Posted on 03/11/2005 5:37:50 PM PST by sionnsar
WENHAM, MA (3/11/2005)--The homoerotic bishop of New Hampshire V. Gene Robinson told parishioners at Christ Church of Hamilton and Wenham that while Jesus was on this earth he was only in the company of men, his disciples, and referenced that Jesus talked about the "one he loved," implying that Jesus may have been a homosexual himself.
Speaking at a Lenten service on "Homosexuality and the Body of Christ: Is There a New Way?" Robinson pleaded for his hearers to accept his homosexuality and asked, "Who could know Jesus?" and therefore we should accept him [Robinson]. "Jesus was not terribly mainstream."
"The sooner we get away from labels like gay and straight and that dualism…the truth is there are as many sexualities, plural, as there are sexualities in the world. There are as many sexualities as there are human beings," he told his listeners. "Labels are not helpful."
Robinson said there were an enormous variety of sexualities. "What matters to me is mutual non-exploitative sex, love of self and love of neighbor. It is about hearts not body parts. We must have infinite respect for one another and radical respect for the world."
Asked by a parishioner how we teach people about sexuality with the Bible saying that marriage is a sacrament between a man and a woman, furthermore what was the basis for adding on new sexualities, Robinson said, "it is a big question; it is whether or not sex is God's gift or a Pandora's Box? Is it a blessing or a curse?"
Physical intimacy outside of a trustworthy relationship is madness, dangerous and wrong, he said.
Robinson said the message conveyed to most people was that 'sex is dirty save it for someone you love'. "I believe in abstinence before marriage or outside in a committed relationship. Our nakedness is a metaphor for how vulnerable we are. The church's teaching of sex outside of marriage is that you will be hurt unless there is a vulnerability or proven trustworthiness over time. We must respect the dignity of every human being. Marriage is a sacrament, a place where God can show up."
Questioned on how we distinguish between the church and world's view of sexuality and the enormous destruction it caused flowing from the 60s experimentation of our children with anything goes…as long as we love each other, Robinson explained that not anything goes. "We need to demonstrate real love. The world knows that the church practices serial monogamy. We need to walk the talk. What are not right are brief encounters. I don’t hear anybody preaching for promiscuity."
"My daughter wound up living with someone before marrying him. What I tried to do was keep an open conversation going with her and I had the opportunity to talk with her. I did not approve of anything goes, but nothing she did could separate my love for her. I don’t think setting down rules is helpful. I gave her an 'I' statement about what has been hurtful for me."
When asked how one could tell the difference between the ministry of the Holy Spirit and the authority of Holy Scripture or Malcolm's repressed desires, even leaving aside the seven Scriptures that speak against homosexuality or pleading subjectivism, Robinson said the key was community.
"No one of us can hear the voice of the Holy Spirit; it must be tested by the community. No one should be absolutely convinced that they know the will of God. We do the best we can to discern God's voice. Let's see if it bears fruit. Right now we are hearing different things. I believe [Archbishop] Akinola and I will be in heaven together. We may be apart here [on earth]. He is following the journey as far as he knows how and as I know how. We are going to be in heaven together, God won't have it any other way. We need some patience while we figure this out. We are each being as faithful as we can muster."
Pushed about how we knew whether we were being lead by the Holy Spirit or our own egos, Robinson said the key was "community."
Questioned about why the worldwide Anglican Communion based its teaching on Scripture, and can we set aside the teachings of the church as it has been handed down for new untested knowledge, Robinson said sexual orientation was determined by age 3 certainly well before it is a chosen orientation. It is a given; the lives of gays and lesbians are the new evidence for that. Look at the pain they have suffered at the hands of the church. He said gays and lesbians were jumping off buildings because nobody understood them.
When asked what new knowledge he possessed and what was his source of his authority that a homosexual relationship can be blessed and have we reached a parting of the ways, Robinson replied by asking how many of his listeners had been divorced and remarried. "The seven biblical texts do not apply to the contemporary issue today. We must separate civil rights from religious rites. Marriage is a civil right, and there is marriage as a religious rite.
I know. But I will point out the ruination is not by his hand alone, nor is it recent. Just read the Affirmation of St. Louis (you can google it) and you'll see that there are those who considered it ruined almost three decades ago.
I will second servantboy777 here. This is not the teaching in the conservative dioceses (of which there are 11 or 13) in ECUSA. It might be in the others, I do not know.
Thanks to both of you. I didn't suspect that the conservative dioceses would teach this, but at least from an Eastern Orthodox point of view, to the extent that one is in communion with dioceses that do, and it seems that the 11 or 13 sionnsar refers to are, then doesn't that make this teaching, if it is the teaching of the large majority of dioceses in ECUSA, the theological teaching of ECUSA? As I said, if it does, then this explains almost everything that is going on in ECUSA. Add to it the heretical notion of "open communion" and it seems that ECUSA, and every church in communion with it, has forfeited any claim, however tenuous, to being a part of the one holy catholic and apostolic church.
If Jesus was gay, then why does the bible sayLev 18:22 Man shall not lay with manas he lays with women. I know that there are other scriptures in the new testament Romans 1:26 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.
We are to love each other, the spiritual love, not the physical love(sex).
The most common Bible passage used to the denigrate homosexuality is Leviticus 18:22
King James Version
You shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Revised Standard Version
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
The most common counter argument for debunking this and other passages from Leviticus is the inability to translate the true meaning of the passages. The word "abomination" translates in Hebrew "to become unclean" and does not refer to sexual relations. The context of this passage refers to fertility rituals and social health practices that were commonly practiced by the Canaanites.
The second argument is that the passages of Leviticus relate to purity laws of cleanliness including identifying animals that can and cannot be eaten (such as shellfish which were unclean due to the pollutants from sewerage in the water where they lived). Other "unclean" practices include sex with a women during her menstrual cycle and wearing cloth of two fibers.
Leviticus is part of the Mosaic Laws in the Bible which are all but ignored in modern society and according to the Bible itself were rescinded by Jesus himself. Anyone familiar with the famous Dr Laura Letter will know many of these laws:
Planting Two Crops in the same field (Leviticus 19:19)
Wearing Garments made of two different fibers (Leviticus 19:19)
Contact with a female during her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Leviticus 15:19-24)
Touching the Skin of a Dead Pig (Leviticus 11:6-8)
Male having a haircut - especially having the hair around the temples cut (Leviticus 19:27)
Wearing glasses or afflicted with pimples, acne or excema etc. (Leviticus 21:20)
Being a Homosexual (Leviticus 18:22)
Curse, Blaspheme or otherwise take the lords name in vain (Leviticus 24:10-16)
Eat Shellfish (inclusive of prawns, crabs, lobster etc) (Leviticus 11:10)
The third argument for debunking the anti gay Bible is the context in which the modern versions have been written and the use of language and meaning. The two most common versions of the Bible in current circulation are the King James Version and the Revised Standard Version.
Anyone who has studied language understands that there is an inability to translate directly from one language to another. Idiomatic expressions (an expression whose meanings cannot be inferred from the meanings of the words that make it up) are contextual and make no sense from one language to another but they make perfect sense in their original language.
Each version of the Bible uses the contextual language of the day to "interpret" the meaning of the Bible, and as shown above there is much confusion on just what the actual meaning of a word or passage actually is.
Just like the language of Shakespeare is difficult to contextually translate in today's language, without actually understanding the contextual meaning of the writing the meaning cannot be understood.
It's amazing the convolutions some will go through to justify behaviour found abominable for centuries, and not just limited to what Christians historically believed either.
Thanks for the post, please do not get me wrong. I am not antigay, I believe in love the sinner not the sin. There are a few scriptures that you brought that i will take a look at.
There are definitely equivalents, though. For instance, in Italian the idiomatic expression
'fra l'incudine e martello' literally means between the hammer and the anvil, which even on it's own would convey what it was intented to convey.
If you were to translate into English, you would most probably use the phrase 'between a rock and a hard place.'
The science and art of translation is found in knowing each language so intimately, that finding the equivalents doesn't often present a problem. And, I think the translators of the Bible were people who did know each language intimately.
Thanks. I may have asked this before, but do think that I am using the word "communion" differently than you or for that matter the ECUSA revisionists? The uproar over the fact that the African Archbishops would not attend at a Liturgy with Griswold, which to me seems quite canonical, indicates to me that at least insofar as the revisionists are concerned, we are speaking of different things when we speak of communion.
If we were 'anti-gay' then we shouldn't call ourselves Christians --- as you say, it's the behavior, not the person. Same thing with adulterers, liars, murderers, etc.
I agree. I use the Douay-Rheims for that reason. It's the interpreters who have problems, not the translators! :-)
Um. You have a good point there. As far as the revisionists, yes I think it means something quite different, probably ending with the outwardly visible aspect. I suspect the orthodox Anglican definition may be a little different from the Orthodox definition, and probably comes more from the legalistic than the mystical approach. I'd elaborate, but I have a meeting at church I must head off to now.
Got that post now and, some will try to conform the bible to fit their life style, we are to conform to gods word. Yes, itis amazing, but the flesh is weak.
DINNGGGG! That's what it's all about.
They'll do whatever they have to do, to wash the spot off without bowing their necks. Won't work, but they'll scrub real hard.
Seems to me he's trying to justify is behavior. Who does he answer to inside the church?
This twit is not only a homosexual he is blasphemous to the point of obscenity!
Griswold, who's on (or by) his side. So it's not that...
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.