5/16/2008

The Archbishop's cautionary letter is now a phone call

So: (i) There were no letters sent to "bishops unsympathetic." Bishop Tom Wright was wrong five weeks ago. (ii) The Pentecost general letter to all bishops was not that letter. Ruth Gledhill was wrong last week. If you wonder what I am talking about, see HERE. It appears that I was right - the letter is not the letter, etc.

At least that is how it now seems. It is now reported that there is to be no letter, rather the Archbishop of Canterbury will be phoning those who are unsympathetic to the Windsor Report / Covenant focus of Lambeth. 

The Living Church reports that "A spokesman said Archbishop Williams had modified his plan to write to bishops whose stated positions ran contrary to the colleagial gathering of equals he envisions for Lambeth. Instead, Archbishop Williams has been in telephone contact with a number of bishops, asking that they honor the integrity of the meeting, the spokesman told the Church of England Newspaper."

Perhaps he will be calling a bishop near (or dear) to you. Who indeed is on the list to be called?

I cannot imagine just how the Archbishop intends to launch into his concern that said bishops be convinced of "the need to be wholeheartedly part of a shared vision and process in our time together."

Heretofore the "shared vision and process" of Lambeth was mostly the desire to attend, some delight in being part of the Anglican family,  and reasonable manners. Now it requires something more.



6 comments:

  1. Well, for once, Rowan has come to the realization that things that he said from the lectern or writen have come back to bite him (Remember sharia!). So he made phone calls. For all we know he may have called all bishops... or none! But, nevertheless, he's got the message across-- Kids, behave!

    Thomas+

    ReplyDelete
  2. One wonders how many he could have concerns about. A phone call takes a good deal of time, and a good deal of money (certainly more than post). Doesn't sound like all that many to me.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Another reason for Caller I.D.

    ReplyDelete
  4. ... Archbishop Williams had modified his plan to write to bishops whose stated positions ran contrary to the colleagial gathering of equals he envisions for Lambeth.

    If ever there has been a sentence that sums up how power corrupts whilst blinding the corrupted to their own corruption, that has to be it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Letters, calls, smoke, flags. None i=of it makes any difference in TEC. TEC's mantra is that Lambeth has no legislative teeth. This is oft-quoted about Lambeth 1.10 when we get to where the mind of the bishops state that homosexuality is not compatible with Christian teaching. However, suddenly 1.10 gains legislative teeth (sit up! listen! do it!) when 1.10 goes on to say that a listening process should occur. Where do the teeth begin, and where do they stop in 1.10? Answer: wherever KJS, et al want. The bigger question is why they get to decide what is relevant, legislative, and worthy of commendation. If it's not legislative in any sense then why all the angst over refeering to 1.10 at whim and convenience over the listening process?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Allen, try telling the truth.

    It is simply a FACT that Lambeth resolutions have no "teeth." That was the clear indication of the Archbishop who called the first conference and that has been reaffirmed several times since. In fact, various attempts to turn Lambeth into some sort of Anglican "supreme court" (read Anglican inquisition) have consistently been defeated.

    This isn't TEC's assertion. This is reality - as much as it bothers an assortment of schismatics who would turn Lambeth into some sort of Calvinist curia.

    However, sensibvle people do point out that the schismatical position is utterly hypocritical. They claim that one clause of one Lambeth resolution is binding on all and sundry, but that the rest is to be ignored.

    Nothing wrong with pointing out that Akinola and company are hypocrites as well as schismatics.

    ReplyDelete

OK... Comments, gripes, etc welcomed, but with comment moderation but with some cautions and one rule:
Cautions: Calling people fools, idiots, etc, will be reason to bounce your comment. Keeping in mind that in the struggles it is difficult enough to try to respect opponents, we should at least try.
Rule: PLEASE DO NOT SIGN OFF AS ANONYMOUS: BEGIN OR END THE MESSAGE WITH A NAME - ANY NAME. ANONYMOUS commentary will be cut.