The Gay Divorcé

Last August the Episcopal Church’s General Convention approved the election of V. Gene Robinson to be the bishop of New Hampshire. Many protests have been made, meetings held, resolutions passed, and stands taken by conservative Episcopalians and other Anglicans because of this man’s open and unrepentant life of homosexual sin. In protesting his elevation to the episcopate on these grounds alone, many conservatives have only advanced the agenda of his supporters, and have shown that their understanding of the issue is little better than that of the liberal wing of the Episcopal Church.

I saw this at a meeting held by and for Episcopalians who were trying to deal with the practical effects of this latest crisis. These well-meaning and very sincere people were concerned only about his homosexuality. It is for them the straw that breaks the camel’s back, the point of no return. What I heard that night has been said over and over again: “We cannot allow the consecration of an openly ‘gay’ man to the office of bishop.”

One man told of how he asked his “priest” where she stood on the subject of homosexuality. What a shame that he did not ask her why she vested in men’s clothing every Sunday and that he was not of a mind to ask where she stood on the subject of marital infidelity. In objecting only to Robinson’s open homosexuality, the conservatives are aiding the homosexualist cause.

Homosexuality is only one small part of a much larger subject, namely, the Christian teaching on chastity and holy matrimony, the entirety of which is directly relevant to Robinson’s life and to what he therefore represents. He was allowed to remain in his public ministry as a priest even though he had divorced his wife and abandoned his children.

The conservative Episcopalians are upset that an openly “gay” man is now a bishop in their church. They ought to have been furious that he was not defrocked simply for leaving his family. The error and scandal of his remaining in ministerial office after this was made worse, but not changed in substance, by his immoral relationship with a new lover. The fact that this new lover is also a man makes his sin into something perverse and unnatural, but the immorality is established before we get to the fact that this adulterous relationship is also homosexual.

It is not a man’s sinfulness that is at issue here—for we are all “miserable offenders,” as the Book of Common Prayer puts it—but his treating his sin as something good, something to be celebrated rather than repented of. We are all sinners, but we ought to pray that if ever we confuse good and evil, others will tell us and discipline us until we repent—as the Episcopal Church, including its now outraged conservatives, so conspicuously failed to do for Gene Robinson.

Yes, the conservatives have played into the “gay agenda.” The homosexualists are attempting to sell the idea that their status is a matter of their civil rights. In this instance they seek to make it an issue of equality, demanding an equal right to be ordained. They mean, in this way, to give their “lifestyle” yet more public legitimacy and gain for it wider acceptance. It helps their cause if their opponents react against them out of prejudice instead of principle based upon eternal truth, evenly applied to all offenses against chastity.

On what basis do the conservative Episcopal-ians concentrate their en-ergy and efforts on the one point of Robinson’s homosexuality? Did this man not leave his family? Was he not allowed to remain a priest in active ministry? Where was the objection to these facts, where was the outcry then? Why no outcry about the bishops in the Episcopal Church (ECUSA) who have divorced and remarried, which, by the old canon laws of the Anglican Communion (and the teaching of Christ, I might add) is adultery?

In 1936 the king of England had to abdicate his throne in order to marry the woman he loved because she was a divorced woman. The monarch holds the title, Supreme Governor of the Church of England, and therefore must be a member in good standing. By the laws of the Church of England, a marriage to a divorced woman whose husband still lived was adultery. The king could not marry her and remain king, for he would be excommunicated from the church. The Anglicans of that time understood that marriage is to be taken seriously, and that no exceptions to the moral law can be made, not even for the monarch himself.

The conservative Episcopalians of today do not measure up when compared to the English Anglicans of 1936. They have for too long a time accepted the status quo of a church in which marriage is not regarded as a lifelong covenant and a sacrament. They have not demanded that a proper regard for matrimony, and for the teaching of Christian chastity, be demonstrated in the lives of their bishops and priests. With the acceptance of divorce, and with it of remarriage, they have also set aside responsibility to one’s children as of small importance, for how can a man’s duty as a father be affirmed when he is allowed to leave his family with no consequences?

The way home for the conservative Episcopalians is to place Robinson’s homosexuality in its proper context, as a part rather than the sum of his life of sin. If they wish to be credible in their opposition to homosexuality, they must reject all deviations from the path of sexual purity and teach chastity of life for all persons. They must affirm marriage as a covenant and as a sacrament in which the words “as long as you both shall live” retain their full meaning.

They must oppose Robinson’s “ministry” not only because he is a practicing homosexual, but also because he is unfaithful to his wife. They must oppose the continued public ministry of all clergy who are notorious for living immoral lives. They must demand the resignation of all divorced and remarried (read adulterous) bishops who have “put away the wife of their youth.”

If this were the context of their objection to Robinson, one that is clearly and consistently based upon principle, they would have a true and prophetic message with which to oppose homosexualism. That movement would still have its supporters and apologists, but they would have to face the opposition of the great Tradition going back to Christ and the apostles, not simply an objection that they can rationally dismiss as “homophobia.”

After all, what the homosexualists have been able to do is to base their arguments upon a foundation already laid for them. That foundation has included relaxation of the moral laws about sexual behavior. It has also included the confusion of sex roles ever since women were first “ordained” in the Episcopal Church. The conservatives have accepted these things, but hope now to credibly and effectively oppose the homosexualist cause. This cannot be done.

Of course, what should have happened long ago is this: Mr. Robinson ought to have been defrocked, and if unrepentant still, excommunicated. Why? Because he is an openly “gay” man? No, because he is an unrepentant and notorious sinner. The discipline should have been the same had he left his family to live with another woman.

For Mr. Robinson’s own soul’s sake, charity demanded no less. Otherwise, how can the very serious business of sin and potential damnation be given its due? Do we believe in the value of a man’s soul, or only of his self-esteem, worldly pleasure, and “civil rights”? Do we care about the message that a man’s life conveys to other sinners, as if they have no need of repentance? Is the loss of a few souls who follow the unrepentant sinner into the fires of hell acceptable, just so long as he is not a homosexual?

The life of Mr. Robinson was a scandal before the fact of his “orientation” was known, and it was a scandal before he was elected bishop. That it gets attention only now does not give much credibility to the conservative Episcopalians, and neither does their acceptance of straight yet immoral bishops for the last few years. There is a wide gulf between being true to the teaching of Christ about living a holy and pure life, in thought, word, and deed, and standing as the Pharisee who prayed thus with himself, “I thank thee, God, I am not as other men.” That wide gulf may be fastened in eternity.

Robert Hart is a contributing editor of Touchstone and the Vicar of St. Andrew’s Chapel, a Continuing Anglican parish in Easton, Maryland, where he lives with his wife and three of their four children.

I think the author is absolutely right but is living in a "dream world" if he thinks this could be all refocused now. If the leadership approved a gay man does the author really think they wouldn't approve a divorce man? Given how much the leadership supports this "man" I doubt if you could ever have got them behind focusing solely on marriage issue. Maybe twenty years ago this would have worked but not now.

And even if the conservatives started to succeed the liberals would have brought up the homosexual issue. The liberals would have painted the conservatives as homophobics just as they're doing. It would have made the conservatives look like they're trying to hide their agenda.

These people are worst than non-believers. Their goal is to destroy. That should say very clearly who they're working for. I'd be looking for an exit if I hadn't already found one.

I had brought this up at the time. I was met with disbelief, and was told that I was simply taking this position because I was actually anti-gay and was trying to mask my true feelings.

I had an opportunity to meet with our Diocese's Assistant Bishop. He told us (there was a group of us) that many Bishops were surprised at the furor because numerous divorced and remarried bishops, and numerous gay bishops (some who discreetly had partners) had already been ordained. I told him that the reason there was no furor over those was because no one knew about them. Foolish us, we had trusted the hierarchy to weed out such. Other bishops hadn't sought publicity. Plus, the vast majority of them were confimed in Diocesean Committee meetings, where there were no cameras or other media, and where the rest of the Diocese didn't know what was up (and neither did most of the Diocesean delegates, I'll wager). It was only because V. Gene Robinson was open and because there was a central place for all to vote that this got out to public notice.

I think the other thing that made Robinson's election different is that not only was this done very publicly (at the Convention, etc.) -- but it was done in the age of the Internet. Thanks to sites like Free Republic, Virtuosity, Classical Anglican Net News, American Anglican Council, Midwest Conservative Journal, etc., etc., etc., Episcopalians nationwide can *very* easily learn what is going on, and also use the Internet to network. This was simply not the case prior to the last few years. I, for instance, had no idea there were other homosexual bishops ordained, and, like you, was trusting that the national leadership had more sense than to ordain unrepentant sinners.

the author is operating from a rather idealized perspective here, no doubt. He does, however, accurately reflect the views of much of the Continuum, and as such his views need to be considered. One of my primary concerns in posting this was that the article demonstrates fairly clearly that even should the Network, AAC,FIF, and AMIA all manage to come together to constitute *The* new Anglican province here in North America, we will still have a ways to go before we can reconnect with some of our brethren in the Continuing Churches.

I think GOPrincess has a good point here - one of the reasons the heretics hate folks like David Virtue and the guys who run the CANN site is because this prevents the folks at 815 from controling the news. They got this far by simply ignoring anything they didn't want to report, and now that isn't possible. Indeed if the entire vicki gene scandal had happened even ten years ago it would have taken weeks for even those of us then connected to the internet to get the information out, and *months* for the Global South bishops to coordinate a response.

One thing socialists like Frank the heretic and company seem to be unable to deal with is the capacity for conservatives to *think*...and that's really the telling point here, beyond the speed of communication - well thought out responses by conservatives are now something 815 encounters on a daily basis - and they hate it.

The internet is absolutely a deciding factor in uniting not only orthodox in USA, but in uniting the world, and forcing some definitions on what it means to be a Christian. We so arrogantly thumb our nose at the third world, then blithely claim that we are not congregational, but denominational; that as Episcopalians we are the "thinking people's religion", leaning on the glorious and combined intellect of the Church as a whole; REASON-- a stool on our trumpeted triangle bequeathed from Hooker. Yet, when we listen online, we hear many more than our own echoed voices. We hear the Christians of the world, and they are speaking loud and clear against this consecration.

I told him that the reason there was no furor over those was because no one knew about them

I think the unfortunate failure of the attempted lifelong marital love and commitment between a man and a woman is sad and tragic, and usually is due to sin --even if it is only the sin of impatience with one another.

For a man to purposely give in to a lustful sodomy relationship with another man seems to be a poor comparison. And perhaps a red herring offered up out there as a twist of logic.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.