The Gay Bishop at the Center of the Anglican Storm

New Hampshire Bishop Gene Robinson, the first openly gay Episcopal bishop.

As the Lambeth Conference, the once-every-decade meeting of the bishops of the Anglican Communion in Canterbury, England, enters its final days, the great question remains whether the 77 million-member global federation will be able to avoid a schism.

Although he was pointedly not invited to the conference, the Rt. Rev. Gene Robinson has been a figure at the center of the storm ever since the openly gay clergyman was consecrated as the bishop of the Diocese of New Hampshire in 2003. Conservatives point to him as proof that liberal Anglicans and Episcopalians are ignoring scriptural authority—and not only on matters relating to sexuality.

Many observers see the decision of the Most Rev. Rowan Williams, archbishop of Canterbury, to exclude Robinson from Lambeth as an attempt to defuse the anger of conservatives, many of whose congregations have broken away from their governing provinces in North America and elsewhere and reorganized themselves under African or other "Southern Cone" jurisdictions. But close to 250 bishops still decided not to attend the Lambeth gathering.

Robinson, though barred from attending official functions, has been in and around Canterbury during the conference. He spoke to U. S. News about developments at Lambeth and within the Anglican Communion. Excerpts:

You are at the center of a controversy that is threatening to divide the Anglican Communion. What do you think about your role in all of this?
I think it's important to say that there is only one side of this debate that is threatening schism. The folks who are arguing for the greater inclusion of gay and lesbian people in the life of the church are not threatening to leave. We are here to stay, and we don't want anyone else to leave. The sad part is that you can't force someone to stay who is determined to leave, and there seem to be some people who are working for schism rather than reconciliation. So it's a difficult place we find ourselves, but in the end I am hopeful because the real feeling here, among the 650 bishops who are here, is that we all want to find a way to stay together and move forward together.

How did you feel about being excluded from the Lambeth Conference by the archbishop of Canterbury?
Well, you know, the conservatives throughout the communion told the archbishop of Canterbury that they would not participate if I were included, and so he acceded to their demands and excluded me from the conference and then they didn't come anyway. As is often the case with bullying, the bully never gets enough. And so unfortunately the archbishop of Canterbury was not able to purchase their participation by excluding me. It's very sad, and the exclusion has been more painful than I anticipated it would be, but I willingly have accepted the role that I've been given, and I've been on the fringes of the conference doing everything I can to witness to the love of God.

Has your exclusion been a clear signal that the leadership of the Anglican Communion will tolerate no further appointments of openly gay or lesbian clergy?
No, I don't think so, because the archbishop of Canterbury doesn't have the authority to make that decision. This was a personal decision on his part for what he thought was the good of the conference. But the Anglican Communion is made up of the 38 autonomous provinces. Those decisions get made at the local, national church level. So I don't think it [his decision] signals that one way or another. There are clearly people who do not want any other gay or lesbian people made bishop. But I don't think that it is where a number of the churches will wind up—the American church, the Canadian church, the Australians, the New Zealanders, and other provinces as well.

What do you make of the vague assurances of the U.S. bishops that no further provocative clergy appointments will be made?
I think it was a good-faith effort to turn the temperature down for the time being, but I fully suspect that at our next general convention in the summer of 2009 you will see the Episcopal Church saying something like, "You know, we will just have to follow God's will as we can best discern it, and we are now prepared to move forward with the consecration of any bishop that is elected within a diocese who meets qualifications. I don't think the Episcopal Church is going back on the issue [of consecrating gay and lesbian bishops].

Should the American Episcopal Church's continued inclusion in the Anglican Communion be achieved at the price of excluding gay and lesbian clergy, denying church blessings for same-sex unions, or even condemning homosexuality as incompatible with Scripture?
No, and the Episcopal Church is simply not going to go there. We are in the fortunate position of having countless numbers of gay and lesbian Episcopalians sitting in our pews, and we have a huge number of gay and lesbian clergy that are known to be faithfully serving their churches, and the Episcopal Church is not going to turn its back on them.

What do you make of the proposed Pastoral Forum, which will supposedly enforce on the worldwide communion a moratorium on appointments of gay or lesbian clergy, the blessing of same-sex unions, and (as conservatives are now threatening) the creation of new or alternatives provinces within already existing ones?
I think, although it claims to be a way toward reconciliation, there is little about reconciliation in it. It appears to be about nothing but punishing those who color outside the lines, if you will, and I don't believe that many churches in the communion are going to be in favor of participating in such a group or such a way forward because it is unnecessarily punitive.

You wouldn't even want the communion to bring an end to conservatives' efforts to create new jurisdictions or allow conservative jurisdictions (such as the Church of Nigeria) to bring breakaway congregations in other provinces under their authority?
I would certainly like to see those boundary-crossings end, but not at the price of creating a centralized bureaucracy that has never been part of the Anglican tradition. For 500 years, this very loose confederation, under which widely divergent views can exist not only peacefully but productively, frankly I think is not broken, and there is no need to fix it with either a covenant or a Pastoral Forum or anything of the sort. I do think it's going to be messy for a while, and I think that's probably just exactly right. Efforts to tie this up into a neat and tidy package will ultimately be frustrated and are not even the right way forward.

As you understand it, what real authority or power would the Pastoral Forum have? For example, could it expel a province if it violates the moratorium on any of those three points?
It really will have no authority. It's very unclear how any member of the Anglican Communion could be excluded. It would seem that the Anglican Consultative Council would not have the power to propose such a thing. And even so, by its own constitution, it would not be able to do so without a two-thirds vote of all the provinces in the communion, and I think that's highly unlikely.

If the moratoria are "retrospective," as some people are saying they are intended to be, is there any possibility the Episcopal Church will force you to resign?
The Episcopal Church cannot compel me to resign. If I were guilty of some immorality or illegality, then I could be brought up on presentment charges. But shy of that, there is no authority in the Episcopal Church that could compel my resignation. And there is no desire in the Episcopal Church to do so. Even the bishops who voted "no" on my consent I work very well with in our House of Bishops, and our relationship with them is a good and strong one.

Does it appear to you that the initiatives of the conservatives' Global Anglican Future Conference [held a few weeks before the Lambeth Conference] are forcing the Anglican Communion to move toward a more conservative, unyielding stance on the hot-button issues?
Yes. I think they have taken the issue of homosexuality and elevated it to a position above all things that we believe in common, and I think that's a mistake and certainly not in the Anglican tradition. Again, when bullies make demands and say they are going to take their toys and go home if they don't get their way, the only way you can respond to that kind of demand is to stop giving in to them. If they want to affect things in the communion, they need to be here at this table talking with the three quarters of the bishops who are here about how best to move forward.

What have been the reactions of bishops and others to your own informal activities in and around Canterbury?
I must say that my contact has been very limited because I am not allowed on the premises of any of the official gatherings. And the schedule is so full that I've not had much time to connect with my brothers and sisters in my own House of Bishops. But certainly the ones I've talked with are both encouraged with the deepening of relationships here as well as concerned about where this covenant process might be leading us.

Corrected on 7/31/08: An earlier version of this article in one reference misstated the name of Bishop Gene Robinson.