The Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson, Bishop of New Hampshire, said Sept. 10 that he has been talking with members of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s staff and will attend next year’s Lambeth Conference in whatever capacity he is permitted as long as he is given a voice.
“I’m going to do my best to be at the table,” Bishop Robinson said. “More than anything I wish I could be in the same room with Archbishop [Peter] Akinola [of Nigeria] so he could hear from my own lips how God has transformed me through scripture. The miracle is that I heard God’s voice in scripture. I am fiercely committed to it. It literally saved my life.”
Bishop Robinson delivered an address at the General Theological Seminary on reconciliation efforts on human sexuality within the Anglican Communion as part of the “Reconciliation at the Roundtable” conference Sept. 10-12 at the seminary’s newly opened Desmond Tutu Center. He began by comparing his invitation to speak on reconciliation within the Anglican Communion to inviting a fox to lecture on reconciliation within a henhouse.
“Either this was a stroke of genius or a profoundly disturbing decision,” he said. “You will get to be the judge.”
#22 Amen. Amazing how Christ can speak through anyone, including Mr. Robinson. He does indeed need the Global South Primates for his own salvation, although he has not yet discerned nor accepted the reason he does need them. When he does…..I shudder to think of how hard this is going to hit his soul.
In my many years of teaching Sunday School, meditation upon Scripture and Alpha, we were always advised by every sponsor be it Stephen’s Ministry, Clergy, or whoever, in Roman Catholic, Anglican, or Protestant circles the exact same treatise on reading and meditating on Scripture:
If you are praying upon and studying Scripture, and you hear in your prayers advice that clearly conflicts with that Scripture, then that “voice” is NOT the voice of God. Surely Mr. Robinson knows that? The most dangerous sound to hear when praying is often what we want to hear. Scary stuff. To believe otherwise is to deny the existence of The Evil One. Is that what we have come to?
As Lewis said, we can make equal and opposite mistakes regarding the Devil, and the first is the assumption that he doesn’t exist.
KTF!….mrb
What happened to the comments? Were CStan’s comments so vile that the others referencing them were accidently (or on purpose) deleted? That’s not an accusation against the Elves, but a question. The Elves do such an amazing work on such short resources.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
i was just posting a note when the phone rang. Having read the thread and said my prayers, I felt it really didn’t work and wasn’t edifying. But instead of closing the thread which I sometimes do, I was going to open it and start over.
Let’s see if that works.
The important thing is to focus on the arguments made and not to make it about the person.
The process of reconciliation begins when someone comes from the margins, challenges ‘empire’ and causes it to re-examine how it functions.
I really don’t understand anymore what is being meant by the word “reconciliation” – can someone help me? I’m quite serious. Remarks like the above seem to me to come from left field as a description of “reconciliation” – what am I missing?
Is it, as he says, the worst sin to walk away from the table? I think it’s something that should not be done lightly or soon. It’s not something I want to do – yet it seems that we have fewer and fewer possibilities if we are orthodox in belief.
He said he would have preferred that the Archbishop of Canterbury had invited all bishops and then let the situation sort itself out based on who attended.
I would have preferred that too.
The Listening Process, he said, was a modest first step, but that without money to bring people together for face-to-face conversation, it ran a danger of degenerating into a “reading process.â€
I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing. I sometimes do my best “listening” when I’m reading, when I can go back and look again and think about it. Words go by so fast, face to face.
“Let’s be very clear,†he said. “It’s a very small number of people who are trying to split this church. They are using a larger number of people who are uncomfortable with homosexuality.
I can understand why revisionists would want to believe this, but I think it’s an unfortunate mistake that they seem to do so. I’m not “uncomfortable with homosexuality” and I don’t know the “few bishops” – I’ve never met them or any reasserting leaders. I don’t think any of us initially had an intention to “split” the church, I don’t think the “small number” he refers to really want to split it now. Would that TEC would make room for orthodox believers. I’m here, because I have realized that my church has wandered dangerously off course. I would like to see that righted. Failing that, I have to find, with God’s help, a way forward for myself. I think a lot of people are in my position.
The trouble is, Kendall, the issue here is integral to the person, not the arguments. I undeestand your purpose and it is reasonable – in most cases. But here, the personality is central to the problem. We cannot address the problem of the effect of lying without paying attention to the liar, which is the source of the problem.
Robinson calls himself the fox in the hen house. I understand why he chose this metaphor, but it does not fit him at all. He is the cancer in the liver, a disease whose sole “purpose” is to spread and kill its host. And he must be treated that way, make no mistake. You do not turn the other cheek to cancer.
Shall we forgive him, as good Christians? No indeed, for if we lack the courage to defend ourselves from patent evil, we deserve whatever happens to us. And what will happen is that he will spread – as he is spreading now – and other vital organs will be infected. Kendall, he is metastatic, and you know this. For the Anglicans, it is cut now, or die. There is a point after which it is too late, and I submit it is not wise or sensible to let him get too near the heart and lungs. TEC, I suppose is the cause of the disease, like someone who smokes and says that there are real benefits from tobacco (as used to be said), and Robinson is the malignancy that results. And like so many smokers, when they realize what they have done, they are too late. TEC has not realized it yet, but it will as its body perishes. Is this not the case?
He has little that can be called an argument, after all. If someone says “I heard God’s voice in scripture,” what is one to respond? “No you didn’t?”
And is there an argument about “reconciliation” or is there only word games? After all, he doesn’t want reconciliation, he wants acceptance, a rather different matter.
I am glad, however, that you posted this, for Robinson is clearer here. We get a much better view of the man and his means, and this is important. In a sense, this is the shot on Fort Sumpter, if you will allow me a little hyperbole.
This is the open challenge to the communion and to the role and significance of scripture. Will we defend, will we undertake a counter attack,or will we allow this challenge to dissolve in talk and sips of water? Larry
Larry,
I almost tongue-in-cheek chided you by suggesting that you must be a bigot to pass such a harsh judgment on innocent liver cancer cells. Which really brings up a big issue. Many of the folks who act evilly or as a proxy to evil do so with the best of intention. Cancer cells don’t know that they are cancer or if they do, they believe that it is ‘their right’ to infect the host further. Ultimately, they kill the body in which they reside, but they do so ‘with the best intentions.’
Peter Wagner wrote a book about people like that in the local church – he called them ‘Well-intentioned Dragons.’
Good try, Kendall. But do you really think comments like “[Robinson] He is the cancer in the liver, a disease whose sole “purpose†is to spread and kill its host. And he must be treated that way, make no mistake. You do not turn the other cheek to cancer” are an improvement?
When last I checked what you do with cancer cells are kill them. Or am I missing a nuance here?
The thing is, closing off comments, or deleting them, doesn’t really get us anywhere. It reminded me of the threatening comments that I heard in my own church in the lead up to his consecration, and I am not surprised that the guy wore a flack jacket, though I know some scoff. I was very sad to see those comments, but it was encouraging to see some standing up to them which I did not see four years ago.
Susan, do you feel that your remarks here have been especially helpful?
Baffled again. In my Bible Jonah was sent by God to proclaim a message to the people of the city of Ninevah. He was to preach against the city, because its wickedness had come before God. Jonah ran away the first time because he didn´t want to do the job he was assigned. But after his adventures in the fish we learn that Jonah obeyed God. 3:3
He did what he was supposed to do in a most convincing way because we learn that the people listened to him. 3:3-9 He preached. God saved.
Afterwards Jonah was mad at God for saving people he considered to be his enemies. But that is a matter between Jonah and God, not between Jonah and the Ninivites.
What table did Jonah walk away from? What more was Jonah supposed to do?
New thread not working. It just gets worse and worse. It’s kinda embarrassing, really!
Not much of a desire for reconciliation here.
Jonah was mad at the Ninevites for repenting. The great fish was the equivalent of dragging Jonah kicking and screaming. This guy didn’t want to do the job, and then went into a giant sulk when God’s purposes were achieved. How could God even send him to those heathen. I think this was a lot more than a fuss between God and Jonah. He just didn’t understand that God’s embrace is a universal one, not just around the Chosen People.
The reality of this situation is this:
If G. Robinson were a ‘bishop’ he never would have taken actions to destroy the folk he was supposed to be leading. The fact that he chose Himself over the health of church should have been the first and primary reason he was disqualified from holding the position.
Secondly, IF he were a man of God, he’d not force himself on Cantebury. Paul was willing to become what he needed to be that Christ was glorified and he caused no one to stumble. G. Robinson is determined to be nothing for anyone and destroy the Anglican Christian Community.
These are the principle points…
[blockquote]He just didn’t understand that God’s embrace is a universal one, not just around the Chosen People.[/blockquote]
Yes, God’s embrace is inclusive, but so is His expectation for repentance. Nineveh repented (as should we all), but much of the current theology suggests that no amendment of life is needed. Do you think your theory of God’s embrace would also apply to unrepentant Klansmen or Mafia members? When there is no intent to amend life, how sincere is the repentance?
RE: “It’s kinda embarrassing, really!”
Not really, Fred. I couldn’t care less what progressives think about traditionalists.
We really don’t have a common enough foundational worldview for us to have similar things to be embarrassed about.
If a comment is made that is wrong, and in violation of the comment policy, it should be deleted or edited . . . regardless of whether revisionists are upset, or happy, or sad, or angry, or full of bile, or singing Christmas carols. And regardless, of course, of whether they edit their own grotesque comments . . . by, you know . . . their allies. What matters is doing the right thing.
Larry Morse, RevK, Sherri,
Your analogy of cancer isn’t really that original:
The Jews are a Cancer on the breast of Germany – Adolf Hitler
The easy part for you is the success rate. Hitler only succeeded in destroying 2/3 of the European “Cancer.” You only have one man to kill.
[i] We seem to be off topic- again. If this continues we’ll need to close the thread- again. [/i]
Brian,
That is over the top: Nobody is suggesting literally killing +VGR and your likening your fellow Christians to one of the greatest mass-murdering regimes in history is uncalled for.
Back onto the topic; I believe what Larry is suggesting that for +VGR to say that he hears the voice of God in scripture and that ‘the voice’ tells him his lifestyle is ‘to be celebrated,’ has the same effect as cancer in that it departs from the body’s normal/traditional understanding, is a radical reinterpretation of the Great Physician’s Desk Reference and can only be construed as reasonable if we assume that +VGR’s personal experience of the last twenty years trumps the vast, vast, vast majority of the understanding of 3000+ years of Judeo-Christian theology and the vast majority of fellow Christians.
OK
As for the topic, I think +Gene is showing a fundamental naivete’ in expecting people to be able to stay at the table. There is at least a Scriptural/historic basis for renouncing activities that you deem heretical and, if unaddressed, separating yourself from the offending congregation. That is not to say that there is ample basis for “fighting the good fight” from within. I think +Gene does a disservice to our cause by trying to force the issue into a dichotomy. There is indeed a range of theologically acceptable alternatives that each meet God’s plan.
Gene Robinson appearing at the Tutu Center?
Nobody could make this stuff up.
Brian
Thank you for #19 – a thoughtful argument. To build on your last line, there is a range of theological alternatives, but eventually there needs to be a line that cannot be crossed.
RevK
Removal of the “cancer” is equivalent to spiritual killing. And as I have said many times on this blog, there is no comparison between Christians and the Third Reich – Christians have slaughtered FAR more people than that regime ever imagined.
The problem with the comment in the original comparison to liver cancer is that it is in itself extreme. The only way to dissuade people from using these false analogies is to show them how they have been used in the past.
Brian,
[blockquote]Christians have slaughtered FAR more people than that regime ever imagined.[/blockquote]
Can you support that statement with some kind of link or evidence? That is a pretty extreme statement.
The cancer analogy is problematic for two reasons. First, it is emotionally loaded with terror and fear – frankly, much like the Nazi analogy. Secondly, medical science has no known way to change cancer cells back into good tissue; the Lord Jesus does. +VGR can recognize his sin, repent and be fully restored. In this way the ‘cancer’ is cured without killing it.
RevK
I could, but it would be off-topic. I’ll say this – start with the Crusades and the Inquisition and keep adding from there.
Oh dear.
Sorry guys, but much as I agree with my fellow reasserters on this issue, this thread really has got out of hand at only 23 comments.
Larry (#5) – you personalised this far too much, and your analogy goes too far. Robinson is merely a symptom of a much bigger problem.
Wilfred (#20) – Totally unnecessary and spiteful.
Brian (#16) – No need to bring in Hitler. Ever heard of Godwin’s Law?
Elves, Kendall, Someone – Please shut this down.
OK, I will be on topic and discuss the argument.
[blockquote]“Let’s be very clear,†he said. “It’s a very small number of people who are trying to split this church. They are using a larger number of people who are uncomfortable with homosexuality. I sat in a room where I was there to talk about reconciliation and all they wanted to talk about was divorce and who gets the house and the dog.â€[/blockquote]
Gene Robinson has already said that he is willing “to boldy [sic] risk the institution of the church to advance” his homosexualist agenda. He states that there is a very small number splitting the church. Of course, he forgets that the whole of the Anglican communion that said his ordination would be what is doing the splitting, and not those holding to the faith once delivered.
Are we talking about conservative Episcopalians splitting from liberal Episcopalians? Why not talk about Episcopalians splitting from the greater Anglican Communion?
Albert Mohler has a [url=http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070910/29253_The_Consecration_of_Bishop_Robinson:_A_New_Day_of_Infamy.htm]essay[/url] looking at an ignominious anniversary that is soon to be upon us, the ratification of Gene Robinson’s communion tearing ordination. In that essay, Dr Mohler has a quote from the rector of a parish in Chane’s diocese:
[blockquote]if Anglicans in the Global South broke communion with the Episcopal Church (USA), this would not be so bad after all. As this pastor asserted, “it’s not unlike never speaking to your second cousin who lives in Nevada. It’s too bad you never speak, but it really doesn’t matter that much.”[/blockquote]
Actually, 15 of the 29 provinces have already stated that they are not in communion with the Episcopal church, representing a number of Anglicans that dwarfs the insignificant TEc. So the majority of the world’s Anglicans are compared to a second cousin in ecclesiastical importance? Really don’t matter much? Who is the small number splitting from whom? This rector has been taking hubris lessons from VGR:
In the same essay, the great Albert Mohler quotes Gene Robinson comparing the orthodox’s reaction to his outrageous words and actions to Jesus’:
[blockquote]It was the religious establishment that were often enraged by what Jesus said and did. It is the marginalized to rejoice. In some ways the world hasn’t changed.[/blockquote]
As the recent letter from the clergy from the Diocese of Pittsburgh states, they are merely trying to stand firm with the Anglican communion.
[i] Okay I’ve figured out how to do this. Comments are closed until Kendall checks this thread and decides whether or not to reopen it. [/i]
-Elf Lady