unofficial cm page


Commentary


UMC Bishop Criticizes Jerry Falwell For Reporting Teletubbie Character As Gay


From: GRACELHINK@aol.com
Sent: Saturday, April 10, 1999 8:33 AM
To: ucmpage@ucmpage.org
Subject: UMC Bishop Criticizes Jerry Falwell For Reporting Teletubbie Character As Gay

My ten year old daughter who attends a Christian school passed a teletubbie display in Walmart the other day. She said "Oh Dad there's the teletubbie that is gay!"

Having read Christopher's comments from her perspective and Jerry Falwell's interpretation, I was distressed that one of our own bishop's could be so isolated and sheltered from the real world that she could not perceive this teletubbie was created with an agenda for something other than the most noble episcopal office. Has the ivory tower life sheltered some of us to become so naive regarding life in the secular realm?

If my daughter who could identify a triangle, purple color, and effeminate clothing as the symbols of gay pride, why can't some of us who are supposed to be in the harvest? For me its not a matter of how we interpret what we see, but how we blind ourselves to the deceit we discover in the real world.

Maranatha,
Larry Hinkle


From: RLKuyper@aol.com
To: ucmpage@ucmpage.org
Date: Thursday, April 01, 1999 6:21 PM
Subject: UMC Bishop Criticizes Jerry Falwell For Reporting Teletubbie Character As Gay

The Bishop didn't quite get it right. Jerry Falwell's organization newsletter reported on a story in a gay newspaper that some gays thought Tinky Winky was gay. Jerry Falwell never said it. But the story that a gay newspaper thought Tinky Winky was gay would not sell like saying Falwell said it. Actually he did not.

So much for accuracy in the media. I was taught in a very scholarly seminary to always quote the original source, in this case the gay newspaper


From: Acajava@aol.com <Acajava@aol.com>
To: ucmpage@ucmpage.org <ucmpage@ucmpage.org>
Date: Thursday, April 01, 1999 6:52 AM
Subject: UMC Bishop Criticizes Jerry Falwell For Reporting Teletubbie Character As Gay

I have read the article by Bishop Christopher three times now. Where is the sentence critical of Jerry Falwell? She disagreed with his perspective, seeing something different with regard to the teletubbies. You may think she's wrong in what she saw; you may think Rev. Falwell was right. But the bishop's words were not harsh or derogatory toward Rev. Falwell. I think the title given to the article (on this website) was inflammatory and misleading. That's the only way I can account for someone else reading the same article and faulting the bishop for "slamming" Rev. Falwell.

I guess the title accomplished one purpose of a good title--it got people to read the article. Unfortunately the title chosen for the website (as compared with the title chosen for UMNS) influences the reader to have a negative mindset toward the bishop before even reading her actual words. I would not want my words so colored by a title not of my choosing.

Arden Autry


From: Linda Seymour <lsblue@flash.net>
To: ucmpage@ucmpage.org <ucmpage@ucmpage.org>
Date: Thursday, March 25, 1999 6:30 PM
Subject: Bishop Christopher and Falwell

I have never read any comments made by Bishop Sharon Brown Christopher before her recent article regarding Jerry Falwell's Teletubbie story. Why does Bishop Christopher choose to make this public comment now? Did she do her research on the Falwell story before commenting? She speaks for many Methodists in her area, she should be more informed on issues before speaking for "METHODISTS". There is no reason to slam a Christian brother or sister of the faith.

Linda Seymour
Colleyville, Texas
lsblue@flash.net


[Click] button If you would like to add your yourcomments.gif (1566 bytes) to the UCM News


Back to UCM Homepage