by Ed Beaven
The Bishop of New Hampshire, the Rt Rev V Gene Robinson, is to enter into a Civil Partnership with his long-term partner just weeks before next year’s Lambeth Conference. The openly gay cleric, whose consecration as Bishop of New Hampshire in 2003 caused outrage among traditionalist wings of the Anglican Communion and has placed the Church on the brink of schism, unveiled his intention during an interview to be broadcast on BBC Radio 4 next week, in a programme entitled the Choice. Interviewed by Michael Buerk, Bishop Robinson denied the plan to hold the ceremony next June had been chosen to be deliberately provocative.
He said: “The decision to take advantage of the new law that will come into effect in New Hampshire on January 1 is simply our taking advantage of the kinds of rights which are now being made open to gay and lesbian people in New Hampshire. “I am certainly not doing that to rub salt into anyone’s wounds, but no one should expect me to penalise me and my partner when these rights are being offered. “We were looking for a three-day weekend which would allow people to travel more easily, and that happened to be the fifth anniversary of my election as the Bishop of New Hampshire and thought that would be an appropriate date. “I think the fact is my critics would find any date impermissible.”
He also tells about his love for the Anglican Communion, but said he would never stand down from his role as it would be going against God’s call on his life. He said: “I love the Anglican Church and I value the Communion and I will do everything short of standing down to benefit the Communion.
“But I will not reject God’s call to me. If I were to disappear tomorrow does anyone think these questions are to go away either for the Episcopal Church or the Anglican Communion? I don’t think so.”
When asked about his thoughts on how his consecration as Bishop had placed the Church on the road to schism, Bishop Robinson admitted that the Episcopal Church may have got it wrong. He said: “This was not just my doing this was an entire community’s doing, and that community tried its very best to discern the will of God, and we may be wrong, I am ready to admit to you that I cannot be sure that this is the right thing or the right time or the right way.
“I believe that Peter Akinola, the Archbishop of Nigeria, one of the primary spokespeople against my election, I believe he is following his call from God as best as he can, I just wish he could believe I am following my call from God as best I can.”
The interview is on Radio 4 on Tuesday August 28 at 9am U.K. time
–This article appears on page 1 of the August 24th, 2007, edition of the Church of England Newspaper
Why, of course! Turn the spotlight on Gene Robinson. He is a grandstanding exhibitionist.
Um, Alice, as you say, the spotlight was turned on by the CoE Newspaper, not by +Gene himself; he is simply responding to questions. How that is grandstanding is beyond my comprehension — but then I suspect there’s not much he could do other than repent, repent, repent, don sackcloth, smear ashes, and crawl on bloodied knees begging forgiveness that would satisfy people on the reasserter side.
Further, for us in the U.S., this is old news. Bishop Robinson said he and his partner, Mark, would have a civil ceremony ‘way back when the legislation was passed. News in the UK, but not in the US. And posted here, I assume, b/c it’s front page news in England — and to keep the coals hot. I’ll wait for Pike and Spong to be mentioned here in about, what, five or six comments downthread?
RE: “If I were to disappear tomorrow does anyone think these questions are to go away either for the Episcopal Church or the Anglican Communion?”
No — but had Gene Robinson not been consecrated, the revisionists in the Episcopal church could most likely have continued their more . . . shall we say . . . strategically obfuscatory creep, something that I suspect that the institutional revisionists in ECUSA are well aware of, now.
I am extremely grateful to Bishop Robinson and those who elected and consecrated him.
God can turn anything to good, and He is. This action did a tremendous amount of “waking up” of ordinary laypeople who would not have realized what was happening to the Episcopal church in so many ways, so many heresies, had not an overt, blatant, public, official, national, legislative, and formal action not taken place.
I am grateful.
Padrewayne,
You and the bishop are being disengenous. Using the anniversary of his election as bishop to enter into a civil union is rubbing salt into wounds. He is supposed to be a shepard of a flock – he seems only concerned with part of his flock (and himself) and the rest can go hang. This man obviously is a crusader for gay rights first and foremost – although I do believe he believes it to be a religious imperitive.
Sarah hit it on the head. Its the boil the frog slowly analogy – massively successful for 30+ years.
It is good that Archbishop Williams has finally taken some action on the attrocity of “I AM” Gene’s actions and theology. But why does he focus on the immediate problem and not on all those bishops that encourage it?
As it is, the entire TEC is corrupt and rotten. Like a bushel of apples, one rotten one left in the bushel will soon rot the whole bushel. Likewise, if action would have been taken sooner in the Anglican communion it would have meant the removal of a few bishops (including Pike and Spong ), but now it is the removal of TEC.
I pray that Anglicanism has learned a costly lesson.
you couldn’t make this stuff up – truth really is stranger than fiction.
PadreWayne, he is CHOOSING the civil partnership option, and doing so at the most possible inappropriate moment (IMO)….
Don Gander #6: I assume you have left the “corrupt and rotten” Episcopal Church? I mean…we wouldn’t want you tainted by such corruption and rot, would we?
And thanks — you brought up P&S;even sooner than I’d predicted! Woo hoo!
Sarah #3, “This action did a tremendous amount of “waking up†of ordinary laypeople” — yes, it certainly did! I can think of many who shouted “Praise the Lord!” when it happened!
“Padre”: “I suspect there’s not much he could do other than repent, repent, repent, don sackcloth, smear ashes, and crawl on bloodied knees begging forgiveness that would satisfy people on the reasserter side. ”
Actually, that would be a good start, considering all the trouble and crisis he and his ilk have caused in the Communion.
Chris #7 — I suspect there would [i]never[/i] be a more appropriate moment for reasserters… Further, this is a [i]civil[/i] act, having nothing to do with the church, but with state law. Therefore, where’s the rub?
No matter when he did it, the press would say
“And it is planned just X years after the anniversary of his election/consecration” and “Just prior to Lambeth” or “Just after Lambeth” or “A scant Z years before the next Lambeth.”
PadreWayne – I am surprised at you. You, as a priest, should know that there is no difference between “civil” acts and “religious” ones. As clergy, we don’t simply function as priests or deacons (or bishops). We [b]are[/b] bishops, priest, and deacons. Everything we do in our lives informs and forms our ministry and our ministry should inform and form what we do in our lives. This is not simply a “civil ceremony” designed to guarantee certain civil rights for Bishop Robinson and his partner. It is also a very big part of Bishop Robinson’s ministry – and therein lies the problem.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
“PadreWayne – I am surprised at you. You, as a priest…”
Wait, “Padre”Wayne is REALLY a priest? It’s not just a cute online name?
Lord have mercy…
PadreWayne:
Yes, by the evidence that you claim you may well be a prophet; whose prophet, I do not know.
One thing that amazes me about chritian appologists for soddomy is that in Jesus time on Earth, He went from village to village and when he met a sick person He would make them well. He found sick people and left them well. Soddomy, on the other hand, travels from village to village, finds healthy people, and leaves them with any one of 69 STD’s, spiritually diseased, and psychologically diseased. The promotion of soddomy is not very Christ-like at all.
The sad thing is, Mr. Robinson will be at Lambeth to celebrate the whole thing with Rowan Williams over a canape, while mainstream Anglicans like Bob Duncan will be sidelined at home (and probably reviewing a response to an ECUSA lawsuit with his lawyer). That’s what passes for Communion discipline in Anglicanism, I guess. Maybe the ACO can cut up old copies of the DES communique to use as cocktail napkins.
Actually, Phil, you have hit on a very good point. He will enter a civil partnership. That means he will be “married” by a judge in a courtroom. Could anything be more ironic, considering how many lawsuits are abounding thanks to him?
Yep. I picked my wedding date to twit conservatives in the AC too! I plan every personal event and exercise of my civil rights on the same basis. Let’s see, what’s on my calendar? Peaceable assembly tonight – check! Daughter’s matriculation to college on Friday – got it! Voting on the first Tuesday in November – good!
Then again, it might not be ALL about the AC after all.
RE: DonGander #15. Not only were P&S;brought up sooner than I expected, but you’ve now contributed the “s” word [i]far[/i] more quickly than I’d expected!
Reid #18: Yes, I’m planning to renew my drivers’ license just before Lambeth. Won’t that infuriate ++Peter?!? Wait till he finds out I’m paying my taxes, too! And having a picnic in a city park!
#18
To be effective, sarcasm needs to be seasoned with humor or wit. Sorry, but yours failed miserably.
Padre Wayne, Thank you so much for your gracious and clever words. Whatever would we do without your sparkling insights and marvelous riffs on theology. You are so very enlightened and enlightening. I don’t know how the church possibly managed all the centuries without you. What a gift! When we leave the Episcopal church we shall miss you terribly.
Phil Snyder #13: While I do hold that there is a very clear distinction between civil and religious acts, I also understand and even somewhat agree (don’t fall off your chair, MBIC!) with your statement that we [i]are[/i] bishops/priest/deacons no matter what we’re doing — from taking out the garbage to marching for civil rights, I am a priest (yes, Rolling Eyes…I am duly ordained and I shout glorious, joy-filled thanks to God for such a gift). And so yes, when +Gene and Mark present themselves before a judge, +Gene, at least, is his ordained self in addition to being a citizen of New Hampshire. I posit, however, that it [i]is[/i] a civil ceremony, not a religious one. And I acknowledge (with gratitude) that +Gene supported the legislation that brought about civil rights for faithful gay and lesbian couples. As a bishop of the Church and as a citizen.
I also realize there is a fine line dividing my acts as a priest and my acts as a citizen — the separation of church and state is so incredibly important, and yet it is my Christian faith that informs every civil act I participate in (usually, but not always, subconsciously). It is a constant challenge.
#2, yeah PW. The paper is so on top of things they somehow devined the planned union with no notice from Gene & company at all. And once they did, poor Gene couldn’t simply say “it’s a private matter between my partner, family, and friends and needs not be broadcast for all to hear”. Let’s face a little reality here, it’s nothing more than the continued grandstanding by Gene. Grandstanding that I understand he claimed would not happen when he was consecrated.
Congrats to +Gene and Mark. Is he registered at Crate & Barrel??
# 13 – Philip Snyder – No difference between “civil” and “religious” acts? If that’s the case, I’m getting my driver’s license renewed next week….want to write a liturgy?
No difference between “civil†and “religious†acts?
I read that as one’s morality and practice applies equally to both. We are just as responsible to God for our conduct in obtaining a drivers license as in directing the flock of God in not bearing false witness.
I use the word “we” above and I am neither ordained nor called. The use of the word “we” is intended to indicate that all we christians bear the demands of God upon our souls and that we carry our own crosses with joy.
RE: “I can think of many who shouted “Praise the Lord!†when it happened!”
LOL.
And they all rushed right out and joined ECUSA, which is why our beloved church is growing and thriving, just as you said it would!
; > )
No . . . God made very good things happen from this, and I am thankful.
The paper is so on top of things they somehow devined the planned union with no notice from Gene & company at all. And once they did, poor Gene couldn’t simply say “it’s a private matter between my partner, family, and friends and needs not be broadcast for all to hearâ€. Let’s face a little reality here, it’s nothing more than the continued grandstanding by Gene. Grandstanding that I understand he claimed would not happen when he was consecrated.
My engagement as well as my impending nuptials were announced in the paper (not the Church of England newspaper, just the Washington Post). Was I grandstanding? Oh, it wasn’t because I am straight. I forgot. And people think it is not a civil rights issue.
Srah
No . . . God made very good things happen from this, and I am thankful.
When I came out of +Gene’s consecration in NH there were 2 groups. One was shouting words of praise and thanksgiving. The other was Fred Phelps crew. They were holding “God Hates F*gs” signs. Fred shouted at my group (there were 3 of us: 2 gay men on either side of me and me). He told us that we were all going to burn in Hell. I responded: “Not me Fred, just these 2.”
My question is: Which of these “good things” did God make happen?
My, what a fat, lazy nation we’ve become. Time was, a “civil rights issue” meant seeking the right to vote without being set upon by dogs. Now, it means the right to enage in any sexual act you wish and have it promoted from the pages of the local newspaper, as well as have institutions nominally guaranteed the freedom of religion forced to bless the same.
Praise of consecration vs. “God hates”
Srah:
Can you somehow see that perhaps both are evil? That neither have God’s blessing?
Brian, did you also give an extended interview regarding your views of of marriage/civil unions/Anglican Communion issues, etc, etc, etc?
Maybe I thought it was an integrity issue of actually doing what one says one will do. But then again, integrity is in awfully short supply.
Oh, come on, Don, those are the only two things to result from Mr. Robinson’s election, and everybody falls into one of those two camps, with absolutely no exceptions. Brian said so, so that settles it.
This [i]does[/i] count as grandstanding, for several reasons. He is enacting a civil union not on the anniversary of his falling in love
with his partner but on the anniversary of his election to a very public office. As a bishop, he knows that whatever he does in public becomes part of his teaching and shepherding of his flock. Whether for good or ill, he is directing the spotlight.
Phil Snyder: Of course civil and religious acts are not the same. But in the case of marriage, and especially when someone who represents a church is married (or unioned, or whatever we’re calling it) there is a close relationship between the civil act and the sacrament. In this case, he is turning to the civil government to give him what the church will not. It’s the rhetorical equivalent of suing the church. What business does a bishop have suing his own flock?
One more thing: Padrewayne, as I read it, you were the first to bring up Spong and Pike.
After the last coupla years, I’m thinking of changing my tagline to “timeo [i]episcopos[/i] et dona ferentes.”
Oh, come on, Don, those are the only two things to result from Mr. Robinson’s election, and everybody falls into one of those two camps, with absolutely no exceptions. Brian said so, so that settles it
But Phil, then you get to make up the criteria. Sarah (sorry for the typo above!) laughs out loud at the fact that people praised God that +Gene was elected/consecrated. Then she claims that church membership shows that there were not many people praising God for this. It is not only false, but a completely arbitrary assertion.
#30 – Exactly. I admit that someday more enlightened orthodox Christians might look back on our generation with contempt — just as we look back on those generations that practiced slavery — and damn us for withholding gay marriage and civil unions. But from where I stand, it’s not possible for me to see how orthodox Christianity could say that. Sarah is more sanguine than I, and I’m grateful for her view–but all I see coming from +Robinson’s election and elevation is a lot of angry words and divisions in the body of Christ. +VGR’s decisions look very selfish to me, as do many of the decisions we make as a national church. But you’ve hit the nail on the head: Fred Phelps’ crew is not the only way–nor does it seem to be a very Christlike way– to be opposed to heterodoxy. If those who push for acceptance of gay unions, marriage, and ordination are only able to conceive of those of us who oppose these things as being just like Phelps, that’s pretty mean, ignorant, and patronizing. Which is surprising, since so often those of us who reassert are accused of meanness, ignorance, and patronizing attitudes. We have a long road ahead of us, whether we stay with TEC or not. Provocation and mean-spirited caricatures aren’t likely to make that road easier.
How so, Brian? If more people felt Robinson’s consecration was wrong than right, there’s nothing arbitrary about thinking a few were gleeful while many more walked. In fact, the membership numbers have been down, down, down, and it’s completely reasonable to lay the failure to arrest the hemorrhaging at the feet of ECUSA’s rewriting of Christian moral teaching.
Laocoon:
“Provocation and mean-spirited caricatures aren’t likely to make that road easier.”
You are not wrong. It is a part of the cross we carry for the King, that we march to Truth irregardless of the erred condemnation. I believe it was a godly bishop who recently said, “The easy road is never the right road.” I feel that in my own life. The way of the cross is seldom easy but to that we have been called. May it some way bring glory to Him to whom all glory is due.
If y’all don’t believe that VGR’s election has caused acriomony and division in the Body of Christ, you need to be reading the rather unpleasent stuff you are writing to each other!
I’m glad for Gene Robinson and his partner. It’s good that liberal Christians are standing up for their beliefs. It’s good that gays are standing up for the integrity of their position. There are many, many heterosexual Christians (such as, would you believe it, John Scholasticus) who are glad to stand with them.
Hey, John, you may stand where you wish but I prefer not to stand some places – under Minneapolis bridges, for instance. If I look for God’s favor, I tend to stand with those who heal instead of those that lead to illness. Can you show me ONE place in the New Testament where Jesus, when He walked on earth, brought sickness to someone?
#40
Don,
Obviously, homosexual behaviour of a certain type practised in a certain way can bring sickness. So can heterosexual behaviour (to say nothing of unwanted children). Neither NECESSARILY does. Most AIDS world-wide is caused by heterosexual behaviour. This is also true in Africa, despite the unseemly obsession of Peter Akinola et al. with gays. HERE I STAND etc.
#39 John Scholasticus, Thanks for saying your piece so graciously, and without the vitriol and rancor these conversations often engender.
I think you and I would agree that it is a part of the Gospel to stand up for the oppressed. I suppose the question, then, is whether that’s what +VGR is doing.
In one way, it is, arguably: by being an example and a role model, a forerunner who’s willing to stick his neck out for those less empowered but otherwise in a similar situation.
On the other hand, it’s not plain to me that he has those interests in mind, rather than selfish interests (I grant you in advance the difficulty and uncharity of deciding for others what they do and don’t have in mind). Is he standing up for the oppressed or grandstanding for himself? If the latter, I don’t think that’s a good thing.
And what if our standing up for one group of the oppressed makes us the enemy of another group? Shouldn’t that be a big red flag? When I look at the consequences of his decision, I’m troubled by the price he is willing to let the church and the Communion pay for his stand.
Even if his stands turn out to be the right ones (and I do not agree that they are) his timing is politically astute but not charitable to those who long to stand for the orthodox Christian faith that has meant so much to them. The Christian teaching about sin and redemption has been a solid rock and a life-changing principle for so many. Bishops who whittle away (or hack away) at sin so often wind up hacking away even more from forgiveness and redemption.
I’m curious – how do you read the passage for which this blog is named? (Serious question, not rhetorical.)
The peace of the Lord be with you, JS.
RE: “Which of these “good things†did God make happen?”
And when did you stop beating your wife, BfromT19?
; > )
I can list a heap of ways that God has worked good from the heretical actions of GC2003 . . . none of which you would really agree with.
So do you ask your question because you’re just peeved over my noticing good things? Or for some other reason?
Padre Wayne says that the separation of church and state is so important. If it is, our church is doing all it can to weaken that separation. Everytime Episcopalian officials go to the State to enforce church canon law, the wall goes down. If the State’s laws are to be invoked to justify or enforce religious activity, or invoked to abet Canon Law, Caesar becomes God’s enforcer. We’ve been there before as in the martyrdom of Cranmer, Ridley and Latimer etc. One of the unintended consequences of our growing use of the secular courts and secular law is the creation of a form of unequal separation, in which the State gains the upper hand. It matters little whether the law invoked resides in Northern Virginia or New Hampshire.
Whatever the wisdom or otherwise of the Bishop of New Hampshire’s proposed action, the events which happened at the 2003 General Convention created a sort of inevitability and precedent. We were assured then that the date of the election in New Hampshire (odd how NH elections play such a role in our lives!) which threw confirmation into the political arena of a contemporary General Convention was accidental. If the date of the proposed civil unon is similarly accidental why is it linked to an ecclesiastical anniversary and why is it to be a public event?
John,
Obviously most Aids victims are heterosexual – they represent 95% of the population. However, the percentage of the gay population is obiously more infected than the non-gay population.
Lets be fair – the bishop is grandstanding by using the anniversary of his very controversial consecration to get “married” whether a sitting Bishop should do so is a subject of legitamate debate. Considering the acrimony caused by the consecration and the controversial nature of civil unions – it does not seem to me that he is taking into account the views of all of his flock. I think he once said it is not about him being the “gay bishop of NH” but all of his actions belie that statement. He is an activist acting like an activist. The proper way for him to act is in a non-controversial manner being a first rate Bishop and not give his critics the ammo that he does – it does not seem to be his character.
I think Sarah’s position is correct in that his consecration was a gift to orthodoxy in that because of his consecration the heterodox will likely only end up with 75-80% of the shrinking end of Anglicanism in America instead of 95%.
RE: “Sarah (sorry for the typo above!) laughs out loud at the fact that people praised God that +Gene was elected/consecrated. Then she claims that church membership shows that there were not many people praising God for this. It is not only false, but a completely arbitrary assertion.”
Nonsense. I said no such thing at all!
PadreWayne attempted to state that he knew lots of progressive laypeople were awakened by the consecration, shouting aloud “hallelujah” . . . a little riff off of my mentioning one of the many good things that had happened from Robinson’s consecration was the laypeople waking up.
I laughed in response to his comment. I suspect that most activists progressives in ECUSA know quite well that orthodox laypeople have waked up in ECUSA — some of ’em don’t care a bit, and some of ’em care quite a bit.
And then I stated this: “And they all rushed right out and joined ECUSA, which is why our beloved church is growing and thriving, just as you said it would!”
For all I know, the hordes of progressives that PadreWayne says were thrilled all *did* join up with ECUSA . . . but by any objective estimation [admittedly rather hard to come by from certain progressives], our beloved ECUSA is not growing and thriving [of course, “thriving” is differently defined by progs, I know].
All of that is neither here nor there.
I most certainly did NOT say “that church membership shows that there were not many people praising God for this,” in fact I have no doubt that there were lots of people praising God over it.
And I’m praising God for the good things He wrought from a very bad thing. Not sure why this is such an irritating thing or inciting of comment, either.
None of this should be new or suprising, BfT19 — remember — I’m a reasserter, you’re a reappraiser.
Two gospels. One organization. And pretty much opposite definitions of “good things” happening after Robinson’s consecration.
Old hat here.
[blockquote]If I were to disappear tomorrow does anyone think these questions are to go away either for the Episcopal Church or the Anglican Communion? I don’t think so.[/blockquote]
To me, these sentences were the most important in the article. I can’t tell whether his explanation of the date is plausible or was a deliberate attempt to keep this issue front and center.
The fact is that the Episcopal Church has tolerated and even welcomed gay clergy for decades, and I have never met or worked with a clergy member whose homosexuality prevented pastoral care. I have also seen situations in which members who were not predisposed toward including gay people wound up working with gay clergy and laity through the necessary life and mission of individual churches … and have come away less focused on the differences and more willing to see us all as God’s children.
I’m happy to see that gays and lesbians are active Christians and welcome them to our church. My hope for my children is that they look back on Gene Robinson as someone who broke a barrier against who he was, in order to become who he could be.
If +VGR were to resign his position as priest and bishop in the Episcopal Church, I would be wishing him and his partner all the best in their civil union. For now, my attitude is: “so what?”. IMHO, when he has wontonly brought total destruction upon the Episcopal Church…and perhaps the Anglican Communion…the rest becomes trivial.
Padrewayne – I highly doubt he was simply responding to questions in an interview. What generated the interview? Probably a press release to sympathetic editors. Make no mistake, +VGR will do everything he can to keep himself in the limelight. He’s the Paris Hilton of The Episcopal Church.
For Heaven’s sake, people, Robinson isn’t worth all this acrimony. He role in the decay of TEC is clear and incontrovertible. He is obviously choosing a civil ceremony date to rub salt in a wound. This is how he shows his power, for he can say to all who disagree with him: “I can make you swallow this union whether you like it or not,” and this attitude is a common test of real power.
This is a civil ceremony,taken literally, but it has powerful religious connotations, does it not? The two must indeed be kept separate as a constitutional matter, but as a human matter, this is like the POTUS saying that he is “speaking as an ordinary citizen.” This cannot be done in reality though it can be declared in theory.
But I still say he isn’t worth the trouble. The more attention you pay to him, the more powerful he becomes because his existence is a function of public awareness. But his time in the sun is over and gone. He has done his damage like a virus, and he has set antibodies into the bloodstream. He cannot cause disease any more, though still a virus.
Ignore him and let the homophiles accompany him on his journey into the dark. We have more important issues before us. The issue of homosexuality in both church and society won’t go away because it is so important; but VGene as a vital vector of disease is done. Larry
Rick D –
You write:
[blockquote]The fact is that the Episcopal Church has tolerated and even welcomed gay clergy for decades, and I have never met or worked with a clergy member whose homosexuality prevented pastoral care. I have also seen situations in which members who were not predisposed toward including gay people wound up working with gay clergy and laity through the necessary life and mission of individual churches … and have come away less focused on the differences and more willing to see us all as God’s children.
I’m happy to see that gays and lesbians are active Christians and welcome them to our church. My hope for my children is that they look back on Gene Robinson as someone who broke a barrier against who he was, in order to become who he could be. [/blockquote]
I’m with you on most of that. One of the things I’ve loved about TEC is that it’s the only church I’ve known gay people in. I’m sure they’re elsewhere, but in my orthodox TEC parishes I’ve known plenty of gays who have felt welcome in church, and that’s a good thing. Any church that says sinners aren’t welcome because we don’t like their particular flavor of sin is guilty of idolatry. And I’m with you as well in seeing how good it is to get past the singular focus on homosexuality and to join together as beggars telling other beggars where to find bread, as broken people looking for healing together, as sinners of all stripes confessing our sins and receiving grace.
But again, the timing – +VGR doesn’t seem to let us _not_ focus on homosexuality. He’s politically clever, but his actions don’t make him look like he’s concerned with caring for the church as a shepherd for the flock. I hope I’m wrong and that you’re right, but it’s hard to see that from where I stand. Liberation for captives is a great thing; but I don’t want to see the church focus on political liberation by abandoning any attempts to preach about liberation from sin; or to focus (again, in an idolatrous fashion) on a single sin to liberate us from: the sin of bigotry or discrimination.
Phil: “My, what a fat, lazy nation we’ve become. Time was, a “civil rights issue” meant seeking the right to vote without being set upon by dogs. Now, it means the right to enage in any sexual act you wish and have it promoted from the pages of the local newspaper, as well as have institutions nominally guaranteed the freedom of religion forced to bless the same.”
That’s rubbish, and you know it. As well as being tangental to the thread.
Laocoon: “+VGR’s decisions look very selfish to me”
It would help to remember that +VGR was [i]elected[/i] by the faithful Episcopalians of New Hampshire. He didn’t appoint himself. And, assuming you are American, you know that he was not appointed (as happens in other provinces of the AC). So if you’re going to be all riled up, why not get riled up at the good people of New Hampshire?
Some date corrections re: +VGR:
Date of election: June 7, 2003
Date of consent: August 5, 2003
Date of consecration: Nov 2, 2003
“Entered office” March 7, 2004
Chips: “I think he once said it is not about him being the “gay bishop of NH” but all of his actions belie that statement.”
Chips, one could say that the words and actions of the reasserter crowd keep him as “the gay bishop of NH.” When have [collective] you ever talked of him in any other way?
Sarah: “For all I know, the hordes of progressives that PadreWayne says were thrilled all *did* join up with ECUSA . . . but by any objective estimation [admittedly rather hard to come by from certain progressives], our beloved ECUSA is not growing and thriving [of course, “thriving” is differently defined by progs, I know].”
I never said “hordes.”
The stats used by reasserters to show the dreadful downward spiral of the Episcopal Church are old, are not necessarily directly related to Bishop Gene Robinson, MDGs, PB Jefferts Schori, our position on abortion, birth control, or divorce, or the color of vestments on Gaudete Sunday. Talk about old hat.
DonGander, your comments are really off the wall.
midwestnorwegian: My, I am sure that +VGR would blush to know that he posessed such power as to have “wantonly brought total destruction upon the Episcopal Church…and perhaps the Anglican Communion.”!!! I would say: If this is true, they were pretty weak puppies to start with. And I don’t think it’s true. Your contemptuous vilification of the Bishop (“the Paris Hilton of The Episcopal Church”) is unworthy of further comment. There are certainly members of the reasserter crowd who could so qualify.
Larry –
Ignore the fox in the henhouse? Only if you’re willing to give up eggs, I suppose.
But you’re right – we should probably spend more time in prayer than in blogging.
[blockquote]Laocoon: “+VGR’s decisions look very selfish to meâ€
PadreWayne: It would help to remember that +VGR was elected by the faithful Episcopalians of New Hampshire. He didn’t appoint himself. And, assuming you are American, you know that he was not appointed (as happens in other provinces of the AC). So if you’re going to be all riled up, why not get riled up at the good people of New Hampshire?[/blockquote]
Yes, he was elected. Did I give the impression that I thought that NH made a good decision? That the HOB or General Assembly have made good decisions? If so, I apologize.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but we don’t force anyone to become bishop anymore, do we?
Anyway, in case you missed it, I was talking about the things that +VGR has decided, and especially his timing, not the things that the people of NH decided. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.
I must be honest. When VGR+ was elected and consecrated, I was initially excited. For the moment, I actually thought that the Holy Spirit might be doing something new. I even went out of my way to meet Gays and Lesbians to hear their stories and even marched in Gay Pride as a sign of my support. I learned a lot of how the Church in its past has mistreated LGBTs. I attend a seminary where there is a prominent presence of LGBTs, and I continue to dialogue and pray with LGBT people, some of them are my closest friends. This journey has been interesting and opened my mind in new ways. However, I still remain a re-asserter, I also strive to see Jesus in the other, and Jesus remains my Lord and Savior.
As far as I can see, +VGR’s consecration has not done much to advance the Gospel, at least where I live in New Haven, CT. I live where the state and local diocese openly support civil unions. However I have not seen a difference in how this has impacted society in a positive way. There is still clear and stubborn racism in my own city. The poor are still being ignored, even if it is superficially addressed in our seminaries and churches, The Episcopal church in CT is still filled mostly with upper-crust old white people and the church/diocese itself has not grown significantly since +VGR’s election.
I could be wrong, or maybe it is too early tell, but the fruits I see now are not worth the effort and resources that our church is using in this fight.
RE: “I never said “hordes.â€
You’re right — you said “many” . . . all of which I’m sure j’ined right up to ECUSA, but more left than j’ined.
RE: “The stats used by reasserters to show the dreadful downward spiral of the Episcopal Church are old . . . ”
You mean the stats from the Episcopal church’s own director of research Kirk Hadaway, which show a more than doubling in decline in ASA since Robinson’s consecration?
You mean those “old” stats?
[blockquote] “In fact we were actually doing better than most other mainline denominations in the 1990s through 2002, with a few years of growth,” Hadaway told the Century. “So it is a precipitous drop in losing 36,000 in both 2003 and 2004, and now 42,000 in 2005.”
Half of the losses stemmed from parish conflicts over the 2003 Episcopal General Convention’s approval of the election of an openly gay bishop, V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, according to Hadaway.”[/blockquote]
You know, PadreWayne, I couldn’t make your level of denial up if I were a best-selling fiction writer.
In fact, if I [i]did[/i] make up your level of denial and put it in my best-selling novel, the critics would rave that it wasn’t realistic. I’d be denied the Pulitzer, all because the judges would say “while brilliant in her style, the author regrettably is unable to come up with realistic progressive Episcopalians in her novel, attributing to them irrational and extreme levels of denail in the face of overwhelming evidence — certainly such human beings do not really exist, and so we must deny her first place award in the category of “Realistic Fiction.”
RE: ” . . . are not necessarily directly related to Bishop Gene Robinson, MDGs, PB Jefferts Schori . . . ”
Oh no. Of course not.
[snort — I can’t make this stuff up.]
“Obviously, homosexual behaviour of a certain type practised in a certain way can bring sickness. So can heterosexual behaviour (to say nothing of unwanted children).”
Uh, I was an “unwanted child” and now I am being put right in there along with STD’s. I’ve never thought of myself in that way before. I guess I was an alien pain to my mother.
As to who gets AIDS; I do not have it, my wife does not have it, and it is highly unlikely that if I follow God’s cammands that I will get it. I think that what you need to realize is that the problem is disobedience to God’s order (sin). An unwanted child can come to a person who is following God’s plan but it is highly unlikely that an STD will come to such person. And besides, it would take a very strange person to grow to love her STD but my mother quickly grew to love me and surely I have had the most loving and good mother a person could ever hope to have. The ONLY difference between my inconvenienced mother and those who would kill their son to improve their lives in some way is that my mother was obedient to God.
Ours is a loving God, eh?
Sarah; I am not sure what you meant by: “God can turn anything to good.” If you mean that God can use a trying time in a person’s life to help that person grow closer to Him, then I agree with you. However, if you mean that God can take sin and make it right – hmmm I don’t know about that. If God is Who He says He is, He does not change His mind. He is unchanging. His truth is for all time, all people, all places. The Bible has several references to sexual relations outside of marriage, defined as between a man and a woman, as being sinful in the eyes of God. It doesn’t matter what the gender of the persons is. All sexual relations outside of a marriage between a man and a woman are sinful. The church has a long tradition of believing this – in all cultures, all times, all places. As a matter of fact, up to recently, most cultures believed that extra-marital relations was sinful. So, I guess that now we have evolved into a higher form of life, where we can change the Word of God and make it fit our own desires or worse yet, say that it no longer applies to us, or that is not what the author intended. Isaiah 5:20 comes to mind: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.” I believe that we are calling “evil good.”
What will we approve of next? May God have mercy on us.
#55:
[blockquote]I live where the state and local diocese openly support civil unions. However I have not seen a difference in how this has impacted society in a positive way. There is still clear and stubborn racism in my own city. The poor are still being ignored, even if it is superficially addressed in our seminaries and churches, The Episcopal church in CT is still filled mostly with upper-crust old white people and the church/diocese itself has not grown significantly since +VGR’s election.[/blockquote]
Sounds positive to me that the local diocese supports committed and faithful relationships. Those unfortunate “upper-crust old white people” may need some additional support though.
😉
I commend you for your efforts to reach out, and rejoice that this has opened your mind. If everyone took that approach, we would be a strong and welcoming place indeed.
Mazel tov, Gene and Mark!
Of course he’s grandstanding again! “The openly gay cleric, whose consecration as Bishop of New Hampshire in 2003 caused outrage among traditionalist wings of the Anglican
Communion and has placed the Church on the brink of schism, unveiled his intention during an interview to be broadcast on BBC Radio 4 next week…”
He’s been trotting about the UK giving interviews this summer. Then, he returns home only to endorse a presidential candidate and blather on about GLBT issues again. Now, he’s announcing his planned “marriage” and, although he could have scheduled it for any time or any “three-day weekend,” he decides to get more mileage out of it by scheduling it around Lambeth. I suppose he plans to bring his new husband as a guest and use Lambeth for the honeymoon?
This man is NOT a bishop in Christ’s Church and for Christ’s Church. He is a GLBT lobbyist . He doesn’t even pretend to care about the issues that are important to non-GLBTs and only sees us in regard to how we can support him and his cause/lifestyle. Moreover, he takes his show on the road to other countries to rally his GLBT troops in the UK. He obviously has no desire to be a true shepherd for all of the faithful; the office and accoutrements are used by him to lobby for gay rights only.
If I still lived in NH, I would be raising holy hell about my contributions being used to pay this shameless lobbyist and egomaniac and fund his lifestyle. He needs to renounce his orders and go to work for the GLBT lobby.
Good grief, teatime, what are you so afraid of? Prayers for your serenity, my sister/brother…I’m truly sorry +Gene works you up so.
PadreWayne,
I’m fed up with this person using a sacred office to promote only his own agenda. We have thousands dying in Iraq, hundreds of thousands living in poverty and suffering from hunger here in America, and a host of problems that affect people across the board. But a bishop of our Church ignores all of that and wastes the people’s money traveling around the world for his single issue.
You know, if he was simply a good bishop who happened to be gay, I would be much more sympathetic to his situation. But he has proven himself to be a lobbyist in ecclesiastical clothing. Lobbyists are bad enough; but lobbyists who are on the Church’s payroll are an affront.
Statements I will never see:
“Dear Insured we are reducing your yearly homeowner’s premium”
“Dear Mom, Things are going great enclosed please find check for money I borrowed last month.”
” Bishop Gene Robinson declined to comment for this article”
‘Just weeks before Lambeth’ Is VGR still expecting and invitation to attend?
And remember there is a Spouses program during Lambeth – it should be interesting to see how Mark fairs with all the ladies
Or is this another try at making RW and the Anglican Communion look bad?
#65 — Are you forgetting there are already a number of bishops with male spouses … many of whom will be making a second jaunt across the pond for Lambeth ’08.
Susan, I see you are number 66, or is that 666?
Regardless of how many same-sex partners go to Lambeth, the reality remains that there is but one Church and TEC’s decisions and actions have taken it out of that Body. So let everyone there enjoy the illusion of being the Church.
The sad thing is that you don’t even realize how far you have strayed. But that comes with putting one’s idea of what is good, right and just above what God has revealed.
Teatime, I suggest you check with the Diocese of New Hampshire before casting stones — check on their mission activities, check on their goals and their values. Then, since you have not, check on how +Robinson’s travel is paid for, who pays it, what the purpose is. You know nothing about the man and less about his faith.
And Alice, whence the vitriol? You’re certainly working yourself into a state. I agree with Larry Morse (surprise! though not for the same reasons…): it’s simply not worth all the acrimony. LIghten up, chill. Then maybe we could have a gentle conversation.
Hi Cubana,
I agree with what you have written.
Please note that I did not say that Gene Robinson’s sexual relationship with a male is a “good thing” or that his elevation to leadership in the church while engaging in scandalous and public sin is a “good thing” or that the denial of the authority of scripture is a “good thing.”
I merely paraphrased the principle taught in Romans 8:28: “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.”
I believe that it was Joseph who said “you meant it for evil, but God meant it for good.”
People can do bad things, but God can make good effects come from bad actions.
Hope that clarifies a bit.
Padre Wayne, re: #52 – the commenter before me introduced the idea of sex as a civil right. I was just responding.
When are you coming back to SF?
PadreWayne,
I have no doubt that good people in NH are doing good works. That’s not my point, which is that Robinson uses his office to champion his No. 1 issue in secular politics and secular media and thus behaves more like a lobbyist than a bishop. And whether the money for his trips comes from the diocese or his pocket, the source is the same as he is paid by the diocese to be its bishop.
From the horse’s own mouth came the admission that while he previously said he didn’t want to be “the gay bishop,” he now sees it has his place to represent the GLBT. Or, at least that’s what a press report said. You’ll probably claim he was misrepresented.
I have little doubt that if a conservative bishop decided his mission should be to fight abortion and he traveled about, made movies, staged and upstaged events, and endorsed candidates over it, TEC would be squawking and trying to inhibit him.
Sarah #56 wrote:
[blockquote]You know, PadreWayne, I couldn’t make your level of denial up if I were a best-selling fiction writer.[/blockquote]
Thank you for naming the elephant in the room, Sarah. You GO girl!
I guess the real question is:
will Rowan get an invite?
lol!!
#67:
[blockquote]Susan, I see you are number 66, or is that 666? [/blockquote]
Well, I’ve written elsewhere about people being “demonized” on this blog, but this is the first time I’ve seen it being done literally. Lord have mercy!
[blockquote]Regardless of how many same-sex partners go to Lambeth…[/blockquote]
Perhaps I’m pointing out the blindingly obvious (perhaps not), but Susan was referring tongue in cheek to [i]female[/i] bishops, not least the Presiding Bishop herself.
Padre – name them.
I know of no other bishop, priest or deacon in the world of ANY denomination with such levels of ostensible vanity. FACT: The Episcopal Church has become the church of “ME” not “HE”.
Aristotle – Whenever a revisionist says “The Holy Spirit is doing a new thing”, slow down, take a breath and check the circumstance against the Bible. The Holy Spirit CANNOT and WILL NOT contradict the Word. To do so, would mean that God no longer exists.
No, Midwest, I’m not going there. They exist, they are bullies, their hubris is astounding. But to name them (since it is, of course, my opinion) would be to stoop to the same level. Thanks but I’m not biting.
And contrary to your opinion, I simply don’t agree with your assertion that The Episcopal Church has become the church of “ME” not “HE.” Are you part of it? Do you worship at your local Episcopal Church? Do you engage in conversation with Episcopalians? If not, and if your only news source for TEC is here or one of the other “orthodox” blogs, then no wonder you’ve arrived at such a conclusion. If you [i]do[/i] worship with us and have still arrived at this conclusion, then you’ve certainly found a dismal example of a parish, for which I am truly sorry.
And Sarah, re: your use of statistics. Hadaway says that HALF the departures had to do with +Robinson’s election/consecration, not ALL. You’re using the stats and then assuming (and declaring) the reason, only half supported by Hadaway.
(Snort-I couldn’t do better if I tried.)