I always find it very interesting that after reading anything and everything by or about Bishop Gene Robinson, he represents orthodox Christianity, very mainstream and at times conservative. He is certainly nothing like KJS and her Unitarian tendencies. In fact, were one not to know the sexual orientation of this man, after reading what he believes, preaches and teaches in his book, sermons, and interviews one might even believe he is more a reasserter than a reappraiser. I challenge anyone to compare the writing and speech of KJS and Gene Robinson and not easily see a vast theological difference between the two. Many GLBT Christians are like this, myself included. KJS and the majority of the reappraisers who support full inclusion (though not all i.e. the Bishop of Iowa) of folk like me represent in almost every other way a Christianity I call heretical, apostate and empty of the saving, transforming power of God.

It is hard to read the above and not burst out laughing. For there is another view which comes, I submit, much closer to the truth.
In vgr’s words here, we hear, as we heard them before in the entry kendall closed, the throwing down of the gauntlet. This entry is a declaration of war, plain and simple, and we should treat it as such. I hope we can all see clearly now, that we must make a choice between ++ Deng and Robinson. WE will take a stand and prepare to fight for a clear reading of scripture, the persistence of the Christian meaning of life, or we will vote,  as ArcA does above, with the extreme, the narcissitic, the radically abnormal, the view of the Bible as the front for agenda-driven power politics. Heavens knows, there are plenty of people on the Robinson side. There is money and power and the liberal eclat.

  As most of you know, Robinson’s declarations of his conservatism, his “normality,” his orthodoxy are shams, stalking horses that allow him to sell the liberal agenda under the guise of his declaration of his identity - You-and-I-are-really-alike - and its contradiction - “homosexuals are everywhere so you had better accept them now because you will have accept them all later.” This challenge is now in front of us, and t he only remaining question is “Who will pick up this gauntlet?”  Larry

Archangela,
I don’t see that at all. I see a man consumed by an agenda, nothing more.  I’ve not heard much from him about theology, except when he says, “Oh, I’m very much orthodox”.  Yet his campaigning for the GLBT agenda contradicts this.

#3 Library Jim
If you’ve not heard much from him abouth theology than you have not read his book, all the many interviews and articles about him on this site and on others.
I know what you “see”, but what I am suggesting is that if you were to compare the writings and interviews of Gene Robinson with the writings and interviews of KJS you would find some similarities and more differences between the two. I know that many reasserters like you dislike him so much for existing as a bishop and as an icon for the full inclusion of glbt folk in Anglicanism, and I “get” your theological reasons for doing so but it is still true that not all us gay folk, Gene Robinson included, tow the line or subscribe to all or even most of the un-theology of KJS.
If Gene were not a gay bishop he would not be nearly so liked and supported in TEC and I think he knows it. He’s staunchly moderate orthodoxy is tolerated only because of his sexual orientation. I find it very interesting that the TEC poster boy for inclusion is much more of an orthodox believer than the people making the posters! I also thank God for this because Gene could just as easily have been a Spong or a Schori but he’s not and so, IMHO, he is a light not only for lgbt seekers and believers but too many of his own mates in the House of Bishops!
Gene is a Rahab being used for God’s glory, much as He very often chooses the most unlikely kinds of people all throughout the Bible. Dislike him as much as you must but I thank God that more glbt folk are reading Gene’s book than Katharine’s. One proclaims the saving grace of Jesus Christ as Lord and one proclaims a gnostic Jesus, a deist God/Father and a de-personalised Holy Spirit.

The interesting thing is when vgr talks about his “orthodoxy,” he is talking about his homosexuality like it is something normal.  It is NOT something normal.  Homosexuality is not normal; God calls it an abomination, Paul admonishes us to flee sexual immorality(which includes homosexuality), and he also tells us God will give over those to their degrading passions, hence vgr.

After you cut through all the attempt at self-portrayal as a kind of martyr to the cause, this is just another step in a well-financed, determined agenda that seeks to have homosexual behavior and lifestyle normalized, promoted and celebrated.  For all the bravado, though, the truth is that those who seek to change two thousand years or so of tradition will find at the end only a pyrrhic victory because the peace that is sought can only be found in repentance and a transformed life in Christ.  May God turn all of our hearts toward His truth.

Archangelica,

Thanks for these posts.  I hadn’t noticed that before, and I do find it interesting to consider.

Cheers,

Laocoon

archangelica, I haven’t read any of Robinson’s books, and so I must plead ignorance when you say he preaches the traditional faith.  I never see it, though, when he gives these interviews.  The first, the overwhelming responsibility of a bishop in God’s Church is to preach Christ crucified and risen to anyone who will listen.  Robinson doesn’t do this here.

When challenged about scripture, he says, ““The scriptures were written in patriachal times, times of slavery, times of polygamy.”  And yet Jesus spoke for lifelong marriage between one man and one woman, and so did the Apostles.  Nowhere did Jesus or the Apostles recommend slavery, require it, or approve it as good.  Not political revolutionaries, they rather enjoined everyone to treat everyone else with justice and compassion, and said specifically that slaves were equally valuable to God with their masters.  And on the subject of same-sex behavior Christ and his followers clearly required the observance of the moral law unchanged, which is sex within marriage only (with Jesus’ tightened disapproval of divorce).  Robinson’s casual dismissal of Scripture as “patriarchal” says that he’d like to accept some of the ideas in the Bible (you say he believes the christology of the Creeds) but not the whole package.  I see no evidence in Scripture or the history of the Church from apostolic times forward that we are enabled to choose some and discard the rest.

And yes, the Church recently has done a lousy job of teaching and modeling the moral law for people having interest in the opposite sex, and I think most conservative Anglicans agree this area is where we have sinned and must work at improvement.

It’s not that I don’t sympathize with people who find they are different in some way.  I do, and I understand it’s hard.  We just can’t go changing the words of the Lord and the teachings of those who saw Him and knew Him because we’re weak and it’s hard.

Archangelica.
I’ve not read many books of other sects (i.e., Book of Mormon; Watchtower tracts) all the way through, even though they claim to proclaim ‘true Christianity’—with the exception of one or two areas, but I’ve heard enough from them to know that no matter how good they sound, how well they couch their terminology, they are NOT orthodox in their beliefs. 

On the other hand, I have read many wonderful books by Philip Yancy, C. S. Lewis, Francis Schaeffer, etc. to know the genuine article when I see it.  Walter Martin once had a great example of how to recognize a ‘counterfeit’ theology (and I paraphrase):

“When bank tellers are being trained to recognize conterfeit money, they don’t spend long hours working with known fake examples.  Rather they are given REAL money—they handle it, they work with it, they count it, they study it.  By studying the real thing, they learn what that is. Then when they encounter a fake, they can recognize it immediately because it does not line up with what they know is real.
—Dr. Walter Martin The Kingdom of the Cults

he went on to say something along the lines of:

So it is with Christianity.  We do not learn what is not orthodox by studying the false, or the cults or the psuedo-Christian. We learn by studying the REAL thing.  The Bible, church history and traditional teaching, etc.  So that when we are faced with a counterfeit religion, no matter how close to the Truth it is, we know it is a lie because we KNOW the Truth, and this isn’t it.

So it is with VGR, and KJS and Spong, and Bennison, and Griswold, and Pike, and all the other wolves in sheeps clothing.  Yes, VGR may sound orthodox in his writings, but his public speeches give him away as not.

Peace
Jim Elliott <><

Gene hits all the right points here, and demonstrates that it was to the church’s benefit that he was excluded.  Friends in England tell me the English love him.  Lambeth would have constrained him.  He would have been faced with bishops trying to engage him theologically.  As it is, he’s in the press all the time, making Anglican conservatives seem no different than conservative Muslims or Jews in their beliefs. 

The posts here conveye the different world views:  Examine comment #5 “It is NOT something normal.  Homosexuality is not normal; God calls it an abomination, Paul admonishes us to flee sexual immorality(which includes homosexuality).”  Rhetorically, it seems to encapsulate the reasserter position.  Homosexuality is disordered heterosexuality.  Is this true?  God has told him so through the bible.  the commenter feels the need to remind us to flee sexual immorality, although he seems to stop reading at Romans 1:32, forgetting the next five verses. 

#9 merely says that he “knows” orthodox teaching without really giving any kind of criteria for what orthodox teaching is.  The assumption is that orthodoxy has something to say about homosexuality.  This is contestable, and logically incoherent.  In my world, orthodoxy has everything to do with who Jesus was and the nature of the Trinity. 

Now I would even agree with Jim that plenty of Episcopalians are unfortunately unclear about these two problems.  But his view on sex is as reliable as the bible’s view on geological time.

“Go ahead, run me over with one of your busses….”

Wow.
I’m actually concerned for Gene’s well-being right now, more than ever.  I’ll be praying for him today.

Friends in England tell me the English love him.

John Wilkins- your entire comment and this phrase in particular confused me.

Are you saying the love of “friends in England” reveals the truth of Gene’s position? Are you saying it trumps theology? the Bible? God?

What is your underlying assumption? Because your post reads like the good opinion of those people who you approve of is all that matters in determining what the Church should believe.

Hum. Well. Does anyone need a bus driver? I so, give me a jingle. LM