Monday, February 13, 2012

Welcome to Stand Firm!

Want to advertise on Stand Firm? Click here for rates and info

Atheist Filmmaker Celebrates Homosexuals’ Advances in Anglicanism

Monday, April 30, 2007 • 9:13 am


I love skiing in Breckenridge because it’s a great place for families… but now I know to keep my kid away from the summer film festival:

This documentary explores queer Christians struggle for acceptance in the Episcopal Church, the schism their activism threatens to bring to worldwide Anglicanism, and the ways in which activists such as these shape our personal liberties at the highest institutional levels. While the film celebrates the achievements made by queer Anglicans as they transform an oppressive Christian tradition into a modern force of liberation, it doesn’t excuse the prejudices and abuses of organized religion. On the contrary, the film’s atheist director offers a skeptical critique of religion, particularly in an era when the word faith is often code for nationalism, homophobia, and sundry other forms of oppression. The film’s crisscrossing interviews bring together major players in the Anglican sexuality debate, each representing a different place on the spectrum of sexuality, religion, and politics: Louie Crew, the creator of Integrity, the first Anglican LGBT rights organization, founded in 1974; Gene Robinson,the world’s first openly gay bishop; John S. Spong, apro-gay bishop with agnostic, heretical views; and David Virtue, Anglicanism’s most influential antigay spokesperson. Interspersed throughout the film are the diverse voices of Episcopalians across America whom Louie Crew has anonymously telephoned, giving us a spontaneous picture of how average parishioners perceive the film’s issues of sexual inclusivity. Featuring comments from Ernest Clay, Crew’s African-American husband of thirty-two years, and analysis of how this debate effects gay Anglicans in Africa, the film offers a far-reaching critique of how homophobia continues to operate in multiple cultural contexts.

I’m sure the Virtue-ites will insist I apologize for saying this, but David Virtue is not “Anglicanism’s most influential antigay spokesperson,” any more than Elizabeth Kaeton is Anglicanism’s most influential pro-gay spokesperson. There was a time when perhaps Virtue was, but that time has long since passed.

This is just an example of more hypocrisy from the Episcopal left: Rail against conservatives for holding up one extremist loudmouth and portraying them as representative of the entire movement… then turn around and do it yourself.

If you’re unfamiliar with Ernest Clay, Louie Crew’s “husband,” take a moment and look through the Crew-Clay family album here and here.


11 Comments • Print-friendlyPrint-friendly w/commentsShare on Facebook
Comments:

It takes one’s breath away. What else can you say….........

[1] Posted by Doubting Thomas on 04-30-2007 at 12:12 PM • top

Godwin’s Law (also known as Godwin’s Rule of Nazi Analogies) is a mainstay of Internet culture, an adage formulated by Mike Godwin in 1990. The original law states: As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

How about this for a Godwin - Rob Roy Law: The probability that in any discussion of “homosexual rights” with one participants for it and one against it, the probability is one that the term homophobia will be used.

[2] Posted by robroy on 04-30-2007 at 01:43 PM • top

I have noticed the word “queer” appear more recently. I thought this was considered derogatory, but I am always behind the times.  Is queer becoming fashionable again?  Is this now worn as a badge of honor?

[3] Posted by Spencer on 04-30-2007 at 03:36 PM • top

Queer folks’ use of the term, queer, takes various root in local communities and groups, and overlaps into wider usage.  It came to the fore among younger people, noticeably in the 1990’s among the members of college and university campus student groups, when queer was often taken to include reference to all who more or less belonged to the overlapping communities - lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, intersex, and questioning.  Queer As Folk in UK and USA partly cemented this usage, though obviously it is usage in ongoing transition.  Anyways, saying queer folks is easier in speed blogging than constantly having to repeat LGBTIQ.  But of course YMMV.

[4] Posted by drdanfee on 04-30-2007 at 04:24 PM • top

I’m sure they go into great depth about the destruction of the Anglican Communion by the self-interested and “dammit, I need a cause to work” on their roster of self-important pro-queers.  I note that at a seminary I have occasion to be in there are “Queer Studies” so I’m perceiving that the term is acceptable.  Interesting, ain’t it?

[5] Posted by dwstroudmd+ on 04-30-2007 at 04:41 PM • top

As described, the film reeks of built-in bias.  It is clearly aimed at those whose minds have already been made up on this issue, and has absolutely nothing to offer to the rest of us. So it won’t have the slightest influence on the present situation.  Those who already agree with it, will agree with it; those who don’t, won’t.  Really, can you think of anything more pointless and futile?

[6] Posted by st. anonymous on 04-30-2007 at 05:41 PM • top

Well, FINALLY there is proof positive of the Gay Agenda the other side always denies with a dismissive laugh. I hope the slumbering masses take note of this film.

[7] Posted by Brit on 04-30-2007 at 06:03 PM • top

I love it…a “documentary” only Leni Riefenstahl could love.

[8] Posted by Jeffersonian on 04-30-2007 at 07:18 PM • top

Reminds me of how Lot was treated in Genesis 19
“Get out of our way,” they replied. And they said, “This fellow came here as an alien, and now he wants to play the judge! We’ll treat you worse than them.”

[9] Posted by Apollos on 05-01-2007 at 01:22 AM • top

I’m sure the Virtue-ites will insist I apologize for saying this, but David Virtue is not “Anglicanism’s most influential antigay spokesperson,” any more than Elizabeth Kaeton is Anglicanism’s most influential pro-gay spokesperson. There was a time when perhaps Virtue was, but that time has long since passed.

  This point is debatable.  However, when the mainstream media produces something about the gay issue in the Episcopal Church they will interview somebody like Susan Russell.  When they need an opposing opinion they seem to quote Dr. Kendall Harmon more than others.  However, Dr. Virtue’s statements seem to be geared toward a different audience.  Rather than the general population, his intended audience seems more oriented towards people already familiar with Anglicanism and the Episcopal Church.  The description of the film is heavily biased.  To describe the esteemed Dr. Virtue in such a way is not an attack on him but a rather transparent attempt to portray the conservatives as insignificant.  They could have described “Greg Griffith” as Anglicanism’s most influential antigay blogger. However, most of the people would have never heard of Greg and would form an opinion accordingly.  Unfortunately, the biased mainstream media frequently mentions Louie Crew and Gene Robinson.  Just because somebody has more name recognition than someone else doesn’t make them any more credible or honorable.  Let me provide some examples of this phenomenon. Consider Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.  They can repeat the same obvious lies over and over and the facts will not change.  Just saying something doesn’t make it so.  However, the general public can be left with the mistaken impression the speakers have authority.  The Nazi party took advantage of this phenomenon as part of their propoganda scheme which of course included the “Big Lie” strategy of telling lies until people starting beleiving them to be the truth. In the Episcopal Church they call this phenomenon the “listening process.”  I’m not exactly who is calling Dr. Virtue an “extremist loudmouth” but if being labeled with such terms makes one influential then I would argue that Kendall is more influential than David. By this definition, I agree with Greg that David Vitue is not the most influential.

[10] Posted by Piedmont on 05-01-2007 at 10:19 AM • top

... the film celebrates the achievements made by queer Anglicans as they transform an oppressive Christian tradition…

They seem to suggest that opposition to the homosexual agenda is rooted in some quaint tradition in some backwater dominated by extremists. 

... the film offers a far-reaching critique of how homophobia continues to operate in multiple cultural contexts.

However, they seem to acknowledge that opposition to homosexuality is prevalent all over the world.

[11] Posted by Piedmont on 05-01-2007 at 11:12 AM • top

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.


Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere about the crisis in our church. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments that you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm, its board of directors, or its site administrators.