But nothing has troubled England quite as much as his remarks this month on the inevitability of certain elements of sharia law in Britain. Sharia, he said, offered a way of arbitration, particularly in marital or family disputes, that could provide an alternative to divorce courts. “Certain conditions of sharia are already recognized in our society and under our law, so it is not as if we are bringing in an alien and rival system,” he said.
The comments ignited a furor that has seen British tabloids call for his resignation and members of his own hierarchy publicly disown him. For some Britons, Williams’s remarks came as an unwanted reminder of the forward march of Islam in their midst. For some in the church, there was a sense of outrage that Muslims would get special dispensation, while Christians get no such favors in secular Britain.
The episode says as much about the personality of the archbishop, say observers, as it does about the knee-jerk tabloid proclivity to judge first and inquire later.
Part of the problem was not what was said (sharia justice has been arbitrating in civil affairs of British Muslims for 25 years) but the way it was communicated. The sentiments were woven into a lofty speech that was not easily boiled down into snappy headlines.
Therein lies the conflict: Williams is a public intellectual, ponderous, studious, and given to rich, convoluted peroration, which doesn’t always sit happily in the era of sound-bite journalism.
I’ve found it very helpful to listen to the ‘Question Time’ panel discussion on this topic from the BBC which Ruth Gledhill has posted:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_4090000/newsid_4097900/4097948.stm?bw=nb&mp=rm&news=1&bbcws=1
Only the first half or so needs to be heard, perhaps 10-15 minutes; this topic is the second question. It is also quite enlightening to hear the level of discussion among the (mainly) British participants and audience.
A critical quality of leadership is the ability to communicate clearly and persuasively. Considering recent history it seems that the office of the ABC is really a secretarial position.
Convoluted barely describes the ABC’s style. The real point is tht he can speak clearly and straightforwardly when he chooses. When he doesn’t choose to do so, it isn’t because of his intellect, it is because he does not want to be understood. LM
I guess we want a not-so-Godly, not-so-gracious dumb ABC. What a world.
I am reminded of a friend’s favourite saying “To heavenly to be any earthly good”
#4. Virgil, So exactly wrong one can only hope for sarcasm. The AC desparately needs an ABC who is Godly, gracious, smart, and willing to speak clearly, and urge the church to move forward in a Godly direction.
The current ABC may be one of the world’s smartest, most gracious, and most Godly men. However, he is not helping the church move forward in a Godly direction. He is not even helping hold the church together. He is not helping the church as a leader, nor as a facilitator, nor as a spiritual resource. He should pick one of those roles and get with the program or step aside and let a new smart, gracious, and Godly person try to pick up the pieces before they all wash down the drain. The current ABC is not the only smart, gracious and Godly person available for the task.
I don’t think it is possible to be “too intellectual to lead”. St John Chrysostom was intellectual. Thomas Jefferson was intellectual. Pope Benedict is intellectual.
So what is the problem? I think Mr Williams is not intellectual enough: he thinks aloud, before he has considered all the ramifications of his thoughts, and how they might be (mis)interpreted.
The alternative is what #3 Larry said, his ambiguity is a part of some sort of deliberate strategy. If so, it’s not working.
Virgil, you must know that your comment is off base. The fact is (if I give you that Williams is both godly and gracious–as some say) that Williams’ IQ is of no use outside his own skull if he cannot or will not communicate to those he has been appointed to lead. No wise person would continue speaking in riddles once he and others notice that communication isn’t happening. One’s vocabulary and ability to structure language don’t start at the exptreme that muffles ideas. It isn’t “dumbing down” to speak in ways that others understand. Besides, wasn’t it the ECUSA claim that the Prayer Book had to be revised (dumbed down) so that the man on the street could understand it? That was the excuse to toss out language that both was excellent and communicated its ideas.
It is one thing to submit civil disputes to arbitration/resolution without resorting to the Law, and another to invoke the Law and have a distinct set of rules based on religious needs. We as Chrisitans are admonised not to take our civil matters to law before unbelievers. I Cor. 6 From this has developed a considerable body of literature and even mechanisms on how to engage in conciliation of disputes based on Christian principles. See Ken Sande’s excellent, The Peacemaker, which is the best of these type of books for public consumption. No official sanction or establishment is required to render this extra-judicial system effective.
However, if one who is a resident or citizen of a nation and foregoes those techniques and goes to Law, then the Law of the Land applies. No questions or exceptions should be tolerated.
I heard a prominent Syrian born Christian clergyman from London say last week that the ABof C was not wrong in his call and was likely misunderstood. To the contrary, I think one cannot interpret the comments to do any thing short of establishing an alternative legal based system, which will only unravel the notion of the rule of law which is the backbone of English legal system (say United States there too).
Doug
Part of the problem here is that ++Rowan Williams is both temperamentally unsuited to be an effective leader, and that he doesn’t even appear to see real leadership as part of his job description. He continues to act more often than not like a certain type of university professor, who is adept at raising questions and prodding people to think, but who finds it much less congenial to provide confident answers. He is much more at home in the world of ideas than in the world of action. And he seems to see his role as being more of a facilitator of discussion than as being a leader who gets things done. By his inaction, his indecisiveness, his inconsistency, and his constant delaying tactics, he has ceded leadership in the AC to others. They won’t be so hesitant. But in the meantime, with a vacuum at the center, the AC will continue to fly apart as it spins out of control.
Personally, I think it’s great that the Archbishop is fluent in so many of the languages of scholarship. Speaking seven languages is a great asset in the ever shrinking, interconnected world we live in today. But unfortunately, he is better at ancient Latin than modern English. And while it’s nice to be able to read and speak German and French fluently, there are very few native speakers of German and French in the AC today. I wish he knew Swahili instead. Now that would be useful in today’s Anglican Communion. But the real problem is that while he is fluent in academic English, he still hasn’t learned how to communicate effectively in ordinary English. And that means he simply CAN’T be a good leader. And yes, LEADERSHIP is what is called for in times of crisis. ++Rowan Williams is an inept bumbler who has not grown into the job. He should be replaced.
David Handy+
The ABC is not merely speaking to the converted orthodox Christians who know what God thinks. He is responsible for speaking to the secular world, the legal world, the Islamic world. He has done so as a Christian.
I personally think he has led me to more charity toward the reasserters. I agree with some of his controversial, seemingly conservative, opinions. I also know that he trusts that God is continuing to work and that He, Rowan, is not the savior.
I do think that there is a difference in what we are expecting from leaders. As it is +Rowan is fulfilling his many roles quite well. The one role lots of people want, that of pope, is not available to him.
I also think that rushing is more of a sin than waiting, Reformation. Further, perhaps flying apart is also part of God’s plan, for now. We don’t know.
I would note that he was talking to legal scholars, not readers of the Sun. Nor was he talking to the bloggers. He was in an audience where he assumed there would be … charity. Might be too much to expect here.
#10: Please don’t wish that Rowan Williams would learn Swahili. That would only cause confusion where it is not needed.
JW: You and I have not always agreed on much, but (at the risk of being labeled naive by some), I want to say that your writings of late have acquired a style and grace that I find both noticeable and commendable.
You seem more at peace. And if the ABC has helped you to come to this, then I am glad. I confess that I am confused by the leadership that he is providing, but as you said the other day, he is airing some of the issues that need to be brought into the light. Perhaps it does behoove us to be more charitable. For as Paul says:
“Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.”
Yet, as in all things that come from God, there must be balance. Charity does not alone “wash me thoughly”. For me, the 1928 Prayer book says it best:
“Ye who do truly and earnestly repent you of your sins, and are in love and charity with your neighbors, and intend to lead a new life, following the commandments of God, and walking from henceforth in his holy ways; Draw near with faith, and take this holy Sacrament to your comfort; and make your humble confession to Almighty God, devoutly kneeling”
#12, Cole,
LOL. I agree, ++Rowan Williams is sowing confusion enough in his own native tongue. Just imagine the havoc he could wreck attempting to communicate in a foeign language. One shudders at the though.
But some of us ought to be learning Swahili. Why should be burden of learning another language always fall on the non-English speakers?
David Handy+
Sorry for the typos in that last post. I meant: think of all the harm he could do speaking in a “foreign” language when he has so much trouble speaking clear English. One shudders at the “thought.”
David Handy+