When I was a grad student at Duke in the mid-1990s, I met Williams — and in fact got to drive him and his family around Durham for four days while he was lecturing here. When I picked him up, he helped his family clamber into my student-mobile, turned and gazed at me intently and said, “Tell me about your work.” I could have said, “No, see, I don’t have work. You have work. You’re Rowan freaking Williams.” I didn’t. He’d made me feel important. I told him about me. Years later, when I met him as a journalist covering a World Council of Churches meeting, he interrupted as I reintroduced myself: “Jason, Jane and the children would want me to pass on their greetings.”
I could blog for months out of “Rowan’s Rule.” I’m struck in particular by Oliver O’Donovan’s keen eye for sizing up his former colleague’s strengths and weaknesses. O’Donovan, a Christian ethicist who taught with Williams at Oxford, has observed that he views theology and leadership as a sort of graduate seminar, with never-ending banter, but no point at which someone comes to a steady conclusion. Williams’ theology holds that Jesus interrupts our easy consensuses — this is handy against fundamentalisms of all kinds (like Jack Spong’s and Pullman’s), but less helpful in situations of, say, church discipline. All the same, to have a spectacular theologian as head of a church is somewhat novel today. One would think those liberals and conservatives in the Anglican Communion who are frustrated with Williams for not disciplining their opponents might have read his “Truce of God” or his “Resurrection.” They would realize that the Archbishop sees the risen Christ as one who meets us in the enemy with whom we cannot leave fellowship. For him to kick the bad guys out of the church would, unfortunately, be to kick out Jesus himself.
sure, he’s a humble guy re his gifts….and he is a very clever man……..but has he followed biblical principles in church discipline or not? Sadly, has allowed the AC to split for the sake of a tiny group of revisionists – GAFCON need not have happened, but he chose to invite to Lambeth 08 those who tore the fabric of the Communion in 03……….when he knew it meant the largest provinces of the AC would, as a direct result, not be respresented…….he is clever but not necessarily on the side of those who do not take a revisionist line…..he is humble in some ways but sometimes follows his own wisdom, even when it contradicts what the bible says (eg in some he has knowingly ordained). Don’t be fooled by the humility and cleverness…….his decisions have mostly favoured keeping revisionists at the table…..not mostly, totally. After TECusa walks apart yet again on Saturday, watch Williams ONCE AGAIN try to avoid any meaningful break with TEC – despite their actions, despite their teaching, despite their clarity re rejecting “the mind of the Communion” and his calls for “gracious restraint”. When were we ever told to tolerate false teaching as long as false teachers showed “gracious restraint”??? The current ABC has done all that Griswold and SChori could have hoped for….TEC still sits at the top table of the AC despite the cost in terms of AC division. Thankfully, the death of the institution called the AC is not very significant in salvation history.
May I suggest that since the Pope of Rome is at least as much “a spectacular theologian” as the ABC, that it might be interesting for someone more qualified than I to compare them both as theologians and as the leading figure in their respective communions?
The bottom line is that the Archbishop is highly qualified to be an academic but not qualified to be the leader of the Communion.
Crikey- it is a bit of a toadying article isn’t it? Order of the brown nose to be awarded here?
Being serious I have no doubt that the Archbishop is a nice man who places much emphasis on charity. But I think a study on his hands as opposed to his clever tongue leads one to a conclusion….the liberal agenda is allowed to roll out whilst conservatives are provided with very little power at the table.
Will he speak out and demand a structural solution for traditionalists in his own church? No. He will watch as we are thrown to the lions whilst tugging his beard in genuine anguish….not much use when the lions start biting
being a nice person and effective leader do not necessarily have anything to do with the other. Hitler lacked the former but was excellent with the latter, for instance. With +++Rowan it appears to be the inverse.
The flaw in this article is that it fails to observe that Williams has been more than willing to have removed from the church in one fashion or another those whom TEC has disagreed with. Recall his decision who not to invite to Lambeth? Recall his decision about the Uganda representative in Jamaica? The CoE resolution? His refusal to implement adequate alternative oversight? Do we need to repeat for the umpteenth time over many years that had he been willing in the past to welcome the orthodox to the table, we might still be disagreeing about the participation of the revisionists, but the church would more likely be functioning as a communion?
I wholeheatedly agree with Katherine’s succinct #3. She nailed it.
But in the interest of being as generous as possible to the man, I’ll add that ++RW seems habitually to treat the catastrophic clash of worldviews within the AC not only as a prof might when leading a boisterous graduate seminar, but as a spiritual director might deal with some clients who were spiritually stuck in ruts. At least I think that’s a charitable interpretation of ++RW at his best. Maybe not “recklessly generous” to him, but it’s as charitable as I can manage to be.
However, the man has been an unmitigated disaster as ABoC. Here the old adage applies: “Lead, follow, or GET OUT OF THE WAY!”
David Handy+
[blockquote]For him to kick the bad guys out of the church would, unfortunately, be to kick out Jesus himself. [/blockquote]
Wasn’t it in Revelation where Jesus tells a certain church to excommunicate a specific harlot? Is this Jesus kicking himself out?
I recall an incident with Peter where Jesus made it absolutely plain that he was in error and it would not be tolerated: “Get thee behind me, Satan” were the exact words. Peter repented. Then there was the bit with the rich young ruler whom Jesus watched departing for his failure to do what was asked. Then there was “What you do, go and do quickly” to Judas. The consequences of choices fell to the choosers and Jesus bore the results.
Rowan needs to man up. Jesus did. Even to his Apostles.
Umbridge (#8),
Maybe your question was a rhetorical one, but yes, your allusion is very apt. The church involved was Thyratira, see the end of Rev. 2. And they were threatened with punishment just for TOLERATING Jezebel, a false prophet, who beguiled people into sexual immorality.
David Handy+
The ABC reminds me of none other than Hamlet. He is a man of thought who needs to take action. As in Hamlet. all will die.
I concur with all the above.
The article is nicely written, but the facts speak for themselves – +++Rowan Williams has used honeyed words to cover his intentions over the years, while his actions have demonstrated that his heart is firmly with the liberals.
It might not be unfair to say that +++Williams himself is the biggest obstacle to Communion unity at the present time.
Rowan has done a great job as Archbishop. The fact that the fanatics and partisans on both sides are baying for his blood is evidence of this.