Posted on 04/05/2005 3:23:15 AM PDT by billorites
The Episcopal bishop of New Hampshire yesterday denounced published reports that said he had suggested Jesus Christ might have been homosexual.
The reports stemmed from remarks Bishop V. Gene Robinson made in February while speaking at Christ Church of Hamilton and Wenham, a conservative Episcopalian congregation in Massachusetts. Some religious conservatives took Robinson's words as implying Christ might have been homosexual, but yesterday Robinson denounced that idea.
"I can assure you with absolute certainty that was not my implication, and certainly not anything I ever said," Robinson said in a phone interview. "I am furious for my remarks to be interpreted in a way as to mean something I never said.
"My office is being flooded with angry messages from around the country, and from around the world, about something I never said," Robinson said later in that interview.
Robinson's remarks were first reported upon by David Virtue, a religion writer who originally wrote about them on his Web site, VirtueOnline, at www.virtueonline.org. From there, the story spread to various blogs and then to right-leaning publications, including the Telegraph, a national newspaper based in London, England, which reported on the matter Sunday.
As for Robinson's remarks, they were made on Feb. 13 while he spoke at a forum hosted at Christ Church in South Hamilton, Mass. The forum was one of several the church had devoted to discussing sexual matters. At issue in those remarks was a comment Robinson made in response to a question about sin, the nature of Christ and why Christ came to Earth.
Virtue, for his part, declared on his blog that Robinson, whom Virtue called "the homoerotic bishop," had been "implying that Jesus may have been a homosexual himself." Robinson is the first openly homosexual bishop in the Anglican Communion. But when asked yesterday about whether Christ could have been homosexual, Robinson dismissed the suggestion out of hand.
"We have absolutely no indication of Jesus' sexual orientation. Absolutely none. Therefore, it would be totally inappropriate for me to speculate about it," Robinson said.
As for his remarks, Robinson said yesterday he had been arguing that it's difficult to point to what we know about Christ's own life as support for the nuclear family. The nuclear family, Robinson said, was a relatively recent construct.
"That is a long way from saying Jesus is gay, or saying that he had sex with anyone, male or female," Robinson said.
While a message left for the rector at Christ Church was not immediately returned yesterday, a recording of Robinson's remarks was listed on the church's Web site, at www.christchurchhw.org.
Robinson's answer, like the question itself, was several minutes long and dealt with a variety of issues. Based on the context of that answer, though, Robinson's explanation yesterday appears to fit with his remarks in the recording. In that, he appeared to suggest that Christ was untraditional in his behavior, but in a larger context — not one dealing with sexual behavior.
"Interestingly enough, in this day of traditional family values and so on," Robinson said in the recording, "this man that we follow . . . was single as far as we know; who traveled with a bunch of men, although there were lots of women around; who had a disciple who was known as 'the one whom Jesus loved'; who said my family is not my mother and father, my family are those who do the will of God — none of us like those harsh words. That's who Jesus is, that's who he was, at least in his earthly life."
Robinson said later in the recording, "Those who would posit the nuclear family as the be-all and end-all of God's creation probably don't find that much in the Gospels to support that. On the other hand, I happen to think the traditional family is a wonderful thing. I'm a product of it. I dearly love my family, and I love my own family, with my own two kids. It just looks a little non-traditional. But this Jesus, when you ask who is Jesus, he was not terribly mainstream, was he?"
Versions of Robinson's remarks quoted in the Telegraph and other news media omit Robinson's remarks about the women who traveled with Christ, and the second part of his discussion about the nuclear family unit.
Robinson also criticized the Telegraph for reporting he was married to his homosexual partner. While they had been together 16 years, Robinson said he had never married his partner and their relationship had not been blessed.
Considering how stupid it would be to imply that, I doubt he did.
That's for sure!
It looks like Robinson is kicking around the notion, but not actually saying anything conclusively. He is trying to have it both ways, and I am sure most Episcopalians in New Hampshire are happy to let him. Even his denial, above, is not much of a denial. More of a "maybe/maybe not" sort of thing.
Clearly, his willingness to pussyfoot with such an explosive notion demonstrates that he does not find the suggestion that Jesus was gay repugnant, as a vast majority of Christians world-wide no doubt do. This puts his decidedly outside the mainstream on this point.
Gays want everyone to be gay. Even Jesus.
Genie is a disgusting, evil little anti Christ.
The title of the address was called: "Homosexuality and the Body of Christ: Is There a New Way?"
The bishop was asked by a congregant how Christians could both accept homosexuality and the Bible's emphasis on redemption for sins.
Here's what this pervert said:
"Interestingly enough, in this day of traditional family values," answered Robinson, "this man that we follow was single, as far as we know, traveled with a bunch of men, had a disciple who was known as 'the one whom Jesus loved' and said my family is not my mother and father, my family is those who do the will of God. None of us likes those harsh words. That's who Jesus is, that's who he was at heart, in his earthly life.
"Those who would posit the nuclear family as the be all and end all of God's creation probably don't find that much in the gospels to support it," he concluded.
Eventhough he didn't say it, he most certainly wanted to leave an impression Jesus was gay.
Now he thinks he can deny this!?
Those that work with Satan to destroy the good in the world will not hesitate to say anything that might promote the evil one's cause. He claims he is furious that people interpreted it that way, but most rational folks, who have followed the story of his attitudes, statements and ascension to his current position, would believe he is furious it is coming back to bite him.
This is John (the Evangelist)'s expression for himself, as used in his own Gospel. He used this term, I imagine, to avoid inserting himself first-person into the story (from motives of respect).
Yeah, sounds like he was trying to nibble at the edges but everyone saw exactly where he was going with it.
I agree that it would be stupid to so do--however I recall
Peter Gomes the homosexual who is professor of Theology at
Harvard -whose book "the Good Book "is just as shocking and
untennable. ANd I recall the Jesus Seminar that was written about in publications like Time-where they tried to make th ecase that Jesus was NOT the Son of God--but that
the apostle Paul and others coming later attempted to make
this Rabbi from Gallilee what He never claimed to be(in their reprobate minds) So I cannot agree in doubting
Robinson said what he did.
The question is did he imply what the headlines claim. It's quite possible, but he probably wouldn't be backpedalling if that was the case. By the way, you can download the whole recording at www.christchurchhw.org (it's pretty long, 40 minutes or so) and draw your own conclusions.
I was a supporter of Bishop Doss, and he got sacked over nothing. Since Robinson is being so outrageous, it seems like it would be possible to get rid of him in the same way. Of course, when it came down to nut cracking time, Joe Morris Doss had the integrity to do what was best for the Church. Robinson might not.
1h 25min with panel discussion included
I don't see why you say that- He lives in an openly sinful life with absolutely no sign of regret or repenting. In fact, he apparently thinks that homosexual acts and lifestyle is perfectly fine. I am fairly confident that he DID make the comment he is now trying to deny (half heartedly).
HIs testimony as a supposed Christian means absolutely nothing and anyone who puts any faith in his actions or words as a Bishop have been led astray and deserve what they get. I just wonder how many people he is going to lead straight to Hell.... along with the other members of the ECUSA who elected this pawn of Satan.
100-year-old Church of the Redeemer closes
Saturday April 02, 2005
By BEVERLEY WANG
Associated Press Writer
ROCHESTER, N.H. (AP) Less than a year ago, Episcopal Bishop V. Gene Robinson was the wedge that split the Church of the Redeemer. On Saturday, he presided over its final service, accepting gifts and praising parishioners for their faith and service to the church.
Though it had been open for 100 years, the church had been hampered for years by financial difficulties. The difficulties worsened when the majority of parishioners decided to leave the church rather than accept the leadership of Robinson, who is openly gay.
A little RACK time would do this guy a lot of good
I don't think I would elevate such a small, little man to that height.
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.