I am not sure this is fair on Dr Williams although it is very funny.
What is he faced with in North America? US Bishops who tell the Communion that they are not consecrating bishops with challenging lifestyles or authorising SSU’s and then together with their Canadian cousins go off to their diocesan conventions and inform the delegates that they have satisfied the Communion which is resolved now to accept the diversity and that they can go ahead and make resolutions to allow SSU’s [there are another 2 in [url=http://www.episcopalchurch.org/81803_ENG_HTM.htm… ]ENS[/url] today – Northern California and Western Massachusetts]
At the same time because of the move of the US and Canadian churches against what the Windsor report and Primates asked them to do, conservative congregations continue to separate and Primates are providing haven to them. The bishop of New Westminster, no stranger to authorising SSU’s belly-aches about this.
The problem is in North America – the ABC must feel that he is dealing with the tearaways in the sandpit.
Dr. Williams knows very well that the problems are also in the UK, simmering just below the surface. If he goes one way or the other, at this point, the Church of England may come apart as well. It may split if he does nothing. Unfortunately for him this has gone beyond the point where appointing more commissions and calling for more reports will stave off the crisis.
Either he is, as we write, praying mightily for Divine guidance, or he hasn’t comprehended that leaders must lead. Perhaps believers could help by praying for his enlightenment.
The picture Father Rutler draws does not seem to resemble the Archbishop of Canterbury very closely. Perhaps he does not know Archbishop Rowan very well.
I certainly do not know the archbishop at all, although it has been my great pleasure to hear him speak twice. The second time was in Evanston, Illinois, at Seabury-Western Theological Seminary in the late 1990’s when he gave the Hale lectures. He spoke about Trinitarian language, and although his lectures seemed incomprehensible to most of us there, I believe that in the end he favored “Father, Son and Holy Spirit.â€
The first time I heard him was in Walsingham in 1994 when he was the bishop of Monmouth. He was there with a group of older, quite ordinary people from his diocese. During the day I heard of number of them tell others that the bishop was going to speak at Compline. I had not noticed a bishop at the shrine or on the grounds and I wondered what sort of bishop this might be whose people were excited enough to talk about him like that. While I was waiting for the service to start I looked around for a bishop and still did not see one until a fairly shaggy priest who had been kneeling on the floor for some time stood up and gave a breathtakingly simple and beautiful and absolutely stunning meditation on Saint Mary and her relationship with her Son.
At Seabury-Western his only error may have been to assume too much about American theological education. At Walsingham, he was perfect. He was anything but a caricature of an Oxbridge time serving academic bureaucrat. He clearly knew Saint Mary and our Lord. He knew them well and personally, and he was able to share that knowledge with the congregation in the clearest possible way. He was absolutely a bishop even if he wore a grey shirt instead of purple (What do Wodehouse bishops wear?) and his beard may have been able to use a trim.
I do not believe that Archbishop Rowan’s leadership is the problem, but I have come to believe that the problem lies in our willingness, or rather unwillingness, to listen to what he is saying, read what he is writing and to watch what he doing. He has been able, and I believe it is clear evidence of grace at work, to set aside his [i]opinions[/i] and uphold the [i]teaching[/i] of the Church as Lambeth 1998 stated it. That is leadership, it is leadership by example, and that is the example we all need to emulate.
I suspect the only part of Rutler’s piece that approximates to reality is that Archbishop Rowan finds his role sometimes tedious and often farcical. Does that mean he doesn’t take it seriously? No, he wouldn’t be doing it at all unless he had been convinced that God had called him to do it. He is not CEO of a global corporation (and the folks who want bishops who see their role as such, can see the fruit of that ‘style’ of leadership in diocese after diocese of TEC). He is visibly holy, prayerful, humble, attentive…I think the question is not whether he is the right leader but whether the Anglican Communion is capable of being led.
Rutler’s use of the word “delaminating” of the Anglican Communion in its current throes was singularly effectual and appropriate. Kudos. The Wodehouse references weren’t bad, either. I felt, just for a moment, as though I were reading a Dorothy L. Sayers comment through the lips of Lord Peter.
Thanks for posting this for those two points alone. Though I certainly concede, having to read a bit of Williams for the ESM here in Missouri, that the 4% is rather a low estimate, IMHO.
I loved the Wodehouse reference, though I seem to recall PGW’s bishops’ ineffectiveness tended to lead to benign hilarity, at worst, most of which was skillfully rectified by an application of Jeeves’ genius. ++Rowan’s bumbling, by contrast, is leading to the implosion of the Communion and all would be Jeeveses are adding to the hooilganism.
I highly recommend the Hugh Laurie/Stephen Fry “Wooster and Jeeves” DVD sets, BTW. Television at its finest.
Father Einerson: Thank you for your comments! For myself, I would note that I have been watching ++Rowan Williams GROW into his office. Maybe this is an English trait foriegn to us in the USA. Here we seem to see public office as a “shrink to fit” propersition; The office becomes the person rather than person becoming the office. I would recommend that those who criticize the good Archbishop watch the classic version of “Becket” (Richard Burton, Peter O’Toole, & John Gielgud) and see how God can use the Office to form the Man.
Nos. 3, 8, &9;- Thanks for your support of Archbp. Williams. It may be that a lot of us in the Anglican Communion do not deserve him as its “spiritual head”. Many commenters on this side are uncomfortable with his very Catholic ecclesiology. He has accorded the unity of the Church a higher priority than whatever his personal beliefs on homosexuality are.
I am not sure this is fair on Dr Williams although it is very funny.
What is he faced with in North America? US Bishops who tell the Communion that they are not consecrating bishops with challenging lifestyles or authorising SSU’s and then together with their Canadian cousins go off to their diocesan conventions and inform the delegates that they have satisfied the Communion which is resolved now to accept the diversity and that they can go ahead and make resolutions to allow SSU’s [there are another 2 in [url=http://www.episcopalchurch.org/81803_ENG_HTM.htm… ]ENS[/url] today – Northern California and Western Massachusetts]
At the same time because of the move of the US and Canadian churches against what the Windsor report and Primates asked them to do, conservative congregations continue to separate and Primates are providing haven to them. The bishop of New Westminster, no stranger to authorising SSU’s belly-aches about this.
The problem is in North America – the ABC must feel that he is dealing with the tearaways in the sandpit.
Dr. Williams knows very well that the problems are also in the UK, simmering just below the surface. If he goes one way or the other, at this point, the Church of England may come apart as well. It may split if he does nothing. Unfortunately for him this has gone beyond the point where appointing more commissions and calling for more reports will stave off the crisis.
Either he is, as we write, praying mightily for Divine guidance, or he hasn’t comprehended that leaders must lead. Perhaps believers could help by praying for his enlightenment.
The picture Father Rutler draws does not seem to resemble the Archbishop of Canterbury very closely. Perhaps he does not know Archbishop Rowan very well.
I certainly do not know the archbishop at all, although it has been my great pleasure to hear him speak twice. The second time was in Evanston, Illinois, at Seabury-Western Theological Seminary in the late 1990’s when he gave the Hale lectures. He spoke about Trinitarian language, and although his lectures seemed incomprehensible to most of us there, I believe that in the end he favored “Father, Son and Holy Spirit.â€
The first time I heard him was in Walsingham in 1994 when he was the bishop of Monmouth. He was there with a group of older, quite ordinary people from his diocese. During the day I heard of number of them tell others that the bishop was going to speak at Compline. I had not noticed a bishop at the shrine or on the grounds and I wondered what sort of bishop this might be whose people were excited enough to talk about him like that. While I was waiting for the service to start I looked around for a bishop and still did not see one until a fairly shaggy priest who had been kneeling on the floor for some time stood up and gave a breathtakingly simple and beautiful and absolutely stunning meditation on Saint Mary and her relationship with her Son.
At Seabury-Western his only error may have been to assume too much about American theological education. At Walsingham, he was perfect. He was anything but a caricature of an Oxbridge time serving academic bureaucrat. He clearly knew Saint Mary and our Lord. He knew them well and personally, and he was able to share that knowledge with the congregation in the clearest possible way. He was absolutely a bishop even if he wore a grey shirt instead of purple (What do Wodehouse bishops wear?) and his beard may have been able to use a trim.
I do not believe that Archbishop Rowan’s leadership is the problem, but I have come to believe that the problem lies in our willingness, or rather unwillingness, to listen to what he is saying, read what he is writing and to watch what he doing. He has been able, and I believe it is clear evidence of grace at work, to set aside his [i]opinions[/i] and uphold the [i]teaching[/i] of the Church as Lambeth 1998 stated it. That is leadership, it is leadership by example, and that is the example we all need to emulate.
Father Dean A. Einerson+
Rhinelander, Wisconsin
I suspect the only part of Rutler’s piece that approximates to reality is that Archbishop Rowan finds his role sometimes tedious and often farcical. Does that mean he doesn’t take it seriously? No, he wouldn’t be doing it at all unless he had been convinced that God had called him to do it. He is not CEO of a global corporation (and the folks who want bishops who see their role as such, can see the fruit of that ‘style’ of leadership in diocese after diocese of TEC). He is visibly holy, prayerful, humble, attentive…I think the question is not whether he is the right leader but whether the Anglican Communion is capable of being led.
Rutler’s use of the word “delaminating” of the Anglican Communion in its current throes was singularly effectual and appropriate. Kudos. The Wodehouse references weren’t bad, either. I felt, just for a moment, as though I were reading a Dorothy L. Sayers comment through the lips of Lord Peter.
Thanks for posting this for those two points alone. Though I certainly concede, having to read a bit of Williams for the ESM here in Missouri, that the 4% is rather a low estimate, IMHO.
I loved the Wodehouse reference, though I seem to recall PGW’s bishops’ ineffectiveness tended to lead to benign hilarity, at worst, most of which was skillfully rectified by an application of Jeeves’ genius. ++Rowan’s bumbling, by contrast, is leading to the implosion of the Communion and all would be Jeeveses are adding to the hooilganism.
I highly recommend the Hugh Laurie/Stephen Fry “Wooster and Jeeves” DVD sets, BTW. Television at its finest.
I fell of my chair laughing at the concept of Bishops becoming Bishops when they were not paying attention.
Father Einerson: Thank you for your comments! For myself, I would note that I have been watching ++Rowan Williams GROW into his office. Maybe this is an English trait foriegn to us in the USA. Here we seem to see public office as a “shrink to fit” propersition; The office becomes the person rather than person becoming the office. I would recommend that those who criticize the good Archbishop watch the classic version of “Becket” (Richard Burton, Peter O’Toole, & John Gielgud) and see how God can use the Office to form the Man.
I have yet to hear a critic of Williams even remotely equal to the man.
Nos. 3, 8, &9;- Thanks for your support of Archbp. Williams. It may be that a lot of us in the Anglican Communion do not deserve him as its “spiritual head”. Many commenters on this side are uncomfortable with his very Catholic ecclesiology. He has accorded the unity of the Church a higher priority than whatever his personal beliefs on homosexuality are.