The first openly gay Episcopal bishop announced he will have no official role in a meeting this summer of world Anglican leaders, saying restrictions that organizers wanted to place on his involvement had caused him "considerable pain."
New Hampshire Bishop V. Gene Robinson had been told last year that he could not fully participate in the once-a-decade gathering in England, called the Lambeth Conference, as the world Anglican Communion sat on the brink of schism over his 2003 election.
Still, Episcopal leaders had been negotiating with the Anglican Communion Office to allow him to join the event in some capacity. The Episcopal Church is the Anglican body in the U.S.
At a Texas meeting Monday night of the Episcopal House of Bishops, Robinson said that the final offer to include him was in effect a "non-offer," and he had declined it.
The House of Bishops was informed that full invitation is "not possible" from the Archbishop of Canterbury to include Robinson. But Anglican leaders said Robinson could "be present" in the conference Marketplace, or convention hall, where exhibitors and church agencies set up stalls, and that he could participate in one "high profile" event, such as a news conference, at the 20-day summit. The exhibit hall is open to the public, while the Lambeth discussions are private.
Robinson told the bishops in Texas that ever since he got word of the proposal late last Friday, "I have been in considerable pain." He said he had hoped to participate in Bible study and small group discussions with other bishops.
"I am dismayed and sickhearted that we can't sit around a table, as brothers and sisters in Christ, and study Scripture together," he said. "It makes me wonder, if we can't sit around a table and study the Bible together, what kind of Communion do we have and what are we trying to save?"
A spokesman for the Anglican Communion did not respond to a request for comment.
The spiritual leader of the Anglican Communion, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, didn't invite Robinson to Lambeth, partly to appease theological conservatives, who believe the Bible bars gay relationships. Some had threatened to boycott the meeting if he attended.
Williams also didn't invite Bishop Martyn Minns, who leads a network of conservative breakaway Episcopal parishes in the U.S., that have aligned with the like-minded Anglican Church of Nigeria.
Still, five Anglican archbishops from Africa and South America said recently they would boycott Lambeth because they could not share communion with the Episcopal bishops who had consecrated Robinson. The five are among several Anglican conservatives who are holding an international gathering in June in the Mideast that is seen as a rival to Lambeth.
The Lambeth Conference is scheduled July 16 through Aug. 3 at the University of Kent in England.
Some Episcopal bishops who believe that committed gay relationships are acceptable in Scripture had discussed boycotting the event if Robinson couldn't attend.
But Robinson repeatedly urged them to go.
"For God's sake, don't stay away," Robinson said. He plans to travel to the event on his own, staying in the Marketplace to be available for with anyone interested in talking with him.
"Pray for me," he said. "I will need that. A lot."
The Episcopal House of Bishops is in session March 7-12 at Camp Allen in Navasota, Texas. The retreat meeting focuses on private conversations that are closed to media and other visitors.
Copyright 2008 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Comments
Yes, Jesus was under subjection to the earthly government, which He demonstrated when He had Peter go fishing for money to pay taxes.
But if the government were to expect Him to do something sinful, He would have not come under subjection. He would have refused. Which is why He said that capital punishment was wrong. Whether at the hands of an individual, or a government.
And, yes, the pharisees were trying to trap Jesus. The law of Moses stated that anyone caught in the act of adultery was to be stoned. If He were to stand against that, then He would be standing against the law. If He were to allow it, He would be a hypocrite in His message of love. But, He introduced a new concept at that time: Grace.
He was saying that it was up to God to execute judgement on someone. It wasn't man's responsibility. You see, He did acknowlege that adultery was a sin. But He also showed, with His reaction to the whole situation, that it was not man's place to be the executor.
Prophet-
This will be my last post on this topic. It seems you have missed the 2 main points I have continued to emphasize.
1) God gave capital punishment for certain crimes. The OT clearly states this many times. To not admit this would be to willfully deny God.
2) Capital punishment was not given to individuals to decide upon. It was a tool to be used by the civil government.
I never said the Civil Government was above God. I said that Jesus as man was subject to the authorities placed over him.
I wasn't reading into the story of a woman caught in adultery. I clearly stated that their circumstantial evidence left me with many questions. I also pointed out that it was not within the INDIVIDUALS sphere of authority to decide and carry out the judgment of capital punishment. That is reserved to the CIVIL GOVERNMENT, as it says in scripture.
In John 8, verse 6, it shows that the Pharisees were trying to TRAP Jesus. How were they trying to trap him into agreeing with the Laws of the OT? If Jesus had said "Yes, stone her", then Jesus would be guilty of murder according to the Roman laws, and in rebellion to the authority placed over him. Jesus did not do this. He knew it was a trap. He answered as he should considering his authority. He was not the head of the civil government and did not have the authority to stone the woman. He was an individual. To allowing stoning the woman would be to stand in rebellion to the authority (Rome) which God had placed over him. The Pharisees would have had him trapped IF Jesus had commanded stoning because (1) it was outside of Jesus' authority and (2) it was against the Roman Laws that anyone should carry out capital punishment except the Roman Government.
May God grant us both wisdom that we may understand scripture better.
So, you are saying that the government, and it's laws, are above God?
And what? You don't think that perhaps the man caught in adultery escaped? Why read into something that isn't there. You miss the point. Whether they had the man or not, doesn't negate that she was guilty. There were the witnesses who were there. So, she was guilty of death, and Jesus negated that law. Yes, he condemned adultery, but he also condemned what man said was the penalty of adultery. If he didn't, he would have turned and walked away, leaving her to her fate.
Prophet-
First, I will point out that you did not answer my question. Now I will answer yours-
Second, as I have continued to say, capital punishment according to scripture should only be carried out by the civil government. Since the Israelites were under Roman authority, it would be the Roman authority that would have to carry it out. The people in general were never the recognized civil government. I refer you back to the implementation of the judges over Israel through Moses.
Third, presuming that she was "caught in adultery", where was the man who was caught with her? Obviously the case of the Pharisees was lacking further evidence. According to the OT laws, both the man and woman were to be stoned. So, where was the man? Seeing as they did not bring forth the man, only the woman, it brings into question their accusations. What the Pharisees were trying to carry out was not justice. Justice would include stoning the man.
Fourthly, to clarify Jesus position. Jesus was an individual. A teacher, and respected individual- but an individual all the same. He, showing respect for all peoples, did not pass the judgment of condemnation and encourage an unbiblical act of capital punishment by an improper authority. He, as an individual, was not accepting of the idea of living an adulterous life because he clearly stated "go, and sin no more". Jesus therefore was condemning of adultery to the extent which he had authority over the woman.
Fifthly, Jesus' authority. To clarify- though Jesus is God, he was given authority over heaven and earth after his resurrection, and while here on Earth he lived mostly according to the ways of man, excluding certain miracles he performed. Though in one case he might have had certain authority over the woman caught in adultery, as he has over all people- He, in the human sense, was not in a position of authority over her since he was not her husband, or father- or even a church elder, or a ruler in the government. His authority was limited to that of a one individual who encourages another to "go and sin no more".
I hope this has clearly explained to you why Jesus did not tell them to stone the woman, while not contradicting scripture. I encourage you to think about what you have proposed- that God is somehow dichotomous or dualistic in his thinking, and correct your thinking. I know I am not perfect in my own thinking- only through prayer, study, and petition to God can we improve.
On the same token, though. How can you justify Jesus not allowing the pharisees to stone the woman caught in adultery, when the OT law strictly commands that she be stoned?
Prophet-
My last point... let us say that you are correct. I totally disagree- but let us assume you are right. Please explain to me how you can rationalize how God in the OT commanded capital punishment but in the New Testament said it was wrong?
Your "interpretation" is making God contradict himself. How do you reconcile this?
If Jesus was not talking about capital punishment, why did he refer directly to the OT capital punishment law? Verse 38 should be done away with then, since He is refering capital punishment. He even reinforces it with the next verse where he says not to resist evil and to turn the other cheek. Does it say anything about "giving them what they deserve"? No. It says to turn the other cheek. Including (as Jesus refers to) murder.
Prophet,
My deepest appologies for offending you- but I must disagree. Without going into the details of the OT decentralized form of government in justaposition to our modern failing Republic too much- the two are vastly different from one another. Never the less- God gave the command for capital punishment in the Old Testament. If you believe the Bible, then you must accept both the Old Testament and the New Testament.
My views may be hard- I agree that they may seem so- but I would like to point out that only by accepting both God's commands in the OT and Christs (God's) commands from the NT can we be obedient to God.
My final note would be that the words "eye for eye" do not say CAPITAL PUNISHMENT. I believe yo uhave taken scripteu out of context and I encourge you to take a weekend and read through the Pentateuch. It takes about 17 hours, but reading through it all in a short period of time helps to give a more complete view of the main points.
Too often we all can take scripture out of context- I believe this gay bishop has so done. He does need prayer- Prayer to repentence. I pray he does, and that God may forgive him.
Jesus said "You've heard it said 'An eye for an eye'....."
Where did they hear that? From the law of Moses. So He was making the connection between what He was saying and what was said. Because in the OT, when somebody sinned a sin that required death, the government did not carry out the sentence. The public did. They gathered stones and stoned the guilty party themselves. The people were the ones to act out the judgement handed down. So, when Jesus was speaking of "an eye for an eye", yes He was talking about the death penalty.
Gen,
"but I would argue that the political government is suppose to be obedient to God's law."
"Suppose to be"...that is the key phrase of your post. Our government is man made. Therefore, it is imperfect. The government that you speak of, says it's okay to kill unborn babies. That pornography and drunkeness is okay. It doesn't sound like a very Godly government to me. Government is a reflection of it's citizen's values. 200 years ago, the our citizens values were much more Godly than they are today, but still imperfect.
When Jesus was speaking of "and eye for and eye" he was refering to the capital punishment law that had been put into effect. He was saying that repaying death with death was not the way to go.
And if I didn't answer clearly enough -
Jesus was talking to the individuals- not to the role of the political government. These passage you gave were not a refutation of the political government using capital punishment. They were an admonition for individuals to understand the giving attitude and humility of Christians. They were not a condemnation of God's design of justice laid out in the Old Testament.
Prophet,
Perhaps you believe, as many do, that the poitical government cannot follow God? I do not know what you think- but I would argue that the political government is suppose to be obedient to God's law. This being the case, what does scripture teach us about how the government should punish sin and wrong doing?
Prophet-
Perhaps you missed what the scripture were talking about. The OT passages you mentioned were dealing with JUSTICE. The punishments were to be carried out by the political governments- not the individuals acting on their own.
These passages having nothing to do with repaying evil for evil. Jesus was making a clarification of the law that we are to follow the PRINCIPLES in scripture. This is from the Sermon on the mount where Jesus says many times "You've heard it said...but I say..." Jesus was constantly trying to help people better understand scripture and the principles they embodied, not necessarily the literal "buck stops here" understanding of the words. You will notice that he ends this "eye for eye"" bit with these words, "Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." Why would jesus be talking about giving and lending and going the extra mile, if what he meant was to stop capital punishment? The two topics are not remotely related. Jesus was explaining how we Christians should go above and beyond the call of duty, even taking injustice upon ourselves. Christians should be known for their abundant love and giving and obedience- not for their legalistic obedience to the law. In essence he was saying "You missed the principles behind what was taught, let me correct that".
Upholding Biblical condemnation of sin is not "refuted" in scripture. It is upheld. Jesus was condemning their misunderstanding of scripture because they tried to follow the "law" without understanding that actual principles behind the law.
In a similar passage, Paul speaks of the OT passage about not muzzeling an ox treading the grain- for the worker is worth his wages. Anyone who thinks this passage is about muzzeling oxes and nothing else falls short of understanding the principles laid out of being honest and paying upfront, and making sure to pay according to qualifications.
Can you show me from scripture why God would command his people to use capital punishment, and then change his mind (as you suggest the Bible really says)? Can you show me how your view is not contradictory?
Gen,
Leviticus 24:17-20 speaks of capital punishment:
"17And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death.
18And he that killeth a beast shall make it good; beast for beast.
19And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him;
20Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again. "
Jesus said, refering to that scripture, "38Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."
So, He said that repaying evil with evil was not the way to go.
You will have to forgive my ignorance- where in the Bible did Jesus REFUTE the idea of capital punishment? It was God who instituted capital punishment for certain crimes. Jesus, being God, could not refute capital punishment lest he refute himself.
Even in situations such as the woman "caught in adultery", Jesus did not REFUTE capital punishment. IF the woman was caught IN adultery, where was the man? The man was also potentailly punishable by death. That punishment was to be carried out by the POLITICAL government- NOT the people in general. Seeing as they were under Roman Law, they were not in a position to carry out such capital punishment. To do so would be going outside of their Biblically given authority.