The bishop of Edmonton questioned whether Robinson really wanted to be parish priest or a media commentator. I think that was actually a reasonable thing to do.
The bishop of London who refused a parish was accused of being woke by Robinson because she was trotting out the 'the church is institutionally racist' line. Robinson disagreed with this and imo is in a better position to judge this than a bishop doing the white shame thing. The battle with woke is broader than this though. Various Anglican ministries I listen to have been highlighting cases where Christians have lost their jobs, even in C of E school, because they cannot in conscience go along with for example transgenderism. They are on dubious legal grounds here as religious belief is protected.
If you go back to the defining document of Christianity you get this:
But Jesus called them to him and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you; but whoever would be great among you must be your servant ... (Matthew)
This may not always have been lived out, but it remains a foundational principle.
This happens in the secular realm as well. On the lengthy gender thread, isn't transwomen wanting to play in women's sport 'lording it over' biological women? A minority insisting on getting their own way. Not really about justice but a desire to exercise power. Or those who would like the churches' exemption on marrying homosexuals to be removed. In the name of tolerance and inclusion they are being intolerant and excluding those whose views they disagree with, and again compelling this by law is one group lording it over another. The atheistic soviet communist gentiles certainly lorded it over their population.
I shouldn't ... but I still get surprised at how often the line 'faith is believing something for which there is no evidence' is trotted out. Some religions and 'spiritualities' may be little more than superstitions, but in the case of Christianity there is a whole library of apologetic material mounting arguments for the truth and reasonableness of the faith.
I had an Anglican vicar friend years ago who was ordained in the church of England who was in ministry for 14 years as an unbeliever. When he was actually converted there was a dramatic change! He reckoned he was the only person he knew from the institution who trained him who subsequently became a believer, and wondered about all the other 8 vicars in the deanery who seemed only to be going through the motions.
I think in the case of the Robinsons of this world, and he is far from alone, they have a faith that was delivered once and for all to the saints at the beginning, and there is no liberty to change the original article, as it were. Just as you cannot rescind 'you shall not commit adultery', you cannot write prayers for the blessing of same-sex couples as the bishops are proposing, and it seems to me to be trying to impose. It's out of order, and has become a line that many in the C or E are not prepared to cross, even to maintain a fake unity. Anglicans in the global south, the majority, have also disfellowshipped the C of E for its compromise on this, together with the Archbishop of Canterbury, so Robinson is not part of a 'fringe' taking anglicanism as a whole.
Ironically I saw a YT short of Stehen Fry, who obviously disagrees with the traditional stance on homosexuality, being sad at a C of E leadership ditching centuries of tradition simply to go with the flow of modern society. Throwing away their convictions.
