Thoughts on the Archbishop of Canterbury?

[Unshaven]

It has occurred to me that there the many contributors in this subforum present an international tapestry and so I thought I would make use of it to ask people, particularly those outside of England and the UK, what they thought of Rowan Williams.

You see, coming from England, the nominal head of the Church of England is very much a public figure. Not only are his opinions widely reported in the press (and often lambasted, his subtle train of thought never really fitting easily with the soundbite era where papers usually want to reduce things to a simple black/white binary) but he has a very public presence at State occasions; Rememberance Day, Royal Weddings and so on. He is in fact the most important person in England and Wales after the Royal Family in the order of precedence, outranking even the PM. His various merits and demerits do in fact feature as a legitimate conversation topic revolving around current affairs, for those of any religious affiliation and none. It is fair to say that he attracts a lot of respect from thoughtful non-anglicans, and a lot censure from the more opinionated ones.

More than that, for me he is my Archbishop, not only do I fall under his province, he is also (somewhat betraying my age) the first (and therefore only) Archbishop of Canterbury that I have clear memories of, not being much interested in the particulars of my church hierarchy as a child. Finally he was the first public theologian that I ever really read and grappled with, and he remains a constant influence, either directly (I find his opininos very helpful in the study of both Patristic doctrine and Spirituality) or indirectly (my parish priest, and John Milbank, who I have started reaidng seriously, partly because I'm friends with his daughter, who can hopefully explain it all to me, studied under him). I continue to find his ideas compelling, even though they baffle a lot of liberal and conservative christians, because he cuts very deftly across that particular dividing line. When I feel decidedly uncertain about Anglicanism as a whole, I am always able to think 'well at least there's Rowan'.

But that's me, I wondered how he was portrayed/received in other places?

 

[TomUK]

As another Englishman you don't particularly want my view, but i'll give it anyway!

A phenomenal and holy man, faithful to the scriptures and deeply indebted to the Anglican tradition. An outstanding theologian, though at times aloof and i sometimes wonder whether that's intentional. A terrible politician but a decent archbishop, however still the best of a very bad bunch and given an impossible hand of cards.

 

[R_A]

Great OP.

I personally have found him too liberal, and never saw him from the perspective that you show him as (because, not living in England, I don't see the personal side of him, just the official and doctrinal sides, which could have been better...)

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Being mostly surrounded for years (by choice) by more conservative Anglicans, he is viewed as a liberal and charicatured a lot here in the States mostly as an impotent wimp trying to keep a huge tent of vast and varied characters together that really loathe one another deeply. I don't care much for him myself. His positives? "Bishop" Spong didn't like him and ripped on him on more than one occasion. I generally cling to the philosophy that anything Spong hates must be good and the reverse

I remember his sheepish statements about terrorists rubbed many of us here in the States the wrong way: "Bombast about evil individuals doesn't help in understanding anything." Living here on September 11th is a wholly different phenomenon than living in the UK during it. It's just not the same and I felt his statement was idiotic. He has been far too sympathetic to Islam. I wasn't impressed at his statement about Sharia Law either.

Before becoming the ABC, he wrote some liberal lefty things that were very pro-homosexual. That troubled me and still does.

I remember the indaba stuff at the Lambeth Conference; that was laughed at in my area a lot; it gave me a chuckle.

Despite my agreements with conservatives that he needs to take a strong stand and blast the liberal members of the communion like TEC in the US and my feeling that he's sheepishly reluctant to take a strong stand on much of anything except supporting Islam, I do like the fact that ++Williams was very mature and classy about the ordinariates that the Pope opened up to anglo-catholic clergy. It was something of a blindside and not something I'm sure he appreciated. Many Anglicans were disappointed and felt it wasn't cosher of the Pope to do it but Williams was classy and graceful in wishing those Catholics well and not insulting the Pope or create drama about it. I also thought it was great that he attended the funeral of Pope John Paul II and then the installation of the new pope, Benedict XVI. He seems ecumenical and a good man but not right for the job. He's an intellectual egghead, not a leader. But that doesn't make him a bad guy. I wasn't impressed with George Carey either really....

 

[ebia]

A very inspiring, humble and holy man. A great thinker, but not always the clearest communicator. Not given to accommodating a sound-bite age. Often portrayed as liberal, which he is not. Takes an enormous amount of the most appalling flack without ever responding in kind.

In many , many, ways he epitomizes what a Christian leader ought to be, but he doesn't fit the world's idea of that role.

 

[ebia]

He has been far too sympathetic to Islam. I wasn't impressed at his statement about Sharia Law either.

have you read them in the full context in which they were made. What he was actually saying was about the relationship between secular law and religion, and very very similar at the fundamental level to what Benedict says on the same topic. The problem is that nobody was interested in reporting the real point, just a soundbite version of it. it wasn't pro-Islamic any more than it was pro-catholic or anything else. It was about the tension between secular law and the faithful operation of religious communities in compliance with their own law.

Before becoming the ABC, he wrote some liberal lefty things that were very pro-homosexual. That troubled me and still does.

what he wrote, which was speculating as a theologian not teaching as a bishop, was questioning whether homosexual relationships were necessarily always sinful in every possible circumstance and that there should be dialog and discussion. That's what theologians do - question stuff. That's neither liberal nor (since he questioned, not drew a conclusion) pro-anybody.

I remember the indaba stuff at the Lambeth Conference; that was laughed at in my area a lot; it gave me a chuckle.

except for the TEC bishops who wanted a political style conference they could manipulate (which is exactly what it was set up to avoid) most bishops who experienced it and commented on it publically found it very positive and enlightening.

Despite my agreements with conservatives that he needs to take a strong stand and blast the liberal members of the communion like TEC

that's not part of the job description as he understands it - and he was clear about that before he took the job. In his view the ABC must not impose his views on the Communion - the Communion has to work that out itself.

 

[Naomi4Christ]

I am disappointed, to be honest.

While the Anglican Communion is nigh impossible to nail down, he lacks the charisma to bring groups together. The tail wags the dog. It is pretty bad when evangelicals are murmuring about a third province.

His appointment was an odd choice at the time, and something New Labour were always going to struggle with. I appreciate that the ABC had to be from the liberal catholic end, following on from an Evangelical, but he was a controversial choice.

I imagine it was a poison chalice for anyone taking on this role, but he does lack the warmth and affability that I think is essential for this job.

No doubt he is a brilliant academic, but university of life qualifications are just as important.

His wife, Jane, is really cool. She lectures at St Mellitus.

 

[ebia]

I

No doubt he is a brilliant academic, but university of life qualifications are just as important.

you dont seem to know him very well at all.

Have you ever met him?

 

[ebia]

Has anyone else read Tom Wright's Virtue Reborn? If not but you have a copy to hand read pages 233-234.

 

[Naomi4Christ]

you dont seem to know him very well at all.

Have you ever met him?

Nope. I don't really move in those circles.

I met the previous one quite a few times, but I can't say I knew him well.

 

[ebia]

Nope. I don't really move in those circles.

I met the previous one quite a few times, but I can't say I knew him well.

I've only met him briefly, once (at Greenbelt) But he comes across very warmly and as a quite extraordinarily gentle, humble and holy man. If you get the opportunity ever, take it.

He is an academic, but not one divorced from the real world at all.

If you can grab a copy of Virtue Reborn have a look at the story in there.



Tom Wright knows him very well and has done since they were students. He has a very high opinion of Rowan despite their different churchmanships, backgrounds and approaches. That alone would be enough character reference for me, but having met Rowan...

He can talk over the heads of his audience sometimes - but at least he never talks down to anyone.

 

[AngCath]

If you'll pardon a former Anglican's view. I really liked (still do!) his writings. He is a scholarly and wise man. I was never particularly impressed by his abilities as ABC, but, quite honestly, he may simply have an impossible position as it pertains to the wider Anglican Communion.

 

[R_A]

at least he never talks down to anyone.

Why is that a virtue? He's not just an average kindly joe, he's a leader, and leaders sometimes do have to talk down to people. Look at the entire past history of the Canterbury See, and you will find strong-willed men, making hard decisions, and getting things done. Being strong leaders, not just kindly and sweet old men which I'm sure Williams is.

 

[ebia]

Why is that a virtue? He's not just an average kindly joe, he's a leader, and leaders sometimes do have to talk down to people. Look at the entire past history of the Canterbury See, and you will find strong-willed men, making hard decisions, and getting things done. Being strong leaders, not just kindly and sweet old men which I'm sure Williams is.

I think his approach is the right one for a Christian leader. He thinks it is the one appropriate for his office and made that clear before he was appointed.

The idea that he isn't strong is absurd - his path takes a lot of strength. What he won't do is force. That makes people who want easy answers enforced on others angry.

Not that any of that has anything to do with what "talking down to" somebody connotes to me.

 

[Miser]

I *love* Rowan Williams, he is an inspiration to us all. I see a few Americans complaining he is too liberal, but to be fair Britain is a liberal country.

He seems really in touch with the people and truly has faith in Christ.

Im not a fanboy honest....

*hides avatar*

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Perception is all relative I suppose. You're the first person I've ever heard call Rowan Williams a holy man? And as far as not being liberal, there are people who think Jimmy Carter wasn't liberal but I'm sticking with the left monicker for that guy. It all depends on which side you're on. Take American politics. The Left thinks Obama is too conservative since he re-authorized the Patriot Act, continues the war in Afghanistan, re-authorized the Bush tax cuts, and is always trying to appease the Republicans. The Republicans see him as the greatest socialist threat in our lifetime and a hardcore Kinsean maniac with no control over spending and a big government mentality. You might be surprised to know that I voted for him and am an Independent. But the fact is, if you're far left, you're disappointed that he's too far right, if you're a right winger, you'll think he's too liberal.

So this is often true with religion. Liberals tend to think the ++ABC is a conservative, which I think is quite odd

A very inspiring, humble and holy man. A great thinker, but not always the clearest communicator. Not given to accommodating a sound-bite age. Often portrayed as liberal, which he is not. Takes an enormous amount of the most appalling flack without ever responding in kind.

In many , many, ways he epitomizes what a Christian leader ought to be, but he doesn't fit the world's idea of that role.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

What you say is essentially true. He has NO power to do much of anything. He can't force, compel, bind, loose, merge, dictate, determine, evaluate, or really do anything constructive except bang a gavel, try to inspire, and motive people. He has no ability to follow through on anything. He's a figurehead. So that's one reason the Anglican Communion is in such peril.

Meanwhile, in the United States the Presiding Bishop, who was originally set up by the American Church as having EVEN LESS power than an archbishop, has risen to this self-created importance and prominence that is akin to an Anglican provincial pope. She is the controller of all properties and dioceses and congregations and nothing is outside her dominion. It's stunning to see how the ABC who represents the worldwide communion is totally impotent in his role because Anglicanism never granted him any powers, and yet the PB in America rules like an overlord. Odd to say the least....

I think his approach is the right one for a Christian leader. He thinks it is the one appropriate for his office and made that clear before he was appointed.

The idea that he isn't strong is absurd - his path takes a lot of strength. What he won't do is force. That makes people who want easy answers enforced on others angry.

Not that any of that has anything to do with what "talking down to" somebody connotes to me.

 

[ebia]

What you say is essentially true. He has NO power to do much of anything. He can't force, compel, bind, loose, merge, dictate, determine, evaluate, or really do anything constructive except bang a gavel, try to inspire, and motive people. He has no ability to follow through on anything. He's a figurehead. So that's one reason the Anglican Communion is in such peril.

Meanwhile, in the United States the Presiding Bishop, who was originally set up by the American Church as having EVEN LESS power than an archbishop, has risen to this self-created importance and prominence that is akin to an Anglican provincial pope. She is the controller of all properties and dioceses and congregations and nothing is outside her dominion. It's stunning to see how the ABC who represents the worldwide communion is totally impotent in his role because Anglicanism never granted him any powers, and yet the PB in America rules like an overlord. Odd to say the least....

I'm not really in a position to give informed comment on North America. But I don't see a leader without power as necessarily being a bad thing. It forces us to look for ways of resolving things and living in community that don't rely on acts of power. If we can rise to that challenge we really can be the light of the world in a way we otherwise could not possibly be.

 

[ebia]

Perception is all relative I suppose. You're the first person I've ever heard call Rowan Williams a holy man? And as far as not being liberal, there are people who think Jimmy Carter wasn't liberal but I'm sticking with the left monicker for that guy. It all depends on which side you're on. Take American politics. The Left thinks Obama is too conservative since he re-authorized the Patriot Act, continues the war in Afghanistan, re-authorized the Bush tax cuts, and is always trying to appease the Republicans. The Republicans see him as the greatest socialist threat in our lifetime and a hardcore Kinsean maniac with no control over spending and a big government mentality. You might be surprised to know that I voted for him and am an Independent. But the fact is, if you're far left, you're disappointed that he's too far right, if you're a right winger, you'll think he's too liberal.

So this is often true with religion. Liberals tend to think the ++ABC is a conservative, which I think is quite odd

On what basis, except for one distortion of one question from years ago, do you describe him as liberal? His theology is straightforwardly orthodox. He does raise challenging questions over ethics, but then that's his discipline as a theologian and raising hard questions is what theologians do. (just read some of Joseph Ratzinger's theology - or is he a liberal too).

Or is women's ordination the defining shibboleth for liberal/conservative?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

"Distortion.." whatever, ebia. Anyone who disagrees with you is either accused of being ignorant, poorly-read, not up on all the facts, or a sound-bite-dependent hack who can't possibly read an entire document. You also draw conclusions that are absurd, like my supposedly branding the man a liberal solely on the basis of women's ordination, something I don't believe I even mentioned. It's insulting, whether you realize it or not, to imply that each person with whom you differ is an ignoramous without a library relying on Reader's Digest theology. It's really insulting. And as a lifelong Catholic, do you seriously think I haven't read Benedict XVI's stuff and John Paul II, etc.? Is it really necessary for you to be this insulting? Can you not make a point without a sharp barb and getting this much in a snit? Just once assume that other posters are as well-read and maybe even as intelligent as you are.

I don't agree with many things you have to say, but find where I've ever implied your stupidity, lacking intellectual factulties, or illiteracy....it isn't there. I assumed day one you're a bright chap (actually thought you were a woman for several reasons) and well-read. I maintain that. I don't assume that you're dumb just because I disagree with you; I think you're wrong because you drew conclusions with which I do not concur. But that doesn't make you a numb skull or a malicious jerk. That sentiment does not seem to be reciprocated.

God bless

On what basis, except for one distortion of one question from years ago, do you describe him as liberal? His theology is straightforwardly orthodox. He does raise challenging questions over ethics, but then that's his discipline as a theologian and raising hard questions is what theologians do. (just read some of Joseph Ratzinger's theology - or is he a liberal too).

Or is women's ordination the defining shibboleth for liberal/conservative?