Gay Episcopalian Bishop to Wed Partner

(sorry for the absence, life took over and yes, all hades broke loose. I have it tied back down fairly well now...)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24521220&GT1=43001
Have the emergent chickens come home to roost? Gene Robinson, the first openly gay Episcopal bishop, wants to get married to his boy toy live in for the last 20 years, Mark Andrews.
I am amused that the exact same language and bleating arguments are used by this man to justify his upcoming apostasy as are used to justify women pastors, divorce and remarriage, cohabitation, ridiculous displays of so-called “spiritual gifts” and a plethora of other extra and counter biblical frivolities.

My emerging socially engaged friends would agree with him that: “The table that God invites us to includes everyone, and the church is going to get it wrong sometimes…” Love covers all sins, repentant or not, and all sinners. Yay!
They claim that the new movement is sweeping the world, and God is active in a whole new way: “I’ve come to understand that this is a particular historic role that God is calling me to play at this moment…”
They would say that God has called and filled them to do or think in a post-modern way: "[Robinson] says it is worth it, because he is doing what God asks of him…”God has seemed so palpably close in this, there’s no way I could regret this. My job as a bishop of the church is to exhibit God’s love for all of God’s people, especially my enemies.””
My ‘such in touch’ friends would say that the numbers support their effort: Robinson said that “…he would consider stepping down if his presence created a rift in the church. Since then, about 100 of the 8,000 Episcopal parishes in the United States have split...” Problem? Not at all! Welcome to new math: “Robinson pointed out that it is a very small number as a percentage of all congregations. “It’s important to keep that in proportion,” he said. “But conflict is no surprise to the church; it’s been there from the very beginning.””
Ah the glorious battle continues! But, alas, what to make of all those splendid scriptures which condemn every single thing he is saying and doing? Simple: “Robinson feels that people who use the Bible to condemn homosexuals fail to understand Scripture.” Oh, I see now. “It is called an abomination for a man to lie with another man as with a woman, but, he writes, the Bible also says it is an abomination to eat pork or shellfish, to wear clothing made of two different fibers, or to sow two different types of seed in the same field.” I don’t know how I failed to see that before! The Bible teaches in simple analogy at times, so I can have openly gay sex! (Sure makes me feel better about that golden calf I have orgies around…) ““We’ve used Scripture to justify slavery; the subjugation of women. And now we’re realizing that what the Bible initially seems to say about same-sex relationships is not actually what we’re talking about today.” Oh, so it isn’t ‘sodomy’ like it was back then, no. Today it’s ‘sodimay.’ Well, I am sure God sanctifies it then! Problem solved!!

The problem is simple. Men hate God’s standards, and they hate the simple interpretation of His word. They then change it around to suit their desires. They want a cookie but they are forbidden, so they rename it a flat-flour-cake and eat away! Reminds of the Pharisees who said that all they have belongs to God so they wouldn’t have to look after their own families in clear and violent opposition to the simple law.

My point is plain. You readers are right now justifying your incorrect doctrinal beliefs in the exact same way that this man is. He is more honest, coming to the ultimate conclusion of your way of thinking. You are dishonest with yourself, thinking that somehow God leads you to contradict some of His words but not all of them. You are both guilty of creating a straw-man argument, painting God differently than He is, then using this false deity to guide your doctrine.

To sum up my problem with Gene Robinson, it is not the gay issue per se. It is first and foremost his inaccurate handling of the Word of God. He jams scripture in a taffy machine and stretches it to a couple microns width to justify what he wants to, just like my more conservative friends are doing here in the Bible belt. Secondly, if you read closely, he mentions that he has daughters: “…his two daughters from a previous marriage.” This man was married and had children, and now is divorced and living with a man. Basically an ecclesiastical Brokeback Mountain (although those men had more basic decency and devotion to their spouses) where marriage means nothing, divorce means nothing and remarriage means nothing. The standards for a leader in Timothy are flagrantly ignored and this adulterous man who abandoned his wife is allowed to poison the minds of the dumb sheep.

God lovingly gave us His word to teach us about who He is. When I find a scripture that I don’t agree with, like in Philemon, where Paul wants to send a slave back to his owner because that is the morally correct thing to do, then I can argue with my Father about that and we can disagree. That is called a relationship. Changing my Fathers clear meanings to suit my mood or whichever cultural climate I find myself in, that is mutiny, and it puts you in Gods place. Please brothers, submit to God, crush yourselves before Him before he crushes you!