The 60 Minutes special on New Hampshire Bishop Gene Robinson just concluded, and I remain shocked at the entire situation.
Last summer, I listened carefully to the justification offered by those who endorsed and supported the Episcopalian departure from any wholesome ethic of human sexuality. The new bishop of New Hampshire, for example, exclaimed in interviews that "God is doing a new thing." I wince every time he suggests that "the church needs to see what God is doing in our generation, and get in on it."
To be honest, I'm often left wondering what precisely he thinks is so new about sexual perversion and the attempt to rationalize it.
When Ed Bradley asked Robinson during tonight's interview if he has had any regrets since his election last summer, an emboldened and defiant Robinson said he had none. When asked how he gets through the day with all the criticism and the refusal of churches and ministers in New Hampshire to recognize his authority, the "good" bishop said, "I know that God is beside me."
Preacher, it's not who's beside you during the day that troubles us....it's who's behind you at night.
The highlight of the interview was the interview with the terminated episcopalian minister of 48 years who has defied Robinson. Bradley asked him how he justified rejecting the bishop's authority when in his own vow he promised to work under the authority of the bishop?
The minister responded: "My vow was first to serve under the authority of the Scriptures, then to teach according to it, and finally to protect the flock from false and deceiving doctrines. Way down the list, I vowed to support the bishop, and his godly judgments. In my estimation, there's nothing godly about Robinson."
When asked what churches who reject Robinson's authority should do, the minister said, "Stand....just stand up for truth."
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Ms. Tek
Last summer, I listened carefully to the justification offered by those who endorsed and supported the Episcopalian departure from any wholesome ethic of human sexuality.
To be honest, I'm often left wondering what precisely he thinks is so new about sexual perversion and the attempt to rationalize it.
I'm sure he takes courage from the fuzzy-headed lesbians who applaud his brazen disregard for the Bible and the Church. I'm sure he enjoyed immensely the laying on of hands by which he was ordained.
** looks at the above statements **
I really don't want to be lumped in with that Fred Phelps group on anything.
**looks at the aboves statements again**
Sorry... too late. Perhaps a different choice of words? Remember, connotation and denotation.
Sorry it disturbs you so much. Maybe time to start a new church of your own?
2 - mike
church of the poison mind.
3 - Natalie Davis
Benjamin, what you imply sounds most unchristian to me, as does what you say. You are in my prayers.
4 - Shark
Benjamin, just wait'll you see how he administers the Eucharist!
Hint: DON'T put out your tongue.
And when he mentions "Agape" ("Love-Feast"), head for the door. Fast.
5 - Doc
Yes, you are a homophobe.
Perhaps you would enjoy the Southern Baptists instead. They seem more in turn with your obsessions.
The Anglicans don't need your type. They're what's known as Christians.
6 - Shark
~DOH!
The second time in as many days that the word "Baptist" has been tossed out as an insult.
Y'all are just damn lucky that MacD is a Wiccan.
7 - Eric Olsen
The Dead Milkmen sang: "And on a pretty Sunday morning
A bunch of pretty Baptist girls
Linked their pretty hands and they sang:
Life is shit, life is shit
The world is shit, the world is shit
This is life as I know it
This is life as I know it"
8 - stoddart
Good analysis. Note: Ed Bradley interviewed Robinson, not Morley Safer.
9 - ClubhouseCancer
Perhaps all hetero men look the same to Mr. C.
10 - Natalie Davis
LOL!
Seriously, some Anglicans are Christian. Not all. Same with Baptists.
11 - Mac Diva
(Rolling eyes, heavenward.) Another bigot who says his bigotry is something other than that. What is it about Blogcritics that attracts so many of them?
And, when did agnostics become Wiccans?
12 - Al Barger
That's right Benjamin, you are BAD. How DARE you take scriptural injunctions of the sinfulness of homosexuality over the hip modern wisdom of all the COOL people?
13 - Mark Saleski
scriptural injunctions? cool people?
well, mebbe we shuold go back to killing people for adultery as well?
14 - Eric Olsen
Here's the part I don't get: if at least a significant part of homosexuality is genetically based - which every single study says it is, disagreement is over how much, not if - then how can God condemn someone to hell for being what He made them?
15 - Mark Saleski
uh oh...yer in big trouble now.
historically speak, lottsa folks have been killed for injecting logic into the discussion.
16 - Benjamin C.
Here is the deal. God does not condemn someone to hell because they have same sex attractions. The only reason I suggest that Bishop Robinson might be headed for an abysmal eternity is because he has no basic understanding of the essential Christian message: Salvation comes through no other name that the crucified, buried and risen Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Robinson said numerous times in his interview that "we are all God's children," and "the essence of God is to love." In some respect, those statements are true. But to suggest that those statements are the essence of the Christian faith is both misleading and condemning. Granted, CBS may have cut out those portions where Robinson gave a biblically sound explanation of the gospel, but I have heard/read him in other settings, and what he said there is entirely consistent with what he has said elsewhere. And folks, if he practices what he preaches (and we have every reason to believe that he does hardy har har), then he not only preaches an inadequate gospel, but he apparently believes one too. That, by itself, is enough for the condemnation. But perhaps some folks problem is not so much that Robinson might go to Hell as much as it is the problem that anyone might go to Hell...and that is for another post.
17 - Shark
Ben, this is the reason there are as many Protestant denominations as interpretations.
And does God really care which church you attend?
Or if you attend at all?
My advice: spend Sundays at the *park; it's free-- and you'll be closer to God than you would be sitting in a pew [sic] next to a woman wearing too much perfume.
*note: avoid Golden Gate Park at all costs.
Best of luck!
S
18 - Al Barger
Well, Eric, you could argue that the Bible is flatly wrong, not the word of God. That would be consistent.
In other words, you could argue that the Bible and Christianity are simply WRONG in opposing homosexuality. I would tend to agree with you.
However, you should then be arguing against the Bible, not shooting the messenger (Benjamin). Arguments about the genetic basis of sexual proclivities are simply not the issue. Scientific, rational arguments of any kind are irrelevant, and calling Benjamin names is just irrelevant.
The Bible is obviously his premise. To argue against him here, you have to be dishonest and pretend that the Bible does NOT proscribe homosexuality, or argue against the Bible altogether.
Or you can just call Benjamin a homophobe.
19 - Mark Saleski
The Bible is obviously his premise
well, i'd say that his interpretation of the bible is his premise.
and interpretation's are where lots of our discussion fodder come from.
the bible also says that a rapist must marry his victim...something that most folks would probably disagree with.
so if that particular decree can be called into question, why not the decree against homosexuals, gay marriage, etc?
20 - Shark
"the bible also says that a rapist must marry his victim..."
Did Kobe Bryant just renounce his faith?
(Sorry. I had to do it before someone else did!)
21 - Al Barger
Shark is really basically arguing against the Bible altogether. That's cool.
However, this is NOT just an argument over Benjamin's interpretation. You might write out a verse or two here and there, saying that that was just a specific injunction for the temple in those times, etc.
The injunction against homosexuality rings clear and consistent (for men- lesbianism is never mentioned- speaking of your groovy loopholes). You can't legitimately pretend it's not there. It just IS.
22 - Mark Saleski
the supposed biblical injunction against homosexuality rings "clear and true" only when the bible as a whole is deemed to be inerrant and the word of god.
not all christians believe this, especially (oh my!) liberal christians.
23 - Mac Diva
(Scratching head.) Benjamin says:
Here is the deal. God does not condemn someone to hell because they have same sex attractions. The only reason I suggest that Bishop Robinson might be headed for an abysmal eternity is because he has no basic understanding of the essential Christian message: Salvation comes through no other name that the crucified, buried and risen Jesus Christ of Nazareth.
Two problems with this:
1) If the bishop's take on scripture(s) is Benjamin's grounds for assailing him, then why post a tirade against the bishop's homosexuality?
2) Considering Benjamin's vary narrow interpretation of what is required for salvation, he could assail much of religion period, so why has he singled out a homosexual bishop for his anger? Surely, Unitarians and Quakers deserve a whack or two, too.
Benjamin's thinking demonstrates pretext and the inability many bigoted people have to face up to their bigotry. After making a statement definitely attacking homosexuality, he claims it is about the bishop's wrongheadedness in regard to scripture. A neo-Confederate Al Barger, for example, claims the Civil War was about 'state's rights' because he can't face up to his defense of slavery. (Though given the slightest chance to own people, I believe Barger would knock over anyone in line, with Shark right behind him.) Same kind of pretextual reasoning.
I, for one, would respect Benjamin more if just screeched 'I hate fags' as some others at BC have done. At least that statement would be honest instead of pretextual.
24 - Phillip Winn
MD, please supply a link for someone stating what you have claimed here at Blogcritics. I googled, and found nothing.
25 - Phillip Winn
BTW, Eric, I'm surprised that you didn't learn the answer to your question in all your years of Lutheranism. I'm guessing you were/are ELCA, not LCMS. No particular jibe intended, btw, as my own church is "in communion with" the ELCA.
Anyway, the argument that God couldn't or shouldn't judge someone for acting based on how He made them does not take into account the message of Scripture. Consider the writing of Paul, for example, who repeatedly emphasizes that everything we are is anathema to God, and that it is our very nature to despise Him. Some are driven to sin in one way, some in another, and so on.
All research indicates that my biological destiny is to spread my genetic recipe as generously as I can. Nobody questions this research. And yet I am still expected by most people, Christian and otherwise, to maintain faithfulness to my wife. I must overcome my natural biological inclination, as must we all. This is no more or less true for Robinson as it is for me or for anyone else.
Anyway, that's how the church worldwide has understood issues of sexual morality for the last 2000 years or so, so it all really comes down to this:
Who or what is authoritative when it comes to defining Christianity?
That's a far more complicated question than it might first appear, unfortunately.