I did not get the impression from the article that the film was a TEC production or that it was advancing a “new TEC theology.”  It sounded like a documentary account of the turmoil in the Anglican Community brought on by Gene Robinson’s ordination as bishop.  Although I would have to see the film in its entirety to judge (and I doubt that I will take the time to do that), the linked account made it sound as though the filmmakers took some pains to portray the issue as one with reasonable and sympathetic people on all sides.

faux–na·ïf
adj \ˌfō-nä-ˈēf\
: spuriously or affectedly childlike : artfully simple

RE: “or that it was advancing a “new TEC theology.” . . . “

Yeh . . . that’s why Robinson is promoting it as propaganda for those who ” still go in the voting booth and vote against us.”

Thanks for the excellent and apt headline, Kendall—I appreciate the warning and I know others will as well, so that we can know what to stay away from.

Will if it is anything like “For the Bible Tells Me So” which is referenced in the article, I have no doubt this is fine documentary that is fair and balanced, provided that by “fair and balanced” you mean “we only interview liberal theologians and find the most crackpot conservative for about a 3 second clip total.”

Again, I have not seen the film and probably will not, but I would take issue with the characterization of Archbishop Duncan and Bishop Little as “crackpot conservatives.”  These men are reasonable, respectable church leaders.

  Disagreements on scriptural authority arise only in passing in the film, which naturally does not tread too far into theology

An interesting decision, to make their argument on a basis other than theology.

This film is not proclaiming Jesus and the Christian lifestyle.  It is proclaiming Gene Robinson and the homosexual lifestyle.

My Aunt Betty is spinning in her grave at the plot of this movie.

paradoxymoron #6,

They have not been able to advance a theology apart from their personal experiences. To quote Robinson

“All the research shows that while that (arguing scripture) gets us not very far, what gets us there are stories — individual stories.

It is these indivudual stories that were used in Upper SC at our “First Theological Convention” last year. This is part of a well established strategy.

Theology just gets in the way of proclaiming the gospel of Gene Robinson as Nikolaus #7 correctly points out.

He has retired from being a bishop, thankfully, but has he signed on as a lobbyist or politico yet? I always figured that was next and, really, his true “calling.” Robinson has never been about the Gospel of Christ or the work of the Church—it’s always been about how he can best affirm/promote his thoughts and decisions.

For better or worse, worse in my view, everything we have been arguing about for the last 11 years in his doing. He still continues to crave affirmation.

RE: “He still continues to crave affirmation.”

And, like a child, if not affirmation, then simply attention.  It’s one of the chief characteristics, I’ve noticed, of TEC revisionist activists.  It’s like they got stopped from growing up some time around 2 or 3 years of age.

“And then, it looks as if this will be showing on PBS in the fall, and … we’re working on getting it shown on Thanksgiving weekend.”

Another reason for Congress to defund PBS.