I’m really sick of hearing “God loves everyone.” Well, of course he does. He loves robbers but doesn’t accept their robbing. He loves murderers but doesn’t accept their murdering. He loves gays, et all, but doesn’t accept their going against the Bible.
And as for listening, what about the opportunity you had a the APA convention to speak AND listen. But you might have really had to listen so you blew it off.
If Christ were going to Lambeth 2008, Gene, he would probably hang out with you and say “go and sin no more.”
So all the proclamations, etc., that Lambeth has made over the years have no binding authority. Well, that’s one way to look at it.
And what is worng with the House of Bishops that they put up with all Gen’s book signing bad press…every day it gets harder to attract people to the Epsicopal Church…are not bishops hearing this from their clergy…or do they just roll it back on them and blame them for lack of growth and money…and what about Howard…why hasn’t anyone challenged his reign of terror for ruining the lives of 42 faithful clergy…
[i] Comment edited by elf. Any references to World War II Germany will be deleted. [/i]
[blockquote]I know there are so many bishops around the world who have never had the opportunity to sit and talk with someone who is both openly gay and Christian. [/blockquote]
So? Those who oppose ordaining sexually active people with same-sex attraction do so out of principle, not out of ignorance. They know that Bp Robinson is a likable person and that he has some good skills for ministry, but when his actions are compared to God’s Word, they are found wanting. And would he listen to them, and consider repenting? I doubt it.
I really don’t think that it is helpful to make comparisons to the Nazis. I’m sure that the illustration was not meant to be hurtful, but such references have no place in this discussion. There are other ways to get your point across without harkening the images that necessarily go with any reference to Nazi Germany. The people on the other side of this argument may be many things, but Nazis they are not…
#1 Don’t let your heart be turned sour. There is no better news and no deeper truth than that God loves you. God loves sinners. It’s nothing but the wonderful story of the cross.
What Bishop Robinson seems to lack is an understanding of what sin is and what sin does. Namely that it damages our relationship with the God who loves us so much. Sin doesn’t change God. It changes us. That’s why it matters so much. It’s this Bishop Robinson doesn’t seem to understand.
I don’t remember a time in my life when God seemed any more present, almost palpably close. Prayer has almost seemed redundant to me, because God has seemed so close during all of this
Can someone please make theological sense of this for me.
It’s simply gnostic. VGR has a unique and special experience–knowledge (γνώσις) not available to οἱ πολλοί–and so the usual rules don’t apply to him.
“It’s simply gnostic. VGR has a unique and special experience–knowledge (γνώσις) not available to οἱ πολλοί–and so the usual rules don’t apply to him.”
Were VGR a man whom you liked, respected and thought to be holy might it be just as fair to have replied: “It’s simply mysticism. VGR had a unique experience like Evelyn Underhill, Theresa of Avila, etc.
The man’s prayer/interior life is not yours to judge. His beliefs and behavior are fair game but none of us can see into the heart of another besides God.
“I’m just not willing to go to Lambeth and once again put myself potentially in harm’s way without protecting this person I’ve been with…” — this does beg the question, when your invitation to Lambeth was specifically witheld, when asked “to exercise restraint”, you are having a civil union now for what reason again?…
And yes, archangelica a spiritual experience of God’s blessing and presence when one is living in clear rebellion to God’s commands is gnostic. A spiritual experience when living in obedience to God’s commands is not necessarily mystical as much as Christian. No one need claim to see into Gene’s heart to know he is deceived (gnosticism) one need only listen to what he himself is always saying. And I do pray for mercy for the man, he is much to be pitied.
#9 This isn’t about experience – it’s about theology. What theology of prayer makes sense of this claim that prayer is (almost) redundant to him because God feels so close?
The claim that experience somehow trumps or evades theology is often heard in TEC – and I can’t even begin to make theological sense of it.
r-storm…don’t you know that these current debates actually started in the early 1900’s within the dialectic movement and were at their height in the pre-war period and during Hilter’s rise to power, which is what brought about Barth’s own fairly hard core positions on revelation in Christ alone…a religious sort of fascism similar to in spirit to what we have now going on in our church with orthodox genocide had its roots in those days
What galls me in particular is his assertion that he is truly orthodox. How can he possibly believe this? And do you suppose he does? WE have seen TEC again and again bend language into scarcely believable contortions because it does not treat language with any integrity or respect. And so here. He has twisted orthodoxy into an unrecognizable form , but he does it with a straight face, as TEC commonly does, so that the casual reader passes right through the distortion without noticing it. There is nothing orthodox about VGR, if the word is to have any denotation at all. Larry
#13 – he’s orthodox in that he really believes the creeds.
He’s reformed in that in the conflict between church teaching on grace and church teaching on sexuality, he chooses grace.
Already left writes: “He loves robbers but doesn’t accept their robbing. He loves murderers but doesn’t accept their murdering. He loves gays, et all, but doesn’t accept their going against the Bible.”
I think this illustrates the difference in perspectives that reasserters and reappraisers have. Reasserters compare gays to robbers and murderers. Reappraisers see that gay relationships should be held to the same standard as straight relationships.
Which don’t generally turn out that well, anyway.
Perhaps we straight people should worry about our own houses first. We’re not doing a very good job living out what marriage could be. Once straight people figure out how to deal with divorce, then they should begin throwing stones.
#15 It does say something about the parlous state TEC is in that a bishop can say people will be surprised at how conservative he is because he believes in the Trinity, Incarnation and resurrection.
#14 The church’s traditional teaching on sexuality is about grace. It’s always been about grace. It’s not terribly conservative to believe otherwise.
“… Who for us men AND FOR OUR SALVATION …”; “… I believe in the Holy Spirit, THE LORD, THE GIVER OF LIFE …”. The Creed has consequences in life. Jesus did not hang on His Cross so that any one of us should live as we please.
From an interview with the Times of London last year:
“In this section, Bishop Robinson explains that he was attracted to the Anglican tradition because of its spirit of enquiry:
‘Yes. I go off to college, which quite coincidentally happened to be owned by the southern dioceses of the Episcopal Church and met an assistant chaplain there. When I raised my questions again, instead of telling me that I shouldn’t be asking, instead he congratulated me on asking all the right questions and said he didn’t have all the answers, but I was welcome to come in and let’s look for those answers together. I remember being struck at how undefensive he was about his religion – that Anglicanism seemed to be big enough and broad enough to allow and even encourage those kinds of questions. It had its own answers, but it existed to help me come to my own answers. I remember thinking ‘gosh, that seems to me to be the way religion ought to be’. So I was very encouraged by that. One day when I was ranting and raving about how much of the Nicene Creed I didn’t believe, he said ‘well, when you’re in church, just say the parts of the creed you do agree with. Be silent for the others. We’re not asking you do so something against your integrity’. And again I thought whew, that’s what one would hope for from a religion – honesty and integrity. And I guess that’s a theme that has carried throughout my life in Ministry – that God wants us to be honest and full of integrity”
#14, why would you claim that VGR believes the creeds in the face of his own statements to the contrary?
#18 It’s important to be fair in our encounters with those with whom we disagree. Though I know that Bishop Robinson says things in private that do not always mesh with what he says in pubic (as many of us sometimes do) it is possible, and I am prepared to trust his word, that he now affirms the whole of the Nicene Creed.
The problem for me is that he seems to act as if the Creed simply expresses ideas to which he has now, unlike in his youth, given assent. For whatever reason he thinks it perhaps surprising that a bishop in TEC should believe in these ideas.
Whereas the truth of the Creed is a verbal expression of our faith in the living God, with whom we are in relationship, whom we desire whether we know it or not, and who claims every aspect of our lives as his own, because he wants us to “have life and have it abundantly”. In other words, the Creed is essentially talking truthfully and carefully about the One with whom we are in relationship – and it’s truth is lived out as we are transformed into the image of Christ in whom we have confessed our faith, as we repent of our sins, and are made holy by God’s grace.
As soon as you move from ideas about God to relationship with the living God, that is, as soon as you begin to speak about what that transformation looks like in real people’s lives or what kinds of shape the christian life might begin to take – Bishop Robinson departs widely from the tradition of the church so that his affirmation of being “orthodox” begins to look gestural, misinformed or even deceitful.
John Wilkins writes: [blockquote] Reappraisers see that gay relationships should be held to the same standard as straight relationships. [/blockquote]
Expecpt, of course, Scripture absolutely prohibits homesexual sex as something that is an anathma to God. It is not Holy to the Lord and is a behavior that Jews and Christians, as peple dedicated to the Lord, are not to engage in.
See #20 and his caveat. That homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships should be held to the same standard is to say that autistic children should be held to the same standards as normal children. Homosexual standards are by any definition or standard extremely abnormal. Even the label “straight” tells us how far the non-straight is from normative. Simply looked at as a statistic and the bell shaped curve, this simple truth cannot be scouted. That being so, how can the abnormal and the normal be held to the same standard? This is as illogical, and contorted sematically as VGR’s saying he is orthodox. Larry
Not sure what “Howard” has to do with this article — but as for the 42 priests whose lives he has ruined — I know them all — and they are fine. They are happy and content in the work they are doing under global south bishops. They do not consider themselves “ruined” — but rather “blessed” and in a sense “liberated” from all of this stuff we who are still in TEC struggle with.
You mention that VGR “really believes the creeds.” Are you certain about that? The only publicly available evidence I know of on that question points the other direction, which is that VGR has spoken warmly about how great it was that his mentors in ECUSA encouraged him to simply “not recite” those parts of the Nicene Creed which he disbelieved. Even if he were to claim he believes it now, I’d be skeptical simply because it is so common now for liberals in TEC to claim they believe in the Creed while privately “reinterpreting” every article of it so that their “belief” is what most Christians of the ages would call disbelief. It’s what Larry M was refering to about the misuse of language.
Regarding your claim that “in the conflict between church teaching on grace and church teaching on sexuality, [VGR] chooses grace” can you explain more what you mean? As I understand it, grace by definition is only possible where a person has declared himself a sinner. Take a look at the hymn “Amazing Grace” for an example. God’s love for Newton was grace precisely because he was a wretch, a very bad man. If you love a person for their good qualities, which all of us often do, that’s a nice experience and there’s nothing wrong with that kind of love, but it isn’t grace: which by definition is love for the bad man, love for the worthless… UNMERITED love.
The arguments made in favor of VGR’s ordination, back at GC 2003, and consistently since then, have been that homosexuality is not in and of itself sin. (Well, that’s the argument when the reappraisers aren’t being completely muddleheaded and talking about “inclusion” and “the marginalized.”) The claim is that homosexuality and heterosexuality are like being left and right handed. Which I am ok with: if a person makes that claim I am happy to debate that, and listen carefully to his arguments (maybe he’s right!). But what he cannot then do is talk about grace. Grace is out of the picture at that point. Grace only applies where sin is acknowledged. Grace happens at the end of the story of the prodigal son — it’s a story of grace because it is the love of an absolutely worthless and undeserving child. If the story was about how the son cleaned up his act and became a Good Man — and then as a result his father loved him — it wouldn’t be grace. Or if the story was about how the son made arguments that he hadn’t been a bad man in this respect, and convinced his father, and therefore his father loved him because he saw there really was nothing wrong with what he had done and what he was; then again it would be a story about the father having been mistaken in thinking his son had behaved badly, but it wouldn’t be a story about grace.
[blockquote]Were VGR a man whom you liked, respected and thought to be holy might it be just as fair to have replied: “It’s simply mysticism. VGR had a unique experience like Evelyn Underhill, Theresa of Avila, etc.[/blockquote]
“Mysticism” begins in the mist, centers in the personal pronoun “I”, and ends in schism.
So, comments at T-19 are not allowed to reflect theological debates in their historical context…this altitude itself reflects a sort of re-education camp mentality…or worse you all are denying that the Holocaust ever happened…wow…to edit theologically/historically correct arguments concerning the theological debates that got us where we are today is simply the height of ignorance…why has this site become so defensive of TEC…the articles not posted say as much as the ones that are…and the editing ties up the package…I know this is Kendall’s site and he can do what he wants, but this might tell us more about Kendall and his southern roots than we may have wanted to know.
Dr. Crestwood,
With all due respect, you are taking this too far. Comments such as “Orthodox Genocide” and now a slight at the geographic location of this blog’s moderator really are a bit too much.
saj…sure the Lord supports and strengthens these clergy who are under attack by Howard…and Paul tell us to embrace suffering for just this experience of God’s presence in times of persecution…but these clergy have been forced to leave their church, have had their ministries distracted, had their pensions curtailed, and in some cases had to move from rectories, their characters questions, and their ordinations diminished publicly…that isn’t exactly what they expected…and it is cruel for Howard to do this to them…
r-storm…is it not folks like David Duke and the clan who deny the Holocaust ever happened…that too is simply an historic fact…does everyone here belong to the NEA?
r-storm…do you deny their is a cleansing of orthodox clergy going on in the church?…again Howard and 42 defrockings…what will it take for you to realize this genocide is in full swing?
#23 In the long version of the interview, Bishop Robinson describes himself as “incredibly orthodox.” That seems to mean at least that he believes in the Incarnation, Trinity, resurrection.
Of course, if you read on the very next paragraph lets you know where his passion is and what sense to make of his claim to be “incredibly orthodox”. For he takes for granted that we can, should and must “pick and choose” among Scripture and that Scripture is in error on matters relating to salvation. I’m certainly not willing to grant that is an appropriate way to talk about the church’s use of Holy Scripture. It’s not us that uses Scripture. God uses Scripture to change us.
Bishop Robinson is a smooth media operator – except he has a temper. Speaking to a gathering of gay activists not much will be heard about how traditional he is. He will be new, liberated, different. The oppressive, bigoted shackles of the past being thrown off etc. Talking to someone interested in tradition – the Bishop becomes “incredibly orthodox” – and publicly affirms as much of that old time doctrine as he can stomach. He most reminds, not of a church figure at all, but rather he bears a startling resemblance to a campaigning politician.
Reminds me of interviews I’ve heard and read from Madalyn Murray O’Hair – who was so utterly confident in the non-existence of God, that there was absolutely ZERO doubt in her voice, mind or heart. I have often thought….if (for the sake of argument) we are the gullible ones because we believe in His existence – then no harm, no foul once we go “poof” into history. However, if she (and VGR) are wrong…how will they approach St. Peter and the pearly gates????? Sometimes, I wish I had his guts…..I’d work over Vegas…big time.
When I was a child I was taught to not rely on feelings but soley on the Word of God. Feelings are unreliable. Some days I feel that God is very far away; Scripture tells me that He is very near. Some days I feel very confident that what I have done/said is just fine; Scripture tells me that what I have done/said is contrary to what God requires of me and that I should confess my sin, ask for forgiveness and seek to amend my ways, with the help of the Holy Spirit. In light of this I tend to distrust the opinions of anyone who seems to rely so heavily on “feeling close to God”.
You know, driver8, that your argument that his smooth, glozing (if I may borrow from Chaucer) tongue, His politician’s cheek may well be his undoing. The people who listen to him and who will read him are not stupid, and Americans are only too acutely sensitized to political manipulation. He has already talked too much and he is going to talk more and more at Lambeth. The far left will believe anything he says because it matches their agenda, but the rest of the world will watch as VGR lays himself bare before them as he runs off at the mouth. He should, of course, say nothing and takes the martyr’s robe close about him, but he will not because he, like so many homosexuals, is an exhibitionist at heart and cannot keep away from the spotlight. The more he talks, the less credible he will be, and this because, like so many politicians, he is without integrity, Larry
#23 – well, I have to confess, I don’t know +Robinson’s heart. Scripture commends that I do not judge.
I admit, I am also condemned by the same standard you have. Scripture is pretty clear that Jesus flew up into the sky into the clouds on Ascension. It’s pretty clear God created the earth in six days. For most of human history, these have been interpreted literally. It might be a private belief I have, but I do tend to change things so that all my beliefs are coherent. I don’t think most people are any different.
The reason I was asking about whether you were really sure that Gene Robinson believed the creeds is because in your post (#14) you said you WERE sure. When Larry M expressed some doubt about VGR’s self-description of “incredibly orthodox” you replied that this was accurate because VGR “really believes the creeds.” It sounded like you knew what VGR “really believed.”
Naturally nobody can get inside another person’s head. What we have to go on is what they say and do. All I personally knew about VGR on this score was his public praising of his TEC mentors who encouraged him not to recite parts of the creed which he disbelieved. That he has since come to believe the creed in the same fashion that Luther and Benedict and Augustine and Calvin and Aquinas (etc.) did would be welcome news to me, but I had not heard it. I thought perhaps you had.
I wasn’t able to follow exactly what you were saying in your last paragraph — unsure what central point the different sentences were trying to make. I’d be delighted if you took another stab at it — and I promise to listen carefully.
On one point of fact you are mistaken (though it really is a common mistake). And that is that a six 24-hour day creation story has been the interpretation of Genesis given by most Christian thinkers (before say Darwin). Or that “He ascended into heaven and sitteth at the right hand of the Father” was interpreted literally (Jesus flying up to a sky palace and sitting in a throne to the right of an older man). Augustine and Jerome and Aquinas (to take just three great Christian thinkers from long ago) knew that wasn’t so. The same three guys also did not interpret Genesis as a six 24-hour day creation story; they knew it was not literal history.
I’m really sick of hearing “God loves everyone.” Well, of course he does. He loves robbers but doesn’t accept their robbing. He loves murderers but doesn’t accept their murdering. He loves gays, et all, but doesn’t accept their going against the Bible.
And as for listening, what about the opportunity you had a the APA convention to speak AND listen. But you might have really had to listen so you blew it off.
If Christ were going to Lambeth 2008, Gene, he would probably hang out with you and say “go and sin no more.”
So all the proclamations, etc., that Lambeth has made over the years have no binding authority. Well, that’s one way to look at it.
And what is worng with the House of Bishops that they put up with all Gen’s book signing bad press…every day it gets harder to attract people to the Epsicopal Church…are not bishops hearing this from their clergy…or do they just roll it back on them and blame them for lack of growth and money…and what about Howard…why hasn’t anyone challenged his reign of terror for ruining the lives of 42 faithful clergy…
[i] Comment edited by elf. Any references to World War II Germany will be deleted. [/i]
The poor gentleman from New Hampshire has bought into the deception hook, line and sinker.
[blockquote]I know there are so many bishops around the world who have never had the opportunity to sit and talk with someone who is both openly gay and Christian. [/blockquote]
So? Those who oppose ordaining sexually active people with same-sex attraction do so out of principle, not out of ignorance. They know that Bp Robinson is a likable person and that he has some good skills for ministry, but when his actions are compared to God’s Word, they are found wanting. And would he listen to them, and consider repenting? I doubt it.
I really don’t think that it is helpful to make comparisons to the Nazis. I’m sure that the illustration was not meant to be hurtful, but such references have no place in this discussion. There are other ways to get your point across without harkening the images that necessarily go with any reference to Nazi Germany. The people on the other side of this argument may be many things, but Nazis they are not…
[i] Comments referring to World War II Germany will be deleted. [/i]
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
#1 Don’t let your heart be turned sour. There is no better news and no deeper truth than that God loves you. God loves sinners. It’s nothing but the wonderful story of the cross.
What Bishop Robinson seems to lack is an understanding of what sin is and what sin does. Namely that it damages our relationship with the God who loves us so much. Sin doesn’t change God. It changes us. That’s why it matters so much. It’s this Bishop Robinson doesn’t seem to understand.
Can someone please make theological sense of this for me.
It’s simply gnostic. VGR has a unique and special experience–knowledge (γνώσις) not available to οἱ πολλοί–and so the usual rules don’t apply to him.
“It’s simply gnostic. VGR has a unique and special experience–knowledge (γνώσις) not available to οἱ πολλοί–and so the usual rules don’t apply to him.”
Were VGR a man whom you liked, respected and thought to be holy might it be just as fair to have replied: “It’s simply mysticism. VGR had a unique experience like Evelyn Underhill, Theresa of Avila, etc.
The man’s prayer/interior life is not yours to judge. His beliefs and behavior are fair game but none of us can see into the heart of another besides God.
“I’m just not willing to go to Lambeth and once again put myself potentially in harm’s way without protecting this person I’ve been with…” — this does beg the question, when your invitation to Lambeth was specifically witheld, when asked “to exercise restraint”, you are having a civil union now for what reason again?…
And yes, archangelica a spiritual experience of God’s blessing and presence when one is living in clear rebellion to God’s commands is gnostic. A spiritual experience when living in obedience to God’s commands is not necessarily mystical as much as Christian. No one need claim to see into Gene’s heart to know he is deceived (gnosticism) one need only listen to what he himself is always saying. And I do pray for mercy for the man, he is much to be pitied.
#9 This isn’t about experience – it’s about theology. What theology of prayer makes sense of this claim that prayer is (almost) redundant to him because God feels so close?
The claim that experience somehow trumps or evades theology is often heard in TEC – and I can’t even begin to make theological sense of it.
r-storm…don’t you know that these current debates actually started in the early 1900’s within the dialectic movement and were at their height in the pre-war period and during Hilter’s rise to power, which is what brought about Barth’s own fairly hard core positions on revelation in Christ alone…a religious sort of fascism similar to in spirit to what we have now going on in our church with orthodox genocide had its roots in those days
[i] Comments referring to World War II Germany will be deleted.[/i]
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin’s_law
What galls me in particular is his assertion that he is truly orthodox. How can he possibly believe this? And do you suppose he does? WE have seen TEC again and again bend language into scarcely believable contortions because it does not treat language with any integrity or respect. And so here. He has twisted orthodoxy into an unrecognizable form , but he does it with a straight face, as TEC commonly does, so that the casual reader passes right through the distortion without noticing it. There is nothing orthodox about VGR, if the word is to have any denotation at all. Larry
#13 – he’s orthodox in that he really believes the creeds.
He’s reformed in that in the conflict between church teaching on grace and church teaching on sexuality, he chooses grace.
Already left writes: “He loves robbers but doesn’t accept their robbing. He loves murderers but doesn’t accept their murdering. He loves gays, et all, but doesn’t accept their going against the Bible.”
I think this illustrates the difference in perspectives that reasserters and reappraisers have. Reasserters compare gays to robbers and murderers. Reappraisers see that gay relationships should be held to the same standard as straight relationships.
Which don’t generally turn out that well, anyway.
Perhaps we straight people should worry about our own houses first. We’re not doing a very good job living out what marriage could be. Once straight people figure out how to deal with divorce, then they should begin throwing stones.
I would dare say he is more orthodox tham KJS seems to be.
Not all gays are raging liberals: http://www.truthsetsfree.net/
#15 It does say something about the parlous state TEC is in that a bishop can say people will be surprised at how conservative he is because he believes in the Trinity, Incarnation and resurrection.
#14 The church’s traditional teaching on sexuality is about grace. It’s always been about grace. It’s not terribly conservative to believe otherwise.
Note the disjunction between point 1 and point 2.
“… Who for us men AND FOR OUR SALVATION …”; “… I believe in the Holy Spirit, THE LORD, THE GIVER OF LIFE …”. The Creed has consequences in life. Jesus did not hang on His Cross so that any one of us should live as we please.
From an interview with the Times of London last year:
“In this section, Bishop Robinson explains that he was attracted to the Anglican tradition because of its spirit of enquiry:
‘Yes. I go off to college, which quite coincidentally happened to be owned by the southern dioceses of the Episcopal Church and met an assistant chaplain there. When I raised my questions again, instead of telling me that I shouldn’t be asking, instead he congratulated me on asking all the right questions and said he didn’t have all the answers, but I was welcome to come in and let’s look for those answers together. I remember being struck at how undefensive he was about his religion – that Anglicanism seemed to be big enough and broad enough to allow and even encourage those kinds of questions. It had its own answers, but it existed to help me come to my own answers. I remember thinking ‘gosh, that seems to me to be the way religion ought to be’. So I was very encouraged by that. One day when I was ranting and raving about how much of the Nicene Creed I didn’t believe, he said ‘well, when you’re in church, just say the parts of the creed you do agree with. Be silent for the others. We’re not asking you do so something against your integrity’. And again I thought whew, that’s what one would hope for from a religion – honesty and integrity. And I guess that’s a theme that has carried throughout my life in Ministry – that God wants us to be honest and full of integrity”
#14, why would you claim that VGR believes the creeds in the face of his own statements to the contrary?
#18 It’s important to be fair in our encounters with those with whom we disagree. Though I know that Bishop Robinson says things in private that do not always mesh with what he says in pubic (as many of us sometimes do) it is possible, and I am prepared to trust his word, that he now affirms the whole of the Nicene Creed.
The problem for me is that he seems to act as if the Creed simply expresses ideas to which he has now, unlike in his youth, given assent. For whatever reason he thinks it perhaps surprising that a bishop in TEC should believe in these ideas.
Whereas the truth of the Creed is a verbal expression of our faith in the living God, with whom we are in relationship, whom we desire whether we know it or not, and who claims every aspect of our lives as his own, because he wants us to “have life and have it abundantly”. In other words, the Creed is essentially talking truthfully and carefully about the One with whom we are in relationship – and it’s truth is lived out as we are transformed into the image of Christ in whom we have confessed our faith, as we repent of our sins, and are made holy by God’s grace.
As soon as you move from ideas about God to relationship with the living God, that is, as soon as you begin to speak about what that transformation looks like in real people’s lives or what kinds of shape the christian life might begin to take – Bishop Robinson departs widely from the tradition of the church so that his affirmation of being “orthodox” begins to look gestural, misinformed or even deceitful.
John Wilkins writes: [blockquote] Reappraisers see that gay relationships should be held to the same standard as straight relationships. [/blockquote]
Expecpt, of course, Scripture absolutely prohibits homesexual sex as something that is an anathma to God. It is not Holy to the Lord and is a behavior that Jews and Christians, as peple dedicated to the Lord, are not to engage in.
See #20 and his caveat. That homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships should be held to the same standard is to say that autistic children should be held to the same standards as normal children. Homosexual standards are by any definition or standard extremely abnormal. Even the label “straight” tells us how far the non-straight is from normative. Simply looked at as a statistic and the bell shaped curve, this simple truth cannot be scouted. That being so, how can the abnormal and the normal be held to the same standard? This is as illogical, and contorted sematically as VGR’s saying he is orthodox. Larry
Not sure what “Howard” has to do with this article — but as for the 42 priests whose lives he has ruined — I know them all — and they are fine. They are happy and content in the work they are doing under global south bishops. They do not consider themselves “ruined” — but rather “blessed” and in a sense “liberated” from all of this stuff we who are still in TEC struggle with.
#14… Hey John. Thanks for your post.
You mention that VGR “really believes the creeds.” Are you certain about that? The only publicly available evidence I know of on that question points the other direction, which is that VGR has spoken warmly about how great it was that his mentors in ECUSA encouraged him to simply “not recite” those parts of the Nicene Creed which he disbelieved. Even if he were to claim he believes it now, I’d be skeptical simply because it is so common now for liberals in TEC to claim they believe in the Creed while privately “reinterpreting” every article of it so that their “belief” is what most Christians of the ages would call disbelief. It’s what Larry M was refering to about the misuse of language.
Regarding your claim that “in the conflict between church teaching on grace and church teaching on sexuality, [VGR] chooses grace” can you explain more what you mean? As I understand it, grace by definition is only possible where a person has declared himself a sinner. Take a look at the hymn “Amazing Grace” for an example. God’s love for Newton was grace precisely because he was a wretch, a very bad man. If you love a person for their good qualities, which all of us often do, that’s a nice experience and there’s nothing wrong with that kind of love, but it isn’t grace: which by definition is love for the bad man, love for the worthless… UNMERITED love.
The arguments made in favor of VGR’s ordination, back at GC 2003, and consistently since then, have been that homosexuality is not in and of itself sin. (Well, that’s the argument when the reappraisers aren’t being completely muddleheaded and talking about “inclusion” and “the marginalized.”) The claim is that homosexuality and heterosexuality are like being left and right handed. Which I am ok with: if a person makes that claim I am happy to debate that, and listen carefully to his arguments (maybe he’s right!). But what he cannot then do is talk about grace. Grace is out of the picture at that point. Grace only applies where sin is acknowledged. Grace happens at the end of the story of the prodigal son — it’s a story of grace because it is the love of an absolutely worthless and undeserving child. If the story was about how the son cleaned up his act and became a Good Man — and then as a result his father loved him — it wouldn’t be grace. Or if the story was about how the son made arguments that he hadn’t been a bad man in this respect, and convinced his father, and therefore his father loved him because he saw there really was nothing wrong with what he had done and what he was; then again it would be a story about the father having been mistaken in thinking his son had behaved badly, but it wouldn’t be a story about grace.
[blockquote]Were VGR a man whom you liked, respected and thought to be holy might it be just as fair to have replied: “It’s simply mysticism. VGR had a unique experience like Evelyn Underhill, Theresa of Avila, etc.[/blockquote]
“Mysticism” begins in the mist, centers in the personal pronoun “I”, and ends in schism.
So, comments at T-19 are not allowed to reflect theological debates in their historical context…this altitude itself reflects a sort of re-education camp mentality…or worse you all are denying that the Holocaust ever happened…wow…to edit theologically/historically correct arguments concerning the theological debates that got us where we are today is simply the height of ignorance…why has this site become so defensive of TEC…the articles not posted say as much as the ones that are…and the editing ties up the package…I know this is Kendall’s site and he can do what he wants, but this might tell us more about Kendall and his southern roots than we may have wanted to know.
Dr. Crestwood,
With all due respect, you are taking this too far. Comments such as “Orthodox Genocide” and now a slight at the geographic location of this blog’s moderator really are a bit too much.
saj…sure the Lord supports and strengthens these clergy who are under attack by Howard…and Paul tell us to embrace suffering for just this experience of God’s presence in times of persecution…but these clergy have been forced to leave their church, have had their ministries distracted, had their pensions curtailed, and in some cases had to move from rectories, their characters questions, and their ordinations diminished publicly…that isn’t exactly what they expected…and it is cruel for Howard to do this to them…
r-storm…is it not folks like David Duke and the clan who deny the Holocaust ever happened…that too is simply an historic fact…does everyone here belong to the NEA?
r-storm…do you deny their is a cleansing of orthodox clergy going on in the church?…again Howard and 42 defrockings…what will it take for you to realize this genocide is in full swing?
#23 In the long version of the interview, Bishop Robinson describes himself as “incredibly orthodox.” That seems to mean at least that he believes in the Incarnation, Trinity, resurrection.
Of course, if you read on the very next paragraph lets you know where his passion is and what sense to make of his claim to be “incredibly orthodox”. For he takes for granted that we can, should and must “pick and choose” among Scripture and that Scripture is in error on matters relating to salvation. I’m certainly not willing to grant that is an appropriate way to talk about the church’s use of Holy Scripture. It’s not us that uses Scripture. God uses Scripture to change us.
Bishop Robinson is a smooth media operator – except he has a temper. Speaking to a gathering of gay activists not much will be heard about how traditional he is. He will be new, liberated, different. The oppressive, bigoted shackles of the past being thrown off etc. Talking to someone interested in tradition – the Bishop becomes “incredibly orthodox” – and publicly affirms as much of that old time doctrine as he can stomach. He most reminds, not of a church figure at all, but rather he bears a startling resemblance to a campaigning politician.
Reminds me of interviews I’ve heard and read from Madalyn Murray O’Hair – who was so utterly confident in the non-existence of God, that there was absolutely ZERO doubt in her voice, mind or heart. I have often thought….if (for the sake of argument) we are the gullible ones because we believe in His existence – then no harm, no foul once we go “poof” into history. However, if she (and VGR) are wrong…how will they approach St. Peter and the pearly gates????? Sometimes, I wish I had his guts…..I’d work over Vegas…big time.
When I was a child I was taught to not rely on feelings but soley on the Word of God. Feelings are unreliable. Some days I feel that God is very far away; Scripture tells me that He is very near. Some days I feel very confident that what I have done/said is just fine; Scripture tells me that what I have done/said is contrary to what God requires of me and that I should confess my sin, ask for forgiveness and seek to amend my ways, with the help of the Holy Spirit. In light of this I tend to distrust the opinions of anyone who seems to rely so heavily on “feeling close to God”.
You know, driver8, that your argument that his smooth, glozing (if I may borrow from Chaucer) tongue, His politician’s cheek may well be his undoing. The people who listen to him and who will read him are not stupid, and Americans are only too acutely sensitized to political manipulation. He has already talked too much and he is going to talk more and more at Lambeth. The far left will believe anything he says because it matches their agenda, but the rest of the world will watch as VGR lays himself bare before them as he runs off at the mouth. He should, of course, say nothing and takes the martyr’s robe close about him, but he will not because he, like so many homosexuals, is an exhibitionist at heart and cannot keep away from the spotlight. The more he talks, the less credible he will be, and this because, like so many politicians, he is without integrity, Larry
#23 – well, I have to confess, I don’t know +Robinson’s heart. Scripture commends that I do not judge.
I admit, I am also condemned by the same standard you have. Scripture is pretty clear that Jesus flew up into the sky into the clouds on Ascension. It’s pretty clear God created the earth in six days. For most of human history, these have been interpreted literally. It might be a private belief I have, but I do tend to change things so that all my beliefs are coherent. I don’t think most people are any different.
#33… thanks for responding, John.
The reason I was asking about whether you were really sure that Gene Robinson believed the creeds is because in your post (#14) you said you WERE sure. When Larry M expressed some doubt about VGR’s self-description of “incredibly orthodox” you replied that this was accurate because VGR “really believes the creeds.” It sounded like you knew what VGR “really believed.”
Naturally nobody can get inside another person’s head. What we have to go on is what they say and do. All I personally knew about VGR on this score was his public praising of his TEC mentors who encouraged him not to recite parts of the creed which he disbelieved. That he has since come to believe the creed in the same fashion that Luther and Benedict and Augustine and Calvin and Aquinas (etc.) did would be welcome news to me, but I had not heard it. I thought perhaps you had.
I wasn’t able to follow exactly what you were saying in your last paragraph — unsure what central point the different sentences were trying to make. I’d be delighted if you took another stab at it — and I promise to listen carefully.
On one point of fact you are mistaken (though it really is a common mistake). And that is that a six 24-hour day creation story has been the interpretation of Genesis given by most Christian thinkers (before say Darwin). Or that “He ascended into heaven and sitteth at the right hand of the Father” was interpreted literally (Jesus flying up to a sky palace and sitting in a throne to the right of an older man). Augustine and Jerome and Aquinas (to take just three great Christian thinkers from long ago) knew that wasn’t so. The same three guys also did not interpret Genesis as a six 24-hour day creation story; they knew it was not literal history.