No, of course not. But this, I believe, is the ultimate confusion on the subject. Conservative members of the Episcopalian church believe that homosexuality is a sin, and are concerned NOT because G. Robinson is a sinner (as all people are), but instead, because he does not acknowledge his “sin”. I would be reluctant to trust a church leader who was obviously greedy, knew himself to be greedy, but failed to admit to himself or others that greed is sin. Once again, this is not a matter of finding a sinless bishop - that would be an impossible task. It is coming to a consensus as to whether or not Bishop Robinson is able to identify sin in his own life.
But can someone acknowledge a sin that one does not believe to be a sin. How could he acknowledge the sin of eating meat on Fridays, when such has not been considered a sin for a long time. I hope Robinson identifies the sins in his own life, but how could he identify his ‘sin’ of homosexual activity, if he does not believe that to be a sin?
Do we really require our Bishops to acknowledge their own sins of bigottry and judgementality themselves? Or do we understand that they do not see their own flaws through being ‘only’ Human? Still we accept their positions as stallwards of the Church? Isn’t there more and greater prohibition against bigottry and judgementality in the Bible than against all questionable sexual activities put together?
Bippy, it’s not really a matter of him not recognizing sin in his life. He knows he is in a homosexual relationship, but as you say, does not agree that it is sinful. It isn’t like someone not recognizing that they are judgemental; it is like someone who embraces their judgmentality and denies that there is anything wrong with it (who would, I should add, but just as unfit for the episcopate as Robinson).
The question, as several people here have alluded to, is ‘who decides what is a sin?’ And as we belong to a counciliary church, the answer is, the church does. And although a solid (but not overwhelming) majority of US Bishops seem to agree with Robinson, they are in a small minority of the world’s Anglicans (and even a much smaller minority of the world’s Christians).
Now, over time, the church can change it’s collective mind – but that is a process that can take literally hundreds of years. And it’s even possible that someday it will come to a consensus that it has been wrong about homosexuality. But that time is nowhere near come, and I believe that the Episcopal Church was reckless in forcing the issue after it had been duly warned of the grievous consequences ahead of time (a warning signed by the Presiding Bishop himself, which makes his apologies now sound a little hollow).
So you’re okay with pedophile priests continuing to serve as priests?
I think you meant “in an instant” (correct me if I’m wrong). I disagree with that assertion entirely. Would you like to share your reasoning?
Not expelling all priests or bishops who sin and continue to sin. is not the same as Never expelling a priests or bishops who sin and continue to sin.
We continue as always to apoint sinful bishops and priests, only to dissmiss those whose sinning is such as to make them seem unfit to teach Christ’s word.
If we did not allow priests who sin at all, requiring only sinless priests, then we would be down to only one member of clergy and his name is Christ.
So it comes down to excluding only those bishops and priests unfit to teach Christ’s word. And then all comes arround to is Robinson unfit to teach Christ’s word?
If Robinson was and remains an active child molester I would think him unfit. He would be a person who causes harm to others, and serious harm to children at that.
If Robinson believed that if people eat meat on Friday’s they will go to hell, that in itself isn’t a reason for him to lose his priesthood if he was otherwise fit to teach Christ’s word. Provided these beliefs cause no harm to others.
If (a different) Robinson believed all homosexuals will burn in hell for their sins, that in itself isn’t a reason for him to lose his priesthood if he was otherwise fit to teach Christ’s word. Provided these beliefs cause no harm to others.
If Robinson is a practasing homosexual with conscenting adult partner why should this be reason for him to lose his priesthood?
So my point boils down to all priests are sinners and keep sinning, what is it about Robinson’s sins that makes him different?
I know this question was addressed to emarkp, but here is my answer: because, among other reasons, the Primates of the Anglican Communion have (most recently in 1998) described “homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture” and said that they cannot “cannot advise the legitimizing or blessing of same-sex unions, nor the ordination of those involved in same-gender unions.” The Episcopal Church is an Anglican church, and Robinson’s ordination is in direct opposition to the specific wishes of the community to which it purports to belong.
How many times does it need to be said? It’s because he does not recognize his actions as sin, and instead insists that it is perfectly proper and righteous.
I see two different things here.
The primates decision and ruling seems to have been ignored. If this is true then whomsoever officiated at Robinsons ordination should appologise to the body of primates (whatever that is called) for taking action that they had not allowed. I see this as having little to do with Robinson who was the instrument of this action rather than the instagator (I hope that makes sence).
For Robinsons own account. If Robinson recognised that as a fallable Human he does not know whether homosexual activity is or is not a sin. That he believes it not to be. But that he prays to God for forgiveness for all his sinfull actions. Would that not be enough for him being accepted?
Then it would be for the primate council (I guess) to consider whether Robinson should be stripped of his priesthood, and to rule on what should happen in the case of future priests who practice homosexual sex, and whether someone can be ordained if they practice homosexual sex.
Well, start out by the idea that the Lambeth Conference (the convocation of all bishops, not merely the primates, that happens every ten years) has absolutely no legal authority over any “province” (national church) of the Church. They carry strong moral and teaching authority, but their vote on what’s permissible or prohibited has as much authority over any given national church as a resolution of the Tokeka City Council does over the state of Massachusetts.
Second, according to an admittedly biased authority (Jack Spong), the resolution adopted at Lambeth was the result of sleight-of-hand by the former Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, taking a resolution which had been written by Spong and a South African conservative bishop, on Carey’s authority, to produce a compromise statement that would mollify all parties to the discussion, and recognizing rapid-fire amendments to it to please the conservative wing at the cost of destroying any chance at compromise.
The American traditionalist dissidents love to play up “Lambeth 1.10” as though it were a ukase from the Council of Nicaea, binding on all parties. (Of course, they never denounce the acts of the Archbishop of Singapore and the Church of Rwanda’s bishops to try to produce schism in the American church.)
I agree that some recognition of same-sex covenanted relationships should have preceded the recognition of Bishop Robinson – instead, as usual, a compromise agreement that left it to local (bishop and parish) judgment was passed simultaneously with ratification of his election.
The only authority that could defrock Bishop Robinson (and no puns about his partner doing so, please!) is the Court for the Trial of a Bishop of ECUSA; if the primates attempted to do so, they would be violating some of the founding principles of the Anglican Communion – and would themselves be subject to defrocking as attempting to exceed their own authority.
I personally will not be at peace with anything short of a decision that honors both the dignity and right to a full and happy life of my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters in Christ and the scruples of those who believe homosexual practice to be a sin. And I personally don’t see a way in which that is ever going to be attained.
Thanks for the dtailed information Poly
So, is there no “highest court” (on earth at least) of the Anglican churches, but each church has it’s own court for dealing with problems within their own church?
Strangely enough popular satirical commedy and comment in UK would show George Carey as a very camp sort of fellow hanging arround with John Gielgud.
Although I would spin my description of the events differently, Poly, I essentially agree with your facts. However, I do think that if the Episcopal Church (a) recognizes that Lambeth has no legal authority and (b) reject Lambeth’s teaching and moral authority – then why bother with the charade that they are part of the Anglican Communion? Take references to being a member of the AC out of your constitution and do as you please. (Of course, please let those of us who wish to stay with the AC do so).
On a related note, something quite extrodinary (and slightly unsettling) happened to me today. I was reading some comments from Louie Crew and I actually agreed with and was moved by something he wrote.
I could substitute my name in there for Louie’s. Of course, I was relieved when I completely disagreed with the rest of his comments 
I came upon this message board by accident. There are some really great points made by both sides here.
I found myself thinking over and over while reading messages from obviously very intellligent people who are polar opposites on this issue, “It is so hard to be a human being”!
What I will take away from reading all these posts is that I need to spend much more time looking for the lumber in my eye and less time looking for other peoples splinters.
Thank you all for this lesson.
Welcome, Stupid0! (It feels weird to say that here…)
It’s why I love these boards - you can always find something to agree with, to disagree with, and to teach you a lesson or two.