Is any other point of view offered on this issue? Of course not. That would be too complicated.<\/p>\n
Does the story even mention any other doctrinal issues facing the Anglican Communion, issues that have been given some ink in \u201d\u201d to cite one prime setting \u201d\u201d The New York Times? No, that would be too complicated.<\/p>\n
The point of the story, after all, is that this woman should not be defined by her sexuality. That is a great and appropriate journalistic goal. So, what is her stance on other crucial issues, doctrinal issues, that are causing cracks in the Anglican Communion? How would she describe her Christology, her view of the Virgin Birth, the historical reality of the Resurrection, the question of whether salvation can only be found through belief in Jesus, the nature of biblical authority? Issues of gender and liturgy? Or is her sexuality all that matters?<\/p>\n
Has she written or said anything on these issues? What about during the selection process in Los Angeles? Are there critics in Maryland or California \u201d\u201d or in other parts of the world, like England \u201d\u201d who have studied her life and work and might be able to offer insights, as part of a journalistic process in which the views of both sides are quoted accurately and with empathy?<\/p>\n