The Archbishop of Canterbury is in Rome and will meet the Pope today for a private meeting. The impression given in some media is that this visit is a response to the Pope’s establishment of a Personal Ordinariate for Anglicans who want to join the Roman Catholic Church. But two things need to be said about this: (a) the visit was scheduled many, many months ago, so has been coloured by recent events, but not determined by them; (b) according to a RC bishop with whom I spoke recently, they do not want ‘disaffected’ Anglicans who would prefer to remain Anglican really, but only those who positively want to join the RC Church – in other words, those with positive and not negative motivation.
Now, that will be an interesting one for the RC authorities to work out when they engage in the discernment process in each individual case.
However, I was asked to do an interview with John Humphreys on BBC Radio 4′s Today programme this morning and the thrust of the question put to me was about ‘leadership’. Has Rowan Williams’ authority been undermined by the Pope’s offer and is his leadership (particularly in comparison with that of Pope Benedict) too equivocal to be effective?
My response was simple: leadership is not about shouting loudly what people want to hear… now. yet that is what many people think it is. If they don’t hear Rowan saying what they want to hear him saying, then he isn’t leading. What Rowan is doing is taking the long-term view. Well, what about the lack of ‘robustness’ in his leadership? I wasn’t being facetious when I noted that Jesus wasn’t being exactly ‘robust’ when he allowed himself to be nailed to a cross.
Isn’t it more ‘robust’ (and doesn’t it take more nerve) to resist the clamour for statements, simple clarity (where it may not exist) or irrevocable decisions before the time is right to give them? It could be argued that to stick to your course in the face of competing demands for statements shows not leadership but weak (and short-term) populism.
So, you may not agree with Rowan, but you have to give him some credit for not being pushed into a corner by the strident voices of competing factions or the comment-hungry media. His conversation with Benedict should be just that: a conversation with Benedict. Why can’t we learn to respect context, relationship and confidence and then see where the two leaders go from here?
The contrast with Benedict is an interesting one, however. It is illuminating to listen to Roman Catholics who are alarmed at the way the Pope has pushed this Apostolic Constitution through the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and by-passed the appropriate body, the Pontifical Council for Ecumenical Dialogue. If this ‘leadership’ undermined the Archbishop of Canterbury, then what does it say about the leadership of the Archbishop of Westminster who was given the same notice of the Constitution as was Rowan? And does it undermine both Vatican process and the authority of the Roman Catholic bishops of England, given that they also had no notice of what was proposed than their Anglican counterparts?
It is often said that Rowan could sometimes be clearer in what he does say – given that even academic lectures will still get reported in popular media – but intellectual laziness should not excuse us from working at what he does say in order to get to the heart of how this holy man sees God, the world and us.
This morning the Times asks Rowan to by-pass the tanks parked on the lawn at Lambeth Palace and speak truth to the heart of Rome. The challenges he posed to Rome in his lecture yesterday are serious (and not simple) ones – as recognised by Cardinal Kasper and Bishop Brian Farrell. It will be interesting to see if and how Rome responds.
November 21, 2009 at 11:25 am
There’s a similar clamour for Barack Obama to come out with a swift and decisive policy on American engagement in Afghanistan. He isn’t. It’s a highly complex, nuanced issue and he’s weighing it…which I would have thought was a sign of good leadership, not weakness. We also shouldn’t condemn the leader who takes a decision then later modifies it. That can be a sign of good leadership too.
November 21, 2009 at 11:39 am
Very much enjoyed your contribution to Today.
Surely it should be reason for rejoycing that our Archbishop is thoughtful, prayerful and able to resist comment ‘for the sake of comment’?
November 21, 2009 at 11:46 am
Was it Rowan who said:’People who say they want leadership want to be told what to do. People
who say they want prophetic leadership want to be told what to do very
loudly.’? and indeed!
November 21, 2009 at 11:50 am
Robert, yes it was.
November 21, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Thanks for this Nick. It’s not often we hear encouragement and support for our leaders (and Rowan in particular). It’s refreshing to hear you speak out in his favour – and a reminder to me to look for the good in others, and tell them!
November 21, 2009 at 12:59 pm
Enjoyed listening to you this morning on the radio and I very much appreciate your reflections on leadership in this post.
It seems we want our leaders to take responsibility which we are not able to – or can’t be bothered to ourselves, and to come up with continual easy sound bites with which to spoonfeed us. Meantime we can sit in our armchairs moaning and mocking.
I thought Rowan William’s lecture was good, profound and challenging, giving all of us much food for thought. It is perhaps just as well that none of us know what lies ahead in terms of ecumenism or church unity; that doesn’t mean that we should stop trying to work for it or break off relations with other churches simply to please the media, which is ever-greedy for a quick story about conflict and disagreement.
Have any local churches actually left the C of E yet, have any serving bishops left, has a diocese? And even if they do it seems to me that this supposed crisis may turn out to be seen more of a kairos moment. Thank goodness that the current Archbishop of Canterbury is both a person of prayer and of deep theological understanding. History may also prove that he has also taken the right political decisions … but by then we may not be around to comment on it!
All this praise and I’m not even an Anglican!
November 21, 2009 at 5:27 pm
Nick,
Thanks for this thoughtful post. I am sad to say, I missed your broadcast, but agree with your comments.
I have only met Rowan Williams, once, when he visited my Parish and led a service of Holy Communion – his sermon was relevant, about the Gospel, and clear for all – nothing woolly or academic about it at all.
I was introduced to him afterwards and he took a keen interest in who I was, what I was doing and my place in the church – this took a little time, with others in the line to see him, and he took the time and trouble not only for me, but for all who attended and we are talking about several hundred people.
Coming from a Military Background, after years of dynamic leadership, I always respected the thoughtful leader, who could make quick decisions when needed, but who planned and led thought through decisions which could be life or death related. Rowan Williams, while academic, could well have filled such a role if he had been called to do it.
Rowan Williams carries the huge burden of public expectation, and he quite rightly does not say what is expected, rather what is needed, after careful reflection.
History will be the judge, but when he meets his ultimate judge, he will not be found wanting.
November 21, 2009 at 8:25 pm
I know you have not always agreed with the Cranmer blog so it was particularly good to see that the Archbishop’ s lecture was well and fairly received wider than his immediate circle of admirers – which is I suppose exactly the evidence of the leadership you describe.
I appreciated your Today contribution and like Boris on Paxman, enjoyed an interviewee who doesn’t automatically accept the premise of the interviewers editorial line.
Although I agreed with you, the quoted Evangelical made a point which is a good one for a later time. We do need to identfy and praise the values of the Anglican settlement, but
for now, we should let the Archbishop use his strengths in the discussions in hand.
November 21, 2009 at 9:04 pm
I find it bizzare that many of the people praising Rowan as a great leader today- totally ignored him and made him look an ass at Synod in July 2008 when he pleaded for better provision for traditionalists!
That he is a clever, holy and good man I agree. But he is a total failure as a leader. About as effectual as Gordon Brown and that is saying something. Truth is people only listen to him when they agree with him and totally ignore him at other times.
The sad truth is that all the good leaders have been held down in the church for several decades- and insipid yes men have risen to power. For who can deny the clear habit of promoting the middle roaders who keep noses clean.
Indeed Britain as a whole is desperately short of good leaders and public servants and it shows!
November 22, 2009 at 9:16 am
Yes, I tend to agree with Martin Sewell. Rod Thomas (can’t believe I’m actually agreeing with anything that man says!) does have a point, but not in terms of tone or timing. We do have a gospel to proclaim in terms of the joys of Anglicanism.
But as the Bishop of Norwich retorted to this very point remade by Mr Thomas on the Sundya porgramme this morning…
‘The meek shall inherit the earth, not the pugnacious’.
Graham James for Pope!
November 22, 2009 at 10:12 am
Some recycled thoughts on leadership inspired by John Adair:-
People tend to follow those who seem to know the way. People are most willing to obey those who seem to know what they are doing. So leadership can be established through power of personality.
All leadership is arguably in the gift of the followers. You are not a ‘leader’ until your appointment is ratified in the hearts and minds of those who follow you.
Leader is a journeying word. If an organisation is not on a journey, don’t bother about leadership – just settle for management.
There are very different styles of leadership, related to individual personalities, organisations and cultures. They can be equally effective in giving a strong direction for people to follow.
Leadership is about giving direction, but it has to be the right direction.
A leader is not always literally the person in front, but a leader is expected to guide or give direction, keep the party together (stay in touch) and care for individual needs on the journey.
The leader who puts themselves into the background, so that the people can say: “we did it ourselves (but you helped)” will always be to the fore.
Leaders encourage people. They renew spirits, giving others fresh courage to pursue the common course of action.
It helps immeasurably if a leader creates a climate of energetic purpose in which people do what has to be done in a calm and collected way.
Leadership is best expressed without self-consciousness or self-importance, without pride or show and with a refusal to dominate or lord it over others.
Humility, in the sense of trusting men and women as equals, belongs to the essence of great leadership.
Humour defuses tension in times of crisis and adds an element of enjoyment.
A lofty and courageous spirit enables a leader to bear trouble calmly, to disdain meanness and revenge, and to make sacrifices for worthy ends.
The task of leadership is not to put greatness into humanity, but to elicit it, for the greatness is there already.
Communication at leadership level is not just about imparting information or ideas; it is a stirring up of energy and enthusiasm for the work in hand.
A leader’s own thoughts and reflections must be interwoven with hearing the issues discussed by the group. Feasible courses of action have to be identified and their pros and cons debated hard. Out of such discussion arises intelligent and committed action. It produces the optimum course or way forward, not necessarily the perfect one.
Leaders can win valuable support by seeking as much consensus as possible in decision making. Wise leaders always do!
Extreme conditions are the real test of great leadership. Anyone can hold the helm when the seas are calm. The test of your powers of communication comes when the seas are rough with change, and people feel disorientated and out of touch. Can you communicate hope when all about you are doubting the promise of the future?
Morally unscrupulous leaders, who manage people essentially by fear and mislead them to corrupt and destructive ends, will eventually forfeit the trust of all but a few fanatically devoted followers.
Lead on, with my best wishes, Rowan (& Nick)!
November 22, 2009 at 1:58 pm
It could be argued that to stick to your course in the face of competing demands for statements shows not leadership but weak (and short-term) populism.
I’m pretty sure this isn’t what you meant, as it doesn’t really go with the rest of the paragraph. Or I’m not understanding the sentence correctly…
My views on accommodating traditionalists are fairly plain: by all means, welcome and include those who don’t support fully inclusive ministry at all levels (regardless of gender or sexuality, among other things… I’ve wondered whether the recent trend toward self-supporting ministers might lead to (further? this is another issue for another discussion) discrimination against those who cannot support themselves financially in and also pursue a vocation to ordained ministry), but not at the cost of that inclusive ministry. I don’t know what that means in terms of the details, partly because I lack the background information and partly because it is a complex and sensitive problem. But the proposed Anglican Covenant and much of the language surrounding it doesn’t seem to fit in with that; nor does taking a “if you don’t like it you can leave” approach to any group. I can certainly understand how individuals and groups might fear being left out in the cold in order to appease those who disagree with them.
What I have read of Rowan Williams’ work I have found useful, fascinating and occasionally inspiring. Whether I agree with the changes he proposes or not, whether he is a “good leader” or not, he’s the leader we currently have.
I don’t know another response except to pray that he knows what he’s doing.
November 22, 2009 at 6:54 pm
Perhaps the discussion on leadership would be a little more fruitful if we agreed that the word “leader” is a big one and can mean a hundred different things in different contexts and different walks of life. What strikes me about the ABC is that he expects people to respond to him as adults and that what he offers is better described as hints on direction rather than clarion calls to “follow me over the hill left of the red flag”. His lecture shows that what he has gleaned from Willebrands and the splendid rebel Yves Congar is that the Church is inclusive. Congar said that the doctrine of extra ecclasiam nulla salus meant there was no salvation outside Christ – which illuminates the ABC’s thought about baptism.
Ed Tomlinson says people ignore what RW says. The day after his appointment was confirmed I happened to be in Mowbray’s. The place was bursting with clergy all buying up the ABC’s books..
November 22, 2009 at 11:04 pm
Martin, I agree with your comment about Rod Thomas’s contribution. I wasn’t referring (in the interview) to the content of his remark, but expressing (maybe unwisely) frustration at the fact that he only ever criticises the Archbishop. Reform would never defend the Archbishop unless he read out a Reform statement and agreed with it.
November 22, 2009 at 11:12 pm
Ed, I had hoped we had got this conversation onto a more civilised plane. I think you have entirely missed the point I was making about leadership – that it good leadership is not always about instant (re)action or loud populism. To deride Rowan in the way you do suggests that either you don’t understand the burden and breadth of the sort of leadership Rowan has to exercise. The accusation you make would, I guess, be rejected if it were to be made about – for example – the Bishop of Fulham or the Pope (who is ignored by huge numbers of Catholics when it comes to a range of ethical issues). I really don’t think it is helpful to make such generalised swipes and I hope we can get back to a conversation that is more reasonable.
Apart from that response, I do hope you are well and that you and your family are OK during what are turbulent and uncertain times.
November 22, 2009 at 11:18 pm
Song, I did mean what I wrote – although perhaps I tried too hard to keep it concise. I was trying to make the point that resisting a reaction is hard when you are under pressure (for example when Rowan was under huge pressure from all sides to respond to the Sharia furore, but refused until he addressed the General Synod the following Monday). But good leadership might sometimes mean resisiting the ‘populist’ response and holding to your line – even if to do so is derided as ‘weakness’.
November 22, 2009 at 11:19 pm
Peter, you hit the nail on the head. Rowan is an adult who constantly calls people to behave like adults. he is often disappointed, but still refuses to infantilise others by descending to their level of intercourse.
November 23, 2009 at 9:04 am
I probably need to think this next idea in more detail, but this week the ascerbic American political commentator Ann Coulter challenged the modern slogan ” Diversity is our strength”, pointing out that it was poorly evidenced in Ulster, Darfur, Bosnia etc.
She rounded the piece by stressing that her country prospered by what united them. She did not – but could have – referenced the US motto Ex Pluribus Unum.
It occurs to me that church leadership probably mirrors that in some way. Maybe the Cof E , conscious of it’s history rooted in HenryVIII divorce, is well placed to hang together with a degree of pragmatism, for we cannot with an altogether good conscince claim an origin in doctrinal purity or consistency.
Maybe the principal merit of an ABC ( not just RW) is to remind us that we may be a patched up lifeboat, but if we can steer clear of cannabalism, we might just all stay afloat until our promsed rescuer arrives.
November 23, 2009 at 10:07 am
It could be argued that to stick to your course in the face of competing demands for statements shows not leadership but weak (and short-term) populism.
Nick, my reading of this sentence is that sticking to your course shows weak and short-term populism. That’s the opposite of what I understood from the rest of your post, hence my confusion.
It’s entirely possible that I’m muddled in my English but I thought it better to mention it than not.
November 23, 2009 at 10:38 am
Song, the point is that some people will see it as such, but I don’t agree with them.
November 23, 2009 at 11:14 am
Our ears are so trained and tuned in to sound bites by the media and politicians that we sometimes react to a ‘ponderous’ response from the Archbishop of Canterbury with impatience and puzzlement!
When we listen hard and begin to understand his careful choice of words and the depth of his reasoning, we then begin to understand the clarity of his mind.
He may be a very misundertood Archbishop of Canterbury, but he is a leader for these very difficult changing times.
November 23, 2009 at 2:19 pm
As far as Rowan goes, I think he deserves a little praise. So, one and a half cheers for the good Archbishop: “Hip, hip hooray! Hip, hip…”
Kurt Hill
Brooklyn USA
November 24, 2009 at 11:16 pm
Rowan was speaking at a conference at my college the weekend before the Apostolic Constitution was announced and there were three things that struck me about him:
Firstly he’s really very clever.
Secondly the universal respect that he commanded from everyone who attended.
Thirdly he was one of only two speakers, the other was Sarah Coakley, who admitted that he did not know the answers to all of the questions raised.
I would suggest that while he may not in the end be able to keep the entire Anglican Communion together he’s the best chance we’ve got.
November 25, 2009 at 1:51 pm
I don’t think anyone believes that Rowan Williams is dumb, Alistair. But he has increasingly alienated American Episcopalians by spinelessness in the face of right-wing evangelical provocations here (including the attempted theft of some of our parish churches). He has a very, very long way to go here to restore confidence in his abilities to “save” the Anglican Communion. Frankly, I doubt that he can do it.
Kurt Hill
Brooklyn USA
November 25, 2009 at 4:51 pm
Archbishop Rowan presents a dignified and serene constant in what is a very difficult time for the Anglican Movement.
Much as Nick says there is much more to leadership than endless statements etc.
When we come to this current difficulty with the Anglo Catholic part of the Church.
May be the powers that be could keep in mind Presideent Trumans words. When questioned why he had dealt so kindly with Genral Douglas McArthur the President replied ‘I would rather Pissing out of my tent than pissing in’ (Direct quote done so with blushes at the language)
The Church of England has always been able to accommodate, is a third province so painful surely an act of love, charity and good stewardship?
January 15, 2010 at 3:43 pm
[...] have written about this in relation to the Archbishop of Canterbury, so won’t repeat it here. But, leadership is a lonely business, especially when trying to [...]