"In his interview Dr Williams also revealed he will retire before his full term as Archbishop ends in 10 years, saying: 'I will not be doing this job when I'm 70.'"
I saw a news item this weekend that stated that the Archbishop of Canterbury will not serve until he is obliged to retire (age 70 in the Church of England).
This is good news for the C of E and the Anglican Communion. What worries me is that the Archbishop (now 60) will retire at or before his 65th birthday. That would mean that his successor is chosen by the current Conservative Prime Minister, David Cameron.
I have discovered that, reversing the decision of Gordon Brown to only require one name for episcopal appointments, Cameron has gone back to the historic tradition of requiring two names from the Appointments Committee, from which Cameron will pick one to send to the Queen for appointment. There are rumours (which I am discounting, but which may be true) that the two names that Southwark sent to the Prime Minister have
been sent back, one for being too liberal, one for not fitting the profile of the Diocese. I do not think that this could have happened without it being announced, as the Appointments Committee would have to reconvene to send two more names (as happened when Tony Blair, crypto-Roman PM at the time, sent back the two names for Liverpool early in his premiership). However, it is still a possibility.
The successor to Rowan Williams should be someone who is a consensus-builder, has a truly Anglican view of the Communion, and does not think of himself (or, perhaps by then, herself) as an Anglican Pope. Cameron is unlikely to look with favour on such a candidate.
By that time I believe that the Episcopal Church, the Anglican Church of Canada, the Scottish Episcopal Church, the Church in Wales, and perhaps the churches of Australia and New Zealand will be out of the orbit of the Archbishop of Canterbury. But the wrong person chosen as Archbishop will have a devastating effect on the Church of England. In 5 years Sentamu will be 66 and thus probably too old to take it. The current Bench of Bishops is conspicuously thin on the ground of good diocesan bishops. If Nick Baines has gotten a diocese and settled in by then, he would make a good candidate. But we need to be very wary of a new ABC. After all, we have suffered since 1990 with two very unsuitable Archbishops and a third one in a row would mean misgovernment of the Church for at least 30 years.
A humourous postscript: A Welsh politician has upbraided Barry Morgan, Archbishop of Wales, for stating in an interview that if he is with Rowan Williams and wants to say something in private, they switch to speaking Welsh. The politico says that this reinforces the stereotype of non-Welsh people entering a pub in northern Wales and hearing everyone switch to speaking Welsh as soon as they see that strangers have entered. That was exactly my experience the one time I went to north Wales, so perhaps it's more than a stereotype.
Chris Hansen
Chris is a friend of Ann Fontaine, and the commentary above is posted with permission.
A TA poster (Perry Butler)commented "The Southwark appointment is expected in October I think".
ReplyDeleteI don't at all think Rowan thinks of himself as an Anglican pope. Rather a shopkeeper or perhaps security guard. He seems to show no interest in advancing his own opinions, but simply in keeping "peace." As the recent Times interview shows, he goes to great length to avoid expressing a personal opinion. See my most recent blog post, with the graphic showing Rowan at the recent meeting in Uganda...
ReplyDeleteKeeping the peace is a fruitless task. What is needed is to encourage people to respect one another's differences.
ReplyDeleteCameron is unlikely to look with favour on such a candidate.
ReplyDeleteI know Cameron is right-wing, but he is also young(ish) and has been quite anxious to modernise the Tory party and its image as far as he can, including its damaging record on gay rights. I don't know much about his faith, which he has not openly discussed that I have come across, but it is possible his thoughts on a suitable ABC might not be what people expect.
@Lapinbizarre: I suspect that the new bishop's name will be announced within the next two weeks or so unless that rumour I heard (which I really heavily discount, but we will see) is true.
ReplyDelete@Tobias: Rowan may not think of himself as an Anglican pope, but the powers and authorities he is setting up could definitely be used by a future ABC who DID think of himself as an Anglican pope.
@Cathy: I have since discovered that the legislation to formalise the provision of one name to the Prime Minister is still chugging ahead.
I don't get the sense that Cameron is at all determined to put a stamp on the Bench of Bishops. In fact, he may have learned from the unpleasant experience Blair had when he sent back the two names for Liverpool early in his Prime Ministership. Blair got rounded upon for interfering in the process and I don't believe he tried it again.
I suspect that, if anything, he will be looking for someone who will not rock the boat, who will not preach inconvenient truths from the pulpits of the land, and who will not upbraid the government in the House of Lords nor encourage the other bishops to do so. For politicians, it was always thus. Margaret Thatcher was so annoyed about Robert Runcie getting after her over the Falklands War that we got George Carey as revenge. In a nutshell, that's why disestablishment is a good idea.
I don't believe that Cameron takes his membership in the C of E as a mandate to change it in any way. I may be wrong. The current appointments mostly went through before he was made PM; we will have to see whether he tries to put his stamp on it. If he sends names back regularly, look for the Church to hit back by, for example, returning the same names to him. It would get messy and, for the most part, C of E people, especially the seniors, vote early and often. Getting the Church annoyed over episcopal appointments might stir up some ordure that the government would rather let lie.
@Chris, yes, that is a different matter, and a good reason for allowing the Covenant to fade. A priest friend from Wales who served while RW was Abp that he engineered appointments of those most hostile to his own personal views. Likely the worst case of self-destructive liberalism on record!
ReplyDeleteChris, thank you for weighing in. Your response to the commentary is far more suitable than mine.
ReplyDeleteTobias, I read your post, and I will respond at your site. What I want to say here is that Rowan did not seem at all hesitant to tell us how to run things in the Episcopal Church in his visits to the HOB meeting in New Orleans and preceding GC09. Nor did he hold his tongue about the consents and consecration of Mary Glasspool.
If the Anglican Communion were to be reorganized according to his recommendations, Rowan would be the de facto pope of the Anglican Communion (or should I say Anglican Church?). What he would do with the position is another matter.
Mimi, he said those things because those are the "positions" of the body he thinks it is his job to represent: TEC has not played by what he thinks are the rules, rules which he has constrained himself to play by even though he personally disagrees with them. That's the problem: he does not see himself as a free agent, but as the spokesperson, as the maitre d' and not the owner. And although he supports the Covenant, its actual form is not of his making -- another sign of weakness. He is an "Organization Man" in the worst sense. In another context (invoking Godwin's Law) he would say, "I'm only following orders."
ReplyDeletePlease understand I'm not defending his choices -- I think he's taking the wrong approach. But I think it is important correctly to understand his psychology because that will be crucial in helping him to change, if that is possible.
...he said those things because those are the "positions" of the body he thinks it is his job to represent....
ReplyDeleteTobias, there is no true consensus on those "positions", and Rowan knows that. Why does he feel the need to play by those rules? Rules according to whom?
Mimi, Rowan thinks that Lambeth is the "mind of the communion" and, like it or not (and he doesn't), he thinks it is his job to enforce what Lambeth said. He has made no secret of this, from the very beginning, which has been a great disappointment.
ReplyDeleteIt can be argued that Lambeth does not represent the mind of the communion. But Rowan thinks it does, and although I disagree, it is not an illogical position for him to take. Thus, from my perspective, the proper approach is to engage him on the question of the authority of Lambeth, etc. -- as that is the root issue.
I can imagine Rowan saying to TEC, "I have sacrificed my conscience and my friends for the sake of unity, and I don't see why you shouldn't do the same." It's more of that "crucified place" BS, but I do know from my personal conversation with him that he is mightily pained by the choices he seems to think he has to make.
Again, I think he is dead wrong on this, and has chosen the path of Neville Chamberlain. (Godwin, strike two.)
Tobias, thanks for your explanation. I understand a bit more why Rowan acts as he does, but God only knows how he manages the split. He may be crucified, all right, and if he chooses that position for himself, that's one thing, but to lay the burden on others to take a crucified place is quite wrong and goes against the Gospel. It is, as you say, BS of the highest order.
ReplyDeleteI think Fr. Tobias has pretty much nailed Dr. Williams's position Mimi. He is wrong but it is where he is.
ReplyDeleteSad.
FWIW
jimB
Sad, indeed.
ReplyDelete