I'm not Episcopalian, and I really don't have much to say about their new gay bishop. I do want to point out, however, that many of Rev. V. Gene Robinson statements illustrate that his top priority isn't glorifying God or edifying the church, but advancing his own particular agenda.
The Episcopal Church's first openly gay bishop told Fox News Wednesday that he hoped the church would be strengthened by his confirmation, not split in two. ...For Robinson, the whole matter seems to revolve around him and what he wants, rather than around what the Bible teaches or what is best for the church. His attitude does not reflect the character attributes that I would desire for someone in spiritual leadership over me.Robinson told Fox News Wednesday morning: "I don't want those people to leave. I've done everything I can to reach out to them ... letting them know I want them to be a part of my church."
he's not the only one to put it like that, and it certainly wouldn't surprise me to see a pastor more interested in his own agenda than in God's.
granted, we're only human, but if there is a God, I'd think it would be His church, His rules to make.
and who said the rule of religion was inclusiveness? i'm pretty sure that hinduism isn't inclusive of me and my lifestyle. i wouldn't ask them to change for me, though.
Right, that's the point. God accepts everyone just as they are, but he loves us too much to let us stay that way. God doesn't change to accept us, he changes us to make us acceptable to him.
I don't think your original comments are reasonable, even based on that FOX News article, Michael. To quote:
"I really hope and pray every day that no one will leave over this," Robinson told Fox News in an interview. "I believe that we can find our unity in Jesus Christ and work these things out."
That, at least, sounds to me like he wants what's best for the Church. You seem to be inferring an awful lot about his motives from a couple of quotations, and the paragraphs you do quote don't support your conclusions. I mean, "...he hoped the church would be strengthened by his confirmation" sure sounds like "what's best for the church", doesn't it?
No matter how you look at the quotes, it should be pretty obvious to him and any observer that his actions were not, in fact, unifying or strengthening his church.
He says he hopes no one leaves over it, but that illustrates that his primary concern isn't that people might leave, but rather that he get his way. He doesn't want them to leave, perhaps, but it's more important that he be elected bishop. &c.
I still think that your claims about his motives are too unsubstantiated. It's possible that he's got good intentions (e.g., maybe he wants the Church to be more understanding of gays), and is willing to have the Church suffer a short-term loss (internal friction), for the sake of a long-term gain (greater understanding and acceptance of all peoples)... as are any number of other scenarios. Basically I think you're reading way too much into his beliefs and intentions based on a couple of quotes in a single article from a single source.
Whoops, that last one was me. Not sure why it didn't put my info in.