Yet I must say that, like many Anglican traditionalists, I have often been frustrated with Rowan in his role as Archbishop. Primarily it is his apparent passivity that has frustrated me: I have wanted him to take action, to do things, to shape events for the cause of orthodoxy, but he has persistently refused to intervene in the life of the Communion, and to some extent in his own Church of England, in clear and overt ways ”” in political ways. I and many others have wanted him to be a leader and this above all seems what he has refused to be.
But in these past few days I have been wondering whether there might be a method in Rowan’s madness ”” or rather in God’s. Might it be possible that while Rowan is most certainly not the kind of leader we want, he is precisely the kind we need? That his leadership is not that of a Churchill but rather a Desert Father? We want decision, action, clearly set plans; Rowan offers prayer, meditation, stillness, silence. He models those disciplines for us, and in so doing (silently) commends them.
What if that is what we Anglicans actually need?
I’ve wondered the same thing, and I’ve often thought that +++Rowan is too spiritual, maybe even too holy, for the role that was thrust upon him. The problem is that his modeling and spirituality are likely lost on a church (TEC) that takes its cues primarily from secular culture and activism.
But God will triumph, one way or another, and I believe He will honor the service and faith of +++Rowan.
UNtil today I have been frustrated with ++Rowan Williams for not acting in a forceful manner to bring discipline to the Communion. Now I am rejoicing in every act of futility on his part. Why? Because it just makes certain that the next leader of the Communion will be elected by the Primates rather than the Prime Minister of England. And that is what we need as a 21st century global Church.
Lambeth 98, Windsor, Dromantine, and DeS have all spoken fairly clearly. But the Americans have been allowed to fudge. Rowan gives luke warm affirmations of Lambeth 1.10, “I believe that Lambeth 1.10 is still the view of the Communion.”
He subversion of DeS began before the meeting began, allotting only 4 hours to the “American question”. He then tried unsuccessfully to manipulate the conference with his release of subcommittee report at the beginning which one the subcommittee members hadn’t even seen. He opposed the inclusion of a deadline then stated the deadline wasn’t a deadline. Finally after the Americans rejected the communique, he made the evaluation process so cumbersome that over half of the primates and ACC members didn’t even participate.
Finally, we have Lambeth which was the ultimate fiddling whilst the Communion burns. (Yes, we have the dredging up the failed Panel of Reference and relabeling it the “Panel Forum.” Sorry but no.)
One has to ask why? Is it because he was an extremely liberal prior to his elevation, and now he is simply being duplicitous? Is it because with all the debts, he is beholden to the Americans? Whatever but history will sure place him with Chamberlain as a monumental failure of leadership.
I am not sure about the “ stillness and silence†bit. I’ve got reams of paper filled with things he said in the last three weeks. Very active, very outspoken, I and many others thought. In addition, many consider his planning in overturning of the traditional Lambeth polity this year (partially covered in Post #3) to demonstrate a high level of political shrewdness.
Frank Griswold had many of these same ethereal qualities. I sometimes wonder if Anglicanism in the West is just moving toward some sort of illuminism, much like the Society of Friends, only with colorful rites.
“When I teach as a bishop I teach what the Church teaches. In controverted areas it is my responsibility to teach what the Church has said and why.†Rowan Williams, quoted by a Lambeth Palace spokesperson, [i]Times,[/i] August 7, 2008, and taken from an interview in the [i]Church of England Newspaper[/i] of May 8, 2008
I am simply astounded over and over at the utter incapacity of so many people to see that Archbishop Rowan is a priest and bishop who actually is bound by the ordination vows committing him to the teaching of the Church.
I can only assume that many of those who cannot hear or read what Canterbury is saying have been so injured by their local experience that they can no longer trust any bishop. How many of the bishops whose dioceses border yours have spoken as clearly as the archbishop in support of the 1998 Lambeth teaching on sexuality? How many of them have spoken as clearly against the American Episcopal Church’s outrages, its twisting of the idea of pastoral care and its simple outspoken rejection of the rest of the Church’s teaching?
There are many of us who are acting and speaking shamefully in the Episcopal Church, but none more shamefully than those who snipe at this bishop who is showing the rest of us that ordained leadership is about holiness, about prayerfulness and about faithfulness to his vows, and, yes, sometimes silence.
Father Dean A. Einerson+
Rhinelander, Wisconsin
It’s a bit more complicated than that. ++Williams’ personal views on the matter at hand, which are notoriously at variance with the traditions of the catholic faith, make it difficult to know if his ecclesial machinations are intended as a delaying tactic in hopes that the younger generations—products of the dominant intellectual orthodoxies in the US and UK public schools—will in due course simply override the current generation’s squeamishness.
Last year’s Time Magazine interview is telling. In it, ++Williams candidly discussed his personal opinions about same-sex relations:
[blockquote]”Yes, I argued that in 1987. I still think that the points I made there and the questions I raised were worth making as part of the ongoing discussion. I’m not recanting. But those were ideas put forward as part of a theological discussion. I’m now in a position where I’m bound to say the teaching of the Church is this, the consensus is this. We have not changed our minds corporately. It’s not for me to exploit my position to push a change.” [/blockquote]
All of this makes for an interesting situation. The Archbishop declares that he cannot press the Church to advance toward his now ostensibly “private†theological position, and yet having declared his position in such a public manner, he is, in actuality, “pushing for a change.†While he cannot aggressively move forward with what he might otherwise desire, he CAN passively and actively hold the conservative Anglicans at bay.
What kind of holiness is it that disbelieves Scripture on such moral issues?
I don’t believe that it is “passive” to allow homosexual clergy to have civil unions as long as they “promise” not to engage in sex.
[blockquote]Asked to comment yesterday, Lambeth Palace quoted a recent interview in which the Archbishop said: “When I teach as a bishop I teach what the Church teaches. In controverted areas it is my responsibility to teach what the Church has said and why.†[/blockquote]
[blockquote]I am simply astounded over and over at the utter incapacity of so many people to see that Archbishop Rowan is a priest and bishop who actually is bound by the ordination vows committing him to the teaching of the Church. [/blockquote]
Rowan Williams is a clever fellow. He should have the wherewithal to know what a miserable failure as an ABC is and should resign. How come the Catholic church has faithful and strong leaders and we get the feckless Rowan Williams?
Rowan Williams seems to have seen the need to follow the Church’s teachings with his lips when he became ABC, but his actions show him to be a dissembling impostor.
Briane and robroy,
I must say that it is hard to disagree with much of what you say just as it is hard to ignore what Rowan Williams has written as an academic or even privately as a bishop. (In fact, it’s so hard that I am not going to try.) At the same time, I do not think I would want to trade him for any of the people who ran roughshod over the traditionalists at the General Synod.
I do believe that it is all going to get a lot worse before it gets better; I am just not eager to see it happen by trading the one we know for the one we don’t.
Thanks.
Father Dean+
Fr. Dean, You mean do not trade the devil we know for the devil we don’t? Why not we get a saint next time.
Weak leadership and a refusal to deal with things does not make one holy or prayerful. The desert fathers were orthodox and willing to make a stand for the faith of Christ crucified. Whilst I think Rowan is a man of prayer and a very good man- I think he is proving wholly useless as ABC. The C of E used to be synodically led but episcopally governed. At the General Synod we witnessed everyone totally ignore Williams and in the process treat traditionists in a shameful manner. If he cannot even lead his own Bishops and Synod- what hope of him leading the communion. I am sad to say it- genuinly- but Lambeth will turn out to be a multi million dollar waste of time. And his leadership and refusal to act plays a very large part in that. If he had ‘taken’ authority when GR was consecrated instead of bleating that he had none- we would not be in the current mess we are.
I shared many of the misgivings about Rowan that have been expressed here until I began to interact with him, see him in action, and get to know him a little. Misgiving has turned to deep respect for a godly man of extraordinary depth and integrity — and trying to do one of the most difficult jobs in the world.
He is a brilliant and complex individual, an introvert, thinker, and pray-er, not the sort of model for leadership that most North Americans will quickly warm to, but one they should attempt to come to terms with. I like the comment by Nick Baines, Bishop of Croydon, and a leading evangelical in the Church of England, on Rowan’s exercise of leadership at Lambeth:
“My own view is that the Archbishop showed extraordinary leadership in sticking to the process and not being deflected from it. Lots of others got very jittery before and during the conference, but he held his nerve and deserved the standing ovations he received at the end of the final plenary session. Again, the problem here is that people have a monochrome understanding of what leadership actually is. It is not (as Rowan himself said at a meeting at Lambeth in February this year) about ‘heroism’ – doing dramatic things. Leadership means listening to advice, but being willing to hold your nerve – in Rowan’s case silently – and handle the consequences later.”
(http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/forum/blog.cfm?thread=7456)
Perhaps what many find unnerving about Rowan is that he has sublimated some of his own perceptions in order to maintain the unity of the Church, and that he seems to have endless patience. It is this patience which infuriates, but given the intensity of the present crisis perhaps it is only patient endurance and allowing himself to be pilloried during the process that will bring anything like a godly conclusion from this.
Rowan has been set up by the media as a long-haired, long-bearded buffoon, a saintly man who beneath his intelligence is a bit of an idiot. I would suggest that some of our brothers and sisters have fallen into the trap set by the secular media. They have their script that the church is falling apart; I wonder if they are going to play that script regardless of the facts until such time as they can facilitate this happening.
Meanwhile, do not under-estimate th Archbishop of Canterbury, who I have come to believe is God’s man in God’s place for a time like this.
[blockquote]Perhaps what many find unnerving about Rowan is that he has sublimated some of his own perceptions in order to maintain the unity of the Church, and that he seems to have endless patience.[/blockquote]
My point is that I don’t think he has “sublimated his perceptions.” He has consistently “kept everyone at the table”, subverting any attempt at discipline.
[blockquote]I have come to believe is God’s man in God’s place for a time like this.[/blockquote]
I am not necessarily disagree. The good Lord has given us Katherine Jefferts Schori. I cannot think of anyone better to take the American church right over the cliff which is clear that that is what needs to happen. It needs to die and to be purged of the heresy.
Similarly, the entire AC needs to be cleansed of the corruption. Rowan, more than anyone, is responsible for the crisis for a JPII or Benedict XVI would have dealt with it prior to it coming to the terrible stage.
I’m so sorry, but a cursory glance at how the Catholic church has handled the continually growing sex scandal (including willful ignorance on the part of the now-Holy Father) one can easily see that the Romans are not doing any better at all. Over 100,000 abuse victims and rising, while there has been promotion not discipline (what they are supposed to be so good at?) for strapping young bishops who are willing to cover things up, obstruct justice, and transfer offending clergy. Discipline indeed!
Well said Alan Jacobs! A good man for bad times.
Far too often there are calls for “strong, decisive leadership” no matter what the consequences. More often then not what is needed is quiet, prayerful, reflection.
Had the American Church tried this, rather than running around trying to be “prophetic”, we wouldn’t be in this mess now.
Well said Marcus!
Richard, while I appreciate your eulogy for +Williams, do bear in mind that what some of here are reflecting upon specific issues regarding his leadership style, that your high praise fails to address. It is as if you take what I and others are saying as somehow an [i] ad hominem[/i] attack on his character. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I have always conceded that he is a bright, affable, and decent man and was reading his stuff long before anyone dreamt he would wind up at our helm. Yet some of us are expressing very direct concerns with several items, not the least of which is his tendency to try to, as he describes it, “lead from the centre†while simultaneously declaring his abiding respect for the teachings of the far left. I have asked here if it is wise for an Archbishop of Canterbury to do so.
Another question. Was this comment regarding Americans accurate: “not the sort of model for leadership that most North Americans will quickly warm toâ€? I detect as much, or perhaps a higher percentage among active Anglicans, of a chill emanating from evangelicals and Anglo-Caths your side of the lake. It is just that many of us here in North America share their concerns. Again, I believe that as long as we stick to the issues, we avoid the hubris of personal attacks (on my part) and geographic/cultural generalizations that don’t float (on yours).
The whole thing is an unholy mess. We have a communion with a leader who has no authority over the provinces. Still, we look to him to provide leadership with authority over the provinces. To make it worse, he personally believes that what TEC is doing is correct, but is bound by his vows to practice something quite the opposite which, from the perspective of many here, he does in a reluctant manner. We can’t look to the primates for leadership, for while the majority of them are traditionalist, the ABC still retains just enough shallow authority to stymie them. The american church, with its convention running on a limping model of our federal govt, has representatives who have consistently refused to acknowledge or vote the minds of their constituency, to the point that much of that constituency has left. Bishops uphold what canons they will in their dioceses, and there is no hard and fast standard. Priests, in some dioceses, are allowed to set their own “don’t ask, don’t tell” standard when it comes to holy matrimony, holy communion, and the teachings of the church. And then, the last, best hope for the health of the communion, Lambeth 14, comes off as nothing more than a $12,000,000 boondoggle…a bridge to sensitiveville…with no real objective ever in mind. There’s plenty of poor leadership, benign or otherwise, all up and down the road from here to Lambeth, and all of it combined has brought us to this most unsatisfying place that we inhabit. And cranky, fleeing conservatives can take their share of the blame. But to say that +Williams is somehow the man for the job at this critical time…please. We know he’s smart, sensitive and holy. But he simply isn’t the one we needed. And maybe that was God’s plan…
Fat her Dean: He has failed at everything he has touched so far. Moreover, he has contradicted himself again and again, as the personal liberal and the institutional persona have fought bat tles only to stalemates? What good has he done? What he has done is given TEC carte blanche t o continue its perversions and heresies? Is this the work of a godly man or simply a weak one, a man without the spine to fish or cut bait? LM
Re #20 “Fat her Dean” Who are you calling “fat,” Larry?
I really do not see things quite the way you do. TEC does not have carte blanche in that it was not able to engineer an over throw of 1998’s 1.10. It was not able to bring its sideshow from New Hampshire and Pasadena under the big top. It cannot claim that it has some sort of Anglican imprimatur to go about its business. In order to move from the margin, it is going to need to set itself up as a new world-wide communion.
Williams has certainly been frank in the last week about the leadership of TEC and their role in Anglican troubles, and he has not seemed too conflicted about his feelings.
the portly and perhaps husky,
Father Dean+
#4: “Frank Griswold had many of these same ethereal qualities. I sometimes wonder if Anglicanism in the West is just moving toward some sort of illuminism, much like the Society of Friends, only with colorful rites.”
Interestingly, the same can be (and is often) said of Bp. Tom Shaw.
Obviously, I do not share the negative opinions of Rowan that so many others do. However, I happen to know both the Williams and the Griswolds, and #22 I have to insist that the Archbishop of Canterbury is cut from very different cloth than the former Presiding Bishop. Rowan is essentially a catholic Christian who is not easily pigeonholed into any grouping, Frank Griswold is essentially a progressive/liberal whose seems to enjoy the external trappings of catholic Christianity. Rowan honors the mind of the wider church, whereas Frank is a product of the individualism that has been so damaging in these last several generations. To suggest an illuminism for Rowan is not to have understood his presuppositions at all — and it has also to be said that Jane Williams is a strong influence in his life, and she teaches theology at the school of theology attached to Holy Trinity, Brompton, and is the daughter of an evangelical bishop.