BEWARE REVISIONIST BISHOPS BEARING LINGUISTIC ALMS

News Analysis

By David W. Virtue

Beware when a revisionist bishop offers “dialogue,” “mediation,” or “conversation.” These words often mask coercion disguised as pastoral care.

When disagreements arise between those who affirm traditional sexual ethics and those who support pansexuality, liberal bishops typically invite dissenting parishes to a “deep conversation.” As Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold put it: “The church [needs] to engage in the costly and demanding discipline of deep conversation about how our faith is shaped and formed.”

But these are code words—frequently accompanied by subtle pressure. Since 1999, Griswold has called for “deep” or “graceful conversation” at least 23 times. Almost invariably, the outcome favors revisionist theology.

The goal is not truth, but “creative tension” within a “diverse center” where all views are heard—but only one prevails. The hope is that through “deep listening,” opponents will eventually embrace the revisionist position, perhaps reaching some mystical unity à la Rumi. But that remains a distant fantasy.

Another favorite tactic is “mediation.” A bishop in conflict with an orthodox parish demands mediation—only to spend hours advocating for pansexuality. When persuasion fails, he insists they share communion, framing the Eucharist as a “great leveler” of doctrinal differences. The message: stay for the sake of unity, or leave for the sake of diversity.

Sometimes outside facilitators—like the Massachusetts-based Public Conversations Project—are brought in to create an illusion of neutrality. The aim is to make irreconcilable positions seem reconcilable. If that fails, the bishop can claim, “I tried,” then invoke canon law to depose “fundamentalist” clergy.

This happened in Massachusetts and Pennsylvania. Bishop Bennison abandoned mediation when he saw himself losing, then pushed his agenda through, telling orthodox objectors to “go pound sand.”

Similarly, “dialogue” becomes endless negotiation until everyone agrees that revisionist views on sexuality are correct—and then moves on.

In England’s Diocese of St. Albans, the bishop called for mediation after evangelicals opposed the appointment of Jeffrey John, a gay priest, as dean. Despite their clear biblical objections, the bishop installed John anyway, then urged “deep and patient listening” so “understanding may grow.” Understanding of what? That Scripture was wrong?

Mediation is now a bad joke. Evangelicals know it—and increasingly withhold funds to make their point. Bishops listen when their budgets are threatened.

Whenever a liberal bishop proposes “dialogue,” “reconciliation,” or “mediation,” beware: it’s a one-sided poker game, and he holds all the aces. Orthodox voices never win.

Bishop Henry Parsley of Alabama claims he wants “conversation”—but it always ends as “my way or the highway.” Same for Bishop Robert Moody of Oklahoma.

Griswold’s “deeper conversation” is just prolonged pressure. Even if orthodoxy won a majority, they’d be sent back to “converse” until their minds changed.

And when these “graceful” talks end, revisionists always win—not through logic or Scripture, but through emotional “stories” of wounded identity. Reason, evidence, and the law of non-contradiction are discarded in favor of narratives about unloved childhoods and unmet emotional needs.

In all my years observing these conflicts, I’ve never seen “dialogue” or “mediation” result in an orthodox victory on matters of faith and morals. The 2003 General Convention obliterated any pretense of sanity.

When immediate change isn’t possible, “local option” smuggles it in anyway—truth and parliamentary rules be damned.

Recently, the Archbishop of Canterbury suggested professional mediators might be needed to save the Anglican Communion from schism over homosexuality.

But what exactly is there to mediate? The New Testament is clear: marriage is between a man and a woman; sexual immorality excludes one from the Kingdom (1 Corinthians 6:9–10). The Church has held this for 2,000 years.

Can one “mediate” the efficacy of the Cross? Or negotiate a third way between sin and holiness?

Global South bishops reject the very premise. “You don’t mediate right and wrong,” an African bishop told me. “If Scripture forbids it, what does the Archbishop want us to ‘mediate’?”

The Roman Catholic Church, despite its failures with clerical abuse, has drawn a firm line: no practicing homosexuals in the priesthood. The “lavender mafia” is finished.

The Anglican Communion now faces a crisis. If the Archbishop chooses mediation after the Lambeth Commission reports, he may discover the final step isn’t reconciliation—but dissolution.