In the Eye of the Storm touches on some aspects of Robinson’s ministry that have nothing to do with sexuality. Yet sexuality is his main subject and the one on which his views are the most provocative. This raises a question of perspective.
Robinson makes two statements in his introduction. First, he says that in the same way that Jesus reached out to prostitutes, tax collectors and other marginalized people, God called upon one of his gay children to be a bishop. But then he complains that the press, the public and the Anglican Communion see him as “a single-issue, one-dimensional person.”
Had he written an actual memoir in which he put his elevation to bishop in the larger context of his life and ministry, he might well have broadened the public’s perception of him. Instead, he has used his position, and written this book, to advance the cause of gay rights and to make a case for healthier attitudes toward sexual orientation, gender differences and sexuality itself.
Many readers will applaud these aims, but Robinson turned a wide-open field into a narrow one. A reader of his book might easily conclude that the way the press and the public see him is the way he sees himself.
As much as part of him would like to be the parish priest he once was, those days are gone. In the Eye of the Storm includes vestiges of the old Gene Robinson, but the book’s clear aim is to make his case as the first openly gay Episcopal bishop.
Are you sure the staff writer wasn’t reallyu names Gay Pride? Well, in any case, the book is at best self serving and tells us nothing of vgr that most of us didn’t know already, except that he is more self-serving and less logical than we thought. He will marginalize himself because he is so self-centered and so self-pitying. The memoir is in fact,”Me,me,me,me.” His courage is praised, although I don’t know what for, because the US generally encourages, at the top of its lungs, all outing. What is missing is integrity – that is, the real integrity. As a priest and a bishop, he is an embarrassment to any church because he is abusing his position to advertise himself and his abnormality. In a few yers, I predict he will disappear. Larry
Jesus was a pioneer. Would that he could give a review of Gene’s book. I wonder: don’t we already know what that review might be like, what Jesus would say? Or would Jesus put the book aside, Eye of the Storm, and invite Gene to a calm of his own personal storm, Jesus himself, who saves those “marginal” and “outcast” figures from the very sin that made them outcast. Jesus does look on us with eyes of love when we’re not presumptious about our sin. “And he went away sorrowful . . . .” If he were even close to freedom Gene wouldn’t be working so hard to convince himself but might show just a little sorrow for his sad condition, chosen and defended, presumptious.
Beg pardon columcil, but haven’t we had enough of the image of Jesus saving the marginal and the outcast, esp from the very sin – what sin was that? – that made them outcast. This is a mere sentimentality. Jesus came to save sinners, regardless of where they stood in society. Was the centurion an outcast? Were the apostles outcasts and marginal? Was Paul an outcast and marginal? Indeed, he was mainstream, if anything. I don’t know why this image has been generated of Jesus preferring the company of drunks and whores, but it certainly has nothing to do with the reality presented to us in the gospels. He went where sin went; and sin, so I have been told, is an equal opportunity employer. Larry
[blockquote] When young people are told that sex is dirty and they should save it for the marriage bed, he writes, they get a contradictory message. If it’s dirty, why save it for the one you love? [/blockquote]
Ahh! The literary gift of straw-people.
Don’t forget:
[blockquote]He rejects “Just say no” sex-education campaign.[/blockquote]
And:
[blockquote]…he cites a request from an unnamed “fellow bishop” that he and his partner, Mark Andrew, cancel their June civil union ceremony in Concord rather than “embarrass” the church so shortly before the Anglican Church’s annual Lambeth Conference. No way, Robinson replies. “There is no time when our civil union will be acceptable to many in the Anglican Communion,” he writes. “But I will not be irresponsible to the partner and love of my life just to avoid giving offense.” [/blockquote]
This isn’t just an embarrassment or “giving offense.” It’s open defiance, and more. It’s supposed to be a church wedding; will there be communion? Who will celebrate? In Paradise Lost, Milton gives a short description of the attributes of Belial. One can also read about those attributes elsewhere, including 2 Cor 6:15. The parallels are interesting.