The openly gay bishop at the center of much of the divisions in the Anglican Communion rejected a conservative bishop's call for him to resign in order to restore unity.
"Those calling for my resignation seem to be under the impression that if Gene Robinson went away, that all would go back to being 'like it was,' whatever that was! Does ANYONE think that if I resigned, this issue would go away?!" New Hampshire Bishop Gene Robinson said Wednesday in his blog.
"We are not going away, as much as some would like us to," Robinson added, referring to gays and lesbians.
On Tuesday, the Archbishop of Sudan, the Most Rev. Dr. Daniel Deng Bul, called for Robinson’s resignation "for the sake of the Church," saying his behavior violated "the norms of the Anglican Communion."
The New Hampshire bishop has lived openly with another man for 20 years and had a civil ceremony in June 2008. The Anglican Communion, meanwhile, rejects homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture.
“Three hundred bishops have stayed away from this conference because of Gene Robinson. Shouldn’t Gene Robinson resign to allow the 300 bishops to come back to the house?” the Sudanese archbishop said as he also called for repentance from the American bishops who supported Robinson's consecration in 2003.
Robinson received news of the Sudanese bishop's call just before making an address at the University of Kent's Law School's Centre for the Study of the Law, Gender and Sexuality. He was there as Anglican bishops from around the world were meeting for the once-a-decade Lambeth Conference at the university. Robinson was not invited to attend Lambeth but is in Canterbury on the outskirts of the event.
Although he said in his latest blog that he has decided not to make an official response to the Sudanese archbishop's remark, he reflected on the remark in two long paragraphs.
"Everyone seems to forget that I am not here representing myself, but rather all the people of the Diocese of New Hampshire, with whom it is my privilege to minister in Christ's name," Robinson wrote. "They have called me to minister with them as their Bishop, and suggestions that I resign ignore the vows that I have taken to serve my flock in New Hampshire."
He added that his denied representation at the Lambeth meeting also deprives his entire diocese of "a seat at the table."
The Anglican spiritual head, Dr. Rowan Williams, had withheld invitations from "bishops whose appointment, actions or manner of life have caused exceptionally serious division or scandal within the Communion" when they were sent out last year.
Some U.S. Episcopal bishops are sponsoring "Fringe" events for Anglican bishops and their spouses of the global Communion to meet Robinson during Lambeth. Attendees will hear how he was consecrated and testimonies from bishops who voted for and against his consecration.
Robinson will share his own testimony but he insists the event will not be a "sell job."
"My goal is to talk about my own life and journey in Christ in such a way that those who are listening will perceive that the God I know in my own life is the same God they know in THEIR lives," he said. "Then we can wrestle with the faithful differences we have in interpreting that God's will for us and for God's church."
More than 200 bishops are boycotting the Lambeth Conference mainly in protest of the invitation of bishops who supported Robinson's consecration and the Communion's failure to discipline those who participated in the 2003 event. Conservative bishops contend the U.S. church body along with other is departing from orthodox Christianity on issues of human sexuality, the authority of Scripture and the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.
The Sudanese archbishop affirmed Tuesday, "We reject homosexual practice as contrary to biblical teaching and can accept no place for it within the Episcopal Church of Sudan. We strongly oppose developments within the Anglican Church in the USA and Canada in consecrating a practicing homosexual as bishop and in approving a rite for the blessing of same-sex relationships.”
RSS
Comments
Of course heresy won't go away unless we 'crucify' heresy. Judgement Day is coming, those who wish to remain in Sodom will suffer the fate of Sodom.
Our wicked generation is suffering the judgement of heretics being allowed to publicically parade their Sodomy even to the Alter. What a terrible judgement.
It may not change anyones mind but it does allow one to develop their knowledge of Biblical principal. It also allows for the discussion to be posted for people to read. I'm sure that not all the people who read these posts post here themselves.
It works out much like 'Conversations with an Athiest'. It may not change the athiests mind but it does provide food for thought (which is so rare in our society).
A person stuck in their ways will not change. I have found debating gets no-ones mind changed.
That is God's job, and He'd do it if we let Him every once in awhile.
God Be with you all.
Adelz.
Defense of marriage pt II just came out here on CP. It answers many of troyg's questions.
troyg,
Now we agree to disagree, I suppose.
Your inner being is no different than mine. I just think I recognize myself as a sinner to the core, and you aren't there yet. Maybe you never will be, since you identify so closely with it. But I pray you will see the truth someday.
Until then we will each believe the other is wrong and will feel sorry for other's blindness and will pray for each other.
God will sort it out later.
Hey now. I was created the way I am, and I am a sinner. Just as you say, so God's glory may be shown.
troy,
He created you to be gay? That is sick. But all things being equal, then he made the adulterer the way he/she is. He made the child molester the way he/she is. He made the murderer the way he/she is. And how hypocritical it would be of you to expect them to change.
But you could be partly right. Jesus and His disciples came upon a blind man. The disciples asked Jesus if it was because of his sin, or his father's sin that he was blind. Jesus replied that he was thus so that the glory of God could be revealed...and then healed him.
So.....are you going to allow the glory of God to be revealed in you by allowing Him to deliver you and change you? Or are you going to deny His power and make Him in your image?
"I don't believe the Bible condems who I am, or my relationship with my same-sex partner, or the sanctity of our marriage and our family."
The Bible condemns all of us. If not Jesus would not have needed to die in our place now would he? We will be judged based on if we laid down our life and took His life as the Bible says.
The Bible is clear there will be many who think they are OK with God but will find out they are not on judgement day. Whose fault will that be? Is the Bible unclear? Will people blame God or will He say...you should have died to self and lived for Him the way he said?
There is a parable of the wheat and the tares. It is where an enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat. Of course, they didn't know about the weeds until they grew up. When the workers asked if they should remove the weeds the owner of the field said no. He didn't want to hurt the wheat in the process. He said it would get sorted out in the end.
If what any of us believe is wrong then we will be sorted out as the weeds. The goal here is to be the wheat BEFORE harvest. Are you wheat or weed? You will know them by their fruit.
Wbmoore:
So you and I interpret Romans very differently.
So now what?
My walk and my witness are still clear. I don't believe the Bible condems who I am, or my relationship with my same-sex partner, or the sanctity of our marriage and our family. I will continue to follow God's call for me: to be a living witness to His inclusive love, and to claim that as his creation, he intentionally created me to be gay, and blesses me everyday as that creation, despite the attempts of some Christians to tell that my very nature, the core of my being is a sin I must turn from. But I, like Gene Robinson and millions like us, must be true to myself, and true to God's calling for me.
igh, Daniel Paul,
"Then i can marry my goat!"
"OK...so what happens if someone "got my goat"? "
I'd probably have to call that sin! :)
But is it thievery, bestiality, incest, same-type, sex before marriage, or adultery? Hmmm. for some, maybe all (Some married person who is a real goat steals his father's wife to be with it, gets divorced and marries the goat)? choices choices....
oh the bad jokes keep coming.... for shame.
Troyg, (5)
âNotice what Paul said about judging others, "Therefore you are without excuse every one of you who passes judgment, for in that you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things (Romans 2:1)."
Let us realize he is saying to not be hypocritical. He did not condemn judging those within the church. In fact, he said to do so, when dealing with the man who was having illicit sex with his mother-in-law. Note that in this case, it did not have to do with âpassionâ or temple worship, simply a type of sex the old testament indicates is sin.
1 Corinthians 5:12-13
12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."
One can not ignore the Old Testament when dealing with the New Testament. It tells us what is right and wrong. It tells us who God is and what God has done and what God likes and dislikes. Yes, we are free from the Law, in terms of punishment, and in terms of the price has been paid for those who believe. But if you believe, you will obey. If Christ is God, and God has said certain sexual acts are wrong, then Christ has also said they are wrong. Plus, when Christ said a man cannot divorce a woman without making her an adulteress unless she has already committed adultery, He was speaking of the multitude of sexual activities included in Lev 18, 20 and Dt 22.
âPaul was certainly aware of the variety of ways that the teachers interpreted the word "indecency" and he used I in a variety of ways himself. To read into "indecent acts" a whole world of homosexual ideas is to abandon the realities of objective academic study and to embark on useless and damaging speculation that cannot be supported by the meaning of the word or by Paulâs use of it elsewhere.â
I am not reading anything into the term indecent. I am reading the text. Epiqumia means desire, craving longing, wanting that which is forbidden. Akatharsia means uncleanness. Atimazo means to dishonour, insult, treat with contempt.
Metallasso is to exchange. Phusikos is inborn, âagreeable to natureâ. Chresis means âuseâ, as sexual use of a woman, function. I could go on, but there really is no need. To ignore what Paul wrote concerning homosexual sex being a sin is to ignore scripture.
âIf Paul had intended to condemn homosexuals as the worst of all sinners, he certainly had the language skills to do a clearer job of it than emerges from Romans. The fact is that Paul nowhere condemned or mentioned romantic love and sexual relations between people of the same sex who love each other. Paul never commented on sexual orientation. As in the rest of the Bible, Paul nowhere even hinted hat lesbians and gay men can or should change their sexual orientation.â
He dealt with an issue at hand: exchanging the truth of God for a lie and the consequences thereof. I repeat what I have said before:
By putting one's desires above Godâs one places oneself, a created creature, in the place of God in one's life. By refusing to accept what God has said about homosexual sex being a sin, one refuses to honor God. By ignoring His word, one is ungodly, and suppressing the truth. By saying that one's thoughts on the subject are more important that Godâs thoughts on it, one exchanges the truth of God for one's own thoughts.
âThe use of Romans 1:26-27 against gay people turns out to be a blunt instrument to batter and wound people who were not intended in the original text. Paul clearly taught throughout Romans, Galatians, and his other letters that Godâs freely given and all-inclusive love is for every person on earth. â
I agree that Paul taught Godâs grace and love and even salvation is available for everyone. But there is a requirement: they must repent, and believe. And if they believe, they must obey (Acts 26:20 ; John 14:15).
Troyg, (3)
âOne more word needs special attention. "committing indecent acts" in Romans 1:27 is translated by the KJV as "working that which is unseemly". The Phillips translation goes far beyond the evidence and renders it as "shameful horrors!" The Greek word isaskemosunen and is formed of the word for "outer appearance" plus the negative particle. It speaks of the inner or hidden part or parts of the individual that are not ordinarily seen or know in public. â
The term âindecentâ, askemosune, refers to that which is not normally seen in public because for it to be seen in public is shameful.
"Indecent in 1 COR 12:23 referred to the parts of the body that remain hidden but are necessary and receive honor.â
You are changing the meaning. In 1 Cor 12:23, Askemon become eusemosune. In context, askemon would refer to those things that are either deformed or unseemly. When taken in context with Atimos, the word translated âlessâ, atimos askemon indicates without honor and indecent.
â 1 COR 13:5 used the word to say that love does not behave "indecently". This word for "indecency" was used to translate Deuteronomy 24:1 into Greek to say that a man could divorce his wife if he "found some indecency in her". The religious teachers argued endlessly about what "some indecency" meant. Some said it was anything that displeased the husband. Others were more strict and said it could only refer to adultery. In Matthew 19:1-12, Jesus commented on Deut. 24: 1-4, but he did not define the term.â
You are mistaken. The term translated âunchastityâ and âimmoralityâ found in both Mt 5::32 and Mt 19:9 is Porneia. In context, this speaks to something that has to do with sex â indicating that if the husband divorces his wife for something other than porneia, he causes her to commit adultery. The only way he could NOT cause her to commit adultery (moicheuo in Greek) is if she had already committed it. Many religious leaders at the time allowed the âindecentâ to be anything the husband wanted, but Christ was more restrictive. Christ said if you commit adultery, then you are an adulterer. If you divorce a woman who has not committed adultery, then you cause her to become an adulterer. The only way for the woman to have committed adultery is to have any sexual activities condemned in Lev 18; 20; Dt 22 while married. Thus, porneia refers to various sexually illicit behavior; doing these things while married is what makes it constitute adultery.
Troyg, (2)
âThe word "passions" in 1:26 is the same word used to speak of the suffering and death of Jesus in Acts 13 and does not mean what we mean by "passion" today. â
I disagree. The word used for âlustâ in Rom 1:24 is actually epiqumia. This word means âdesire, craving, longing, desire for what is forbidden, lustâ It is used in many places in the New Testament, but not in Acts at all. The term âdesireâ in Romans 1:27 is Orexis, and again means desire, longing, craving, lust, appetite. The word used for âpassionsâ in Rom 1:26 is Pathos, and means âwhatever befalls one, whether it be sad or joyous - spec. a calamity, mishap, evil, affliction; a feeling which the mind suffers; an affliction of the mind, emotion, passion; passionate deed.â Again, this word is used in various places in the New Testament, but never in Acts 13. To suggest these words are used to describe what happened to Jesus is to add to scripture. If you disagree, please provide scripture reference?
âEros is the Gk word for romantic, sexual love, but Eros is never used even once in the NT. "Passions" in Romans 1:26 probably refers to the frenzied state of mind that many ancient mystery cults induced in worshipers by means of wine, drugs, and music.â
Again, that is supposition. Not all same-gender sex involved drugs, wine, or music â then or now. Given the context of the example, it would refer to the affliction of mind or passionate deed.
âWe do not know the meaning of "burn" in 1:27, because Paul never used this particular word anywhere else, and itâs origin is uncertain. â
The term âburnâ in Rom 1:27 is ekkaio. This means âto burn out; to set on fire; to be kindled, to burnâ. Given the context, it would mean to lust, especially given the use of epiqumia and pathos in the previous sentences.
To suggest the meaning is not known is to ignore facts. Paul used three different terms to describe lust, desire, passion. He did so within four sentences. It should be clear to anyone not attempting to justify a desire or behavior what Paul meant: the sexual desire a person has.
âThe term "against nature" is also strange here, since exactly the same term is used by Paul in Romans 11:21-24 to speak of God acting "against nature" by including the Gentiles with the Jews in the family of God. "Against nature" was used to speak of something that was not done in the usual way, but did not necessarily mean that something "against nature" was evil, since God also "acted against nature".â
It is not strange; the term means something that is not normally found in nature â against the normal way of things.
Troyg,
âThere is neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus "(Galatians 3:28).
Yes, salvation is open to all who repent and believe. But the key is to change; this means you have to obey God.
John 14:15
If you love me, you will obey what I command.
âRomans 1:26-27 is part of Paul's vigorous denunciation of idolatrous religious worship and rituals. Read all of Romans 1:18 to 2:4 for the context of the versus. Romans 1:26-27 contains some words used only here by Paul. Familiar words are used here in unusual ways. The passage is very difficult to translate. â
Actually, its quite clear, when you look at the Greek.
âThe argument is directed against some form of idolatry that would have been known to Paul's readers. To us, 2000 years later and in a totally different culture, the argument is very vague and indirect. Verse 25 is clearly a denunciation of idol worship, "For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshipped and served the creature and not the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen." Paul at no point in his writing dealt with same-sex orientation or the expression of love and affection between to people of the same sex who love each other. â
I agree the main thrust Romans 1 is speaking out against people who suppress the truth of God by their wickedness. The key to the passage is in verse 18.
1:18
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
Paul gave an example in Romans of idol worship. But in doing so, he made it quite clear the problem is exchanging the truth of God for a lie. Then he showed what happens when people exchange the truth of God for a lie. They get given over to shameful things.
If you will notice in Romans 2, Paul is not merely condemning pagan practices. He is actually writing to say that judging while doing the same things is wrong. His point was that if we sin, we will be judged for it â whether under the Law or apart from it. He merely used pagan practices to show what happens when people turn aside from the truth of God â this truth includes the existence of God and what He has said.
But Paul chose to use the example of homosexual sex as part of what happens when we exchange the truth of God for a lie. In doing so, He was quite clear about what God thinks of the action of same-gender sex.