US News's Tolson Plays Softball with Gay Episcopal Bishop

Photo of Ken Shepherd.
  • Bookmark and Share

Pitching a mix of softballs and loaded questions, US News & World Report writer Jay Tolson failed to press Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson with any queries from a conservative, orthodox Christian perspective in his July 30 interview with "The Gay Bishop at the Center of the Anglican Storm."

Indeed, at one point Tolson prodded Robinson to criticize the worldwide Anglican Communion for doing little to stop conservative breakaways from the increasingly liberal Episcopal Church USA:

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?

When he wasn't asking "how does this make you feel" type questions about his treatment by conservative clergy, Tolson presented conservative Episcopals and Anglicans as "unyielding" on "hot-button issues," forgetting perhaps that religious faith is predicated on beliefs about eternal truths that are non-negotiable:

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

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?

In all, Tolson posed 11 questions to the New Hampshire cleric, none of them suggesting Robinson's push to make gay clergy acceptable is "unyielding" and certainly none pressing Robinson to explain in biblical or theological terms his justification for how openly practicing homosexual priests square with the sexual ethics of Christian Scripture.

Below are the questions from Tolson's piece (emphases mine). For Robinson's answers, click here for the article.:

  1. 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?
  2. How did you feel about being excluded from the Lambeth Conference by the archbishop of Canterbury?
  3. 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?
  4. What do you make of the vague assurances of the U.S. bishops that no further provocative clergy appointments will be made?
  5. 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?
  6. 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?
  7. 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?
  8. 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?
  9. 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?
  10. 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?
  11. What have been the reactions of bishops and others to your own informal activities in and around Canterbury?

—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Next weekend, Jay

Next weekend, Jay Tolson will play softball with some lesbian priests.

 

An Atheist probing Christian issues?

Jay Tolson? Is he a Christian? As a US News & World Report writer, the odds are equal to epsilon “as epsilon approaches zero.” Is Jay Tolson even “versed” enough to interview anybody – to say nothing of a peculiar Episcopalian bishop – from a Christian perspective? My guess is that this is simply too much to ask of a US News & World Report writer.

This is almost as ridiculous as a sports writer interviewing an astronomer.

Impunitas semper ad deteriora invitat.

This will probably get me

This will probably get me in trouble, but hell for some reason I'm feeling a bit surly.

For some reason "Soft" and "Ball" when referring to a story about a gay bishop, tickled my funny bone. 

 "You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "

                   - Ben Kenobi on  Liberals, and the MSM.

                               " The Cake is a lie."   

Screaming foulball,, down

Screaming foulball,, down the line. : ]

"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg

"What is truth?" asked Pilate.

I paid particular attention to the words, "or even condemning homosexuality as incompatible with Scripture?"

This begs a very simple question, and that is, if you form an organization of any kind with "core" values, a set of by-laws and mission statements, does that not mean anything? I mean, its membeship, but especially its staff, always consists only of those persons who fully support the core values, by-laws and mission statement, etc. Lots of organizations exclude from its membership people it does not like (condemns) or sees as "incompatible."

So then, the church has the same right to exclude people it sees as incompatible, and it especially has the right to base its core values, by-laws and mission statement on the Bible, and if that means excluding homosexuals from the leadership, so what? Its their right, and you know, who want to fight against God? (And even leaving God out of it, who has the right to challenge an organization's core values?)

As for the Bible's position on homosexuality, it is the same as for fornication or adultery or murder or even for the smallest sins: do not do them. However, for those who let Jesus into their life because they have repented of their sin, have accepted Jesus' sacrifice for them, and want to follow Jesus as Lord, God transforms that person and one of two things usually happens to gay persons:

1) he/she become hetrosexual in their orientation (no more sin)

2) he/she has little or no change in sexual orientation, but becomes celibate for the sake of the church and because he/she knows that is what God wants (no more sin).

And this is all possible because coming know God personally becomes a very strong motivation to shun sin.

And the whole idea of the church is to have a body of persons God has transformed from lost sinners into saved souls, who then shun sin. That is its core value. Any other core value is counterfeit, thus other by-laws and mission statements, are also counterfeit.

What is the truth? The truth is that those with sins, whether addiction to homosexuality, adultery, fornication, etc, etc, are looking for ways to "fit in" and feel "normal" and getting churches to "give in" to their behavior is just one way, as is civil marriages, "gay" pride parades, "gay" clubs, etc.

But lets be clear, God does not care if this sinner or that sinner "fits in." All He cares about is the sinner who recognizes his/her sin, repents, asked for forgiveness, recognizes the price Jesus paid on a cross to forgive sins, and wants Jesus to be the Lord of their life. And amazingly, the repentent, born-again believer, will by default in shunning sin, "fit in" with other believers who shun sin.

(And yes, I believe God is best described using the "he/him/his" pronouns, not because God has male sex organs, but because (1) "he" is traditional for one with authority over us all (male and female) and (2) because He "seeded" the earth in the beginning, a function that males perform very well, and (3) Jesus, who was God in the flesh, was male, but had Jesus been female I might give "she/her/hers" a second thought, but not in this case.)

Good points, but don't

Good points, but don't forget that Christ best displayed use of male pronouns in His Sermon on the Mount: "Our Father, which art in Heaven..."

This is a question of God's nomenclature, not His physical nature, but you already knew that.

Keep the Faith.

throughout history the gay

throughout history the gay thing eventually collapses upon it's own sinful weight over and over and over again

when we boil this discussion down to the fundamentals we find that there really is no such thing as a "homosexual" or a "heterosexual" person so much as just "people" who commit homo or hetero sex acts for a few minutes every once in a while

all church leaders are sinful just like the rest of us - the difference is they strive to behave as righteous as possible - just like we in the secular world wouldn't want to appoint a thief to run a treasury - we likewise don't want those struggling with or even openly practicing and celebrating any sinful behavior leading the Christian church

then the question becomes "is homosexuality Biblically sinful?"

it takes quite a bit of pretzel twisting to plead that it isn't - but like all faith questions none of us can really say for 100% sure yes or no - for my part I believe it's mentioned as sinful both in the OT and NT - and thousands of years of historical interpretation overwhelmingly backs this up

there have always been heretics within the tree of Abraham - like weeds, or "tares" within the wheat - and God reconciles all of this perfectly and completely during the harvest

our job is love and prayer, and nurturing the wheat

as well as maybe beat a few faggots bloody every once in a while

(rimshot:) 

 

Please do not use "Gay" term. Practising Homosexual is proper

I know headlines are small, but try.

 


John McCain 2008 Protect Traditional Marriage

Traditional Marriage is not "Divisive" Obama.