Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

The hunt is On.
Sponsored by
Can you track down Scotland's wildest beastie?
 
 
Friday, 5th December 2008 Change Date

The Scotsman Digital Archive - Special Christmas Offer

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

His saving grace - Gene Robinson interview



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 09 August 2008
Gene Robinson, the first openly gay Anglican bishop, came to Scotland this week to debate homosexuality and religion. He has maintained his dignity in the face of hostility from the Church, but tells Fiona MacGregor his patience may be running out
'I DON'T know how he sleeps at night." Bishop Gene Robinson is talking about Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, who has just spent a month overseeing the latest ten-yearly gathering of Anglican leaders and failed, yet again, to find any satisfactory resolution to the vexed issue of the church's opinions on homosexuality which threatens to split the international communion.

It is probably a safe bet – if gambling on holy matters is allowed – that Williams didn't sleep much during the Lambeth Conference, which ended last week with the church somehow still in one piece. It is a certainty that Robinson – the man who has come to embody all the hopes and fears that homosexuality arouses in the world's 70 million Anglicans, hasn't had much rest at all over the past few weeks, although he wasn't actually invited to the big event.

Now, bathed in the colourful light that pours through the stained glass windows of St John's Church at Edinburgh's West End, Robinson, aged 61 and the world's first openly gay Anglican bishop, is very tired and pretty fed up. He's finally let slip, just for a moment, the open-hearted optimism which has buoyed him through the five years since his ordination and made him not just bishop but a guiding light for gay and lesbian Christians across the globe and a hate figure for those who believe same-gender sex is , as the Old Testament puts it, "an abomination".

"Maybe at the end of Lambeth I have discovered I am angrier than I thought I was," he says, twinkly eyes clouding over.

"I am losing my patience. I have tried to play by the rules and be respectful and sometimes it would be nice to be shown a little respect back. I try to keep my sympathy (for Williams] and I do worry and pray for him. I don't believe this (refusal to recognise homosexual relationships can have a place within the church] is what's in his heart – unless he's changed very much since he became Archbishop of Canterbury."

Robinson, Bishop of New Hampshire, is speaking with human-rights campaigner Peter Tatchell about homosexuality and religion at the Festival of Spirituality in Edinburgh this month.

Perhaps his anger has been fuelled by the passionate Tatchell, who has been pointing out that those bishops who have spoken out most vehemently against the church's acceptance of homosexual relationships, such as Peter Akinola of Nigeria, who says gay people are "worse than beasts", are implicitly, if not explicitly, supporters of "the most vile homophobia".

As an outsider, it's certainly hard to understand how Williams can be so desperate to appease people who hold such views, while systematically shunning Robinson who even now has nothing worse to say about Williams than he "doesn't think he's being true to his heart". As for Akinola, he is "looking forward to meeting him in heaven". ("He might be surprised to see me there, but I won't be surprised to see him.")

It's been strange watching this delicate anger unfurl.

Robinson – a small, bespectacled man with rosy cheeks, today wearing a white and grey striped jacket – is a genuinely friendly, down-to-earth person who sees the world as a generally good place to be in – even if he has to share it with people who make death threats against him.

"It's just been so warm, welcoming and wonderful to be in Scotland," says Robinson, as we duck out of the rain to talk over large cups of caffé latte. "I was invited to celebrate the communion here, which I wasn't in England. I had a wonderful time in Glasgow."

He's been enjoying Edinburgh too, soaking up the festival atmosphere and meeting people of different faiths as part of the Festival of Spirituality.

He laughs when I contrast the Scottish Presbyterian tradition of schism with Anglicanism's apparent determination to preserve unity at almost any cost.

His chortle is warm and infectious, but it's Rowan Williams's desire to preserve the Anglican union and keep on board the conservative evangelical provinces, with their vocal condemnation of homosexuality, that led to Robinson's exclusion from Lambeth.

"I don't believe the split has to happen. Ever since my consecration, the conservatives have pointed to the next gathering. They said this is the time when everyone's going to have to choose – then we get to that point and it doesn't happen. So I'Il believe it when I see it."

At this point in the day, Robinson still sounds fairly matter-of-fact about his exclusion from Lambeth. He has faith "that God's hand is in (what's happening] somehow".

He is, now, equally matter-of-fact about his own sexuality, something he believes is beyond anyone's control, and quite intrigued by the whole genetic debate.

"I have about four or five cousins who are gay, all going back to one side of the family," he tells me, with enthusiasm and perhaps a degree of pride.

" Just two months ago another cousin came out. He's married, with a teenage son and it's really astounding."

Robinson himself was married when he came out as gay. His wife had known he had issues with his sexuality before they married. She has since remarried and they remain on good terms. The couple's two daughters are close to both their parents and their new partners and, says Robinson "say they have one mum and three dads".

We discuss the recently published evidence that the more older brothers a boy has, the more likely he is to be gay. In fact, Robinson was an only child until the birth of his sister when he was ten.

"I loved it. I really enjoyed having a sister. There was too much attention on me; I wanted someone else take a little of the heat."

But surely the man who has become one of the most controversial figures in modern- day Christianity cannot be that bothered by attention?

"Being an only child is not an easy thing," he says. But he admits: "I have to like attention, or I wouldn't be doing this."

The same cannot be said for his partner of 20 years, Mark Andrew.

"He's a very private person so this is his worst nightmare, being in the limelight. The fact that he's done it, not just (ungrudgingly] but as my greatest supporter, is an enormous gift to me and to the church, but I think he worries about my personal safety more than I do.

"Mark works for the state of New Hampshire, getting hospitals and medical personnel ready either for a terrorism event, an outbreak of avian flu or some kind of epidemic. He's used to dealing with potential disaster!" Robinson smiles.

On the subject of potential disaster: what if Robinson is wrong on the homosexuality issue? How can he be sure, on this issue that threatens to split the Church, that he's got it right?

"I am not at all sure. It's true as best as I can discern it's true. It's God's will and I think only over time do we really come to know the answer.

"As more and more Christians make themselves known to us as gay or lesbian, the more we realise they are not outside the embrace of God – I think that will prove itself over time. But I caution people all the time to be very careful of anyone who says they know what God's will is. I don't think any of us know that."

Obviously he is upset at the wider Anglican Communion's failure to accept that homosexual relationships should be accepted and recognised as valid, but he also feels personally slighted by Williams.

He says the Archbishop of Canterbury has met him just once (almost three years ago), refuses to answer his correspondence and, not only was he the only bishop whom Williams didn't invited to Lambeth, but he says pictures of him were issued to the event's security points lest he tried to attend the opening ceremony, despite having promised three times not to.

"It seems he's been especially welcoming to the conservative voices within the Anglican union, (yet] those of us on the other side of that issue can hardly get in at all. It's very discouraging," says Robinson.

Despite this, Robinson remains hopeful there's a way forward. "When I first started my ministry, divorced people were not welcome at Communion and, if they got remarried, they could not receive the church's blessing. Now, neither of these things is the case.

"Jesus, out of his own mouth, says remarriage is adultery and yet the Church has determined in its own wisdom and by the lead of the spirit that God's leading us to a new place.

"It raises what I think is the real issue here. Did God stop revealing himself at the end of the first century, when the scripture was closed, or did God, as Jesus said he would, send his holy spirit to lead us into truth?"

If Robinson had to choose between his beloved Anglicanism and ministering to the gay and lesbian community, which would he pick?

"I hope it doesn't come to that, but if I had to choose I would have to stand on the side of the fully inclusive love of God over unity, however you might define that."

Still, the split hasn't happened yet. He's looking forward very much to getting back to his home in New Hampshire, his own pillow, tending his garden (which he fears will be unrecognisable) and back to what he loves best: "just being a bishop". His favourite pursuit, he says, is getting out and about in the parishes and meeting members of the church.

Later, in St John's, he bemoans the lack of people under 30 there and suggests that, by making such a fuss about homosexuality, the Church risks at best making itself irrelevant and more likely coming across as downright offensive to the current generation.

At the end of the discussion, a young woman gets up to say that she is under 30 and "how refreshing and what a blessing it is" to have Robinson in the Church. His delight is modest, but writ large in his smile. He is doing and being what he believes is so important – a figure who can support and encourage people in their faith. How long he will be able to do so as a member of the current Anglican communion remains to be seen.

FESTIVAL EVENTS

Keynote talks at the Edinburgh Festival of Spirituality and Peace www.festivalofspirituality.org.uk (see also www.edinburgh-festivals.com)

THE SHARIA SCARE

The Archbishop of Canterbury caused uproar when he suggested some aspects of Sharia Law could be incorporated into our legal system. Are fears about Sharia law justified? Ziauddin Sardar, prominent Muslim intellectual and New Statesman columnist is in discussion with Lord McCluskey, the former solicitor general for Scotland. Tuesday 12 August, 5:45 pm St John's, Lothian Road, Edinburgh.

IS GOD A PACIFIST?

Are we becoming more peace-aware, as the Dalai Lama has suggested? Carter Phipps of What is Enlightenment magazine talks to Brian Smith, Bishop of Edinburgh and Rev Prof Frank Whaling, president of Edinburgh Interfaith Society. Monday 18 August, 5:45pm, Nicholson Square Methodist Church.

HOW UNIVERSAL ARE HUMAN RIGHTS?

Sixty years after the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, what impact has it had and what challenges does it face in achieving its aim? Kate Allen, director of Amnesty International, leads this talk. Tuesday 19 August, 5:45pm, St John's, Lothian Road, Edinburgh.

NON-VIOLENCE FOR CHANGE

India, Burma and Tibet have had varied success with non-violent movements for change. Arun Gandhi, grandson of Mahatma Gandhi, leads this conversation on what it takes to confront the powerful without violence. Saturday 23 August, 12:30pm, St John's, Lothian Road, Edinburgh.

The full article contains 2016 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 08 August 2008 8:20 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

A Brand plucked from the burning,

Carlisle 09/08/2008 11:57:51
It should be remembered that practising homosexulaity is condemned not only in Old Testament but also in the New Testament. Romans 1:26-27 could not be clearer condemnation. Verse 28 says God gave such 'over to a reprobate mind' ie a mind of which God cannot approve. See also 1 Corinthians 6:9 where ALL types of sexual immorality (unrepented of forbidden hetrosexuality as well as homosexuality) excludes people from heaven. Lest any should object saying that is only PAUL'S opinion let them remember that ALL Scripture is God-breathed and that human writers' wrote not out of their own perceptions but by direct revelation form God. I am far from being an Anglican but Anglicanism (and other isms) would do well to practise that which Scripture clearly teaches and not be swayed by unclean sinners seeking for their immorality to be sanitised. God forgives all sins only through the Lord Jesus Christ. He condemns none who repent with sincerity.
2

hassan i sabbah,

edinburgh 09/08/2008 13:52:32
It should also be remembered that the bible is a collection of wee stories,written at different times,by different people and translated again by different people
.......IT IS NOT THE WORD OF "GOD"............
Be nice to one another. Try and not be ugly.
3

Chris Nel,

Ripon, N.Yorkshire 09/08/2008 15:27:37
I confess I did not bother to read Gene Robinsons attempts to justify his behaviour. I am more concerned that in two articles from Scotland that came up on Google I have seen a strong bias by the media to support the liberal position and have yet to see a report that takes a strong Biblical position.
It seems that the country that John Knox had so earnestly lived and prayed for has now become a God forsaking wilderness. What a tragedy that a land so endowed with overwhelming natural beauty should be turning its back on the Creator who has so blessed it. The only other thing I seem to hear of Scotland is the widespread problems of alcohol. Is it not possible that the forsaking of God and the drift into wild liberalism and the problems of alcohol are very much linked?
The last thing Scotland needs is a 'bishop' who advocates homosexuality pouring out his heart to the people. The many missionaries who came from Scotland and were instruments of great blessings to countries like my own would be sadly weeping if they were alive today to see the media and the masses on the pathway to hell.
4

paul titterington,

Bolton. England. 09/08/2008 21:20:01
Chris says:

It seems that the country that John Knox had so earnestly lived and prayed for has now become a God forsaking wilderness.

I agree Chris, sadly, He has already "given-up" the land that gave the world God's Holy Word in the English language. A clear proof that God gives up a person, or a nation, is when we see every kind of sin being commited, and indeed encouraged by the press and the Church. We only need to look anywhere in the OT, how God has forsaken that once-upon-a-time, God fearing nation, Israel. England and Scotland are indeed much worse than the wicked of the OT era. In fact Chris, I can confidently say that generation is more wicked, and more Depraved than any other generation that has ever lived on God's earth!

One example should suffice.

1. Where in the OT do we see Mothers accepting their "son-in-laws" SEMEN into their own WOMBS, thereby giving birth to a baby, or indeed many babies from the body of their own daughters husband? or boyfriend? - Nowhere!

Absolutely vile and Filthy!

This alone is a sure sign that God has given us up to our hearts desires!

The reason why the wicked feel at ease with sin and promiscurity is because God has clearly lifted the restraint that He once held over the wicked AND the church! But these days, even the Church has given up fighting sin in her midst and thrown in the baby with the bathwater and been raised down to the level of the wicked.
5

bcc820,

USA 09/08/2008 22:30:36
>> [Robinson]: "I am losing my patience. I have tried to play by the rules and be respectful and sometimes it would be nice to be shown a little respect back. <<

I am trying to figure out by whose "rules" Robinson has been trying to play? His unbiblical life-style has been responsible for splitting an entire denomination. What true man of God would spilt an entire denomination to further his own personal unbiblical agenda? He seems to have a martyr complex. I also find it strange that Robinson will speak on the same platform with Peter Tatchell -- as Tachell has recently written: "There is no gay gene. Genes and hormones may predispose a person to one sexuality rather than another. But that’s all. Predisposition and determination are two different things" -- which, although scientifically true, is at a polar opposite with Robinson's "theology" on the matter.
6

john z,

edinburgh 09/08/2008 23:12:24
Yes, those fun loving hateful bigots, the christians are at it again, choosing to pick selected parts of the bible to condemm gays, but ignoring the other bits of the bible.

For the uneducated, here are some of the other laws of the 'good book', which are apparently nowhere near as important as the bits about homosexuality.

Don't let cattle graze with other kinds of Cattle (Leviticus 19:19)
Don't have a variety of crops on the same field. (Leviticus 19:19)
Don't wear clothes made of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19)
Don't cut your hair nor shave. (Leviticus 19:27)
Any person who curseth his mother or father, must be killed. (Leviticus 20:9) 
If a man cheats on his wife, or vise versa, both the man and the woman must die. (Leviticus 20:10). 
If a man sleeps with his father's wife... both him and his father's wife is to be put to death. (Leviticus 20:11)
If a man sleeps with his wife and her mother they are all to be burnt to death.  (Leviticus 20:14)
If a man or woman has sex with an animal, both human and animal must be killed. (Leviticus 20:15-16). 
If a man has sex with a woman on her period, they are both to be "cut off from their people" (Leviticus 20:18)
If a priest's daughter is a prostitute, she is to be burnt at the stake.  (Leviticus 21:9)
People who have flat noses, or is blind or lame, cannot go to an altar of God (Leviticus 21:17-18)
Anyone who curses or blasphemes God, should be stoned to death by the community.  (Leviticus 24:14-16)
Don't let cattle graze with other kinds of Cattle (Leviticus 19:19)

Yes, its funny how they choose to ignore those bits. Nothing like a good old fashioned bit of homophobia is there?

Meanwhile, the vile anglican bishops of Africa, stand by and give tacet aproval by their silence to some of the most hateful and barbaric persecution of gay people. Those bishops have the blood of many gay people on their hands.

Oh, and just for the record, what does Jesus have to say about homosexuality i
7

john z,

edinburgh 09/08/2008 23:13:36
continued...
Oh, and just for the record, what does Jesus have to say about homosexuality in the entire new testament??

Nothing. Not a word.

To bcc820 above, Peter Tatchell works very hard to support universal human rights - a concept which seems alien to most so-called 'christians' nowadays.

So much hatred, and so little love - maybe I just hadn't realised that hatred had become part of the christian doctrine.


8

john z,

edinburgh 09/08/2008 23:24:50
Why should homosexuals have to suffer just because some religious nutters believe in an imaginary man in the sky who can hear their thoughts, and made the universe in six days (allegedly)?

I mean can't anyone see how stupid it all is?? Why should such people be 'respected', as they are all quite clearly mad.

9

bcc820,

09/08/2008 23:31:48
>> Oh, and just for the record, what does Jesus have to say about homosexuality in the entire new testament??

Nothing. Not a word. <<

This is a common misconception - read my other post about what Jesus said regarding marriage.
10

bcc820,

09/08/2008 23:31:49
>> Oh, and just for the record, what does Jesus have to say about homosexuality in the entire new testament??

Nothing. Not a word. <<

This is a common misconception - read my other post about what Jesus said regarding marriage.
11

bcc820,

USA 10/08/2008 03:08:13
>> [john z says]: Oh, and just for the record, what does Jesus have to say about homosexuality in the entire new testament?? Nothing. Not a word. <<

Jesus never spoke the word "pedophilia" either, but it would be silly to conclude from His silence that He thought it was acceptable. An argument appealing to silence for legitimacy is always a weak argument. Furthermore, a stronger case can be made that -- by His "silence" -- Jesus actually approved of the historical Rabbinical teaching that homosexuality was an abomination (since Jesus was always quick to correct wrong teachings - and He never "corrected" the teachers of the Law on the issue of homosexuality). So the argument of "Jesus' silence" easily cuts both ways. His silence is no "proof" that homosexuality is a Biblically acceptable life-style (I have not appealed to the "God breathed" Scripture of Moses and Paul because I believe you will simply reject their writings as those of mere men).

But an iron clad argument comes from the actual words of Jesus regarding His definition of Biblical marriage - >> "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” Matthew 19:4-6 <<

Jesus took the Pharisees all the way back to God's original creation account (Genesis 1:27 and 2:24) and affirmed God's foundational and ordained plan for marriage - "male and female." As we see, Jesus was NOT silent on what constituted Biblical marriage. From the Matthew 19 account (above) it is fairly argued that Jesus was silent on homosexual marriage because His affirmation of (only) "male and female" marriage had already taken that issue off the table.
12

paul titterington,

Bolton. England. 10/08/2008 21:07:13
john z. You are typical in that you repeat things other Atheists have wrote or claimed without examining their false claims yourself! EXAMPLE: Peole say Jesus never wrote anything. But JESUS did write! He wrote on the Tables of Stone for Moses, by the finger of God. (Exodus 31:18). To understand this teaching we must look at (John 5:37) where Jesus told the Jews: "Ye have neither HEARD His [His Father] VOICE at any time, nor SEEN His shape". For those who didn't know it, every appearance by God in the OT was God the Son - prior to His incarnation. Thats why Jesus said no Jew had ever HEARD His Fathers voice at any time. So whose voice did Moses and Abraham hear? It was Jesus' voice. And if you don't believe me, look at the next few veres in (John 5:38-39). Jesus says clearly here that all those voices, and appearences of God to the OT Prophets were in fact the Son prior to the incarnation, thats why Jesus said: "They are they which TESITIFY of ME" (v 39b). So, you see john, you can't simply accept everything the Atheists claim, and take it for granted, that their are too many contradictions in Holy Scripture, because there aren't!
13

paul titterington,

10/08/2008 21:10:20
john z.

You are typical in that you repeat things other Atheists have wrote or claimed without examining their false claims yourself!

EXAMPLE: People say Jesus never wrote anything. But JESUS did write! He wrote on the Tables of Stone for Moses, by the finger of God. (Exodus 31:18).

To understand this teaching, we must look at (John 5:37) where Jesus told the Jews: "Ye have neither HEARD His [His Father] VOICE at any time, nor SEEN His shape". For those who didn't know it, every appearance by God in the OT was God the Son - prior to His incarnation. Thats why Jesus said no Jew had ever HEARD His Fathers voice at any time.

So whose voice did Moses and Abraham hear?

It was Jesus' voice. And if you don't believe me, look at the next few veres in (John 5:38-39). Jesus says clearly here that all those voices, and appearences of God to the OT Prophets were in fact the Son prior to the incarnation, thats why Jesus said: "They are they which TESITIFY of ME" (v 39b).

So, you see john, you can't simply accept everything the Atheists claim, and take it for granted, that their are too many contradictions in Holy Scripture, because there aren't!
14

bcc820,

USA 10/08/2008 23:55:57
>> john z wrote]: "For the uneducated, here are some of the other laws of the 'good book', which are apparently nowhere near as important as the bits about homosexuality." (Post # 6)

John, your (often brought up) point is good and well taken, but easily answered. Many of the laws in the Old Testament were dietary and cultural laws binding on the Jews only. And many dozens of other "laws" were not given directly by God, but were added by the Pharisees and teachers of the Law in an attempt to keep the Jews from even coming close to breaking one of the Commandments (which, of course, was futile). In the New Testament many of these dietary and cultural laws were superceded or done away with by Christ. An example of this is in Acts 10 where Christ told Peter (regarding previously forbidden food) "What God has made clean, do not call unclean...kill and eat." (By the way, you did not bring up the "shellfish" argument popular with liberal clergy, but what Christ said to Peter in the Acts 10 story destroys that argument.)

So, how do we know that Leviticus 18:22 -- "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination [in the sight of God]," and Leviticus 20:13, "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them" -- are not among the laws that were rescinded in the New Testament?

The answer is -- the essence of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 was *repeated* in the New Testament and in addition was made binding on the Gentiles as well: "do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral...nor men who practice homosexuality" (1 Corinthians 6:9-10). Now to be fair, there are other sinful life-styles listed in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 as well. But no one (yet) is arguing that thievery, drunkenness, and adultery are "normal" life-styles -- ALL of these immoral life-styles are condemned.
15

bcc820,

USA 10/08/2008 23:57:28
(continued from post 14)

And again -- "...God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error" (Romans 1:26-27).

And again -- "[understand] this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners...the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality" (1 Timothy 8-10). Here again, homosexuality is not the only sin listed. But again, no one (yet) is arguing that murder, those who enslave, perjury, and lying are normal life-styles. But certainly, homosexuality is listed here as a sin.

But there is even stronger evidence. When Jesus was speaking with the two men on the road to Emmaus (after His resurrection) it is written: "And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he [Jesus] interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself" (Luke 24:27). Now here's the point -- by Jesus appealing to "Moses and the all Prophets" to prove things written about Himself, He was at the same time verifying that these books spoke the truth (it would be silly for Jesus to appeal to books He knew were inaccurate). And Leviticus (18:22 and 20:13) is one of the books written by Moses.

So you see, the points you brought up - although legitimate questions to ask - are easily answered.

Now I know that many of the liberal persuasion will reject any (God breathed) scripture that does not agree with their agendas -- or invent novel interpretations to twist scripture to agree with their agendas (I have heard them all). But few (who claim to be believers) would reject the words of Christ - and Christ did teach that marriage was between "male and female" and never voiced another option (see my post # 11).



16

bcc820,

USA 12/08/2008 00:13:41
Here is a link to "Ravi Zacharias answers question on homosexuality." Dr. Zacharias is a world respected teacher, philosopher, and speaker. He is respected by believers and unbelievers alike. This is a from a Question and Answer session after a lecture in front of 3,500 students in Atlanta, Georgia.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkCkXU0e75k&NR=1
17

paul titterington,

Bolton. England. 12/08/2008 17:33:17
bcc820,USA.

Does this man accept that an Homosexual can hold any Office in the Christian Church?
18

bcc820,

12/08/2008 22:16:24
>> bcc820,USA. Does this man accept that a Homosexual can hold any Office in the Christian Church? <<

As you can see from the video, he does make a distinction between a person who discovers they have homosexual proclivities BUT NEVER ACTS ON THEM (remains celibate) - and those who actively engage in that life-style. But to answer your question, I would say no.

In the particular case of Gene Robinson - the reason it is so egregious - he divorced his wife to live in open fornication with his male partner. This doubly disqualifies him *scripturally* from serving in any clergy position, but the Episcopal leadership not only didn't discipline him, they applauded him and elevated him to the position of Bishop. You can see why many in America view the Episcopal branch of the Anglican church as a theological train wreck. For all the media attention it gets, the Episcopal church now has only about 2.3 million members in America, or about 0.8% of the population.
19

bcc820,

USA 12/08/2008 22:34:14
>> paul titterington,Bolton. England. <<

Paul - off topic, but isn't Bolton the center of professional darts in the UK? I lived in England for three years back in the 1960s and learned the game of darts. When I returned to the states, I joined a league and was the first in my city to shoot 50 recorded T180s (at the time, a prize was being offered for the first to record 50 T180s). I am no longer part of a league, but still love the game (and can still shoot T180s).
20

paul titterington,

Bolton. England. 14/08/2008 12:40:19
Quote from bbc820, USA.

Paul - off topic, but isn't Bolton the center of professional darts in the UK?

Not having played Darts in any competition matches myself - I'm not sure if Bolton is the Center?

I do know that there is an annual tournament which takes place at the home of my local football team - Bolton Wanderers - the REEBOK Stadium. Televised LIVE on TV.

I think Bolton, as well as England, is a very different place than it was when you left Merry Englands Shores in the 1960s!

By the way bbc820, sounds like you should enter into some of the UK Darts Competitions with those kind of scores! Fantastic! - For an American cousin at least ;-)
21

bcc820,

27/08/2008 04:14:28
[Paul Titterington wrote]: By the way bbc820, sounds like you should enter into some of the UK Darts Competitions with those kind of scores! Fantastic! - For an American cousin at least ;-)

(American cousin) -- my great great grandparents on my father's side came to America from England, and from Ireland on my mother's side. So I feel a kindred spirit with the UK. Loved the country back in the 1960s. I do know that it is a very different place today and much of the change makes me sad.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.