Bishop Gene Robinson tonight on Ö÷²¥´óÐã1
You've another chance to see my television interview with Bishop Gene Robinson tonight on Ö÷²¥´óÐã1 Northern Ireland. Last week, Dr Rowan Williams announced that he would not be inviting Gene Robinson, the first openly gay bishop elected in the history of the Anglican Communion, to next year's Lambeth Conference, even though he accepts that the bishop's consecration was entirely legal.
In this interview, recorded in advance of that announcement, Bishop Robinson makes it clear that he would certainly accept the invitation to attend the Conference and talks about the possible implications for the Anglican Communion if he were to be snubbed by Lambeth Palace.
You can watch the interview on Ö÷²¥´óÐã1 Northern Ireland at 10.20 pm.
P.s., The picture is a screengrab from the television coverage of Bishop Gene's consecration. He tells me in this interview that he was wearing a bulletproof jacket under the vestments he's seen wearing here. He also reveals details of a plan to ensure that his consecration would go ahead in the event of an assassination attempt.
Comments
Says a lot about those who oppose a gay man in the clergy that Gene Robinson would have to wear body armour at a church service!
"He tells me in this interview he was wearing a bulletproof jacket under the vestments he's seen wearing here. He also reveals details of a plan to ensure that his consecration would go ahead in the event of an assassination attempt."
Who better to truely know Christians than one of their own, a leader of their flock? And you say Islamic terrorists are bad people?
Having missed the interview the first time it was on I watched it tonight. I was greatly impressed with Gene Robinson as a person and have a greater understanding of how he must feel. Excellent programme.
Yet more bigoted comments against Christians. You see with comments like these, it isn't just Christians who are bigoted.
Caricatures; you're reasoning is impeccable; not!
Both sides of the debate are filled with poeple with these sorts of judgements. Of course, they never recognise it in themselves.
CKer you have a point. This story should not be seen as a battle between christians and non-christians. Gene Robinson is a christian and those who support him and oppose him within the chuch are also christians. But let's not underestimate the significance of the threat the bishop faced from some of his fellow believers. That needs to be esplained. Carefully.
Helen, I'm waiting for the explanation. Don't be shy, feel free to jump right in and explain to me why an Episcopal bishop would feel his life is threatened by others in his own church. You and Cker seem to equate the two sides. OK tell me why. Yes Cker, I'm making a judgement, I judge that those who are so vehemently opposed to this Bishop that they might give him cause to feel they just might kill him are Christians in name only. Perhaps 95% of all Anglicans will go to hell after all? And then again, perhaps it's 100% It seems to me the people you are defending are the very same kind of people Christians often accuse of being the killers of Christ. Aren't you preparing yourself for judgement day? What will you say to Saint Peter up at those pearly gates when he asks you if you defended the right to life of your fellow man or were neutral about it saying in effect there are two sides to every story? Do you know the difference between good and evil? How about right from wrong? Those who fail the first test are considered amoral, those who fail the second...legally insane. I think you too are going to be taking an elevator......down. Repent sinner, the end draws nigh! And that's my sermon for today. Maybe I should apply for the job if he gets knocked off. Ooooooh I'll bet I'd be good at it.
Watched the interview. Robinson is clearly a polished guest and he's answered the rather soft questions many times -- the wonderful reaction of his children to news of his being gay - you'd have to have a heart of stone not to laugh.
The reason he's wearing a bullet proof vest (if he really was) was to embarrass opponents and try to suggest all those opposed to homosexuality are violent.
The good thing is, of course, that it all speeds up the collapse of the Episcopal Church.
Padraig, I thought the bishop stumbled when pressed on why he limits his theological defence to monogamous relationships. He couldn't come up with an opposition to open relationships. He also nearly fell over when Crawley asked him out of the blue "how much were you drinking"! Priceless.
Mark,
you speak on God's behalf?
Luckily, as you imply with your parody (and, therefore, running with it), I will be answerable only to God (not St. Peter or you). If what you say is true about the condition of my heart; (again running with your heavenly portrait) then I will genuinely seek God's forgiveness.
You seemed to leave me with only two options if your assessment of me is correct-being amoral or legally insane (do the legally insane all go to hell?).
To both options I would ask whose definition are we talking about; the church's, Blair's, Mill's, Western society's, our lawyer's or your understanding. But if you insist, I prefer insane.
No one has a chance to dissent. You are compulsive in these sorts of pronouncements.
However, I am sure that repentance doesn't involve agreement with your views.
As to the two views being equated...
(1) You think I am suggesting that an assasin is morally equivalent to Gene, eh? I was talking about your response.
(2)Getting then to the point of my post; your reasoning follows in this manner:
Bullet proof vests help prevent being killed by a shooter.
Gene wore a bullet proof vest.
A shooter (with Gene in his/her crosshairs) may disagree with Gene.
Therefore, there was a shooter who disagrees with Gene.
The shooter was Christian.
Or even worse; all Christians who disagree with Gene are potential shooters.
I remember Polly Toynbee and Richard Dawkins writing articles after 9/11 warning about the dangers of religious belief per se using this sort of suspect reasoning.
But an important change must be noted in your second post:
"...Christians in name only." In no way did your previous post (2) have this meaning. It must have been a rant rather than reason.
Maybe Padraig has perceived the truth of the matter?
Alas! Ultimately, your response (6) is ad hominem and disappointingly puerile.