Interviewed at New York’s General Theological Seminary, from which he graduated in 1973, Robinson was asked to identify the most common misstatement made about him. “The most persistent and hurtful one is that I abandoned my wife and children to move in with my lover.” It was an amicable divorce, he said.
“I did not meet the person who has been my partner for 20 years until two months after my wife was remarried,” he said. “My daughters could not be more devoted to me; one was with me at the 2003 Episcopal General Convention, and my former wife was one of my presenters at my consecration.”
He and his wife “went back to church to end the marriage,” he said. “We asked for each other’s forgiveness, pledged our joint raising of our children, and gave our wedding rings back to each other” in the context of a Eucharist. “It was one of the most feeling and wonderful moments of my life.”
Robinson said he hopes that readers of his book will find out “how theologically conservative I am.” Many conservative Episcopalians, he said, have told him they see the church’s relaxed stance on gay and lesbian people “as a precursor to the deconstruction of virtually everything that we believe.”
Some critics, he said, may be thinking of John Shelby Spong, the former bishop of Newark, New Jersey, an early advocate of gay and lesbian inclusion in church life. “Either he evolved, or devolved, depending on your perspective, into serious questioning of the bodily resurrection, the virgin birth and the divinity of Christ,” Robinson said.
So, has he ever explained why he divorced? Was it because he wanted the freedom to begin a homosexual relationship? Robinson has never said what was going on in his mind or life at that time.
That is one conflicted and confused dude. I don’t even know where to start, so I won’t.
“I abandoned my wife and children to [u]move in[/u] with [u]my lover[/u].”
He speaks correctly if either or both of the underline words is not true.
Speaking correctly is not the same as speaking truthfully.
Actually, if you go back to 2003 and read carefully the original time line of this person’s divorce and formation of whatever kind of relationship he has with his homosexual lover, there is a gap of over a year between the two events. More recent versions of the timeline have glossed over that or have been completely revised to claim that he was already in an “exclusive” relationship with the man at the time of the divorce. In either case, whether he did his cruising while married or after his divorce and before finding his current partner, that is a period about which we know virtually nothing but can imagine much and none of it to anyone’s credit. However, I wager a great deal is known about that period among the TEO nomenclatura.
“More recent versions of the timeline have glossed over that or have been completely revised to claim that he was already in an “exclusive†relationship with the man at the time of the divorce.”
This is a very significant claim. Can you document it? Are you saying it is now admitted that he was sexually involved with another man *at the time of his divorce*? This has long been denied – or at least obfuscated. What is the truth about his behavior? Violation of marriage vows is a serious matter for anyone, but especially for clergy. As with Robinson’s alcoholism, I just don’t think he’s being open and candid with the church or the media.
What concrete evidence is there that Bishop Robinson espouses “conservative theology” the rest of the time (with the obvious exception of same-sex relations)? I recall something about doubting the Apostles Creed when he was in seminary. (Unclear here – help?)
I do have a good friend who is very pro-LGBT and is generally orthodox theologically. (Salvation by faith in Christ, the conciliar creeds, Trinity, incarnation, dual hypostatic union, and so on.) There have been times when he and I teamed up in a theological discussion with true theological liberals. Do I agree with his views on sexual morality? No. But [i]overall[/i] he is theologically conservative.
But to what extent is this true for Robinson? Do we really see this if we read/listen to everything he says/writes? If you remove the stuff about homosexuality are we truly left with orthodoxy? I have a hard time buying that.
Yes, only a real *conservative* would formalize a divorce in the context of a eucharist. High Mass, I expect?
It was the wife who wanted a divorce. She had enough of living with a closeted gay man.
He was not cruising either before, during or after. He met his partner after the divorce.
What makes +Robinson dangerous is that he actually followed the rules and tried to live piously.
Only Wilkins could argue that openly living a notorioulsy sinful life is Holy to the Lord.
Rick – I believe it was the Nicene Creed Bp. Robinson had problems with. Whether he still has those problems, I don’t know.
But consider what “generally” can mean.
I accept Jesus as my savior, I do believe Jesus is the first and greatest of all creation, so there are parts of the Creed I (regrettably) delete at Sunday Mass. Look, I can say most of the Creed. I believe in the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, and look for the Second Coming. We don’t need all that stinkin’ Christology messing things up.
“Either he evolved, or devolved, depending on your perspective…”
One thing’s for sure in the Church of the New Thang…and that is that nothing is figured out for for certain. Nothing is ever decided except that change must happen.
“Notoriously sinful….” He lives a lot more faithfully than lots of straight and heterosexual people. Of course, perhaps one thing we should probably discuss is the merits of being “open.” And as far as sins go, Romans 2:1, Brother. You’re just as guilty. Work on your own issues.
It seems to me that it is the openness that is really offensive to reasserters.
12: Whether VGR was cruising prior to or during marriage is unknown, so one can only speak of probabilities. That he matched up with a man so soon after he was divorced suggests that he was busy before the divorce or very soon after. In any case, he knew he was a homosexual and the liklihood of his acting on those desires while he was married is rather high, simply because other married homosexuals have openly admitted in doing the same.
He conservatism is, at the very least, hilarious. What has he done that is conservative. You recall that he said he would do nothing that would cause division in the church? Do you recall that? And then? You have read his speeches. They are whey-faced exercises in self advertisement, and tiresome stuff to read indeed. His pursy-mouthed diffidence is belied by his actions at every level, and now he is going to Lambeth to stir the pot and increase the boil. He is to be a sideshow. This is conservative?
Openness is no virtue in and of itself. To confess oneself a druggie, e.g., is virtue in what way? Or is openness is such circumstances merely a device that Americans are suckers for, a device to gather sympathy and, more importantly, to deflect responsibility? He was the proximate cause in the destruction of TEC and the blasting apart of the Angl. Communion. You know that as do we all. Has he taken responsibility for that anywhere. This is conservative? Larry.
It seems clear that both Robinson and his wife wanted to be free to find other partners. She was remarried a year after the divorce, and he found his present partner at about the same time. What he says is true in the sense that he did not leave his wife in order to have a relationship with his present partner. He left in the hopes of having a relationship with someone.
I’ll tell you what’s really offensive to me: REAPPRAISERS!
Reading this makes me quite sad. Gene is clearly a pleasant, confused gentlemen who has much sorrow in his heart. He keeps claiming a desire to be seen as orthodox which says much about his turmoil. Sorry but there are just so many problems and inconsistencies here Gene!
You claim to be orthodox BUT cannot but then refer to people as spouses. The Christian term is husband or wife…spouse is entirely secular.
You wish to be seen as orthodox- claiming your return to church to end a relationship as healhy- but the original vow you made was life giving and life long.
These are just two examples… I am sorry but if you want true orthodoxy embrace the Gospel – sell all you have (your worldly attitudes and opinions) and follow Christ.
Either shape your life to his law and know joy- or bend his law to your will – and find angst. I wish we could offer more…but the rules were set by one much greater than I – who actually KNOWS what is good for your soul and inner being.
[blockquote] John, you false teacher, to point out that someone is not living ons life in accordance with God’s standards is not judgment and you know it. A Christian is expected to correct his brother. Otherwise Paul would not have written these sharply pointed letters. You omit the verses that preceed Romans 2:1:
Romans 1:18-32 18 But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who suppress the truth by their wickedness. 19 They know the truth about God because he has made it obvious to them. 20 For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities– his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God. 21 Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn’t worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. As a result, their minds became dark and confused. 22 Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools. 23 And instead of worshiping the glorious, ever-living God, they worshiped idols made to look like mere people and birds and animals and reptiles. 24 So God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other’s bodies. 25 They traded the truth about God for a lie. So they worshiped and served the things God created instead of the Creator himself, who is worthy of eternal praise! Amen. 26 That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. 27 And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved. 28 Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let them do things that should never be done. 29 Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, quarreling, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip. 30 They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They invent new ways of sinning, and they disobey their parents. 31 They refuse to understand, break their promises, are heartless, and have no mercy. 32 They know God’s justice requires that those who do these things deserve to die, yet they do them anyway. Worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too.[/blockquote]
I think a basic question has gone unaddressed by both reasserters and reappraisers. (If one sets aside for the moment the issue of same-sex relations…) [i]What evidence is there that Gene Robinson truly is theologically conservative?[/i]
Don’t focus on his current arrangement and say “question answered – if you’re gay and living in sin then you cannot be theologically orthodox”. Even if I agree with that it does not address the larger question. Perhaps we can put it this way. [i]If Gene Robinson were a heterosexual and faithfully married man… what evidence would there be that he is theologically conservative?[/i]
#18- given that he is a supporter of abortion and chooses to prefer the term spouse to wife or husband….given that he believes the Holy Spirit calls people to beleive different things in different places according to their culutre…..not much evidence at all.
I’ll give VGR credit for criticizing Spong—something many revisionist leaders never get around to doing.