Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Does Gene mean what he says?

""A church that does not ordain women or openly gay people - I don't see a future for that," [Bishop Gene] Robinson told ENI after delivering a sermon on 28 June at the First Presbyterian Church in New York City during the city's annual gay pride festivities."

H/t to Titus One Nine for this article in Anglican Journal.

I wonder if Gene means what he says here? That would mean there's no future for the Roman Catholic church, none for the Eastern Orthodox churches, and even less for the stricter forms of Baptist, Pentecostal and other conservative churches.

Perhaps he is right. He is something of an oracle for our times. Clearly it is worth sticking with the Anglican church - the church with an undoubted future. Gene is our guarantor.


Anonymous said...

Your logic, as I have come to expect now, is again quite confused. Gene is not a guarantor that your denomination has an undoubted future - please read your own quote again - in the long term traditional denominations will have to fully resolve their relationship with the female half of the population in order to have a future in the contemporary world. You seem to spend a lot of energy in your sidebar promoting this - but maybe you are still primarily preaching to yourself and trying to convince yourself with those lengthy points that this departure from scripture and tradition is OK, along with divorce and remarriage, including all the way to your episcopacy, and all the other massive conforming your province has made to the contemporary world, overtly and covertly (don't ask don't tell & I'm referring to heterosexuals - where you yourself have declared you won't ask, nor tell). Somehow EVERY other change is fine. Except your one obsession - that Anglicans differ genitally down under. If they are the same down under then your gospel requires them not to use it. Although you support Janice in her battle against male oppression - here it appears you slip back within the default position of your masculine heterosexual comfort zone of mocking that position. But, just as your cynicism belies your real beliefs and fears - in your heart of hearts you know that Howard Pilgrim's evangelical beliefs will long-term triumph over your own. Centuries from now, your position, like slavery, and women not voting on vestries, will appear quaint.

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Anonymous
Centuries from now my views may be quaint, though I should be most surprised if any one knows anything about me then. I have a hunch that the RCC and EOCs will still be around, though! Gene Robinson will be remembered then, though probably not for his inane views on what churches will survive into the future.

Anonymous said...

Hi, Peter - I see someone is posting above under my name!
It's a pretty safe bet speculating about 'centuries from now', considering most of most (not Ronald Reagan!) were surprised by the events of 1989.
The future belongs to those who turn up for it - demography is destiny.