The most interesting anecdote was the story of the would be schismatics who demanded and demanded and demanded that the Bishop of Albany be the one to provide DEPO. And when they were offered Albany, they rejected it.

So, turns out the supposed persecution of the pretendy orthodox is so mush bilge after all.

"I believe the suggestion was that you can pay $5 and have a kiss from Bishop Robinson or $10 not to."

LOL! [No, the ability to laugh at one's self is not an *infallible* sign of the presence of the Holy Spirit---but it's pretty close. ;-)]

Beautiful, Godly man---with a beautiful, Godly *family*. Alleluia!

Yes, this lighter touch - a kissing booth at Lambeth staffed by the only honestly gay Anglican bishop - may be part of just what this next Lambeth needs to get over its holy, long-nosed, pinched-face, vestment-clad, isolated and proud of being isolated, self.

The God Jesus points out for us - incarnates for us - is inevitably that creator who made Homo Ludens.

+Gene says:

"...one of the things I’ve learned — and I’ve learned this from the most conservative people in our House of Bishops — is that they perceive that the fuller inclusion of gay and lesbian people in the Church is the precursor, the sort of camel’s nose under the tent, to the deconstruction of other essentials, whether that be the divinity of Christ, or the Trinity, or the resurrection. That could not be further from the truth about me."

Y'know, I rather wish +Gene would go all out and publish articles outlining his faith in just that way. A real all-out defense of orthodoxy in, say, the Eucharist or the divinity of Jesus. I think that would go a long way to defusing much of the criticism.

He also says:

"I also think it’s safe to say that there has been a widening gulf forming for some number of years. [...] In an odd sort of way, certainly for the American Church, this was a division looking for an issue. [...] In some way, I think my election and consecration gave this growing rift an issue around which to rally."

Which I think is true. But a vigorous defense of orthodox theology from the first openly gay bishop would answer that challenge. It certainly would change the nature of the debate.

"But a vigorous defense of orthodox theology from the first openly gay bishop would answer that challenge."

Amen!!! This refers back to what I mentioned on another thread, and what has been an issue for me for the beginning: the extreme reluctance of clergy to actually argue outside the box, so to speak. It is the world that gives us ideas of human rights and ways to identify oppression in our lives so that we can then oppose it. It is the world that tells us that affirmation of our politics, our sexuality, our relationships, our own beliefs are paramount. Both sides are guilty of approaching this with a worldly mind. Just because the right can quote Scripture to back up their bigotry doesn't mean they are any more free of the world than the liberals. Untiol liberals can come up with a theology of sexuality that does not link it to the pagan concept of the special status of procreative sex, unless it can articulate a theology of humanity, it will alwyas be powerless before the Right's accusations of faithlessness. Now, I know there are some very orthodox (horrid word!) liberals. I know there are some very orthodox non-liberals who are not in the GAFCON camp. Bp. V. Matthews is one. Why then are they so reluctant to publically defend their theology? Frankly, after all the stale gas of condemnation, guilt, and self loathing the Right is trying to force on everybody, a clear public statement of the Gospel's call to fullness in God would be a breath of fresh air. There's so much that is heterodox that is being held up as "orthodox", that needs to be countered, not just on this issue.