Interviewed by Couric, Pro-Robinson Bishop Says "We Respond to 'Reason,' Not only to Scripture"

The Today Show

[governsleastgovernsbest]

In the wake of sexual misconduct allegations against Gene Robinson that have postponed a vote on his candidacy for Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire, Today Show host Katie Couric just completed an interview with two bishops with opposing views on the issue.

Bishop Thomas Shaw of Massachusetts is a strong supporter of Robinson's elevation. Bishop Edward Salmon of S. Carolina is opposed.

The most telling exchange came in response to Couric's question as to why or why not Robinson should be elected Bishop.

Bishop Salmon stated: "The answer is simple. Robinson's election would violate the tradition of the Church, the teaching of Scripture, and the constitution of the Church."

Given an opportunity to respond, did Bishop Shaw contest Salmon's reading of Scripture or the Episcopal constitution? Not at all.

Shaw's response: "We don't only respond to Scripture. We respond to reason, and to Jesus's message of love. This is a new time."

[ApesForEvolution]

Some of these outright fools claim that the 'new time' is cause to re-write the Bible AND the Constitution. Beware a fool.

[secret garden]

Thank you for adding your thoughtful opinion. I also appreciate the enlightenment by way of the references to Hooker. You have made several good points.

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Thanks SG. The post did seem to generate a lot of interest and reaction.

[sobieski]

Please accept my apologies, but wasn't the Anglican Church founded in order to break the Church's rules on marriage and sexual morality. That, and stealing Catholic property.

[radiohead]

You are absolutely correct. I'm not a Christian, but my parents are Episcopalian and I am familiar w/the church. What is the purpose of having a religion with a Scripture, if you aren't going to abide by it?

And while I, too, prefer reason, give me a break. How in the world does a bishop cast aside Scripture? On what, then, does he base his faith and perhaps the very existence of his church?

[sobieski]

Right, b/c the King didn't want to follow the Church's rules on marriage. So it's not surprising that a Church founded on its own sexual morality should slip further over time. BTW: what's the defense for stealing Catholic properties?

[sobieski]

I don't think that they paid the Benedictines for their abbeys, or the Franciscans, or the Trappists. Those institutions were'nt "English". And what gave the state the right to suppress the monasteries and convents? Except that they wanted to loot them. As for the Church's, the people put the money into them. THomas Moore and John Fischer found out how the new "English" church would operate; turn the property over to the state, denounce the Roman Catholic Church or be killed. Ugly history. And all over a sexual liason. It's no surprise that a church conceived in that state would come to where they are today w/ gay bishops and gay unions.

[sobieski]

Yes, a sexual liason. The Church's rules were one wife per marriage per life; Hank didn't like that, the Pope held to the rule which had governed Catholic life since the start, so he overthrew the Church to please his sexual desires. Much like "Bp" Robinson and his merry supporters. And when he realized how much loot he could take on, well, he couldn't hold himself back. Loot the monasteries he did, even though they weren't his and they weren't "England's" to take. I don't believe the "Anglican Communion" has ever repaid a red cent for their theivery. THere's even a book "The Treasures of Anglican Architecture"; how brazen!