I have gone through a lot of feelings and questions with regard the current Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, over the past three+ years. He has lived a proverbial lifetime over the past three plus short years, and it really is unfair to him.
He was elected during my seminary experience and most of us, at least those with whom I spoke, were excited about Williams – a well known, well respected, and very good academic and theologian. He was the primate of the Anglican Church in Wales. He was of the Anglo-Catholic (Oxford Movement) side of the Church. He was then (and still is) a participant of a number of organizations that strongly emphasize an intentional understanding and support of the continuance of our Church’s Traditions (our catholicity), while seeing our Church as being in very different circumstances then we were even 50 years ago, thus allowing for the positive movement forward in examining our approaches to the hermeneutical endeavor. I truly respect the man as a theologian and compassionate Christian thinker.
When all hell broke loose during the second half of 2003 with the American Church’s consecration of the current Bishop of the Diocese of New Hampshire, we looked to see what ++Rowan would do. What would the leader of the Anglican Communion actually do or say? We believed his responses would be thoughtful, fair, respectful of all sides as his position requires, and consistent to what he has proposed and done in the past – continuance of the Anglican Tradition and with his own convictions.
++Rowan obviously has tried terribly to keep the Communion together over the past few years. I do not envy him one bit – really, this responsibility that has been laid upon his shoulders was not of his asking when he was selected to be the new Archbishop of Canterbury. He is in an impossible position, but he is in the position nonetheless.
Yet, I have gone through various feelings about him as a leader. For the longest time, I was perplexed by his decisions. I just didn’t understand where he was leading and how the direction he seemed to be going would result in a good outcome. Then, I thought, “This man is brilliant. He will simply let the players play themselves out and as the Archbishop, invite all bishops to Lambeth and those who choose to opt out, opt out. They will not be a part of the councils of this Church.”
Last year, I began hearing a lot of rumblings by English clergy about the Primate of All England, ++Rowan. The rumblings revolved around his inept leadership and inability to make decisions. Well, these are English clergy talking about a Welshman who took control of the English Church – who knows what is going on behind the scene. More rumblings about the real regret many of the English clergy now feel about his selection as the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Now, I really don’t know what to think. Right now, I’m thinking that this man is a brilliant academic, politician and leader he is not. I hope I am wrong.
With this man, through a whole series of events and circumstances, a vacuum of leadership developed within the structures of the Anglican Communion and over the past three+ years others have quickly stepped in to fill that vacuum. It seems those who have filled the void are pushing the Communion to be something it has never been. Those who believing in maintaining the Tradition have not stepped up to the plate to challenge the Anglican innovators. This new Church, if they succeed, will look very much like the Roman Church. The same group is trying to force the American Episcopal Church (and really all the more “Western” Churches) to conform to its will and is assuming power that it never had, with little resistance by the rest of the Communion. Well, until…
From the last American House of Bishops meeting three reports or “Mind of the House” resolutions, were issued. From one, comes this quote commenting on the assumed and increasing juridical power of the Anglican Primates Meetings:

“It sacrifices the emancipation of the laity for the exclusive leadership of high-ranking Bishops. And, for the first time since our separation from the papacy in the 16th Century it replaces the local governance of the Church by its own people with the decisions of a distant and unaccountable group of prelates.”
I do know that ++Rowan is a very strong believer in the collegial process, a conciliarly process, and I respect that. The only problem is that in order for these kinds of processes to succeed, there needs to be agreement on all sides that they will all sit at the same table, abide by the same rules, and that no one violates another or decides to take all their marbles and go home. This has not been the case, and rather than call the violating parties to account ++Rowan has bent over backwards attempting to accommodate them – to keep them in the Communion. He violates or gives up the very Anglican Tradition he so wishes to preserve. At least that is how it seems to me.
I have come to think that he is way over his head. He cannot make needed decisions and he is allowing himself to be bullied by certain other strong leaders. He is relinquishing his authority to others, and I just don’t know why.
If he simply said from the beginning to the American Church, or to the Nigerian Primate, or to half a dozen other people that he will not tolerate this kind of behavior, we would not be in this kind of chaotic situation. There still would be angry people jockeying for power and influence in order to undo what they believe should not have been done, there still would be provinces that call for an Anglican realignment, still be members of parishes that left the Church, and all of that. However, the Archbishop of Canterbury still would be in control; loved or hated, he still would be in control. Now, he is not. He is giving up his authority as head of the Anglican Communion – the only real specified authority in the Communion – to a group of prelates who up until six years ago had no such agreed upon power. Being in Communion with the See of Canterbury may soon be only an historical concept.
He is taking a three-month sabbatical before the September 30th deadline for compliance by the American Church to the demands of the Primates Meeting. I just wonder upon returning whether he will resign, whether he will have come to some sort of epiphany, whether he will have rediscovered his spine, whether he might even announce that he is swimming the Tiber. Who knows? I don’t.
I just wonder what could have been accomplished under his archbishopric if the force of division had not raised its ugly head. Perhaps this kind of leader he was never meant to be. Perhaps, his talents and subsequent influence would have been better served had he stayed in academia, or perhaps simply a bishop of a diocese in Wales.
I wonder if he has any peace of mind any longer.