George O. Wood, general superintendent of the Assemblies of God, was one of a more than a hundred Christian leaders who signed the “Covenant for Civility”, a statement with the admirable purpose of encouraging respect, moderation and tolerance as citizens debate contentious political and social issues. Now Wood has withdrawn his name from the petition….because he doesn’t want his name on the same piece of paper as those who disagree with him on contentious social and political issues.
“The problem is the tent that has grown so large on the signatures of this that they are including people who are supportive of gay marriage and abortion rights,” explained a spokesman for Wood’s church, the nation’s second largest Pentecostal group. “He says that he cannot be a part of signing a document that includes people who are taking a viewpoint in their own issues that are clearly contradictory to the moral teachings of Scripture.”
Ah.
Wait a minute…What???
I don’t think Mr. Wood quite understands this respect and civility stuff. Respect other points of view, as long as they agree with yours? Use moderation in words, but display utter disdain for others in your actions? Why the heck did he sign this petition in the first place?
Now he’s doing the cause of civility a favor: getting George O. Wood’s name off the petition only strengthens it. Now somebody needs to send it to him to read. On second thought, never mind; he doesn’t respect the names on it enough to have the courtesy to consider it.
Ethics Alarms 
Makes you wonder why he calls himself a Christian. Maybe 12th century Christianity–the kind that slaughtered the eastern Christians of Constantinople.
You people have it ALL WRONG. I don’t know George Woods only of him, and he is a man of integrity. And, he also knows his Bible which is a bit more than I can say for the comments stated here. May I suggest you look up the word “ethics” – it is a moral set of principles, especially ones relating to or affirming a specified group, field or form of conduct. There are different forms of ethics – Mr. Woods is standing by his code of ethics and there isn’t anything divisive about that. You people want everyone to agree with you and if they don’t you lash out. I’m not with the Assemblies of God, but I admire his stand for what he believes.
Mr. Stone you wonder why Mr. Woods called himself a Christian – may I suggest a Christian “should be” a follower of Jesus Christ. Shame on you for your accusations. Much has been done in the name of Christianity in the past which was NOT Christian. Remember, God knows who belong to Him and who do not….
1) That is not what ethics means, as used here. Ethics is the study of right and wrong. You have defined a moral code, not that he was following that either. Woods was wrong, and he is a hypocrite in the defining sense of the word, claiming to want to encourage respect and civility among people of different views, then behaving uncivilly towards others–because they hold different views. Yes, there are different systems of ethics, and Woods’ conduct violated almost every one of them. 2) It was divisive. it was hurtful, it undermined his faith, it undermined a legitimate ethical objective, it violated the Golden Rule, and was, incidentally, stupid. 3) You don’t stand for what you believe by treating others like lepers. What Wood “proved” was that he really didn’t care about the petition he signed enough to allow his name to sit on a page with another cleric of a different set of beliefs? You “admire” that? It’s a terrible example for children or adults.
Your comment makes no argument at all, except to say he did what he did and that’s dandy with you. Congrats; but I don’t see any persuasive analysis there. Woods’ act speaks for itself. He was originally doing something of value to the culture, and then recanted to grandstand. Explain to me how having co-signers regarding an unrelated issue sitting with your name on a petition in any way suggests that you endorse their position, any more than having your name with theirs in a phone book. You can’t, because it is pure nonsense.
And his position regarding gay marriage, to name one, is per se unethical, while it may indeed be consistent with his moral code. It takes no brains or logic to follow a moral code; just a willingness to follow an edict and not think about its consequences, or whether it is fair or just, or it might be a couple thousand years out of date because, you know, we’re less ignorant now. Being ethical, in contrast, requires that one actually think—something Mr. Wood obviously didn’t, or can’t, do.
If you have a genuine argument why his action is reasonable other than “God told him to do it,” I’d love to read it.
If you don’t agree with Dr Woods you should be civil regarding his opinion if you are a supporter of civility as this thread discusses or you may not be a supporter after all…
JS: Baloney. There isn’t anything uncivil about fair criticism or calling out hypocrisy. There isn’t a word in the post that wouldn’t be completely appropriate in a meeting of the Super-Sensitive to Mean Rhetoric Society. You have no more comprehension of what civility is than Dr. Woods does.
Why do people bother writing dumb comments like yours? It is a constant source of amazement to me. If you’re “just sayin’,” why not try to just say something worth the time it takes to read it?
Just sayin’.
If there “isn’t anything uncivil about fair criticism,” then why are you frustrated about the gentlemen that gave fair criticism with you. You say that you are civil at the same time you are calling him dumb. What Dr. Wood said was out of response of his faith and view point being criticized. This was all started because a man was ask to give his viewpoint from scripture to an assembly who was apart of the Assembly of God. When that man was “critized,” he just clearly defended our stances based on scripture. It seems that once Dr. Woods backed out of his agreement because he could he disagreed with the majority of people’s stances. If you are someone else is still apart of the agreement but want to criticize in that way then maybe you should back out as well.
Because that wasn’t fair criticism, accurate criticism, or intelligent criticism. He resorted to the school-yard “yeah, well you’re one too!” taunt when there was nothing to hang it on—as I said, there was nothing uncivil anywhere in the post, by any definition. As for the comments that calling it so—they were dumb, and I am justified in calling them what they are. That’s not name calling at all—the word has meaning, and properly applying it is legitimate diagnosis. There was no “defense” offered in those comments. “That’s the way it is” is not a defense. It’s a dodge by people who have no defense.
I have not signed an civility agreement but I have not called you or anyone else dumb or ignorant. I am pretty sure that Dr. Wood did not either. All he said was in the context of his belief which come from the scriptures. If you are someone who does not believe in the authority of scriptures then what could I or Dr. Woods ever say to you. But if we keep his comments in the context of scriptures and he is speaking to those who believe in scriptures then what he said is not dumb and is really not uncivil. P.S. because I said this does not mean I think that you are dumb!
Here is the relevant segment of the reply in question:
“2) It was divisive. it was hurtful, it undermined his faith, it undermined a legitimate ethical objective, it violated the Golden Rule, and was, incidentally, stupid. 3) You don’t stand for what you believe by treating others like lepers. What Wood “proved” was that he really didn’t care about the petition he signed enough to allow his name to sit on a page with another cleric of a different set of beliefs? You “admire” that? It’s a terrible example for children or adults.
“Your comment makes no argument at all, except to say he did what he did and that’s dandy with you. Congrats; but I don’t see any persuasive analysis there. Woods’ act speaks for itself. He was originally doing something of value to the culture, and then recanted to grandstand. Explain to me how having co-signers regarding an unrelated issue sitting with your name on a petition in any way suggests that you endorse their position, any more than having your name with theirs in a phone book. You can’t, because it is pure nonsense.
“And his position regarding gay marriage, to name one, is per se unethical, while it may indeed be consistent with his moral code. It takes no brains or logic to follow a moral code; just a willingness to follow an edict and not think about its consequences, or whether it is fair or just, or it might be a couple thousand years out of date because, you know, we’re less ignorant now. Being ethical, in contrast, requires that one actually think—something Mr. Wood obviously didn’t, or can’t, do.
“If you have a genuine argument why his action is reasonable other than “God told him to do it,” I’d love to read it.”
It is emphatic but accurate. There is nothing uncivil about calling a stupid argument stupid, and ignorance ignorant. Indeed, I have an obligation to so do.
I am fine if you disagree with me sir.. I just don’t think that George said anything mean. And your ethics could very well be in question if there is no authority behind it besides your own or what you think. I can not change what you think about scriptures. I just saying that when you say that it is not uncivil to call someone dumb or ignorant if they are is not a civil thing to do in the first place. I disagree with you whole heartedly and am right there with Dr. Woods but I have not sad mean things and then said I was civil. I think that we should just leave it at that. I do not mean not harm to you and I probably should not gotten involved.
If you cannot comment more substantively than this, you’re right.
See that is what I am talking about man! If you are not going to act better than that and treat people with respect while you are talking about being civil then maybe you should not commit either.
I am perfectly respectful. I respectfully note that your commentary is ludicrous, and, as before that you mistake passivity for civility. Wood’s conduct defies defense, and the post was very precise regarding why. Now, if you don’t mind, I have rational people to talk to.