Baby Blue, who must have a reminder function on her calendar, reminds us that we have not heard another thing about the supposed letter from the Archbishop of Canterbury to all or some of the bishops that would set out the basis on which they ought to decide to come or not to Lambeth. BB is still waiting.
Interestingly, Ruth Gledhill seems to think that maybe the Archbishop's recent video to the bishops about Lambeth IS the letter…in new form. She writes, "The Archbishop of Canterbury has put that Lambeth letter' that Bishop Wright talked about up as a video on YouTube!"
So Ruth seems to believe the video is the letter. If it is, it is not as drastic a missive as previously supposed. And Bishop Wright and George Conger are wrong.
If it is not, we are with Baby Blue still waiting, and Ruth Gledhill is wrong.
But mostly, as time goes by it seems less and less interesting. Waiting becomes less electric.
On April 25th, The Living Church reported that a spokesman for Archbishop Williams said the internet video presentation was “not related” to his forthcoming letter to the bishops.
ReplyDeleteOn Ms. Gledhill. It was she who implied in her blog that +Cantuar had approved +Venables "plan"(her word) for realignment. Giving the timing of the attempted secession, her comments may well have influenced those in San Joaquin who believed that the realignment would assure them of communion with Canterbury. +Venables has now denied that any such approval was ever sought or given and Dan Martins+ has told us that one of the major conditions of the Standing Committee was that a relationship with Canterbury was secure. The most unfathomable part, was, had it even been true, she failed to question or corroborate its accuracy. As a professional, she should have been aware that such a change would turn the entire history of Lambeth and the Communion. So, if Ms. Gledhill has decided that the letter is the video, I must ask, with whom did she corroborate her story this time? And, on what does basis does she get to decide what the Archbishop of Canterbury intended? I will grant, that there is a difference, in her mind, between her blog and her reporting, but given her position and the likelihood that what she blogs will be construed as having journalistic warrant, I would hope that she would have more discretion. In any event, it will be the Times of London that is held responsible, and its integrity open to question, if her blog is, in fact, unsubstantiated and yellow as they host it. EmilyH
ReplyDeleteRowan says that the first Lambeth Conference was Archbishop Longley's idea. Wrong. He was pressured into it by the Canadians and the Americans. He should read Paul Marshal's paper that came out a couple of years ago about the history of the Lambeth Conference. One would expect a scholarly ABC to know his own history.
ReplyDeleteMs. Gledhill has I think it is apparent, an agenda. That said, I wonder if Dr. Williams is constrained by his lack of will. If he says 'do not come' to those whose 'interventions' violate Windsor, a rather large number may be quite happy not to come.
ReplyDeleteFWIW
jimB
Waiting becomes less electric.
ReplyDeleteYes, I noticed, too. That power line is definitely getting weak.
"That power line is definitely getting weak" gm
ReplyDeleteWhat power line?