Gene Robinson: Gay Bishop Giving Obama Inauguration Prayer

New Hampshire Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson, a vocal gay rights leader, will open President-elect Barack Obama's inauguration with a prayer on Sunday's kick-off event at the Lincoln Memorial.

"I am writing to tell you that President-Elect Obama and the Inaugural Committee have invited me to give the invocation at the opening event of the Inaugural Week activities, We are One, to be held at the Lincoln Memorial," Robinson wrote in an email to friends.

The announcement comes after weeks of outcry from the gay community over Obama's choice of evangelical, anti-gay pastor Rick Warren to deliver the inaugural invocation.

"It's important for any minority to see themselves represented in some way," Robinson said in an interview with the Concord Monitor. "Whether it be a racial minority, an ethnic minority or, in our case, a sexual minority. Just seeing someone like you up front matters."

Robinson is the first openly gay diocesan bishop in the Anglican Communion. "God never gets it wrong. The church often takes a long time to get it right. It is a human institution, but one capable of self-correction," Robinson told the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. "I believe in my heart that the church got it wrong about homosexuality. There is great excitement in my heart to be living in a time when the church is starting to get it right."

Robinson said he would love to sit down with Rick Warren but believed that the California pastor has "perpetrated lies about the gay, lesbian and bisexual community."

Comments

[daovdd]

Too bad the Obama transition team cut the feed so the gay man was not seen by the U.S. public.

[ErrolSmythe]

ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE A BISHOP IS A HUSBAND OF ONE WIFE .

According to the Bible , if you have no wife .....if you are not marries to a woman....a wife......you cannot be a Bishop.

[ErrolSmythe]

The Bible qualifications for a Bishop 1 Timothy 3 verse 1 to 11 :-

"........This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.
10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.
11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.
the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ by immersion the Bible way Bishop on fire for the Word of God ...."

[ErrolSmythe]

It is an abomination for a sinner committing abominable acts to pray for anyone.

A shame. A great shame in the pages of history. This wolf pretender in sheeps clothing should look at his filthy way of life and repent of his wicked ways.

History has been tarnished by his so calleed prayer. God does not hear sinners. (John 9 verse 31 ).

What fellowsship hath light with darkness ?

[TiredandPragmatic]

Please, please stop.

Why?

"Love is patient, love is kind.
It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.
It is not rude, it is not self-seeking,
It is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.
Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.
It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always preserves."
1 Corinthians 13:4-7

You are being impatient, you are not being kind (by pointing out someone else's sins instead of focusing on your own - Matthew 7:3) , you are boasting of your own righteousness, you are being incredibly prideful, you are being rude, self-seeking (seeking the attention from these three posts you have made), you are acting as if you are easily angered, and you are quite literally keeping a record of wrongs. Instead, why don't you be more protective of your words, trust the Lord, hope for goodness, and preserve the peace? Show some love.

[ErrolSmythe]

John 9 verse 31 says: - "..... Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth...."

Leviticus 18 verse 22 says :- "....Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination....".

[ErrolSmythe]

A shameful day for America. The so called Bishop ain't no Bishop just like a wolve in sheeps clothing ain't no sheep .
He needs to repent and turn away from his filthy ways and sit in the pew and not styand in the pulpit.The pretending clergymen should put on sackcloth and Repent or perish.

[druidmary]

How about HBO not showing the opening ceremonies with Gene Robinson's invocation. HBO shame on you...

Here is the link to the speech:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles_of_faith/2009/01/bless_us_with_a.html


here is the link to HBO if you want to tell them what you think..

we are all disappointed...all the network stations as a matter of fact.


they give Rick Warren all this attention...can anyone tell me any network channel that even mentioned gene robinson today..probably not....homophobia riegns high..STILL...

big disappointment that Gene Robinson was even an after thought.

If you have any info on media coverage of Gene Robinson today, please surprise me:

support@hi­llaryisour­choice.com

[hunnybunny]

I've now watched this event twice, waiting to hear the invocation from Bishop Robinson. I'm so disappointed that HBO chose to not broadcast the prayer. So frustrating and biased. Rick Warren, who recently called for christians to rise up like the Nazi's as soldiers for Christ, will have the national spotlight and Bishop Robinson, who teaches tolerance, Godly patience and prayer, has been excluded. Boston.com has the text from Bishop Robinson.

[NoAck]

I have a question....Why is it that if a Christian doesn't support (meaning encourage) gay activities­/lifestyle­, then they are called a bigot. There is a BIG difference between having a belief system, being predjudice, or a bigot. Just because homosexuallity is so "excepted" and out-in-the-open now a days, doesn't mean that everyone who believes that homosexuality is a sin should just denounce there believes and automatically be as comfortable with homosexuality as those who have "come out".....and another question..­....Bishop Robinson says that he won't be praying to God or any other "higher power" because it is a prayer for the people. What is he praying to then, the wind? He is a Bishop, but where is his conviction? I just don't see the point of his prayer if he isn't actually praying to anything.

[rtherertnow]

its true that there is not a point to pray to nothing so it seems as though he is discovering the idea that this is not a christian nation and we should not pray to a god that is not recognized by the whole of the states. instead he is allowing the nation to put their hopes out into the world...as sort of a good vibes start to a new dawn.

[NoAck]

so he's worshiping the world?.......i see what your saying, he wants it to be a prayer for everyone religious or not, but as a bishop, someone who is supposed to he a leader and example to his religious community, he isn't showing much conviction in what he believes in which as the bible clearly states "being in the world, but not of the world". I would say that praying to the world is definitely being of the world......i guess im just kinda thrown off by whats going on with the episcopalian denomination in general.

[Principaldad]

Bishop Robinson has not said that he won't be praying to God. He has stated that he will be leading a prayer such that each person will invoke the God of their own understandings. The prayer will be to the God that they hold in their hearts. This means that a Christian will be praying in the name of Christ. A Jew will be praying to their one true God as will the Muslims. For athiests, I suppose it would be an expression of hope. For the Bishop himself, it will be a prayer in the name of Christ.

[southwindow]

you mean:
being "prejudiced"
and "accepted"
get a dictionary. and stop being a bigot.

[theconservativemyth]

Noack, no one says you have to "encourage" homosexuals any more than they have to "encourage" your beliefs, and many certainly wouldn't. You are tolerated/protected in the the US by the Bill of Rights and Constitutions simply for what you believe, no matter how ridiculous or bizarre that may be. You are not born "religious", it is not genetic, you adopt religious belief and behavior and expect everyone else to respect and accept that. Right? So why is it so hard for people of your persuasion to give the same respect and acceptance to someone else who is born with a different sexuality to yours? A different color - skin, hair or eyes? They have just much right to freedom and justice and the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, not to mention equal treatment under the law.

Why is this so hard for someone who claims to be a follower of the God of Love and Prince of Peace? Jesus never said anything about homosexuality, and I don't accept any other "prophet" in the Bible that says anything any different from what Jesus taught. I'm not a follower of Moses or Paul etc. (And the Old Testament is just that, the Old Testament. It is not a Christian book). You are just called to love your neighbor - period - and not to judge. So many claiming to be Christians (like W) yet so few who act like one. They'll know you're my disciples by your

[GreenmanTN]

Well if you want to get right down to the nitty-gritty it's because, yet again, Christians are refusing to deal with reality. Homosexuality is part of the human condition, not some branch of the alleged "sexual revolution" of the 60s and 70s. There has never been a human civilization without it. It PREDATES all religion and it's time we stopped pretending it's controversial. It isn't. And being gay isn't a "lifestyle." I take care of an ailing parent. I am no more or less than you are, no better or no worse. Being gay is inborn, not a choice. Period. What we DO know is that it has always existed. It's time to deal with it as a fact of life. If you are Biblically inclined, just as soon as you start stoning adulterers and disrespectful children, stop eating shellfish (including shrimp), and condoning slavery you have the right to judge gay people, but not a moment before. Stop using the Bible as an excuse for your prejudice against gay people. Does Leviticus single us out? There's some argument there, but on the surface YES it does. The Bible also says women should be silent in church and adulterers should be stoned to death. It also doesn't condemn slavery, in fact it treats it as a matter of course, so don't go quoting the Bible as a moral arbiter on any issues until you embrace them all.

[ChristLives2009]

You can try to tell yourself that homosexuality is part of the human condition, and in that point you are correct. Sin is inherently in the human condition without God. So where do you draw the line? You are forcing people to accept what you do behind closed doors, and immediately call Christians bigots. You chose to be defined entirely by your sexuality, which in and of itself seems simply selfish.

I don't expect to change your mind, I can only hope that another believer reads this, and takes heart in the truth. What sin do are you going to tell me I have to accept next? Then you have the gall to use merely a part of scripture to prove in your eyes how the bible is wrong. Read the whole passage, yes the did stone people in the Old Testament yet in the New Testament Jesus Christ himself said, 'unless you are without sin cast the first stone'. Please read the bible in its entirety, don't just use part of a passage. That's ignorance, which only cements the fact that your conscience is telling you what you do is wrong.

I'm not prejudice against gay people, I'm prejudice against sin. If homosexuality was in ANY way natural, then gay couples could conceive children. It is IMPOSSIBLE from a scientific standpoint to say that being gay is natural. If it was, the human race would have died out many many generations ago.

[AbsolutDemocrat]

I am excited and relieved to see Bishop Robinson has been included in the program, both as a liberal Democrat and an Episcopalian. As a gay supporter of Obama, I felt that the Warren choice was already throwing us under the bus. I had made my peace with it after reading Melissa Etheridge's post on the matter here on the Huffington Post (I still think Warren is a polarizing, ill-informed bigot though). Now I feel that everyone has been included. However, if the transition team wants to play it off like they planned this all along, I don't buy it for a second. I believe that the vocal response from the LGBT community made an impact, and the transition responded. Personally, I can now comfortably enjoy the inauguration and all the festivities.

[Vern58]

As an openly Gay man and a devout Episcopalian, it is indeed good news to see the President has chosen one of the guiding lights of my life to give the very first prayer in the festivities. However it does not assuage the feelings i get when i think of Rick Warren. It galls my soul to think of having to witness this bigot giving any prayer of any sort. But, His Grace being set to give the religious kick off as it were, shows me that my faith in Barack Obama may not be misplaced.

[StevenKeirstead]

Now can we also get a secular solemnization from Greg Epstein, the Humanist Chaplain from Harvard for us agnostics and atheists?

[Gary Wilane]

If men have sex with other men why can't men have sex with boys & girls and animals and anyone they want? Since no one is being harmed. can't we all just have fun and quit worrying? Who cares about god? If he doesnt exists we can do what we want and it is criminal to stop us!

[JayZed]

Ok, this is my question. Is there any RATIONAL reason why two people of the same-sex should not be allowed to have a civil marriage (i.e. non-religious) conducted by a Justice of the Peace (or other public official)? If there is no RATIONAL reason then what is all the fuss about? Simply let people enter into same-sex marriages in the same way as heterosexuals with no religious affiliations can freely enter into civil marriages. (Under the separation­-of-church­-and-state principle the state would have to let religions decide for themselves whether to allow their clergy to marry same-sex couples.)

[southwindow]

faith is the absence of reason, and we are a nation of faith.

[CK4NYSenate]

Has anyone entertained the thought that perhaps this is Obama's inauguration? To paraphrase Bob Marley- you can please some people sometime, but you can't please all the people all the time. In the end, it is still Obama's party, and he will have the people there whom he wants there, when he wants them there. We are invited guests- we can savor the historic moment or we can continue bickering and ignore the fact that we finally have a president willing to listen.

This thread has some of the most bigoted and ignorant posts from both sides. I am a Chri.stian who believes in a literal translation of the bible, and it clearly says "Judge not lest thou be judged." It is not my call to say whether or not one is born gay, just as I don't expect a homosexual individual to decide whether or not I was born straight. My daughter has classmates who have two moms. For her it is a matter of fact. For them it is a matter of fact that my child goes to church. My beliefs should have no bearing on how you live your life, and neither should your beliefs affect how I live my life. The common goal is equal rights, and Dr King's dream is being realized as we speak. It's called "Divide and conquer." We can't turn back the clock with our constant bickering and our "Chri.stians this" and our "g.ays that."

Peace.

[kcinci]

For all of those who've said "Gee, HRC wouldn't be treating the LGBT this way" I just heard her flat out cave on guaranteeing equal benefits to her own employees in the state dept.

She said she'd seen some reports that other countries are doing something like that but she'd review some things "and get back to you". Same as she's always been with the LGBT.

[kcinci]

Sorry forgot to provide context... during her confirmation hearing... watched on MSNBC at about 3:45 PM

[oldbrit]

They aren't her employees. They are government employees and the federal government does not provide equal benefits for the families of gay and lesbian federal employees.

She was saying that she didn't know if she had the discretion to do so and that she would look into it.

She supports legislation to secure equal benefits for gay and lesbian federal employees and provided equal benefits to her campaign workers.

[southwindow]

it is depressing either way.

[kcinci]

She was asked if she Supported equal benefits for state department employees. Period. It may not be within her purview to authorize it... I don't know. But she will be head of the department. But the question, again, was did she support it. She equivocated and gave no answer. Yes or No was then answer being sought.

As for what she did for her Campaign workers, well, isn't that special. We see her real intentions now that she's no longer a candidate.

[oldbrit]

I said I'd sleep on it and I have. Instead of protesting Obama's inauguration, I will limit my DC protest to Rick Warren. Don't whether my husband or grandchildren will do the same.

I'd like Warren removed from the program and an apology from Obama -- that ain't gonna happen because politically it would only make matters worse.

Inviting Bishop Robinson to invocate at the Lincoln Memorial doesn't make up for Warren, but it is inspired.

I hope I know what happened:

Obama invited Warren and was prepared for opposition from those of us who stand against Warren's political activism.

Obama didn't expect the firestorm of hateful and hurtful vitriol directed at gays.

So, Obama invited Bishop Robinson to give the invocation at the Lincoln Memorial. For those who don't know, the Lincoln Memorial is the traditional place where oppressed Americans stand up for themselves with their allies. When the DAR denied Marion Anderson the use of Constitution Hall because she was black, she held her concert at the Lincoln Memorial and opened by singing "America the Beautiful." Martin Luther King delivered his "I Have a Dream" speech from the same spot.

Having Bishop Robinson - an oppressed gay man - give the invocation at the Lincoln Memorial sends a powerful message that gays are now struggling for civil rights just as other groups have struggled for their rights in the past.

I hope this is Obama's game, but I'm still listening for the other shoe to drop.

[sherbug]

Oh good, we were worried that you would protest.

[oldbrit]

Whatever.

[kcinci]

Page1: Oldbrit: I certainly understand that none of us in the socially progressive side of politics and activism like Rick Warren or respect his closed-minded point of view. He's an absolutist. He doesn't have to own his opinions because his book said so. I also know his views on anything related to homosexuality absolutely representative of mainstream evangelicalism and most "versions" and denominations of the Abrahamic faiths of a near majority of Americans. At the same time that O. picked him to give the invocation he also picked a renowned advocate for civil rights who is also a christian minister, the Rev. Dr. Joe Lowery, who, while experiences culture shock in sharing the word married with same-sex couples is absolutely supportive of all rights, benefits and privileges given married couples be given to same-sex couples seeking to be legally joined. Those who've chosen to eviscerate Obama over this seem to believe that he was elected as their president only. O has promised since before his election that he would be the president of all Americans. He spoke of his capacity to bring persons together of extremely divergent ideologies to the table and find the common ground while disagreeing adamantly with opposing points of view.

[oldbrit]

You have it backwards. I expect Obama to be the president of all Americans.

I chose to eviscerate Obama because honoring Warren at the inauguration means that Obama is not the president of all Americans.

Warren is a political activist against civil rights for all people. Giving an anti-civil rights activist a position of honor at the inauguration is totally different from reaching out to those with whom we disagree in a spirit of unity. Reach out. Talk, Find common ground. But, that is different from honoring an anti-civil rights activist on a day that should be a celebration for all of us.

It isn't about balance. If Obama had intended to balance Rev. Lowery, he would have picked a minister from a white supremacist church.

[kcinci]

Page2: His selection exemplifies this. We are well within our rights to voice our differences and hold Warren to account for his public voice that denigrates a whole class of people. Warren has chosen to accept this invitation in the spotlight and now gets to own his words, and his denials (aka lies) in a very bright public light. But through O's choices we have been given the opportunity to raise the profile of our struggle for equality in a very public way. From Day 1, Minute 1 of the new administration the struggle for equality is center stage. And I believe it's been by design. A brilliant one at that. Robinson, IMHO, is gravy.

[oldbrit]

What it did is increase Warren's prestige and power so that he can more effectively travel from state-to-state promoting laws and constitutional amendments that deny equal rights to all people.

Obama added Robinson when the political heat was more than he could stand. When gays (and their allies like me) spoke up here in opposition to Warren, we were viciously attacked for daring to criticize Mr. Obama. Some of the things said about gays here are normally only heard by gay people just before they are beaten to death with a baseball bat.

Obama has kicked gays around before. Check out Donny McClurkin and Obama's "close spiritual adviser," James Meeks. The difference is that when Obama did it this time, the outcry was loud enough that the political cost of ignoring it was greater than putting a band-aid on it.

[kcinci]

Page3: The vitriol I've seen here, however, from so many in this very small representation of the LGBTQI and progressive communities is as ugly as anything I've ever seen from Warren (Sonova Evangelical here - followed mainstream evangelicalism all of my adult life). I hate his theology and the thought he actually believes it makes me want to vomit. But it's irrelevant. He doesn't define me. I do. His beliefs do not affect me. And his theological argument is irrelevant in our struggle for legal civil equality. In the long run he won't decide it nor will his followers or the millions upon millions of Americans who agree with him. Our struggles will continue to reach our courts and legislatures and eventually be adjudicated by the equal protection clause and other precedent all ready established in the application of our United States constitution. We can't debate them in their house (their churches) and we wont change their mind. But I'm confident when the merits of our struggle finally reach The Nine (tm) their theological arguments cannot stand.

Ignore Warren, I sure will (go pee get a cocktail) and be back in time for Aretha!

Peace

[oldbrit]

I have been completely consistent: I will protect Warren's right to his religious beliefs and his right to practice and promote in his role as a minister. Whether I agree with his theology or not has no impact on his right to practice it.

I (and I think most here who object to Warren) object to his political activism against equal rights for all, the damage he has done to the containment of AIDS in Africa, and many other political contexts.

As an aside:

I'm a lifelong Episcopalian. I respect Warren's right to worship as he chooses. He doesn't respect my right to worship as I choose.

He is not an Episcopalian, but he is stoking the fires of dissent and taking sided in theological debates within the Episcopal Church USA and the world-wide Anglican Communion, of which ECUSA is a part.

As I said in my post, I hope that Obama has woken up rather than simply bowing to political pressure by inviting Bishop Robinson to the Lincoln Memorial. It's a good sign that Obama did this, but only time will tell whether it is anymore than a slick political maneuver.

[lastar84]

"The vitriol I've seen here, however, from so many in this very small representation of the LGBTQI and progressive communities is as ugly as anything I've ever seen from Warren..."

Au contraire! I haven't discovered a single act committed by the lesbians, gays, and progressives in these pages with the intention of removing basic human rights from evangelicals, fundamentalists, or any other sky god worshipers. What Warren did was just that -- depriving others of basic human rights.

Contemptuous and outraged comments have no effect whatsoever on the freedom of straight Christians to go on living. There's a huge difference between nasty comments and employing the power of the government to screw somebody out of their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

With regard to Warren and his ilk, some of us consider any attempt to limit our liberty as a full-on attack, and at a certain point, Patrick Henry's vigilant words come to mind: "Give me liberty or give me death." He might as well aim a gun at us. We're not going to run away with a whimper.

[kcinci]

A Repost of Part III: .......The vitriol I've seen here, however, from so many in this very small representation of the LGBTQI and progressive communities is as ugly as anything I've ever seen from Warren (Sonova Evangelical here - followed mainstream evangelicalism all of my adult life). I hate his theology and the thought he actually believes it makes me want to vomit. But it's irrelevant. He doesn't define me. I do. His beliefs do not affect me. And his theological argument is irrelevant in our struggle for legal civil equality. In the long run he won't decide it nor will his followers or the millions upon millions of Americans who agree with him. Our struggles will continue to reach our courts and legislatures and eventually be adjudicated by the equal protection clause and other precedent all ready established in the application of our United States constitution. We can't debate them in their house (their churches) and we wont change their mind. But I'm confident when the merits of our struggle finally reach The Nine (tm) their theological arguments cannot stand.

Ignore Warren, I sure will (go pee get a cocktail) and be back in time for Aretha!

Peace