“Robinson warns, though, that the price of support could see the Scottish church, as well as the American one, being forced out of the Communion.” 
Robinson warns? Isn’t that rich. He obviously didn’t take heed of the warning given TEC, and now he’s warning everyone of a possible split? How pathetic… how truly pathetic. He doesn’t see at all his role in this whole situation and how he could have possibly prevented it. There are none so blind ...
Kyrie eleison.
T

Wow, what a bizarre article.  “Millions” think him the “Antichrist” . . . ?
I just have to giggle.

A narcissistic, egoist speaking tawdry emotive effusions . . . but sorry, he neither rises to the level of “Antichrist” or “Devil.”  The world is full of men like Gene Robinson.

Seems that some article writer is full of High Drama.

This week may mark the 40th anniversary of the legalisation of homosexuality in England and Wales, but attitudes in many ways still lag behind legislation.

In forty years, legalization based on begrudging tolerance led to begrudging acceptance led to prosecution of those who voice moral objections and insistance that such practice was not an impediment to high religious office.

Or maybe fifty years. Not sure if the date “1957” below is a typo or if the reporter has a numeracy problem, because 2007-1957=50. Any way he does provide this chronology embedded in the hyperbole:

The Sexual Offences Act was significantly influenced by the Wolfenden Report of 1957, which recommended the decriminalisation of certain homosexual acts between consenting adults in the privacy of their homes…The act set the age of consent between men at 21, and raised the penalties for certain “acts of gross indecency…In February 1994, the age of consent for sex between men was reduced by parliament to 18 and, after two attempted blocks by the House of Lords, in 2000 the age of consent for gay men was lowered to 16, on a par with heterosexuals.

”...but I can certainly understand why people feel this way, so no, I don’t have any trouble forgiving…”

I’m not sure this Church taught much of anything, especially dogmatically, about homosexuality “back then.”
But I know what this Church has taught about forgiveness, that it was and is a matter of the will, and not a matter of whether or not I can relate or justify some reasonable cause.

As much as it pains me, I have to agree with Sarah’s comment…...
: )

RGEaton

Andrew Collier seems to qualify for the rainbow award, IMHO.  We have the noted “purple prose” but let us not forget “yellow rag journalism” and “venomously green” and “scarlet with indignation” and “blue with regret”.  This article purports to be journalism because it is in a newpaper.  That it is an advertisement for a singular viewpoint is unavoidably noticeable.  Obectivity?  What’s that?  And the mathematics aren’t up to par either.  But what’s a little error amongst “journalists”?  Makes the “news” go down better than a spoonful of sugar, wot?!  And the “headlines” sell!  (Cf.  Rita Skeeter, The Daily Prophet).

Vic…Oh, excuse me.  GENE said: “They only believe what the church has taught them to believe, and I believed those same things myself for a very long time.”

They?  Oh, and Gene “believed”, but no longer believes?  So, he is once and for all rejecting Church teaching, and admitting to it, beyond the shadow of doubt.  Forget the whole gay thing.  This alone shows why this sorry man is not suitable to be a bishop in the Church of Christ.

I do appreciate Andrew Collier for getting the quote about the divorce Eucharist:

” We tried to do the dissolution in a very holy way. We took a priest with us to the judge’s chambers for the decree and went back to his church. In the context of the holy Eucharist we released each other from the vows we had taken, asked each other’s forgiveness for ways in which we might have hurt one another, pledged ourselves to the joint raising of our children and gave our rings back as a symbol of the vows we no longer held each other to. It was one of the most healing moments of my whole life.”

“Did I think my ordination would be controversial? Of course,” he says. “We took seriously the voices that were coming our way and we knew this would be a shock in many quarters. But did I have any idea that the furore over my consecration would be as broad or as deep as it was? Absolutely not.”

I find this the hardest thing to listen to that the bishop has to say.  It was absolutely clear from all that was said at GC2003 and around the process of consent to his election that his consecration would as the Primates said, ‘Tear at the fabric of the Communion.’
This kind of question and answer are nothing but self-serving.

I agree with you, joe the bartender.
And even if he wasn’t listening to the people, he does claim to be in communication with God. I don’t understand how a person in such relationship with God and with a prophetic calling “absolutely” didn’t have “any idea that the furore over my consecration would be as broad or as deep as it was.”
But read his description of the divorce Eucharist. This seems to be about dissolving vows between he and his ex-wife, with no reference to vows to God.
I am thinking he believes in God in relationship and God in community to the exclusion of belief in God that is greater than human relationship and community.
I am thinking that such an understanding of God might cause someone to confuse the voice of his (LGBT) commmunity with the voice of God.

Oh, if I only had a nickel for each person who foolishly believed him when he said he would not advocate for homosexuality as the gay bishop, but would just be a bishop who happened to be gay.

Did he know he uproar it would cause? I heard him say, and I read his words, that the uproar would shortly die down as it did with the ordination of women. Did he really think that?
But then, he said that if his ordination would tear apart the communion apart, he would have refused to continue with it. And then it tore it apart. And he did what? Said what? 

  I have listened to his oleagenous words and find them hypocritical to a degree. He has used his position to peddle the homosexual agenda, and he obviously cares very little what effect he has on the communion.  LM

#9, Personally I find the hardest thing to take is Bishop Robinson “forgiving” me for believing the Christian faith. What hubris. Faithfulness is now an offense which needs Robinson’s personal forgiveness? oiy! And how very sweet of the bishop to grant forgiveness so freely and undeservedly. The very example of grace.

Talk about a contrived “interview.”

On old T1:9, someone mentioned that after a blessing for SSUs, would there be a rite for divorce?  I mentioned VGR’s ‘divorce eucharist’ and got slammed with comments like “oh, that didn’t happen!” or “that wasn’t an official rite”, etc.

Well, there it was, and there it is, so if it was done in church, with a celebrant, and eucharist afterwards…. if it looks like a duck…. etc.

Someone (too bad I forget who) owes ME an apology, I think. 

Ok libraryjim, I apologize. Larry

Larry,
  Apology accepted!

Jim <><