven. We are all imperfect, so our only hope is to trust in Christ alone and His redeeming act on the Cross to reconcile us to God.

Finally, how Bresnahan manages to make 2 Corinthians 1:18 mean that God says "Yes" to everyone all the time, is complete folly. The passage is clearly stating that Jesus is the "Yes" to every one of God's promises. No where in Scripture does God promise that everyone will be saved. In fact, there are many passages that clearly imply that more people will be lost than will be saved.

THE SACRAMENT OF SEX

Bresnahan attempts to make the case that sex is sacramental. While many of us may not go that far, we certainly wouldn't disagree that sex is a holy institution created and ordained by God. However, the orthodox thinker, understanding that sex is a special gift of God, wants to use that gift in the manner that God intended. And we discover and embrace His intentions for the gift in a thoughtful, prayerful and serious reading of the Scriptures.

Compare the orthodox approach with Bresnahan's. In the synopsis, he says, "I guide the reader through a very creative way of dealing with Biblical material. Not only is the chapter readable, interesting and informative, it is hilarious in places. It is meant to 'lighten things up' a bit and helps us all not to take ourselves so seriously."

THREE COMMON LATTER DAY HERESIES In addition to all of the above, Bresnahan hangs out the same three tired mis-readings of Scripture to which all revisionists cling for dear life.

1) GOD'S UNCONDITIONAL LOVE:

In his interview with the Charleston Daily Mail, Bresnahan writes that "the most honest and theologically sound scripture is 1 John 4:16 'God is love'." Bresnahan obviously interprets this passage to mean that God's love is unconditional.

The fact that Bresnahan clearly elevates this one short verse to a place of prominence higher than the whole of the rest of the Bible is, in itself, enough to unveil the heresy in his statement. How can one verse of Scripture be the singularly "most honest and theologically sound" above and beyond all other passages? Are all other passages less than honest; less than sound? It would be one thing if Bresnahan had said that I John 4:16 was his favorite verse, but this is not what he said.

Certainly, God loves everyone. God is Love. God's promise of love to everyone is unconditional. However, this is the only unconditional promise that can be found anywhere in Scripture. While God's love for everyone is unconditional, His promise of salvation carries conditions. To be saved, we must accept God's Grace and, under that Grace; empowered by the Spirit, strive to live according to His plan for our lives. To tell people that they are loved by God, without helping them to realize their need for salvation and reconciliation is to preach an incomplete Gospel and make a false promise in God's name. Because this incomplete truth misguides people, it is worse than heresy; if done intentionally, it is blasphemy.

2) HOOKER'S THREE LEGGED STOOL:

Here is how Bresnahan describes the chapter he entitled, "The Reasonable Solution." "Using some pop theology, I introduce here the notion of the Anglican Theological method in which the Bible, The Tradition, and Human Reason are used analytically to help refocus our thinking when our old way of looking at things seems to fail us." (Emphasis added) According to the Daily Mail article, Bresnahan accomplishes this by using "science, scripture, personal experience and humor."

Sigh . . . Poor Richard Hooker must have rolled over in his grave so many times over the past half century . . .

Let's be clear. Richard Hooker never talked about the three-legged stool referred to so often by Anglican revisionists. Scripture, tradition and reason were never to be considered equal as the three legs of a stool. Hooker was clear that Scripture carries the highest authority, and that man was given the gift of reason so that he could understand the revelation of God as found in Scripture. Here are Hooker's words:

Be it matter of the one kind or of the other, what Scripture doth plainly deliver, to that the first place both of credit and obedience is due; the next whereunto is whatsoever any man can conclude by force of reason; after these the voice of the Church succeedeth. That which the Church by her ecclesiastical authority shall probably think and define to be true or good, must in congruity of reason overrule all other inferior judgments whatsoever.

While Anglicans should be reading a lot more of Hooker himself, and a lot less of others writing about Hooker, we can highly recommend the following two essays for more insight into exactly what Hooker taught: Reason and Hooker and The Three-Legged Stool.

3) CHRISTIANS SHOULD NOT JUDGE:

Bresnahan tells us in his synopsis and in his interview with the Daily Mail that he is not comfortable with the Church "judging" people. He acknowledges that one of the concerns of orthodox Christians is the concept of "where do we draw the line?" Of course, orthodox Christians read the Scriptures to find where God would want us to draw the line. Bresnahan proposes something different:

I suggest that we draw the line by making the sign of the cross from our heads to our hearts and from shoulder to shoulder. We've done that for a very long time. The cross is a reminder that we will always need to struggle for personal accountability before God. It is on my own head that judgement falls, it is not for me to judge another, just to judge the thoughts of my own heart.

No wonder the evangelical denominations think that we Anglo-Catholics are idolators! Bresnahan's teaching that making the sign of the cross can serve to move the line between what is sin and what is sacred (presumably on a person-by-person basis) would certainly be unfamiliar to any reputable Anglican theologian, orthodox or revisionist! What in the world would St. Paul (faith not works) think of Bresnahan's proposed use of the personal blessing?

We suppose that Bresnahan came up with this theology of judgement from Matthew 7:1. If not, that is certainly the Scripture most quoted by revisionists when making this "judge not" argument. Again, any verse or passage taken out of context and elevated in importance above all other Scriptures will lead one to heresy and false teaching, and Matthew 7:1 has fallen victim to this fate time and time again.

First, a careful reading of the entire passage brings into focus the fact that Jesus is speaking these words to a hypocrite. Jesus knows that one day, we will all be judged -- regardless of whether or not we have judged others. This passage is warning us that hypocritical and false judgement of others will lead others to judge us in a similar fashion. In fact, at the end of the passage, Jesus commands us to judge others -- rightly -- and only after we have repented ourselves. That part of the passage reads, "Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." (Matthew 7:5)

In fact, Scripture is clear that Christians and the Church have an obligation to make righteous judgements. "Judge righteous judgement." (John 7:24); "Thou hast rightly judged." (Luke 7:43); "He that is spiritual judgeth all things." (I Corinthians 2:15); "Why even of yourselves judge ye not what is right?" (Luke 12:57); "Come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord." (2 Corinthians 6:17); "Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good." (Romans 12:9). Clearly, the Scriptures command us to judge, especially in defense of the Gospel. This is not just a "right" of Christians; it is a "duty!"

We must not draw back from judgement, least of all because someone may find our judgement offensive. Our judgement may be the only truth others sometimes here, and it can save them from eternal suffering. God loves us and does not want us to be deceived by false teachers who bring a false or incomplete Gospel which is meant to destroy us rather than bring us life eternal. Righteous judgement, speaking the Truth in Love, is another way in which God expresses His love for us; and it is an important way that we can show our love for one another in Him.

YET, BRESNAHAN HIMSELF JUDGES

Despite his chastizement of the Church for judging, Bresnahan can't even get through the first section of the "Forward" of his book without pronouncing judgement on fundamentalist Christians. In the "Forward," Bresnahan sends an emotional message to each of his three sons and his wife. Two of his sons are gay, and, in the first message to one of the two gay sons, Bresnahan recounts his experience of his son "coming out" to him.

And of course, in the fundamentalist Christian world you can even tell your child that she/he is going to hell? I tell you -- that is the Great Abomination!

So much for not judging others, huh?!? We suppose it is only forbidden to judge others on Biblical standards. Warning someone that their lifestyle could lead them to eternal damnation may be perceived in this life as harsh, but when your concern is a love for the person's eternal soul, speaking the Truth in Love is the only way to convey that more pressing concern.

The Rev. Briane Turley, one of WVAnglicans' clergy members, illustrates how Bresnahan's arguments are not only hypocritical; they are downright shakey: This minister (Bresnahan) employs a technique that most revisionists I have read or have engaged in the last few years rely heavily upon. He establishes and then criticizes his own simplistic "straw man" Christian. He does this because the actual, complex views of most orthodox Christians are not so easily challenged. So we are characterized as self-righteous bigots who "point fingers of judgment to (sic) people looking for forgiveness and reconciliation." There is no reason in any of this. (Fr. Turley quoted from the Daily Mail article.)

SPIRIT, WHICH SPIRIT?

Fr. Turley goes on to point out one of the more sinister techniques that Bresnahan and most other revisionists use to make their points "irrefutable:" While the minister hedges on his comments slightly, he clearly believes that the Spirit guided his work. It has become increasingly obvious since the '03 Convention that it is virtually impossible to counter theological arguments posited by those who rely entirely on direct revelations from their "spirit". This is one of the major reasons the Primitive Church began writing their Gospels and collecting and preserving the apostolic epistles. One must wonder if we would have our New Testament today were it not for the fact that even 1900 years ago, people were reporting all sorts of "Spirit-inspired" innovations.

In support of Fr. Turley, we must point out that there is only One Holy Spirit who guides the Church. One Spirit spoke in consistent and unambiguous terms through several Anglican outlets before the Episcopal Church's 2003 General Convention began. The Lambeth '98 Conference resolution on Human Sexuality; ECUSA's own Theological Commission on Sexuality; the Primates' Meeting; Two Archbishops of Canterbury; and the Anglican Consultative Council all asked the Episcopal Church not to do what it eventually did. After ECUSA ignored all of these authorities, a unified Spritual voice has continued to speak through the Primates', the Windsor Report, and the Anglican Consultative Council. Meanwhile, the actions of the Episcopal Church have fragmented it and the worldwide Anglican Communion. Unity has been destroyed.

If there is only One Holy Spirit; and it speaks to the Church with One Voice that never contradicts Holy Writ; and if listening to that One Holy Spirit would bring about peace and unity rather than discord, it is only fair to ask, "To what spirit is ECUSA and Fr. Bresnahan listening?" It is certainly difficult to make the case that they are listening to the Third Person of the Trinity. To make that case would clearly imply that the rest of the Anglican Communion is listening to a false spirit.

EXAMINING FRUIT

Finally, it would be valuable to look at the fruits of Rev. Bresnahan's labor to determine whether or not he is a prophet to whom we should all hearken. We have always admired Bresnahan's ministry to the poor, hungry, and homeless in his community. This ministry is important, and it is something that the revisionists who practice a "social gospel" always elevate as the primary work of the Church. But, we wonder why that ministry is often so devoid of real witness and evangelism. We don't believe that hungry people should be denied food unless they agree to come to church. But, we do believe that they should hear the Gospel message that Jesus is the True Bread and the Living Water such that they should never hunger nor thirst again.

If the social gospel that Bresnahan preaches and practices were really working to build up the Kingdom, then the fruits of his work would likely be more pronounced. According to ECUSA Congregational Development statistics, his parish, St. Mark's in St. Alban's, WV, has declined in average Sunday attendance by more than 16% since the year 2000 (with steady declines each year). To be fair, the community he serves lost about 4% of its population during that time, but the parish is outstripping that loss by four times. Average plate and pledge income has declined by about 5% since 2003. Wonder how much Bresnahan's support of Gene Robinson has to do with these numbers? Why hasn't the social gospel that he preaches and practices so well brought in more converts?

It should also be noted that Bresnahan has been an active supporter of the WV pro-abortion group, Clergy & Laity: Pro-Faith, Pro-Family, Pro-Choice. This group, led by another Charleston area Episcopal Priest, lobbies the West Virginia Legislature to liberalize abortion laws in the Mountain State. If Bresnahan seeks to allow the destruction of the "least of these," instead of protecting them, how can we trust any formula he devises to get us into heaven -- especially if that formula runs counter to Scripture?

A NEW RELIGION

Based on all of this information, WVAnglicans is not surprised that Paul Bresnahan would publish such a blatently heretical book. Like most revisionists, this author has cherry picked the passages from Scripture that he likes best and has ignored the more difficult passages that challenge us to holy living. He has written his own "Gospel according to St. Bresnahan" and, by doing so, he has invented his own religion that is no longer Christian. This new religion may not offend anyone (except serious Christians), but it also won't reconcile anyone to God, much less get anyone into heaven, which he claims is one of his primary objectives.

However, WV Anglicans is grateful that he is putting his true beliefs out in such a public way. This book will help West Virginians to make an accurate judgement as to whether or not they should trust their spiritual development and their souls to the likes of Paul Bresnahan.

The words of the apostle John are most useful here. "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try [test, judge] the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone into the world." (1 John 4:1) "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds." (2 John 7:11)

--Eddie Swain helped to establish WV Anglicans, now the official Chapter of the AAC in the Diocese of WV. He is a dean at the local community college; serves on the Vestry of Holy Trinity, Onancock and has become active in the AAC Chapter for the Diocese of Southern
Virginia.

END