“Openly critical”, according to an online article I found (Googling “David Moyer”, “forward in faith”) to the point of accusing Bishop Bennison of heresy … not a situation where the Bishop could really be comfortable working with him, methinks.
And the “stepping in” was done by the previous Archbishop of Canterbury (George Carey), not the current one.
The fact that this article treats the opinion of an extremist would-be rabble-rouser like Moyer seriously speaks volumes for the intent behind it. I stand by my opinion of it: that article is despicable.
That’s pretty close to the facts – when you consider that a Bishop is automatically the chief pastor of every church in his/her diocese, and required to make regular visitations, for Moyer to (attempt to) bar Bennison was very much a slap in his face. JFTR, from what I’ve seen, Bennison is advocating intelligent debate on the traditional doctrines, to make them comprehensible to modern people without advanced courses in Greek philosophy and theology – and Moyer “required” of Bennison that he subscribe to a statement of faith propounded by Moyer (and not only affirming traditional Anglican doctrine but also denouncing Moyer’s pet betes noires) before he’d let him in the door. Intervention by the Presiding Bishop to attempt to achieve a reconciliation was rejected – by Moyer. Afterwards, and “regretfully,” Bennison went through the canonical deposition of Moyer.
Izzy, I can see an attempt to be “balanced” – but that story is so strongly slanted against Robinson that it’d be next door to impossible to call it “objective journalism” – though you’re welcome to try.
JFTR, for those who care, Robinson’s ex-wife and daughters were at the ordination, and she supported him in his decisions and stands by him, much like Mel White’s ex-wife has done for him.
From the Episcopal News Service at the Episcopal Church USA website: a broader spectrum of reaction that does not slant the news to only one splinter group’s viewpoint.
Calling homosexuality “open rebellion against God” does not show a lack of respect for human dignity? You really are blind, aren’t you?
OK, now here you’re just being dishonest. Quotation marks can be used to indicate that the writer is borrowing a phrase form another source, as I did with “open rebellion against God.” They can also be used to indicate that a term is inaccurate or being used falsely, which is exactly what was meant by putting quotation marks around the word partner. That you don’t see that shows you are either ignorant or dishonest.
Never.
You and your kind will never shut me up. You won’t put me in the closet, and you won’t stop me from getting the equality I and my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters demand. It is bigots like you who are headed for the garbage heap of history.
I think the opposite - you are to show that it is not balanced. All can see in your OP is that the article failed to also state that Robinson is a great guy loved by the masses, or that Moyer is a “self-promoting rabble-rouser”. Doesn’t cut it, IMHO.
I don’t know - there are a lot of ways to parse that phrase. But it’s no matter - nobody called homosexuality an open rebellion against God. The quote was in reference to choosing an open homosexual as bishop. Not the same thing.
Again, you need to be more careful in jumping from Point A to Point Z
Nonsense. The quotes are used because it is an indication that this is someone else’s term. Same as the other examples I cited. The term partner, unlike spouse, has a wider meaning - it is generally used to mean something other than homosexual living partner. In this case, someone, presumably Robinson, used it to describe his living partner, and the article picked up the term from him.
Again, what do you think they are trying to imply? That the guy is not in fact his partner?
Hey, it was only a suggestion - you can keep on shouting, if you insist.
Your opinion is noted. Just for the record, if you look up at the top of the page you’re looking at, you’ll note that we’re in “The BBQ Pit.”
I am expressing my outrage that a news story about a man chosen bishop by a diocese of the church to which I belong (and AFAIK you do not) is vilified by a heinously slanted story which is highly selective in whose opinions it quotes (see the article found by Tom~ for a more balanced article), and that it picks up on one man in particular who has done nothing but attempt to thwart the attitudes of the overwhelming majority of Episcopalians by actions contrary to church law, and about whom you never hear a word except when he’s denouncing someone else. I am married to a former Moyer and one of my best friends online is a Lesbian woman whose surname is Moyer (a member here) – we are incensed at what he’s doing to the name.
In short, I am using the Pit for what it was designed for – if you are convinced of how wonderful this story is, the onus is on you to make the case.
I admit that the election is controversial. But the essence of controversy is that there are people on both sides of the question. Selective quotation of people on only one side does not accomplish balance.
That’s funny, I became a member of the Episcopal Church despite the widespread liberal views on homosexuality. And I don’t really have any problems with the article Poly quoted, either.
What makes me sad is not that so many are rejecting traditional church teaching and biblical interpretation – the Anglican church can handle a diversity of views, and God is bigger than these squabbles – but that so many Episcopalians with contrary views are going to either leave angrily, or be shouted out of, communion with our more … ‘progressive’ … brothers and sisters.
You know what? I believe homosexuality is wrong. I also admit that I could be mistaken about that. But either way, it’s not an essential matter of faith. Jesus Christ is the name by which we must be saved, and bringing glory to him is our purpose – these are things we can agree on.
I don’t have an answer. It just makes me sad. But I was in a meeting with our Bishop last night, and regarding this issue he said “Jesus has already won the victory. We have to do our best to be faithful to him, but the pressure is not on us. He is bigger than this controversy and his Church will go on.” So I just have to trust that “all things work together for good for those who love Him and are called according to His purpose.”
The artical does seem to editorialise the subject. And I would wager that they didn’t actaually interview anyone. It looks like they picked out what they wanted from other news sources.
But, one thing bugs me. If the Episcopal Church USA
wouldn’t that have affected the ministry of Robinson? The mere fact that he remained in his position seems to show Church acceptance. Right?
He came out in 1986. The resolution was <<five years ago>>, 1997/8? Should be enough time to sort things out, churchwise.
But then, David Moyer has to jump up and say, “Look at me! Look at me!” IMO, he’s an opportunist. Why didn’t he say anything five years ago? Or 17 years ago?
What someone personally wants to believe in regards to homosexuality and scripture is not my concern (in this thread). Basically, I feel the words used by the original writers seem open to interpretation.
What does bug me is editorials being passed off as hard news.
Seem like a stretch to me. I don’t think there is anything respectable about the term “partner” - it is a pretty utilitarian word in this context, and doesn’t cover anything.
Oh, IOW, “it’s so obvious that you’re wrong that I am not going to bother saying why”. I think I remember using that line when I was a little kid. Or maybe it was some other guy.
Also for the record, if you look at that exact location, just to the left of the words “The BBQ Pit”, you’ll note that we are on a “Message Board”. You got your opinion, I got mine. There is no onus on me to prove anything merely because you’ve asserted otherwise.
I agree that tom’s source is more balanced. It is in general a much longer article, with more on both sides. Your article only quotes snippets. But the article that you cite says
And
So the article makes clear that there are people on both sides of the issue. It just didn’t present your side forcefully enough for you. (A common lament - hey, talk to me about the liberal media sometime ).
I was under the impression, Poly, that your point in the OP was not that the article was based on a respectful presentation of facts lined up in a proper row but that it was a careful selection of misrepresented “facts” and opinions of those who are already against anything they don’t understand. Sort of like how an article about Al Gore would start “Would you elect someone to office who failed out of divinity school?” and attribute lots of quotes previously attributed (correctly or not) to Dan Quayle to Gore. And then it might try to tie in Clinton’s sex life and make a point about Gore’s. And who can forget the oft-misquoted “I invented the internet”? It would be as factually well-represented, thought-out and balanced as this article is.
As such, the notion that it is a “perfectly reasonable and balanced article” is utter horseshit, but of course, considering the source, this isn’t even a surprise to the illiterate.
On a related note (sort of), Poly, you and others might be interested to know that my biology teacher, who last year was teaching creationism and The Bible in biology, was able to explain to our class (with me helping him, because he got kinda nervous) that evolution and creationism do not contradict each other and that it is not necessary to utterly abandon your faith to accept the Theory of Evolution. He got very close to saying “you don’t need to take every word fo the bible totally literally”, but as he said, he wasn’t up there to preach, just teach science.
[sub]For those wondering what in the world makes this related to the OP, it has been my (and I am not alone here) experience that those who are anti-gay are also usually anti-science/treat the Bible as a science book instead of a religious one. Thus what may turn out to be a monumental hijack, but one meant to show that, fortunately, not all conservative religious people are utterly opposed to anything their preacher didn’t tell them. Poly, if you believe this hijack warrants a thread somewhere else, please do let me know and I’ll give it a shot:)[/sub]
I don’t see where I’ve ignored anything you’ve said here. Unless you mean your brilliant witticisms like “Go intercourse yourself, buster”. Yeah, I’ve ignored these.
So it’s you who are failing to respond. Apparently because you dislike my “mock-ingenuous posting style”. Yep, that’s the ticket.
Well this would depend on how you define bigotry. But in general, someone who deals with opposing viewpoints by distorting and caricaturing them to the point that he feels safer in attacking them is intolerant, yes.
The parishoners at my local Episcopal church (no, I’m not Episcopal, but I’m a very fine receptionist at the front desk) aren’t exactly frothing about this. They’re mostly shaking their heads in dismay – probably because they’re excited about the new rector we just got.
Personally, I’m sad that the “gay Bishop” issue is an issue. It worries me that people will be driven away from the Church because of it…whether the Council ratifies the vote or not. If they allow him to become a Bishop, then I think the Church will become known primarily for that act, and the right wing will be driven away. (JFTR, I understand why they would have a problem, in a purely clinical sense. Someone pursuing a lifestyle that may or may not be at odds with Biblical mandate becoming a very powerful symbol of that Church…) If they don’t let it go through, then the Church may ruin its reputation of tolerance.
That article didn’t help. I think Agape was TRYING to be unbiased, if that’s any help.
Incidentally, Polycarp, on a rather off-topic question, do you have any suggestions for helping a person who’s lost a lot of his faith? I’d make a note about it in GD or something but I’d be swarmed with people saying “Hey, atheism is nice” or “Stupid Christian shouldn’t believe in the nasty patriarchy” or somesuch. :rolleyes: I may not be a Christian, but I find that talk a little tiresome.
And I’m incidentally finding it kind of funny that I keep having slight differences of opinion with my workplace. This time last year I was working at Apple, and Mac-Worship there is very much like a religion…but I’ve never bought a Mac in my life. And now I work at an Episcopal church on the weekends, and I haven’t been a Christian since I was 11…
I’ll explain it to you one more time, so pay attention. The linked article was offensive because it demeaned gay people and their relationships.
The article refers to Robinson’s “partner” but not his “wife”–she’s just his wife, no quotes. You want to know why? Because they are denigrating his gay relationship, implying that it is inferior and false. You’ll also note that the AFA refers to Robinson as an open homosexual, a coldly sterile phrase that is also meant to be a subtle attack. What would you make of a description that read "Robinson, a Negro. . " or “Robinson, a member of the Hebrew race”? It is possible to be strictly accurate and grossly insulting at the same time.
I am not distorting and caricaturing the AFA’s viewpoint–I am stating it clearly and accurately.
Actually I already addressed this distinction in my third post to this thread. Funny that you missed it.
The term wife has no quotes because they are using the word in its standard meaning. By contrast, partner generally does not mean what it means here - they are using a meaning assigned to it in this case by others.
Of course it is possible. But it is also possible to see insulting meanings where there are none. Someone who has a passionate interest in an issue would be wise to consider the possibility that he is doing this.
In this case, the fact that he is a homosexual is the entire point of the matter, so pointing it out is quite legitimate. (It’s amazing that you don’t recognize this). If being a “Negro” presented a theological issue, I would find that description apt as well, but Christianity has no theological issues involving Negroes, AFAIK. But certainly if an openly Jewish person was about to be appointed an Episcopalian bishop it would be appropriate to point this out.
As for the term “openly”, I think it’s obvious that openly living a lifestyle is more of a statement than hiding it. If Robinson was a closeted gay since 1986, one might have wondered for much of this time if his homosexual activity was an expression of theology or merely a weakness. But by living an openly homosexual lifestyle, Robinson made a theological statement, which many take exception to. This is very much a part of the current brouhaha.
Well it’s not so shocking that you would make this claim - one would hardly expect otherwise.
BTW, I cannot say for certain that you are distorting the views of the AFA - I am not much familiar with their views (other than a vague knowledge that Wildmon has been on a family values campaign for some time). But I do say that you have distorted the views expressed in this particular article.
).