The Presbyterian News Service: The Need for
Neutrality:
A Critique of a Reporter’s Uninformed Bias
Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.
Associate
Professor of New Testament, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary
The
following appeared as a column in
the Oct. 25, 2003 edition of Presbyweb.
Mr. John Filiatreau, a reporter for the
Presbyterian News Service, has apparently dashed off an article (dated
Oct. 21, 2003) entitled
“Task Force Sex Talk Rated G,” about the
Presbyterian Theological Task Force’s recent deliberations on
homosexuality.
The “news” as depicted by Mr. Filiatreau—the article actually does come
under the heading of News—is not news but an infomercial for the
views represented by the Covenant Network (a pro-homosex lobby group
within the PCUSA). I expect better from our Presbyterian news service.
The Task Force reviewed six articles on
the Bible and homosexuality: articles by Jeffrey Siker, Thomas Schmidt,
Luke Timothy Johnson, Helmut Thielicke, Andrew Sullivan, and me. The
article written by me was: “The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Theology,
Analogies, and Genes” (published in the
Nov/Dec 2001 issue of Theology
Matters).
Some in the Task Force made misleading
charges about my work, which Mr. Filiatreau played up. His subtitle “Group
. . . eschews ‘caricature and stereotype’” is problematic in view of the
fact that some in the Task Force did “caricature and stereotype” my work.
I will deal with this at another time. My concern here, however, is Mr.
Filiatreau’s own “caricature and stereotype” of my work. He reviewed what
members of the Task Force said about each of the other five articles with
little or no added commentary of his own. However, when he came to my
article, which the Task Force gave more time to than any other article,
Mr. Filiatreau chose to contribute an extensive partisan commentary under
the guise of “news.” His attack on my scholarship is brazen enough to
merit a response. He alleges that:
·
My article is a “16 [sic—13]-page polemic”
·
Gagnon “contends, largely without
presenting supporting evidence. . .”
·
My article “is written to a . . .
less academic standard”
·
“The only one of the six
[articles] to take an aggressive, frankly polemic tone” is Gagnon’s
·
“In Gagnon’s view, homosexuals
are petulant”
·
Gagnon “has no compunctions about
putting words into others’ mouths”
·
“Gagnon hedges many of his claims
to such a degree that little meaning remains”
·
“The receptive audience
apparently emboldened Gagnon to make a number of broad claims about
homosexuality without presenting evidence in their support”
·
Gagnon “draws direct correlations
by assertion”
·
Gagnon “makes claims so sweeping
that their meaning is obscure”
I will reply to these caricatures in the
eight points below.
1. Polemical or rigorous?
Mr. Filiatreau contends—polemically and tendentiously, I might add—that my
article was “the only one of the six to take an aggressive, frankly
polemic tone.”
I encourage Mr. Filiatreau to take a
harder look at the articles by Andrew Sullivan, Jeff Siker, and Luke
Johnson, as well as at his own writing style. Sullivan, Siker, and
Johnson—like Mr. Filiatreau—are no less convinced about the rightness of
their (pro-homosex) position and the wrongness of those who disagree with
them. Their exegesis of Scripture and hermeneutical argumentation may be
less precise than mine but their work is not more irenic.
As regards Mr. Filiatreau’s complaint
about my “tone,” I don’t believe that this is the real issue. I point to
the need for God to form Christ in all of us, not just homosexuals. I
acknowledge several times the great difficulty that many have in
struggling with homoerotic desires or other scripturally proscribed urges.
And I call upon the church to make greater strides in providing for
intimacy needs of all single persons, not just homosexuals. I recognize
the need for all of us to wrestle with struggles and temptations, both
heterosexual and homosexual.
Where are the specific examples of
inappropriate tone? If Mr. Filiatreau finds it offensive that I say that
the homosexuality debate is about whether Jesus Christ or a misguided
biological determinism shall be lord, so be it. There is a lot about the
gospel to which people take offense. We all are humbled and silenced by
much of the language about sin in the Bible. I think, for example, about
Paul’s “tone” regarding same-sex intercourse in Romans 1:24-27 and 1
Corinthians 6:9-11 or regarding the case of adult, consensual incest in 1
Corinthians 5. We should also think about Jesus’ tone on sexual immorality
in Matthew 5:27-32. By comparison my tone is quite mild.
2. Is homosexuality like
ethnicity, sex, and eye color? Mr. Filiatreau further claims that
I contend, “largely without presenting supporting evidence,” that
homosexual identity, unlike ethnicity, gender, and eye color, is (in my
words) “not an inevitable product of one’s birth but rather is largely
shaped by familial and extra-familial cultural/environmental factors.”
This is a most puzzling contention on
Mr. Filiatreau’s part. My article provides over 2000 words of supporting
documentation (pp. 9-12)—none of which Mr. Fileatreau or any member of the
Task Force demonstrates to be in error. In fact, what separates my article
from the other articles read by the Task Force is that it was the only one
that substantiated claims about sexual orientation with reference to
socio-scientific evidence. I believe that we need to employ
socio-scientific research as well as sound biblical hermeneutics, and I
have done so. (Schmidt does so also, and quite well, in chapters of his
book Straight and Narrow? that the Task Force did not assign.) I
refer to:
·
The weaknesses of the “homosexual brain” and “homosexual
gene” studies
·
The evidence from the latest and best of the identical twin
studies. See now the most recent, and largest, representative study of
same-sex attraction in twins, done by researchers from Columbia and Yale
(2002), which concludes that “less gendered socialization” in childhood,
not genetic or hormonal influences, plays the dominant role in the
development of same-sex attraction. “If same-sex romantic attraction has a
genetic component, it is massively overwhelmed by other factors” (Peter S.
Bearman and Hannah Brückner, “Opposite-Sex Twins and Adolescent Same-Sex
Attraction,” American Journal of Sociology 107:5 [2002]:
1179-1205).
·
The exotic-becomes-erotic theory by Daryl Bem (professor of
psychology at Cornell, who is, incidentally homosexual)
·
Some psychoanalytic thought on developmental causes of
homosexuality
·
David Greenberg’s massive cross-cultural study
·
The conclusions of the researchers for the 1992 National
Health and Social Life Survey
·
The views of Kinsey and the Kinsey Institute
·
The work of reparative therapists and transformation
ministries. See, for example: Warren Throckmorton, “Attempts to Modify
Sexual Orientation: A Review of Outcome Literature and Ethical Issues,”
Journal of Mental Health Counseling 20 (1998): 283-304; idem, “Initial
Empirical and Clinical Findings Concerning the Change Process for
Ex-Gays,” Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 33/3 (June
2002): 242-48; and now also Robert L. Spitzer, “Can Some Gay Men and
Lesbians Change Their Sexual Orientation? 200 Participants Reporting a
Change from Homosexual to Heterosexual Orientation,” Archives of Sexual
Behavior 32 (2003): 403-17.
Obviously in a short article there are
limitations to what can be presented so I sometimes referred readers to my
book for further documentation. If neither Mr. Filiatreau nor the
pro-homosex members of the Task Force want to check these references,
surely that is not my fault.
This discussion must be done with more
information, not less; more rigorous thinking, not less. Frankly, it
amazes me that there are still people around who think that homoerotic
desire is as much an inevitable product of birth as ethnicity, gender, and
eye color. Not even homosexual scientists like Simon LeVay or Dean Hamer
believe this. We must not continue to make “reasoned” arguments based on
inaccurate information.
3. Low academic standard?
Mr. Filiatreau, as a journalist, states that my article does not reach the
“academic standard” set by the other six articles—which he attributes
partly (but only partly) to the venue for my initial presentation.
I note at the beginning of the article
that it was “adapted” from my workshop at the Presbyterian Coalition
Gathering on October 1, 2001. Adapted means that it is not
precisely the same talk but reworked for a broader audience. The Coalition
audience has nothing to do with the quality of the article. I could have
easily given a similar presentation before a Covenant Network meeting—and,
in so doing, I would have elevated the quality of exegesis and
hermeneutics that normally goes on in that venue. The academic quality of
my article is not in the least bit inferior to that of the other five
articles read by the Task Force. For example, I invite Mr. Filiatreau or
anyone on the Task Force to show how Jeff Siker’s case for Gentile
inclusion is superior to my critique of it or to my preferred analogue of
adult incest.
Obviously my 520-page book offers
readers a more full-length discussion of a range of issues. Nevertheless,
this article does a good job of summarizing—and, at points, building
on—the discussion in The Bible and Homosexual Practice regarding
the use of analogies (pp. 441-52) and the “sexual orientation argument”
(pp. 395-432). At no point does Mr. Filiatreau or the Task Force members
critical of my article establish that my arguments were flawed. I
will grant their misrepresentation of my article, their emotive and
unreasoned reaction, and their unsubstantiated claims. But I do not
believe that there has been substantive rebuttal. Anybody can allege a
flawed presentation. But without proof it becomes nothing more than
name-calling.
4. Who is putting words into
Paul’s mouth? Mr. Filiatreau, again in his role as a reporter,
tendentiously states that I “have no compunctions about putting words into
others’ mouths,” such as when I conclude, based on literary and historical
evidence, that current “sexual orientation” theory would not have changed
Paul’s views on homosexual practice. (Incidentally, “sexual orientation”
is merely the directedness of sexual impulses at any given stage of one’s
life and should properly apply not just to choice of gender but also to
such matters as age and number of sex partners.)
I could agree with Mr. Filiatreau, but
only if I discard an overwhelming cumulative case supporting my
observation. I would have to disregard the facts that:
·
There were many theories in the ancient world surmising
congenital influence on some or all forms of homoerotic desire
·
There were known lifelong homosexuals in antiquity
·
There were notable examples of nonexploitative homosexual
relationships in antiquity and wide-ranging discussions about the beauty
of male-male intercourse
·
Paul in Romans 5 and 7 regarded sin precisely as an innate
impulse, running through the members of the human body, passed on by an
ancestor, and never entirely within human control
·
There are strong intertextual echoes to Genesis 1:26-28 and
Genesis 2:18-24 behind Paul’s indictment to same-sex intercourse in Romans
1:24-27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9
·
Paul’s reason for opposing same-sex intercourse had to do
with its “same-sexness”; that is, the attempt to merge erotically with a
sexual same, with what one already is as a sexual being, rather than with
a complementary sexual other.
Given these considerations, the ones who
are guilty of eisegesis (reading into the text something that is not
there) and hermeneutical error (misapplying the text in our context), are
those who contend that our alleged “new knowledge” about homosexuality
might have, or would have, made a major difference to the authors of
Scripture. The strong burden of proof is on them to establish such a
contention, inasmuch as we are clearly dealing here with a countercultural
core value in biblical sexual ethics. Otherwise the authority of Scripture
means nothing.
Take the following analogy: Who would be
guilty of putting words into Jesus’ mouth—someone who argued that we
cannot know what Jesus might have thought about a case of adult,
consensual incest or someone who argued that we can know, despite the
absence of an explicit Jesus saying to that effect?
5. Are we dictating to God?
Mr. Filiatreau says that I characterize homosexuals as “petulant.”
This is his term, not mine. What I do say is that: Any attempt at
claiming that one has a right to violate core values of Scripture on the
basis of an allegedly intractable desire is an attempt at “dictating to
God what one needs in life to be happy.” It is a supplanting of Christ’s
lordship with one’s own—whether the attempt is conscious or unconscious.
It denies the basic Christian teaching that we can be made new in Christ.
I further say in the article:
Much of the sexuality debate revolves
around human demands about what God allegedly must do if God is to be
considered loving and just. . . . It is about whether or not we have the
right to define for ourselves what we can do on the basis of desires that
we experience in life, or whether God has the right to transform us into
the image of Jesus as God sees fit.
I continue to stand by these statements.
And I see nothing wrong with the tone. A decision on the part of the
church to approve, or make exceptions for, homosexual behavior would have
enormous negative ramifications for questions of biblical authority in the
life of the church, for Christ’s lordship, for sexual standards and
Christian ethics generally, for the unity of the church, and for the lives
of many persons. Soft-pedaling what the united witness of Scripture
strongly states on this matter does one’s neighbor harm, rather than good.
6. Careful scholarship or hedging
into meaninglessness? Mr. Filiatreau “reports” that “Gagnon hedges
many of his claims to such a degree that little meaning remains.”
Ironically, Mr. Filiatreau criticizes me both for allegedly making “broad
claims” (see 8. below) and for providing appropriate qualifiers. Go
figure. What Mr. Filiatreau pejoratively labels as “hedging” is the mark
of careful scholarship. As far as the comment about “little meaning” is
concerned, Mr. Filiatreau has not read my article with care—presumably
because his conclusions were already drawn before that effort.
a. Reorientation and Alcoholics
Anonymous. One of my statements that Mr. Filiatreau contends is
“hedged” to the point of being meaningless is the following:
Reparative therapists and transformation
ministries report some success in achieving for motivated clients
considerable to complete change from homosexual to heterosexual
orientation—a rate of success comparable perhaps to that achieved by
Alcoholics Anonymous.
Mr. Filiatreau’s charge of “little
meaning” would be accurate only if I were arguing that therapy always
turns exclusive homosexuals into exclusive heterosexuals. But I never
assert that and I don’t believe that. However, management of
homoerotic impulses, normally coincident with a reduction in intensity, is
possible for all homosexual Christians (note the variegated meaning to
“change” on p. 12a of my article). Does Mr. Filiatreau want to contend
that Alcoholics Anonymous is a disaster because most participants in its
programs do not undergo a complete or near-total eradication of desires
for alcohol? My point was simply that this is one more piece of evidence,
in a string of evidences that I cite on pp. 9-12, that homoerotic
orientation, like alcoholism, cannot be equated with ethnicity, sex, and
eye color as a non-malleable, completely congenital condition.
b. Genetic influence? Mr.
Filiatreau cites the following statement from my article as another
example of hedging-bordering-on-meaninglessness:
So while not discounting altogether
genetic influence in the development of a homosexual identity, the studies
to date suggest that the influence is not major.
I do not know why Mr. Filiatreau thinks
that my position depends on showing that homosexual desire is a completely
voluntary act. Even non-theologians know that there is no intrinsic link
between biological causation and morality. A just-released article on the
genetics of sexual orientation, written by two “essentialist” and
pro-homosex scientists, Brian Mustanski and J. Michael Bailey, concedes:
Despite common assertions to the contrary,
evidence for biological causation does not have clear moral, legal, or
policy consequences. . . . No clear conclusions about the morality of a
behaviour can be made from the mere fact of biological causation, because
all behaviour is biologically caused. (Sexual and Relationship Therapy
18:4 [Nov. 2003], 432)
The fact that there is some genetic or
biological influence on homosexuality does not reduce us to moral robots.
We may not have asked to feel a given way, but we are responsible for what
we do with such feelings. Christian faith does not operate on a model of
biological determinism. It operates on the model of a new creation in
Christ, in which sinful, biologically related urges are, and are to be,
put to death.
The point of my quoted text is that
microcultural and macrocultural incentives can manipulate, to some degree,
the incidence of homosexuality in the population. Given the high incidence
of attendant problems associated with homosexual behavior, why would we
want to provide cultural incentives for the development of homosexuality?
Moreover, for any given individual, hope remains for some level of change
at some point in life, just as there is always hope for some level of
change for the alcoholic, the pedophile, the person addicted to
pornography, and many others afflicted by an array of biologically
related, but still malleable, sinful conditions.
A recent study by UCLA researchers that
confirms gene differences in males and females has been touted as proving
that homosexual identity is “hard-wired” and genetically inevitable.
This conclusion is wrong on two counts (see, too, the nice critique by
Warren Throckmorton).
First, the researchers established only male-female differences, not
homosexual-heterosexual differences. Second, genes are predisposing, not
deterministic. As Mustanski and Bailey conclude: “The heritability of a
trait provides little information about the extent to which it is
compelled, immutable, innate, or most importantly, acceptable” (p. 435).
c. Implicit proscription. Mr.
Filiatreau’s last example fares no better than the first two. I say:
Same-sex intercourse is proscribed “by both Testaments” and “pervasively
within each Testament, at least implicitly.” He emphasizes “implicitly”
and suggests that the adverb renders meaningless any claim to canonical
pervasiveness.
Why does Mr. Filiatreau think that this
is a meaningless point? Man-mother incest and same-sex intercourse are
mentioned a comparable number of times in the canon. Does Mr. Filiatreau
want to argue that man-mother incest was a relatively minor issue for the
authors of Scripture? Bestiality is mentioned explicitly even less—only
four times in the Old Testament and not at all in the New Testament. Does
this indicate that there is some ambivalence regarding bestiality on the
part of New Testament authors? The point that needs to be grasped here is
that some forms of behavior are regarded by consensus as so egregious,
with the incidence of violation so rare, that extended discussion is
unnecessary. (How many times in my lifetime have I heard a preacher speak
against man-mother incest? Zero. Does that mean committing man-mother
incest would be a matter of small import? Obviously not.) Such an issue is
same-sex intercourse in Scripture.
Even so, biblical texts that explicitly
reject same-sex intercourse are more numerous than Mr. Filiatreau is
apparently aware of (The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 56-110).
Furthermore, texts that implicitly reject homosexual unions run the
gamut of the entire Bible (The Bible and Homosexual Practice,
185-228, 432-41). They include not only the creation stories in
Genesis 1-3, Jesus’ appeal to Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:24 as
prescriptive norms (as well as a half dozen other indications of Jesus’
view), the Apostolic Decree in Acts and other porneia (“sexual
immorality”) texts, and texts that reject overt attempts at blurring
sexual differentiation (e.g., cross-dressing in Deuteronomy 22:5 or
hairstyles in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16), but also the whole range of
narratives, laws, proverbs, exhortations, metaphors, and poetry that
presume the sole legitimacy of heterosexual unions. Nowhere is there the
slightest indication of openness anywhere in the Bible to homoerotic
attachments, including the narrative about David and Jonathan. The truth
is that, so far as extant evidence indicates, every biblical author, as
well as Jesus, would have been appalled by any same-sex intercourse
occurring among the people of God. And we have not yet touched on the
unequivocal witness of early Judaism (The Bible and Homosexual Practice,
159-83).
7. Who is making unsupported
“broad claims”? Mr. Filiatreau claims: “The receptive audience
apparently emboldened Gagnon to make a number of broad claims about
homosexuality without presenting evidence in their support.” Here is his
“proof.”
a. A link between sexual
experimentation and homosexuality. Mr. Filiatreau’s first example is
the following quote:
We
should feel as much for children who, through vigorous societal
endorsement of homosexual behavior, are encouraged at a crucial stage of
sexual development into cultivating homosexual self-identification and
behavior, with its disproportionately high risks to health, relational
dynamics, and gender identity.
Mr. Filiatreau makes the same point
again: “He draws direct correlations by
assertion: ‘The greater the latitude for sexual experimentation,
especially in the period from late childhood through adolescence and early
adulthood, the greater the incidence of self-identifying homosexuals.’”
Mr. Filiatreau claims that I provide no
support for these statements. Yet, once again, the documentation is
clearly laid out on pp. 9-12. I urge Mr. Filiatreau to reread this
section.
Another study that could have been cited
is: G. Remafedi, et al., “Demography of sexual orientation in
adolescents,” Pediatrics 89:4 (Apr. 1992): 714-21. Here is the
authors’ abstract:
This study was undertaken to explore
patterns of sexual orientation in a representative sample of
Minnesota junior and senior high school students. The sample
included 34,706 students (grades 7 through 12) from diverse
ethnic, geographic, and socioeconomic strata. . . . Overall, 10.7% of
students were "unsure" of their sexual orientation; 88.2%
described themselves as predominantly heterosexual; and 1.1%
described themselves as bisexual or predominantly homosexual. .
. . Gender differences were minor; but responses to individual
sexual orientation items varied with age, religiosity,
ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. Uncertainty about sexual orientation
diminished in successively older age groups, with corresponding
increases in heterosexual and homosexual affiliation. The
findings suggest an unfolding of sexual identity during
adolescence, influenced by sexual experience and demographic
factors. (emphasis added)
In other words, if adolescents
experiment in homosexual behavior, those whose sexual identity is still
somewhat in flux will probably experience a higher incidence of homosexual
proclivity than if they had never participated in such behavior. We also
know now that the brain rewires in accordance with experiences in life; in
short, nurture can become nature (see The Bible and Homosexual Practice,
pp. 398-99).
b. The promiscuous male homosexual
life. Mr. Filiatreau’s second example is: “He
casually refers in passing to ‘the off-the-charts promiscuity of
homosexual men, even in relation to homosexual women’” (pp. 8-9). I also
make a passing comment to “non-monogamous and short-term relationships”
when describing briefly the high rate of problems attending homosexual
relationships (p. 12).
I do not
provide the documentation for this point in this article—again, it is only
a 13-page article—but I do tell readers on p. 12 where in The Bible and
Homosexual Practice they can find ample documentation (pp. 452-60). I
trust that there is no one restraining Mr. Filiatreau or other critics on
the Task Force from reading my book.
I am not sure
why Mr. Filiatreau thinks that the notion of disproportionately high rates
of male homosexual promiscuity is a contestable point. There are basic
male-female differences that create different types of problems for male
and female homoerotic unions. A key problem for male homoerotic unions,
attributable to the greater intensity and visual and genital focus of the
male sexual drive, is the disproportionately high rate—grossly so—of sex
partners. Of course, there are exceptions, but the rule remains.
That the
point is not all that controversial, even among pro-homosex scientists, is
evident from comments made by J. Michael Bailey in a recent book, The
Man Who Would Be Queen (Joseph Henry Press, 2003). Bailey is chair of
the department of Psychology at Northwestern University, author of a
number of important identical twin studies, and a strong supporter of
homosexual relationships. Bailey himself acknowledges:
Because of fundamental
differences between men and women, the social organization of gay men’s
sexuality will always look quite different from that of heterosexual
men’s. Regardless of marital laws and policies, there will always be fewer
gay men who are romantically attached. Gay men will always have many more
sex partners than straight people do. Those who are attached will be less
sexually monogamous. And although some gay male relationships will be for
life, these will be many fewer than among heterosexual couples. . . . I
suspect that regardless of the progress of gay rights, gay men will
continue to pursue happiness in ways that differ markedly from the ways
that most straight people do. . . . Both heterosexual and
homosexual people will need to be open minded about social practices
common to people of other orientations. (pp. 100-102; emphasis added)
Now, I do not
argue that all male homosexuals will be unable to have lifelong,
monogamous relationships (there will be exceptions), nor do I say that a
non-monogamous proclivity is the main problem with homosexual practice
(the structural incongruity of a same-sex merger per se is the main
problem). But I do say that approval of homosexual unions will invariably
erode, even further than has already happened, societal expectations of
monogamy. Moreover, I note that if one validates homosexual unions based
on an argument regarding biological determinism, then one is logically
compelled to accept nonmonogamous male homosexual relationships—as Bailey
himself concluded two years later. So I say in my article:
Ironically, those who argue that homosexual behavior should not be
disavowed precisely because it is resistant to change would—to be
consistent—have to contend that non-monogamous relationships be accepted
for male homosexual relationships. For statistical evidence to date
strongly suggests that male homosexuals have extraordinary difficulty,
relative even to lesbians, in forming monogamous unions.
c.
Commonsense standards for sexual complementarity. Mr. Filiatreau
refers disparagingly to my “undefined” reference to “commonsense
standards for sexual complementarity, avoiding the twin extremes of too
much similarity (as with incest) and too much dissimilarity (so
bestiality).”
I am at a loss here. If it isn’t clear
to everyone that a man-mother or brother sister or human-animal sexual
union is structurally incongruous or incompatible, then we really
do have a problem of great proportions.
8.
Obscure meaning? Finally, Mr. Filiatreau alleges: “He makes claims
so sweeping that their meaning is obscure: ‘The behavior arising from
homosexual desire is associated with [a disproportionately high
rate of health problems (sexually transmitted diseases, mental health
issues) and of non-monogamous and short-term relationships, as well as
with] an annihilation of basic societal gender norms’” (material in
brackets was omitted by Mr. Filiatreau).
I am baffled
as to why Mr. Filiatreau thinks the meaning of this sentence is obscure.
An endorsement of homosexual behavior will lead to a disproportionately
high rate of health and relational problems, as well as to an eventual
elimination of basic societal gender norms. What could be more obvious
than the latter? All the major homosexual advocacy groups embrace
transvestism and transgenderism in their overall aims. The very denial of
an essential male-female complementarity is a denial of the importance of
sexual differentiation.
Conclusion.
How else can
I say it? Mr. Filiatreau’s dismissive representation of the academic
quality of my article is unsubstantiated, biased, and unprofessional—all
the more since it comes under the guise of “news.”
Mr. Filiatreau has produced a knee-jerk
editorial rather than unbiased reporting. He has violated the implicit
journalistic contract with the reader by polemicizing rather than
reporting. He has attacked a position that apparently he does not agree
with—the position of the Presbyterian Church (USA) no less. The least that
we can expect of reporters is fair and evenhanded judgment. One would hope
that in the future the Presbyterian News Service would properly
distinguish opinion from news. One would also think that Mr. Filiatreau,
on more careful reflection, would offer an apology to me for the attack on
my work.
© 2003 Robert A. J. Gagnon