People familiar with Ruth “Too-Dangerously-Incompetent-For-My-Job” Gledhill’s reporting in the London Times as the all-too-incompetent & ill informed Religion correspondent will get it. Those who are unfamiliar should be grateful to have never lost brain cells waisting their time.
It made me laugh.
David Bennett
Jennifer
asimplesinner
Fr. J.
Chad Toney
Jorge Flores
Jonathan B
carmelbennett
nicenehobbit
Jason S
jaybird68
papaz
January 30, 2008 at 12:15 pm
It made me laugh too! That’s why I used it as my Christmas card when Dave Walker drew and published it on his website several years ago. I have it framed on my kitchen wall at home. Thanks for the mention Ruth Gledhill. (have posted here as anon because can never get logged onto blogger to post on blogger blogs, but you can check it is me if you want by emailing ruth.gledhill@thetimes.co.uk, I have no objection to your publishing this email either. regards)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/gledhill
January 31, 2008 at 12:56 am
I tend to like Ruth Gledhill’s articles/thoughts actually. I like that she is engaging some of the issues that we care about, and also is actively involved in the Christian blogosphere. I mean, how many religion reporters would even know about what the Anglican right is up to, let alone care (or bother to quote Kendall Harmon or Brad Drell)? She even bothers to show up and graciously engage those who criticize her (and I am not talking about just here, but elsewhere), which shows a level of engagement/thoughtfulness you don’t usually get with many religion reporters, who seem to only cover religion because nobody else wants to.
January 31, 2008 at 1:24 am
I appreciate her having a sense of humor and her willingness to take a look at a great deal of issues. That she herself has (possibly) deigned to grace our combox with comment is fun and charming…
(Though it occurs to me that the comment in question was left within about 6 hours of the post… How she surfed onto it I would be curious to hear about… Vanity surfing for one’s name can be fun I suppose…)
My qualms, as lovely a person as she may be, and how similiar her interests are to my own, is what is all too commonly a style that is provacative with a patina of naivete. Publishing a story about Anglicans and Roman Catholics having worked out an agreement on re-union.
It was titled Churches back plan to unite under Pope
And in it she offers:
Radical proposals to reunite Anglicans with the Roman Catholic Church under the leadership of the Pope are to be published this year, The Times has learnt.
The proposals have been agreed by senior bishops of both churches.
In a 42-page statement prepared by an international commission of both churches, Anglicans and Roman Catholics are urged to explore how they might reunite under the Pope.
The statement, leaked to The Times, is being considered by the Vatican, where Catholic bishops are preparing a formal response.
It comes as the archbishops who lead the 38 provinces of the Anglican Communion meet in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, in an attempt to avoid schism over gay ordination and other liberal doctrines that have taken hold in parts of the Western Church.
Jimmy Akin sums it up:
“The religion correspondent for the Time of London–Ruth “I’m Too Dangerously Unqualified To Keep My Job” Gledhill–has given vent to her spleen again in another tantrum disguised as a news story.
That spleen is on display in previous thinly-disguised crypto-tantrums such as THIS and THIS, as well as in comments recorded HERE.
It’s no surprise, then, that Gledhill would try to gin up more controversy with a story such as her new one, which she or her editor eggregiously and INACCURATELY titledCatholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible“
I am thrilled she wants to write about some of these things that interest us.
I’d be more thrilled if accuracy were more the norm.