Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly . EXCLUSIVE . Bishop V. Gene Robinson . June 6, 2006

Read RELIGION & ETHICS NEWSWEEKLY managing editor Kim Lawton's June 3, 2006 interview with Bishop V. Gene Robinson of the Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire:

Q: How crucial is this General Convention? What's at stake for the future of the church?

Photo of Bishop V. Gene Robinson

A: It's a very important General Convention. I think all of them are. I would say it's more important for different reasons than other people would. I think the big focus certainly is going to be on what the Episcopal Church will do in terms of its response to the Windsor Report, which was sort of the Anglican Communion's response to the votes taken at the 2003 General Convention. I actually think that the issue of our adopting the United Nations Millennium Development Goals is the most important thing that can happen at convention, because I think God would have us be out taking care of the poor and the marginalized in the world and would actually be quite sad to see us obsessing over sex. So I'm really hoping that the important thing will be our care of the world, although it's certainly an important thing -- how we respond to the Anglican Communion.

Q: The Windsor Report called on the U.S. church to express regret for what happened. The U.S. bishops have issued a statement. In your view, was that enough? Are further expressions necessary? Some say stronger statements and action are still needed.

Photo of Bishop V. Gene Robinson

A: Time will tell what will be enough. Indeed, the House of Bishops and I believe the entire General Convention in Columbus will express its regret for whatever ways in which we were insensitive to the worldwide opinion about what we were about to do and for the pain that that has caused. No one takes any joy in that. I think there are some in the Communion who would want the Episcopal Church to repent of what it did, namely consenting to my election as the bishop of New Hampshire. I don't believe that the General Convention will do that. I think it's important to say that we went about that decision very carefully and very prayerfully and thoughtfully, and one can't be sorry for following what one discerns to be God's will for us at any given time. Are we sorry that it's caused pain and disruption? Absolutely. I still worry about that every day. At the same time, sometimes God calls us to places that are going to be controversial.

Q: What do you think the strongest critics are looking for?

A: Only the critics can tell us what will satisfy them. And, you know, I think what's being decided here -- this is what I think is the most crucial thing for us right now -- is not whether or not we come to some kind of common agreement on homosexuality. We're going to be trying to understand that and work our way through that issue for many years to come. I won't live to see the end of it. I mean, after all, we dealt with race relations in the '60s; we still have plenty of racism around. We dealt with antiwomen sentiment at the ordination of women; there's still a lot of sexism around. So I don't expect to see the end of this. The question before the Episcopal Church and before the Anglican Communion is, can we stay at the table, the Lord's table, while we fight about this? You know, one of the great gifts that the Anglican Church has to offer the world is that it has been our tradition for 400 years to be able to gather around the Lord's table, to take the body and blood of Christ as humbly and thoughtfully and prayerfully as we could, and then we go back to the pews and fight about all kinds of things. And what I fear is being asked of us right now is that grounds are being laid for saying, well, if you don't agree with us about this, then we can't share that table. And I think that breaks God's heart, and I think it's against 400 years of the Anglican Church's tradition.

Q: But how do you balance -- how should the U.S. church balance -- moving forward with what you believe God is calling you to do and being concerned about the pain and anger you know that is causing your brothers and sisters, fellow members of the Communion? The church also talks about "mutual submission." How do you balance that?

Photo of Bishop V. Gene Robinson

A: Well, finding a balance is difficult. We are 38 autonomous provinces of the Anglican Church, and so we have to find our way. The question is, can we do that in a way that communicates respect for our brothers and sisters around the world and does not require something of them that they can't be a part of? I think it's very important here, there have been charges leveled against us of a kind of an ecclesiastical colonialism. But, you see, no one is asking any other province of the Anglican Communion to raise up gay and lesbian people and ordain them as priests, much less ordain them as bishops. No one is asking any other part of the Anglican Communion to do that. We're only saying this is right for us; this is where God is leading us at this particular time in our context, and can't we all stay at the same Anglican table while you do what is right for your context and we do what is right for ours? That seems to be the best way to move forward. It's a kind of parallel integrity, if you will -- that we're not agreeing about everything, but we're agreeing to stay in fellowship with one another while we have disagreements about this.

Q: Speaking of parallel arrangements, what do you think about the idea some people have suggested about some kind of parallel track for people here in the U.S. who are unhappy, who don't want to be part of this direction that the U.S. Episcopal Church is taking, who want to figure out a way that they can separate from the U.S. Episcopal Church but still somehow maintain their relationship with the rest of the worldwide Anglican Communion?

A: I don't see any reason why we need that. We have this great tradition, which is a large, roomy umbrella under which all of these views can coexist. In fact, they have coexisted for a very, very long time. If, on the other hand, someone is going to do Scripture in a way that is completely against our Anglican Communion tradition, then one wonders whether or not it's Anglican at all. Those who would argue for Scripture being the kind of sole authority -- that's completely against our 400 years of tradition. We have never been -- it's called "sola scriptura." It means only Scripture is our basis for authority. And, in fact, for 400 years we have had not just Scripture, though Scripture is first; but then tradition, and then one's own experience, and reason to balance all of that out. And it's that lived experience that has made us change our minds on remarriage of divorced people, [on] slavery, for instance, which was fully justified by Scripture until we came to a different place on that, and certainly the role of women in our churches. We have made some serious changes based on what I believe the Holy Spirit has led us to in our current times.

Q: Do you think it is approaching a point where the views are so different that it's in fact not the same church or the same faith anymore?

A: Time will tell. I believe that we can still be reconciled, that we can all exist under the same Anglican Church here in this country, and I will fight for that, I will work for it, I will pray for it every day. There are those who will say that we now have irreconcilable differences. I think that's a faithless term. I mean, nothing is ever irreconcilable. It's only irreconcilable if someone decides it is, and I choose to stay in this church. I hope and pray everyone else will choose to stay in this church.

Q: One of the other things the General Convention will debate is a moratorium on further ordinations of partnered gay bishops. What do you think about a moratorium? Should there be a temporary one while people sort this out, or should that be lifted now?

Photo of Bishop V. Gene Robinson

A: I very much supported, in fact helped shape, the moratorium that we adopted as a House of Bishops. And of course, the Episcopal Church can only speak when all orders of ministry, laity and clergy and bishops, decide at the General Convention. But I would oppose any further moratorium. I do support the notion that we should exercise very considerable caution -- that's the phrase that's been used by the special committee -- as we consider every consent to an ordination of a bishop. But I would be against a moratorium. This is not going to go away. If we wait two years, if we wait five years, if we wait 10 years, there are always going to be faithful Anglicans, Episcopalians who have the skills and the faith and the experience to be wonderful bishops in the church.

I mean, I could get hit by a bus this afternoon, and it wouldn't stop this. There are faithful gay and lesbian people who are going to be raised up by dioceses everywhere. It's not going to be an end to it. So we might as well decide that God's gay and lesbian children are every bit as fully God's children as anyone else.

Q: Are you mentoring someone you think may indeed be on that future track?

A: I'm in touch with a number of people that I think would be wonderful bishops, and I've offered to be whatever help to them that I can.

Q: Were you surprised by the level of furor this sparked all over the world?

A: I was really surprised, and I think everyone here in New Hampshire was. I mean, after all, the election here was not about making a point. It was not about expressing an opinion on a controversial issue. The people of the diocese here had known me for the better part of 30 years, and they were just choosing the person they thought might be the best bishop for them at this time. So I think all of us underestimated both the breadth and depth of the controversy that would ensue. And, as I say, it has been a source of great pain to me to see it happening. It doesn't make me wish that I hadn't followed what I discerned to be God's call. And I don't believe it's been the case here in New Hampshire. It's probably unbelievable to the rest of the world what a small issue it is here. I mean, I keep saying to people, I said it to people in England last November when I was there, if you want to see what the church is going to be like after we get over being obsessed with sex, come to New Hampshire. We just don't spend any time on it. It's really quite a remarkable experience. My partner goes with me on virtually all of my visitations [and] is warmly welcomed, and we just don't spend any time on it. We spend time on what does it mean to be a faithful Christian in the 21st century and devote our time and our energy to being the best that we can at that.

Q: I interviewed one bishop who voted to approve your election, and I asked him: Would you do it again? Would you vote in favor of a partnered gay bishop again? And he said he didn't think he would right now, just looking at all of the reaction. Do you sense a backing away from some of your fellow bishops? Have you picked up a sense from people that maybe you did move too quickly?

A: I think there are some bishops that in retrospect felt that perhaps we moved a little too quickly, that if they had it to do all over again -- of course you can never, even if someone were coming up at this convention to be consented to, it wouldn't be the same time and so on. But given what we know now, I'm sure that there would be some who would reconsider. Remember, it was roughly two thirds of both houses at General Convention that consented, so it wasn't that one or two votes would have made a difference. I also know some bishops who voted no, who, given the response of the critics to this and becoming so concerned at the approaching violent reaction and the sort of, almost warlike words used to describe the feelings and so on, actually are feeling that we ought to move on, that they might actually vote yes if someone were to be consented to, that it's time to get over and beyond this issue and get on with the gospel.

Q: How has this affected your ministry within the denomination? Has it been an obstacle, a distraction to your ministry?

Photo of Bishop V. Gene Robinson

A: It's a very small distraction to me in my ministry here in New Hampshire. As I say, we just don't deal with this very much at all. So, in that sense, it's not been a distraction to my ministry here. On the other hand, I am not totally defended against all of the words being said about me. It drives me a little bit crazy that people feel free to talk about me and not to me. And so I'm feeling, internationally, at least, that it would be nice to be engaged so that people could know me as a human being, as a faithful Christian, another brother on that journey. But I must say that my reception in the House of Bishops here in this country has simply been wonderful, even amongst those who voted no on my consent. I have a wonderful and warm working relationship with all but my most negative detractors. I could not ask for a warmer and more hospitable welcome in the House of Bishops.

Q: Earlier this year, you did go into rehab for alcohol addiction. How are you doing now?

A: I'm doing great now. I just celebrated four months of sobriety this week. It's been a total blessing. I can't tell you how wonderful it feels and what I've learned and how my own faith in God has deepened. And, you know, there's something I didn't expect that has come out of this. Going to 12-step meetings has been a great experience. I always knew I would do it because it's -- I was told that it was really important. But I never expected to be so inspired by it. And you know, there are very few places in this culture where you can walk into a room where there are street people and CEOs and teachers and physicians and construction workers and shopkeepers all in the same room, all talking about real things, talking about their real lives and what's going on. You know, the 12-step programs are really about living your life. Only the first step refers to alcohol. All of the rest are about living a life. And what I've discovered is that there is a whole lot more church going on in those 12-step meetings in church basements sometimes than going on upstairs in the sanctuary.

Q: Did some of the stresses surrounding your role here and in the national and international controversies contribute, do you think, to the problem?

A: Not really. I mean, I had a problem with alcoholism because I have this disease. That's the reason that I had trouble. And I would no more lay it onto anyone else or anything. I just happen to have this disease. Like some people have diabetes, I have alcoholism, and the only way to treat it is to not drink. On the other hand, sure, like so many, I was using alcohol to sort of self-medicate and to handle all the pressures and so on, and some of those pressures, obviously, were related to this debate. I mean, I'm under incredible scrutiny, and no matter where I go people recognize me, people are watching me, people are wanting me to do something wrong. So that's a tough thing to live under. I've just learned new and different ways of handling those pressures.

Q: Do you think for clergy overall there is a special vulnerability to this, given the pressures of ministry? Is this a problem for a lot of clergy that people just don't talk about?

A: No. I think it's a problem that no one likes to talk about, and it's a problem for everyone. It doesn't matter how much money you make, where you live, what you do for a living. If you have this disease of alcoholism, and you put alcohol in your body, you're going to pay the consequences, because you have no control over when to stop. And that just cuts across every possible class, age, race division that we have.

Q: Getting back to General Convention -- you mentioned already the Millennium Development Goals. Are there other issues you will be watching, that are important to you?

Photo of Bishop V. Gene Robinson

A: Well, in addition to the Millennium Development Goals -- which I pray that we commit ourselves to, because our working towards those will alleviate the most extreme poverty in the world and respond to diseases like AIDS and malaria and others that are just devastating such a large part of the world -- but of course I and everyone else will be thinking about and praying very hard about our choice of a next presiding bishop. We have some wonderful candidates; I would say all of the candidates are really quite wonderful. It's not just a matter of voting for the only one that looks to be good. It's a matter of trying to discern who is the right person to lead us at this time, because there are so many of them that are so good. And, you know, my own personal hope is that we will have a presiding bishop that will love the people that Jesus loved, the marginalized and the poor and those who have been pushed to the margins of society. Jesus spent virtually all of his time with those kinds of people, and that's who I should be spending my time with as a bishop, and I'm hoping for a presiding bishop that will lead the whole church in that direction.

Q: So what are you looking for, hoping and praying for overall, coming out of this General Convention?

A: Well, the thing I most look forward to at General Convention is probably the thing that everyone looks forward to, which is it is a big family reunion. I and every one else will be seeing people that they have known in other churches, in other dioceses, back in seminary. It's a real celebration of the bond that we have in Christ in this little Episcopal Church of ours.