In the absence of a prohibition… How many times have Catholics been accused of false beliefs because of an absence in scriptures? The difference here is, Catholics can refer to scriptures for a similar story or an implication of. The ‘bishop’ cannot.Ah, Bishop Robinson!
This Episcopalian does not agree with him. I think he is on the outer edges of theological and scriptural thinking. Frankly, however I am glad he is making these efforts. We need someone to stretch the limits of theological thinking, so we can more carefully understand what those limits are. I frankly wish, however, that he did so as a scholar or theologian, not as a bishop.
Bishop Robinson is using standard scriptural exegetical practice of contextualizing the scriptures. This is an important part of exegesis. Unfortunately, I think is overstating the context. Homosexual activity was a common practice in the Graeco-Roman world, and he is probably right about the idea that “sexual orientation” as a recent concept to our time, is not directly applicable to the time of Paul. It seems he is taking whatever “wiggle room” he can find.
But as well as he draws out his argument, I just can’t see any warrant in scripture for sanctioning homosexual union or activity, period. If Jesus or Paul had wanted to, they would certainly have said so overtly.
First he tries to show that St. Paul was not talking about committed homosexual relationships, so, in his argument, St. Paul is silent on the topic.
Next he argues that since there is silence, there is no prohibition.
Finally he argues that in the absence of a prohibition, homosexual activity is permitted.
Thank you, ProdigalSon, for your concern. Let us give thanks to God that we have this article. We have a way of understanding the truth better because of it.In the absence of a prohibition… How many times have Catholics been accused of false beliefs because of an absence in scriptures? The difference here is, Catholics can refer to scriptures for a similar story or an implication of. The ‘bishop’ cannot.
1Co 11:9 For the man was not created for the woman: but the woman for the man.
In my opinion, this is a case of fitting scriptures to a ‘belief’ or lifestyle and not fitting beliefs and lifestyle to scriptures.
Usbek de Perse, I am sorry for you and others that this man represents as a leader in your Church.
What’s sad is the only bishops that get deposed by Episcopal Church leadership are the ones who stand up for traditional morality. What’s the point of having a bishop if you can’t look to him for spiritual guidance and direction? I don’t need to pay money to support the lavish lifestyles of theological infants who have been promoted beyond their capacity to understand and propagate the Christian faith. If the laity understand better than the bishops, then you’ve got yourself a non-functional bureaucracy, not a church. This was a major factor in me leaving the Episcopal Church and understanding and appreciating the Catholic Church and its authority. I pray for the souls of these supposed leaders like +VGR and KJS. There will be judgment for their deceit; I would hate to be in their shoes, begging for mercy for having misled so many. I’ve got enough to worry about for my own sins.Just consider the source…“Bishop” Robinson is a flake, always has been, always will be…he’s a heretic and a loon.
This argument about gays is about as lame as the one that says, “St. Paul wasn’t condemning homosexual acts per se, he was condemning unfaithful gays in a committed relationship commiting homosexual adultery! He loved gay living and was fine with it, but just required faithfulness.” That’s the whole attempt to make Paul sound like he lived in the Castro District of San Francisco, not buyin’ it.
I’d take anything that comes out of the Episcopal Church with less than one grain of salt…
to be fair, the Episcopal Church did also depose a bishop, who while a parish rector, did nothing while his younger brother the youth leader, had a sordid affair with an underaged girl.What’s sad is the only bishops that get deposed by Episcopal Church leadership are the ones who stand up for traditional morality. What’s the point of having a bishop if you can’t look to him for spiritual guidance and direction? I don’t need to pay money to support the lavish lifestyles of theological infants who have been promoted beyond their capacity to understand and propagate the Christian faith. If the laity understand better than the bishops, then you’ve got yourself a non-functional bureaucracy, not a church. This was a major factor in me leaving the Episcopal Church and understanding and appreciating the Catholic Church and its authority. I pray for the souls of these supposed leaders like +VGR and KJS. There will be judgment for their deceit; I would hate to be in their shoes, begging for mercy for having misled so many. I’ve got enough to worry about for my own sins.
Thanks, Joe.…
EDIT: I would also add that I am fairly certain that Bishop Robinson’s theological opinions are not indicative of the point of view of all Episcopalians.
A lot of Greeks and Romans were encouraged to practice homosexuality. For example, Spartans were encouraged to take lovers in the army, because they would protect their lover better than if he was just another solider. It was so they could trust each other, and Spartan warfare depended on the ability to work together. I think this is what the bishop is trying to conveyIf sexual orientation is a recent concept, like in the last 125 years, HOW ON EARTH could St Paul possibly be speaking about homosexual acts by heterosexual people???
His Statement refutes its self!
can you clarify what you point is, thanksYeah. And what is meant by idolatry in the Bible is really limited to animal symbolism. I wonder what we can’t stretch and rationalize to match modernism?
I am glad that this is not the norm for Episcopalians. However, why does the Episcopal Church continue to allow him to operate as a Bishop without any kind a censure? On the other hand, are they taking some kind of disciplinary actions?Ah, Bishop Robinson!
This Episcopalian does not agree with him. I think he is on the outer edges of theological and scriptural thinking. Frankly, however I am glad he is making these efforts. We need someone to stretch the limits of theological thinking, so we can more carefully understand what those limits are. I frankly wish, however, that he did so as a scholar or theologian, not as a bishop.
Bishop Robinson is using standard scriptural exegetical practice of contextualizing the scriptures. This is an important part of exegesis. Unfortunately, I think is overstating the context. Homosexual activity was a common practice in the Graeco-Roman world, and he is probably right about the idea that “sexual orientation” as a recent concept to our time, is not directly applicable to the time of Paul. It seems he is taking whatever “wiggle room” he can find.
But as well as he draws out his argument, I just can’t see any warrant in scripture for sanctioning homosexual union or activity, period. If Jesus or Paul had wanted to, they would certainly have said so overtly.
First he tries to show that St. Paul was not talking about committed homosexual relationships, so, in his argument, St. Paul is silent on the topic.
Next he argues that since there is silence, there is no prohibition.
Finally he argues that in the absence of a prohibition, homosexual activity is permitted.
So, what the pagans encouraged can be applied to Christian beliefs how?A lot of Greeks and Romans were encouraged to practice homosexuality. For example, Spartans were encouraged to take lovers in the army, because they would protect their lover better than if he was just another solider. It was so they could trust each other, and Spartan warfare depended on the ability to work together. I think this is what the bishop is trying to convey
And that’s the point. Being a bishop is simply a different “job” for the Episcopalians. The laity, quite literally, have just as much of a say in the governance of the Episcopal Church as bishops. Hence my comment that I don’t see the point in paying their salary if they are not going to safeguard the Catholic/Christian faith as best as possible under the auspices of Anglicanism. And I will add that while +VGR’s view may not be the norm for Episcopalians by some measure, it is the norm such that the laity and the bishops and clergy of the Church have not mustered up enough support against him to do anything about it. Of course, many simply leave, as I have, concluding that the entire structure of the Episcopal Church is backward and upside down. I was fighting for an Anglican dream that did not exist. The Episcopal Church is full of these false shepherds. If you’re not intimately familiar with Episcopal Church polity and politics, imagine if we did not have faithful bishops in the Catholic Church and the laity of the Catholic Church who support women’s ordination and gay marriage were put in charge and allowed to vote on these matters. Due to recent trends in opinions among the laity, the Church would be in trouble, right? Well, there you have the Episcopal Church in a nutshell. A complete and total failure of orthodox Christian leadership in a church that was set up to fail and be tossed about by every whim of secular society from the beginning.I am glad that this is not the norm for Episcopalians. However, why does the Episcopal Church continue to allow him to operate as a Bishop without any kind a censure? On the other hand, are they taking some kind of disciplinary actions?
Well, that’s who Paul was preaching to, so looking at the historical context, he was trying to get his point across to pagans. Not saying they had to listen, but he can preach to them.So, what the pagans encouraged can be applied to Christian beliefs how?
The bishop should be loving Christ, above all things on this earth including desires of the flesh, and protecting Him better than anything of this earth. Working with Him is stronger than anything you’ve mentioned.
Well, Christ sort of set up how one can know just that sort of thing, and you can read about it yourself in John 14:15. Jesus said, quite pointedly, “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.” He drives the point home in John 14:21 when says that “He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me.” If Jesus said it, we can know it for sure. The bishop knows what he is doing is going against God’s word, and he is playing fast and loose with his language and “biblical interpretation” like a silver-tongued lawyer. (I am one, I know when it’s being done). I assure you, the man has no other intention in his “ministry” but to seek fame and recognition and blessing for his abhorrent behavior. If you ever follow traditional Anglican sites like www.standfirminfaith.com you can research all the things he has done, and you will be convinced that he does not love Christ. Love is an active concept, not simply a feeling of affection. He does not keep Christ’s commandments, and in fact, views quite a large percentage of them as being outdated and evil. We can have knowledge of this man’s life, because he intentionally makes it public, in order to gain recognition and advance his agenda. You cannot believe a single word he says, and he has proven it to us Anglicans time and time again.Well, that’s who Paul was preaching to, so looking at the historical context, he was trying to get his point across to pagans. Not saying they had to listen, but he can preach to them.
Also, how do you know that the bishop doesn’t love Christ? Are you privy to some knowledge into this man’s life? How do you know he hasn’t prayed about it, and talked to Christ? What if he is? How can you know for sure? I’m not trying to be hostile, but I think it’s a little much to say that he doesn’t love Christ.
I qualified the statement with, ‘The bishop should be loving Christ, above all things on this earth including desires of the flesh…’ That doesn’t mean he doesn’t love Christ. He is a bishop, a shepherd to His flock.Well, that’s who Paul was preaching to, so looking at the historical context, he was trying to get his point across to pagans. Not saying they had to listen, but he can preach to them.
Also, how do you know that the bishop doesn’t love Christ? Are you privy to some knowledge into this man’s life? How do you know he hasn’t prayed about it, and talked to Christ? What if he is? How can you know for sure? I’m not trying to be hostile, but I think it’s a little much to say that he doesn’t love Christ.