October | 2003 | journeywithjesus's Xanga Site

Scalia’s Recusal in Pledge Case Concerns Christian Attorneys
Jim Brown and Jody Brown
Agape Press

While pro-family legal groups are applauding the Supreme Court’s decision to review the Pledge of Allegiance case that was appealed from the infamous Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, there is some apprehension regarding the outcome. The court will decide if it is constitutional for public school students to include the phrase “one nation, under God” when reciting the Pledge.

The high court has granted review on the controversial decision from the San Francisco-based Ninth Circuit, which barred teachers from leading willing school children in reciting the oath. The appeal involves California atheist Michael Newdow, whose grade-school-age daughter hears the Pledge spoken daily.

Anglican Church on Verge of Split After Meeting
Mike Wendling
London Bureau Chief

London (CNSNews.com) – The Anglican Church was on the brink of a major split Friday after its U.S. Episcopalian branch announced it would go ahead with the consecration of a homosexual bishop despite a warning from church leaders.

In a statement issued after a rare two-day meeting of the 38 church primates, or provincial heads, the leaders said the church would reach a “crucial and critical point” if Canon Gene Robinson is allowed to take up the post of Bishop of New Hampshire.

The primates were also considering the decision by the Canadian diocese of New Westminster to bless same-sex relationships.

“These actions threaten the unity of our own communion as well as our relationships with other parts of Christ’s church… and our relations with other faiths, in a world already confused in areas of sexuality, morality and theology, and polarised Christian opinion,” the primates said.

“We must make clear that recent actions in New Westminster and in the Episcopal Church do not express the mind of our communion as a whole, and these decisions jeopardise our sacramental fellowship with each other,” the statement said.

The diocese of New Hampshire has vowed to go ahead with Robinson’s appointment, however.

In a statement, the diocese said: “Canon Robinson was elected based on his nearly three decades of ministry in the diocese, his considerable pastoral skills, and his vision for ministry.”

“His sexuality was incidental to his call to serve as our bishop,” the statement said, and it went on to state that the consecration of Robinson would go ahead on Nov. 2.

The statement was backed up by U.S. Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold, who said he would attend the ceremony.

“I stand fully behind the diocese of New Hampshire as to who it wants as its next bishop,” Griswold said after the primates’ meeting.

Division inevitable

Although the primates said they had a “deeper commitment to work together,” experts, church leaders and advocates on both sides of the debate expressed pessimism Friday that the church could hold together.

The church’s spiritual leader, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, acknowledged that there was a “huge crisis looming” for the church.

“We shall immediately have some responses from around the world,” Williams told BBC radio. “Some provinces will declare outright that they’re not in communion… others would want to continue in an impaired state of relation.”

Individual branches of Anglicanism can refuse to recognize the priests and practices of other branches, and there were already signs Friday that some dioceses were heading in that direction.

Archbishop Peter Jensen, a conservative leader of the diocese of Sydney, Australia, said that “the split has already begun to occur” and that Robinson would not be welcome in his diocese.

But liberal Archbishop Njongonkulu Ndungane, primate of South Africa, expressed a note of optimism.

“We survived, we will survive, we have committed ourselves to talking,” he said.

‘Dire’ situation

Both liberal and conservative activists seemed resigned to a split, however.

Martin Reynolds of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement (LGCM) said that while he was heartened by the primates’ affirmation of differing interpretations of the Bible, division seemed the most likely course for the church to take.

“It’s important that there was an emphasis on talking and dialogue with gay people,” he said. “(However) we are terribly sad to see the Anglican Church on the path towards schism,” he said.

Reynolds said that disparate views held by Anglicans around the world made for a “tremendously rich experience” of debate and dialogue that would now probably be lost.

The LGCM has invited Williams to attend a conference next week in Manchester to discuss homosexual issues.

David Phillips, general secretary of the conservative Church Society, said his group wasn’t satisfied with the outcome of the meeting.

“It just seems that there’s a lot of double language in the statement,” he said. “What it does do is recognize that there is a real problem.”

In a statement, the Church Society said it was “disappointed that the primates as a body have not yet taken decisive action.”

Phillips said that while he didn’t necessarily see division as a bad thing, he was worried that a schism could lead to further splits in the future.

“When you get division, bodies that split tend to fall into the same problems that they ran into before,” he said.

Paul Handley, managing editor of the Church Times, said the crisis was much worse than an earlier Anglican debate over women priests.

“I certainly have not seen a situation as dire as this for decades,” he said.

“What isn’t clear, what’s missing from the statement, is what kind of links there will be between churches … the statement talks of a ‘tear’ in communion. This is very dramatic language,” he said.

The primates also vowed to establish a commission to consider the Archbishop’s role in maintaining the communion of the church and to reflect “on the way in which the dangers we have identified … will have to be addressed.”

But Handley said that the commission, which was given a one-year deadline, wouldn’t halt separation moves.

“When Canon Robinson is consecrated, some primates will immediately move to declare themselves to be out of communion with the Episcopal Church,” he said.

See previous stories:
Anglicans Discuss Homosexual Issues at Crucial Meeting (10/15/2003)
Anglicans Clash Ahead Of Key Meeting (10/14/2003)
Conservatives Under Fire Ahead of Crucial Anglican Meeting (10/14/2003)

Conservative Student Stands Up for Christian Worldview, Protests Pro-Homosexual Bias

By Jim Brown
October 20, 2003

(AgapePress) – A university student in Minnesota says she was silenced and discriminated against in class for raising objections to the homosexual lifestyle.

Elizabeth Jenson says she knew her “Intercultural Communications” class at Metropolitan State University was going to be controversial. She has come to expect encounters with liberal bias on campus, and she says as a conservative she is used to being under-represented.

But Jenson says she never expected to have to sit through a two-hour class while a lesbian guest lecturer promoted her worldview unchallenged, and called someone like Jenson “backwards” for not accepting the homosexual lifestyle.

After enduring the presentation, Jenson asked her professor, Dr. Kathryn Kelley, to invite an individual to share a conservative viewpoint on homosexuality for 15 minutes of a future class. But Jenson says it did not matter to Kelley that 80% of the class wanted both sides of the issue presented — and she flatly refused.

According to Jenson, when she asked her communications instructor to offer a balancing perspective by allowing an alternative view of homosexuality to be presented to the class, the teacher rejected the idea. Moreover, Jenson says Kelley justified her refusal as a turning of the tables, saying [according to the student], “‘I can choose what I want to tolerate, and I don’t want to tolerate your views. Christians have been the intolerant people for the past several hundred years, and now it’s their turn not to be tolerated.’”

Jenson says she left the class angrier than she has ever been before, rankling at the complete intolerance demonstrated towards her worldview. She says upon hearing the lesbian speaker condemn her and others who oppose homosexuality, she had a desire to file a lawsuit.

“I felt like I was so discriminated against, just by the language that was used against me,” she says, noting that, as a believer, she felt personally disparaged by parts of the presentation.

The student says at one point the class had to watch a video in which homosexuals made remarks proscribing the comparison of “the blood of Calvary with the Kool-Aid of homophobia,” while another comment suggested that heterosexuals fear homosexuals but secretly “want to be homosexuals themselves because the lifestyle is so seductive.”

Jenson says her own Christian perspective, as well as any view that was not pro-homosexual, was effectively silenced in the class. And her professor’s attitude, completely dismissing the idea of presenting an alternative viewpoint in another session, left the student more frustrated than ever.

“Whether my beliefs represent a minority or a majority viewpoint, they deserve to be considered,” she says, “just as every other culture and viewpoint, if we are to present an unbiased assessment. It may be very challenging to take into account all perspectives, but it is the balanced thing to do.”

Jenson has expressed her objections to the professor in a letter, and expects to face a long and difficult fight and possibly some backlash. While she says Dr. Kelley has promised to respond to her objections, the instructor has yet to do so. Kelley also declined an interview with AgapePress.

Elizabeth Jenson is working full-time during the day and taking classes at night to earn her communications degree, after which she plans to go to law school.

Conservative College Paper Faces Brunt of Administration’s Ire

“The University’s mission is to teach students to think, reason, and communicate; to develop expertise in their chosen fields of study; to appreciate established disciplines and to investigate interdisciplinary connections; to experience study and life abroad; to value cultural diversity; to develop ethical awareness; and to preserve intellectual curiosity throughout a lifetime.”
– from Mission Statement for Roger Williams University

By Jim Brown
October 20, 2003

(AgapePress) – A conservative student newspaper at one Rhode Island university has been accused of hate speech and defunded by the school for opposing the pro-homosexual views of two recent guest speakers on campus.

In late August, students at Roger Williams University heard Judy Shepard, the mother of slain homosexual Matthew Shepard, blast organized religion and voice support for hate-crime legislation. They also heard a speech earlier this month in support of same-sex marriage given by James Dale, a homosexual man excluded from the Boy Scouts.

But when a paper published by the Roger Williams College Republicans criticized the university’s sponsorship of the Shepard and Dale events, RWU president Roy Nirschel fired back. He unilaterally froze funding to The Hawk’s Right Eye, commenting that the school is “too busy for hate.”

Editor-in-chief Jason Mattera says Nirschel’s actions are both ludicrous and intolerant. “This is unacceptable at a university that is supposedly committed to diversity and the learning of exploration of ideas,” Mattera says, “yet they don’t want to explore a conservative view on particular issues.”

In addition, Mattera says he was recently impeached from the finance committee of the Student Senate because a homosexual group on campus was uncomfortable with him serving in that position. He says Nirschel has also leveled accusations of racism against the paper because of an article published last year in which the paper praised conservative black Americans.

“We pointed out people like Thomas Sewell, [and] Walter Williams [in the article], and we also criticized people like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, [and] Louis Farrakhan,” the student editor says. “They considered that to be racist, even though we praised [blacks] whom we considered should be idolized, like [Supreme Court Justice] Clarence Thomas.”

Mattera says the university really does not want diversity, but rather uniformity of thought and one-sided tolerance.

Everybody Loses
‘Privatizing Marriage’

BreakPoint with Charles Colson

October 20, 2003

Columnist Michael Kinsley just can’t see what all the fuss is about. Not long ago, Kinsley predicted correctly that the Supreme Court’s decision on Texas’s sodomy law would lead to a renewed push for gay “marriage.” He also predicted, again correctly, that opponents of gay “marriage” would fight back. “It’s going to get ugly,” Kinsley warned. “And then it’s going to get boring.”

Well, to save us from all of the boredom, Kinsley offered a radical proposal. He thinks we should “privatize marriage”—that is, get the government out of the act altogether.

He wrote, “Let each organization decide for itself what kinds of couples it wants to offer marriage to. Let couples celebrate their union in any way they choose and consider themselves married whenever they want. Let others be free to consider them not married, under rules these others may prefer. And, yes, if three people want to get married, or one person wants to marry herself . . . let ’em. If you and your government aren’t implicated, what do you care?”

It may sound like a joke, but Kinsley is deadly serious, and he’s an influential columnist. He admits that his idea has problems: “Once marriage itself becomes amorphous, who-gets-the-kids and who-gets-health-care become trickier questions.” But he believes that ending the controversies over marriage—and of course, ending what he perceives as discrimination toward homosexuals—would be worth a few problems. In his view, ending “government-sanctioned marriage” would let everybody win.

Actually, it would cause everybody to lose. Kinsley’s proposal is just another way of making the same tired old argument we’ve heard for years. To stretch the word marriage to fit any living situation is to make the word lose all meaning. And to ask the government to comply with such a scheme is to ask it to abdicate one of its most important responsibilities.

When the government sanctions marriage, it is recognizing that marriage is the foundational structure of our society. It is not just a “private” institution; it’s a public one. The well-being of children, the emotional and physical health of adults, even the state of the workforce—all of these are tied to the existence of stable marriages and families. Obviously, the government has a legitimate interest in promoting the public good.

And that’s why we here at BreakPoint, and many other groups, are supporting a Federal Marriage Amendment. It’s why we used Marriage Protection Week last week to call for support for that amendment. Michael Kinsley calls this an attempt to “trample states’ rights . . . to prevent gays from getting what they want.” We see it simply as an acknowledgment of what has always existed—marriage as the union of one man and one woman. It may seem silly to create a constitutional amendment to spell this out, but the efforts of Kinsley and others to reshape marriage according to their own ideas, with utter disregard for the consequences, have made it necessary.

The fact that people take such ideas seriously should be a real warning that we had better get our own effort underway without delay. Anarchy in the area of marriage, as in any other area, is not boring, as Kinsley says. It leads to chaos, the unraveling of society.

Call us here today (1-877-322-5527). This is the most critical social issue of our time, and every single one of you listeners and readers of BreakPointhas to get involved and get at your post.

For further reading:

Michael Kinsley, “ Abolish Marriage ,” Slate, 2 July 2003 .

John O’Sullivan, “ Marriage—American Style ,” National Review Online, 10 July 2003 .

To learn more about Marriage Protection Week, visit the official website .

Family Research Council has a Web page devoted to Marriage Protection Week, including a copy of the Marriage Protection Pledge ( Adobe Acrobat Reader required).

Liza Porteus, “ ‘Marriage Protection Week’ Likely to Spark Debate ,” FOX News, 10 October 2003 .

David Frum, “ The Marriage Buffet ,” Wall Street Journal, 16 October 2003 . (This is in response to this column by Andrew Sullivan.)

David Orland, “ The Deceit of Gay Marriage ,” Boundless, 6 July 2000 .

Call 1-877-322-5527 to receive the “ Speak the Truth in Love ” resource kit ($25), which includes information to help you understand the debate and how to advocate for the protection of marriage. Also available is a complimentary Marriage Amendment Information Packet that explains the effect of the Federal Marriage Amendment.

Read past BreakPoint commentaries on marriage: “ What’s at Stake ”; “ To ‘Promote the General Welfare’ ”; “ In Sickness and In Health ”; and “ Two Are Better Than One .”

The Marriage Buffet
When it comes to commitment, a lot of options is not a good thing.

BY DAVID FRUM
Thursday, October 16, 2003 12:01 a.m. EDT

A week ago, the writer Andrew Sullivan issued on this very page a challenge to political conservatives: Now that the Supreme Court has declared that homosexuality can no longer be considered a crime, what do you think it is? If homosexuality is not a crime, on what grounds can conservatives justify denying homosexuals any of the rights they seek, including the right to marry a person of the same sex? In short, there is a demand that conservatives state some kind of “policy” on homosexuality.

Something like 25% of the American population describes itself as “conservative.” That’s nearly 75 million people. It would be hazardous to generalize about what this large population thinks or does not think on the subject of homosexuality. Some no doubt think it a terrible sin. Others surely regard it as a harmless preference. A good many of them are no doubt homosexual themselves. But if I had to guess, I’d guess that the very large majority of American conservatives have for many years regarded homosexuality as something that just is, and that should be tolerated in the same spirit of live-and-let-live with which they tolerate all the other variations of the human species.

But for some advocates of change, “live and let live” is not enough. They are riding a very fast train, and it does not halt at any stops between the criminalization of homosexuality and full state recognition of homosexual relationships. But there are many such stops, and marriage is the most important of them.

Let’s start with a basic premise: The gay marriage debate is perceived by many as a debate about gays. It is not. It is a debate about marriage.

As always seems to be the way, we’ve come to understand the importance of marriage at exactly the moment that the institution is approaching the verge of collapse. A generation of social scientists has documented the benefits to children of growing up in a father-mother household; yet today, an American child has less than a one-in-two chance of reaching the age of 18 in the same home as both of his or her parents. That fact should concern us all. And any changes in family policy ought to be directed at one supreme goal: improving children’s odds of growing up in a stable home.

Allowing same-sex marriage would reduce those odds. That’s not an assertion; it’s an empirical observation. In the past decade, same-sex marriage or something like it has entered the law of eight countries: Denmark, France, Hungary, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and, most recently, Canada. Each has its own distinctive approach to the matter. But in all of them, the push for same-sex marriage has had the same result. Rather than get into a fight with religious organizations for whom the term “marriage” refers to one of their own sacraments, governments try to mollify everybody by creating a new legal category very similar to marriage, but not exactly the same. France, for example, has enacted into law something called a Pacte Civile de Solidarité, a registered partnership that grants any two people who live together a bevy of rights while holding each responsible for the other’s rights and obligations.

Compared to marriage, a civil pact is harder to get into (some of its benefits do not arrive until a couple has been together for two or even three years) and much easier to get out of. That is very appealing to couples nervous of marriage–and these days, who isn’t nervous? It’s been estimated that some 40% of the couples entering “civil pacts” are heterosexual.

Something similar is going on in Canada, only there the categories are even blurrier. A couple that simply lives together for two years automatically and without any formal act acquires many of the rights of a formally married couple. The exit from a relationship is just as blurry as the entry: In one famous case, a Canadian court ordered a man who had divorced his wife before he became wealthy to pay her an increased settlement based on the income he had begun to earn after the marriage ended.

Now think about what this means. Marriage used to have a bright clear line: you were married or you were not. It was a serious commitment–and most people understood that if they weren’t ready for this commitment, they ought to postpone having children until they were.

Today, in France and Canada and other places, marriage is a continuum, a series of gradations between true singlehood and formal matrimony. A woman who is cohabiting with a man in Canada or is pacted in France might well be deceived into thinking that her family situation is stable enough for her to have a child. But she would be wrong. The average cohabitation in Canada lasts only five years. Her government has told her that she is the next-best-thing to married; but from the point of view of her children, the next best thing is no good at all.

Many American advocates for homosexual marriage understand all this, and for that reason oppose “civil pacts” and “domestic partnerships” and “common law marriages” just as fiercely as any social conservative does. They want to restore the bright line too–only with same-sex relationships on the farther side of it. But if that has not happened even in Sweden or France, where organized religion is powerless, it certainly will not happen in the U.S.

The much more likely outcome in this country would be the spread of a crazy-quilt of differing systems of “marriage-lite” across the country: California might have a domestic partnership law that grants virtually all the rights of marriage to registered couples; Michigan could have one that treats partners as married for inheritance purposes but not tax purposes, while Oregon did the reverse. Some states might require domestic partners to do some affirmative act: sign a book, buy a license, etc. Other states might just treat any couple that lives together for two years or three or five as if it had registered. Still other states might do both.

And then there would be the question of federal rights: immigration, Social Security, federal tax law, and so on, just to make the whole problem more complicated.

It is highly unlikely that these proliferating domestic partnerships would be offered to same-sex couples alone. That might even be unconstitutional, a deprivation of equal protection, but certainly it would be politically impossible. Every American city and state that offers domestic-partnership benefits offers them equally to heterosexuals and homosexuals. The result of a national trend toward same-sex marriage would be that the young people of the country would be presented with 50 different buffets, each of them offering two or more varieties of quasi-marital relationships. In such a world, the very concept of marriage would vanish.

It would become impossible to tell young people “Don’t have children outside of marriage,” because they would not even know–until it was too late–whether they were “inside” a marriage or not. The rich and the smart would protect themselves of course. They could hire lawyers to draft personal contracts, itemizing and detailing their responsibilities to each other and to their children. The non-rich and the non-smart would stumble into trouble, and their children would begin life even more severely disadvantaged than they already are.

You need a very strange definition of progress to regard such an outcome as a progressive reform. It is a strange idea of conservatism that would fail to see marriage as something to conserve.

Mr. Frum is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. This essay is part of an occasional series.

The Wave Online–Special Edition
October 18, 2003
Comments from London

- “The LORD does not look at the things man looks at. Man
looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at
the heart.” [I Sam. 16:7]

- “The Kingdom of God is not a matter of talk but of power.”
[I Cor. 4:20]

REFLECTIONS ON THE WORK AND THE STATEMENT OF THE PRIMATES GATHERED THIS WEEK AT LAMBETH PALACE
The Rt. Rev. Charles H. Murphy III, Chairman, The Anglican Mission in America

The eyes of most of the Anglican Communion have been fixed closely on the 37 Primates gathered this week at Lambeth Palace. +Thad Barnum, +John Rodgers, Canon Tim Smith, and I have all spent this week in London at the request of our two sponsoring Archbishops. Now that they have left for home, we all felt that it would be good to provide some perspective and reflection on this important meeting, and the statement that has been released around the world.

Scripture reminds us that outward appearances do not always reveal the true heart of things, and that what God is doing–and will do–is not a matter of talk, but of power. This is certainly the situation with regard to the Primates’ public statement. The language is veiled, nuanced, and very diplomatic, but the heart of the matter, and the resolve of our orthodox leaders from the Global South does not consist of talk, but of power and conviction. If things do not change, if the consecration of Gene Robinson goes forward in two weeks, or if Canada does not deal with Michael Ingham, the realignment that we have been predicting and announcing for several years will move forward decisively before the close of this calendar year. About half of the 38 Primates have announced that they cannot remain in communion with those who support behavior which is “incompatible with Scripture.” This was made quite clear in their private meeting this week at Lambeth, and it is clearly voiced even in the diplomatic language of the statement that they have now released. That statement reads:

“If his consecration proceeds, we recognize that we have reached a crucial and critical point in the life of the Anglican Communion and we have had to conclude that the future of the Communion itself will be put in jeopardy. In this case, the ministry of this one bishop will not be recognized by most of the Anglican world, and many provinces are likely to consider themselves to be out of Communion with the Episcopal Church (USA). This will tear the fabric of our Communion at its deepest level, and may lead to further division on this and further issues as provinces have to decide in consequence whether they can remain in communion with provinces that choose not to break communion with the Episcopal Church (USA). Similar considerations apply to the situation pertaining in the Diocese of New Westminster.”

Our two overseeing Archbishops have assured us that the Global South is now convinced that the time for decisive action is upon us, and that this crisis of Faith and Leadership must be addressed head on. They have assured us that this is a new day in the Communion, and the image used by Archbishop Kolini to capture this reality was that found in the Old Testament book of Exodus. Even as a hardening of heart came upon Pharaoh, God was preparing to liberate His people. His charge is to “stand firm and you will see the deliverance the LORD will bring you today.” [Exod. 14:13]

There is much to report coming out of this week in London. God has truly been moving in this place in many ways and through many private conversations. The work done with other clergy, bishops, and Archbishops has all been both important and encouraging as we move further into this “new day” that is beginning to dawn. It will take more time to complete the process of “realignment” that we all seek, but we wanted to send out this initial report and assessment of the week even before we return to the States. Be encouraged, and hold fast to these three biblical promises as you reflect and turn all of this over in your thoughts and prayers this week.

- Do not look simply at outward appearances. [I Sam. 16:7]

- The movement of God is not a matter of talk but of power.
[I Cor. 4:20]

- Stand firm and see the deliverance the LORD will bring.
[Exod. 14:13]

I am quite certain that we are now moving into a phase of new work and new relationships that will greatly strengthen both our ability and our effectiveness in the Mission that God has given us to share the good news of Jesus Christ through the work of this Anglican Mission in America. I do believe that this is, indeed, a New Day.

+Chuck Murphy

The Episcopal Church Divide

Sunday, October 19, 2003

The heart of the church

In “A Church Divided: Episcopalians Struggle With a Changing Society” (Oct. 12 editorial), the editorial board seeks to define the fundamental issue confronting the Episcopal Church, but it demeans the church and people of faith by suggesting that the issue is best gotten at when it is “stripped of its theological finery.” The editors hope that “changing social mores” can drive change in the church and perhaps counter the influence of African and Asian bishops whose conservative theology is simply a reflection of their cultural conservatism.

Theology is more than finery in the church and must be more than a reflection of culture. It is at the heart of what the church is and does. Stripped of its “theological finery,” the church has no role to play other than that of chaplain to the culture with its always-changing social mores. Stripped of their theological finery, the abolitionists of the 19th century would have had no motive for working to end slavery. Stripped of their theological finery, the life-changing work of the men and women of the Salvation Army would have ended long ago. Stripped of his theological finery, Dietrich Bonhoeffer would never have made his strong stand against Hitler and the Nazis. Stripped of its theological finery, Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream would be no dream at all. Stripped of its theological finery, advocacy for full inclusion of women in the ordained offices of the church is simply cultural compromise.

The issue of the role of gay people in the church needs to be resolved by the church, but it cannot be resolved without hard work and theological integrity. Progressives, conservatives and all those in between must not strip their argument of “theological finery,” but build persuasive positions on strong theological foundations. The editors do a disservice to the church by suggesting otherwise.

If the editors choose to comment on the business of the church, they should be less dismissive of the very nature of the church.

BILL TEAGUE
Pastor
Park Presbyterian Church
Beaver

Gay Episcopal Bishop-Elect Going Forward

Gay Episcopal Bishop-Elect Tells Faithful He’s Been Called by God to Go Forward Despite Turmoil

The Associated Press

MANCHESTER, N.H. Oct. 19 — The Rev. V. Gene Robinson told parishioners Sunday he agonizes over the turmoil that has surrounded his election as the Episcopal church’s first openly gay bishop-elect, but he believes he has been called by God to go forward.

“I agonize about this all the time. This is one of the hardest things I’ll ever do,” Robinson told about 40 people during religious education hour at Grace Church. “I do have this sense I’m supposed to go forward, and I do feel that’s coming from God and not my own ego. But I don’t know.”

Robinson was elected by New Hampshire clergy and parishioners in June and confirmed by the national Episcopal Church in August. He is scheduled to be consecrated as bishop of New Hampshire in two weeks.

The election and confirmation outraged conservatives in the church, who have threatened to divide the Episcopal Church in the United States. The church is part of the worldwide Anglican Communion, but the national Anglican churches are self-governing.

The leaders of Anglican churches worldwide said at an emergency meeting last week that the consecration jeopardizes the worldwide Anglican Communion. The leaders affirmed their position that homosexuality is contrary to Scripture, but they also agreed to appoint a commission to begin "urgent and deep theological and legal reflection" on ways out of the impasse.

Parishioner Paul Apple of Mont Vernon asked Robinson on Sunday to consider stepping aside in the interests of preserving the larger church.

"I personally think it's not worth losing the family," Apple said.

Conservatives, a majority of the Anglican Communion's 77 million members worldwide, believe homosexuality is contrary to Scripture. Robinson and his supporters say that is outweighed by the Scripture's call for love and acceptance of all.

"We've always had gay bishops," Robinson said at one point. "The difference is I'm being honest about it."

Robinson, 56, has lived openly with his partner since 1989. He is widely known and admired in the state, where he has been assistant to the retiring bishop for years.

He said the vigorous and sometimes bitter church debate over homosexuality will continue even if he leaves the stage.

"It's not all going to go back to being nice and pretty again. It's going to be messy for a while," he said. He added: "This is not our church to win or lose. It's God's church."

Robinson predicted the church ultimately will survive the turmoil.

"I've been here an hour and look! The roof's still on. I think it will calm down when people see not a lot has changed," he said.

On the Net:

Anglican Communion,

New Hampshire diocese,

journeywithjesus's Xanga Site

Month: October 2003

journeywithjesus