Gene is such a superb apologist. An open-minded conservative who actually listens to him will hear him preaching Gospel - God's transforming work in Jesus, God's longing to reconcile people divided by sin and their fear of death.

I wonder how English-speaking African Anglicans might hear him live sometime. A series of radio call-ins? Radios and cell phones show up in some of the more remote parts of Africa. We have sisters and brothers in Africa for whom Gene's voice and steady, unaccusing witness would be a God-send.

I would like to think of myself as an open minded conservative. Could you post a link to an example of Bishop Robinson clearly presenting the gospel? I don’t claim any particular expertise on this subject but every time I hear Rev. Robinson in the Media (and that is quite a bit) he is either talking about the controversy regarding his sexual orientation or his struggles with alcohol. When he does allude to the Gospel it only seems to be present in very bland and abstract way. I would feel a lot better about his elevation if I heard him give a vigorous defense of Nician orthodoxy.

Peace
Steve in Toronto

(Moderator's note: Thanks, Steve. Please include your full name at your next post.)

Steve,

Thank you for asking. Where I first heard this quality of Gene's speaking was listening to him interviewed on Terry Gross' Fresh Air on National Public Radio. She's interviewed him several times beginning before his ordination as a bishop:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1355901
He is talking about issues and controversy (and Terry Gross pushes him to do that as a secular reporter would). What I found moving in his interviews (from the one I've posted and on through her subsequent interviews with him) hasn't been what he says about the controversial issues (though I do agree with his perspective). What I've found powerful is how easily and naturally the center of Gene's message isn't the topical issues Terry Gross addresses (though he responds quite directly to her questions), but the steadiness with which he speaks of God's love, our redemption in Christ, and our call to ministry. He speaks as someone whose experience of God's love, whose prayer, whose love of the church is compelling when a secular interviewer is interviewing from an enormous radio audience.

Thank you for the link Rev Schell.

I have heard Bishop Robinson before on Terry Gross’s program but that particular interview was new to me. First of all I want to say what I like most about the Bishop. Rev. Robinson speaks about his faith in a warm and personal way that feels very authentic. When he spoke about how his assurance of “going to heaven” put the stresses and conflicts of present condition into perspective you could tell that he had been paying attention during those endless revival meetings during his rural Kentucky childhood. I also share with him his love of our churches music and historic liturgy. I leapt for joy when spoke of his commitment to weekly Eucharist and very unselfconcheley used the expression “the body and blood of Christ”. His description of the ceremony that ended his marriage was heartbreaking and beautiful and I only wish that my first marriage had ended with such grace and dignity. He is also right when he identifies the primary issues that divide conservatives and liberals as how we read the Bible. I should also add that I also agree with him that when we examine a biblical text our first task should be understand what the text meant in its original context although I would add (and I suspect the Bishop would agree) that this is only the beginning of the process of understanding what the text means for us today.

There where however a few things that Bishop Robinson said that do trouble me. I would be dishonest not to say that his treatment of the “seven short texts” about Homosexuality in the bible seemed extremely superficial at best and disingenuous at worst. He is right to question the relevance of the Jewish ceremonial law to Christians but it seems to me that he is badly misreading Paul. Does he really believe that there were no committed gay relationships in the first century Greco-roman world? What could he possibly mean when he says that homosexuality identity is only a hundred year old “construct” that Paul would know nothing about? How can anyone argue that Paul who was after all a Jewish Pharisee could have only been referring only to temple prostitution or pederasty when he referred to homosexuality is complete mystery to me? I am completely open to the argument that we should not be bound by Paul’s first century Jewish prejudices but this is not the argument Rev. Robinson is making. I also feel that the Bishop is wrong in the way that he described the conservative / evangelical reaction to the nomination Dr. Jeffrey Johns (a man whose work I have read and admired for many years) to become a Bishop. Although I am sure that many of the dean’s critics do reflexively appose him because of his sexual orientation there is no hypocrisy in simultaneously supporting the ordination of celibate gay men to the priesthood but decline to promote one of the most persuasive advocates for the full inclusion of none-celibate homosexuals into the priesthood to a position of such authority. I also feel that his statement that it would be borderline “idolatry” to split the Episcopal Chuch over this issue was needlessly inflammatory. The issues that divide Conservative and Liberals in the Episcopal Church are at least as deep as those that divided the Orthodox from the Roman Catholics or the Reformers from medieval Catholism. Unless Bishop Robinson is prepared to call these previous divisions in the Church idolatrous he should refrain from making such a serious accusation today.

However what most concerns me about Bishop Robinson is not however what he did say but what he did not say. Rev Robinson was very free about identifying himself with Jesus but he never actual said who he thought actually Jesus is. I want to hear him talk about Jesus as God taking on human flesh and sacrificing himself for the sins of fallen man. I want to hear him describe himself as a sinner saved by grace. In short I want to hear him use his unique pulpit to preach the Gospel to sinners who badly need Christ’s love and forgiveness. If I heard this I would be far more comfortable overlooking his heterodox views on human sexuality. I can’t help but to contrast Bishop Robinson’s ministry with that your colege at Saint Gregory’s Sara Miles. Her slim book “Take this Bread” has done more to open the minds of conservative christens to the fact that god is using gay and lesbian christens to build his kingdom on this earth than any ordained clergy (Bishop, Priest or Deacon) that I know of.

Peace

Steve Rowe