America’s most high-profile homosexual clergyman, Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson, came out in early February with a bit of audacious scriptural interpretation meant to justify the actions of men and women who wish to practice both the Christian faith as well as a lifestyle condemned in the Bible. Robinson was given the opportunity to flesh out his “inclusive” theology during an appearance at the National Press Club, where he helped to announce the launch of a pro-homosexual “American Prayer Hour,” designed to “affirm inclusive values and call on all nations … to decriminalize the lives of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people.”

Following a news conference announcing the pro-homosexual religious initiative, Robinson was approached by a reporter from the Cybercast News Service, who questioned the bishop about a particular scripture passage, Romans 1:22-27, which Christians since the early Church era have taken to be a strong admonition against homosexual behavior. Asked whether the Apostle Paul was right in his assertion that homosexual relations were against the laws of nature set up by God, Robinson said that a proper response to the question would take about “two days to answer.”

Nonetheless, said the Episcopal Church’s first openly homosexual bishop, “I’ll try to give you the Cliff’s Notes version” — which included the news that the notion someone could be born with a homosexual orientation is a fairly recent revelation, no more than 125 years old. Robinson explained that in the passage in question, “St. Paul was talking about people that he understood to be heterosexual engaging in same-sex acts. It never occurred to anyone in ancient times that a certain minority of us would be born being affectionally [sic] oriented to people of the same sex.”

Thus, “it did seem like against their nature to be doing so,” said Robinson, referring to Paul’s admonition that those involved in homosexual acts were exchanging natural relations for unnatural ones.

Robinson argued that more than anything, Paul was using the Romans 1 passage to condemn a Roman custom in which older men would take in younger boys for the purposes of sex. “No one is arguing for [child abuse] today,” he assured the reporter. “We would all be against that. We would all agree with St. Paul on that.”

Robinson asserted that the “real question when you look at scripture is, ‘What did it mean to the person who wrote it? What did it mean for the audience to whom it was written?… And in this case, I would say, the things that St. Paul was against, I’m against, too.” Which means that, as far as Robinson is concerned, Paul was only condemning homosexual acts committed by individuals who were not born “affectionally oriented to people of the same sex.”

Robinson added that “the question is, are there any answers there for what we’re asking today, which is the rightfulness of faithful monogamous lifelong-intentioned relationships between people of the same sex, and the bible simply does not address that.”

In an effort to nail the bishop down on his slippery explanation to what Christians have always taken to be a straight-forward censure of any and all homosexual acts, the reporter asked Robinson if he thought the apostle Paul was incorrectly condemning homosexuality. To which the bishop responded, “No, I think St. Paul was absolutely correct in his own context given what he knew, and given the behavior which he was describing.”

Concluded Robinson, “The questions we’re asking today are about a completely different set of circumstances” — which was his way of saying that the original rules toward homosexuality have changed as society’s understanding has “evolved,” and what God proscribed as sinful behavior throughout the entirety of the Old and New Testaments has now become an act that Christians must join the rest of society in accepting, embracing, and even celebrating.

While Robinson’s interpretation of Scripture has been aggressively voiced by a small core of homosexuals who call themselves Christians, their behavior continues to be condemned as sin by both Protestant and Catholic Church leaders. For example, the Catechism of the Catholic Church describes homosexual tendencies as “objectively disordered,” while homosexual acts are condemned as “contrary to the natural law” and can “under no circumstances” be approved.

One of the most vocal critics of the theology that Episcopal leaders like Robinson have embraced concerning sexuality has been Nicholas Thomas Wright, a biblical scholar and Bishop of Durham in the Church of England. Writing in the London Times, Wright noted that “Jewish, Christian, and Muslim teachers have always insisted that lifelong man-plus-woman marriage is the proper context for sexual intercourse. This is not an arbitrary rule, dualistic in overtone and killjoy in intention. It is a deep structural reflection of the belief in a creator God who has entered into covenant both with his creation and with his people.”

He added that it is “the uniform teaching of the whole Bible, of Jesus himself, and of the entire Christian tradition.”

Photo of Bishop Gene Robinson: AP Images

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (21)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Rabbi A.B.Jernigan said:

Rabbi It is so wonderful for the literalist to always be absolutely correct and never ever ever have any answer that is not a truism. They have all the laws of ancient times until today in the palm of their hand and 100% in every circmstance. I have tried to understand them unfortunately I just can't. I guess I will just have to continue believing all human kind deserves to be treated the same even the fundies and the eliteists who think they have all the answers ( even if it is so obvious they are in the weeds).

February 15, 2010

Bonnie said:

Arrogance of the sinners "It never occurred to anyone in ancient times that a certain minority of us would be born being affectionally [sic] oriented to people of the same sex." So, God, the Author of the Bible and Creator of the universe never had a clue? Give me a break! How did Gene Robinson become a bishop? He has no clue about Holy Scripture. I've studied all the reinterpretations/misinterpretations trying to justify the abomination of homosexuality. At best, they are a stretch. Robinson argued that more than anything, Paul was using the Romans 1 passage to condemn a Roman custom in which older men would take in younger boys for the purposes of sex. Robinson is reaching for something that isn't there. Robinson asserted that the “real question when you look at scripture is, ‘What did it mean to the person who wrote it?'" I think God was pretty clear about what He meant when He wrote it. It is rather presumptuous of Robinson to try to second guess God Almighty. “The questions we’re asking today are about a completely different set of circumstances”. Sorry, Robinson. It's the same set of circumstances... man is sinful and in rebellion against God.

February 15, 2010

Lee Gonzales said:

That isn't the only verse where this behavior is condemned God sent His chosen few to preach amongst sinners and to preach against sin and that includes homosexuality. God would foresee that "men of the cloth" in the 21st century would spread lies and invent theories to excuse sinful behavior. I'm sure St.Paul found excusers of sin among those whom he preached to. The world has always had and will always have the Robisons who, having no love for their fellow man, make up excuses for sinful behavior instead of confronting it and dealing with it like St. Paul advised. Saint Paul understood bad habits as well as any man. He overcame them and didn't make up excuses for them. Robinson claims that St.Paul wasn't keen on this phenomenon. If the theoretical gene is here today surely it was present during the time of St.Paul. But what does it matter? It does not change the fact that if you want to get to heaven you need to repent of your sins as Paul told the Romans.

February 16, 2010

Flu-Bird said:

Excomunication This gay bishop has no buisness in a christian church he should be excomunicated riight out

February 16, 2010

john r said:

... when will christendom finally realize that romans 1 is about the basis of all sin. they exchanged the truth of god's love(god is love) for a lie and worshipped and served powers and principalities(the created) and were given over to those things that served them(shameful lust) when one is given over to shameful lust they abandon those things of the fruit of the spirit(that support the natural).........love ,joy,peace.......to satiate the lust. there is nothing in romans that is about homosexuals. homosexuals bond out of mutual love, affection,devotion,trust, and respect for a shared committed life together. to attempt to look at romans as some form of regulation is to still have one foot in the old covenant and believe we still have a relationship to god thru regulation instead of directly to the one who lives in each believer..........the in dwelling relationship that leads us and shows us all truth.

February 16, 2010

Bonnie said:

john r, stop living in denial and face the painful truth... you are a sinner 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet. john r is denying the obvious. What is there is very explicit. Just because he doesn't WANT it to be there changes nothing. john r says Romans 1 is not some form of regulation. In that he is correct. What he fails to note, however, is that it is a statement of Divine judgement. 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. Truth? What does john r know of the truth? 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, ... Believer? john r is a believer, not of God, but of the lie. 10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be d**ned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. (2 Thess. 2)

February 16, 2010

john r said:

... all you do is flash scriptures and say it means this. how can you not be adding your own stroke when you do not honor the words. what was the lie? in what way was what and how was what worshipped and served. homosexuals have no women. they dont bond out of shameful lust. lust is as much a part of homosexuality as it is apart of heterosexuality. how can homosexuals abandon something they never had......not from there earlist sexual memory? ALL YOU ARE DOING IS ASSIGNING MEANING TO CERTAIN SCRIPTURES IN SPITE OF THEIR WORDS. this comes against christ's words about the importance of each stroke.

February 16, 2010

Bonnie said:

john r - living a lie how can homosexuals abandon something they never had......not from there earlist sexual memory? You had a choice. You turned away from making the correct one. That is abandonment. Having never made a correct choice is not an excuse. You try to twist scripture, yet you make accusations when the truth is presented to you. You dishonor (through disobedience) the Word of God, yet make accusations against the bearers of truth. You bear the spirit of hate, not of truth. What is the lie? Satan is the father of lies. One of those lies is that one can both love God and love the world. "No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other." ALL YOU ARE DOING IS ASSIGNING MEANING TO CERTAIN SCRIPTURES IN SPITE OF THEIR WORDS. Wrong! Because the Bible should be taken literally, meaning is being assigned to Scripture BECAUSE of their words.

February 16, 2010

john r said:

... Wrong! Because the Bible should be taken literally, meaning is being assigned to Scripture BECAUSE of their words. great...... then literally explain how the words of the verses say, what you say they say. here are the verses, explain away. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. 26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

February 16, 2010

Bonnie said:

Explanation, Part 1 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, They did dishonor to His glory. They misrepresent His being. "I have seen also in the prophets of Jerusalem an horrible thing: they commit adultery, and walk in lies: they strengthen also the hands of evildoers, that none doth return from his wickedness: they are all of them unto me as Sodom, and the inhabitants thereof as Gomorrah." - Jeremiah 23:14 "When I would have healed Israel, then the iniquity of Ephraim was discovered, and the wickedness of Samaria: for they commit falsehood; and the thief cometh in, and the troop of robbers spoileth without." - Hosea 7:1 "What profiteth the graven image that the maker thereof hath graven it; the molten image, and a teacher of lies, that the maker of his work trusteth therein, to make dumb idols?" - Habakkuk 2:18 and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, They disowned Him by the worship they bestowed upon the creature. This is the wickedness of the world, putting things of the earth above God. Evolution and extreme environmentalism are two obvious manifestations of this. who is blessed for ever. He (God) endures for all eternity, despite the dishonors done to (and in) His name. Amen. So be it true. For this cause Because they exchanged the truth of God for a lie. God gave them up unto vile affections: God give them up in righteous judgement. God removed the bridle of restraining grace. God left them to their own devices. for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: This is a direct and explicit reference to women engaged in lesbian behavior. It can also be applied to the use of methods to stop or control the natural (God given) reproductive cycle.

February 16, 2010

Bonnie said:

Explanation, Part 2 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, This is a direct and explicit reference to men engaged in homosexual behavior. Men are forsaking the use of a woman in the fashion designated by God (i.e., reproduction) for sexual gratification with other men. This can also be applied to men who use women for sexual gratification and try to avoid (or ignore) the reproductive purposes God intended. burned in their lust one toward another; Sex for any purpose other than reproductive is lust. This instance is specifically addressing the lust between one man and another. men with men working that which is unseemly, Men doing with men that which is not according to God's standard of good taste. and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet. They (homosexuals) will receive back to themselves the just penalty for their misdeeds.

February 16, 2010

Thomas said:

Utter nonsense Is Robinson a theologian? No. If not for his homosexuality, nobody would pay attention to him. "The notion of homosexual orientation is only about 125 years old." Nonsense. Paul lived and moved in the Greek and Roman worlds and would have been very familiar with those who preferred homosexuality over heterosexuality. "Society's understanding has 'evolved'." Nonsense. Look at the mess we are in: abortion as birth control, hooking up, anonymous bathroom sex, etc. Society's understanding has devolved not evolved.

February 16, 2010

john r said:

... To make the case that this about homosexuals requires that all homosexual relationships are about lust. To make the case that homosexual relationships are given to powers and principalities, would require a diminishment or non existence of the fruit of the spirit of Christ in their relationships. There is no truth in that. If you were to say that homosexuality of itself was about vile passions then no homosexual bonding could be of the fruit of the spirit of christ. But the truth is that the marriages and lives of believing homosexual couples are filled with fruit of the spirit in the same way as those of believing heterosexuals. there is no evidence of any vile spirit, meaning any spirit that is against Christ. This is evidence detected by a 1john1 witness……………….”that which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life.”……………thru the grace and witness of the spirit that lives in each believer. If you are speaking solely out of belief system, that is without witness. Then you are speaking from an unsubstantiated belief Christ called us to a witness when he said you will recognize them by their fruit ………the fruit of the spirit that is in their lives.gal5

February 16, 2010

john r said:

... nkj and American standard use creature, niv , the created. In both cases what was worshipped and served was created and its nature was not of Christ(against Christ), therefore its fruit was not of the fruit of christ’s spirit. Therefore the worshippers were given over to those fruits of the created that served the created. nkj and niv specifically denote lust. Where there is lust there is obsession with sexual pleasure. All relationships are first and foremost to satiating the lust, at the transposition of the things of Christ. If a relationship is given to powers and principalities then the fruit of Christ in that relationship becomes diminished or even non existent. Lust can be found among heterosexuals as well as homosexuals. But in human bonding both orientations bond out love, respect, devotion, affection, and trust for a shared life together.

February 16, 2010

john r said:

... Some scriptures use the word “leaving” others “abandon” to leave a place you have to first be there. To abandon something you have to first have had it or embraced it. Homosexuals have never been in a place of wanting or desiring to bond with the opposite sex……..not even before their first sexual memory, but instead have from that first memory wanted to bond with someone of the same sex, 24/7, their entire lives. How can they be credited with leaving a place they were never at. How can they be credited with abandoning something they never embraced, but rather were repelled by their entire lives. How can there any of the 2nd commandment (loving your neighbor as yourself) in finger pointing at a person for not embracing something that he has been repelled by and condemning him for doing something that he was attracted to, 24/7, his entire life, when in embracing that bonding, he in essence of spirit is doing the same things that heterosexuals do when they bond………………………………………bondin g out of mutual love, affection, devotion, respect, and trust for a shared committed life together.

February 16, 2010

john r said:

... natural relations are relations that engender and are supported by the fruit of the spirit. Love, joy,peace kindness, patience, gentleness, self-control, faithfulness,and goodness. How can bonding with someone who repels them do this. How can not supporting someone bonding with another that engenders the fruit of the spirit be considered good and of Christ. How can trumping the love devotion and commitment between 2 people, out of concerms of gender or the way they express their sexual intimacy be of Christ. Homosexuals who have come out of the closet, experience a renewed sense of self worth, because they no longer are living a lie. Gay pride is about owning who one is and experiencing a new sense of self worth. Married homosexuals find that their marital relationships are self affirming. What part of any of this is not of Christ. And you would denigrate all this out of regulation, when under the new covenant we no longer have a relationship to god thru regulation but directly to the one who lives in each believer. Under the new covenant the only regulation is that law which makes us conscious of not loving our neighbor as ourselves, apart from all that deals with that, there is no regulation. Instead “all things are permissible but not all things are constructive

February 16, 2010

Bonnie said:

The ravings of a frightened sinner answered "To make the case that this about homosexuals requires that all homosexual relationships are about lust." - Yes, that pretty well sums it up "1john1" - It would do you well to read the ENTIRE chapter, like v.6 where it says "If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:" "If you are speaking solely out of belief system," - I prefer to let the Bible do the speaking "recognize them by their fruit" - And your fruit has been rotting since the Fall "Lust can be found among heterosexuals as well as homosexuals." - True, and gives neither one an excuse "To abandon something you have to first have had it or embraced it." - faulty logic and we've been down this road before "finger pointing" - No, just telling you what God says "fruit of the spirit" - You have not the fruit of the spirit but the works of the flesh "no longer are living a lie" - That is an even bigger lie "Gay pride" - Pride cometh before the fall. Ask Satan. "all things are permissible but not all things are constructive" - You confuse liberty with license

February 16, 2010

Elmer said:

HEY! johnny boy I can tell you are a person who is not at peace, either with God or yourself. You know how I can tell? Because if you were at peace you wouldn't feel the need to try to justify your sorry sick life. Articles like this would not bother you. Instead it makes you feel dirty and guilty and you try to make it all go away.

February 16, 2010

john r said:

... "If you are speaking solely out of belief system," - I prefer to let the Bible do the speaking everything written requires interpretation, like it or not yours is not the only interpretation. and like it or not it is your belief system that says your interpretation is the only true interpretation. it is interesting that you are unable to express your understanding in terms of the fruit of the spirit. is it your understanding that the fruit of the spirit is different from the fruit of the spirit of power and principalities? is it your understanding homosexuality comes against the fruit of the spirit from your witness or because your interpretation says it is so? 1thess 5:21 test everything , keep the good. you have given no witness whatsoever. am i to assume you have never substantiated any of your beliefs with any witness. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. which would mean that clinging to the wrong interpretation of scripture gives no excuse, regardless of who promotes it. are you aware that your belief that we have a relationship to god thru regulation like in deut 28 is an old covenant understanding, rather than directly to the one who lives in each believer.

February 16, 2010

john r said:

... elmer part of calling homosexuality a sin is believers creditING themselves with knowing the thoughts and feelings of homosexuaLS.

February 17, 2010

Linda said:

... elmer part of calling homosexuality a sin is believers creditING themselves with knowing the thoughts and feelings of homosexuaLS. john r, this is fresh...I thought you and your likes were hetro's equals. So are you saying your thoughts and feelings are different? I guess Elmer touched a nerve?

February 20, 2010