Schism, and Soon

Schism, and Soon
by Jennifer King, Managing Editor

August 11, 2003

"The Heretical Housewife"

Managing Editor Jennifer King Reverend V. Gene Robinson (AP) As a practicing Episcopalian, I am dismayed and horrified at the recent vote to promote the Reverend V. Gene Robinson (right) to the Bishopric of New Hampshire. Surely, the church has gone mad.

Explicit warnings against homosexuality in the Bible go back to the earliest known texts. Homosexuality has been regarded as a grevious sin, an “abomination” and a particular sin against God, who created the institution of marriage between men and women. The Episcopalian clergy who voted for this man seem to have ignored both Scripture and historic Church teachings willfully. Appearing on the Today Show, Bishop Thomas Shaw of Massachusetts and Bishop Edward Salmon of South Carolina argued the points. In opposition, Bishop Salmon said, “It would violate the traditions of the Church, the teachings of Scripture and the Constitution of the Church.” Bishop Shaw, a strong supporter of Robinson, replied with a barrage of liberal goobledygook, “We don’t only respond to Scripture. We respond to reason and to Jesus’ message of love.” Shaw further asserted that, “It is time. It is a new day.” A new day indeed when the desires of men outweigh the Word of God.

The pro-Robinson prelates seemed to exhibit a vast moral and theological confusion which makes one wonder why they picked their chosen career. The Reverend Carol Flanagan, when asked if she believed that the Bible was the incarnate Word of God, replied that she “wasn’t sure”. Other Episcopalian Bishops, like Bishop Shaw, asserted that they weren’t that concerned with Scripture because they were being led by “the Holy Spirit.” A Spirit may indeed be leading them, but I highly doubt that it is holy.

The troubling aspects of the Robinson case unfolded rapidly. Bishop Robinson, in 1986, abandoned his wife and two young daughters in order to move in with his homosexual “partner”, Mark Andrew. Surely, such pure selfishness and egotism should be enough to disqualify anyone from posing as a humble man of God. Hubris, however, appears to be Bishop Robinson’s strong point. The Bishop described his divorce from his wife as involving a bizarre ceremony in the church, where they disavowed their vows and shared communion - thereby blatantly breaking yet another Church injunction against profaning the Lord‘s Table.

Most egregiously, Bishop Robinson is not posing as a sinner in desperate need of God’s redemption. Rather, Bishop Robinson is living openly with his “partner”, in an active homosexual lifestyle which further defies the church’s teachings on extramarital sex. Far from being ashamed and penitent, Bishop Robinson appears defiant and boastful. Greed, lust and pride - three of the Seven Deadly Sins - were never previously viewed as qualifications for promotion in the Church.

Pride, in particular, is regarded as the deadliest of the sins, for it involves vanity and the glorification of the self. St. Thomas Aquinas said, “Inordinate self-love is the cause of every sin.” A Christian is supposed to subdue his will to that of God’s. It is difficult to believe that God would have Bishop Robinson leave his family in order to live as an open Sodomite, much less to profane the church with his unrepentant sin.

The willingness of Bishop Robinson to subject the church he supposedly loves to this trial provides another illustrative point. Apparently, it was more important for Bishop Robinson to have a justification of his lifestyle than it was for him to step down and save the church from schism. Further selfish action from an exceedingly self-indulgent man. A man whose egotism and heresy should have precluded him from being even nominated as a candidate for Bishop, or priest, for that matter. Proving his apostasy further, Bishop Robinson’s first act as Bishop was to repair - not to New Hampshire - but to New York where he spoke at a U.N. panel which denounced Catholicism for not embracing deviancy the way the Anglicans have.

So schism it is, sooner rather than later, with determination and faith. Devout Episcopalians must not rollover for this outrage against the Church. Some have argued against schism - after all, most Episcopal real estate is owned by the denomination, not individual congregations. Those who split must leave, and very valuable real estate is thus left in the hands of the apostate lavender lobby which has infiltrated and poisoned it. It is a fallacious argument. Are we eager to embrace Mammon, or be like the Apostles - who left everything behind when Jesus said to follow him. It is time. It is, indeed, a new day. ***

Photo of Jennifer King courtesy of staff files
Photo of Reverend V. Gene Robinson courtesy of the Associated Press