Gay Episcopal bishop's compassionate letter is met with hatred

By Diane Silver

The not-very-well-named web site Virtue Online is hosting a name-calling session in response to what are apparently open letters from The Rev. V. Gene Robinson and another liberal minister. The letters discuss last week’s vote by The Episcopal church convention to limit the consecration of bishops in out, committed relationships with same-sex partners. (You know, the dreaded gay bishops.)

When Google Alerts sent me this link, I was first going to do nothing more than point to the link to the letters. They give interesting insight into last week’s votes and why the even some liberals voted yes. Robinson asks for calm and approaches the subject in a loving and supportive manner. The other letter is from The Rev. Neil Elliott of Minnesota and is angrier and less conciliatory, but still interesting and well argued.

(FYI-I haven’t been able to confirm, yet, where these letters were first posted/published or whether they are actually from Robinson and Elliott. If anyone can do that or can show me that they are fakes, please let me know at hopeandpolitics@yahoo.com, or post a comment. Many thanks.)

My reason for posting the link to the letters is still true.

What amazes me, though, is the nastiness displayed by the Anglicans who commented at the bottom of the page. The responses are not only juvenile, they are about as un-Christian as you can get.

The site, Virtue Online, bills itself as “The Voice for Global Orthodox Anglicanism.” No webmaster can control the people who comment online, so perhaps these comments aren’t representative of the conservative branch of the Anglican Communion.

However, if they do represent even a small part of orthodox Anglicanism, what the heck is going on? Are orthodox Anglicans so immature that they can’t discuss two letters in a reasonable manner?

I can understand that the regular readers of this site would disagree with Robinson and Elliott. What I don’t understand is why they don’t seem to have the ability to respond with anything but junior high bullying.

If Robinson and Elliott are so wrong, then let the so-called virtuous readers of this site, argue their side of the controversy, or is that simply impossible to do?