Rowan Williams Comments on Leaked Correspondence

LOL! He is so transparent! Shame he dosen’t realize it and if he does then it’s a double shame he cares not!

Our Anglican Church has never exercised close control over what individual theologians may say.

...Or may hear or made heard.

A quote from the letter that… “the Bishop of Durham and 18 other signatories have also sent the following letter to The Times…”

Second, Dr Williams did not say ‘gay sex is good as marriage’ (your front-page headline) or ‘equivalent to marriage’ (your inside headline). In his first letter, he concluded that a same-sex relationship ‘might . . . reflect the love of God in a way comparable to marriage’.

Aaaaaaaah.  Thanks for clearing that up, noble bishops.  I feel so much better now.

.  .  .  providing the authoritative basis on which I as Archbishop speak on such questions.

The operative verb is “speak” not “act”—another pretty good clue to the lack of discipline we’ve seen over the past 5 years.

He talks the talk, but doesn’t walk the walk.

Greg,

I love your sarcastic summary.  It’s entirely apt.  ++Rowan Williams only gives lip service to upholding the Communion’s stated position that homosexual behavior is incompatible with Holy Scripture etc.  He consistently refuses to say that he’s repented of his past error and now personally holds that same position, and he has indeed consistently undermined the Communion position by his actions.

At the same time, the 19 English bishops are right about one thing, i.e., the fact that the newspaper accounts are seriously misleading in making it appear that the letters quoted are recent and implying that this is some new revelation.  One does have to wonder why this old information is being hauled out and presented now, and with the implication that the archbishop’s pro-gay views are somehow new and shocking information.

David Handy+

It’s entirely apt. ++Rowan Williams only gives lip service to upholding the Communion’s stated position that homosexual behavior is incompatible with Holy Scripture etc.  He consistently refuses to say that he’s repented of his past error and now personally holds that same position, and he has indeed consistently undermined the Communion position by his actions.

Amen. Jesus did not mince words with hypocritical religious leaders.

....I wish to make it plain that, as I have consistently said, I accept Resolution I.10 of the 1998 Lambeth Conference as stating the position of the worldwide Anglican Communion on issues of sexual ethics and thus as providing the authoritative basis on which I as Archbishop speak on such questions.

...As Archbishop I understand my responsibility to be to the declared teaching of the church I serve, and thus to discourage any developments that might imply that the position and convictions of the worldwide Communion have changed.

What I find remarkable about this quotation from Archbiship Williams is that at this late date, and in spite of all the publicity the letter garnered, he still seems to be taking pains to avoid stating that he personally professes as true the faith of the Anglican Communion as expressed in Resolution 1.10.  How can a bishop teach something that he does not personally profess?  I don’t understand the concept.

I believe the comments have been way too harsh against the ABC. I think what he has said is noble in that he may as a theologian and teacher entered the acedemic dialogue about homosexual relationships in the past. BUT as the ABC, he is first among equals, and thus, his past personal writings bear no relationship to his responsibilty now as ABC to speak for what is indeed the position of the Communion as a whole as stated in the Resolution.

That should have been the response of Presiding Bishop Griswold. He may have been personally in favor of liberal policies and as Bishop of Chicago, but as the voice of the entire Episcopal Church he should have annunciated the official teachings of the Church as presented in the Canons and the BCP.
I think there is a pattern in some responses on this blog to tar and feather Archbishop Williams on anything that is not as strong as some would wish. I see that he has not weakened the official concensus of the Communion at this Lambeth Conference. Maybe he could have acted in stronger ways as we Orthadox would have desired, but he did not present his personal past views, nor diminish the official teaching of the Communion on this issue. Cut him some slack. We do not always get everything we want, but his Creedal Orthodoxy is solid.
I respect him for not letting the Episcopal Church off the hook at least in what is the consensus of the Communion on this matter. The actions of TEC will clearly show that there will be no restraint. And that will further alienate some of the moderates which we need in our camp.

I only wish our Presiding Bishop had acted in the way the ABC has shown in supporting the official teaching over any acedemic views.

Forever Anglican

I cant understand the distinction of teaching the ‘official line’ and hold personal beliefs that aren’t in agreement.

I’ve had to do that. 

I wouldn’t be able to teach ‘sin’ as being ‘OK’ - but I was able to teach what was taught by the local church of which I was a member - it forbade social dancing, something I thought might be acceptable in the right conditions. 

The ABC could do the same on Homosexual Relationships I guess.  Teaching folks its ‘OK to Dance’ when you think it is a sin would be in a different class than teaching them NOT to dance when you thought it might be OK in some conditions….

I Do hope I made sense there….

And yes, it would have been very hard for me to ‘come down like a ton of bricks’ on one of the youth that went to a square-dance…..

Why does anyone think this is news? +Rowan’s stance, as a theologian, on homosexuality has been common knowledge for a long time. Meanwhile, as ABC, he has consistently held that I.10 from Lambeth 1998 is definitive and authoritative for the communion. Unless you’ve been asleep for the past decade, you already knew this.

The only thing one might be surprised about is that he actually has the integrity to exercise the office of bishop properly on behalf of the Church, rather than using it to promote a “prophetic” agenda. I can understand why that might confuse those of you who are more familiar with recent PBs of TEC . . . or Protestants who don’t understand the proper role of a bishop.

#11, Rowan’s stance has not been common knowledge, so this is indeed news. These letters are explosive.

The emerging spin is that they were written by Rowan Williams, theologian, as one man’s “speculations”. Speculative theology is an exercise that (when used properly, and with proper guidance) can deepen faith.

His contact “with one or two genuinely serious Christians who had concluded after prayer and reflection that the scriptural prohibitions were addressed to heterosexuals looking for sexual variety…” describes a classic Ignatian false discernment! The devil comes to all of us, especially to “genuinely serious Christians”, giving us new revelations about old teachings.

FURTHERMORE, these letters (see them for yourself at the Times) were written on the letterhead stationary of his ecclesiastical office, “the Most Revd Dr. Rowan Williams Archbishop of Wales and Bishop of Monmouth”, the Church in Wales.

He writes, “...by the end of the 80’s I had definitely come to the conclusion that scripture was not dealing with the predicament of persons whom we should recognise as homosexual by nature.” (Read the whole thing. There are 2 letters.) He ends, “...if asked for my views, as a theologian rather than a church leader, I have to be honest and admit that they are as I’ve said.”

What he’s describing is his initial infection, and the spread of the disease within him. It can happen to any of us. A genuinely serious Christian needs classic, orthodox spiritual direction.

I would again invite him to discuss his views with the Eastern and Western Patriarchs. Their statements have been quite clear, not muddled.

The fundamentally flawed assumption of Roland and the bishop signatories of the supportive letter is that Rowan has done a “when I became a man I put away childish things.” For one thing, the letters were written as archbishop of Wales. But what I don’t understand, is how anyone could look at how Rowan deep-sixed the DeS communique and think that he is “affirming” Lambeth 1.10 when he worked so hard to undermine those that sought to uphold it. This surely is more blinking at reality.

He honors the teachings of the church with his lips (in a very weak and wafflely way, “I believe that Lambeth 1.10 is still the official teaching of the church.”), but his actions betray him.

And, of course, Company Man +Durham is among the Amen Chorus.

Ralph [#12]
You speak the truth, Brother.

I am so grieved by all of this, and hurt for +Rowan, and the Church that he would aspire to shepherd.  They are flirting with (and I pray not taken by) very evil and destructive things, and have been for years.  I pray that they will change, and return to The God of Truth and His Word before any others are led astray.

Isaiah 29:13:
The Lord says: “These people come near to me with their mouth and honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. Their worship of me is made up only of rules taught by men.

2 Peter 2:17-22:
These men are springs without water and mists driven by a storm. Blackest darkness is reserved for them. For they mouth empty, boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of sinful human nature, they entice people who are just escaping from those who live in error. They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity—for a man is a slave to whatever has mastered him. If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. Of them the proverbs are true: “A dog returns to its vomit,“and, “A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud.”

Almighty God, by your truth, grace, love and mercy, guide our hearts, renew our minds, and teach us to walk in your ways.

I have to agree with Forever Anglican.  KJS could have adopted a neutral stance like Williams.  Instead she came down hard and heavy in favor of one side right from the moment of her election, and look at the unholy mess TEC is in as a result.

#8 Forever, well said.

#5 NRA—

He consistently refuses to say that he’s repented of his past error and now personally holds that same position, and he has indeed consistently undermined the Communion position by his actions.

I can’t really disagree with you here, but I think the situation is more nuanced (to use a word always good for a laugh on this blog) than you imply.  He has certainly not repented, but on the other hand he has definitely stepped back from his earlier position, and I think sincerely.  As the Bishops’ letter to the Times points out, the views he expressed in letters seven or so years ago were a substantial retreat from “The Body’s Grace” of 1989.  Moreover, careful reading of his more recent statements (see below) indicate, in a very reserved British sort of way, that he is well and truly ticked off at the American church, and I have to believe that their gay circus at Lambeth only exacerbated that feeling.

As to his actions undermining the efforts of the Primates to get TEC under control, of course you’re right.  But my take on the situation is that starting in late 2006, about the time 815’s Great Terror of 2007 began to bring orthodox bishops to heel, the ACO began in earnest efforts to push ++Rowan (who was always naively inclined to try to “keep everybody talking” anyway) into taking positions that would be favorable to TEC.

He is a British academic, after all, and British academics couldn’t conspire their way out of a paper bag.  British bureaucrats, on the other hand, like the ACO, are very good at conspiring (and not much good for anything else).

(And, touching all too briefly on the topic at hand, I would bet my best oven mitt that one of TEC’s contacts in the ACO was responsible for sending the letters to the Times.)

So I’ll agree with accusations that ++Rowan has been very naive, that he’s been amazingly feckless as the leader of the Communion, and that he has allowed the situation to deteriorate to the point where some sort of schism—in practice if not in name—is inevitable.  But I will not go along with any attribution to him of bad faith.
<hr width=35%>
For the record, here are extracts from two statements reflecting ++Rowan’s views in the summer of 2006, for the many SF lurkers who haven’t been following the whole game (not you, definitely, NRA):

The “Reflection” speech of June 27, 2006, shortly after GC06:

... the debate in the Anglican Communion is not essentially a debate about the human rights of homosexual people. It is possible - indeed, it is imperative - to give the strongest support to the defence of homosexual people against violence, bigotry and legal disadvantage, to appreciate the role played in the life of the church by people of homosexual orientation, and still to believe that this doesn’t settle the question of whether the Christian Church has the freedom, on the basis of the Bible, and its historic teachings, to bless homosexual partnerships as a clear expression of God’s will. That is disputed among Christians, and, as a bare matter of fact, only a small minority would answer yes to the question.

... Arguments have to be drawn up on the common basis of Bible and historic teaching. And, to make clear something that can get very much obscured in the rhetoric about ‘inclusion’, this is not and should never be a question about the contribution of gay and lesbian people as such to the Church of God and its ministry, about the dignity and value of gay and lesbian people. Instead it is a question, agonisingly difficult for many, as to what kinds of behaviour a Church that seeks to be loyal to the Bible can bless, and what kinds of behaviour it must warn against - and so it is a question about how we make decisions corporately with other Christians, looking together for the mind of Christ as we share the study of the Scriptures.

... It is true that, in spite of resolutions and declarations of intent, the process of ‘listening to the experience’ of homosexual people hasn’t advanced very far in most of our churches, and that discussion remains at a very basic level for many. But the decision of the Episcopal Church to elect a practising gay man as a bishop was taken without even the American church itself ... having formally decided as a local Church what it thinks about blessing same-sex partnerships.

Nederlands Dagblad interview, August 19, 2006:

You are commonly known as favouring the acceptance of gay relationships in the Church. Do you have to compromise your own ideas now as Archbishop?

“Twenty years ago I wrote an essay in which I advocated a different direction. That was when I was still a professor, to stimulate debate. It did not generate much support and a lot of criticism - quite fairly on a number of points. What I am saying now is: let us talk this through. As Archbishop I have a different task. I would feel very uncomfortable if my Church would say: this is beyond discussion, for ever. Equally I have to guard the faith and teaching of the Church. My personal ideas and questions have to take second place.”

The Lambeth conference, the meeting of Anglican bishops worldwide every ten years, adopted a resolution in 1998 that says homosexual praxis is incompatible with Scripture. That doesn’t leave a lot of room for discussion.

“It doesn’t. That resolution also says we shall continue listening in the Church to the actual experience of homosexual Christians. We haven’t done a great deal of that yet. ... Whether this one will ever change I don’t know. Certainly not without a lot more attention and patience with each other.”

What will happen to the six or more dioceses in America that have asked for alternative primatial oversight?

“I don’t know yet. We are working intensively on what this might mean. I don’t want to make up church law on the back of an envelope, because in fact it’s a very complicated situation.”

It would constitute a split in the American church.

“Indeed, and quite a serious one. And I have great concern for the vast majority of Episcopal Christians in the US who don’t wish to move away from the Communion at all, but who don’t particularly want to join a separatist part of their Church either. I want to give them time to find what the best way is.”

But these dioceses and the group around them won’t hold out in ECUSA for too long.

“No, and it is perhaps a rather larger group than some have presented it as being. I know too that if Canterbury doesn’t help, there will be other provinces that are very ready to help. And I don’t especially want to see the Anglican Church becoming like the Orthodox Church, where in some American cities you see the Greek Orthodox Church, the Russian Orthodox Church and the Romanian Orthodox Church. I don’t want to see in the cities of America the American Anglican Church, the Nigerian Anglican Church, the Egyptian Anglican Church and the English Anglican Church in the same street.”
...
How do you picture the Anglican Church in ten years time? Tied up in law courts, as you said? Or will unity be preserved and rifts have been healed?

“I don’t think all rifts will be healed. We can prevent those endless lawsuits, I think, if there is enough co-operation in the central mission of the Church.

When I am travelling I am privileged to see many examples of this. In Sudan earlier this year I dedicated a Cathedral which had been built with aid of the American Church. In Juba we discussed with Anglicans and Roman Catholics the foundation of a common school, with support of Anglicans and Catholics in England. In Burundi I have seen the work of the Mother’s Union among victims of rape and violence. That is the work of the gospel and I trust that will continue.

... So when I look ten years into the future - and I don’t have any gifts of clairvoyance - I trust that the Kingdom will do its work. Whatever the structures. And if that work continues it may also help us in finding those structures.

Do you have an explanation as to why Anglicans are prepared to let the Church split now over homosexuality, and not for example when a Bishop denied the Resurrection of Christ?

“I am intrigued by that. On the one hand it says something about our own age, which is obsessed with sexuality - left and right. But I think there’s something else. Christian often find it difficult to describe what distinguishes them. More and more they live like the people around them. Divorce is a sad case in point. For some people homosexuality is the last issue where you can draw a clear line.

And then it is for many people a central issue of the authority of Scripture. I don’t want to minimize that. Even about divorce there are certain things in the Bible that seem to give a bit of room for manoeuvre. It is harder to say that about homosexuality.”

(Emphasis added—cg)

To equivocate or not to equivocate?
That is the question.
Whether ‘tis nobler in the mind
To bear the slings and arrows
Of outrageous speculations
Or to take positions traditional
And by actions defend them?
To allow the Anglican Communion to die
Whilst I sleep at the wheel?
Or to take further somnolence
And awake when retired and claim
That I was not so responsible?
To Carey or not to Carey?
To Griswold or not to Griswold?
To shuffle off the traditional coil
Or to hand by it?
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .What?  You expected a actual decision?
Such piffle!

Hello,fellow bloggers. I have come late to these discussions, only recently having been alerted to the mass of information obtainable via Google. I have since read many articles and blogs about the letters I received from the ABC. If the Archbishop’s views are changing back to a more traditional view of Scripture I am very pleased to hear it. I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt, I hoped his ideas would indeed change and I did consider the letters privileged information even though not confidential. It is only with great reluctance that I ‘put them out there’ to see if anyone thought they were relevant. Most people think they are. How influential they will be in the current debate is anyon’e guess, I think. I pray that God will work all things for good for those who love HIm and are called according to His purposes. Those two provisos are crucial. I wrote a long letter in reply to the ABC’s first one. I also wrote him one 21/2 years ago saying in conclusion that I fervently hoped and prayed he would live out the full meaning of his calling. History will judge whether he has done that.
Debbie Pitt

Thank you Dr Pitt for your candour, and welcome.

I think, Dr. Pitt, that at this juncture in Anglicanism, your release of these letters is deplorable. As a Psychiatrist, which I believe I read, I think your ethics must be highly questionable. Certainly as an action by one Christian against another I believe so…As to whether good will come of it, yes it will, “all things work to the Glory of God…” My guess is that many of those on this site will agree with your actions, defining you more as a “whistle blower.” I think the ABC has been very clear on his position, and that these letters are old news. I understand that you have left “Anglicanism,” is that correct? And why leave the Church when released the letters?

#6: “Amen. Jesus did not mince words with hypocritical religious leaders.” though he often confused His enemies, attempted to withhold the revelation of Himself for a time, and spoke in parables…

Sorry FrVan I strongly disagree with you. 
What would be deplorable would be an ABC that claims to hold fast to the teachings of the Church while at the same time trying to undermine it by supporting the position of the TEC.  I think there is ample evidence by his word and action that his heart is with TEC and not with the orthodox.  Dr. Pitt has done a courageous thing by releasing these letters and placing herself in the firing line.  The ABC’s true loyalties are revealing themselves slowly overtime.  Dr Pitt has simply shortened the time needed for us all to clearly see the truth.

MTC: As I said, I felt most would view it as you do. Those letters were written years ago. And, frankly until the advent of +VGR, I don’t think many of us were as ready to be as anti-gay (and that’s what it is) until we were forced to react with a stand of what constitutes an acceptable Christian lifestyle in Scriptural and Traditional terms. But it boiled down to taking that stand. I think the ABC did so. Any thinking person could be confused by civil and human rights as understood by most people in the Free World, Theological Reflection, and then having to take a stand for the Faith and Practice of Christianity. Unfortunately Homosexuality has now become a critical issue (who’d have thought it could ever seriously be an issue of debate for the Church). At any rate, the ABC has taken a stand, why can’t that be enough? I don’t always agree with what is Christian faith and practice, but I know I must strive to live into it and profess its truth over my will.

FrVan, if Dr. Williams was a patient of mine or I had access to medical knowledge of him naturally I would be bound by matters of confidentiality. This was a private correspondence, yes, but not personal; it was written on headed notepaper; it was an official letter. In my letter to Dr. Williams replying to my first one I included a fair amount of personal information about myself and views which some would take grave exception to but I di not expect or ask that he keep that confidential. I made my motives clear in a letter to the Times (Timesoline August 15th) and have written a letter to the Bishop of Durham, not just to explain my actions because he had questionned my motives in his own letter to the Times, but also to explain my concerns. True, I am no longer a practising Anglican, but in Britian we have a state church and the leaders of the Anglican church herre are accountable not just to their clergy and laity but to the whole country. The ABC and the Bishops are also political figures and their pronouncements have far-reaching implications for society.
A vigorous debate concerning the release of the letters is whether the letters are irelevant as ‘old hat’, though to many they are ‘new hat.’
I hope I have adequately answered the points you raised. And by the way, I don’t invoke Rom.8.28 lightly.

“I did consider the letters privileged information…”  and, “This was a private correspondence…”

I stand by my questions. As a psychiatrist you must be used to dealing with the thought processes of people as they are working them out. Yet, knowing what was confidential, and privileged, you released. Obviously you meant harm, and I am saddened, that is all. If I have characterized your actions incorrectly, then please know I truly am sorry. Ultimately the truth will be known, and you will be vindicated or not. You will have many supporters for your actions, but I am not one. I don’t think your “pile on” after so many years was a kind or needed act. Only more fodder and justification for those who do mean harm for the ABC and Anglicanism. However, I do thank you for your graciousness in responding to what have been, from your standpoint, a mean-spirited and wrongheaded comment (or two).

Dr. Pitt,

You are between the proverbial rock and hard place.  Had you known of murder or theft you still would have been raked over the coals because of timing. 

If this was such common knowledge, why the strong reaction…doesn’t make sense.  A lot of us didn’t know - but a lot makes more sense now.

We all make decisions based on our beliefs.  And every time +KJS/TEC, leaders of other denominations, non-religious organizations or even government speak on our behalf, their beliefs are a concern to the rest of us.  What our leaders think is our business on any level, especially when it will affect us spiritually.  Anyone who will not be accountable should not be in a position of authority.  Not the way things are and our society and world are suffering because of it.

Fr. V #24—an excellent post, but one important point:

... until the advent of +VGR, I don’t think many of us were as ready to be as anti-gay (and that’s what it is) until we were forced to react with a stand of what constitutes an acceptable Christian lifestyle in Scriptural and Traditional terms.

I can’t agree that “that’s what it is”—unless what you mean is what Dr+ Radner expressed in his letter immediately after GC03:

... given that Convention has now deemed it appropriate to press this matter to the point of public proclamation, what wiggle room there once existed [in pastoral application of Christian sexual teaching] has been squeezed out. I feel, for the first time, that my options for reticence as a means to loving reform have been removed. We are left with nothing but the bare and resistant voicing of our dissent and contradiction of this new teaching and practice. We are left with no choice at all except to oppose.

Dear CG re:#28, Radner said it better. “Anti-gay” sounds anti-“a person,” and I don’t mean that. Thank you for allowing me to clean that up. God Bless.

Fr Van.
If my motive was to cause harm and if I had a cavalier attitude to the issue of confidentiality, wanted to humiliate the Archbishop for calling himself averagely- muddled, wanted to aggrandise myself, am in the habit of gossipping or making cheap shots, I would have acted on the letters long ago. In fact only a few people even knew of them. The subtle implication in your second and third sentences is that Dr. Williams confided in me, and thus I was bound to secrecy. He did not!! His views were well-known, far better known, in fact, than I had realised. Also it is not for me or any other psychiatrist to be able to know in the way you imply that someone is ‘working something out’. That is to mistake the nature of psychiatry. I am afraid all psychiatrists fail the mind-reading exam!
I did NOT consider the letters privileged information, or are you implying that Dr. Williams wrote as he did, or wrote at all, because I am a doctor? That is to ascribe to him bad motives. He would have written to any other parishioner in the same way, I believe.
As to your accusation that I meant harm. For a variety of reasons I believed it was important to get things out in the open. Whether the result will be harm or good only time will tell. But I certainly do not wish harm to the Anglican communion or to anyone else. I wrote Dr Williams 21/2 years ago about my ongong concerns on a lot of issues. I finished by saying I hoped and prayed that he would live out the true nature of his calling.
May it be so.
AS for vindication, what would that be? Do you think I enjoy this? The worry and grief about where I see the Anglican church headed? No, I don’t. I get no personal satisfaction out of being responsible for these revelations. The whole context is far too sad, unfortunate, and dangerous for the work of the gospel if things go the wrong way. I pray that the Lord’s Name will be glorified and His will done.
But I thank you for your comments, for they have made me think and examine myself. Thank you for your gracious tone.
Sincerely in Christ
Debbie Pitt

One last, and I mean one last (maybe two but in the same sentence)...

Dr. Pitts:
Did you contact the ABC before this was released, Did Mrs. Gledhill?

Dr. Pitt:
  Please understand I do not in any way whatsoever mean to assert that this one action is the sum total of your life, or that I would ever judge you on it. Heavens no! I characterized it as it seemed to me. I think it was wrong, and I was disturbed by it, but I am sure you are, from what I’ve read, a good person and loving Christian. I certainly know that in the heat of battle during the great Anglican wars, I’ve done such (which I have regretted). And, certainly I can be intemperate and judgemental. And as I have said, many good people will see you as a hero.

Fr. Van, thx for your last. As to whether I contacted the Archbishop before I sent the stuff, no, I didn’t. It didn’t occur to me. Besides, there wasn’t time; Lambeth was about to begin. I don’t know about Ms Gledhill; not as far as I know. What would have happened if I had informed the Archbishop of my intention? Who knows. I do regret that there wasn’t time to contact a number of relevant people in the Anglican church or others to ask their advice. But I thought it was important to release the information when I did; I wrote Ms Gledhill on the 15th July. Okay, I’ll tell you the chronology:
July 13th: read article in Sunday Telegraph of interview with Dr. Williams successor as Ab of Wales, where he declared that he would be happy to ordain a homosexual bishop and that he did not intend to sign any Covenant of beliefs.
July 14th: read articles in The Guardian about the AbC and Bishop Robinson’s preaching in an Anglican church in London the previous day.

I concluded that the AbW woudl not have been so brazen if he had not had a very thorough knowledge of RW’s views, and that without the GAFCON bishops at lambeth and with DR. Robinson and his entourage camped outside the conference grounds that there was a good chance that the homosexual agenda would get pushed and influence the lambeth-ees to make policy accordingly. As it happened no decisions were made other than would keep things in a holding pattern. I think it is providential that the info did not come out till after the conference, and Ms Gledhill has stated the same thing. I continue to lay all before the Lord and seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit. May His will be done, and may it be what is best for the Anglican communion.

 
By the way, Ms Gladhill didn’t get the information till after she returned to London at the end of the Lambeth conference. That is why the article didn’t come out till after Lambeth.