Bishop Gene Robinson on His New Book ‘God Believes in Love’ & More

As you describe in your “Why Gay Marriage Now?” chapter, many Americans have been forced to confront their beliefs by a close friend or relative—or even a child or spouse—coming out. Obviously, that makes the debate more than an abstract argument over Scripture. But what about people who aren’t affected as closely? Have you seen a particular argument or way of looking at the issue be effective in changing people’s minds? What seems to be the X factor? 

There is no question that knowing someone gay or lesbian is the most compelling motivator for becoming an advocate for gay marriage. But those without those personal connections might come to that same advocacy by another route. For those who were a part of the civil-rights movement for African-Americans in the ’60s, or the women’s liberation movement of the ’70s, this struggle for full and equal (not special) rights for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people has a familiar ring. Fair-minded people want to live in a nation whose laws protect those who are discriminated against by a majority prejudiced against them. Some take up this fight when they see teenagers committing suicide because they have no hope for a fulfilling and happy life as a gay man or lesbian. For followers of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, there is always the call to care for the most vulnerable, to welcome the stranger, and to fight for the marginalized and oppressed, and so their advocacy for gay marriage is an expression of their faith commitment. There are many roads to advocacy for gay marriage.

What was the missing piece for you? Did it take a crucial bit of scriptural or intellectual evidence in addition to your personal experience?

The first step, for a gay man like myself, was accepting my own sexuality as a gift from God, rather than a curse. Once I believed that it was good to be gay, I then wanted to be able to imagine a happy and fulfilling life for myself. But marriage for two men or two women seemed like an impossibly unreachable goal. And that’s why I credit Evan Wolfson, executive director of the national Freedom to Marry Coalition, with singing this song solo for years until many more of us believed it too and began to sing along. The hard part was loving myself and believing that God loved me as a gay man; believing in marriage for gay or lesbian couples was an easier leap into the joy and meaning of relationships and commitment.

Your denomination is one of the most liberal in the U.S., but as you point out, acceptance of gay marriage is not a done deal there, and even less so in the global Anglican communion. It’s perhaps easier to see how individuals change their minds, but how do you see the shifts happening on a church level? Does the Episcopal Church’s position influence others?

Actually, the Episcopal Church has dramatically changed in a very short period of time. Historically speaking, institutions are slow to change and usually resistant to any sudden moves—churches especially so. In 2003, when I was elected bishop, it was not at all certain that the Episcopal Church would consent to my election. They did, however, and in 2010 consecrated the second gay bishop in Los Angeles, the Rt. Rev. Mary Glasspool. Within seven short years, a controversial flashpoint had turned into something fairly routine and accepted. In 2012, the Episcopal Church authorized a provisional liturgy for the blessing of same-sex relationships and authorized its use for the blessing of marriages in those states where it is legal. These are astounding developments and would have been unthinkable only a short decade ago.

As for influencing others, I think it’s safe to say that other mainline denominations (Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists) have been watching the developments in the Episcopal Church, to see if this controversy would weaken or even destroy us, before undertaking change themselves.

One doesn’t have to look far back into history to see how much religious traditions have changed on big issues over time and in some cases even apologized for their previous positions. More than a few times, those shifts have been attacked as fatal to the true faith. Why do you think that bigger history is so difficult to see when we’re fighting over contemporary issues?

Left to our own devices and passions, we human beings have a hard time seeing beyond what is immediately in front of us. While the issue of slavery and its grotesque inhumanity seem obvious to us now, it was not so obvious to slave owners then who argued—from scripture, no less—that slavery was a part of God’s plan. We have similarly rethought our understanding of women, disabled people, and the mentally ill. Rather than being “fatal to the true faith,” it seems to me that these changes have argued for a more true following of God’s will for us than past understandings of the faith have allowed. Faith is a dynamic and ever-changing process, not some fixed body of truth that exists outside our world and our understanding. God’s truth may be fixed and unchanging, but our comprehension of that truth will always be partial and flawed at best. Over time, hopefully, we get it righter and righter!

It is interesting to wonder what we accept today as morally just and good, which over time the world will come to understand as unjust and immoral. What I love about believing in a living God is that I believe God is constantly revealing God’s self to us over time, and with each succeeding generation, we come a little closer to understanding the mind of God. Perhaps we might be a little kinder to past generations in their misperceptions, in hopes that future generations will be kind in understanding and forgiving our own faults and cruelties.

There are intelligent Christians who say outright that tampering with what they call the “Biblical sexual ethic” is a compromise of the fundamental meaning of the gospel. (And I don’t just mean Tony Perkins or Maggie Gallagher!) How did this issue become, for some people, so central to the credibility of their faith?

Homosexuality and gay marriage has become, in the minds of some, the litmus test of faith. If one does not support the traditional understanding of scripture and 2,000 years of Christian traditional teaching on homosexuality and marriage, then he or she must not be a believer at all! Somehow, if one does not follow the traditional “party line” on sexuality, then one must have thrown out all the traditional teachings and understandings of one’s faith, which of course is simply not true. I would go so far as to say that conservative Christians—I would include conservative evangelicals, the religious right, and the Roman Catholic hierarchy in this group—have made an idol of sexuality and homosexuality. That is to say, they have placed the comparatively lesser issue of sexuality above the greater issues of faith in importance: the Trinity, the humanity and divinity of Christ, God’s saving act in Jesus Christ, to name a few.

“As marriage is abandoned as largely irrelevant and unnecessary by many young heterosexuals, it is gay men and lesbians who are most defending and yearning for this traditional institution.”

I believe that these people have mostly been taught to think this way by their ordained leaders. The reasons for this, I believe, are more about politics, power, and money than about theology or faith. Manipulation of laity by some of their clergy leadership is the subject for another book, but let’s at least note that the demonization of gay people and gay marriage was intentionally chosen to divide us and to raise lots of money. Somehow, these lesser understandings, about which good people of faith can disagree, are being placed on a pedestal high above those essential assertions of traditional faith that have been our foundation for two millennia, and are being used as a litmus test to separate the false from the true believers. At the end of the day, this seems to me to be idolatry. Our understanding of the faith has always been in a state of change as we better and better comprehend God’s will for us. This change in our understanding is no more a challenge or threat to “the faith” than the changes that have preceded it.

Interviewed by David Sessions. Read the full article at : http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/21/bishop-gene-robinson-on-his-new-book-god-believes-in-love-more.print.html



‘God Believes in Love: Straight Talk About Gay Marriage’ by Gene Robinson. 208 pages. Knopf. $24. Bishop Gene Robinson onstage at the 20th Annual GLAAD Media Awards held at NOKIA Theatre LA LIVE on April 18, 2009 in Los Angeles, California. (Kevork Djansezian / Getty Images)

Scientist, Candidate and Planet Earth’s Lifeguard

Barry Commoner, a founder of modern ecology and one of its most provocative thinkers and mobilizers in making environmentalism a people’s political cause, died on Sunday in Manhattan. He was 95 and lived in Brooklyn Heights. His wife, Lisa Feiner, confirmed his death.

 Dr. Commoner was a leader among a generation of scientist-activists who recognized the toxic consequences of America’s post-World War II technology boom, and one of the first to stir the national debate over the public’s right to comprehend the risks and make decisions about them. Raised in Brooklyn during the Depression and trained as a biologist at Columbia and Harvard, he came armed with a combination of scientific expertise and leftist zeal. His work on the global effects of radioactive fallout, which included documenting concentrations of strontium 90 in the baby teeth of thousands of children, contributed materially to the adoption of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty of 1963. From there it was a natural progression to a range of environmental and social issues that kept him happily in the limelight as a speaker and an author through the 1960s and ’70s, and led to a wobbly run for president in 1980. In 1970, the year of the first Earth Day, Time magazine put Dr. Commoner on its cover and called him the Paul Revere of Ecology.

He was by no means the only one sounding alarms; the movement was well under way by then, building on the impact of Rachel Carson’s book “Silent Spring” in 1962 and the work of many others. But he was arguably the most peripatetic in his efforts to draw public attention to environmental dangers. (The same issue of Time noted that President Richard M. Nixon had already signed on. In his State of the Union address that January, he said, “The great question of the ’70s is, shall we surrender to our surroundings, or shall we make our peace with nature and begin to make reparations for the damage we have done to our air, to our land and to our water?” And he followed through: Among other steps, the Environmental Protection Agency was established in December 1970.) Dr. Commoner was an imposing professorial figure, with a strong face, heavy eyeglasses, black eyebrows and a thick head of hair that gradually turned pure white. He was much in demand as a speaker and a debater, especially on college campuses, where he helped supply a generation of activists with a framework that made the science of ecology accessible.

 His four informal rules of ecology were catchy enough to print on a T-shirt and take to the street: Everything is connected to everything else. Everything must go somewhere. Nature knows best. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Although the rules were plain enough, the thinking behind them required leaps of faith. Dr. Commoner’s overarching concern was not ecology as such but rather a radical ideal of social justice in which everything was indeed connected to everything else. Like some other left-leaning dissenters of his time, he believed that environmental pollution, war, and racial and sexual inequality needed to be addressed as related issues of a central problem. A Critic of Capitalism Having been grounded, as an undergraduate, in Marxist theory, he saw his main target as capitalist “systems of production” in industry, agriculture, energy and transportation that emphasized profits and technological progress with little regard for consequences: greenhouse gases, nonbiodegradable materials, and synthetic fertilizers and toxic wastes that leached into the water supply. He insisted that the planet’s future depended on industry’s learning not to make messes in the first place, rather than on trying to clean them up. It followed, by his logic, that scientists in the service of industry could not merely invent some new process or product and then wash their hands of moral responsibility for the side effects. He was a lasting opponent of nuclear power because of its radioactive waste; he scorned the idea of pollution credit swaps because, after all, he said, an industry would have to be fouling the environment in the first place to be rewarded by such a program.

Daniel Lewis -New York Times See the full article at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/02/us/barry-commoner-dies-at-95.html?src=me&ref=general&_r=0

Peter Gomes, Harvard minister and author, dies at 68

"I am a Christian who happens as well to be gay ... Those realities, which are unreconcilable to some, are reconciled in me by a loving God."

"[My mother] always told me that I must invent my own reality. Reality will not conform to you. You must invent your own and then conform to it. So I did. I am an authentic and an original. ... I will not allow myself to be known simply as an African American, no more than I would allow myself to be known as gay or conservative. They are all bits and pieces of a work in progress. I am a child of God."



http://www.boston.com/yourtown/news/cambridge/2011/03/peter_gomes_harvard_minister_a_2.html

Deanery Meeting to discuss the Proposed Covenant

Meeting, 2.13.2011, Deanery Re Proposed Covenant


The first part of the meeting covered some church history, beginning with a review of The Anglican Communion and our differences from the Orthodox and Catholic Churches.

The Lambeth Conference was then reviewed, in particular Resolution 1.10, of which the relevant subsections are:

c. recognises that there are among us persons who experience themselves as having a homosexual orientation. Many of these are members of the Church and are seeking the pastoral care, moral direction of the Church, and God's transforming power for the living of their lives and the ordering of relationships. We commit ourselves to listen to the experience of homosexual persons and we wish to assure them that they are loved by God and that all baptised, believing and faithful persons, regardless of sexual orientation, are full members of the Body of Christ;

d. while rejecting homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture, calls on all our people to minister pastorally and sensitively to all irrespective of sexual orientation and to condemn irrational fear of homosexuals, violence within marriage and any trivialisation and commercialisation of sex;

e. cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same sex unions nor ordaining those involved in same gender unions;

http://www.lambethconference.org/resolutions/1998/1998-1-10.cfm

A timeline of events followed the explanation of Resolution 1.10.
6.2003 Election of Gene Robinson as Bishop
7.2003 General Convention consent to Gene Robinson’s election
10.2003 Primates requested the Archbishop of Canterbury to appoint a commission to meet regarding Gene Robinson’s election as well as Canada’s blessings of same sex unions.
11.2003 Gene Robinson consecrated as Bishop
2004 Windsor Report – this was a moratorium on Bishops Crossing Borders (Bishops staying in their own territory), no more gay-lesbian bishops, and no more same sex unions.
2.2005 Primates asked The Episcopal Church to withdraw representation from the Anglican Council
3.2005 House of Bishops agreed to the moratoriam on consenting to any Bishops until General Convention in 2006.
2006 General Convention had no overt language regarding the role of women – as bishops or priests. The Convention had no resolution on same sex unions but called upon the Standing Committee to develop the Anglican Covenant, which should include wording on exercising restraint in consenting to consecrate anyone whose lifestyle presented a challenge to the way of life in the Church.
Late 2007 Nassau draft of The Covenant
Early 2008 St. Andrews Draft
Summer 2008 – Lambert Conference held
Spring 2009 Ridley Cambridge draft of Anglican Covenant issued which is the one that we have currently
Late 2009 Commission Chair, Most Reverend Eames (Bishop of all Ireland) reported that the draft was not a judgment but that it is a process.
Sept 8, 2010 The Episcopal Church will review and present comments and ideas to the revision, particularly number 4 which contains the language concerning behavior, unlike numbers 1, 2 and 3 which are faith based.

The moratorium ended and we (The Episcopal Church) continued as before which seems to be how we seem to behave.

A small group decided that the whole Anglican Communion should subscribe to this Covenant. Despite this, Churches may decide to withdraw from the Covenant. All congregations are to meet, develop suggestions, reports, etc. so that a resolution may be developed. The goal is to have this all ready for the General Convention of 2012. Who knows what will happen at that time.

Purpose of The Anglican Covenant:
1. Strengthen corporate life of Anglican Communion
2. Strengthen common life of Anglican Communion.

What happens if one of the Churches doesn’t approve it (could be the US or CA)?
Could that Church become a second tier Church? What does that mean? Would this have financial consequences for the (C of E) Church of England?

The Standing Committee, a small group appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury) would review and make decisions regarding “challenging” behavior mentioned in part 4 of the Covenant.

Do we really need the Covenant? We’ve never had one.
Opinions:
1. It might provide “common rules” for people who immigrate or move within the larger Church areas/countries, making it easier for those in this situation.
2. The Covenant might reduce input by laity in favor of Bishops.
3. Could help with global missionary work.
4. The first three parts which are faith based seem fine, only the fourth is punitive.
5. What is the importance of being part of a world wide congregation? (The U.S. has historically been independent with its own ideas).
6. Effect on congregations. Who are the leaders? How do we decide who they are? (re: the election of Gene Robinson)
7. Who decides who is fit to be our leader? Could it be a Bishop from another country (some Church Bishops outside the U.S. rule with an iron fist, we don’t)?


Submitted by Sue Joslyn

The Anglican Covenant

The idea for an Anglican Covenant was first mooted in the Windsor Report (paragraphs 113-120). The Joint Standing Committee of the Primates and of the Anglican Consultative Council commissioned a study paper on the idea in March 2005, Towards an Anglican Covenant.

At its meeting in May 2006, the Joint Standing Committee asked the Archbishop of Canterbury to establish a Covenant Design Group to further the project. This group gave a preliminary report to the Primates Meeting at Dar es Salaam in February 2007. The report included the Nassau Draft - a draft for the covenant on which initial consultation was taken in the course of 2007.

The draft is accompanied by a number of supporting documents, including the introduction, a commentary and a draft appendix.

The Covenant Design Group met again at the end of January 2008, and produced a second report and draft - the St. Andrew's Draft - taking into account many of the submissions to the group. This draft was offered for further reflection to the Provinces, but extensive reflection and discussion were undertaken by the bishops at this year's Lambeth Conference.

The comments and discussion of the bishops were received by the Covenant Design Group at their meeting in Singapore in September 2008 - and a Lambeth Commentary has now been issued which picks up on the many points of the bishops thinking, as well as offering the further reflection of the Covenant Design Group.

In March 2009 the Covenant Design Group considered all of the submissions from Provinces received to that point, along with the bishops’ reflections, and produced a third text, the Ridley-Cambridge Draft, which was presented to the 14th meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council in Jamaica in May 2009.

ACC-14 discussed the text in depth and welcomed its development, but expressed concern that the text of Section 4 had not received the same depth of consultation with Provinces which the first three sections had, and consequently requested that a small working group be set up to ‘consider and consult with the Provinces on Section 4 and its possible revision’, for approval by the Standing Committee.

That group met in November 2009, considered 18 responses received from the Provinces, and revised Section 4 in light of these responses (3 further responses were received after this work was completed). This text was presented to the Standing Committee, which has now approved it for distribution.

It is now with the Provinces of the Anglican Communion for formal consideration for adoption by each Province through appropriate processes. The link to the text can also be found by clicking on the title to this post

Tahrir Square- Cairo

DADT

In keeping with the theme of Rev. Diane's post below.. a timely piece by Adam Serwer in the Washington Post

Yesterday in Iowa, Former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty (R) told the Center for American Progress's Igor Volsky that he is so opposed to the repeal of don't ask don't tell that he would be willing to defund it:

PAWLENTY: We have to pay great deference, I think, to those combat units, their sentiments and their leaders. That's one of the reasons why I said we shouldn't have repealed Don't Ask, Don't Tell and I would support reinstatement.

TP: And rescinding the funds for implementation, implementation of repeal?

PAWLENTY: That would be a reasonable step as well.

Either Pawlenty sincerely believes, against all available empirical and real world evidence, that DADT repeal will harm military effectiveness and that it must urgently be reinstated, or he's just trying to signal disdain for gays and lesbians, including those willing to give their lives in service to their country, to homophobes in the Republican base. Possibly both.

Pawlenty seems to have mistaken DADT for the Affordable Care Act. Unfortunately for Pawlenty, most Republicans actually supported repeal, so unlike the ACA, DADT isn't a gaping emotional wound that needs to be treated. Pawlenty first voiced support for reinstating DADT on the radio show of the American Family Association's Bryan Fischer, who believes sex between gays and lesbians is a form of "domestic terrorism" and wants to ban Muslims from serving in the U.S. military.

A Pawlenty spokesperson tried to hide behind the military leadership in a statement to Politico's Ben Smith, clarifying that Pawlenty does not "support using resources to implement a policy" the "commanding generals" oppose. But with the exception of Marine Commandant General James Amos, the opinions of the service chiefs were mixed, and absolutely none of them have endorsed reinstating DADT, which is what Pawlenty is proposing. Repealing repeal would be a logistical nightmare for the military, and it's unlikely the service chiefs want to spend the next few years refighting DADT repeal.

Pawlenty also seems to have gotten the whole "civilian control of the military" thing backwards. Given that servicemembers and military leadership were far more opposed to racial integration in the 1940s than they are to repealing DADT today someone should ask Pawlenty whether he thought Harry Truman was wrong to order integration of the military in 1948.

More disturbing than Pawlenty's unworkable proposal for reinstating DADT or defunding repeal is that even in 2012, a Republican primary candidate might feel it necessary offer disdain for gays and lesbians as a selling point. Ultimately, though, it feels a little desperate, a way for a relatively bland candidate to distinguish himself from his more colorful rivals. The message was presumably received by Iowa's heavily evangelical Republican caucus voters; we'll find out soon enough how impressed they were.